The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers INCORPORATED 1912
FOR THE
Advancement of the Science of Railway Signalling
Proceedings 2006/2007 (Copyright Reserved)
PRICE TO NON-MEMBERS £50.00 Printed by Fericon Press Ltd (Tel: 0118 945 6100)
Cover Picture: Photo Montage courtesy of J D Francis
3
Contents Page Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 Portrait of John D Francis ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 History of President …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 The Council of the Institution 2006/2007 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6 Addresses of Officers ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8 Institution Announcements ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 Institution Sales ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11 Institution Awards …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………14 Obituaries …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………15 Eighth Members’ Luncheon …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17 Presidential Address ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………19 Technical Meeting of the Institution, Wednesday 11th October 2006 “Have We Forgotten The Driver? ………………30 – The Sequel” by A C Howker with a summary of the Discussion ………………………………………………………………………41 Technical Meeting of the Institution, Wednesday 14th November 2006 “Advances in Signalling …………………………44 Technology and their influence on Operating Rules by Alan Mackie with a summary of the Discussion ………50 Technical Meeting of the Institution, Wednesday 13th December 2006 “The Fixed Telecommunications ……………53 Network – a Signal Engineer’s Guide” by Trevor Foulkes with a summary of the Discussion …………………………61 Technical Meeting of the Institution, Wednesday 10th January 2007 “A Concise Look at UK Main Line ……………64 Railway Signalling Power Distribution Past, Present & Possible Future” by Andrew Button with a summary of the Discussion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………74 Technical Meeting of the Institution, Wednesday 14th February 2007 “The Docklands Light Railway – ………………77 A Coming of Age” by Ralph Harding with a summary of the Discussion ……………………………………………………………88 Technical Meeting of the Institution, Wednesday 20th March 2007 “Recent developments in Dutch …………………91 signalling – One small country, four Mega-projects” by Maarten van der Werff with a summary of the Discussion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………99 Technical Meeting of the Institution, Melbourne, Victoria, February 2006 “Common Law Safety Cases” by Richard M Robinson ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………102 Technical Meeting, Adelaide, South Australia, October 2006 “The In Cab Activated points System Enhancement to Trans Australia Railway” by Paul Furniss …………………………………………………………………………………108 Ninety-Fourth Annual Report ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………113 Ninety-Fourth Annual General Meeting ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………132 43rd Annual Dinner ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………134 IRSE Convention 2006: Interlaken, Switzerland ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………135 Recognising Enthusiasm – The S&T Engineering for Heritage Railways Seminar …………………………………………………147 Midsummer to Oslo by J D Francis …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………156 IRSE President’s Award for Exceptional Service ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………158 London Underground Seminar …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………159 Behind the Scenes at St. Pancras ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………161 Watford Visit …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………162 2006 Examination Results …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………164 Report of IRSE Study Tour by Dominic Taylor ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………165 Australasian Section ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………169 Midland & North-Western Section ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………182 North American Section………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………183 Plymouth Section …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………184 Scottish Section ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………185 Singaporean Section ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………186 Southern African Section ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………187 Western Section ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………190 York Section …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………193 Younger Members’ Section ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………197 Advertisers ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………199
4 To learn about the technicalities I received a complete set of the IRSE Green Booklets as a birthday present! How did I first get interested in signalling? A friend and I wandered towards the end of the platform at my local station where the level crossing and signal box were located. New, wire rope worked, manual barriers had recently replaced the wheel operated gates. These were quite novel at the time. The signalman came to the door and, having struck up a conversation, asked us what we thought this new equipment was called. I replied that they were barriers but he disagreed, informing us quite categorically that they were booms. Both answers were of course right but the signalman would only accept his description as being correct, whereupon, not realising it at the time, I experienced my first taste of the opinionated humour that was a trademark of so many signalmen. Something that never rubbed off on me of course!
Photo: R M Francis
John D Francis FIRSE MIET AIRO
President 2006-07 Signalling and Telecommunications is a fascinating subject to me - that’s why I’ve been involved with it for all of my career and indeed before hand. Did you know, for example, that in 1955 block working on the Sidcup Loop line between Hither Green and Dartford in Kent was converted from Walkers 2-position to Southern Region standard 3-position? Interestingly, unlike the other lines in North Kent, this route had never been fitted with Sykes Lock and Block. Although born in Sidcup, I didn’t know this conversion had taken place at the time because I didn’t enter the world until the last day of August that year. But block instruments and these particular varieties were to become known to me in due course. At the age of six my family moved further out into Kent, to the Medway valley. It was here, as a schoolboy, that I learnt the rudiments of signalling in the local signal boxes and found Walkers 2position block still in every day use on what was then a busy railway line. This was open block, with interlinking on the distants only and no Line Clear releases. Exploring further afield I found the SR 3position, Sykes Lock & Block, and many other varieties, each contributing to safe block working in their own individual ways. A copy each of the rule book, signalling regulations, and General Appendix became avid reading for me, even if a bit heavy going for a youngster. They could often be found in my school bag alongside physics text books and the day’s homework. But the handson operation of mechanical and power signal boxes before and after school, at weekends and in the holidays gave me a superb grounding in the subject which it became inevitable I would follow as a career.
Regular chats from the bottom of the box steps with the man at the top ensued before, one day, I was invited up. Once inside I was hooked. This was how new generations often learnt about railways, by wandering around their local engine shed or by visiting their local signal box. Nowadays this is hardly possible but taking over the introductory role to a certain extent are the many heritage railways that enable youngsters and others to gain a grounding in railway work. But back to 1955, just over half a century ago. In sharing with you a little about myself it’s coincidental to note that 1955 was the year that former Irish boxing commentator Eamonn Andrews caught his first victim with the famous Red Book when “This Is Your Life” was launched by the BBC. Whilst over on ITV Hughie Green burst onto the screen with the popular quiz show “Double Your Money”. I am always reminded of that show every time I have a railway medical and have to sit in the sound booth, wearing headphones, to take the hearing test. What other significant milestones were there? The Royal Marines landed on Rockall, raising the Union Flag to consolidate Britain’s claim to the uninhabited rock outcrop 290 miles west of the Scottish mainland. Rockall has been the subject of territorial disputes with Denmark, Ireland and Iceland giving, as it does, rights over a large area of the surrounding ocean and seabed. British Railways was in the news when a national rail strike by ASLEF members led to the cancellation of Trooping the Colour for the Queen’s official birthday in June. Meanwhile Albert Einstein had died in April. Other notable events included: The world’s total motor vehicle population passed 100 million; Plans were well advanced for the first interstate highway in the USA; A vaccine for poliomyelitis was made commercially available; Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a bus to a white man in Montgomery, Alabama, sparking the civil rights movement with Martin Luther King (she died during 2005, at the age of 92); The first electronic synthesiser was invented; Walt Disney began construction of Disneyland in Anaheim, California; The first McDonalds opened in DesPlaines, Illinois; Eddie Calvert reached No. 1 in the charts with “Cherry Pink and Apple Blossom White”; Also in the
JOHN D FRANCIS
hit parade was Jimmy Young with two No. 1 hits; “Unchained Melody” and “The Man From Laramie”. These jostled for the top slot with “Mambo Italiano” sung by Rosemary Clooney and Tony Bennett’s “Stranger in Paradise”. But the world was set to change when Bill Haley and his Comets launched rock n roll with their famous hit “Rock Around The Clock”; The signalling world changed too with the impact of 25kV electrification, transistors and the miniature relay. There had been isolated examples of power signalling but the age of line of route modernisation was ushered in. The signal engineer had new technology and he was going to use it; The IRSE had been in existence for 43 years. It’s President was Ernald George Brentnall of British Railways Central Staff who received the British Empire Medal (BEM) for his services in the restoration of signalling and communications during the second world war; Membership of the IRSE had passed 1,000; The first UK Local Section (in York) was a year old and a second Section based on Bristol was formed - now the Western Section. Although petrol soared to an incredible 4s 6d a gallon (221/2p), the government announced plans to build a motorway from London to Yorkshire. The nationalised railway was already struggling to make ends meet so it was inevitable that both the Beeching Plan and the Mod’ were announced. 51 years later petrol is 18 times more expensive, there are thousands more miles of motorway but amazingly most of the post Beeching railway remains open and some that was closed is now being put back. Much of the work performed under the Mod’ survives too, although some has been replaced in recent times. By the way, I went to the same school as Richard Beeching - Maidstone Grammar - but I was a few decades behind him. I commenced service on the railway in 1972 with the Chief Signal & Telecommunications Engineers Department of British Railways, Southern Region as a student trainee and entered upon that massive learning curve that presents itself when you first start work. My earlier times spent in signal boxes and studying those IRSE Green Booklets proved invaluable as a grounding, giving me a terrific head start. There was a lot to learn and it had to be learnt quickly. The student training scheme gave me a rapid introduction to all the facets of S&T engineering whilst also enabling me to continue day release and evening class education at Medway & Maidstone College of Technology in Rochester. Since then signalling has taken me not just all over Great Britain but all around the world, providing a varied and excellent career that has seen me working for British Rail under its various guises, including Scotrail and InterCity, for Railtrack, and for suppliers in the form of GEC-General Signal, DML and Westinghouse. Working for the supply side of the industry enabled much of the overseas travel, including a six year stint based in Australia. It was in Australia that I first joined the Institution, as an Associate. In 1992 I transferred to the grade of Member whilst at Westinghouse Signals and in 1997 to Fellow during my time at Railtrack. An equal interest in the operating side of signalling has meant that I have enjoyed periods as a signalman, alternating between technical and
5
operating roles during my career, testing the abilities of personnel departments in the process! The experience gained on both sides has complemented my ability to be a better all-round railwayman. Even in the post-privatisation world in which we now find ourselves, I still consider myself a railwayman because that’s the business I’m in, even in my current role, as Head of Research at Westinghouse Rail Systems, where I’m involved in the future of railway signalling including many products and systems with the familiar “West” prefix. During my career I’ve had the opportunity to work in many facets of the profession and on many projects. These have ranged across the gambit from mechanical locking changes, through relay interlocking design, location and trackside design, bonding, testing, train describers, remote control, panel processors, panel and screen design, general project engineering, project planning, scheme development, and specification writing to estimating, evaluation, condition assessment, sales and marketing, and strategic planning. Then of course there are the many different signal boxes I have worked, both mechanical and power. These enabled me to experience the eight day week, 12 hour working and every face of nature at all hours of the day and night. It meant I was at the other end of FPL testing, could help to diagnose the fault with the technician, had to run the railway in fallback mode, signalled everything from fertiliser to the royal family and exercised the power to shunt the S&T Inspection Saloon, together with its eminent occupants, into the siding if I so desired! Although probably well known by virtue of my travels, my 16 years as joint Editor of IRSE News (from early 1989 to 2004) has provided additional recognition, unless you count my taste in ties too. Together with Tony Rowbotham it was a pleasure to produce and develop the newsletter as the voice of the Institution and the profession, taking it from a quarterly, two colour production at edition 15, to the full colour regular magazine we all now receive, editing 78 issues on the way. I have enjoyed helping to run the affairs of the IRSE and to see it grow since first taking an active interest back in 1988. I have served, at various times, on the Aspect 95 organising committee, Papers (later Publications) Committee, Recruitment & Publicity Committee, Management Committee, Licensing Committee, Finance Committee and the Board of IRSE Enterprises, being first co-opted onto Council in 1989. I have presented Papers at London technical meetings in 1994 and 2005, and on numerous occasions at Local Section meetings and Seminars. Living in Chippenham in recent years means that I have been close to work for a change, having spent many hours in the past commuting when in previous posts around the UK. By virtue of getting married in January 1982, my wife Rachel and I were able to celebrate our Silver Wedding Anniversary during my Presidential Year, making this even more special. She has accompanied me on many duties and been a great supporter of my involvement with the IRSE and encouraged me in pursuing my career in S&T.
6
The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers INCORPORATED 1912
SESSION 2006/2007 OFFICERS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Chippenham
J D FRANCIS
VICE-PRESIDENTS W J COENRAAD ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Utrecht A J FISHER …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Plymouth
COUNCIL
CO-OPTED PAST PRESIDENTS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Croydon
J D CORRIE J PORÉ
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Paris
P STANLEY
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
FELLOWS F HEIJNEN ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Chippenham F HOW
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
J IRWIN
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
P JENKINS
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
I MITCHELL ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Derby C R PAGE
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Melbourne
A PARKER ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London DR A F RUMSEY A SIMMONS
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………New
York
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
D N WEEDON
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London
MEMBERS P J GRANT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Wimbledon Mrs C PORTER………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London A S KORNAS
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………York
G SIMPSON ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London D WOODLAND ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London N WRIGHT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Swindon
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS J HAILE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………London C LAKE
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Swindon
7
OFFICERS AND COUNCIL
Photo: Colin Porter
IRSE Council & Officers outside IMechE, Birdcage Walk, London
4th Row Rear (left to right): Chris Lake, Alan Rumsey, Derek Edney, Andrew Simmons, Ian Allison
3rd Row (left to right): Nick Wright, Martin Govas (Treasurer), Claire Porter, Ken Burrage, Ian Mitchell, John Haile
2nd Row (left to right): Gary Simpson, Francis How, Andrew Smith, Peter Grant, David Weedon, Tony Komas, Peter Stanley
Front Row (left to right): Henry Cheung (visitor), Daniel Woodland, Frans Heijnen, Wim Coenraad (Senior Vice-President), John Francis (President), Colin Porter (Chief Executive), Jacques Poré, Alan Fisher (Junior Vice-President)
8
Addresses of Officers Chief Executive C H PORTER 4th Floor, 1 Birdcage Walk, Westminster, London SW1H 9JJ Telephone: +44 (0)20 7808 1180 Facsimile: +44 (0)20 7808 1196 Email:
[email protected]
Treasurer M GOVAS 2 The Droveway, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 1LL
Proceedings Editor A PARKER Network Rail, Floor 5, 1 Eversholt Street, London NW1 2DN Telephone: 020 7904 7411 Facsimile: 020 7808 1196 Email:
[email protected]
Australasian Section Chairman: R T STEPNIEWSKI Secretary: G WILLMOTT
Vice-Chairman: R A BELL Treasurer: G WILLMOTT
Hong Kong Section Chairman: F FABBIAN Vice-Chairmen: K W PANG Secretary: F HUI Treasurer: F HUI
Midland & North Western Section Chairman: A KNOWLES Vice-Chairman: B D CHOWDHURY Secretary: B REDFERN Treasurer: C WILLIAMS
North American Section Chairman: D THURSTON Secretary: G YOUNG
Vice-Chairman: K BISSET Treasurer: G YOUNG
Plymouth Section Chairman: J EASTERBROOK Secretary: D CAME
Vice-Chairman: A MOORE Treasurer: D CAME
Scottish Section Chairman: T GALLACHER Vice-Chairman: A McWHIRTER Secretary: I HILL Treasurer: B McKENDRICK
Singaporean Section Chairman: I TOMLINS Secretary: M WHITE
Vice-Chairman: R SHIELD Treasurer: D QUASTEL
Southern African Section Chairman: R WOODHEAD Vice-Chairman: H OSTROFSKY Hon Secretary: V BOWLES Treasurer: J C VAN DE POL
Western Section Chairmen: E GERRARD Vice-Chairman: A SCARISBRICK Secretary: M GLOVER Treasurer: A SCARISBRICK
York Section Chairman: I MOORE Vice-Chairman: A KORNAS Secretary: J MAW Treasurer: A SMITH
Younger Members’ Section Chairman: D YOUNG Secretary: L HUNTER Treasurer: N REDDY
9
Institution Announcements (The price and subscription rates and other information given in these announcements are current at the date of publication – August 2007)
CHANGE OF ADDRESS
arrangements apply to members of these Sections.
Considerable inconvenience is created by members failing to notify changes of address. Will members please inform the Institution office immediately of any such alteration and so ensure prompt delivery to themselves of notices, etc.
All cheques and money orders, especially those from overseas, should be crossed.
TRANSFER TO HIGHER CLASS OF MEMBERSHIP Members sometimes remain in one class of membership when their professional standing has become such as to entitle them to transfer to a higher one. The Council invites any such person to make application for transfer, for which purpose a form can be obtained from the Institution office, and so take a position in the Institution consonant with his attainments and responsibilities.
TECHNICAL PAPERS The Council invites members of all classes to submit papers for presentation at technical meetings in London or at local meetings in the United Kingdom or overseas. Papers should consist of between four thousand and six thousand words and while no limit is placed on the number of illustrations an author uses during his reading of the paper, the number printed as part of the advance copy and published in the Journal of Proceedings must not exceed twelve. The Institution office will be pleased to provide full particulars upon application.
COPIES OF TECHNICAL PAPERS Copies of the technical papers read in London will be published in IRSE News and circulated to all members. The cost of this service is included in the Annual Subscription.
SUBSCRIPTIONS AND REMITTANCES Members are reminded that in accordance with the Articles of Association subscriptions are payable on election or by the 1st July each year. The subscription rates applicable for 2005/2006 have been determined by Council. Members have been circulated with details. Members are reminded that prompt payment of subscriptions is required. The Institution is grateful to the vast majority of members who keep administration costs down by paying at the time requested. The Treasurer is obliged to send out notices of arrears to members who have not paid by that date. Subscriptions should be sent to the Institution office in London, unless you belong to either the Southern African or Australasian Section. Local
The attention of members is directed to the clauses in the Articles of Association under which neither notices nor copies of Proceedings may be sent to those who are in arrears with their subscriptions beyond a certain time. Income Tax – the annual subscription to the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers is treated as an allowance expense under Section 16 of the Finance Act 1958 and should be included in your Tax Return in the section headed “Expenses in Employment – Fees or subscriptions to professional bodies”. Members of the Institution who have retired and have paid full subscriptions for at least ten years are entitled to continue membership of the Institution at half the full rate applicable to their class of membership. Similar arrangements are available to others in special need on application to the Treasurer. Members of 50 years standing are not required to pay subscriptions.
LIBRARY The Institution Library is incorporated with the Library of the Institution of Engineering & Technology, by kindness of the Council of the latter body. It is situated at the Institution of Engineering & Technology’s building at Savoy Place, Victoria Embankment, WC2. Members of the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers have been granted the same privileges with respect to it as those enjoyed by members of the Institution of Engineering & Technology, and the entire collection is open to them on equal terms. The Reference Library, which contains a Reading Room in which a great number of technical periodicals are always available, as well as a large general collection, is open as follows: Monday to Friday 9.00 am to 5.00 pm Any member of the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers entering the Library must sign his name in the book provided for that purpose. The use of the Lending Library, which is open during the same hours as the Reference Library and which contains the principal works relating to electrical engineering, its applications and allied subjects including, of course, railway signalling, is governed by the following rules, which must be strictly adhered to: When applying for a book by post a member of the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers must state their class of membership. All communications should be addressed to the Secretary, Institution of
10
INSTITUTION ANNOUNCEMENTS
Engineering & Technology, at the address already given. Anyone desirous of making a presentation to the collection should forward it to the same address, when its receipt will be suitably acknowledged.
SIGNAL AND TELEGRAPH TECHNICAL SOCIETIES The following S&T Technical Societies are affiliated to the Institution: The Signal & Electrical Engineers’ Society – General Secretary: M B Simmonds Tube Lines Ltd, 4th Floor (4/091), 15 Westferry Circus, Canary Wharf, London E14 4HD Email:
[email protected] Tel: 020 7088 5517
IRSE PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP The aim of the examination is to establish the professional competence of educationally qualified electrical, electronic and communications engineers in railway signalling and communication engineering. It is intended to test the main concepts of the subject material without bias to any one railway practice and is designed to demonstrate that the student has reached the necessary professional educational standard required by a signalling or telecommunications engineer for Corporate Membership of the Institution. This standard is typified by the exercising of judgement in the preparation, assessment, amendment or application of specifications and procedures, and is applicable to personnel engaged in the following activities: • Signalling/telecommunications principles, practices, rules and regulations for the safe operation of railway traffic.
Claims for exemption must be made within five years of obtaining the particular qualification for which recognition is being claimed. The reason for this condition is that the exemption is based on information that may not be available where a qualification has been discontinued or changed. MODULE 1 Safety of Railway Signalling and Communications – No exemptions will be given. MODULE 2 Signalling the Layout – Please apply, no exemptions currently agreed. MODULE 3 Signalling Principles – Please exemptions currently agreed.
apply,
no
MODULE 4 Communications Principles – This is the most commonly sought after exemption. Many of the applicants for exemption claim that telecommunications has been part of their Degree course and that, on this basis, exemption should be granted. Unfortunately it has been clear that the content of the telecommunications element within a typical university Engineering Degree is, at best, a basic overview. Occasionally, students study a telecommunications topic for their final year project, but these tend to be about a research topic narrowly specialising in a particular field and the Council is not convinced that such study justifies module exemption. As a basic guideline, therefore, please do not ask for exemption to this module unless: your university study has predominantly been in telecommunications; or your university study has included telecommunications and your present career is railway telecommunications engineering. MODULE 5 Signalling & Control Equipment, Applications Engineering – Please apply, no exemptions currently agreed.
• Preparation and understanding of equipment drawings and specifications and/or design.
MODULE 6 Communications Equipment, Applications Engineering – Please apply, no exemptions currently agreed.
• Planning, site installation and testing of signalling/telecommunications equipment and systems.
MODULE 7 Systems, Management & Engineering – Please apply, no exemptions currently agreed.
• Practices related to assembly, wiring and testing of signalling/telecommunications equipment and systems.
The examination is generally held in October of each year and the regulations are available from the Head Office. The following support materials are also available to students:
• Design and development of signalling/telecommunications equipment and systems.
• Maintenance and servicing of signalling/ telecommunications equipment and systems. In order to meet the examination requirements for corporate membership, candidates must, within a period of five years, obtain a pass in Module 1, plus three of the remaining six optional modules. It is possible to obtain exemptions from individual modules where you can demonstrate that you have passed an examination by a recognised body, which has substantially covered the syllabus of a particular IRSE examination module. Due to the specialised nature of the IRSE Examination, the scope for exemption is fairly limited.
• • • • • • •
Information for Students Examination Syllabus Reading List Past Papers Model Answers Examiners Reports Updates of Examination Material (fee applies)
THE THORROWGOOD SCHOLARSHIP AWARD The Thorrowgood Scholarship is awarded annually to a student member excelling in the
INSTITUTION ANNOUNCEMENTS
Institution’s Professional Examination. The award consists of the Institution’s Thorrowgood Scholarship Medallion, and a cheque in the region of £1,000, that is presented at the Annual General Meeting of the Institution in the April following the examination. The terms of the Thorrowgood bequest require that it should be utilised to assist the development of young engineers employed in the railway signalling and telecommunications field. A requirement of the
award is that it is used to finance a study tour of railway and/or signalling installations or manufacturing facilities, usually in a foreign administration, and that the award holder presents a report about the study tour to the Younger Members’ Section. To be eligible for the award students are usually expected to have sat the required four modules in the same year, and achieved outstanding results.
Institution Sales All items are available from the Institution office and postage and packing is not included.
INSTITUTION TIE An Institution tie bearing a single motif of the Institution crest in light blue on a navy background is available, price £10.00.
11
12
PUBLICATIONS
Members
NonMembers
£10.00 £8.00
£20.00 £8.95
£10.00 £9.00
£20.00 £9.95
£10.00 £7.00 £10.00 £50.00 £10.00 £25.00 £35.00 £35.00 £35.00 £35.00 £9.00
£20.00 £7.95 £20.00 £65.00 £11.95 £60.00 £60.00 £60.00 £60.00 £60.00 £9.95
£12.00 £12.00 £12.00 £12.00 £12.00
£30.00 £30.00 £30.00 £30.00 £30.00
£20.00 £12.00 £12.00 £12.00
£50.00 £30.00 £50.00 £30.00
£12.00 £10.00
£24.00 £20.00
£12.00 £10.00 £10.00 £10.00 £12.00 £12.00
£24.00 £20.00 £20.00 £20.00 £24.00 £24.00
£12.00 £10.00 £10.00
£24.00 £20.00 £20.00
£12.00 £10.00
£24.00 £20.00
£12.00
£24.00
£10.00
£20.00
£12.00 £12.00 £12.00 £12.00
£24.00 £24.00 £24.00 £24.00
£12.00 £10.00 £10.00 £10.00 £10.00 £10.00 £12.00 £12.00
£24.00 £20.00 £20.00 £20.00 £20.00 £20.00 £24.00 £24.00
TEXT BOOKS British Railway Signalling Practice – AWS, Level Crossings & Remote Control Systems (Green Books 24, 25, 26) British Railway Signalling Practice – Electrical (Green Books 7, 9, 11) British Railway Signalling Practice – Interlocking Principles & Systems (Green Books 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29)
British Railway Signalling Practice – Mechanical (Green Books 1, 2, 3, 10) British Railway Signalling Practice – Multiple Aspect Signalling (Green Books 14, 15, 16, 27)
British Railway Signalling Practice – Signalling Instruments (Green Books 4, 12, 13) British Railway Signalling Practice – Signalling Relays & Circuits (Green Books 5, 6, 8, 17) European Railway Signalling Fifty Years of Railway Signalling – O S Nock (reprint) Introduction to Signalling Metro Railway Signalling Railway Control Systems Railway Signalling Railway Telecommunications Signalling Atlas & Signal Box Directory – Great Britain & Ireland TECHNICAL REPORTS No. 1 Safety System Validation – Cross Acceptance of Signalling Systems No. 2 The Operational Availability of Railway Control Systems No. 3 The Influence of Human Factors on the Performance of Railway Systems No. 4 The Implications of Applying Transmission Based Signalling No. 5 The Contribution of Signalling to the Future of Road Traffic Management No. 6 Proposed Cross Acceptance Processes for Railway Signalling Systems & Equipment (includes CD-ROM) No. 7 Quality of Services in Railway Traffic Management Systems Signalling Philosophy Review (April 2001) Testing and Commissioning CONVENTION, CONFERENCE AND SEMINAR PAPERS Bringing Innovation to the UK Railway (February 2002 London) CD-ROM format only Competence Assurance in the S&T Business (May 2000 London) Developments in Interlocking and their Support Tools (Seminar 26th February 2004) CD-ROM format only
ERTMS and its Application (November 2000 London) Future Trends in Signalling and Train Control (January 2001 Birmingham) Improvements in the Delivery of Signalling Projects and Products (March 1998 Glasgow) IRSE Convention 2005 – Strasbourg, France (26th-30th September 2005) CD-ROM format only IRSE Technical Visit to Paris (24th February 2006) CD-ROM format only Justifying Investment in Train Control Systems (Seminar 19th February 2003) CD-ROM format only
Keep It Safe, Keep It Legal (December 1999 London) Life Long Learning (February 1999 London) Making Headway on the Underground (Seminar 20th February 2007 London) CD-ROM format only
Mathematically Formal Techniques in Signalling (April 1996 London) New Technology for Interlocking & Train Control (November 2001 London) CD-ROM format only
New Techniques to Demonstrate Electromagnetic Compatibility between Rolling Stock and the Signalling Infrastructure (February 1998 London) Proposed Cross-Acceptance Processes for Railway Signalling Systems & Equipment (Seminar 21st November 2002 London) CD-ROM format only Railway Control & Communications (20th March 2005 London) CD-ROM format only Railway Interfaces (Seminar 18th November 2004 London) CD-ROM format only Resignalling Metro Lines (Seminar 27th November 2003 London) CD-ROM format only S&T Engineering for Heritage Railways (Seminar 4th/5th November 2006 Kidderminster) CD-ROM format only
The Lifecycle of a Major Railway Project (Younger Members June 1998 London) The Pitfalls of Commercial Contracting in the S&T Business (January 2000 Birmingham) The Railway as a System (Younger Members July 2000 Birmingham) The Skill of the Tester (November 1998 London) Traction/Signalling Compatibility (April 1997 London) Train Detection (October 2001 Paris) CD-ROM format only Training & Professional Development (November 2005 London) CD-ROM format only
13
PUBLICATIONS
ASPECT CONFERENCE PAPERS AND ANNUAL PROCEEDINGS Annual Proceedings of IRSE 1995/96 to date (inclusive) (please state year(s) required) Aspect Conference 2003 Aspect Conference 2006 CD-ROM format only
each
£20.00 £20.00 £20.00
£50.00 £50.00 £50.00
£10.00 £10.00 £10.00 £10.00 £10.00 £10.00 £10.00 £10.00 £10.00 £10.00 £10.00 £10.00 Free £3.00 Free £5.00
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
£25.00
N/A
£25.00
N/A
£25.00
N/A
questions) CD-ROM format only £25.00 Qualifications & Examination Regulations Free Reading List Free £10.00 Relevant Model Answers 1970-1996 (NB: Syllabus changed in 1994) Student Reading Pack (contains over 90 IRSE Technical Papers on Reading List) CD-ROM format only £75.00
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
IRSE PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION – SUPPORT MATERIALS Examination Past Papers 1994 (per set) Examination Past Papers 1995 (per set) Examination Past Papers 1996 (per set) Examination Past Papers 1997 (per set) Examination Past Papers 1998 (per set) Examination Past Papers 1999 & Examination Review (per set) Examination Past Papers 2000 & Examination Review (per set) Examination Past Papers 2001 & Examination Review (per set) Examination Past Papers 2002 & Examination Review (per set) Examination Past Papers 2003 & Examination Review (per set) Examination Past Papers 2004 & Examination Review (per set) Examination Past Papers 2005 (per set) Examination Syllabus each Individual Papers from Reading List (please specify title, year and publication) Information for Students (Version 2) Model Answers 1997 onwards Module 1 Student Resource Pack (contains past papers, examiners’ critiques and text-based questions) CD-ROM format only
Module 3 Student Resource Pack
(contains past papers, examiners’ critiques and text-based
questions) CD-ROM format only
Module 5 Student Resource Pack
(contains past papers, examiners’ critiques and text-based
questions) CD-ROM format only
Module 7 Student Resource Pack
SALES IRSE Tie IRSE Body of Knowledge
(contains past papers, examiners’ critiques and text-based
CD-ROM format only
£10.00 £25.00
N/A £50.00
£25.00
£30.00
£25.00
£35.00
£29.00
£29.00
DVDs British Transport training films and historical bonus films: ‘Mechanical Signalling and Level Crossings’ No. FF01 (Remastered by Fastline Films on to 2 DVDs from the original cine films. Released 2006. (includes postage & packing)
Proceedings of the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers 1913 to 2001 (A complete record of all of the IRSE Proceedings produced by the IRSE Australasian Section scanned from the original documents, DVD format, released June 2007) (includes postage & packing)
LICENSING/PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Licensing/Professional Development Logbook (includes postage & packing)
Postage & Packing: UK – please add 10%, Overseas – please add 20%
Send your order, with cheque made payable to IRSE or Credit/Debit Card (MasterCard/Visa/American Express) number and expiry date, to: IRSE Administration 4th Floor, 1 Birdcage Walk, Westminster, London SW1H 9JJ Tel: +44 (0)20 7808 1180 Fax: +44 (0)20 7808 1196
14
Institution Awards DELL AWARD The Dell award is made annually under a bequest of the late Robert Dell OBE (Past President). It is awarded to a member of the Institution employed by London Underground Ltd or one of its successor companies for achievement of a high standard of skill in the science and application of Railway
signalling. The award takes the form of a plaque with a uniquely designed shield being added each year with the recipient’s name engraved on it and a cheque for £300 to spend as the recipient wishes. The winner of this year’s award is Matthew Holder from Metronet. Matt was nominated primarily for his work on the Victoria and Sub-Surface Line (SSL) upgrades, where he is responsible for reviewing products and design submissions for both projects, particularly for SSL where he leads the Design Review process. Prior to this role, he worked in the LU / Metronet signalling design office, where he headed up activities on SSL safety improvement works (including extensive works on compromised overlap mitigation). Matt has also been an active IRSE Younger Member, participating in committee activities for several years and notably chaired the successful YM conference in 2000.
Mr John Francis presents Matthew Holder of Metronet with the Dell award. Photo: Colin Porter
The retiring President, Mr John Francis presented the award at the Annual General Meeting on 27 April 2007.
THORROWGOOD SCHOLARSHIP The Thorrowgood scholarship is awarded annually under a bequest of the late W J Thorrowgood (Past President) to assist the development of a young engineer employed in the signalling and telecommunications field of engineering and takes the form of an engraved medallion and sponsorship of £1000 to finance a study tour of railway signalling installations or signalling manufacturing facilities. The award is made to the Institution young member attaining at least a pass with credit in four modules in the Institution’s examination. The Thorrowgood Scholar for 2006 is , a signal engineer with Atkins Rail in Sharjah, UAE. The retiring President, Mr John Francis presented him with his award at the Annual General Meeting on 27 April 2007.
Mr John Francis presents Mohanakrishnan Sarvepalli of Atkins Rail with the Thorrowgood Scholarship Photo: Colin Porter
Obituaries RON HURST FIRSE: 1926 – 2006 Ron Hurst, more than anyone, epitomised the telecommunications operation on the former Southern Region of British Rail. He was the powerhouse in getting the telecom network modernised to cope with the demands of the Region’s management and to provide much improved information to the travelling public. The Southern had a different approach compared to the other Regions, partly because of its customer base and partly because of the shortage of skilled labour in the London area.
With the evergrowing number of commuters in the 1960s, something had to be done to keep them informed and updated on train running information and the management of the day was prepared to invest heavily in new systems. Ron and his works team, in conjunction with a number of suppliers, set about the provision of recorded announcement machines, long line public address and display indicators at virtually all the SR stations. This was at a time when the other regions were only just beginning to realise the importance of passenger information systems.
OBITUARIES
15
by the time I joined the Southern Region in 1979, Ron was Telecoms Works Engineer. This was at the time of Victoria, Three Bridges and Eastleigh resignalling, where the telecom elements were almost as great as the signalling work. The final rollout of the BR telecom national network coincided with all of this and Ron and his team set about delivering the cables, transmission and systems with a grim determination to succeed, and succeed they did. Ron ensured that the telecom work was never the reason for a project being late or delayed. He always maintained a balanced view on the importance of the relationship between signalling and telecommunications and understood the differences in outlook. The bearer systems he was responsible for were there to support signalling as well as telecoms. To implement this work, Ron developed very strong relationships with a number of contractors, for to do the work inhouse was beyond the capability of the small internal workforce. BR labour rates were way below the norm in those days and recruiting and retaining staff in the competitive London area was an uphill task. Thus the BR engineers and technicians took on a supervisory role and controlled the ever increasing number of contracted installers and wiremen. The specifications and contract documents were brief but to the point. There was insufficient time to go through a competitive process except for the very largest of jobs. Ron controlled this with a rod of iron: firms who delivered on time and to budget got repeat work, those who failed to perform were given a brutal come-uppance and were kicked out if things did not improve. The workrate was amazing and it was achieved with minimum supervision and day-to-day control. No one was in any doubt as to who was the boss; Ron had his finger on everything. Two of his sayings still should have meaning today: ‘if you don’t own it, you don’t control it’ and ‘I want it done like what it is written down in the spec’. Present day engineers would do well to heed this advice. Born in 1926 in South East London, Ron’s career started in 1942, when he joined the Southern Railway as an Apprentice Learner in the S&T Department. This was a dangerous time to be around in the London area and he was present when a flying bomb fell on Waterloo Station in 1944. His first permanent appointment was in 1946 as a temporary Assistant Lineman at Orpington, when the Traffic Control was being moved to a ground level location from its underground bunker. Soon specialising in telecommunications, Ron became lineman at Woking Control before moving to Waterloo where by 1956 he was Chief Lineman. He ran a tight ship and his rule reading sessions became legendary. Ron’s experience and expertise inevitably meant promotion to greater things and in 1958 he joined the SR planning office at Wimbledon, moving to Croydon in the 1960s. His skill and enthusiasm ensured a swift climb up the ladder and
He worked under a number of Telecommunications Engineers of the Southern; Reg Peat, Jack Morrison, Terry Oliver, Colin Porter and myself to name a few. Ron was quick to learn from them and never let prejudice or traditional SR methods from getting in the way of progress. Getting the job done was all important and nothing was allowed to prevent this. Ron would not have been comfortable in today’s railway. The current safety culture and the requirement for risk assessments, method statements, on site briefings, etc. would have been seen as a hindrance to progress. I worked with him for five years and I regard that time as the best part of my career. Ron could have made life difficult for me – a Midland interloper – but that was not his style and we worked together as a model team. Ron was a good supporter of the IRSE and achieved 50 years of membership. He regularly attended the London meetings and always went on the annual convention until recent ill health prevented his participation. He was also a keen member of the Retired Railway Officers Society where he enjoyed the friendship of many erstwhile colleagues from his SR days. Ron died on 9 December. He leaves a widow, Joyce, well known also to many of the IRSE wives and they recently celebrated their golden wedding. They had three children duly producing many grandchildren and a few great grandchildren, a very close family, which will give strength at this sad time. I saw him in early November shortly before his 80th birthday and despite his illness, he remained keen to know of current projects and the workings of the Institution. He was a great friend and I shall miss him. My thanks are recorded to Mike Tyrrell for providing information on the early parts of Ron Hurst’s career. Clive Kessell December 2006
16
OBITUARIES
JOHN BOYES MEMORIAL TRAIN On Saturday 12 May, the North York Moors Railway (NYRM) ran a special train to honour the work that the late John Boyes had done on the Railway. British Rail had stripped the line of virtually all its signalling equipment when the line closed in 1967 but that did not deter John from achieving the fully signalled railway that it is today. The ceremony began with an unveiling of a plaque in John’s honour on the signal box at Grosmont. Philip Benham the General Manager of the NYMR spoke of John’s dedication and virtual life
long achievement of resignalling the railway from Pickering to Grosmont. It was fitting that the plaque was fixed to Grosmont Signal Box because it was John’s vision and his energy and drive that enabled it to be built. The new signal box at Grosmont was built with recovered bricks using North Eastern Railway drawings. It was built adjacent to the level crossing which initially only had two gates but following protests from the local school two further gates were added. These work from two separate gate wheels. The lever frame was recovered from Horden and the signals came from Stillington, Battersby and Ferryhill. The plaque was unveiled by David Torbet who remarked that John had a gift for charming redundant signalling equipment from various sources and it was now his job to sort through the hundreds of items he had at home. He was always aware when a signal box was due to close and what equipment would be available to be re-used on the NYMR. Following the unveiling the train, with its special headboard, took his many invited friends and colleagues to Pickering. During the journey the casket containing John’s ashes was placed in the firebox of the engine and in a gesture that surely would have had his approval he now lies in the beautiful North Yorkshire countryside on the railway that he loved so much and gave and enormous amount of his time and dedication.
WILFRID ADAMS HARDMAN 12 Nov 1912 - 9 May 2007 Wilfrid was born of a railway family and like so many became a dedicated railwayman. In 1929 he had joined the London Midland and Scottish Railway Signal and Telegraph Engineering Apprenticeship scheme and at the same time joined the IRSE. He eventually become a Fellow and Life Member and at the time of death the Institution’s longest serving member. By the early 1940s he had been appointed Telegraph Inspector at Birmingham and was in charge there during the Coventry blitz. Following this he moved to the S&T Divisional Office at Crewe. In 1949, in response to advertising by the New Zealand Government Railways, Wilfrid was recruited and sailed out to Wellington to become Resident Engineer in charge of the Hutt Valley resignalling, part of the expansion of the Wellington area modernisation and electrification at 1600 V d.c. Wilfrid soon earned his reputation as a leader who was able to get results and in about 1959 was appointed as Signal Engineer in Head Office and at the same time retained control of the Signals Prefabrication Depot. The next big task was to get on with the installation of Centralised Traffic Control (CTC) and signalling on the North Island Main Trunk line. This project was his vision and took some eight years to complete. At the time it could be considered world-class in that, in conjunction with some double-line automatic signalling at each end, there was finally over 400 miles of continuous trackcircuiting between Wellington and Auckland with all single line portions comprising CTC territory. Wilfrid became well-known for his development of signal prefabrication methodologies which became the subject of a paper read before the
Institution in London in 1958. The prefabricated equipment was transported to site by a train which became universally known as “Hardman’s Circus” because of its somewhat similarity to the circus trains of the time and included sleeping cars and a dining car. Another innovation was the use of a trainmounted cable ploughing system made possible by the use of smooth PVC sheathed multicore and power cables. Whilst all this was going on substantial effort was being put into the provision of level crossing warning systems, totalling about 50 installations a year at peak. In 1966, Wilfrid was appointed to the top position of “Superintending Engineer, Signals and Communications” which he held until his further promotion to the new position of Director, Management Services in the General Manager’s Office in 1970, eventually retiring in 1976. Although he was lost to signalling in these last years, the railway was to benefit from the thinktank of innovators he led.
17
Eighth Annual Members’ Luncheon The eighth annual Members’ Luncheon was held on 14 June 2006, when 85 members of the Institution, with 15 Past Presidents in attendance including the longest serving Past President, Victor Smith OBE, who was President in 1974, and 25 members with over 50 years membership, took luncheon at the Victory Services Club in Seymour Street London. An excellent three-course luncheon with wine was consumed with pleasure. The 82nd person to serve as President since the Institution’s formation in 1912, Mr John Francis, was present and he addressed the members present with a brief speech mentioning the forthcoming programme for his presidential year of office. He continued by referring to the fact that this event was the last to be organised by Ken Burrage before he retires from the office of Chief Executive at the end of June after seven years service to the Institution in that capacity. The President briefly described the Chief Executive’s 50-year railway career, which commenced on the Southern Region of BR as an Engineering Student in 1956; he rose to become Signal Engineer of the Western Region and later Chief S & T Engineer of the London Midland Region before finishing his 39 year mainline railway career as the BRB’s Director of S & T Engineering. He then left BR at privatisation to become a Director of Westinghouse Signals for four years before taking up his present post as the Institution’s Chief Executive in 1999. The President entertained those present with a number of amusing stories and anecdotes from Mr Burrage’s past career. Finally Mr Francis paid tribute to the Chief Executive’s long and distinguished contribution to S & T engineering in recognition of which he presented Mr Burrage with the President’s Award medallion amidst warm applause. Mr Burrage responded by expressing grateful thanks to the President and all IRSE colleagues for this unexpected honour. Mr K W Burrage, IRSE Chief Executive, continued by reporting that membership numbers continue to grow steadily. Some 48 members now have over 50 years’ membership, 25 of whom were able to accept the President’s invitation to be present at the luncheon as guests of the Institution. He said that members having over 60 years membership were no longer a rarity and were represented at the lunch by Mr Ronald Post with 67 years of membership. Our longest serving member is Mr Wilfred Hardman, residing in New Zealand and aged over 90, with 77 years of membership. Mr Hardman corresponds regularly with the office and sent his best wishes to those present at the luncheon. Many other members who were unable to attend in person had also sent letters of apology and good wishes, including Frank Shaw from New Zealand, Noel Reed from Australia and Ray Weedon, our former General Secretary, who was making a good recovery from a knee operation. Members sent their best wishes to all these absent colleagues. Regrettably 15 members had died since the lunch last year including two of our 50-year members, Mr J D Boxall and Alan Webster. Also among the deaths
were Mark Brookes, and Percy Dibden. The Institution is grateful for the service that these friends and colleagues performed for the S & T discipline and the Institution during their time with us. Mr Burrage said that the last year had been another very busy and successful one for the Institution, which continues to grow and progress from strength to strength. Current membership is about 4000; the Licensing scheme continues to grow and over 7000 licences are now in force; the Institution’s professional development work and the examination is well respected in the industry. The IRSE NEWS team continue to develop our popular and well-regarded magazine for all our members worldwide, keeping them in touch with what is going on in the S&T industry and in our Institution. Last year the Institution turnover was again nearly a £1 million pounds. The wholly owned subsidiary trading company, IRSE Enterprises Ltd, that now manages our large events like the Convention, the annual dinner and the ASPECT series of international conferences, was able to grant aid over £10,000 back to the main Institution. Mr Burrage said that, following the merger between the IEE and the Incorporated Engineers who had previously supplied us with staff and accommodation under a service agreement, the most significant development in the last year had been the direct employment of our own staff and moving to our own leased premises in the building at 1 Birdcage Walk, owned by the IMechE. The Institution is now a fully independent, self-supporting and successful organisation in good shape to meet whatever challenges the future may bring. He continued by referring to the fact that none of this substantial effort would have been possible without the wholehearted support and hard work of the IRSE HQ team and the many volunteers who give their time and expertise to further the work of our Institution. Members present showed their approval with enthusiastic applause. He finished his remarks by saying that this was the last official IRSE function for which he would be responsible before handing over to his successor Colin Porter on 1 July, to whom he wished every success. He expressed a sincere thank you to all the IRSE staff, officers and colleagues for making the last seven years of his 50-year railway career a most satisfying and rewarding experience.
18
EIGHTH ANNUAL MEMBERS’ LUNCHEON
The luncheon concluded in a most pleasant and happy atmosphere of friendship and camaraderie and had been thoroughly enjoyed by all present. Members attending the luncheon with over 50 years membership of the Institution were Messrs G Amoss, R Brown, David G Brown, Graham Brown, R Bugler, K Burrage, T Eccles, H Fensom, A Fleet, I Foster, R Gilbert, B Grose, E Harris, B Hillier, F Hounsome, F Kerr, J Lethbridge, M Page,
D Plummer, R Post, J Raindle, F Rayers, V H Smith, E Sutton, and J Waller. Past Presidents present at the luncheon were Messrs R E B Barnard, R Brown, J Corrie, C Hale, T Howard, A Howker, R Nelson, J Poré, C A Porter, C H Porter, F Rayers, V Smith, P Stanley, J Waller, and A Wilson. The 9th Members luncheon has been provisionally arranged to take place on Wed 20 June 2007 at the same venue.
Photos: Colin Porter
Pic 1 Members over 50 years: Fred Kerr, Ron Gilbert, Hugh Fensom, Ian Foster, David Brown, Graham Brown, Derek Plummer, Roger Bugler, Michael Page, Tom Eccles. Pic 2: Bob Wyatt, Tony Goodyear, Paul Cheshire MBE, Roger Rowland, Bob Blythe, Richard Stokes, Russell Maiden, Mark Watson-Walker, Mike Tyrell. Pic 3: Paul Humphries, Roger Penny, Gordon Rendle, John Skelton, Dr Colin Goodman, Derek Edney, Charles Hudson MBE, Chris White. Pic 4 Past Presidents: Cy Porter, Hohn Corrie, Robin Nelson, Cliff Hale. Pic 5 Top table: Frank Rayers past President, Jim Waller Past president, Lord Robert Methuen, Eric Harris. Pic 6: Staff: Linda Mogford, Martin Govas, Linda Collins, Linda O’Shea, Richard Hobby, Roger Button, then Tony Fleet (obscured by waiter) and George Nelson. Pic 7 Top table: Ray Brown Past President, Victor Smith OBE Past President, and Ken Burrage Chief Executive. Pic 8 John Francis President, Ronald Post member for 67 years, Jacques Poré Immediate Past President.
19
The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (COPYRIGHT RESERVED)
Presidential Address of
JOHN FRANCIS given at the IRSE AGM held at the Institute of Electrical Engineers, London WC2 Friday 27th April 2006
Time Zero A PRIDE OF PRESIDENTS At one time IRSE Presidents came from the ranks of the private railway companies or signalling manufacturers. Familiar great names are: Alfred Blackall, Robert Insell, Arthur Bound, and Harold Proud. Later, Presidents came from within the nationalised British Railways. Examples are: George Brentnall, Bill Woodbridge, Jack Tyler, Armand Cardani and Maurice Leach. We must not forget London Transport which also provided a President or two like Robert Dell. Under today’s industry regimes virtually all signal and telecomm’s engineers are employed within the private sector whether they be railwaymen, contractors or consultants and there are many companies to choose from, so the affiliation afforded by each President can be diverse. The Presidential ratio is borne out by the statistics. For much of the existence of the Institution the ratio averaged two railway employed Presidents for every supplier employed President. The last decade has seen this average change, largely because there are fewer engineers employed by the railway administrations in today’s world. Some recent Presidents, myself included, could have represented a railway company during their office had political intervention either not occurred or followed a different formula. A broad category split shows that of the previous 85 Presidents of the Institution, 51 were railway company employees whilst the other 34 were from the supply side (provided this category is deemed to embrace a couple of recent consultants). Amongst the 85 there have been five from outside of the United Kingdom, most recently Jacques Poré from France. This reminds us of the unique nature of the IRSE and how we embrace a profession without national
John Francis: President 2006-2007 (Photo: J. Mortimer)
boundaries. We are an international, interoperable, Institution. As the 82nd person to serve as President it is a pleasure and a privilege to be employed and supported in my year by a signalling company that, through its antecedents, has been trading throughout the entire existence of signalled railways. A company which has played a leading role in advancing the science of railway signalling during three consecutive centuries and one which has been a staunch supporter of the IRSE. With its origins in John Saxby and the partnership he established with John Stinson Farmer in 1863, Westinghouse Rail Systems has not only been one of the pioneering contractors supplying the original railway companies in the UK and many abroad, but also now proudly
20
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
embraces a portion of the privatised British Rail organisation that has brought additional and complementary skills to the company.
A YEAR OF ANNIVERSARIES It was not until 1920 that the Westinghouse name became synonymous with railway signalling in the UK, at the time when most of the signalling suppliers became consolidated under its banner. Pioneering companies with innovation and competition at the heart of their operations like Saxby & Farmer, McKenzie & Holland, Evans O’Donnell, Pease, Dutton and Sykes were amongst those absorbed. Much has changed for the company and for the industry as a whole during the ensuing years. Not only is 2006 the 200th anniversary of the birth of I.K. Brunel but it is an important anniversary year for the signalling world too. It is exactly 100 years since Saxby & Farmer sold their Kilburn works in London, following transfer to the Evans O’Donnell site in Chippenham. The first patent in railway signalling was granted 150 years ago, in 1856, to John Saxby whilst still employed by the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway. This year also marks the 160th birthday (on 6th October) of George Westinghouse himself, the 125th anniversary of the founding by him of the Union Switch & Signal Co. in America, the centenaries of the formation of Cia Italiana Westinghouse di Freni in Italy and of the Westinghouse Brake Company in Australia and the 130th anniversary of the operation he started in England with the Westinghouse Continuous Brake Co. Next year (2007) is the centenary of the agreement between the Brake Company and the Consolidated Signal Co. (the forerunner of the 1920 amalgamation) to form the McKenzie, Holland & Westinghouse Power Signal Co. to undertake power signalling works, particularly on London’s Underground railways. It is also 128 years since Saxby established a factory at Creil in Northern France. Indeed for a long time the generic title for signalling apparatus in France was “Le Saxby”. It is a fitting year therefore for the IRSE to have another President affiliated with Westinghouse. I am the tenth Westinghouse employee to receive the honour. The last was Tim Howard, 18 years ago in 1988.
TIME DICTATES We take owning a timepiece as normal today but 150 years ago, when that first patent was granted to John Saxby, this was not the case. The church bell called us to worship and the factory hooter summoned us to work. In the early days of the railway there were few public clocks beyond the parish church or the Town Hall. But each railway station had one and these clocks were soon coordinated to Greenwich Mean Time on a daily basis, bringing standardisation of time to the entire nation. The very first signalling system used time as the separator between trains in Time Interval Working. Indeed Time Interval Working remained the fall-back
method for Absolute Block in the event of communication failure right into the 1990s. Time remains fundamental to our profession because the way we run our railways relies upon a timetable and point-to-point timings for its efficient operation. One of our hosts for the Convention in Switzerland this year will be SBB, the Swiss Federal operator. SBB has recently completed a programme of infrastructure works determined by time - that is journey time between centres. The selection of a journey time to achieve a clock face connectional timetable (Taktfahrplan) dictated where the infrastructure was to be enhanced and how. That is a novel approach to harnessing the influence of time. Signalling headways include a function of time in their calculation and, where stations exist, these are affected by dwell time. We calculate platform reoccupation time and we use time to deduce distance or speed. Signals require a minimum sighting time. We sometimes stipulate the separation time between the position of equipment such as AWS magnets and of course we have time constraints such as how long it takes to swing a set of points. In some cases we manipulate time to reduce the impact of an emerging situation. Reducing the dwell time of a train or superseding a “coast” command with a “fastest journey” command or holding a service to even out the interval between trains are methods by which we adjust events within time. If a train is stopped at a signal we have rules about how long the driver is to wait before contacting the signal box and how frequently to call back if detained. Everything that happens is recorded in time, whether it be the passing of a train, the granting of a possession, or the hand back of apparatus to traffic. We co-ordinate equipment by linking to a common time signal such as that generated by the Rugby atomic clock. Time to repair features in our availability and faulting considerations to the extent that it determines architecture, maintenance regimes and cost. Another function of time we employ is probability. We consider this in our analysis of systems and in the interaction of states within our systems and between processes. This analysis of both probability and its consequences now features in the broader scrutiny we exercise when the operation of the timetable, the layout and the signalling are considered within a single model. In railways this probability is primarily driven by the timetable, from factors such as time between trains and time windows of conflict - both between trains and between a train and some other interface such as a level crossing or a possession. Time, or to be more precise the interval measurement of time, continues to be used throughout the equipment and processes employed in the safe-working of railways, particularly in communication. Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) is a classic example derived as it is from the early CTC Time Code apparatus. So too is Frequency Division Multiplexing (FDM) because frequency is a time based measurement.
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
In the future we may harness time in other ways to support how we signal. Locating train position, for example, by measuring the transmission time of signals from satellites. We use the measurement of time as a mechanism to enhance safety. Sometimes we do this in a “failsafe” way, waiting for a positive response. At other times we assume safety after time, in the absence of a response and then sometimes we look for events within a time window or with a time stamp to accept their validity. Let me give you some examples: • Whilst the signalman winds the Welwyn Release he is forced to consider his action for a period of two minutes. Time for him to think about why he is doing it and time for any consequence to be mitigated; • The drive to a point machine is turned off after a period of time if detection is not made to protect the machine from damage; • A track circuit repeat relay is made slow to pick to protect against momentary loss of train shunt; • A lamp proving relay is made slow to drop to allow for aspect changeover time; • We time track occupancy to determine when to approach release a signal aspect for a warner, diverging or subsidiary route; • The train detection and control mechanisms for an automatic level crossing are designed to ensure a guaranteed minimum road closure time and a minimum road open time; • Some overlap points we lock in position at the time of operation, others we leave free until a train approaches; • On-board the train, the TPWS equipment uses a timer as a means to check speed; • On electronic systems an input has to be present for a pre-determined time before it is accepted as true; • Approach locking is released after time, the time period being set to assume an approaching train has come to rest. Similarly overlap and opposing route locking can be timed to release.
WHAT IS TIME? Some say time is money but really it’s just nature’s way of keeping everything from happening all at once. If you can’t measure it, you can’t control it. So says a popular maxim. Well we measure time more often and more accurately than anything else on earth, endlessly subdividing it, yet we still have a job controlling it. The hour, the minute, the second, the nano-second - these are some of the measurements we use to quantify time. We also use time to measure distance such as with a reflected radio wave or the light year through space. When we look at the stars we see light that has taken millions of years to reach us. So are we looking in real time? Does the star we can see still exist? We have a perception of time. That perception sets limits for what we find acceptable or how long we are prepared to wait for an action or a response. More and more we look for instantaneous response.
21
Once we would have waited for a letter. Now we demand or receive instant answers through email, mobile telephone and video contact. This contributes to us achieving more in a given space of time whilst increasing the pace of life. As humans, we have a perception of time and can roughly measure a second, however, any period above or below this requires external assistance to achieve any degree of accuracy. We can measure a day because of the earth’s position in the solar system, our lives being regulated by the rotation of the earth around its axis and around the sun. Our wristwatches are kept accurate by the oscillation of quartz at 32 768 times per second. We use the expression instantaneous to describe no time at all yet instantaneous is a time period which can itself be divided into billions of parts. Thus we can register instantaneous but are incapable of detecting the time slots which make it up. However, we exploit technology that can, through the use of ever faster processor chips and baud rates. Time may be known as the fourth dimension but we really only use it in a one dimensional, monochrome way. We merely sequence events with it and in so doing impose a time overhead. This is why we see processor based systems taking longer to achieve an output than alternative (previous) technologies. The ability to build processors that divide time into ever smaller segments now allows sequential operations to be achieved in a time that is acceptable to us. Does this mean we should be happy for our processor systems to do one thing at a time or should we seek to harness technology which permits parallel processing of tasks that have no dependency? Processor clock speeds are now reaching their limits. So new, architectural, techniques are being developed to improve chip performance and overcome the constraints of consecutive operation. These include the use of cache memory, pipelining, hyper-threading, and dual and multi-core processors which enable parallel execution. As technology moves in this direction we must take care to harness it in a manner that exploits its parallel capabilities without endangering the safety of its task. The real world runs in real time, processors run in discrete programme cycles. We therefore have to ensure that our systems remain in step, reflecting the real railway world and we must put protection in place against them getting out of correspondence with that reality.
MAKING ASSUMPTIONS We use time more and more in our modern signalling systems as a protection measure in lieu of positive alternate information. It should have happened by now so we’ll assume all is well, as in the approach locking example. If it hasn’t happened by now we’ll assume all is not well, as in our lack of points detection being made, or a driver not pressing the AWS acknowledge button within the prescribed three seconds. The timed release of locking is a prime example of how we use time as a catch-all assumer, as a
22
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
default, because we have no other better measure. Yet this is not completely safe, we cannot actually tell that the train has stopped and that it will not pass the signal. For simplicity we often make use of assumptions in our “non-vital” circuits in the signal box. For example, in some CTC systems we assume a default indication of proceed (green) in the event of loss of the red indication from the field. Similarly, if a signal is indicating proceed, or there is indication of a route set, at the signal box we use this as a condition to enable a trigger event, such as occupancy of a track section, to step forward a train description. We programme the train describer to act upon an assumption as, at the moment of trigger, there is no proof that it has been initiated by the train in question. Indeed it could be induced by equipment failure (track bobbing) or, in some converging situations the track occupancy may actually be the result of another train running away, the description for which remains behind the signal passed at danger. In the early days of the railway the line was assumed to be clear unless a positive signal or message to stop was given, a practice found to be flawed and one we could not condone today. So in the safetycritical environment in which our railways operate is it acceptable to make assumptions at all? By its very nature an assumption means we cannot be sure we have all the facts upon which to base our decision. Until very recently we assumed people would not open train doors on the move. Now we prevent them from doing so. In the days of the semaphore distant signal and the fogman, drivers relied entirely during fog and falling snow upon the absence of an exploding detonator to assume the distant was “off” and the line ahead therefore clear, whereas now an AWS magnet will generate a positive indication one way or the other. What assumptions might modern thinking challenge? • We used to assume drivers would obey signals and speed restrictions but over the years railways have reluctantly adopted various means to close the control loop and enforce the requirement; • On many older relay installations when the emergency replacement button for an auto signal is pulled we assume the signal has actually gone back to danger as the indication only tells us that the button has been operated;
• There are places where we assume the train is complete when it arrives, particularly where multiple unit working is the norm. What will be the consequence one day when that assumption is wrong somewhere? • We assume road users will obey the Highway Code when negotiating level crossings. When they don’t and a train is approaching we suffer the consequence - on a not infrequent basis. In making assumptions and laying down rules we often forget the human trait that looks for the shortest and easiest solutions and which exploits loopholes and avoidance. So if the level crossing comprises half barriers we should expect some users to jump the lights and exit at the far side and we should expect that some road drivers will dodge around the lowered barriers. Then, through this expectation, we can recognise our assumption is flawed and so pursue a more satisfactory solution. Level crossings have ascended to the top of the safety attention list by virtue of the industry closing out other issues which had attracted greater concern. So now level crossings are attracting attention alongwith the assumption that these do not constitute an obstruction to a train. Even the effect of the track layout in the vicinity of a crossing is now being questioned under our ALARP principles of tackling risk. Is this continual improvement or knee jerk response to a freak accident one may ask? The number of level crossings must be significantly reduced. For those that remain we must realise that we should account for the human animal and devise protection methods accordingly. In this way we will eradicate the horror of road carnage spilling over into rail. Extrapolating this thinking a little further, once a train has vacated a track section we assume the line is clear and we even assume the line is still there. One of the messages a proceed signal tells the driver is that there is no other train in the way. It does not guarantee there is no other form of obstruction nor, except perhaps on those lines where double rail track circuits exist, does it guarantee the railway line is actually there. Even then it provides no reality as to its fitness to be run over. Should this be a concern to us? Does ALARP mean it is not practicable to deal with the risk? Or should the process of continual improvement mean we should do something about it before a knee jerk response is precipitated following some incident?
BASELINE COMPREHENSION There is another element to our understanding of time and that is its relativity. The older we are, the faster time appears to pass. Put a ten year old child and a 70 year old adult in the same room and determine if time passes at the same rate for each. We use milestones in time against which to measure. In recent generations the phrases “since the second world war” or “after the war” were commonly used in both speech and written word. Not only, in this instance, was this a milestone event but it marked a point in time where effectively the world started again, a Time Zero. Now, as new generations come
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
along who either never experienced the event or are not influenced by those that did, the reference has been lost to everyday language. New milestones enjoy a period of popularity like “the fall of the Berlin Wall”, “9-11”, or “the Privatisation of the Railways”. Many of us have been measuring from this last one. In fact we view our current situation from some relative baseline point of comprehension in time, measuring progress, change and personal satisfaction against it. For each of us our conscious knowledge of the world does not exist prior to our early childhood. What we first saw, experienced and remembered, in our formative years, became our baseline in time. Those impressions and experiences have since formed the basis by which we measure and evaluate progress in our world. Similarly our first experiences of the railway, whether as a new employee or as an “invited trespasser” formed the starting point for our conscious knowledge of it, before which we have no personal familiarity. Recognising this we can then begin to understand the impact of time on individuals and the effect this has on their attitude. At one time the industry was comprised almost exclusively of career railwaymen, often from successive generations of the same family. The railway was great - an institution in its own right. Pride, skill and dedication were pre-eminent amongst its employees. The industry was huge and diverse, its workforce made up of a remarkable wealth of characters skilled in a myriad of trades. Like religion the railway was bigger than man. It was a 24 hour challenge with team spirit that bred a care for one another and a healthy rivalry. My first railway comprehensions are rooted in the 1960s whilst my initial career exposure followed in the early 1970s. I knew and joined a railway that was being modernised with diesel and electric traction but which still carried freight to a thousand sidings by loose coupled train, where locomotive haulage was normal but where Freightliner and Merry Go Round (MGR) were ground breaking new concepts and exciting new Power Boxes like Dartford,
23
Feltham, Carlisle, Preston, Warrington, Kings Cross and Peterborough were to set the trend for future signalling. I became acquainted with men who had 30, 40 and even 50 years of service. These ‘lifers’ had lived through world war, they had lived through Beeching. They had experienced the trauma of line, station and yard closures. They had spent their working lives on a railway I could never know. They had been employees of the Big Four, some even starting out as servants of predecessor companies like the South Eastern & Chatham or the Somerset & Dorset. They had lived and breathed a mechanical, steam railway. They had seen mail picked up and dropped on the move, slipped coaches, broken the ice on water troughs and conversed using the electric telegraph. They had been nationalised and they measured everything based upon when the conscious world had begun for them. Their railway had, and continued to be, changed. For the long serving railwaymen of today the prognosis is no different. Some say age teaches a lot but it is actually during the elapse of time, while gaining experience, that we learn a lot. We just happen to age during the process whilst suspended in the time period for which we are here. I remember, when starting out on my working life, how the men I met related stories from previous years. These stories were from a lifetime before me, beyond my living comprehension but were reality to them. Only their reminiscences and photographs depicted these times which had been their good times, their good old days. For those starting out on careers today, in the first decade of a new century, the 1970s of my railway beginning are to them personally unknown, their equivalent in time space to the 1940s that I never knew. Just ponder that for a moment. Today’s generation of new starters will never experience first hand the royal mail postal sorting train, motorail, slam door stock, locomotive hauled passenger trains, large complex mechanical signal boxes, magazine train describers, Strowger telephone exchanges, or the pole route. How many of us remember being told by the old stagers that they couldn’t understand why we wanted to come on the railway? And can you remember how many of them had difficulty maintaining interest in their work and career after so long? After more than 30 years I am pleased to be able to say that I do not replicate the sentiments of those old timers when meeting the youngsters joining our profession today. However, this is not the case for many. Changing circumstances, age and attitude can still lead to stagnation. We must recognise the symptoms when they occur, helping ourselves and our colleagues to do something about them. We must not become stuck in a rut - we must regularly reappraise, zero up the clock and reengineer our careers.
The 1970s saw the advent of large, line of route signalling control centres, made possible by harnessing new remote control technology. This example is Kings Cross. (Photo: British Rail)
Change is both a motivator and a demotivator depending upon its timing and its content. To those that see themselves as victims it is painful. Many good engineers and technicians have left the industry
24
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
because they have had enough change. Many others are just rubbing along waiting for retirement. We could achieve much more in terms of a fault free railway and an innovative, enthusiastic profession if we were all well motivated. We owe it to ourselves, our colleagues and our staff to be motivated, to be enthusiastic and to lead by example. This Institution is not just about technology, it’s also about people, their careers, their training, their professionalism. Without members there would be no Institution. In this Office I have for a year, I can take pride in presiding over the organisation for that period but it is the staff and volunteers that make it tick just like any outfit, it is individuals who apply the effort. Our railways, suppliers and consultants are the same. These entities are populated by individuals, all of whom have a place, a skill and a store of aspirations for their futures. Their lives and their outlooks are governed by what was, what is and what will be.
MAKE TIME TO DEVELOP KNOWLEDGE The profession needs more all-rounders - signal engineers who understand signalling. The more technology we use and the greater the disaggregation of the industry, the harder this is to achieve. There are precious few signal engineers around today who have a broad understanding of the subject. They may be expert in a particular specialism, but how truly expert can they be without the ability to actually position their talent within the whole spectrum of the discipline or understand how they should be influenced by, and function as part of, the whole discipline. This can be addressed by broad based training schemes for new entrants and career paths that enable exposure to more than one activity stream. Such career paths will, in many cases, require changes of employer during their evolution. And for those who want to learn, the IRSE can be a source of knowledge, networking and examination. Knowledge is like time, it is infinite, but the human is forgetful. Thus no one can ever know all, however hard they may try. In obtaining knowledge, the IRSE has been a tremendous help to me. Right from those original Green Booklets, through attendance at Seminars, Conferences and, in particular, at Local Section meetings. These have all contributed to my education alongside the workplace experience. And let us not forget the Proceedings of this Institution which form a veritable compendium of information. Knowledge can be gained in the workplace and in study but we can never actually know something until we use the knowledge and we can never really do something until we have actually done it. The IRSE can create the learning material and arrange educational events and thereby provide the means for learning and networking but we, the individual members, must take advantage of them. We must find ways to encourage involvement, to invest time in ourselves so that personal ambition becomes personal achievement. The message here is that we have to help ourselves to learn, whatever business, interest, or hobby it is that we pursue.
Society is constantly evolving, impacting on what we do, how we think and how we behave. There are less people attending church today, there are less people turning out to vote in those countries where it is not mandated by law. The population is overall less passionate about issues. Mobile telephones and two car families are the norm. Now the home computer and connection to the internet are becoming commonplace. What then of the IRSE in this modern age? We have a growing membership but do we have greater participation? Are our Local Sections, our grass roots, thriving or surviving? They have an important role to play in providing a contact with the Institution, to facilitate interaction, development and help individuals to value their membership. I encourage Local Sections to continue to organise a variety of events, with interesting subject matter, to advertise and broadcast these to the membership at large so as to stimulate wider participation by their own members and by those of neighbouring Sections. Support should be solicited from senior managers of railway companies in their catchment areas so as to encourage sponsorship and attendance. Furthermore, activity should not be restricted locally, it should embrace a global, networked Institution enabling members to gain access and to participate wherever they are. Nowadays we live in a society of passive reception. The expectation is that training is provided by our employer, in company time and that we are paid to attend. So the notion of spending an hour or two of one’s own time in the evening learning about a work related topic does not fit with the popular view of modern life. Lifestyle issues of family commitments, personal interests and a plethora of modern day distractions diminish our ability to spend a little of our own time in furthering our professional development. Despite shorter working weeks we have less time for participation whilst we tend to forget that very few successful people in this world became achievers by working a 36 hour week.
DEMONSTRATING PROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP We are no longer expected or directed by our employer or from within the railway to take part. We are no longer encouraged by example. Yet we have Continuous Professional Development, Log Books and Annual Appraisals to record what we have done and to state what we are going to do. So why is it that we do not see IRSE based activities featuring more widely as key components of these? Managers should take advantage of what the IRSE offers and ensure development plans include participation in the activities of this Institution. And remember, it’s not only the cutting edge skills that need to be developed but the ongoing ability to maintain and modify the legacy and contemporary S&T equipment out there on the world’s railways. Obsolescence brought about by loss of skilled personnel is just not acceptable. Managers and Directors should lead by example, but only a small proportion attend IRSE activities and so fail to engender a culture of learning and self
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
improvement amongst their staff. Our meetings and events are all opportunities, not just to broaden knowledge by listening to a lecture, but to meet colleagues from within our own companies and from across our industry in a neutral and friendly environment, providing opportunities to build relationships at a professional level. As members of the IRSE we should all take an active role in professional leadership. Ask yourself what you are doing as a leader or as an individual. Do you stand up for your profession? Do you play an active role by contributing in some way? For the IRSE to fulfil its aims it must be relevant to its members. For it to be relevant the members must participate in and shape its activities. This is where active contribution, even if it is just by attendance, begins. So, resolve to help yourself this year and every year and encourage your workmates and your staff to do likewise. If you are a manager, lead by example and also use the IRSE as a means to cultivate development and participation of your staff.
CONTROLLING OUR OWN DESTINY Railway signalling is one of the most interesting professions in our time, being all about providing safety for rail traffic. In so doing we work for the public benefit by protecting people, goods and property. Our subject is complex - perhaps we make it too complex at times. In prosecuting our work or our careers we may meet difficulties along the way but the magnitude of any difficulty we encounter depends upon the angle from which we view it. An obstacle can stop us in our tracks if we are insufficiently motivated or it can act as a steppingstone to our destination if we are primed with undeterred enthusiasm. We are emerging from an era during which significant damage was done to the S&T profession. We have seen exponential cost explosion, poor delivery, naïve expectation of immature technology and loss of experience. Whatever the reasons for the damage we must put this phase behind us by consigning the negativity to history. We may have the scars but the time has passed so now it should only exist in our memories. We must set about reestablishing ourselves. And remember, newcomers have no comprehension of it. For them it is time zero. But also don’t forget that privatisation acted as a catalyst for salary improvement which has benefited many of our members. To provide the service our railways deserve and the recognition our profession should aspire to, we must show that signalling is not only the means by which we assure safety of train movements but is the asset by which greater revenue and efficiency can be extracted from the railway. We must contribute to modernisation and maintenance by consistent delivery and by eradicating signalling failures. We must modernise and renew but not disrupt the working railway in the process. For the rail user the S&T profession must be invisible and unheard. The science is there for us in the technology at our disposal, the art is how we
25
configure and execute its use. It is the art we should pay more attention to. For many years the signal and telegraph engineers were subservient to the civil engineer but as we took on greater importance in delivering a safe and reliable railway we acquired higher status and often equal recognition. But where do the signal and telecommunications engineers find themselves today? In many cases they are once again subordinate to the civil engineer, which means our profession fails to achieve the recognition it deserves and we find it measured against inappropriate criteria. From some quarters we are viewed with suspicion, as being practitioners of a black art, a discipline tolerated only because noone has found an alternative to our wares. We are partly a casualty of circumstance and partly a victim of our own making. But we should not resign ourselves to this. We must re-zero so that we can reassert ourselves and we must do this through our professionalism, by providing reliable systems day in, day out, by delivering projects safely to time and to budget, by reducing costs, by harnessing new techniques and technology and managing timely introduction of that technology. Then we need Champions who will promote our profession, who will lead the S&T departments, the suppliers and the contractors and who will stand up and earn respect from their staff and the wider industry. We need leaders who can communicate at all levels and who take time to do so, for the Assistant Technician is no less important than the Tester-inCharge and arguably more valuable than the CEO. Everyone matters. There are many names from the past that we would recognise as Pioneers, Leaders and Achievers in our profession. How many can you
For over fifty years we lived with the stop aspect of position light shunt signals displaying a white pivot light and one red light. Now these signals are being replaced with twin reds for stop - a definite safety improvement and one which has eliminated “technical” wrong-side failures of these signals. The use of LED technology has also improved visibility, longevity and maintenance. (Basingstoke)
26
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
Some of the rising costs of signalling are within our own control. Here we see a straight post platform (Bournemouth) starter replaced by a massive cantilever structure under a resignalling scheme.
think of in recent times? Where will these role models emerge from in the future; those people with vision, commitment and presence who will Champion our industry? There are people out there but in order to lead they need authority and empowerment from the organisations who employ them. The models of privatisation adopted around the world have been many and various, changing the course of peoples’ lives. Many careers were curtailed, others limited. In the case of a few it placed them in positions they should never have attained. Many new people entered the industry from a variety of backgrounds. Some lasted, some thought they had something to prove, many created disaster in their wake, many soon departed. In some cases the model set back development by a decade, escalating costs by orders of magnitude. It created companies. It destroyed companies. But it happened and we must re-zero, not rewind, the clock in order to go forward. Privatisation may have spawned many companies but that doesn’t actually mean it gave true choice. What the industry needs is the choice to make sensible economic and technical selection for now and for the future. The market we have is contrived and like all such markets this has driven up cost, protected the inappropriate and the under performer and penalised the questioner. You can go into a supermarket and choose your breakfast cereal from a bewildering range of nutritious products. You can bank your money with your supermarket, you can buy products and services on-line and you can purchase your electricity from the gas company. But where and how should you buy your signalling? We all know that we must get the cost of signalling down. And not just because railways say so. There are a myriad of reasons why costs have spiralled, many outside the direct control of the industry but many also of its own making. When it comes to reducing implementation costs there are three significant contributors: the control of
change; continuity of work; and the ALARP philosophy. A fully defined scope, that does not change, is an enabler for delivery to cost and time. Continuity of work means that suppliers have stability and can put longterm strategies in place for their business. Continuity must be made a reality, not a promise every time the industry enters the downward cycle of the boom and bust roller coaster. Greater trust and closer relationships must be forged between client railways and their suppliers. The number of suppliers should be matched to balance the required ability against the actual required need. This will allow suppliers to secure sufficient work to support investment in lean techniques, in research and development, in training, in customer support, i.e. in meeting the customers’ needs. Only those suppliers that plough back a proportion of their margins into furthering the development of this sector of our industry in this way should be selected. Those that add little or no value in terms of development should be eliminated from the supply chain. We must take steps to control the ALARP genie, for once out of the bottle the master’s safety wish is the genie’s command. This means getting the balance right between having to demonstrate compliance with what is possible and doing what is actually sensible. This needs standards to be formed such that interpretation, debate and opinion can be limited. “Reasonably Practicable” means that if it is possible for slightly greater expense or time, then we should do it (and remember in this case time is also money). Having done it we then set this new level of achievability as the benchmark against which we measure any new or additional reasonability next time, hence ratcheting up the acceptability each time to the point where an excess of time or cost becomes the norm. A typical example is the ever greater use of TPWS in conjunction with the locking up of layouts such that they become more complicated and hence less
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
27
reliable, less able to run the service and more costly to implement and maintain. This policy of Robust Train Protection as it is known only treats the symptoms, it does not prevent occurrence in the same way that a proper, and I repeat, proper ATP would. Things will go wrong from time to time and so we attempt to control and manage each situation to ensure that all of the risks are mitigated. Our success at this varies and could be improved by firstly eliminating those possibilities that are just not acceptable. Why entertain a risk when an alternative solution or method avoids or removes it? Choosing the right technology, the right supplier, or a standard, proven solution and therefore achieving repeatability are some of the simple ways that certainty of delivery can be improved. Removing risk will motivate delivery, passing it on does not. And recognise this: there is no such thing as risk sharing. The customer will always pay, either before, during or after depending on the model of the relationship. Smart customers know this and smart customers create contractual environments that eliminate risk rather than ones which try to off-load it. Run a safe, reliable railway and the need for reactive service information, customer charters, customer action teams, and contingency plans diminishes. We must play our part in providing solutions that keep the railway open, both at normal times and during times of engineering work. These need not be just technical solutions. Is it right that trains wait at a remote junction whilst a faulting crew or operations manager travel by road to attend? Why are train crew and other rail staff not trained to be competent in the hand operation and securing of points under the direction of the controlling signal box? This would at least get traffic moving in the first instance. Those that control the railway on a minute by minute basis should be given a greater understanding of how the equipment works so that they can identify and diagnose faults and report more accurately their cause or likely means of repair. Expanding the rail network in the UK and elsewhere is an obvious thing to do. We need to be challenged to provide the train control solutions for Crossrail, for Thameslink, for the East London Line and for a new north-south high speed line. However, it’s not just the big new projects that should occupy our attention. We also need to be challenged to unlock capacity on existing networks too with simple additional signals at strategic places; like closing up signals and intermediate block schemes. Simple redoublings and junction remodellings with appropriate signalling will remove hindrance to traffic flow thereby reducing delays and allowing more traffic, both passenger and freight, to run. We can do these things, but the present landscape is not giving us the opportunity. And we should be allowed to provide solutions commensurate with the need, not be required to over-signal or use inappropriate technology, as has happened on certain schemes. Rather than receive the blame for the disproportionate cost, we can then be hailed for our cost-effectiveness.
In the interests of keeping traffic moving why shouldn’t train crew be trained so that they can be instructed by the control centre to manually operate points at times of failure? (Munster)
The answer for signalling in the future surely lies in communication based train control, whether badged as ETCS or in some other form it is the medium that offers the most cost-effective and efficient means of controlling most railways. Even then some of our efforts will need to be directed at solving issues in the supporting infrastructure and its interfaces, particularly on the train. What is certain is that we must reduce trackside equipment. If we think back to our forefathers, in the days of mechanical signalling, could they have comprehended the continuous colour light signalling and control centres of our present railway? Given this hindsight are we brave enough to visualise the control system of the future? We talk about interfaces and one in particular, the steel wheel on steel rail. But for how much longer will this be the case and what will be the effect of change on S&T engineering? We have had to deal with a variety of new influences that have tested traditional theory and practise. Electrification, new traction packages, steel sleepers, driver behaviour, disc brakes, vegetation growth, improved rolling stock ride. What new materials and methods await us in the future to change our landscape? The maglev makes no contact when it is running but already, with our conventional railway, we find train detection a problem through lack of rail to wheel contact and other issues. The track circuit is under pressure from all sides. That does not mean necessarily that the track circuit has had its day but
28
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
ton/kilometres hauled. The more equipment we put out on the railway, the higher the energy running cost.
do we know what is required to keep it alive and are we tackling the issues? Do we have a train detection philosophy that is soundly thought out and making use of available technology? We have a tremendous tradition in the railways that provides us with pride and a foundation upon which to build, but being traditional should not mean hanging on to the tools, equipment and practices of the past. The railway and its S&T profession once led technological change. Nowadays we must adapt appropriate technology, importing ideas and solutions, not necessarily inventing new ones, whilst also not always changing the equipment just to fit our existing rules. Time and again in history these messages have been given but the lessons not learnt because, for each new generation, the lessons occurred before their Time. We must also move forward in defined, manageable steps remaining realistic or we will lose control. We must undertake more research into harnessing emerging technologies for railway control, turning the science into the art. Not all alternative technology may be right for railway control. We would not expect other forms of transport like cars or aircraft to adopt the track circuit or axle counter for position location so we should not be led to think that radar or GPS can automatically fulfil the needs of the railway. I have mentioned train detection but there are other issues we encounter such as the provision of power. We are told that we are heading towards a hydrogen economy which could result in the replacement of not just diesel traction on our railways but also of electric. We could see the wires come down in a Hydrail future. For us in the S&T profession that should make our lives simpler but have we thought how the hydrogen fuel cell could revolutionise our own corner of the industry in terms of localised power? Rail transport is the safest, most environmentally favourable means of powered land transport but it could be better. As a race we waste energy, as signal engineers do we properly consider our part in reducing the amount of energy consumed by our railways? There are two areas where we should provide some attention. There is the signalling equipment itself, all the way from the control centre down to the trackside elements like signals and track circuits. These are constantly consuming power, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year - amassing kilowatt hours regardless of train miles run or
Overshadowing this is the energy consumed by the trains themselves. Here we can have an impact too by getting smarter with traffic management so that we optimise the operation through avoiding traffic conflict, planning meets and advising trains of target speeds. Some railways have dabbled in this area but our profession should turn its attention in this direction so as to capitalise on communication with the train. By and large we provide binary (stop/go) signalling systems and then expect the timetable to be adhered to so as to avoid conflict. In reality this results in trains waiting for platform vacancy, being stopped at junctions or coming to a stand behind preceding trains. With help from the control systems we provide, more intelligent driving would reduce the incidence of trains having to stop, thereby improving throughput, reducing delay and providing fuel efficiency. Why, in the UK do we still have so many small signal boxes out there on today’s 21st century railway? They are from another time. They are labour intensive and many still retain Victorian technology that should be simple for us to eliminate. If we accept, reluctantly, that many old boxes will remain in service for the foreseeable future then it is good to see a realisation in recent times that many structures are in need of refurbishment to prolong their life and to provide the people that work in them an environment conducive to a modern workplace. Some boxes have been very tastefully restored, in keeping with their original design. Others have received less sympathetic consideration, sometimes to the detriment of the users. Going forward I hope that future refurbishments pay due attention to the needs of the signallers, the historic nature of the structures and use materials that do not detract from the buildings appearance. But please, let us abolish those signal boxes that do very little and consolidate control where it is sensible to do so.
THE IRSE GOING FORWARD When I first became involved with the running of the Institution in 1988 there were 2000 members. The Engineering Council rejected our application for Nominated Body Status and there was pressure on us to merge with one of the larger Institutions such as the IEE. With good stewardship since then we can now look upon our continued independence, greater membership and deserved recognition from the Engineering Council through receiving Nominated Body Status. We have much to be proud of from the 94 years serving the profession. We have a worldwide membership with many people recognising the relevance of the Institution to their careers, a professional exam, the ability to register engineers with the Engineering Council, training and reading material, local Section activities, a Licensing Scheme. We are regularly requested to provide
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
advice or response to government agencies. But this is not enough. We must create positive publicity about ourselves to the industry, to the public and to potential S&T engineers. In short we must market the profession. The IRSE is committed to supporting the diversity of disciplines which make up the train control industry and the variety of people working at all levels within it. Whether signalling, telecomm’s, software, research, development, training, management or whatever, the IRSE is here to encourage and support all individual personal development, learning and interaction. This we must continue to do by making the Institution relevant and inclusive, by confronting the issues facing our members and by serving the needs of modern engineers. We must be the prime mover, recognised for it by our members and the industry. The Institution sets and maintains standards for competency through its Licensing Scheme. We must be careful that Licensing, welcomed as it is, does not restrict the ability of individuals to practice as widely as their competence, knowledge and skills would otherwise permit. It should measure minimum compliance and encourage human development both to the individual and via the employer.
29
I am your President for just one year. Together we are all the Institution. For my part I will continue to promote interest in the profession, highlighting its stature and seeking greater participation. As members you must be proud to be in the S&T profession, determined to establish your reputation and to deliver your expectations for tomorrow. Our predecessors founded this Institution and steered it through nearly a century of change. It is now in our hands to develop, direct, nurture and progress. Let’s make a good job of it because, just six years from now, in 2012, I want to celebrate the Centenary of this Institution with you in the knowledge that every other railway discipline looks upon ours with envy. The Institution has a rich history but its future is the most exciting thing about it. As one famous saying recalls: everything is history, apart from this moment. The past does not exist except in our memories, nor the future except in our expectations. May I express thanks to Westinghouse Rail Systems and to my colleagues throughout the railway industry worldwide. The views in this Address are entirely mine but I hope some, at least, strike a chord with readers.
30
Technical Meeting of the Institution held at
1 Birdcage Walk, London Wednesday 11th October 2006 The President, Mr. J Francis, in the chair. 119 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr. D McKeown, seconded by Mr. D Hotchkiss and carried that the Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 29 March 2006 be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a correct record. No apologies for absence had been received. Member Paul Booth together with another new member from Network Rail was present for the first time and were warmly welcomed to the meeting. The Chairman then introduced Mr Tony Howker Past-President and invited him to present the paper entitled Have We Forgotten The Driver - The Sequel. Mr Howker’s presentation was a sequel to his original paper on the same topic presented to the Institution on 15th November 1988. It gave an overview, from the train driver’s viewpoint, of a number of the changes which had occurred to both the structure and standards used on the UK main-line railway, highlighting the implementation of the automatic train protection trial schemes and the roll out of the Train Protection Warning System. He went on to describe some changes to the types of signal used and the impact on drivers, with a challenging view on the correct use of banner repeaters and junction signals. Finally he commented on the requirements for driver’s route knowledge as a key component given the route-based signalling system presently used in the UK. Following the presentation the discussion was opened by Mr Ken Burrage, IRSE. Messrs P Bassett, Independent Consultant; P Wiltshire, Past-President; P Van der Mark, First Great Western; A Fisher, Bombardier, D McKeown, Independent Consultant; A Cooksey, formerly HMRI, Roger Ford, Modern Railways; P Bassett again took part in the discussion. The presenter dealt with the questions comprehensively and the President then proposed a vote of thanks presenting the speaker with the commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper. The Chairman thanked members for their attendance and their questions. Mr Francis then made announcements of forthcoming events and closed the meeting at 1955 by announcing that the next meeting in London would be held on the 14 November 2006.
Have We Forgotten the Driver? – The Sequel A C Howker INTRODUCTION On 15 November 1988 I had the pleasure of presenting a paper to this Institution with the title, “Have We Forgotten the Driver?” It raised a number of questions without necessarily providing all the answers. In the discussion which followed the presentation even more questions were asked about the relationship between the Signal Engineer and the Driver. All of these discussions took place with the object of trying to answer the main question of whether we, as a group of professional safety experts, could say that we have NOT forgotten the Driver. The conclusion of the paper stated, “There was a danger that this may be so in the past and could be so in the future.” Although the original presentation was in 1988, most of the thinking and writing took place from 1987. So what has changed in the intervening 19 years? This paper attempts to bring up to date the thinking and standards that have been promulgated since 1987, and asks even more questions about the results and about whether we really have brought benefits to the relationship between driver and signal engineer. The original paper posed a number of questions, the chief one being: Has the Signal Engineering profession closed the control loop and what should we do about it?
WHO IS THE DRIVER? Before we attempt to answer the question whether the signal engineer has forgotten the driver, we really ought to try to understand the person we are talking about. A brief description of the driver will not go *1 For simplicity we use the masculine pronoun throughout this paper when referring to drivers, but we do not mean to imply that all drivers are men. It is pleasing to note in fact that there are very many women train drivers employed by all Train Operating Companies.
amiss. Driving a train is similar to driving other forms of public or private transport in some ways, yet dissimilar in others. Most of the general public drive cars, and so they think they have a basic understanding of what it means to be a train driver. Some even realise that the train driver does not have to steer the train around corners and cannot take evasive action to avoid a crash. Signal engineers - one assumes - know more than this. We know at least that a train driver has to obey the signal aspects we present to him (*1). We presume he has the necessary skills to drive at a given speed, and to control deceleration from a given speed to stop at a Red signal or a given spot on a platform. It goes without saying that we assume the driver has been trained on the particular traction unit he is driving, and would have enough knowledge to be able to carry out simple fault finding in the event of some equipment failure. This is not much different from a car driver who at least knows how to move a vehicle. A train driver is taught the rules and regulations, and again this is similar to the car driver knowing the Highway Code. The difference between driving a car and a train comes with the route to be travelled. A car driver can read signs and obey traffic signals without having any idea where these signs and traffic signals are, because the car driver drives on sight. This is the first fundamental difference between driving a car and a train. A train needs a much longer braking distance to stop or slow down than is afforded by being able to read a sign or a signal. But of course signal engineers know that. So here is the first major problem of being a train driver. It is called “Route Knowledge.” The only way I can describe route knowledge is to invite you to sit at home and describe how you drive your car to the local shops. You know the directions,
HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE DRIVER? – THE SEQUEL
31
Figure 1 A Page from the Virgin Trains Route Learning Book for WCML The picture shows the page for Crewe Station – Up Direction towards Stafford. This is typical for all of the pages in the book, just a bit more complicated than most. All the lines are named, all signals are shown, and all connections have a speed marked on them. Lines Direction is also shown. Signals that have been “Multi-SPAD” and signals that are capable of showing “Double Yellow” are clearly marked. As can be seen, all of the many connections have speed boards, so Crewe is a station of “Yellow Daffodils” except that today most of them cannot be read as they are dirty! It is a great learning and reference tool for the Driver and small enough to be carried around in the bag whilst on duty. The Virgin Book is different from some other route books in that it doesn’t give the list of signals and the routes they control.
you may or may not know the names of the roads you travel over, the one-way streets, the positions of traffic lights (and whether they are partially obstructed by signs or bushes), the maximum speed allowed, whether one goes up or down hill and of course any bends in the road - and whether they are left or right hand bends, and whether you need to reduce speed to go round them. You may even know the names of local landmarks that you pass, and you certainly know where the shops are and where it is best to park. All this detailed route knowledge is also required by a train driver, but over vastly increased distances and in most cases at higher speeds. The line has many more signs than it used to have to provide assistance, but they are not much use in dark or foggy conditions. Add to this that the train cannot be steered at junctions, and that the signals need to be set the right way for its final destination. Finally the train driver has to react to all sorts of signals and speed restriction signs, both temporary and permanent, all of which form part of route knowledge. In case of failures or incidents, various rules and regulations have to be followed. If a driver does make a mistake, he is likely to be the first person to arrive at the scene of the accident. This
then is the person to whom we as signal engineers have to present safety information, to enable him to drive his train in a safe manner at all times. What has changed for the train driver over the past two decades? Twenty years ago most drivers had still started their careers in the days of steam as firemen, or on early diesel locomotives as second men. This meant that, although training was not as structured as now, they had had the opportunity to travel over routes many times whilst not in control, at lower speeds and when there were still plenty of signal boxes and other geographical information. This gave them route knowledge. Many trains were still locomotive-hauled and, although often more powerful than steam trains, were still affected to some extent by gradients, which were marked by gradient posts. So they really “learned the road.” Nowadays it is very different. Drivers are often recruited directly from outside the industry without the basic railway knowledge that used to be gained doing other railway jobs. So new recruits are now trained rigorously in rules, regulations, knowledge and traction handling in a period of time ranging from ten months to two years, depending on which train company is employing them.
32
HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE DRIVER? – THE SEQUEL
Whilst some new drivers still learn in the traditional manner by riding up and down the line and making their own notes, most train companies have formalised and structured the learning with videos, line drawings (often their own) and the original yellow-covered booklet put out as part of the Section C notice showing the signalling as installed. If the signalling was commissioned twenty years ago, there may not be many copies of that available by now. Major changes to routes such as the West Coast Main Line have caused Virgin and Central Trains, for example, to put out complete sections of the route showing signals, gradients and permanent speed restrictions, to help their drivers in route knowledge. (Fig.1) This is a part of signalling where we as Signal Engineers have little input or even knowledge. We expect every driver to act on our aspects and drive accordingly. Perhaps we should ask that, before we sign off a scheme plan, the Signal Engineers should be tested on their route knowledge of the area.
WHAT HAS CHANGED IN THE PAST 20 YEARS? In 1988 I said, “We must never forget that the real nature and purpose of our signalling systems is to tell drivers whether they may proceed and the status of the line ahead. There are rules governing the actions a driver must take on observing a signal, but the human element must not be forgotten, and signals that can be misunderstood or which camouflage a potential hazard, must not be provided. Enginemen have managed to handle their trains accurately for more than a hundred and fifty years using their route knowledge. The instances where they have not done so are usually due to a momentary lapse brought about by tiredness, illness, disorientation or misunderstanding. It is these instances which must be guarded against.” There have been many changes affecting the relationship between the signal engineer and the driver over the past twenty years. A major change has been the move from a “vertically integrated railway” to a privatised or franchised operation. Drivers are now employed by Train Operating Companies or freight companies. Signalling is operated and maintained by the infrastructure company, Network Rail. This change separated the supply and application of signalling from the end user. Then we went from about 60 Signalling Principles to over 300 Network Rail Standards and 30 or more Rail Safety & Standards Board (RSSB) standards which affect signalling. These standards, which are needed to allow the railway structure to operate, are one of the reasons for most of the changes listed below (in no particular order). Of course, not all standards exist because of the change to our railway structure. Some have been brought in because of accidents, maintenance requirements and the constant need to keep our railway safe. The modern approach to safety with the ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practical) principle and its influence on the interpretation of
signalling principles and standards compared with prediction 20 years ago has also led to many changes. All the following changes affect the relationship between the signal engineer and the driver. 1.
The Rule Book has been reissued twice, with numerous amendments between issues.
2.
Requirements for signal sighting and readability have changed. Position Light Ground signals are being progressively fitted with twin red lights for the Stop indication, so that the Stop indication is no longer half of the Proceed indication.
3.
There is a proliferation of differential speed boards.
4.
Banner Repeater signals have become very numerous.
5.
Light-emitting diode (LED) types of all forms of signals are appearing.
6.
Signal Passed at Danger (SPAD) Indicators have been introduced.
7.
A huge amount of extra signage is being fitted to signal posts, including number plates on semaphores, reminder signs and triangular marker plates on distant signals.
8.
Single-lead junctions are slowly going out of fashion.
9.
Permissive working is now frowned upon.
10. The colour light version of the splitting distant has not become widespread, and preliminary route indicators (PRIs) now seem to be preferred. 11. The Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS) has been introduced. 12. Flank protection is now considered essential following the Ladbroke Grove disaster (1999), and is often applied beyond the overlap with TPWS. 13. There is an increased use of axle counters instead of track circuits. There have been quite a few train accidents in the last twenty years which have involved the interfaces between signal engineering and the driver, including: •
Clapham (1988) - wiring error;
•
Purley (1989) - SPAD;
•
Bellgrove (1989) - SPAD exacerbated by a single-lead junction;
•
Newton (1981) - SPAD exacerbated by a single-lead junction;
•
Morpeth (1994) - overspeeding;
•
Cowden (1994) - SPAD;
•
Watford (1996) - SPAD (artificial permanent speed restriction with reduced overlap);
•
Southall (1997) - SPAD (AWS and ATP both not working);
•
Winsford (1999) - SPAD;
•
Ladbroke Grove (1999) - SPAD.
There have been other accidents in which signal
HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE DRIVER? – THE SEQUEL
33
engineers would feel that they were not involved such as Newton Abbot (rear end after a calling-on move), and Cannon Street and Walton-on-Naze (bufferstop collisions).
been fitted throughout the West Coast Main Line (WCML) and on the Oxford to Banbury line.
Let us have a look at some of the changes in detail.
The Rule Book (Ref. 6) is an area where, even with many rewrites over the last 20 years, much still needs to be done to aid the driver in his interface with the signalling. At least the present document now shows the different varieties of signal identification plates, and is split into various modules for ease of understanding for all concerned. However there are still anomalies.
ATP and TPWS Although several inquiries have recommended that automatic train protection (ATP) be installed to prevent further accidents, this has not done. There are two exceptions, the trial sites on the Great Western Main Line and the Chiltern lines. Both systems are of an intermittent type but with some infill. Not all trains using these lines are ATP fitted, and so we do not get all the safety benefits that we seek. Instead of ATP, the Train Protection & Warning System (TPWS) has been applied as a “cheap and cheerful” solution at highrisk signals, junction signals, buffer stops and permanent speed restrictions as a short term expedient. To quote our President in his inaugural speech, it is a “stickingplaster solution” (Ref. 1). TPWS is not a fail-safe system. It relies on a positive action from the equipment to make it work. Much effort has been expended on trying to make sure that it is reliable, but there are at least forty failures a day around the national network. Most of these failures are not safety issues and simply cause unexpected brake applications, but by the law of averages TPWS will one day fail to prevent an accident when it should have done. The installation of TPWS has of course helped. Instances of SPADs have certainly come down in number, and the SPADRAM initiatives within the industry have helped (Ref.2). Defensive driving is now considered the norm - raising the question of whether train timings have suffered. At the time of writing, the SPADWEB website (Ref. 3) shows over 180 signals where multiple SPADs occur. At over 40 of them there has been at least one SPAD this year. As I said earlier, driver recruitment has changed and the initiatives for driver training have grown. Several of the Train Operating Companies have introduced rigorous training and testing of route knowledge, complemented with mandatory safety policies for Driver Competency (Ref.5) (Fig. 2). Nevertheless signals are still being passed at Danger throughout the Network, sometimes through slight misjudgement, sometimes for more serious reasons. ATP would have fixed this. This is not a paper on the European Traffic Control System (ETCS), but it must be pointed out that here is a system that is mandated by the EU (Ref. 4), which is being installed in a number of countries. In the UK we still await a simplified form of it to replace Radio Electronic Block (RETB). We are in danger of becoming a split profession. Some of us wish something to happen with ETCS and others say it is too expensive. One element of ETCS equipment, the Eurobalise, forms part of the Tilt Authorisation and Speed Supervision System (TASS), and 750 of them have
The Rule Book
The use of the ‘Diamond’ plate has been well understood for many years. It means, “The presence of the train or shunting movement is indicated to the signaller by a track circuit.” The message to the driver is, “When your train is detained at the signal for an unusually long time, or in any case after not more than ten minutes, you must go to the signal box.” This is fully understood and it has not changed in principle over the years in semaphore signalling territory. Similarly the use of Signal Post Telephones (SPT) in colour-light territory is fully understood. In effect, “If you come to a stand, speak to the signaller.” However we have used the diamond sign with an “X” added to indicate that the normal telephone should not be used because of safety concerns, and that the driver must contact the signaller by other means. If no contact can be made, a driver standing at an automatic signal must “Pass the Signal at Danger and proceed as far as the next Stop Signal and contact the Signaller.” So we arrive at a situation where, because of safety concerns, we ask the driver to pass a signal at Red and proceed on sight. Can this really be safer than using the telephone? The new signalling on the WCML even has signals with no SPTs and a diamond sign telling the driver to go to the signal box. This is not very easy when the control centre is in fact twenty miles (32 km) away. In this context it is interesting to note that Module S5 of the Rule Book states that a driver can pass an automatic, semiautomatic or intermediate block home signal at Danger if no contact can be made with the signaller. Module S4 however allows only an automatic signal to be passed at Danger. At all other types of signal the driver must stay in the cab until instructed by a competent person or by the driver of a train on another line that “it is safe to use the SPT.” Do we really know what we are doing with our use of radios? We need to make sure that our Rule Book covers all eventualities. Perhaps in this modern age when almost all drivers carry personal or company mobile phones we could authorise them to use them, subject to strict radio procedures. Then our driver, stuck between Stafford and Crewe on the Down Fast at a defective signal with a defective radio, will not need to consider walking the twenty miles to Stoke-on-Trent—which is what the Rule Book implies at present.
Lineside Signals Twenty years ago I stated, “Over a long period in time drivers have been given…. a simple, safe and
34
HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE DRIVER? – THE SEQUEL
certainly know that the apparent size of the lens means a great deal. The new LED signals seem brighter (bigger lens size), and the dichroic signals between Macclesfield and Cheadle Hulme seem dimmer (smaller lens size).
Figure 3 Black-lined LED Signal One of the advantages that come from a “searchlight” type signal is that three of the aspects can be positioned at or closer to the Driver’s eye-line. The move to LED signals displaying a “searchlight” type light output goes a long way to fulfilling this nicety. However it also creates a strange effect. As the Driver approaches the signal black lines start to appear in the aspect from the unlit other coloured LEDs as seen in this picture of a LED signal (KR3307) on the Down WCML between Hanslope Junction and Rugby at Heyford. This can sometimes be quite disconcerting to a Driver who notices the beginning of the aspect disappearing as he gets closer to the signal. The “Close Up” aspect or “Hot Spot” on a LED signal is also different to existing colourlight signals, usually consisting of 4 or 5 individual LEDs illuminated around the lens system. Drivers usually comment how better the light output is from the bigger lens!
reliable system of signals and supporting structures positioned for convenient viewing.…” and that “…4 to 5 seconds sighting of the signal is adequate…” However there were signs that the number of SPADs was beginning to rise. The only way to give our drivers safe information is to show coloured lights to them in a meaningful and readable way. Of course we back this information up with audible and visual alarms, such as the Automatic Warning System (AWS) and TPWS. AWS is a fail-safe system relying on fundamental physics. TPWS is a non-fail safe system, and we go through hoops to try and make sure that it operates for a very high percentage of the time. Signal sighting has certainly changed. We now have standards that make the signal sighting committee and its Chairman think about “readability and understanding” before they fix the signal’s position. Nowadays line speeds are greater than 160 km/h (100mph) on many lines, and reading of aspect times could be as much as 9 to 11 seconds, including allowance for interrupted viewing. Signal heads have changed as well, with the introduction of LEDs and dichroic lamps. Drivers have accepted these changes without perhaps realising or understanding the reasons behind them. They
Other changes concern structures. The need to comply with new Health and Safety legislation has produced some monstrous supporting structures at considerable cost. Other ideas have been tried to bring the signal head closer to the driver’s eye-line. The Posts of the type used for Gatso speed cameras on the roads, without a ladder has been experimented with, the trouble being that a simple maintenance job now needs a line blockage. Gantries with wind-down signal heads have also been installed. There is nothing new in this, they were tried on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway in the 1930s. However it is necessary to prove that the head is in the correct position. If it is not wound down fully, drivers may not be able to see the signal. A disadvantage of these new ideas compared with a fixed structure is that there are moving parts requiring maintenance, leading to more cost. Was this cost taken into account when the idea was being proposed? Does it help the driver? Another problem that drivers have commented on concerns the use of LED signal heads in a pseudosearchlight configuration. That is, the three main colours Red, Yellow and Green shine out of the same position. With this arrangement, as the driver approaches the signal black lines start to appear in the colour. These are the unlit LEDs for the other two colours. The close-up indication is only a few LEDs around the lip of the lens (Fig 3). Now there may be good reasons for a searchlight-type indication, but the general feeling among drivers to whom I have spoken is that they would be happier with a conventional fouraspect head LED signal. (And they like the increased lens size). Once again, before these signals were introduced were the drivers consulted, or just their managers?
Banner Signals We seem to have forgotten what banner repeater signals are really for. Their use is to tell the driver whether the next signal is showing Red or Proceed. This means that in practice a driver is only interested in the signal he cannot see if he passed the previous signal at Yellow. Is it still at Red, or is it now showing Proceed? This means that he will be observing the banner repeater at low speed. When the driver is proceeding at line speed on Greens, the banner repeater really serves little purpose. There would be no chance of braking distance being available from it to the signal it repeats, if the latter were to be replaced to Red. So this begs the question, why are banner signals erected on expensive gantries simply because the Standard asks for more than seven seconds sighting time at speeds greater than 100mph? This seems to be a ridiculous cost, particularly when repeating automatic signals. Further, why do we have multiple-aspect banner signals? Remember they are only of interest to the driver after he has passed a Yellow: is the signal
HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE DRIVER? – THE SEQUEL
35
being repeated still at Stop or is it at Proceed? If the signal being repeated is at Double Yellow, what benefit is there to the driver of seeing this indication on a banner (in whatever form it may be) when the braking distance from the Double Yellow is sufficient? Multiple banner indicators would probably confuse some drivers. I accept that in the days of semaphore signalling Stop and Distant banners were provided occasionally, and that they could be said to be a multipleaspect banner, but speeds were lower in those days. (This also begs the interesting question, has there ever been a fibreoptic fish-tailed banner installed anywhere? Someone will no doubt enlighten us). Figure 4 The Double Yellow How can any Driver miss a “Double Yellow”? By design or accident we have picked the ideal aspect to give the first warning that a train has to stop at a Red Signal further down the line. In all sorts of light conditions from bright sunlight to poor visibility, the twin yellows really stand out against a variety of backgrounds. This is a picture taken from a class 66 diesel loco travelling on the Up Slow between Basingstoke and Woking. Pity about the conditions for the photo, it was raining and the windscreen was a little greasy, not unknown conditions that a Driver has to view signals every day.Notice that the signal number plates are not very square, and the telephone is positioned such that if the Driver stops back from the signal as he is instructed to do, he has to walk over a pretty rough surface to get to the signal. The signal on the Up Fast to the right has a sign telling the driver that the SPT is on the RightHand-Side in the “10 foot”. Beware oncoming Trains on the Down Fast!
Of course there are other occasions where banner signals are used, in addition to low sighting times for the signal repeated. Two examples spring to mind, one on the Up Fast line at Kettering, and one on the Up line at Wigan. These are really to remind a driver that he entered the section on a single Yellow, in case he has forgotten by the time the ‘Right Away’ signal is given. Splitting banner repeaters are also useful to assist with approach-released junction signals, or junction signals where the junction indicator is hidden but the main aspect can be seen. Talk of banner repeaters and sighting times raises another interesting question. If it is so essential to give longer sighting times at higher speeds, what happens in fog? Nowhere in the Rule Book does it state that Drivers should reduce their speed in fog only in snow! One of rail travel’s selling points is that,
Figure 5 Saltwood Tunnel Preliminary Route Indicator (PRI) A view of the PRI at the entrance to Saltwood Tunnel on the approach to Dollands Moor. Although the class 66 is passing a Yellow Signal, the PRI is indicating that the next signal at the exit from the tunnel, is showing a proceed aspect with the route set into the freight yard. The PRI can exhibit a second route set to the left to the Down Passenger Loop, a vertical arrow (upwards) for a route straight on and a route to the left towards the Down Dover Line. One could say this is the modern equivalent of a 4-way splitting banner signal – quite often used in semaphore days. The PRI will only illuminate if the signal the train is passing (AD751) is also clear as well as the Junction signal seen at the exit from the tunnel.
36
HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE DRIVER? – THE SEQUEL
Figure 6 Speed Boards at St. Pancras MML – A perfect example of following standards by rote. The speed board is required at every speed change. Here at St. Pancras, the speed changes from 20 mph to 15 mph at the platform ends. What Driver in his infinite wisdom is going to enter the terminus station at 15 mph or even 20 mph? The boards are the standard size and therefore form a sight barrier for anyone leaving the platform to walk upon the “Safe Authorised Walking Route” that is seen at the ends of the platform to the right. The “safe Walking Route” is about 20 m long and end at a sign stating “End of Safe Walking Route”. Are we mad or what?
during foggy conditions which cause chaos on roads and in the air, our trains still run on time. So do we expect our drivers to continue at line speed in poor visibility when pre-determined sighting times no longer apply?
Ground and Subsidiary Signals Even twenty years ago we recognised that there were problems with subsidiary signals mounted underneath main signals. These are in effect singleaspect signals. The main problem with them is a false clear indication, when reflection of the sun gives a driver the impression that the subsidiary aspect is illuminated when in fact it is not. Should we take the principle we are now applying to ground signals, where we now show independent ‘ON’ and ‘OFF’ aspects to overcome problems when one light has failed in a signal? Perhaps subsidiary signals under main signals should show twin Reds as well as twin Whites? We seem to be getting over the problem of ground signals passed at Danger when drivers are concentrating on shunter’s hand signals. Occasionally though shunt signals leading on to a main line still lead a driver into the trap of passing the next Stop signal at Danger. Many railways in other countries use shunt signals with three aspects to help with this. In the UK we have moved to fullsize 3 or 4-aspect colour light signals instead. These certainly aid the drivers, but at what cost? Signalled moves from one shunt signal to another are often a trap for unwary drivers. Again we should question whether they are essential, or whether we should have a different approach. It is still unclear from the standards whether one can signal from one shunt signal to another, or whether the whole move up to a clearly-defined final position must be set with all intervening shunt signals clear before the entrance shunt signal is cleared.
Junction Signalling We are just about getting better, although we still perpetuate some of the problems identified 20 years ago. The fundamental problem remains, that we try to mix two pieces of information to the driver, namely speed and direction. Twenty years ago we were installing flashing Yellows on the approaches to junctions and were talking about bringing back splitting distants. Drivers love flashing aspects, especially on 4-aspect signalling. There is nothing more likely to catch a driver’s attention than two nice big fat yellow lights flashing! However, as we have found out flashing Yellows again require the driver to have detailed route knowledge of the actual speed of the junction turnout. There have been cases where a driver concentrated so much on the correct speed at the junction that he failed to respond to a restrictive aspect on the junction signal, and passed the next signal at Red. The latest work done by the RSSB (Ref. 7) on junction signalling suggests that speed as well as direction should be exhibited to the driver. Network Rail has issued a new draft specification for junction signalling, and this has moved towards providing a Preliminary Route Indicator (PRI) to give advance information to a driver about his routeing at the junction signal. These are probably of more use when the speed over the junction is equal for all routes (Ref. 8). (Fig. 5) PRIs are not yet shown in the Rule Book, but have been installed at Airport Junction on the Great Western Main Line, and at Dollands Moor (at the approach to the UK Channel Tunnel Terminal), Chislehurst and Springhead Road Junction in Kent. All drivers I have spoken to who work past these PRIs like them. So it seems that drivers want as much notice of direction as possible. This leads us on to speed restriction signs. They very useful when new - even if, as one Driver remarked, they are coming up like daffodils on a
HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE DRIVER? – THE SEQUEL
37
spring day. Small speed boards, mounted low between tracks, often become unreadable after a time as they get covered in brake dust and dirt. Large ones seem to be all too easy to hit with permanent-way maintenance machinery, and they obstruct the view for staff walking the line. And why do we need speed restriction signs reading 20 mph at the entrance to a terminal station, when the line is actually fitted with TPWS trainstops set at 10 mph? (Fig 6)
course the delayed Yellow might simply mean that there is a speed restriction over a junction, or that the previous train has just cleared the section. What is wrong in telling a Driver that “the section is clear but the station or junction is blocked?” This anomaly still remains.
The Increased use of Axle Counters
THE LAST WORD FROM ME
I do not really wish to enter the debate about the use of axle counters and track circuits, as it could be said that they do not really affect the interface between the signalling system and the driver. However there is one area that the driver is interested in, and that is the use of track circuit clips. I realise that this debate had already taken place before the general use of axle counters was authorised, but it is still of some concern for drivers. The Rule Book states that, in the event of an incident, the first line of protection is the track circuit clip. I recognise that, where axle counters have been installed as the primary system for train detection, all drivers know what areas are concerned as part of their route knowledge, and that GSM-R radio will give the quickest protection. However the scenario in which an incident occurs and the radio is damaged still exists. The track circuit clip might be thought to give some protection, but it will not be of much use in an axle counter section. There is no quick answer to this question, and perhaps other forms of protection may still be required. Signal Engineers must recognise the problem, and find an approach that helps drivers carry out their duties.
WHAT HASN’T CHANGED Signalling only tends to be updated when a new scheme is implemented. So around the Network we have many signals that do not meet modern standards, for example in respect of sighting times. There are signals mounted on simple structures such as straight posts. There are ground signals of the 3-lens type, multi-lamp route indicators that are not the fibre-optic type and back-lit electromechanical banner signals. There are junction indicators that allow the signal to clear when one light in the indicator is out and remain clear when a second lamp fails, although the Rule book says this should be treated as a failed signal and should not be passed. We still have “Free Greens” on junction signals where the speed is the same for different directions, including some such as those at Cogload Junction and Colton Junction where trains taking the wrong route can cause serious delays. We still have main signals with subsidiary routes that give no information to the driver as to where he is going. Many junctions still have no track circuit flank protection. Overlaps are a section of the railway that we never tell the driver about. We provide them, but he cannot use them. We use the delayed Yellow to denote the lack of an overlap, but still do not tell the driver. Of
If we feel so strongly that most of these situations are not good enough for new schemes, why do they remain in signalling that is not going to be replaced for some time?
This is not a conclusion – there never will be one. As I approach the end of my fifth decade in Railway Signalling, I trust that I have shown that the relationship between the signalling and driving professions is not as clear as I would wish. I have “banged on and loud” about the things we do and do not do in the British signalling profession and in our relationship with the train driver. It must be done, and I make no apologies. For far too many years we have relied upon the Driver’s route knowledge for signal positions and sighting, geographical directions and safe speeds. Route knowledge, with the best will in the world, is an intangible thing. Of course it can be rigorously tested, and we try and help by installing speed boards so that they litter the railway like daffodils on a spring day round the York City walls. Take a moment to think about an aircraft pilot, and his check list. Of course he knows the check list off by heart, but he is provided with a printed version as well. On board the aircraft will be manuals which cover every eventuality, including maps of everywhere that he will go, and maximum and minimum speeds. The pilot is also trained on Air Traffic Control procedures, and knows why he is being requested to carry out a particular operation. Compare this with our driver. He is given a Rule Book and Sectional Appendix (neither of which help him much with signalling principles), sometimes access to a simplified signalling scheme plan when the signalling is changed, and possibly a speed/layout book produced by some enlightened Train Operating Companies for use by their own staff. No sign of lessons on signalling principles, except perhaps the relationship between distant, home and starting signals. Further checking of route knowledge after the initial check can be nonexistent. As for protection for our drivers against the slight possibility of memory loss or inattention, what do we give them? We provide TPWS on maybe 50% of the signals. This system has certainly reduced the risk of SPADs, but it does nothing for the Driver at most automatic signals. It may do something for trains travelling at more than 75 mph (123 km/h) in the future. It does very little for the driver of a heavy freight train travelling at lower speeds, except to give him a shock when it trips as a result of a malfunction. However the system is not fail-safe, and one day it will fail, possibly with disastrous consequences. It does nothing without complicated logic for
HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE DRIVER? – THE SEQUEL
38
WCML and also on the Oxford to Banbury cross-country line.
differential speeds over junctions, or for varying speeds for different types of traction units. So where does that leave us? The official inquiries into the accidents at Southall (1997) and Ladbroke Grove (1999) and a joint inquiry into safety all recommended the adoption of ATP. What do we actually have to date? •
Two ATP systems were started as trials for a “BR system,” but are now considered nonstandard.
•
TPWS was installed after an enormous effort and cost, and is still being developed to cope with speeds up to 125 mph (205 km/h).
•
TASS is an ERTMS-based system, but running TASS applications software rather than ERTMS, and controlling tilt and providing continuous (braking curve) supervision of train speed against enhanced permitted speed (EPS) profiles. It is installed throughout the
•
There is an improved system for recording SPADs and perhaps the causes of some of them.
We should seriously think about providing a signalling system which provides information on speed as well as direction to the driver. It is interesting to note that work done by RSSB partly thinks along the same lines for Junction signalling (Ref. 7). We must back up this approach by provision of a fail-safe ATP system (called “Positive Train Separation” in North America). Our French colleagues seem to be able to do this, so why not the British? In this day and age we should not still be asking our drivers to drive freight and passenger trains safely, relying simply on their route knowledge and on a signalling system that does not protect against overspeeding or mismanagement of the brakes. This new signalling system should, of course, be simple and economical.
Figure 7 The Driver of Yesteryear You can’t see much of the Steam Age Driver; he has his head out of the cab just trying to get a good view ahead! Some of the controls are near to hand, others are not. The cab is air-conditioned (open to all weathers!), the view ahead is poor. There is no speedometer fitted (although there is provision for one but clearly its absence doesn’t prevent the loco from hauling trains in service) and the Driver’s seat would not be very comfortable (although it wasn’t used very much anyway!) Signals would have been semaphore, oil lit at night and useless in foggy weather. However it is interesting to note that that steam locos were fitted with AWS later in their life, a great help to the Drivers of the day. Figure 8 The Driver of Today A typical driver of today, well trained and totally competent in his job. Started on the railway well after steam days and probably never has to observe semaphore signals on the main line! Has route knowledge from London to Glasgow (400+ miles including many diversionary routes) and would know where he was in any sort of visibility. Note the modern cab environment, air- conditioned, single traction and brake controller, and a sensible cup holder! Good viewing facilities, every control within easy reach. There is an in-built clipboard to put any notices or other reminders and observe the space directly in front of him for the cab-signal/ATP system. This of course is not provided!
39
HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE DRIVER? – THE SEQUEL
Even if ETCS is considered “over the top” for our railways, in its simplest form it does most of what we require - train protection at Red signals, and speed supervision elsewhere. Higher levels of operation could come in time with continuous ATP and cab signalling. Meanwhile we could provide lineside signals giving speed information as well as distance to go as at present, with approach speed signals as used by the railways in Germany. We must really put a stop to the “Not Invented Here” syndrome which prevents ideas invented by other railways from being used here. Other railways have managed to minimise the need to rely on drivers’ route knowledge for increased driver safety, and have closed the control loop between command and activation. Why can we not do the same? I realise that most of the people reading this paper look upon us more mature members with a certain amount of scepticism - always carrying on about the “good old days” when there were few signalling principles and very few written standards. I do not apologise for this, and I recognise that we have moved on. Technology has changed (even I have managed to write this paper using a computer). We must use this future technology to create a safer railway. Too many people are calling our profession a collection of, and I paraphrase, “Safety maniacs— safety at any price” (Ref. 9). This is not true. Our profession works in the real world of costs, and is constantly striving to produce signalling that protects safety at an economical cost. But we must never forget our interface with the Driver. I called this paper, “Have we forgotten the Driver? – The sequel.” In retrospect I think it should have been entitled, “Have we forgotten the Driver? – Part Two.” For then someone else will be able to write and present a “Part Three” at some point in the future. I suspect that there will never be a “Final” version able to answer the question with a
resounding “No,” until such time as ATP is generally in use across our entire network. In 1914 Mr AF Bound (who became President of the Institution in 1925) said, “We desire and should be able to institute a system that makes it unnecessary for a driver to have had previous experience of the road over which he has to run.” He was corresponding with a Mr Rudd in the USA on the subject of Automatic Train Control (ATC), which we would now call ATP, and speed signalling. Mr Rudd replied “Simple and readily learned as our system is, it will not enable us to attain this ideal; no system will, unless the railroad is placarded with instructions from one end to the other...” (Ref. 10)(Fig. 6). We have had signalling systems in this country for over 150 years that rely on drivers and their route knowledge for safety. Signal engineers early in the 20th century recognised this. We still have a lot to do. The challenge for the younger members in the future is to not have a railway “placarded from one end to the other” with speed signs, but to have ATP and, one day, cab signalling that not only tells the driver where he is going and how far he has to go, but also tells him what speed he may safely travel at. I look forward to reading the next episode of this paper in fifteen or so years (not, I hasten to add, written by me).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I acknowledge the help I have received from my colleagues and friends, some knowingly and some not. The opinions I have expressed are purely my own and, as I have now retired, they cannot be laid at anyone else’s door. Thanks must go to Virgin Trains, South Western Trains, Central Trains, Eurostar and Freightliner Heavy Haul for their willingness to extend to me the privilege of observing signalling from the cab and for the use of
Figure 9 SPA Awareness Document This is another approach to Route Learning produced by South West Trains. This page comes from the Route learning book for the section of line between Woking and Waterloo. It shows a picture of a multi-SPAD signal and why it should be treated with caution when approaching. Notice the comment that the signal complies with minimum sighting standards and that the latest cause of a SPAD was the close proximity of a crossover from the Down fast to the signal on the Down Slow. (Lying Reverse in the photo) Not one of our best efforts in signal positioning! These signals were positioned where they are to try and meet an operating requirement to allow quicker occupation of the platform after the previous train has departed (“Close-Up” signals). Because the signals are located close to the platform end, they cause a non-standard spacing for signals on the Down Lines and thus have all sort of extra controls for aspect sequencing and clearance, none of which is ever explained to the Driver. The location also causes another side effect, when two trains at linespeed follow each other non-stop through Woking at a minimum headway; the second train gets delayed on its passage through the station and is running at least an extra minute behind the first train after passing Woking! So we not only create traps for the Driver but we also fail in our efforts top provide a good operating system!
40
HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE DRIVER? – THE SEQUEL
3
SPADWEB is the official web site for the Rail Industry’s National Focus Group which is available to all. It publishes all data on SPADs plus anyone within the industry can publish best practice on its website. Can be found on www.spadweb.com although the public has access you can register as a railway industry member and access other data.
4
EU Interoperability Directive 96/48 that demanded that all trains on the Trans European Network should be capable of crossing borders without the need to change locos and Drivers. The standards are applied to Energy, Signalling, Gauge, Axleloading and Operating Rules.
5
For a good example of documentation that is now being published on Driver competence, log onto the “SPADWEB” site as a railway industry member and down load “Central Trains Professional Driving Policy”. This document shows the present day thinking behind Driver Training and would be useful to Signal Engineers in helping to understand a Driver’s approach to signalling.
6
The Rule Book perused as part of the preparation of this paper was GE/RT8000 with a general issue date of December 2003. I understand that an updated version is due to be released shortly.
7
The Rail Safety and Standards Board regularly carry out research work which is published via a monthly newsletter. Details can be found on how to register for this newsletter on www.rssb.co.uk. A document entitled “Human Centred Junction Signalling” was published by the RSSB early in 2006 and details can be found on the web site. It is interesting to note that the research recommends that both direction and speed should be given to a Driver by visual means before the actual Junction Signal is reached. It makes no comment on ATP.
8
Network Rail has issued a Draft Standard for comment in support of existing standards for Junction Signalling. It particularly states that the existing standards GK/RT 0032 “Provision of Lineside Signals” is not entirely suitable and need extra controls on application. It also for the first time provides some standards for the use of PRIs. It is interesting to note that although this new standard and the research document shown in #7 were produced at about the same time, there is nothing common between them other than the use of a PRI. This NR Draft standard has no mention of speed information.
9
“Informed Sources” – R. Ford – Modern Railways, July 2006. Ian Allan Publishing Ltd.
Figure 10 The Wind Up Signal An interesting method to improve the position of gantry signals on the WCML. Not having to provide a cage and access to the signal head allows the head to be lowered further into the gap between the gauge profiles of adjacent lines, thus putting the aspect closer to the Driver’s eye-line. Mind you, nothing is original these days, the LMS in the 1930s did exactly the same on all their lines that were on a programme of colourlight distant replacement. Of course the LMS did not have the same worries about vandalism as we do today. The idea of equipment that can me moved to aid maintenance also means that the same movement could be carried out by un-authorised people (i.e. vandals) and so the original simple system has been complicated by further detection requirements. It also means that simple maintenance needs a possession and that under various lifting regulations; the lifting apparatus has to be checked or replaced at regular intervals. Nevertheless the idea certainly helps sighting of signals, not sure of the economic advantages!
some of their safety material. Finally I must thank all of my friends, past and present, within the railway industry who have helped me with my career that now spans 48 years both in the UK and abroad. I have been lucky to have observed the interface between signalling and the driver throughout my career, and I feel that it has made me a better signal engineer. Others might not agree! Thanks should also be given to The Severn Valley Railway and The Great Cockcrow Railway. Although they are not main line railways they re-kindled the interest of observing and practicing the driver’s point of view from a steam locomotive with semaphore signalling.
REFERENCES 1
Presidential address by J Francis, April 2006: “Time Zero.”
2
SPADRAM is the official name for a Rail Industry National Focus Group that debates, records and issues advice on SPADS. It promulgates best practice for the training of Drivers and other railwaymen concerned with the need to reduce SPADs.
10 IRSE Proceedings 1913 et al. Also “50 years of Railway Signalling” by O. S. Nock. Published by the Institution 1962. Distributed by Ian Allan Publishing.
HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE DRIVER? – THE SEQUEL
41
Discussion The discussion was opened by K. Burrage (IRSE) who noted that he was present when the first paper had been presented and there were a number of thought-provoking ideas raised at that time. He congratulated the speaker for another excellent, thought-provoking paper, noting that he could always be relied upon to prompt IRSE members to think more deeply about technology and the service we provide. His forthright contributions to the London discussions will be missed when he emigrates to Australia; the UK’s loss is the Australian’s gain and no doubt the speaker will contribute to their discussions and he wished him all the best. He then asked the speaker, besides having an ATP fitted mainline railway in the UK, what one other thing did he wish had been done following the presentation of his first paper or hoped would follow the presentation of this, the sequel? A. Howker explained that ATP was the driving force behind his first paper, and that hadn’t changed, but if we could have done something else besides, not in place of but alongside, he believed that we should have speed signalling in Britain. We have grown-up with 150 years of directional signalling, which has served us well until, probably after the 2nd World War when train speeds increased. We have now complicated directional signalling, especially at junctions with speed information, control and principles, to try and get a driver through a junction at the right speed and we either slow him down too much or concentrate on getting the junction speed correct forgetting about the red signal around the corner. Speed signalling with numerical indicators, as used in Switzerland, Holland and Germany, is very clear compared to the previously trialled 1930’s LMS system with its multitude of aspects indicating the permissible speed; if geographical (directional) information is still required, he suggested providing an “arrow” style indicator. The standard 4-aspect sequence could still be retained as an indicative “distance-to-go” system; it gives three-blocks of information; speed need only be indicated where the driver must not travel at line-speed and here a numerical indicator could be provided on the signal. If we can’t have ATP now, perhaps we should provide speed signalling; ultimately we still provide a red aspect which we have to make sure the driver stops at. P. Bassett (Independent Consultant) commented that having read the paper, he was both elated and saddened; elated because it has captured everything drivers have complained about for some time, but saddened as to who will continue supporting the drivers’ cause. He noted that the paper referred to the introduction of “flashing yellows” in the UK, which was a half-hearted attempt to tell a driver to slow down. Since then various working groups have tried to introduce speed signalling into the UK, noting that the French have adopted some elements of directional information into their speed signalling, whereas here these efforts have been thwarted by human factors specialists who have failed to understand what we
are trying to achieve. He asked if the speaker supported this viewpoint or had an alternative. A. Howker replied that he was unable to answer specifically; there is always a time and a place to take a scientific approach to what jobs consist of by bringing in specialists who analyse how people behave and then apply this to a driver or signalman but the real issue is whether we allow them to dictate what we actually do. P. Wiltshire (Past President) congratulated the speaker on his fine paper and his useful contribution to the signalling record. He confirmed that all the work he had been involved in, following the Ladbroke Grove accident including talking to drivers and looking at signal sighting issues, endorsed the conclusions the paper draws. He also questioned if it is worth expending energy on altering lineside signals when we should be devoting our efforts, both politically and financially, to getting signals into the cab and extolling the advantages of doing this. He observed that around the time of the 1st World War it was then stated, rather optimistically, that the technology was available to do this but in the 21st century we know we have the ability to do so. A. Howker agreed with this; the paper states we should have cab-signalling with ATP. Other networks around the world have these systems but he acknowledged that to go straight to cab-signalling is a step-too-far and we need to progress via ATP, probably with speed signalling because eventually cab-signalling with ATP is all about speed. The real difficulty is getting the money to even get ATP; cabsignalling could just provide speed information. The information to drive the train should be in the cab and in this day and age he questioned whether we really should be reliant on lighting a “coloured bulb on the end of a stick”. It is not the best way to pass on information but it’s all we’ve got at the moment so providing ATP would help. J. Francis (President) commented that he remembers various cab rides in adverse weather conditions but none more so than travelling down the Thames Valley at 125 m.p.h. in thick fog and seeing the dim green glow of the signal shortly after receiving the AWS bell – that is today’s railway. P. Van Der Mark (FGW) explained that in his role in delay attribution he had noticed an increasing number of reports from drivers relating to TPWS interventions that were found to be allied to the cancellation of AWS warnings. Investigations eventually revealed that the time to respond to the AWS warning had been reduced from three to two seconds but no advice of this had been forwarded to the train operators; this illustrates the importance of advising the end-user. A. Fisher (Bombardier) explained that there were problems dealing with approach speeds with trains under ATP control when entering platforms and being criticized for providing systems that “creep” trains under these circumstances; the algorithms used have to ensure that if the driver accelerates halfway down the platform the train can still stop at
42
HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE DRIVER? – THE SEQUEL
the red signal. He asked for the speakers’ advice on how the policy could be changed, noting that it is unlikely a driver would accelerate in the way described, but we have to design for worst-case and he wondered what the way forward is to get a reasonable spread of risk and safety that delivers the operational requirements; ATO is another price to pay for what you want. A. Howker noted that metro-systems meet this to a certain extent and felt that a system should be able to be designed to prevent a driver accelerating such that the train would not be able to stop in time. The way forward, for which technology does exist, is to have a decent level of ATP so that no release speed is required and it should not be possible to exceed the envelope of the braking curve to ensure stopping at a certain point. Until then drivers will behave cautiously, as is evidenced by the driving techniques practised now where, as an example, the introduction of ATP at Reading prevented the “smart” braking for a platform stop. He still believed it shouldn’t be too difficult to translate the metrosystems on to the main line. D. McKeown (Independent Consultant) observed that people are happy to get on a coach with a driver who has no real route knowledge and referred to closing the control loop mentioned by the speaker but who is in the control loop? We have the Operators and their Rule Book and, in the future with in-cab signalling, the T&RS will be involved – three functional players in the loop. He believed that the speaker was a crossover-point but what should we be doing practically to solve the problem? A. Howker stated that the obvious path was that those who produce scheme plans should be tested on their route knowledge; at present the Operators have this and we rely totally on a drivers’ route knowledge, a concept that is difficult to understand. Driving a road vehicle is totally different using a map, possibly a SATNAV and road signs, but road vehicles are steerable and can generally stop in a short distance so route knowledge is not so necessary. Route knowledge is a very intangible thing and difficult to “test” but, as an example, a few years ago at a Mutual Improvement Class at Preston, a question was asked “describe the form, position and name of all signals on the Down Line between Preston and Carlisle” – this being in the days of semaphore signals and Colour Light Intermediate Block Signals over a distance of 90 miles. The respondent did so accurately; a real demonstration of route knowledge and it is interesting to note that no papers have ever been presented on the subject. He explained that he was unsure how this knowledge is gained and tested for at present within the Train Operating Companies, although he is aware that some companies do produce various types of guidance books. It was probably easier when there were more signal boxes and recognisable distant, home and starting signals, as compared to a constant succession of auto-plated colour light signals showing green. The answer of how we interface with the driver should be to provide ATP and in-cab signalling together with a SAT-NAV, so you know exactly where you are, and a timetable but, clearly no one group can independently look after this control loop.
J. Francis (President) pointed out that whilst the Rule Book describes what the signal aspects mean, there is nothing to actually instruct a driver to stop at a red aspect! A. Cooksey (ex-HMRI) explained that at the time of the original paper, he was writing a recommendation to put in ATP nationwide, Mr. Burrage was attempting to install two (ATP) pilot schemes that became moribund, too complex, over expensive and withered away. He admitted that he drafted the original TPWS regulations but, what made it so complicated and expensive; the industry. Who has made the next generation of ATP so expensive; the industry. He wondered how we break the cycle of the industry being self-defeating by making things so complicated and unaffordable and, for the record, he agreed with everything said by the speaker. A. Howker questioned who the “industry” is; users, providers, manufacturers or statutory bodies? It had been easier to answer this question in the past because the “industry” did what the Chief S&T Engineer of BR told them – what he said went. In the 1930’s, when a lot of our signalling was introduced, it was the same and this very institute was formed by the chiefs of the day getting together and setting the standards between them. Where are the chiefs today? “Industry”, the end-user, the main line organisation, decides what they want to do in the way they apply signalling; they might wish to install ATP but that is a political decision because they need the money to do so; but day-to-day use of signalling and principles are not set by the manufacturers or those that provide it but by the end-user. Where are the chiefs of our railway who knew what they wanted and knew how to use what they were going to get and knew how to apply it? Whilst this seems unfair to those who work for the main line railway today, the “industry” does seem frightened to do anything that just may come back in the shape of a court case so decisions are made by committee in the belief that ten individuals wouldn’t be put in the dock! Twenty to thirty years ago the Chief made a decision and was prepared to stand up for it whilst also knowing his budgetary constraints. People are frightened to make decisions in case things don’t work out in the future so rather than install a simple ATP it is made more complicated. An example of this was RETB, which didn’t even need power except for the radio transmitters, but ended up with point detection and indicators complicating what could have been a simple system. Additionally, rather than introduce a recognised train-order system, because the drivers could still have mis-read the cab display a fail-safe drivers’ display was developed which further complicated the system. R. Ford (Modern Railways) stated that he would shortly miss one of his informed sources! Commenting on route knowledge he noted that at a recent air show, a paper copy of the “plate” for landing at the airfield was clearly displayed in a number of aircraft present! As for ATP, he believed that it was unaffordable; the railway soaks up £5billion/year to the end of this control period and £2billion has just been committed over the next 8
HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE DRIVER? – THE SEQUEL
years to re-signalling schemes. He then questioned the speaker on radio, having suggested the use of a simplified ERTMS to replace RETB and the apparent inability of the driver and signalman to communicate properly and safely via radio; if this can be done, which it can and should be, why can’t we make more use of radio? A. Howker clarified that he never actually supported the replacement of RETB with ERTMS but we have spent a great deal of money in trying to replace RETB, but haven’t succeeded yet, so it is obviously going to cost a great deal of money. He admitted that he had not been a supporter for ETCS, he just wants ATP, and it seemed logical to ride on the back of money being spent developing a working European standard. ETCS should be affordable and he would personally replace RETB by putting a radio in every train cab and providing an American Train Order system; something we should have done in the first place! With radio, he did make the point in the paper about a driver between Stafford and Crewe having to consider walking to Stoke-on-Trent, but stated we should be making more use of mobile phones, which most drivers carry, and he has no problem with that, especially if used correctly; personal experience suggests that
43
drivers do follow the correct communication protocols. P. Bassett (Independent Consultant) mentioned the SR AWS system that had been trialled on the Southern Region but was not developed further. Returning to the issue of route knowledge, he explained that when the French Eurostar drivers started learning on the UK “classic” lines, they were horrified by the amount of information that they had to memorise and their view was that as the professional signal readers, if taught how to obey the signal displayed, provided it is presented in a consistent manner and form, then the need for route knowledge would be reduced. He also explained that route knowledge books are tools used to initially give the driver that knowledge and are then used as back-up documents that can be referred to if presented with an infrequently used move. J. Francis (IRSE President) thanked A. Howker for his stimulating paper and the good debate, interesting questions and comments that followed. He also hoped that somebody would pick up the baton on behalf of the driver in the future and come forward in the next decade or two and present “Have We Forgotten The Driver – 3”. Finally, he wished Tony a long and happy retirement in Melbourne.
44
Technical Meeting of the Institution held at
1 Birdcage Walk, London Tuesday 14th November 2006 The President, Mr. J Francis, in the chair. 88 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr. K Walter, seconded by Mr. M Tyrell and carried that the Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 11 October 2006 be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a correct record. Mr D McKeown had apologised for his absence. There were no members admitting to being present at their first meeting. The Chairman then introduced Mr Alan Mackie, formerly of BR Operations, by saying that the last paper to be presented at the Institution purely on operating practices was in 1934 and he considered that 72 years later, it was opportune to review the situation. He was very pleased to invite Mr Mackie to present his paper entitled Advances in Signalling Technology and their Influence on Operating Rules. Mr Mackie started by asking the rhetorical question whether signalling technology led the the production of operating rules or whether technology evolved in response to operating requirements. He went on to outline the history of operating rules based around earlier generations of signalling systems, the evolution of what was once a standard and single pocket-size volume into today’s multi-volume personalised rule books, the impact of operational experience and accidents, the evolution of train detection technology, the increased importance of telecommunications in operating practice particularly at times of disruption, and finished by giving his views on the need to reduce the number of rules and take advantage of what technology can provide by way of back up systems during possessions or when the main signalling systems are not available. Following the presentation, the discussion was opened by Mr John Francis, President. Messrs Mike Tyrell; Chris Thompson; John Francis, President; Derek Hotchkiss, Atkins; Julian Holmes; David Stirling; Peter Scott, Network Rail; Graeme Christmas, Network Rail; Andrew Simmons, Network Rail; Trevor Foulkes, Network Rail and Russell Maiden, Severn Valley Railway all took part in the discussion. The presenter dealt with the questions comprehensively and the President then proposed a vote of thanks presenting the speaker with the commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper. The Chairman thanked members for their attendance and their questions. Mr Francis then made announcements of forthcoming events and closed the meeting at 1950 by announcing that the next meeting in London would be held on the 13 December 2006.
Advances in Signalling Technology and their influence on Operating Rules Alan Mackie1 INTRODUCTION Does signalling technology lead the production of operating rules and practices, or does signalling technology evolve in response to the demands and needs of the operator? This is a question which is not easily answered and a review of what has gone before does little to assist in reaching a firm conclusion.
HISTORY: WHAT HAS GONE BEFORE It is certain that, from the dawn of the Railway Age, there were operating rules before there was any semblance of signalling to control the movement of trains. The safety of trains depended solely on observance of these rules, which invariably were simple and easily understood. They had to be, as in many cases the users had little education and in many cases could not read or write. However as railway technology progressed and matured and the control of train movements became more and more dependent on the signalling technology of the times, most railway companies developed Rule Books which laid down instructions as to how trains should be operated. There is ample evidence of the 1 Formerly with BR Operations
existence in the 1840s of Rule Books in a form that we would recognise today. Initially there was no block system, as the technology did not exist to provide one. Trains were controlled by the Time Interval system, a second train being detained from following the previous train until a specified time had elapsed. Many staff in the early days could not read a watch, and so one of the earliest pieces of signalling equipment to be produced was the hour glass. This theme could be found later in the development of block instruments, some types of which gave their indications by mimicking the outdoor semaphore signals rather than by the use of needle indicators and text labels. The dangers of each railway having its own form of rule book, particularly when there was interworking, were recognised at an early stage. Between 1862 and 1884 a number of committees were set up and examined the need for standardisation. This resulted in the Railway Clearing House producing a standard Rule Book in 1876, and it was eventually adopted by all the companies in the UK. A standard block telegraph code was adopted at the same time. Local variations were then published in the Sectional Appendices or in special “working over” books, a practice that persisted until the end of the last
ADVANCES IN SIGNALLING TECHNOLOGY AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON OPERATING RULES
45
A major change implemented at the same time was the abandonment of the practice of issuing amendments in the form of perforated, tear-off gummed strips of paper - which, if the truth be known, many staff did not insert in their books. The issue of amendments was now by means of replacement pages. This was facilitated in the new books by each page being supplied with two holes punched down the left hand edge. Through each one passed a nut and bolt, supplied with the vinyl cover. In this way the operators were made to face up to an involvement with technology. Subsequently this was superseded by putting the pages in A5 ring binders, a practice which continues to this day.
THE CURRENT RULE BOOK
century. The grouping of the myriad private companies into the “Big Four” in 1923 simplified the process, although each of the four companies issued its own version of an otherwise more or less similar publication. The book was in a format which enabled it to be easily carried around and to fit into one’s pocket (see Figure 1), which certainly cannot be said of today’s publications (see Figure 2). The rules themselves were presented mainly in text form during this period, with very few sketches or drawings. The principal information which was presented in sketch form was: a)
the indications given by fixed signals, both semaphore and colour light;
b)
the various hand signals used by trainmen and shunters to control shunting operations.
One other notable exception was the inclusion of a sketch detailing the arrangements for single line working over a double line railway, which carried on until the present day. In all these rule books, the rules were written for general consumption by all those involved in applying them and complying with them. The content of a rule affecting a signal technician carrying out a disconnection, for example, was written in such a way that it also contained the actions required of the signaller, hand signaller and train driver.
PERSONALISATION During 1972, in a radical change in presentation, the rules were personalised. All the activities which were required of a particular discipline were concentrated into one booklet. If a balancing instruction was necessary for another discipline it would be contained in that person’s booklet. A small number of individuals, principally supervisors, managers and some office staff, were issued with multiple booklets, or in some cases the full set. In some respects much is lost in the adoption of this compartmentalised approach, in particular in the relationship between the signal technician and the signaller, and the benefits of disciplines understanding each others’ activities are diluted.
The practice of personalisation has now been replaced by the concept of activity based modules. The Rule Book is now a Railway Group Standard (GE/RT8000). Modules are issued solely on the needs of the individual, determined by the duties of the post held. This practice recognises that individuals may carry out the duties of what were previously a number of different posts. For instance some of the train operating companies in the freight business have members of their operating staff who, in the course of a single turn of duty, will act as a shunter, rolling stock technician, loading supervisor and train preparer. The text of the current Rule Book has been written in a form that complies with the standards set by the Plain English Campaign. Each issue now carries that organisation’s Crystal Mark, denoting its approval of clarity. The Rule Book is as much an informative publication as a prescriptive one. It now contains many three-dimensional drawings to illustrate the issues contained in the accompanying text clearly. However the inclusion of instructions to cover many new developments and issues arising from operational experience, from accidents and incidents and from the emergence of new technology and changes in operational practice have swollen the size of the “book” to three large volumes. They certainly do not fit into the pocket (see Figure 2.). The rules have been de-personalised, but partial personalisation has been achieved in some respects
46
ADVANCES IN SIGNALLING TECHNOLOGY AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON OPERATING RULES
by restricting issue of individual modules to particular disciplines. Updating is achieved by reissue of complete modules as necessary. In the past year however the need for speed in introducing changes has led to the issue on a twice yearly basis of a new module “AM.” This contains amendments that were previously published in the four-weekly Periodic Operating Notice (PON), and also amendments appearing for the first time. The contents of this module are then republished in each issue until sufficient amendments accumulate to make reissue of the entire module worthwhile. In parallel with these changes a document has been produced which has particular significance for all signal engineering staff of all disciplines, as well as any member other of the industry who requires to go on the track. This is the Personal Track Safety Handbook (see Figure 3), which collates all those parts of the Rule Book affecting personal safety on the track into one document.
EVOLUTION OF THE RULE BOOK In the past changes to the Rule Book originated from two principal sources, namely changes in technology and operational experience. Taking technology first, there have been many changes over the years, and some of the most significant took place in the latter part of the 19th century when railways were very much in the evolution stage. Many of these rules have stood the course of time, and are well-remembered by staff at all levels. As a typical example, the introduction of the track circuit in the late 1890s resulted in the publication of major changes as to how a train detained on a running line should be protected. The now famous Rule 55, with its exemption when the line on which the detained train stands is equipped with a track circuit, is well known throughout by everyone, despite changes to nomenclature.
Technology has provided means of forcing the operator to comply with the rules and instructions of the day. Taken at a basic level, interlocking simply forces compliance with common sense, in that it makes sure that any route which is set does not conflict with any other route which might also be set at the same time. Rules developed into sets of instructions which were thought to be safe to use, given the technology of the time at which they were developed. In earlier times there was little or no thought given to risk, and the rules simply tried to guard against human failing. The Rule Book contained many instances of “black holes,” simply because technology was not available to guard against all the situations which were likely to arise. Under the Time Interval system, as already noted, trains were not allowed to proceed from a station until a fixed time had elapsed from the departure of the previous train. If a train was detained for any reason in mid-section, the rule book laid down instructions as to what protective measures should be taken by the train crew and when to prevent a rearend collision with the following train. From the 1840s, the advent of telegraphy made absolute block working possible and it became possible to prove that a block section was clear before a train was admitted to it. This innovation was probably the first of many which resulted in a massive change in the rule book, because it created a whole swathe of operating regulations which applied to signallers. Little thought was given to standardisation at that time. Each railway company had its own way of working the new block system. Many adopted “open” block working, whereby the block instruments showed “Line Clear” after a train had cleared the section and the fixed signals normally stood at “Clear” unless required to protect an obstruction. The dangers of this philosophy were highlighted by the accident at Abbots Ripton in 1876, after which the current practice for semaphore signalling of maintaining signals at Danger became the norm. Thus we see experience following accidents starting to drive the Rule Book, as well as developments in technology.
OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE Accidents have always been a source of new rules and changes to existing rules, just as they have often led to changes in signalling technology. A classic failure by signallers was to forget the presence of a train that had stopped on a running line. At first this was countered by the simple expedient of lever collars, and the rules were amended to require their use. However this was not foolproof. A number of accidents involving multiple fatalities, notably the collisions at Norton Fitzwarren (1890), Hawes Junction / Garsdale (1910), Quintinshill (1915) and St. Bedes Junction (also 1915), stemmed from indiscipline in carrying out the rules by signallers or train crews. Meanwhile however, signalling technology had developed the track circuit and this, combined with electric locking on signal levers, could enforce the application of the rules effectively and guard against errors. The track circuit was developed around the end
ADVANCES IN SIGNALLING TECHNOLOGY AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON OPERATING RULES
of the 19th century. Its introduction was slow and many companies were deterred by the high costs involved, but these significant accidents gave an impetus to its widespread use. While providing greater protection to trains stopped on running lines, the track circuit required changes to the Rule Book to absolve the train crew from compliance with other parts of the rule (the famous Rule 55). This is an interesting case. The introduction of track circuits was not universal, and is still not even today. The additional rules were in some senses a derogation of the need to carry out the core rule. The one trackside sign which practically all railwaymen have been very familiar with for most of the last century is undoubtedly the “diamond” sign (see Figure 4.), which indicates the presence of track circuiting and absolves the train crew from the need to go to the signal box to remind the signaller of the presence of their train. Developments in telecommunications technology in the years between the wars, which made the provision of signal post telephones practical, produced further derogations. Nowadays practically every train carries a radio of some sort in the driving cab, and it is possible for the driver to speak to the signaller without leaving the driving seat, at the price of even more printed instructions in the Rule Book.
AUTOMATIC SIGNALS The advent of continuous track circuiting made possible the provision of automatic signals. Up to the 1950s (on main line railways at least) this was generally small scale, being confined to plain track sections between conventional signal boxes controlling local mechanical interlockings. Invariably these installations were covered by just a few clauses in the Rule Book, primarily aimed at trainmen, which referred simply to automatic signals, accompanied by local, bespoke instructions to the signallers.
47
On the surface, the operator had been presented with the technology by the signal engineer and was simply left to go ahead and produce instructions around it. There was no generic name given to the system. The term “Track Circuit Block” did not exist until the 1960s. Various descriptions such as “Automatic Signalling,” “Train Describer Working” and “Track Circuited” were in use until then. Interestingly there was little or no guidance given to the signallers about what to do if a failure of any magnitude occurred, which was a possibility then as it is now with centralised power supplies. Here was a classic case of technology leading the rules. From what historical information exists it appears that neither the signal engineers nor the operators had given much consideration in the early days, as the use of automatic signalling was slowly extended, to the need to identify the trains in the automatic sections. The displacement of the traditional block indicators as the means of indicating block section occupation at first ignored the fact that routeing indications were often transmitted over the block system as well, and that some form of replacement was needed. In due course though technology produced various forms of train describer.
NEW FORMS OF TRAIN DETECTION Surprisingly, the development of other forms of train detection, most notably axle counters, in recent times has replicated this situation. Initially there were no specific instructions related to axle counters. At first there was no detailed involvement of the signaller in the resetting process following a miscount. Only in the last few years, after debate resulting from a number of incidents, have comprehensive instructions been put in place, both in the Rule Book
48
ADVANCES IN SIGNALLING TECHNOLOGY AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON OPERATING RULES
and elsewhere. This has also resulted in the Group Standards containing the detailed specification for train detection being considerably enhanced. This is a classic case where the bringing together of signalling and telecommunications technology, without sufficient in-depth debate with the end users of that technology, has left gaps in the security of the system.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS Innovation in telecommunications has also had a significant effect on the operating rule book. The more general provision of lineside telephones led to significant changes in a variety of rules initially, particularly in allowing forms to be dictated which previously had to be delivered in person. This also led to a number of relaxations to the train protection rules, leading to more efficient practices in dealing with such things as train failures. More recently the general introduction of train radio systems has resulted in further changes to operating practices, making the continued widespread provision of lineside telephones questionable. A new side issue is increased dependence on verbal messages leading to the need for improved communication discipline, and a desire to have everyone concerned conform to standards seen in the aviation industry. At the same time voice recording technology, introduced initially to assist with incident investigation, has rapidly developed into a tool to monitor adherence to communications standards and protocols, thus improving disciplines and adherence to the rules.
THE FUTURE: WHERE WE NEED TO GO There are two principal issues which the industry needs to address. (a) We need to reduce the number and amount of rules, by simplification. (b) We need to devise technology to eliminate the traditional manpower orientated practices that are used when the normal signalling is unavailable for any reason. The current rules have seen considerable expansion over recent years, much of it due to a desire to cater for every eventuality, no matter how small the risk. Indeed there are large swathes of instructions in certain sections of the Rule Book which many railway staff will go through their entire careers without ever needing to implement. Much of the Rule Book, both in the past and today, is devoted to what should be done when the system breaks down. Almost always, any fault in a signalling system, however small, results in the system protecting itself to some degree as it fails in a predictable way. In order to keep traffic moving, instructions are provided for the operating staff (and sometimes the system technicians), and they usually result in manual systems being used to override the signalling in some way. The safety role is then transferred from a foolproof, fixed system to the vagaries of fallible humans.
I have often said, particularly to new entrant trainee signallers, that the most dangerous pieces of equipment to use in any signal box are the yellow and green flags, and the telephones. Their use introduces considerable scope for error, particularly if messages are not passed between individuals in a formal manner. As a result the rigid principle that the signalling system protects itself by preventing what is usually a perfectly functioning piece of equipment from operating because of a failure elsewhere in the system brings emergency rules into play, with a reduced level of safety and increased risk of error. The risk of errors and misunderstanding has been reduced by the introduction of customised forms, for use both by the signal technician and the signaller, to agree and record their proposed actions and to record agreed working arrangements. In practice though the form has become cumbersome. There is scope for the evolution of some kind of interactive electronic medium which can be plugged in at the lineside to deal with these transactions between signallers and signal technicians. Recently this has been partly recognised in some areas, and systems have been modified to recognise the fact. In practice though the amount of instructional text in the Rule Book seldom diminishes. A typical example is the inclusion of Normal Proving controls for the distant signal in block circuitry. Previously failure of a distant signal to go to the “ON” position properly, which is indicated to the signaller by its arm repeater, simply caused a partial block failure, preventing the block instrument being set to “Line Clear”. The signaller was then required to comply with Block Regulation 25. Part of this process required verbal dialogue between the signaller and the drivers of every individual train entering the section where the failure had taken place, because the inability of the accepting signaller to place the block instrument to “Line Clear” locked the section signal at Danger (correctly). Now, where an override is provided, the signaller has additional instructions to comply with, over and above Block Regulation 25.
ENGINEERING POSSESSIONS One area where a considerable improvement in efficiency could be made through the application of signalling technology while reducing the dependence on written rules at the same time is engineering possession protection. It is unbelievable in the 21st century that in the UK this still depends heavily upon hand signallers placing stop signs and detonators on the track, upon signallers, Persons In Charge Of Possessions (PICOPs) and hand signallers or block road men exchanging verbal information, and upon manual protection in the signal box or control centre. In order to admit a train or an engineering machine to the possession these protective measures must be lifted and then replaced again (see Figure 5.). This is timeconsuming and labour-intensive, and occasionally leads to incidents through non-compliance with the rules or failure in communication.
ADVANCES IN SIGNALLING TECHNOLOGY AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON OPERATING RULES
49
Given that this is largely due to high equipment costs, the industry really needs to address how it can provide a cheap and effective equipment-based system which would eliminate, or substantially reduce, the current dependence on manpower and traditional practices.
The arrival in South-Eastern England of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) has shown that better systems provided by signalling technology are already available. They are a prime example of where well thought-out operating practice, translated into signalling technology, can make substantial reductions in the amount of Rule Book required while at the same time producing an efficient and effective system. The system is based upon SNCF practice. Operators and signal engineers have devised a system jointly. The technology and operating instructions have been conceived in parallel, and best practice has been achieved. Other European railways have similar systems in operation. Until recently there has been only limited provision of lockout systems in the UK, usually for staff protection. Even where they are provided, the operating instructions are usually not configured to allow a dual role which would allow the lockout to be used for engineering possession purposes. This is essentially what the CTRL system does, with considerable effect. An interesting feature of the system is the reduction of paperwork required, in comparison with the similar rules on the classic railway, by the use of on-screen forms compiled by remote input by the person in charge of the possession.
SINGLE LINE WORKING Single Line Working still features largely in the current Rule Book and is a practice that receives hardly any assistance from signalling technology. As a result it is too labour-intensive, relying on hand signallers, verbal communications and written forms. Whilst some steps forward have been taken by the introduction of bi-directional signalling including Simplified Bi-Directional Signalling (SIMBIDS), little has been done to reduce the dependence on traditional written rules.
There are great benefits to be gained from having the ability to respond quickly to operating incidents, get traffic moving again quickly and reduce consequential delays. This is an area where a joint approach to rules and the provision of technology can bear fruit. ERTMS/ETCS will provide these benefits in due course, but for much of our current network it is a long way off.
INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT However these innovations, no matter how desirable, do not answer the basic problem. For operating rules to be meaningful, their formulation needs to be addressed as an integral part of the development of new technologies and operating practices. A recent development, the formation by the Rail Safety and Standards Board of System Interface Committees, should lead to better interaction between systems. This in turn should lead to earlier consideration of rules and operating instructions. In an ideal world, systems and operating instructions would be considered as an entity, and developed together at the same time. This should lead to the creation of systems which are exactly suited to their intended purpose and which have simple operating instructions and operating rules. System faults and failures should be dealt with by degraded mode operation as far as possible, with as little reliance on rules as possible. Where printed rules must be brought into play, there is much scope in modern installations for them to be presented interactively to the Signaller in electronic form, and for compliance to be checked at every step of implementation. Then we might see a reduction in the size of the Rule Book. All of these aims should result in signalling systems which are easy to operate, easy to train operators on, and which have as few rules as possible associated with them. I acknowledge the assistance provided by Simon Lowe and David Elvy in preparing this paper.
50
ADVANCES IN SIGNALLING TECHNOLOGY AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON OPERATING RULES
Discussion The discussion was opened by J. Francis (President) who thanked the speaker for his presentation, airing a long overdue look at the relationship between the rules and the equipment provided by the engineer. He also commented that it is strange that some rules are still remembered by their old references, such as “Rule 55” despite the name having changed 34 years ago! He wondered if the Rule Book drives technology or does the technology write the rules and observed that the speaker had given the institution a clear message that technology must be devised to eliminate manpower, eliminate those man-power oriented practices where the technology does not either provide the embedded rules or where normal signalling is unavailable; he also observed that the telephone could be a dangerous object! He then questioned the speaker on the use of paper-based forms and referred to the abandonment of the four “Wrong-Line Working” forms in 1972 and why they had not been re-instated in the form conscious Rule Book of today. A. Mackie advised that of the four forms, the most used was the Signalman to Driver form and he felt that the improved communications of today allow the Signalman to clearly advise the Driver of how far the wrong direction movement could proceed. He was unaware of any incidents that that had occurred from misunderstandings as a result of not using the forms. The other three forms had not generally been used; the Guard to Driver form was only used if there had been an accidental division of the train and were probably used more prior to the introduction of continuously-braked freight trains. In today’s railway, with the single-manning of freight trains, this rendered that particular form obsolete anyhow; an example of technological improvements allowing paper forms to be abandoned. M. Tyrrell (Telecommunication Consultant) took issue with the statement that telephones, in themselves, could be dangerous but pointed out that it was the users who created the dangerous situations, such as was illustrated in figure 5 of the paper. A. Mackie agreed that it was the use of telephones that was dangerous and explained that one of the most common errors in possession practices today is in positional errors; putting out markers on the wrong line. He hoped that the trackman in the picture referred to would have followed the correct protocol to ensure his safety whilst setting up his work-site. He also referred to the frustration of Signalmen who, potentially unaware of what is happening on the ground, are then faced with somebody hurriedly trying to explain what is going on. He related the story of an incident where the driver of a failed train did not communicate with the Signalman who, when contacted by the driver of the following train, assumed it was the failed train calling him and authorized the driver to pass the protecting signal at danger resulting in a collision with fatal consequences. C. Thompson (retired) also expressed his doubts about having the optimal balance between
technology and procedure. He felt that this was possibly because we don’t cost the effect of rules, the training required, the necessity to refresh staff on them or the need to undertake compliance checks. With increasing complexity he felt that it was time that we had a global view on the cost of compliance such that we actually could determine the cost and even reduce it. One side-effect might be that this reduces the number of operators, or even engineers, and he asked the speaker how he thought we might achieve this more optimal arrangement. A. Mackie thought that it would be quite difficult although, as mentioned in the paper, he felt that two areas in which we could reduce the dependence on written rules were in engineering possessions and in times of degraded signalling noting that, in general terms, the large majority of operating staff are the Signalmen themselves and so there is not a great deal of savings to be made there. The greatest savings would probably come from more efficient management of incidents and costing the effect of compliance to rules in delay minutes; this would enable better support for a business case to develop more suitable solutions. J. Francis (President) referred to the continuing use of the detonator and asked the speaker if he thought there may be something better that could be utilized instead. A. Mackie did not think their use would continue into the ERTMS era, the use of cab-signalling negating the need for such devices. CTRL trains do not carry them and the French have also abandoned their version. Introduction of ERTMS/ETCS will result in a huge upheaval to the Rule Book and with interoperability, the UK and European Rule Books should look very similar in the future. C. Porter (IRSE) noted that in Europe there has been a tremendous amount of technological development undertaken to ensure interoperability of track and train-borne equipment and he asked if the Operators of the various railways have discussed the implementation of a common rule-set around which the equipment is, presumably, designed. A. Mackie replied that he had, unfortunately, seen no evidence of these rules coming together although he thought that with the emphasis on the technical interoperability, rules operability would follow. He also expressed some concerns over the spread of multi-system locomotives that have been bought by many open-access Operators throughout Europe as he believed that one of the most common types, the Siemens Class 189, had a 32-position rotary-switch just to determine the correct configuration of head and tail lights to suit each administration’s Rule Book. D. Hotchkiss (Severn Valley Railway [SVR]) explained that the SVR still utilises a 1950’s style Rule Book although in loose-leaf format. He then asked if, in modern Power Signal Boxes, it is too easy to implement Single Line Working taking into
ADVANCES IN SIGNALLING TECHNOLOGY AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON OPERATING RULES
account a collision that had occurred at Sutton Coldfield some years ago. A. Mackie admitted he was aware of the incident referred to and explained how subsequently there was a minor Rule Book amendment. He agreed it probably is too easy to implement Single Line Working but felt that some form of Simplified BiDirectional working would have avoided the incident totally. Previously, Signalmen’s Agents were required to be positioned at either end of the “Single Line” but rule changes had eliminated this requirement both as an economy measure and to allow for the implementation of Single Line Working far more efficiently following an incident. He pointed out that whilst the railway is generally very safe, we are susceptible to simple human errors that can result in incidents occurring. J. Holmes (Halcrow) explained that last year he had worked on a number of depot operating instructions and he asked the speaker if he thought that Operators Rule Books would incorporate this type of application. A. Mackie explained that modules in the current Rule Book do cover a certain amount of depot and associated staff protection systems where fixed equipment is fitted and these are now far more common than previously was the case where flags and lamps were relied upon. Compliance is also more likely when there is no requirement for staff to undertake dirty or menial tasks at unsocial hours, as was the case during the 1970’s; fixed equipment is far simpler, does not require a lot of written rules and is far more effective. D. Stirling (University of Reading) referred to the speaker’s wish to eliminate some of the more complex written rules that staff hardly ever use and wondered what happens during equipment failures when technology cannot supply the solution. A. Mackie believed that technology could supply the solution. Many European railways have degraded systems that allow train movements to be carried out under a “signalled” system, albeit with simplified protection and more of this would allow for the rules to be simplified. These systems can be backed up by simple instructions; degraded signals in Germany and Austria allow a route to be set with track circuits occupied, albeit with a reduction in flank protection requirements, but the move is undertaken at slow speed. There is still a rules element but this is far simpler. In France on the high-speed lines, trains are allowed to pass over a set of points that have lost detection provided that they have been observed to be in the correct position but here we would have to clip and scotch. He didn’t think that the Rule Book could be abandoned but the simpler the rules, the better, and the back-up systems, hopefully, will not make mistakes whereas eventually, a human will. P. Scott (Network Rail) thought that as Signal Engineers, we don’t help the Operators with their rules, especially when major failures occur, and the Operators can easily become overwhelmed during failure conditions. A. Mackie agreed that it is a two-way process; in the past Signal Engineers probably haven’t
51
consulted and briefed the Operators on what they might encounter, in the same way that some Operators do not have any understanding of how a modern signalling system operates, especially if an interlocking controlled by a remote control system fails, and how to react appropriately. He also felt that it was sensible for the Operators to have some understanding of how the signalling system does work should something go wrong. G. Christmas (Network Rail) asked if the use of axle counters would have been better handled by the creation of an “Axle Counter Block” rather than pretending it is still “Track Circuit Block”. A. Mackie did not think so although it would have been far more beneficial to both the Operators and Signal Engineers had they sat down before their introduction to discuss how to deal with failure scenarios, in particular handback procedures after miscounts. Comparison between the equipment and the rules in place when axle counters were first introduced and now, shows that they are totally different and it is obvious that neither the technical nor the operational discipline looked in detail at these instructions. He did, however, believe that axle counters were a good thing. A. Simmons (Network Rail) explained that BiDirectional Signalling is being looked at for secondary lines and various issues arise that require resolution by the industry as a whole such as: - what do you actually want in it? Is it enhanced Single Line Working? What speeds do you run at? Do we suppress AWS? and these need to be tackled by a joint Signal Engineer and Operator forum. There are also issues relating to level crossing controls but we do not spell out either the benefits or the costs for gold plating the railway as opposed to simply complying with the standards. A. Mackie believed that there are definitely some benefits with Bi-Directional controls on Automatic Half Barrier crossings saving the cost of a crossing keeper manning the level crossing when needed to operate it locally, for which there is a whole raft of instructions, with the penalty of enforcing a speed restriction for wrong direction moves. The ability to switch out controls on one of the two lines when Single Line Working is in force would be even better as possession of the other line still demands the use of a local operator. These are the sort of areas that would bring benefits if explored further. T. Foulkes (Network Rail) wondered if the costs of providing infallible degraded mode systems could be justified. A. Mackie reiterated that the obvious thing is a system that works 100% of the time but there will always be external factors that prevent this. At present the only fall-back is the Signalman and his rules with a reliance on drivers being either verbally told to proceed or by the authorization of a piece of paper. There is ample evidence from Europe that we can do better than this and the provision of degraded signalling will avoid most, if not all, of the Signalmen’s errors. It is easy to make a mistake with a route-setting chart but if that was presented as an electronic display and then cross-checked against
52
ADVANCES IN SIGNALLING TECHNOLOGY AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON OPERATING RULES
the actual point key positions, together with the presentation of a degraded mode signal to authorize the driver’s movement, this would ensure compliance. R. Maiden (Severn Valley Railway) asked how we can keep things simple; in the old days a lever collar sufficed to allow the technician to grease points but today various forms are needed to be completed to undertake the same task. A. Mackie considered that paperwork has evolved because of misunderstandings that have arisen, especially when staff are remote from one another, and this can also act as staff protection. He felt that some form of lock-out device was required to allow these simple maintenance tasks to go ahead quickly that would eliminate the need for a lot of the paperwork. Whilst this would be at a cost, it is the speakers’ preferred method. The picture taken on SNCF and used in the presentation illustrated this
method of working, in this case changing a point machine tail cable between trains! J. Francis (IRSE President) finally observed that whilst we have a good grasp of the safety concepts as S&T Engineers, we do not have sufficient familiarity with the contents of the Rule Book and are not always aware of the impact of what we do, or do not do. From scheme development through to faulting and maintenance, the Rule Book should provide the foundation for what we do and whilst developing new technology and introducing it to the railway, we must be careful to ensure that it either matches the rules in force or defines the rules for it. In the same way that we would not consider handing over the project until the application and maintenance tools were available, it should be the same for the rules of operation. He concluded by thanking the speaker for his paper and hoped that the subject would be aired again in less than 72 years time!!
53
Technical Meeting of the Institution held at
1 Birdcage Walk, London Wednesday 13th December 2006 The President, Mr. J Francis, in the chair. 100 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr. M Tyrell, seconded by Mr. D McKeown carried that the Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 14 November 2006 be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a correct record. Mr J Waller had apologised for his absence. Daniel Mark from Network Rail, a new member was introduced to the meeting with warm applause. The Chairman then introduced Mr Trevor Foulkes of Network Rail and invited him to present his paper entitled The Fixed Telecommunications Network – a Signal Engineer’s Guide. Mr Foulkes then described the implementation of the new robust telecommunications backbone network for Network Rail implementing fibre and copper cable links coupled with the implementation of new transmission systems to support the operational and business telecommunications needs of Network Rail. One of the main uses of the new network was to support the implementation of the GSM-R radio network and the forthcoming major signalling renewal schemes. He described the safety approval process used by the project and the current state of progress with implementation. During the presentation various samples of cable and equipment were circulated around the audience. Following the presentation, the discussion was opened by Mr Gary Simpson from CTRL. Messrs Clive Kessell (consultant), David McKeown (consultant), Colin Porter (Chief Executive), John Harmer (Westinghouse), Steve Hailes (Network Rail), Phil Hingley (Network Rail), John Francis (President), Neil Barnatt (Network Rail), Steve Muirhead (Network Rail), Colin Porter (again) and Robert Gardiner (Network Rail) all took part in the discussion. The final comment from Mr Burrage was that it was a “funny old world” when one member stated that a nationalised industry (British Rail) had been forced to privatise its telecommunications network (BRT) in the 1990s and then a semi-private company (Network Rail) had decided to build its own telecommunications network! The presenter dealt with the questions eloquently, ending with a plea for signal and telecommunications engineers to act together in the best interests of the railway and the President then proposed a vote of thanks presenting the speaker with the commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper. The Chairman thanked members for their attendance and their questions. Mr Francis then made announcements of forthcoming events and closed the meeting at 2000 by announcing that the next meeting in London would be held on the 10 January 2007 and wishing everyone best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.
The Fixed Telecommunications Network – a Signal Engineer’s Guide Trevor Foulkes MA CEng FIRST MIET1 In January 2004, Paul Jenkins presented a paper entitled, “Telecommunications–the Heart of the Signalling System.” This paper will be a step towards turning that vision into reality by explaining to the signalling community what the Fixed Telecommunications Network can provide and how new or existing signalling systems can interface into the network. This will make possible more cost effective solutions to the control and command of the railway. A discussion is also included on obtaining safety approvals.
Back in 2000 Railtrack was considering the best way to tackle the dual problems of aged and outdated radio systems and an aged and outdated telecommunications transmission and cable network. The choice for radio was obvious, to install GSM-R (Global Satellite Mobile – Railway), but for the other telecommunications aspects it was less clear. Thus the Fixed Telecommunications Network (FTN) project was set up. Initially the project considered three options: •
continue to buy services from the existing supplier;
•
buy services from a new telecoms supplier;
•
build and run our own network.
Following extensive business case work, internal and external reviews and the Company’s going into and out of railway administration, it was agreed that the best solution was to build a dedicated network, and funding was agreed by the Office of the Rail Regulator to do this. 1 The author is a Programme Engineering Manager with Network Rail
WHAT IS THE FTN? The Fixed Telecommunications Network (FTN) is illustrated by Figure 1 The main points to note are: •
for the first time a national telecommunications engineering control is established to monitor, configure and control both the FTN and the GSM-R networks;
•
the network supports all Network Rail’s telecommunications needs, from business phones and the wide area network through to level crossing telephones and signalling and traction power control circuits;
•
the network is configured in rings, so that disruptions to train services due to cable damage and equipment faults are reduced;
•
this network will also support the GSM-R network.
This system will thus provide modern, resilient and reliable telecommunications services for Network Rail. The project is primarily a renewal, and so it has been designed to support the existing applications that are in use today.
54
THE FIXED TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK – A SIGNAL ENGINEER’S GUIDE
The network has been designed, and is being implemented, to meet future needs in two ways. In the short to medium term, when a resignalling scheme is being planned the FTN and signal engineers work together to ensure that the part of FTN in the area meets the needs of the final layout and that the signalling scheme exploits the FTN. These types of schemes are called synergy schemes.
COPPER LAYER
In the longer term, the FTN has been designed to be flexible and scaleable, so that future changes to an area after the FTN has been installed can be accommodated.
The cable is of standard telecommunications construction and is made up of 10, 30 or 50 pairs of 0.63 mm or 0.9 mm diameter conductors, depending on the number of services in the section and the length of the section. A distribution cabinet is provided adjacent to each group of phones, relay room or other location where access is required to the network.
THE ENGINEERING SOLUTION The FTN is being designed, installed and integrated by a dedicated Network Rail project team. They are supported by about fifty companies who have been selected because their products and services are cost effective and meet the overall system design. The main equipment suppliers are shown in the following table.
THE CHALLENGE Existing signalling systems use many lineside cables, and this involves extensive investment in the copper cable and the protecting cable routes. Take for instance a typical section of plain line SSI route, as illustrated in Figure 2. As you will note there are many cables in a cable route. By using FTN it would be possible to reduce the number and thus save costs and time. Having discussed this with my signalling colleagues however I do not think there is one solution to this problem, and so it would be beneficial to go through the available FTN interfaces so that signalling designers and developers can understand what is available and how best to use it.
At the lowest level, copper cables are provided to enable analogue and low bandwidth services to be connected from along the railway line and taken back to the local access nodes. The copper cables run between the access nodes, with full terminations at each location where services are required. This allows easy access and testing.
In distribution cabinets the cable is terminated on Mondragon VX units, and in environmentally-controlled rooms and cabinets on Portasystem blocks. The Mondragon VX Modules (see Figure 4) provide a test and isolation point for each pair in the cable. The copper layer has been designed so that full signalling cable core-to-core tests could be undertaken on the cable when required. Advantages of copper layer Could provide power, say 1 amp; Easy to test; Similar skill set to signalling cables; Can support data up to 2 Mbit/s. Disadvantages of copper layer No alternative routeing; No intrinsic alarms; Easy to damage; Expensive; Need to control power levels; Need for immunisation.
NETWORK DESIGN The FTN is designed in layers, as shown in Figure 3. These layers provide the points of connection which can be used to pick up existing services, and where new systems could be connected. The available interfaces and the locations of the possible connection are described in detail below.
Area
Company
Transmission equipment and cabinets Alcatel The Telecom Engineering & Control
Network Rail Information
control and management systems
Management and
Fibre cable
Samsung
Alcatel
Copper cable
Prysmiam Cables
Relocatable buildings
Elliott
Cable and cable route installation
Various route contractors
Transmission equipment installation
Alan Dick & Co.
Jointing and cable terminations
Tyrone
Figure 3 – Network Layers
THE FIXED TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK – A SIGNAL ENGINEER’S GUIDE
Figure 1 – Overview of the FTN
Figure 2 – Typical SSI section
55
56
THE FIXED TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK – A SIGNAL ENGINEER’S GUIDE
Figure 4 – Mondragon VX modules
Examples of applications which can be supported today are:
to be supported, which is done by installing the appropriate tributary cards into the primary multiplex.
•
Signal post telephones (SPTs);
•
Level crossing telephones;
Such interfaces include:
•
local bearer circuits for time division multiplex (TDM) remote control;
•
exchange and subscriber interfaces, to support phone lines;
•
“Train Approaching” alarms;
•
•
hot axle-box detector (HABD) controls and alarms;
voice-frequency and Engineering & Maintenance interfaces, to support analogue modem circuits and also status alarms;
•
traction power control modems;
•
•
Long distance terminal (LDT) links for SolidState Interlocking (SSI).
64 kbit/s contra-directional interface, to support data including LDT links for SSI;
•
ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) “U” interface to support control terminals and some data applications;
•
64 kbits/s X24/X27 or V11, for higher speed data;
•
64 kbits/s V24/V28, for lower speed data.
However if the cable was considered as a signalling cable then it could also be used for: •
track circuit indications;
•
signal controls;
•
level crossing controls;
•
points controls.
With some development, light emitting diode (LED) signals, which only take very low levels of power, could be powered over the telecommunications cable, removing the need for 650 V power cables, and the control data could also be sent over the same pair. Then at each access node the control signals could be taken from these pairs and passed via the transmission equipment to the interlocking. PRIMARY LAYER Access nodes are provided at each GSM-R site and every large signal box. This means that they occur every six to eight kilometres along every line on average. To limit induced voltages into the lineside copper cables they are provided more frequently on a.c. electrified lines which do not have booster transformers and return conductors.
The primary multiplexers can be connected in rings to provide resilience to cable and equipment faults and damage. They can also be configured to allow multi-dropping of individual circuits to support polled applications such as SSI. ADVANTAGES OF PRIMARY LAYER Resilient (by providing re-routeing); Alarms and remote management Grooming facility; Interfaces to copper layer. DISADVANTAGES OF PRIMARY LAYER Requires power; Requires a cabinet; Bandwidth limited to 2 Mbit/s. Typical applications that can be supported today are:
The services on the copper layer can be extended into the primary layer at these access nodes, using primary multiplexers. These combine up to 30 timeslots into a 2 Mbit/s link.
•
train describers;
•
emergency alarms;
•
signal box to signal box circuits;
This layer provides a number of possible interfaces depending on the applications that require
•
TDM remote control systems;
•
traction power control and monitoring
THE FIXED TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK – A SIGNAL ENGINEER’S GUIDE
57
systems; •
condition monitoring systems;
•
telephones;
•
train running (TRUST) reporting;
•
fax machines.
Following discussions with colleagues at Alcatel, it is clear that their type AzLM axle counters use ISDN between the evaluator and the axle counter head. Therefore the heads could be connected via the FTN to the evaluator, saving cabling to the heads and allowing the evaluators to be located with the interlocking rather than near the sections. Moreover by placing the access nodes where they are required, long runs of signalling control cables could be removed and the multi-dropping capability of FTN used to combine the signals into one feed for the interlocking. This was done on the Chiltern Lines when they were resignalled in the early 1990s. Finally on branch lines the critical circuits can be selected (“groomed”), and resilience provided for them over a lower bandwidth public telephone link. ACCESS LAYER The access layer is provided by rings of synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH) equipment operating at synchronous transport module level 1 (STM-1), which is 155 Mbit/s. The SDH protocol allows the primary layer multiplexers to use the fibre. At each node links can be added in or dropped out without affecting the other traffic on the line. These add/drop multiplexers (ADMs) are co-located with the primary multiplexers and GSM-R base stations in each access node. Each ring can support up to thirty fully-protected 2 Mbit/s circuits, the equivalent of 900 telephone circuits. These rings are designed to support the operational traffic between a controlling signal box and the access nodes within its area of control. The rings are limited to 500 km to ensure railway service availability and to meet SSI timing constraints. Circuits would normally be routed in two groups with successive access nodes being routed clockwise and anti-clockwise around the ring back to the signal box. Protected routeing is provided to re-route circuits to maintain service in the event of damage or faults. Advantages of access layer Remote alarms and management; Automatic re-routeing; Provides high bandwidths. Disadvantages of access layer Access only at discrete sites; Connections need to be at 2 Mbit/s or above; Needs fibre-optic cable. Applications which connect into this layer include: • computer terminals at signal boxes and small offices; • links between telephone exchanges; • encoder / decoders (codecs) for level crossing pictures;
Figure 5 – The network diagram
•
links to base stations and other connections within the GSM-R network, and to provide disaster recovery switching for GSM-R;
•
router connections for Internet protocol services;
•
connections between ETCS radio block centres and the GSM-R network.
With some development, the applications would also be possible:
following
•
direct connections to interlockings at 2Mbit/s (with distribution via the network to the local sites);
•
remote control of interlockings;
•
links to support disaster recovery for a signal box.
CORE LAYER The core layer is provided by meshed rings of SDH equipment operating at STM-16, that is 2488 Mbit/s, which is the equivalent of 14 400 phone circuits. These rings are configured to support national applications, and thus connect the major offices for phones and data and distribute GSM-R services and telephone lines around the country. The rings are shown in Figure 5. The red coloured lines have both STM-16 and STM-1 rings, whereas the blue and green lines have STM-1 rings. Access to the core layer is provided at core nodes which are spaced about every 70 km, normally at junctions and main offices. At these core nodes it is possible to link traffic between the core and access layers.
58
THE FIXED TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK – A SIGNAL ENGINEER’S GUIDE
Figure 6 – Salisbury to Exeter
Advantages of core layer
Disadvantages of fibre cable
Remote alarms and management;
No re-routeing;
Automatic re-routeing;
No alarms;
Provides very high bandwidths.
Limited number of fibres available;
Disadvantages of core layer Access only at selected locations; Connections needs to be at 2 Mbit/s or above; Needs fibre optic cable. FIBRE CABLE The red, blue and green lines shown in Figure 5 will be covered by fibre cable. This amounts to about 11 000 out of the 16 000 route kilometres of railway in Britain. Where the exisiting trough route is in good condition, or we are installing copper cable, then normal fibre cable is installed in a ground level concrete trough. But when there is no suitable route, we have developed super armoured cable, in a project with Samsung and Go-Tel. This cable has been designed and proved to be suitable for use in the railway environment without the protection of a cable route. As part of the proving of this cable we let the civil engineers “do their worst” to it. The tests showed that the cable can resist welding slag, strimmers and concrete cutters. It is very easy to install, and we are achieving very fast roll-outs when possessions are available. As an example, on the ERTMS test line between 6 and 8 kilometres of cable were installed in a normal 5 to 8 hour possession, at an average cost of £11 per metre. This development is delivering efficiency savings of £200 million for the project. Advantages of fibre cable EMC immune; Cheaper than copper.
Only some routes covered; Needs skilled jointer. The main use of the fibre cable is to connect the access and core nodes to each other, but it is also used to support level crossing cameras either directly to the signal box or as a feed to the nearest access nodes. Fibre cable is also used by the GSM-R network to feed tunnel repeaters where they are required to provide a continuous radio signal. NODES Access nodes are installed every six to eight kilometres along the railway. They provide a controlled environment to house the GSM-R base stations, primary multiplexers and access ring ADMs together with their standby power supplies. They therefore also provide an opportunity to house a rack of signalling equipment and to pick up power at 240 V or 415 V a.c. or 50 V d.c. Example uses are to house SSI long distance terminals, hot axle box detectors and perhaps local controllers or evaluators. Worked example Of the 16 000 route kilometres of railway in Britain 4760 kilometres, that is 30%, is single track. Let us consider the Salisbury to Exeter line as shown in Figure 6: If this section were to be resignalled, signal and point controls would be required at the passing loops. These would therefore be the obvious sites to provide access nodes, as then the control signals could be made available. The block controls for the signal lines could be provided using axle counters
THE FIXED TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK – A SIGNAL ENGINEER’S GUIDE
59
Figure 7 – Typical single line route
with the count heads located at the passing loops, feeding back to central evaluators to avoid cabling through the sections. The level crossings are primarily automatic half barriers on this line, and their indications and alarms could be bought back over FTN. Where level crossings require signal controls, they could be provided by a local access node. This would mean that for the majority of the line, that is between the passing loops, the only cables required would be the FTN. With a little development, fixed distant signals and intermediate block signals could also be powered and controlled over the FTN copper cable and fed from the nearest access node, or from the two adjacent access nodes if required. This principle could be extended to cover the majority of signals on plain line sections. If all these ideas are put together, the result is a solution as illustrated in Figure 7. Firstly note the main fibre cable passing throughout the sections supported by super armoured cable and not requiring any cable route as there is no need to provide a copper cable. At the level crossing, a dedicated access node in a trackside equipment housing is provided to support local communications at the crossing. At the distant signal, a copper cable in a cable route is provided to carry the controls and power supply for the signal. At the first set of points, local power will be required for point operation, detection and heating, and so the section through the passing loop contains telecommunications, signalling and power cables fed from the common access node, which also supports the GSM-R base station. This solution makes a significant saving in the amount of cable to be installed and, what is more important in some ways, in cable route.
SAFETY APPROVAL One of the impediments to taking advantage of the FTN is gaining safety approval. So in order to understand the risk to the Railway an approach has been adopted which links imperfections in the FTN to the imperfections in the services, which are called threats. These threats are then applied to each application to see what hazards may be introduced into the Railway. This is illustrated in Figure 8. Specific applications may not be affected by all threats, as they do not rely on this aspect of the service. Some applications guard against the threats and thus prevent them being presented as a hazard. Some applications, however, do not provide guards against some threats. It is the identification of this final group that is critical to the safety case and will lead to the identification of system safety requirements for the FTN. For example, we would not need to control the possibility of the “A” and “B” legs of a pair being transposed for a telephone, but for a block circuit it would be essential. The first stage in this process was therefore to identify the threats, which was done in the following groups: •
identification of threats to voice frequency applications;
•
identification of threats to application data protocols;
•
identification of threats to baseband, d.c. and other applications.
The threats identified were then used in the application hazard sessions and in the threat mitigation sessions. Once the threat lists had been identified, separate sessions were convened with the application engineers to identify the hazards which applications can introduce into the Railway when presented with
60
THE FIXED TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK – A SIGNAL ENGINEER’S GUIDE
Figure 8 - Threat based safety approach
the identified threats. These sessions also identified how near the hazard produced is to causing an accident. The understanding of these hazards was then used to determine if any extra threat mitigation controls are required above those currently required by railway and Network Rail company standards. Agreement has to be reached for every application between the FTN design authority and the application design authority that all applicable threats have been controlled to a level which reduces risk as low as reasonably practical. This has been done for SSI, GSM-R and most telephone circuits. In order to exploit the value of FTN, many other applications have to be assessed by this method. For new applications though the process is substantially easier if the application is designed from the outset to be compatible with an Open Network as defined in European standard EN510159-2. If however this is not possible then the above threat based approach can be adopted to explore and understand the areas of noncompliance. With this understanding, appropriate mitigations can be identified to allow the application to be bought into service safely.
CONCLUSION The network installation is progressing well and the Fixed Telecom Network is already in use supporting operational telecommunications and signalling applications. Network Rail has designed the FTN to support existing signalling systems, and all current signalling design work should use the FTN. To gain the most benefit from the network, all services should be migrated on to it, and signalling engineers should provide their professional knowledge to understand the threats that need to be managed to provide a safe railway. The network has been designed to be flexible and expandable so that future applications and schemes can be accommodated. These systems should, as far as practical, be developed to use protocols suitable for open communications networks. By developing new signalling and control systems using the available interfaces, signalling schemes can be developed and installed at lower cost, thus reducing the cost of the railway.
INSTALLATION OF FTN
FURTHER INFORMATION
Substantial progress has been made to date. FTN is in operational traffic for Walsall, Ferrybridge and Peterborough, and well advanced for Coventry, Port Talbot and Portsmouth.
There is a more detailed technical document available.
FTN is also supporting the GSM-R trials in Strathclyde. The Telecom Engineering Control is fully established and providing a full, round-the-clock alarm monitoring and management service.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Cabling has progressed really well and is substantially complete from London to Edinburgh, London to Bristol, Bristol and Didcot to Birmingham and Crewe to Glasgow, as well as on the Cambrian line in mid-Wales to support the ERTMS trial. National safety approval has been completed for FTN to support signal post telephones, level crossing and dial phones, GSM-R and SSI.
For a copy please email
[email protected]
me
at
I wish to thank Network Rail, and specifically Paul Jenkins and Peter Farnsworth, for their support in the production of this paper. FINAL REMARKS I look forward to seeing a future IRSE paper which explains how we have installed a lowcost signalling solution using the FTN. Any volunteers?Summary of discussion of paper by T. Foulkes entitled “The Fixed Telecommunications Network – A Signal Engineer’s Guide” given on 13th December 2006.
THE FIXED TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK – A SIGNAL ENGINEER’S GUIDE
61
Discussion The discussion was opened by G. Simpson (Union Railways) who thanked the speaker for his interesting paper and sympathised with him knowing some of the requests made of the Telecommunication Engineers by the Signal Engineers. He wondered how Signal Engineers could be convinced of the safety of telecommunication systems when they are deemed to be SIL0. T. Foulkes believed that the threat-based approach method was the best avenue; he felt that SIL levels potentially covered up the facts and were fine for software development, which is where he thought that they originated from, but their application to whole systems is difficult to apply. Therefore, by talking about what could go wrong, the threats, and how you can stop it going wrong, the mitigations, this was felt to be the way to get the safety case through and has been successfully used for applications as diverse as SSI and Emergency Block Bells. C. Kessell (Centuria Com Rail) observed that Network Rail should be congratulated for constructing their own fibre and transmission network quoting the late Ron Hurst who had stated “If you don’t own it, you don’t control it!” He then asked if, whilst the paper gave the impression that it was a UK initiative, there were any parallels anywhere in the world where signalling systems have been put totally over an open-bearer network; this could provide a working precedent for the Signal Engineer. He also asked if the speaker thought that there would be any temptation to sell-off any of the spare capacity in the network for commercial benefits. T. Foulkes advised that he was aware that CTRL Section 1 was using the telecommunications cabling for signalling systems, but was unsure what was happening in the rest of Europe although Irish Rail have used their SDH network for Axle Counter evaluation purposes from one end of a block section to the other. He also explained that the interfaces used are standard European Interfaces, which are also available from PTO’s, such that other countries could adopt this and even lease services if necessary. As for selling-off any spare capacity, he felt the fibre count was not particularly high and that it was more likely to be wayleave type of services sold-off, such as running other parties cables at the same time. He expressed the hope that the BRT scenario, with the attendant difficulty of getting the services back again, would not recur. D. McKeown (Independent Consultant) supported the speaker on the SIL issue. He then asked about the perceived telecommunications attitude to “traffic” when managing diversions and possessions; these disruptions cause real delay and are a cost to Network Rail, and he wondered why the speaker was talking from an outside viewpoint and not talking about system integration, including the human elements of the signalling and telecommunications disciplines.
T. Foulkes noted how staff had, during British Rail days, often been multi-purpose people and there had also been talk of having multi-functional faulting teams. He thought that possibly, with Network Rail taking more disciplines in-house, there was no reason why this couldn’t be resurrected and, with the alarms now being provided, this could be used to determine which group of staff was required to attend. ETCS is also a great opportunity for signalling, telecommunications and control engineers to work together and he felt that there was an inevitability that this will happen given time. C. Porter (IRSE) noted that Telecommunication Engineers have tried to get signalling circuits out of their cables because of the problems associated with signalling design, the problem of having approved and non-approved equipment connected to the same cable and the drive to remove signalling equipment from telecommunication buildings; hence splitting the two disciplines. The drive to re-unite, whilst a laudable aim, is a complete reversal of the policy that has been followed for the last 30 years, some of these issues are still problematical, and he asked how the speaker thought these historical issues could be tackled. T. Foulkes agreed that some of the older systems, such as TDM’s, would probably never be translated onto the new network due to the incompatibility problems, and it might make sense to simply deem these cables as signalling cables managed and controlled by the Signal Engineer until their renewal takes place. In the future, physically long circuits may prove problematical, particularly as the copper circuits are of short lengths, the conductor size is relatively small and are not jumpered through the access nodes. A new company standard has been developed to allow certain safety related functions, such as block bells and “All Signals On” controls, to be sent over TDM systems via an interface unit which could plug into almost any PTO network which would allow the long copper cabled sections to be recovered. One of the challenges will be to amend and issue the Standard Signalling Design drawings to allow this to happen. J. Harmer (WRSL) observed that we had heard a lot this evening about connecting circuits but what about packet switching and the use of IP; did FTN support this application? T. Foulkes stated that consideration had been given to moving to IP but he couldn’t conceive how you would write a safety case for a level crossing phone utilizing IP and noted that we will have this problem when the first SSI is put over a BT circuit using their new IP network; the decision has, therefore, been taken to use circuit switching for applications such as crossing phones, TDM’s and SPT’s. The question then arises that you can still use IP for other applications, such as business exchanges and operational dial-up phones, but nobody makes a voice-over to CAS interface, however, the network could provide a bearer service to run between the routers, (there are routers in the
62
THE FIXED TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK – A SIGNAL ENGINEER’S GUIDE
network for management systems in core nodes), and the bandwidth exists to install these later.
undertake this work as management of these types of systems is already up and running.
S. Hailes (Network Rail) confirmed that Network Rail are exploring how far IP could be used on the FTN network and are considering using it initially for SCADA and remote condition monitoring. This indicates that IP could well be used as an add on over the top of FTN; this is a great resource to use and be exploited by Signal Engineers.
S. Muirhead (Network Rail) observed that there has been a great deal of discussion about conventional signalling migrating on to FTN, but what about the unconventional such as RETB.
P. Hingley (Network Rail) explained that he was involved in a trial for potentially using FTN but the major issue was who wrote the safety case and he felt that the project should be writing these as part of the sales package for FTN. T. Foulkes clarified that the project would write the safety cases for all applications where there is a business case for it. A group, which includes Signal Engineers, is working on a migration strategy but the problem is finding experts who know the level of detail required. This is not so much of a problem for the modern systems as the manufacturers can assist, but for older systems there is often nobody to ask. Consideration has been given to analysing the (modem) baseband signals of the older TDM systems so that the signal can be put into digital form and then re-generated at the far end, thus negating the need to replace the TDM at all. The other option is to find a modern version of the older style modems but the Migration Group has not been up-and-running for very long and prioritization has been given to the more modern systems. J. Francis (President) noted that FTN is a 10 year £1.2billion project and signalling scheme providers have been invited to work with the project to determine where access nodes and facilities are to be provided, however, the definitive requirements are often not known. He wondered, therefore, how the project is kept on budget and monitored. T. Foulkes explained that it depends on the relative time-frames of FTN and the signalling schemes. To date, re-signalling has tended to have come along first so the project has given funds to the signalling contractor to install what they need on the (FTN) project’s behalf. In some cases, fibre has had to be installed where not originally envisaged and therefore the signalling scheme has paid the FTN project to undertake the work, but if there is no synergy, the FTN scheme will not pick up the costs. He also advised that the project is trying to get in early on in the investment cycle although there will always be a point where changes will have to be made but there will still be a foundation of, for example, troughing routes in place.
T. Foulkes thought that the new services could be provided where RETB “touches” the railway but he felt that it was more likely that ETCS would be the replacement and they are working with the Cambrian ETCS project at the moment. FTN will not be the total solution in this case: it can be an enabler and backbone but GSM-R will still be provided for voice communication. He referred back to the DART scheme where it had been the intention to use GSMR over public networks, and some work was done on interface development for putting RETB type data over GSM-R. One safety feature seen was that all messages could be heard by all users although this did contradict some of the safety requirements. C. Porter (IRSE) asked about the ‘all-eggs-in-onebasket’ syndrome and the fact that there has always been a reliance on some form of redundancy or back-up system in times of failures and whilst FTN has been designed to be resilient, he questioned the speaker on how Signal Engineers could be reassured about the systems’ resilience. T. Foulkes thought it was a very valid question; for some equipment very clear specifications exist but when looking at diversification there are different classes of separation. As an example, in Electrical Control Rooms it is very important to separate the “A” and “B” links but at the TP Huts it is not as critical because power can still be isolated either side if necessary. Signalling requirements may need diversity throughout their entire length and that was one reason why the copper cables were being run between the access nodes just leaving, potentially, the final route into and out of the relay room as nondiverse even though a great many old power boxes were cabled in a “star” formation with all cables, both signalling and telecommunications, in the one troughing route with no diversity at all! Presently, we are now seeing the likelihood of real diversity within the rings and possibilities for re-routing providing a real resilience, especially should a major incident occur. Additionally fault finding can be done under more controlled conditions and, as for “all-eggs-inone basket”, it is up to the application Engineers to specify what is required which, up to now, has not been done.
N. Barnatt (Network Rail) asked how we take into consideration all of our neighbour’s requirements, interfaces and capacity needs.
R. Gardiner (FTN Migration Team) wondered if, when considering future requirements, it would be possible to use developing technology, such as Wavelength Division Multiplexing, to provide increased capacity over the network.
T. Foulkes described how CTRL had put their own infrastructure in to their design and discussions have been held to discuss using other networks for diversity requirements; as both networks use standard modern SDH equipment, interfaces are easy. No discussions have yet been held with Heathrow Express on who will own and maintain this network but the hope is that the existing staff will
T. Foulkes cautioned about this, the grade of fibre used is slightly cheaper so that not all frequency division applications could be used, however, plenty of spare capacity exists in the cables as 24 fibres are provided but only 4 are actually used. Additionally, discussions have been held with the end-users to attempt to determine future requirements and it is felt that renewal would occur before capacity of the
THE FIXED TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK – A SIGNAL ENGINEER’S GUIDE
cabling is reached. With STM 16, it could possibly be upgraded to provide bi-directional STM64. Should a high bandwidth requirement be required to be installed throughout the network, the belief is that the business case would allow for installation of the new and additional cabling. H. Bartier (Network Rail) touched upon disaster recovery and what does FTN provide if, say, a major signalling centre was unavailable. He also asked what do the Signal Engineers need to consider at the design stage. T. Foulkes believed that the real issue is the loss of the Control Centre noting that we tend to put the interlockings into the Control Centre so that the problem is how to communicate with the field equipment taking into account potential timing problems. If the interlockings were to be out-based with communication to a centralized Control Centre, all that would then be required would be a stand-by
63
IECC with the communications re-routed to the new point of control. The problem may then be a question of how you get the signalling staff to the new Control Centre to operate it although, under these circumstances, ARS may be able to help. With GSM-R, in-built scripts (macros) can run predetermined disaster recovery plans, and this may be the way forward for signalling although this will probably be easier to initially implement with Electrical Control Rooms to prove the concepts. J. Francis (IRSE President) commented that a once nationalised railway which had been under pressure to hive off non-core activities, hived off its communication assets and now the privatised railway, the non-nationalised infrastructure owners, have determined that they wanted their own inhouse telecommunications network. He finally thanked T. Foulkes for his comprehensive and interesting paper and for bringing the Institution up to date on Network Rail’s FTN project.
64
Technical Meeting of the Institution held at
The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London WC2 Wednesday 10th January 2007 The President, Mr. J Francis, in the chair. 87 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr. K Burrage, seconded by Mr. M Govas and carried that the Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 13 December 2006 be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a correct record. Andrew Button (Amey Rail, the presenter) and David Portello from Amey Rail, new members were introduced to the meeting with warm applause. The Chairman then introduced Mr Andrew Button of Amey Rail and after remarking that the last paper presented to the Institution solely on signalling power supplies was L R Insley’s paper 60 years ago, on 7 January 1947, invited him to present his paper entitled A Concise Look at UK Main Line Railway Signalling Power Distribution, Past Present & Possible Future. Mr Button then outlined the history of the provision of signalling power supplies, referring to Mr Insley’s paper to the Institution in 1947 and also the contents of Green Booklet no 11 dating from 1952. He then described the change in legislative requirements which had been introduced in 1990 and the implications of those requirements. Going on to talk about the debate on earthing – whether to or not- he then described today’s requirements and practices, finishing with some comments on what the future might hold for this extremely important but sometimes under-rated topic. Following the presentation, the discussion was opened by Mr Ian Harman (Network Rail). Messrs C Hunt, Graham Brindle (Amey), Bob Wyatt (independent consultant), David Bradley (Atkins), Alan Kitchen (Network Rail), John Govey (Westinghouse), Bob Wyatt (again), Colin Porter (IRSE), Aidan Stell (Westinghouse), Ian Harman (again), Mike Tyrell (consultant), Stuart Isbister (Network Rail), Peter Bradley (again) and Peter Scott (Network Rail) all took part in the discussion. The President in his concluding remarks highlighted the changes that had taken place over the last decade, but considered that matters were now more stable. He commented that Andrew had fielded the many questions well and then proposed a vote of thanks, presenting the speaker with the commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper. The Chairman thanked members for their attendance and their questions. Mr Francis then made announcements of forthcoming events and closed the meeting at 1945 by announcing that the next meeting in London would be held on the 14 February 2007.
A Concise Look at UK Main Line Railway Signalling Power Distribution Past, Present & Possible Future Andrew Button CEng MIET MIRSE “If the importance of this and allied subjects were to be assessed by the number of relevant papers read before this Institution, one might conclude that it was of comparatively minor importance, presenting few difficulties and requiring little detailed consideration.” This was the opening paragraph from the last paper that was presented to the IRSE on the subject of electrical power supplies for railway signalling, by Mr LR Insley in 1947 (ref. 1). Some of the contents of the 1947 paper are reproduced in IRSE Green Booklet No. 11 (ref. 2) which is dated 1952. Sixty years on one might surmise that Mr Insley’s words are still applicable today. What then has changed with time? This paper provides a concise chronological overview of past, present and possible future requirements and practices. It is appreciated that the paper may not cover all possible items and experiences on this subject in full depth. It is hoped that it will provoke renewed interest in this vitally important subject so that it is not overlooked for a further sixty years. local batteries (for small load applications);
PAST REQUIREMENTS & PRACTICES The 1947 paper outlines the fundamental requirements for signalling power supplies at the time to be: •
reliability (availability of the electrical source);
•
compatibility (of the electrical distribution supply with the signalling equipment);
•
economy (value for money).
The availability requirements were achieved by applying one or more of the following practices: •
•
duplicating incoming power supplies from the local electrical supply authority, with changeover facilities (though true independence between local supplies was often difficult to achieve in practice); supplementing one incoming power supply from the local electrical supply authority with
•
supplementing one incoming power supply from the local electrical supply authority with a standby automatic starting diesel generator set (for large concentrated load applications), with changeover facilities.
Compatibility at the time required that the electrical distribution supply delivered a common “single phase” supply (that is, twowire line-to-line) to the signalling equipment to ensure the correct operation of polarity sensitive train detection circuits. To ensure value for money there was often a requirement to justify the expenditure on providing a new incoming power supply from the local electrical supply authority for a new power signalling scheme. This was because it was often found that in rural areas the cost of the new incoming supply was
A CONCISE LOOK AT UK MAIN LINE RAILWAY SIGNALLING POWER DISTRIBUTION PAST, PRESENT & POSSIBLE FUTURE
higher than the actual new power signalling works. However where new power signalling works were justified, a further practice was to distribute the highest possible voltage that was permitted by legislation at the time without recourse to high voltage procedures to the signalling equipment, to keep the distribution cables to an economic size. Cable feeder arrangements within large concentrated areas (e.g. station and junction areas) were often formed into a ring style distribution system, to increase the availability of the supply to signalling equipment in the unfortunate event of a section of cable having to be taken out of service following a fault. The distribution voltage used at the time was generally split into two application types. Many small load applications, typically in rural areas, used the incoming electrical supply directly, at nominal voltages of 240 V a.c. phase-and-neutral or 415 V a.c. phase-to-phase. These voltages were transformed into the required signalling circuit voltages within the signalling location apparatus cases. Signalling circuits and equipment tended to operate at 110 V a.c. and 50 V d.c. The practice of distributing a 240 V a.c. centre tapped earth (120 V a.c.–Earth– 120 V a.c.) system was also in use in some areas. For larger concentrated load applications, the nominal 415 V a.c. incoming electrical supply was transformed into a nominal 650 V a.c. supply (600-660 V a.c.). This voltage was distributed to the lineside signalling location apparatus cases, where it was transformed to the required signalling circuit voltages. A point of interest is that it is not clearly indicated whether the 650 V a.c. supply was non-earth referenced (two-wire line-to-line, commonly known to signal engineers as “earth-free”) or earth referenced (line and earthed neutral). However there is mention of the 650 V source being derived via an isolation transformer, so it can only be assumed that it was non-earth referenced. The general practice of the time was to accommodate the power source equipment (diesel generator, changeover facilities and switchboard) in a signalling powerhouse, and the lineside power equipment in an apparatus case separate from those for the signalling equipment. Status indications were provided to the appropriate signal box to inform the signalman of which source of supply (either the incoming supply authority or the standby diesel generator set) was supporting the distribution feeders. This enabled the signalman to take whatever action was required if one source of supply failed. The design practice for the cable distribution system is not indicated in the 1947 paper, but there is a brief reference to the Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE) Wiring Regulations in IRSE Green Booklet No. 11. Various references are made to cable sizes being governed by voltage drop and current carrying capacity. No reference is to be found however to what maximum voltage drop was acceptable within the distribution system. It was common practice to employ step-up transformers to
65
“stretch” a distribution system distance that was close to its voltage drop limit. The usual method of distributing electrical power was by either: •
copper wires, insulated by oilimpregnated paper and sealed by weatherproofed cotton, mounted upon pole routes, typically in rural outlying areas;
•
cables constructed of copper conductors, with oil-impregnated paper insulation and lead covered, laid in cable routes, for larger concentrated applications.
The preferred method for protecting the electrical distribution system from overcurrent faults (e.g. short circuit faults) was by the use of High Rupturing Capacity (HRC) fuses. It is stated that, when considering the selection of a fuse size for a particular installation, the accommodation of inrush currents associated with the initial switch on of the signalling equipment, and discrimination between upstream and downstream fuses, need to be taken into account. Earth bonding of the exposed metalwork associated with cables (e.g. the armouring) and electrical apparatus cases, whether for power or signalling, was a requirement. It can only be assumed that this was to protect against electric shocks to personnel, as the purpose of the earth bonding is not clearly stated. Provision of a lowimpedance path, via earth electrodes and/or earth continuity conductors (protective conductor), in order to blow a fuse in the event of an earth fault, was a requirement. The Signal Engineer was responsible for all the new power signalling work, from arranging the incoming supply through to providing the standby power source facilities and the distribution systems. A few of the practices outlined for "future consideration" in the 1947 paper were: •
expansion of the use of standby automatic starting diesel generator sets;
•
provision of spare capacity in the installation of new distribution cables for the possibility of future scheme expansion;
•
separation of power signalling equipment.
equipment
from
THE IN-BETWEEN YEARS As colour light power signalling schemes began to expand across the UK main line railway network during the British Rail era, the requirements and practices of the past relating to signalling power distribution were perpetuated, with some Regional variations, under the control of the Regional Signal and Telecommunications Engineers. Availability of the signalling power source was achieved by one of the following practices: •
in electrification schemes, duplication of the incoming power supplies with an automatic changeover facility, one supply being taken from the local electrical supply authority and the other from a railway traction substation;
66 •
A CONCISE LOOK AT UK MAIN LINE RAILWAY SIGNALLING POWER DISTRIBUTION PAST, PRESENT & POSSIBLE FUTURE
supplementing a single incoming power supply from the local electrical supply authority with a standby automatic starting diesel generator with automatic changeover facilities.
These facilities were usually housed in fixed power rooms or mobile containerised buildings. They became commonly know as signalling supply points (SSPs). The 650 V a.c. source of supply was adopted as the preferred method for distributing electrical power to lineside signalling equipment within concentrated areas and over long distances, whether for relay interlockings or Solid State Interlockings. As the 650 V a.c. supply was “single phase” (two-wire line-toline), the compatibility requirements of the signalling equipment were met. Three-phase power distribution was deemed to be complicated because of the need to resolve the phase rotation issues that would arise with polarity-sensitive train detection circuits. It is worth mentioning that, even though 650 V a.c. distribution was the preferred method, 240 V a.c. and 110 V a.c. distribution systems derived via isolation transformers were used, and are still operational today, within signal box interlockings and at outlying level crossings. Single radial feeders originating from a common 650 V a.c. source of supply, with no interconnection with other 650 V a.c. sources of supply, became the norm for long distance lineside distribution. Ring style cable distribution systems provided a degree of potential availability within concentrated areas such as stations and junctions. Based only upon voltage drop, the use of 650 V a.c. provided for economic cable sizes, and at some point in time the “maximum 10% voltage drop” rule became the norm. Tapered cable sizes, larger size towards the 650 V a.c. source of supply and decreasing in size towards the furthest point, were a common cost-saving practice, as was the installation of 650 V a.c. booster transformers to stretch 650 V a.c. distribution systems a little bit further. Typically 650 V a.c. systems could distribute power to trackside locations at distances up to 10 to 15 km, if not more, from the source of supply as shown in Figure 1. The preferred method for protecting the feeders from overcurrent faults continued to be the use of HRC fuses. Power isolation transformers were used to derive the 650 V a.c. non-earth referenced supply. The Figure 1
Supply Authority Isolation Transformer
Generator
Changeover & Distribution
Booster Transformer
Radial Feeder (West)
Radial Feeder (East)
Open Ring Style Feeder with a switchable mid-point. (Concentrated area)
Signalling Supply Point
added benefit of having a non-earth referenced distribution system was that it has a degree of fault tolerance (resilience to a first Earth fault), thereby providing for continuity of supply to critical signalling systems. However if equipment to detect a first earth fault, that is an Insulation Monitoring Device (IMD), was not provided to alert maintenance personnel to locate and rectify the cause of the fault (e.g. degradation of cable insulation, or a live conductor coming into contact with earth bonded metalwork) in time, this added availability benefit was lost. Another benefit of having a non-earth referenced distribution system fitted with an IMD is that the IMD monitors the state of the feeder cable insulation continuously. Hence it provides maintenance personnel with continuous asset condition monitoring, and so there is no need to perform reactive maintenance testing. Distribution systems without IMDs were common practice unfortunately, resulting in faults remaining undetected until there was the possibility of complete loss of a feeder due to complete degradation of the cable insulation. This could also lead to something more dangerous. For example a cable short-circuit could lead to a fire, and an undetected earth fault remaining on a metallic structure could lead to electric shock to personnel. Adequate means of protecting personnel from the risk of electric shock was a requirement, and a common practice was the use of local earth electrodes at lineside apparatus cases. The resistances of the local earth electrodes were required to be at a sufficiently low value to achieve personnel protection. This was required from the onset of a new installation, and had to be maintained throughout its lifetime. However with well-drained embankments, brick built structures etc. it is likely that the requirement was seldom met. The use of aluminium conductors insulated with poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) for lineside power distribution cables became widespread, due to the lower cost of aluminium at the time, even though the use of inflexible solid aluminium conductors was time-consuming for the installer trying to achieve a cable bend radius into a location apparatus case. Various practices for terminating the distribution system into apparatus cases and isolating it locally were used. They ranged from a separate power box on the side of the case as shown in Figure 2, through to various switchgear or fuse link chambers within it. The distribution system voltage was transformed into the required signalling circuit voltages,
Figure 2
A CONCISE LOOK AT UK MAIN LINE RAILWAY SIGNALLING POWER DISTRIBUTION PAST, PRESENT & POSSIBLE FUTURE
67
typically 110 V a.c., 120 V d.c., 50 V d.c. and 24 V d.c., within the signalling location apparatus cases.
The “fundamental principles” of BS7671 are: •
provision of protection for electrical safety;
This was in the main how power provision and distribution perpetuated.
•
design for proper functioning of the electrical installation;
THE ELECTRICITY AT WORK REGULATIONS & BS7671
•
selection of suitable electrical equipment; and
•
verification by inspection and testing of the electrical installation.
The Electricity at Work Regulations (EaWR) 1989 came into force on 1st April 1990 and, in so doing, replaced any previously applicable regulations of the 1908 Electricity (Factories) Act and its amendments. The EaWR are made under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. They require all electrical systems, equipment and conductors to be designed, installed and maintained so as to prevent danger or the risk of injury. The Institution of Electrical Engineers' Requirements for Electrical Installations (the "IEE Wiring Regulations") became British Standard BS7671 in 1992. This relates principally to the design, selection, installation, inspection, testing and certification of low voltage electrical installations. The term “low voltage,” defined within BS7671, relates to electrical installations operating up to 1000 V a.c. or 1500 V d.c. “High” voltage is anything above this, such as 11 kV a.c. This is despite the fact that the Signal Engineer considers “high voltage” to be anything above 175 V a.c. The IEE Wiring Regulations were widely recognised and accepted in the UK as a code of practice for well over a century. They are referred to in passing in IRSE Green Book No.11. In the form of BS7671 the regulations are not statutory, but the EaWR advocates that application of BS7671 for low voltage installations is likely to achieve compliance with the relevant aspects of the EaWR. Two key principles are referred to throughout both the EaWR and BS7671: 1.
an electrical installation is to be fit for its intended operational function;
2.
an electrical installation is to be safe during normal operation and when faults unfortunately occur.
BS7671 includes a regulation that outlines types of installations that are excluded from its scope. One of these scope exclusions is “signalling equipment". Unfortunately the term “signalling equipment” is not defined in any detail, and therefore this exclusion has often in the past been used to exclude the electrical power distribution for power signalling works from having to comply with BS7671. Regardless of this exclusion it must be stressed that, since their introduction in 1990, all electrical systems must comply with the EaWR. When analysing BS7671 to assess its applicability to electrical power distribution systems in support of signalling systems, the following statement from the EaWR Guidance is very apt for consideration: “A little knowledge is often sufficient to make electrical equipment function, but a higher level of knowledge and experience is usually needed to ensure safety.”
These fundamental principles cross-relate to relevant regulations of the EaWR. On first reading BS7671 one might be forgiven for assuming that it only applies to traditional domestic and industrial nominal 400 V a.c. or 230 V a.c. earth referenced systems. To some degree this assumption could be credible, as a majority of the data tables in BS7671 do relate to 400 V a.c./ 230 V a.c. earth referenced applications, which are the historical roots of the IEE Wiring Regulations. However the “fundamental principles” of BS7671 apply to voltages up to 1000 V a.c., and it does contain requirements for nonearth referenced systems. The relevant parts of BS7671 can therefore be used to design, for example, 650 V a.c. two wire line-to-line, non-earth referenced trackside distribution systems to provide electric power to signalling systems. Following the introduction of the EaWR, during the early 1990s (before privatisation and the loss of engineering experience and knowledge) some of British Railways' Regional Design Offices produced their own guidance and recommendations relating to signalling power supplies. These specify the use of the IEE Wiring Regulations to achieve compliance with the EaWR.
THE TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY During 1999, during the Railtrack era, responsibility for signalling power distribution and systems was transferred from the Head of Signalling to the Head of Electrification and Plant (E&P). The transfer was based upon corporate requirements for delivery of infrastructure performance improvements, cost improvements and increased infrastructure safety. During 2000 Railtrack E&P Asset Management commissioned a “Strategy for the Design of Non-Traction (including Signalling and Telecommunications) Power Supplies”. The key developments from this strategy were presented by Railtrack at an IEE Railway Industry Group Lecture in March 2001 and embedded into the Railtrack January 2002 E&P Engineering Policy. Since the transfer of responsibility (which is still valid today with Network Rail) numerous railway group standards and Network Rail business process documents mandate compliance with the EaWR and advocate the application of BS7671 for the design, installation and testing of signalling power distribution. The transfer of responsibility brought with it much industry debate, about the relative advantages of 400 V a.c. and 650 V a.c. as distribution voltages, on whether distribution should be three-phase or single phase and what the earthing type of the distribution system should be (that is, earth referenced or nonearth referenced).
68
A CONCISE LOOK AT UK MAIN LINE RAILWAY SIGNALLING POWER DISTRIBUTION PAST, PRESENT & POSSIBLE FUTURE
It is of interest to note that, since the introduction of the strategy, most of the West Coast Route Modernisation project, including resignalling projects using computer-based interlockings to its specific technical requirements, has used 400 V a.c. as the source of supply and distribution voltage to the signalling systems. Many other major resignalling projects using relay interlockings or SSI have however renewed 650 V a.c. supplies and distribution.
WEST COAST ROUTE MODERNISATION The most prominent application, with respect to signalling power distribution and systems, of the Railtrack strategy is the Integrated Trackside Power System (ITPS) on the West Coast Route Modernisation (WCRM) project. The concept behind the ITPS was a holistic solution to deriving and supplying electrical power to all the critical and noncritical railway related systems required for WCRM, and by doing so to deliver higher availability, greater reliability, better maintainability and safer operation. These railwayrelated systems included: •
trackside power to signalling (SSI based);
•
trackside systems;
•
trackside power to the train control system (TCS);
power
to
bedded with PVC, armoured with steel wire and over-sheathed with PVC. The steel wire armour is bonded together with a separate single copper conductor insulated with PVC to BS6004, and these act as the distributed circuit protective conductor. FUNCTIONAL SUPPLY POINTS Functional Supply Points (FSP) are located adjacent to or centralised at clusters of apparatus cases for signalling, telecommunications or TCS equipment. The FSP is a purpose-built apparatus case. It contains automatic reconfiguration gear to receive the 400 V a.c. 3-phase earth referenced trackside distribution and distribute it to the next FSP. Manual bypass switchgear switches around the automatic reconfiguration gear when it is out of service for maintenance (see Figure 3).
telecommunications
•
trackside power to points heating systems;
•
power supplies for lighting, heating and ventilation in equipment rooms.
Figure 3
The main features of the ITPS are as follows. PRINCIPAL SUPPLY POINTS Principal Supply Points (PSPs) are located approximately 2 to 3 km apart. The PSP is a purpose-built relocatable equipment building. It contains switchgear to receive the 400 V a.c. 3phase Earth referenced incoming supply from the local supply authority, and switchgear to receive an incoming 400 V a.c. line-to-line supply derived from the 25 kV a.c. traction supply. It also contains an uninterruptible power supply with associated bypass equipment, and the 400 V a.c. outgoing distribution switchgear with associated master controller for the automatic reconfiguration equipment. THREE-PHASE EARTH REFERENCED DISTRIBUTION Distribution to trackside Functional Supply Points (FSP) is at 400 V a.c. 3-phase, earth referenced. It is designed, installed, inspected, tested and certified to BS7671. Two phases of the 3-phase distribution are phase rotated and terminated between pairs of FSPs (e.g., L1 and L2 – L2 and L3 – L3 and L1). Since axle counters are used for train detection the historical issue of phase sensitivity of track circuits has been removed. POWER CABLES Power cables are to BS5467, having three copper conductors insulated with crosslinked polyethylene
Local switch-fuses protect the 400 V a.c. line-toline feeds to signalling apparatus cases and provide local isolation. Signalling transformers and rectifiers in the signalling power apparatus cases transform the 400 V a.c. feeds into the required 110 V a.c. and 120 V d.c. non-earth referenced functional supplies for signalling circuits. In the ITPS these transformers form the conceptual demarcation between the E&P and Signalling maintenance disciplines. AUTOMATIC RECONFIGURATION Automatic reconfiguration allows interconnectivity between adjacent PSPs. If a section of distribution cable between FSPs develops a fault, the automatic reconfiguration gear detects it and removes the faulty section of cable from service (see Figure 4). The section of healthy Figure 4
A CONCISE LOOK AT UK MAIN LINE RAILWAY SIGNALLING POWER DISTRIBUTION PAST, PRESENT & POSSIBLE FUTURE
69
cable that was originally fed beyond the faulty section of cable is then re-fed from the opposite FSP and PSP. By this means train delays are kept to a minimum. The automatic reconfiguration gear also informs the maintainer which section of cable is faulty, allowing him to repair the cable and perform periodic maintenance without unnecessary disruption to the signalling power distribution.
UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLIES (UPS) Industrial UPSs were introduced at the end of the 1990s and applied as part of a national implementation scheme during the early 2000s. Since then they have been implemented as standard practice as part of major re-signalling projects. UPSs provide battery back-up to ensure that there is no break in supply to signalling equipment during changeover between two incoming supplies, and also a degree of autonomy of supply if both incoming supplies fail (see Figure 5). Previously UPSs were used to support the 110 V a.c. supply to central interlocking systems, but not the trackside distribution. This was a key event in time. UPSs reduce potential train delays, and the consequent cost penalties, if a power outage occurs. What is also important is that they contribute towards reducing Category B SPADs (Signals Passed At Danger), by reducing the likelihood of colour-light signals presenting a dark aspect to a driver when the power supply is disrupted. UPSs have now become a key element in maintaining the availability of signalling systems.
EARTHING – THE GREAT DEBATE Over the past few years there has been much debate as to whether the electrical source for the trackside distribution system should be earth referenced or non-earth referenced. This section outlines a few brief points, as the subject could dominate a paper of its own. Some of the technical issues were presented at an Institution of Engineering and Technology signalling power distribution seminar entitled “Earthing Functional Supply Points” in April 2006.
Figure 5
Historically, the distribution system has been nonearth referenced. The WCRM project was the first major project in recent times to use an earth referenced system. Since then there has been a split, with projects using both types of earthing systems. For example the Port Talbot East Resignalling Phase 1 scheme has an earth referenced system, whereas the Cherwell Valley Resignalling Phase 1 scheme has a non-earth referenced system. Both types of earthing systems have their advantages and disadvantages (see Figures 6 and 7). A few of these are outlined in the table on page 70. A concern in the past with non-earth referenced systems has been the belief that, because they are earth-free, a green/yellow Circuit Protective Conductor (CPC) should not be used. It is possible that this concern comes about due to lack of appreciation of the difference between referencing the source of supply, that is the type of earthing, and earthed equipotential bonding, that is the use of a CPC to protect people from electric shock. The illustrations that follow show in simplified form the
Figure 6
70
A CONCISE LOOK AT UK MAIN LINE RAILWAY SIGNALLING POWER DISTRIBUTION PAST, PRESENT & POSSIBLE FUTURE
Figure 7
Pros
Cons
Non-earth referenced distribution Fault tolerant, as there is no requirement to disconnect the supply upon the occurrence of a first earth fault. This aids in the reduction of Category B SPADs and improves availability.
Earth referenced distribution Not fault tolerant, as on occurrence of a Live to Earth fault the supply is disconnected. This may possibly cause a Category B SPAD (even with automatic reconfiguration, because it still takes time to switch out the faulty cable section and reinstate from an alternative source)
Non-earth referenced distribution BS7671 requires the use an IMD to monitor the whole system insulation level. The IMD therefore provides continuous system condition monitoring without the need for periodic intrusive maintenance.
Earth referenced distribution The insulation levels of feeder cables require periodic intrusive testing for maintenance purposes.
Earth referenced distribution Ease of design via the use of commercially available design software packages.
Non-earth referenced distribution Needs specialist understanding and knowledge. No commercially available design software packages.
Earth referenced distribution The use of core balance ground fault protection (this is not a RCD (Residual Current Device)) allows a reduced value of earth fault loop impedance for indirect contact electric shock protection of personnel. This has advantages when only earth electrodes are used (e.g. in d.c. electrified areas).
Non-earth referenced distribution Difficult to achieve low earth fault loop impedance for indirect contact electric shock protection of personnel without the use of a distributed circuit protective conductor when fuse, and especially circuit breaker, protection is used
differences in referencing the source of supply, both with the use of a CPC. BS7671 contains more information on earthing types in its “Definitions” section. DOUBLE INSULATED EQUIPMENT A subject that has been referred to in past BR recommendation papers, and is still worth advocating today, is the use of equipment such as switchgear and transformers that are manufactured with double insulation to Class 2 as defined by BS2754. The use of double insulated equipment reduces the reliance on equipotential bonding (e.g. the use of a CPC) as a means of protecting personnel from indirect contact electric shock. The double insulated equipment itself becomes the means of protecting against electric shock.
TODAY’S REQUIREMENTS & PRACTICES GRIP STAGES 1 TO 8 The implementation of Network Rail’s Guide to Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) process has led to a more structured project implementation life cycle. Stages 1 to 8 of the GRIP process are: 1.
Output definition;
2.
Pre-feasibility;
3.
Option selection;
4.
Single option development;
5.
Detailed design;
6.
Construction, testing and commissioning;
7.
Scheme hand back;
8.
Project close out.
A CONCISE LOOK AT UK MAIN LINE RAILWAY SIGNALLING POWER DISTRIBUTION PAST, PRESENT & POSSIBLE FUTURE
Part of this process, in stages 2 to 4 especially, is the development and outlining of what technical requirements are to be implemented in stages 5 to 8 of the specific project. The main requirements for consideration with respect to signalling power distribution are outlined in Railway Group Standards and Network Rail business process documents. These encompass definition of the safety, availability and maintainability requirements for the scheme. The development process considers the various technical options that could be implemented to deliver these requirements, from which an outline budget cost can be produced for the preferred single option. This can then be used to consider the “value for money” for the intended scheme before moving forward to stages 5 to 8. ELECTRICAL SAFETY With respect to electrical safety, associated with the electrical power distribution supporting signalling equipment, it is mandated in Network Rail business process documents that all new works and improvements works must comply with the statutory binding EaWR, and that the electrical distribution aspects are to be designed, installed, tested and maintained in accordance with the applicable parts of BS7671. The appropriate permissible touch voltage limits defined in BS EN 50122-1 “Railway Applications—Fixed installations, protective provision relating to electrical safety and earthing,” may also be considered. As a point of interest there are other statutory requirements (e.g. the Low Voltage Directive and the Electro-Magnetic Compatibly Directive) mandating electrical equipment safety that also need to be complied with by projects when it comes to the implementation of items of electrical equipment (e.g., switchgear, programmable logic controllers). AVAILABILITY Availability requirements are based on analysis of set criteria for the criticality of the route (e.g., rural, secondary, suburban or primary route). Once the criticality of the route is established, the appropriate trackside distribution configuration can be selected to meet these requirements. The distribution configurations that are promoted by Network Rail business process documents are, in ascending order: • single end fed – radial;
71
These could be regarded as “bronze,” “silver” and “gold” system configurations. The trackside distribution voltage and earthing type promoted within the technical scopes of the recent “Type A" and "Type B” resignalling framework and single resignalling contracts is 650 V a.c. “single phase” (2 wire line-to-line), derived from a non-earth referenced source of supply. This generally applies to signalling systems that use trackside power distribution to derive the functional supplies for trackside object controllers, such as SSI Trackside Functional Modules. Where signalling systems do not require trackside power distribution (e.g. Computer Based Interlocking systems, where for technical reasons trackside equipment is located in frequent concentrated groups), the use of an earth referenced supply at 400 V a.c. or 230 V a.c. may be considered. MAINTENANCE Good periodic inspection and preventative maintenance are factors in ensuring a safe and reliable power distribution system. Indeed maintenance is a requirement of the EaWR. Deciding when to perform maintenance work does however require good possession planning and negotiation skills, as in today’s commercial railway environment it is not always convenient to the train operating company to switch off the trackside distribution to signalling systems. MAINTAINABILITY Maintainability requirements, like those for availability, are based upon analysis of set criteria for the criticality of the route (rural, secondary, suburban or primary). If the trackside distribution is of the radial feeder type, then the system may have to be shut down completely to perform periodic inspection and maintenance. If it is of the double end fed type then it may be possible to perform inspection and maintenance on small sections at a time while keeping the signalling system available. Performing maintenance while the railway is operational requires trackside apparatus cases to be located in positions of safety so as to protect the maintainer doing the work (see Figure 8).
• double end fed with automatic reconfiguration;
PSPs
• double end fed with automatic reconfiguration and dual sources.
Where new PSPs are to be introduced they are to be to a common Network Rail specification. They
72
A CONCISE LOOK AT UK MAIN LINE RAILWAY SIGNALLING POWER DISTRIBUTION PAST, PRESENT & POSSIBLE FUTURE
circuit breakers), which are familiar to maintainers; •
the use of a distributed CPC to protect against the risk of electric shock (earthed equipotential bonding and automatic disconnection of supply);
•
power isolation transformers are to be of modern construction with improved performance parameters (e.g. defined low inrush current) to aid in the reduction of the ratings of source protection devices and feeder cable sizes;
•
non-earth referenced sources of supply to be fitted with insulation monitoring devices having a remote alarm capability;
•
the distribution system to have a defined spare capacity for future expansion.
THE FUTURE It is true of most operational systems that, once they become proven and cease to be challenged, they become the accepted norm. This was generally true for signalling power distribution for the first fifty years or so. Figure 10
house the switchgear to receive the incoming main supply from the local supply authority, a UPS to maintain critical loads, outgoing distribution switch and control gear, and a back-up supply derived from a diesel generator set or the traction supply. The common voltage for these items of equipment is typically 400 V a.c. but this is to be stepped up to 650 V a.c. when required to supply trackside distribution to signalling equipment. The PSP housing could be a single unit or a combination of units (see Figure 9). FUNCTIONAL SUPPLY POINTS The FSP demarcation point between E&P and Signal engineering responsibility is at the secondary side of functional power isolation transformers (or transformer rectifiers). Functional supplies, typically at voltages of 110 V a.c. or 120 V d.c. nonearth referenced, for signalling circuit applications are the responsibility of the Signal Engineer. An FSP does not require a dedicated apparatus case, and a mix of E&P and signalling equipment may be housed in the same apparatus case if feasible. The requirements for the implementation of the various items of electrical distribution equipment include: •
power feeder cables to be of modern construction type (e.g. BS5467 XLPE/SWA/PVC) and these feeder cables are to be clearly identified within their cable routes;
It may happen again for future requirements and practices. Once the safety, availability and maintainability requirements and practices of today are proved over time, they are likely to become perpetuated into the future in their turn, until they are challenged by the requirements of infrastructure performance improvements, technology advancements and changes in statutory obligations. Since the world’s demand for energy consumption is ever increasing, should we be looking to extend the application of lower power consumption signalling systems through the use of modern advances in technology? Could the advance towards signalling systems based on ERTMS technology remove the need for dedicated trackside electrical power distribution systems? Moving towards lower power consumption signalling systems may allow us in the future to exploit advances in power supply energy technology such as hydrogenbased fuel cells. With the threat of global warming, could we in the UK be looking at applying trackside solar cells (or even trackside wind power technology) to provide the power that we need for our low power consumption signalling systems? (See Figure 10). Future requirements and practices are likely to be driven by a combination of infrastructure performance, safety and technology advancements—but only time will tell.
ELECTRONIC PROTECTION RELAYS
•
the cable armouring to act as mechanical protection;
If trackside power distribution does continue to be used for the near future, then a way in which cable feeder protection could be advanced is by the application of electronic protection relays (EPRs).
•
protection of power feeder cables by the use of conventional HRC fuses (or moulded case
Historically HRC fuses or miniature circuitbreakers have been applied to protect trackside
A CONCISE LOOK AT UK MAIN LINE RAILWAY SIGNALLING POWER DISTRIBUTION PAST, PRESENT & POSSIBLE FUTURE
73
feeder cables from faults, but cable protection could be enhanced by the application of EPRs. EPRs are essentially programmable circuit breakers that can be set to the desired characteristic to match the feeder system, rather than the feeder system being designed to suit a fixed fuse or breaker characteristic (see Figure 11). Application of EPRs offers the benefit of the use of smaller cable sizes without compromising safety and compliance to standards, on account of the flexibility of the programmable protection characteristics. This results in an overall gross cost saving benefit whilst maintaining electrical safety. EPRs can also provide real-time feeder monitoring data such as actual voltage, energy consumption and maximum demand. This information could be used to establish trends and for predictive maintenance purposes.
CONCLUSION When we look back at the 1947 paper (ref. 1), it describes as possible future practices: •
expanded use of standby automatic starting diesel generator sets;
•
provision of spare capacity in the installation of new distribution cables to allow for possible future scheme expansion;
•
provision for the separation of power equipment from signalling equipment.
So were these future practices implemented? The answer is that they have been, or are starting to be. Over the past sixty years we have definitely expanded the use of standby diesel generators. This has extended to include the use of traction power derived standby systems and of UPSs. Allowing spare capacity for future expansion is a requirement today, and is often referred to in project technical work scope documents. Separation of power and signalling equipment is also the practice today, especially with the introduction of functional supply points, either in a separate dedicated apparatus case or by segregation of equipment within a single apparatus case. The 1947 paper outlines the fundamental requirements for signalling power supplies at that time as reliability, compatibility and economy. Today’s requirements though put more emphasis on safety, availability and maintainability. So is there any correlation between the requirements of the two eras? In 1947, reliability meant availability of the electrical source of supply rather than the feeder cable distribution. Today, it includes the availability of the feeder cable distribution, and this is likely to be achieved by automatic reconfiguration. Therefore there are similarities between the requirements of the two eras, but with enhancement for performance improvements to meet today’s commercially-driven railway environment. Even though compatibility is not mentioned today, it is a hidden requirement that goes without saying. When a signalling power distribution system is designed we have to consider
Figure 11
the nature and interface requirements of the signalling system. Economy in its historical context meant doing things as cheaply as possible, whereas today we have to look at delivering a holistic system to meet certain safety and performance criteria. This in turn means we are looking for value for money over a period of time, rather than a short-term solution. Safety legislation has intensified over the past sixteen years or so and we now have to comply with many more statutory obligations. Today a great deal of emphasis is placed upon safety of personnel and the whole system from electrical hazards, whereas sixty years ago electrical safety with respect to signalling power distribution was in its infancy. Being able to maintain a system whilst it is still available for operational use is a new requirement for signalling power distribution, and again has come about because of today’s commercially-driven railway environment. To conclude, one thing that we would all like to see is stability so that things have time to settle down and to demonstrate their justification in practice.
REFERENCES 1.
LR Insley, “Electrical Power Supplies for Railway Signalling,” IRSE Proceedings, January 1947
2.
IRSE Green Booklet No. 11, “Railway Signalling Power Supplies,” by DL Mitchell (1952)
74
A CONCISE LOOK AT UK MAIN LINE RAILWAY SIGNALLING POWER DISTRIBUTION PAST, PRESENT & POSSIBLE FUTURE
Discussion The discussion was opened by I. Harman (Network Rail) who thanked the speaker for his illuminating and informative paper, noting that we had almost come full-circle from 1947 with the continued use of 650V A.C. earth-free power supplies. He asked for the speaker’s views on the different type of signalling power supplies that have been provided in more recent years, often housed in large buildings, with respect to their costeffectiveness and reliability. A. Button had also noted the “full-circle” effect but observed that often business requirements had driven what had been provided. As an electrical engineer, he believed it was right to retain the 650V A.C. earth-free type of power supply but he also agreed with the approach to provide greater availability and improved safety. C. Hunt (Network Rail) asked if the speaker thought that 650V 3-phase systems should now be considered, having been proved in use, and what would be some of the advantages in doing this. A. Button personally felt that it was sensible to consider this now. Previously, with phase sensitive styles of train detection, there were always potential problems with phase rotation, however, with the gradual move away from this type of track circuit, this should not now be an issue. 3-phase would be good for the industry as loads could be balanced across the phases leading to a reduction in cable sizes. G. Brindle (Amey Infrastructure Services) explained about a recent study using various power supply distribution methods namely: 400V 3-phase earth free and earth reference; 600V single-phase earth free and earth reference; 650V 3-phase earth free and earth reference. The study had shown that removing the earth from the 400V 3-phase earth reference would allow the saving of a Principal Supply Point (PSP); as the voltage rises, the current increases allowing fuses to blow and allowing for the use of smaller cable sizes. If 600V single-phase is used, another PSP can effectively be saved as the voltage rises further: it is not now the voltage drop, or load, that predominates but the transformer inrush and behaviour of the system under fault conditions. Transformer inrush is a function of the voltage of the transformer and a 650V transformer will have a primary current of about 60% of a 400V transformer together with a reduction in inrush current of about 35%. With 650V 3-phase, the current is spread over the three phases with a resultant saving of another PSP, noting that each PSP costs in the region of £400k, therefore 650V 3phase earth free was the most cost effective solution. He then questioned if we should, therefore, be considering increasing the power supply distribution voltage to 1kV. R. Wyatt (Independent Consultant) confirmed that 1kV was used overseas and whilst discussions have taken place in this country, it was believed that the use of this voltage might require better quality cable insulation that would cost more although detailed
costings have not been done. He felt that the use of 1kV, earth-free was possible, the difficulty is the use of a CPC (Circuit Protective Conductor); the Signalling Design Handbook prohibits the use of extending an earth from one place to another, which is effectively a CPC, and is analogous to a telecoms screening conductor. Another factor, as compared to 1947, is that previously the loss of power only affected a limited area whereas now the effects are more widespread and this has also contributed to an increase in costs. He also felt a lot of the power we utilize is for “environmental-conditioning” of the signalling equipment and questioned the use of supplying these systems from the signalling power supplies. A. Button agreed that “environmentalconditioning” of the signalling equipment should be defined as either critical or non-critical such that the provision of UPS systems, which will maintain signalling supplies under failure conditions, will only support those environmental systems that are necessary for the continued operation of the signalling equipment. He was aware that the use of 1kV had been considered but wondered if the insulation of the equipment would be satisfactory and also felt that health and safety factors might influence the decision. J. Francis (President) asked the speaker for his views on either having more PSP’s with simpler distribution arrangements or less PSP’s with the higher availability that this would require. A. Button replied that he personally would have less PSP’s but with greater reliability and availability. D. Bradley (Atkins Rail) referred to the effect of electrified railways, especially where longitudinal earth systems are provided, such as with a CPC. In the discussions following the1947 paper, there was a comment from J. Tyler stating: “it was necessary to insulate the lead sheath from earth to avoid electrolysis and fire from (D.C.) traction return currents in the earth” This statement is still true and any longitudinal conductor laid alongside a D.C. electrified railway will pick up traction return current and must therefore be rated to carry these currents; it will tend to “dry out” the earth as current is dissipated and also corrode the earth connection although it is possible to control this effect using an active corrosion resistance akin to cathodic protection systems. The installation of a CPC alongside a D.C. electrified line, therefore, creates problems in controlling the effects of the traction return whereas in an A.C. electrified line, as already discussed, the CPC is analogous to a screening conductor and this is governed by both construction requirements and procedures to allow work to take place. Tests have shown that on a booster system, 300A will generate 40V to remote earth at an earth point on a screening conductor and this could be hazardous to staff working on the equipment. The one ray of hope is the Earth Protection Relay (EPR), mentioned in the paper, and this offers the possibility of protecting staff before the touch potential
A CONCISE LOOK AT UK MAIN LINE RAILWAY SIGNALLING POWER DISTRIBUTION PAST, PRESENT & POSSIBLE FUTURE
voltages become hazardous and he asked the speaker if he thought this was the way forward and what were the costs involved. A. Button agreed EPR’s were the way forward and advised that they have already been used, including within a D.C. electrified area where a CPC was not installed because of the concerns over the corrosive effect. Additionally, where the ohmic value of the local earth rods cannot be guaranteed to be low enough to blow a fuse, EPR’s can provide the required protection. In terms of cost, the value of an EPR is £1k but they also allow for a reduction in cable size and consequently additional savings. A. Kitchen (Network Rail) referred to the use of earth-free systems that do not cause loss of power on the first fault; loss of power in itself creates a safety issue and it is therefore important to raise an alarm at detection of the first earth fault to allow rectification as soon as possible before the second fault occurs and power is shut off. A. Button confirmed that the paper does refer to this noting that earth-free systems fitted with nonintrusive continuous monitoring systems have the advantage of being able to detect the first fault without shutting off power. With earth source distribution you can only discover what is actually happening by undertaking periodic maintenance which may require the power to be shut down anyhow. J. Govey (WRSL) concurred with A. Kitchen’s point in that an earth-free system is an easy way of giving the required tolerance and with reference to R. Wyatt’s point about distributed earths, he noted that CTRL have a 35mm buried earth conductor with all equipment earthed to it; an expensive but safe way of ensuring that there can be no risk from touchpotentials. He listed five reasons for earthing: touch potential between metalwork within touching distance; disconnect dangerous fault; discharge dangerous voltage on exposed metalwork; lightning protection or fast transient earth and EMC protection (Faraday cage). Many of these can be addressed by double insulation and he wondered if the speaker thought the industry should consider moving in this direction. A. Button thought this was a possibility as it would remove the need for protective devices but wasn’t sure how far the double-insulation should be taken beyond transformers and switching boxes. He also noted that, whatever else is done, Fast Transient Earths would still be required for the protection of equipment. G. Brindle (Amey Infrastructure Services) advised that he was aware of several installations which had utilized double-insulation techniques to avoid unnecessary expense when modifying older installations. R. Wyatt (independent Consultant) noted that another advantage of the buried earth wire is that the flow of current in the wire enhances the screening factor of the screening conductor. It is also very easy to test and is “endless” unlike the physical end of a CPC with the consequent step change in voltage.
75
C. Porter (IRSE) wondered if there had been any safety incidents with power supplies that have required review and if there were any obsolescence issues with the equipment that is now in place, especially UPS’s. He finally asked where the armouring of cables came from as it was his belief this was unnecessary if cables were laid within a troughing route. A. Button referred to the 1947 paper which recommended the use of armoured cables, more probably for mechanical protection, without realizing the implications of doing so. He was unaware of any specific safety issues although a recent SIGTAN required technicians to check earth rod connections. Life cycle costs were based upon a 25 year cycle and UPS’s can be upgraded if necessary. A. Stell (WRSL) picked up on the point of economy and PSP’s but wondered how we get economy at point of use; the 1947 paper referred to separation of power and signalling equipment and asked for the speaker’s comments on this. A. Button believed that recent standards did allow for the mixing of E&P and S&T equipment in the same location but where systems require specific facilities, such as auto-reconfiguration, this would probably require its own power case anyhow. Use of radial type distribution will probably result in a mixed installation which is a sensible option. I. Harman (Network Rail) was concerned that people thought that the same rules could be applied to both A.C. and D.C. electrified areas but, for some of the reasons that had been mentioned this evening, we need to consider the rules carefully for each application. A. Button stated that he would look forward to the paper!! M. Tyrrell (Independent Consultant) reflected that the 1947 paper was produced in a different world from today and he observed that, certainly on the Southern Region, cables were never normally armoured and earthed because of the risk of traction flashover. He questioned the speaker on what differences result in the local signalling distribution power supplies where there is a D.C. railway with a 33kV distribution system. A. Button agreed that it was fortunate that the South East had duplicated supplies from SubStations with the only additional need being a UPS to hold up the supply during power supply changeover periods. S. Isbister (Atkins Rail) advised that he was aware of an incident in which three S&T staff had been injured having touched live 650V Supplies. D. Bradley (Atkins Rail) commented that it was interesting that there is money available for power supplies these days. With regard to rules, he noted that it is very much “horses for courses” and an incident when DLR opened illustrated the necessity to consider protection very carefully; a flashover that occurred outside Fenchurch Street struck surge arrestors on the DLR and the flashover was then maintained by the DLR D.C. voltage. The buried earth conductor appeared to be a good solution but
76
A CONCISE LOOK AT UK MAIN LINE RAILWAY SIGNALLING POWER DISTRIBUTION PAST, PRESENT & POSSIBLE FUTURE
on A.C. electrified areas earth conductors are extremely complicated with both conductive and inductive components, and if the bare earth conductor is in good contact with the earth, so is the traction return and this situation is not, therefore, the panacea first thought of. He asked the speaker what was the maximum feasible length for a lineside power supply system. A Button believed that the governing factor would probably be determined by the size of the cable specified and the ability to physically bend this cable within the troughing routes and equipment rooms/locations in which it was to be terminated; this generally equates to 35mm Aluminum and 95mm Copper, and experience has shown that this results in a distance of about 10km. If double-end
fed, this would be halved to about 5km although the installations on the West Coast are 3km because of the lower power supply voltage. P. Scott (Network Rail) thought that designers, installers, testers and maintainers are frightened of dealing with power supplies because of the implications if power is lost and he felt that staff needed to be educated in its use and application especially in emergency situations. J. Francis (IRSE President) observed that the provision of power supplies has been changeable over the last decade and he thanked the speaker for bringing the institution up to date on this subject and he also thanked everybody for the debate that had subsequently followed.
77
Technical Meeting of the Institution held at
1 Birdcage Walk, London Wednesday 14th February 2007 The President, Mr. J Francis, in the chair. 71 members and visitors were in attendance. An apology for absence had been received from Jim Waller who wished to congratulate the presenter and the DLR on the progress made over the last twenty years. It was proposed by Mr. D Edney, seconded by Mr. R Penny and carried that the Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 10 January 2007 be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a correct record. There were no members present for the first time since their election to membership. The Chairman then commented that it was on 1 November 1985 that the first paper on the DLR signalling systems had been presented to the Institution in London, with a further paper in October 1987. The DLR had been a success story which had been helpful in the regeneration of the former docks area of east London. He then introduced Mr Ralph Harding of DLR, observing that Ralph had been with the DLR for 16 years, and was a long-standing Fellow of the Institution having entered the profession 35 years ago. Mr Harding then presented his paper, The Docklands Light Railway – A Coming of Age. He outlined the circumstances which led to the building of the railway and the decision to build a light railway rather than a tramway. It was opened by the Queen in 1987, with the original SSI based signalling system with ATO developed and implemented by the then GEC-General Signal Ltd (now Alstom). Continuous expansion of the railway since those early days led to the need to move to transmission based signalling (Seltrac) provided by the then SEL, Canada. (Now Thales). He described the franchise and concession arrangements which had been used to facilitate the day to day running and expansion of the system before describing some details of the various S&T systems in use, finishing with a view on the planned future expansion of the system to Stratford International and Dagenham Dock. Following the presentation, the discussion was opened by Mr John Corrie (Mott Macdonald). Messrs Bob Barnard (Alstom), Tom Godfrey (Thales), Keith Norgrove (Serco DLR), Albert Love (Thales), Alan Rumsey (Parsons), Cy Porter (Past-President), J Barnett (ex-NI Railways), Ian Harman (Network Rail), David McKeown (Consultant), Clive Kessell (Centuria Comrail), Ian Mitchell (Delta Rail), Jacques Poré (Alstom), and Colin Porter (IRSE) all took part in the discussion. The President in his concluding remarks observed that Ralph had provided a comprehensive look at what had happened at the DLR over the last 18 years and why, with an insight into future plans. The presentation had led to a lively discussion. He then proposed a vote of thanks, presenting the speaker with the commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper. The Chairman thanked members for their attendance and their contribution. Mr Francis then made announcements of forthcoming events and closed the meeting at 1955 by announcing that the next meeting in London would be held on the 20 March 2007.
The Docklands Light Railway – A Coming of Age Ralph Harding1 Has the Docklands Light Railway come of age? It seems incredible that the last paper on the signalling and control systems of the DLR presented to this Institution was nearly twenty years ago. Messrs Ware and Wyles then gave an illuminating paper (Ref.1) describing the exciting happenings in East London, where a different concept of providing public transport was being unfolded to a community who had not seen regeneration for nearly a generation. Indeed the landscape was one of dereliction and decay — in modern parlance, a huge brownfield site. No-one could dispute that what has happened since has been quite extraordinary. The area’s transformation into a new city and local needs have required the DLR to respond in a way that our pioneers in 1987 could never have imagined. How has it been possible to achieve so much, in such a short time in railway terms, where others have stumbled? This paper will examine the political arena within which the DLR has had to operate, and give an overview of the signalling and telecommunications systems which have been adopted to meet the ever increasing challenges. It 1 The presenter is Chief Engineer with Docklands Light Railway Ltd.
will also look forward to the expansion of the system.
AN EVOLVING PICTURE OVER 20 YEARS 1987 saw HM the Queen open the new railway, only for it to be closed briefly for final testing before the public could enjoy it. It was a very modest light railway in those days, with eleven vehicles (P86 stock) operating singly over a three-legged track layout from Tower Gateway, Stratford and Island Gardens, meeting in the centre of the proposed lowrise development based on the old wharves of London’s West India and Millwall Docks. The Docklands Light Railway was fully automatic from the start, with a control system specially developed for the application by GEC-General Signal Ltd. Effectively the system ran from station to station with few intermediate blocks. The headways thus derived were sufficient for the levels of traffic being generated then. This all changed with the speculative development by Canadian company Olympia and York of the business district around Canary Wharf. An immediate need was a better rail link to the City than Tower Gateway could provide. Thus the extension to
78
DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY – A COMING OF AGE
Bank was born, 1.6 km mostly in twinbore tunnel from Royal Mint St Junction, providing direct access to the City and interchange with London Underground’s Central and Northern Lines. The original eleven vehicles were not designed for tunnel operation with regard to fire loadings, and so a further ten vehicles (P89 stock), of similar design but to the required fire standard, were purchased. At the same time GEC-General Signal enhanced the signalling system to cope with increasing demands, and the addition of inter-station blocks reduced headways to three minutes. The Bank extension opened in 1991. Meanwhile the desire to promote regeneration in the Royal Docks area downstream of Canary Wharf prompted a Bill in Parliament to build an 8 km extension to Beckton, on a new alignment to the north of the docks parallel in part to the North Woolwich branch of the North London line. This received the Royal Assent in 1989. Anticipated growth now saw the need for more vehicles and a move towards operating them in pairs. This meant that platforms on the original railway needed to be lengthened to take 60m trains, except at Bank which had been built with 90m platforms. The Beckton branch was built to cope with 60m trains from the outset. In order to accommodate the growing fleet of vehicles a brand new depot facility was built, on the site of a redundant gas works at Beckton. An order was awarded to Bombardier in Brugge, Belgium for 22 vehicles (B90 stock), with an option on a further 48 which was taken up later as the B92 stock. The B90s were compatible with the GEC-General Signal signalling system, for operation on the original railway in two vehicle mode. Westinghouse Brakes Ltd provided this part of the system in fact, interfacing with the vital elements of the GECGeneral Signal trainborne control equipment. The Beckton Extension opened in 1994, but not before a decision had been taken to upgrade the whole of the signalling system to cope with the everincreasing demands of the railway, which the incumbent system was felt to be unable to handle. Fixed-block train control with coded track circuits (this was before the days of “Distance to Go” systems) was now pitched against movingblock based on continuous communication, which was still a very new idea at that time. The main protagonists were Westinghouse Signals and Alcatel. Both systems demonstrated a basic ability to meet the foreseen demands, but the flexibility and expandability of the Alcatel moving-block system, and indeed the minimum trackside furniture, won the day, and this is the system we have today. It must be emphasised, not least before this Institution, that this was a bold pioneering move by DLR, to be the first in the UK to embrace this technology, based on our evaluation of the experience of the system in operation in Toronto (Scarborough Line) and Vancouver (Skytrain), which were the only applications up to that time. So moving block and communication-based train control systems happened in the UK in Docklands in 1995.
DLR made a conservative decision that it would be sensible to prove this system thoroughly, before commissioning it on the Bank - Canary Wharf route, which was becoming very busy by that time. Thus the Beckton Extension was equipped from the outset with the Alcatel system. The B92 vehicles were accordingly equipped only with the Alcatel VOBC (Vehicle On-Board Computer), and they ran a shuttle service between Poplar Station and Beckton until confidence was gained. For details of how this led eventually to the adoption of the system for the complete railway, see the case study by Dr Michael Lockyear in the IRSE Metro Railway Signalling Handbook (Ref. 2). To understand the manner in which the future development of the railway was undertaken, it is necessary first to understand the political dimension.
POLITICAL BACKGROUND London Regional Transport (LRT) had promoted the Bill in Parliament for the original railway, and it had received the Royal Assent in 1984. It is important to note that the DLR is not and never was considered to be part of London Underground Ltd., although interchanges with that system were and continue to be important to its success. In effect the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC), set up by the Government in 1982 to bring some dynamism of development into this large area of dereliction, sponsored the railway through London Regional Transport. Five years into the railway’s existence it was beset by many problems. In hindsight they can be attributed to growing pains, to coping with unprecedented demand and significantly to lack of direct accountability to the prime sponsor. In 1992 therefore responsibility for the railway was vested directly in the LDDC, who became its new owners. One of the first actions was as ever to appoint new management, free from the perceived shackles of LRT and with a remit to plot the way forward. The concept which emerged, which would become a key to the successful delivery of the railway, was the appointment of Brown Root, Booz Allen Joint Venture (BBJV) as prime contractor responsible for integration of all the new systems coming on to the railway. Members of this Institution will need no reminder of the importance of proper integration between trackside signalling and trainborne equipment for achieving the full benefits of Automatic Train Operation. In 1998, with the success of the LDDC and the now burgeoning Canary Wharf development, the Government decided to wind up the LDDC, and the railway was vested in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. This lasted for one year whilst the concept of an authority which would be a unifying body for the interests of Londoners was developed. The result was the emergence of the elected Mayor of London and an assembly, the Greater London Authority, having a transport arm, Transport for London. In preparation responsibility for DLR was passed briefly from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the
DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY – A COMING OF AGE
Regions to the Government Office for London, and then to what was to become London Rail within Transport for London. As part of London Rail with the East London Line and the North London Line projects, DLR now fulfils a key role in the development of London’s surface rail based transport strategy for the future. It has been an interesting time therefore. DLR was not deflected from delivering the transport needs of East London. Indeed for much of this time the railway was left to its own devices, with its small organisation, short line of communication, its good relationships with the local community and businesses, and delivered an effective and sustainable future for transport in the area. To complete the political picture, we must now move on to how the privatisation era affected the DLR.
THE DLR FRANCHISE Consideration of DLR came late in the day during the Government’s drive towards private sector ownership of railways. The model adopted was quite different in fact from that used for heavy rail. Operation and maintenance of the whole railway and its rolling stock would be the subject of a franchise to the private sector. The railway itself would remain in the ownership of DLR Ltd., which would remain in the public sector and be accountable at that stage to the Department of the Environment, Transport & the Regions. This model ensured that the wheel-to-rail interface came under a single umbrella - arguably the only model for a fully automatic railway. The role of DLR Ltd therefore came to be to manage the franchise contract, which was very much performance-based, with availability targets, rewards and penalties, so that the franchisee was given responsibility for the full system and had control over its own destiny. The other key role of DLR Ltd was the development of the railway for the future. So in April 1997, after a franchising competition, responsibility for operation and maintenance of the railway passed to Docklands Railway Management Ltd (DRML), which was a consortium of the then DLR senior management and Serco Ltd. DRML later became wholly owned by the Serco group as Serco Docklands Ltd (SDL). The original contract was for seven years, but this was extended by two years in 2004 to cover the period of time when the London City Airport Extension was due to be brought into use. In May 2006, following a very stiff competition between four consortia initially and then a short list of two, Serco Group emerged with a contract for seven years and an option for a further two years. It is worthy of note that, at the time of the original franchise award, Ministers asserted that DLR was now firmly in the private sector, whereas in fact the railway has never left the public sector.
CONCESSIONS FOR EXTENSIONS TO THE DLR The concept of bringing private sector finance into construction projects through the Government’s Private Finance Initiative first manifested itself on the
79
DLR with the building of the Lewisham Extension, from south of Crossharbour station under the Thames to Greenwich and on to Lewisham on viaduct and at ground level. In 1993 an Act of Parliament was passed to enable the construction for a double track line 4.2 km long. Following a competition a design, build and finance contract was let to City, Greenwich and Lewisham Railway Ltd (CGLR) in 1996, with a target date for opening the extension on 7 January 2000. This consortium comprised John Mowlem & Co plc, Hyder plc, London Electricity plc and Mitsui & Co Ltd. The concession is to run for 24.5 years, with the ownership of infrastructure being brought into full DLR ownership in 2020. The overriding principle is that, in return for the Consortium’s investment in the construction of the railway, a fee will be paid to them for making the railway available to DLR Ltd for daily operation. Moreover there would be no return until the railway was open. For the first 13 or 14 years of the concession the revenue risk on the extension will be held by DLR Ltd, but for the remainder the risk passes to CGLR. The design, build and finance contract included provision of all infrastructure, stations, control systems and power. Operating the trains over the extension is the responsibility of DLR Ltd and as we have seen this was franchised to Serco Docklands. The extension opened six weeks ahead of schedule on 22 November 1999. The second manifestation of the principles of the Private Finance Initiative (or now, as others would prefer, Public-Private Partnership) came in 2002 when a concession was let on similar principles to those of the Lewisham Extension project, but this time for a 30 year period. The successful bidders were City Airport Railway Enterprises (CARE), a consortium of the builders AMEC and the Royal Bank of Scotland. This was for a line commencing at Canning Town Junction east of the station, and going to King George V station with three intermediate stations including that at the London City Airport. The funding and return principles were the same as for the Lewisham Extension, except that this time no revenue risk would be passed to the concession company. The railway opened two weeks ahead of schedule on 10 December 2005. A further concession has been let to Woolwich Arsenal Rail Enterprises (WARE), a consortium with the same principal partners as CARE, to extend the Airport branch from King George V under the Thames to Woolwich Arsenal station to provide interchange with National Rail. This was let in 2005, with a target of opening in 2009.
MANAGEMENT OF FRANCHISE AND CONCESSIONS The contractual process outlined above results in a very complex series of relationships to be managed by DLR Ltd alongside its role of developing the railway. Figure 1 shows these relationships and roles in detail. Significantly it was decided, in the concession contracts, that the first line response to problems during
DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY – A COMING OF AGE
80
Figure 1
operational hours should fall to DLR Ltd’s franchised operator, and this was written into the contracts from the start. The concession holders were free to arrange their own second and third line maintenance. It has to be said that the complex arrangements have worked, and worked well. This has been driven in the main by the incentives to reward performance through the various agreements, but equally in the desire by all the parties to be and continue to be part of a successful enterprise in East London providing the public service the DLR offers. All the organisations have benefited from the short communication channels, which lead to decisions affecting day to day operation being made in an effective and timely manner. This is equally the case with the development of the railway where all the parties are affected by change.
Figure 2
The foregoing gives the background to the growth of the system and the environment in which DLR has had to operate and grow. So how has the technology been developed, especially in S&T to cope with the demands placed upon the railway, not only in moving ever increasing numbers into, out of and within the Docklands area, but also in providing a safe and secure environment for this to happen? Before we answer that a few statistics are appropriate.
PASSENGER GROWTH AND FUTURE DEMAND In a word the passenger growth in railway terms has been phenomenal. The graph in Figure 2 clearly shows this, set against significant milestones in the DLR’s own history, those external to DLR and future developments.
DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY – A COMING OF AGE
What is clear is that the growth of the working population at Canary Wharf was generated initially by the DLR, with a demand of 7,000 in 1993 rising to 21,000 in 1997. Significantly ridership on DLR nearly tripled in this time, though it was not all associated with Canary Wharf. There was no doubt that the system was near capacity coping with demand in 1998/9. This was associated in part with delays in the opening of London Underground’s Jubilee Line Extension. The original timing of this was predicted to cut DLR passenger numbers significantly. As it turned out, with the Jubilee Line Extension finally opening in 2000, passenger numbers on DLR increased as the opening of the Lewisham Extension replaced those lost to the Jubilee Line to a great extent. Since then, with the doubling of the working population DLR has played a complementary role to the Jubilee Line Extension, with ridership up 50% since 2000. By 2009 it is anticipated DLR ridership will have risen nearly tenfold since 1988 as the plans for Stratford International are delivered and capacity enhancement is completed.
TECHNOLOGY—THE S&T INFLUENCE AUTOMATIC TRAIN OPERATION As already stated, the Docklands Light Railway has used automatic train operation (ATO) from the start. Trains are driverless with train attendants, who were originally called Train Captains but now are known as Passenger Service Assistants (PSAs). The system now in use is the Alcatel Seltrac 40 communication-based train control system. The hierarchy of the system devolves into three layers: •
management layer;
•
control layer;
•
application layer.
A block diagram of the system is given in Figure 3.
SMC
Figure 3
81
The management layer comprises the Selnet Management Centre (SMC) and remote work stations. Passenger information displays are driven at this level. The SMC comprises a non-vital SELNET supervisory control system made up of up to 20 standard IBM-compatible 386/486 personal computers running under OS/2 and networked on an Ethernet local area network. The operator interface is formed of a number of workstations, each comprising a keyboard and a windowed display able to provide a line overview and to display service alarms and command prompts. Additional workstations are provided to enable technical staff to monitor and manage the various sub-systems and receive equipment alarms. Service scheduling and regulation facilities are provided by elements integrated into this control system. Up to 99 schedules are held for use, selectable by the system controllers. Thus with this system the railway’s timetable is managed automatically, with intervention by the operators only during service disruption whatever the cause. The control layer combines both Automatic Train Protection (ATP) and ATO functionality with route setting and interlocking. Vehicle Control Computers (VCCs) perform all these functions for a given geographic area, supporting 30 trains. On the DLR at the moment there are three VCC areas as follows. Area
Area Controlled
1
West Route - Bank to Westferry and to the centre platform at Canary Wharf;
2
North, South and Lewisham Extension Routes, and the other platforms at Canary Wharf;
3
East Route - Poplar to Beckton with the City Airport and Woolwich Arsenal Extensions.
These are illustrated in Figure 4, which shows the quite complex interfaces between VCCs at Canary
82
DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY – A COMING OF AGE
Figure 4
Wharf. Rather than have all the track within VCC 2, the original design called for the ability to run trains into Canary Wharf from Bank even if VCC 2 was not working for any reason. This inevitably led to complex handling of data between VCCs, with the two ends of a crossover in different VCC areas in some cases. In terms of capacity both VCC 2 and VCC3 are now full, so for future developments in the east another VCC will be needed. On the West Route, VCC1 is about 50% full and so has potential for expansion if required in that direction. The original VCCs used GA 900 computers in a two-outof-three configuration. These were upgraded in 1998 to the Second Generation VCC produced by Alcatel using Intel 386 micro-processors.
The change at that time was a like-for-like replacement for the application, without any redesign of the VCC areas. The VCC contains the complete geography of its area, with civil speed limits, station stops, clearance points etc., all contained in a guideway listing from which the software application guideway data is derived. At the application level, the VCCs communicate continuously in both directions with the Vehicle OnBoard Computers (VOBCs) on the vehicles via an inductive loop in the four-foot which has regular transpositions at 25 metre intervals, at 36 kHz out and 56 kHz back, using 40/80 bit telegrams. The VOBC reports the vehicle’s position to the VCCs, on the basis of absolute information from defined loop points on the railway updated by loop transposition and tachometer information. The VOBCs use 8085 microprocessor technology in a two-out-of-two
configuration. There is one VOBC per vehicle. DLR trains operate in pairs in all cases at the moment, which gives some redundancy in operation - should Vehicle A’s VOBC shut down for any reason then Vehicle B’s VOBC can take over immediately. From the information provided by the VOBCs the VCC therefore knows the precise location of all vehicles in its area. Hence it is able to inform a vehicle of the position of the start of the safe braking distance to the vehicle in front which if encroached will cause the emergency brake to be applied. With the continual updating of this information the protection zone of the train in front follows it, and the concept of moving block is formed. Given full knowledge of the geography, the VCC will also inform the VOBC of speed limits and protection to clearance points according to the routes set and proved. As well as these ATP functions, the VOBC is also responsible for ATO operation of speed control and station stopping in accordance with run information obtained from the VCC. In order to achieve the latter the VCC must have information regarding the status of the routes set, and indeed it is responsible for setting the routes if available when requested by the SMC at the management level. To do this the VCC communicates directly and continuously over dedicated modem links with Station Controller Subsystems (SCS), also at the application layer, situated at key areas where there are points and axle counters.
There are 18 Station Controller Subsystems around the railway. They are responsible for: •
reporting the status of points to the VCC;
•
evaluating the status of the dead locking blocks for points under its control;
DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY – A COMING OF AGE
•
moving called points on command from the VCC, but only if the associated dead locking block is unoccupied.
The prime use of the axle counters around the railway is for dead locking of points in the event that a VCC is not functioning. However they also perform an important function in supporting operation safely when a vehicle ceases to communicate with a VCC for whatever reason. We have seen that the essence of the operation is the continuous updating of position and status by the vehicle through its communication link. If this is lost, the VCC makes use of a feature that was first developed by Alcatel for DLR. First it reconciles its last recorded position with the axle counts of the block or blocks within which the vehicle was located. All subsequent manual movements are tracked as the vehicle proceeds from axle counter block to block. The vehicle is then protected as if by a fixed block system, until it can be removed from service or re-entered into the system should communication be reinstated. TELECOMMUNICATIONS No railway would function without its communications systems, and DLR is no exception. Its systems involve SCADA, long line public address, radio, ticket vending machines, automatic passenger counters, and closed-circuit television. An additional development, pioneered by DLR, is its remote passenger information system, “Daisy.” RADIO From the beginning the on-board train staff have always had radio communication with the operators in the control room. Given the “wandering” role of the PSAs within the train they have mobile radios assigned to them as they start their duty.
Figure 5
83
The radio system has two channels, operating over the UHF 440 to 470 MHz band. Channel 1 is the main operating channel for controller’s communication with the PSAs, whilst Channel 2 is for maintenance staff. Two further channels are provided for the depot controllers at Poplar and Beckton. Transmission across the DLR network is controlled from a base station at Poplar. Following a comprehensive radio coverage survey, the system has recently been upgraded to provide in-fill where necessary. In some cases this is the result of new building in the area. The methods adopted are location dependent. For example leaky feeder cable is used in Bank tunnel, at Cyprus on the East route which is in a deep concrete cutting, and in the underpass near Gallions Reach. Directional antennae are used at other sites, as a more economic solution than leaky feeder. To ensure no degradation where coverage overlaps, the signals are synchronised over an optical fibre link via on-frequency repeaters. Figure 5 shows the system arrangement. CCTV OPERATION AND SECURITY The closed circuit television system was originally conceived principally to enable the operators to observe activities on or about the platforms on DLR stations. However with increasing concerns over security a significant upgrade has been made to the system in the last two years, to give wider coverage beyond the station environs and to improve images to enable them to be used as evidence. This is the result of an initiative by the Home Office which has been taken up by DLR, and by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets through which much of the West and South routes run.
DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY – A COMING OF AGE
Figure 6
84
DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY – A COMING OF AGE
In order to achieve these aims a new network ring has been installed working at 2.5 Gbs throughout the railway, with additional cameras between Bank and Crossharbour and from Poplar to East India and Stratford. Passive provision has been made on the rest of the East route for extra cameras once funds are identified. SCADA Figure 6 gives a block diagram of the SCADA system, which comprises a Transmitton Chromos 2000 system. It is fully duplicated for availability, having two servers and network switching with work stations over Ethernet connections. The Ethernet to RS232 serial communication units are provided for interfacing with a 150 Mbs open transport network. Each function at the trackside has the ability to receive and transmit over both channels although the default will be to one or the other. Should the default channel fail then a switch is automatically made to the other channel. The system provides control for the traction power system, enabling remote control and monitoring of isolators. It is also used for tunnel ventilation control, pump rooms, and passenger alarms at stations. PASSENGER REVENUE SYSTEMS There are two systems which are serviced over the 150 Mbs network for revenue purposes. The first of these is the system serving the ticket vending machines, which enables the status of the machines around the railway to be monitored for use, replenishment and maintenance The second is the automatic passenger counting system. Because the DLR is an open system with no ticket barriers, there is a need to calculate passenger flows entering and leaving the stations. This is useful information for planning, but it is particularly relevant for revenue purposes. DLR receives from TfL a portion of the so-called Joint Fare Ticketing agreement, which apportions the income generated by travel cards between LUL, train operating companies, buses and DLR. The proportions depend upon a complex formula relating to travel card types, journeys made and passenger numbers. Thus knowledge of usage on DLR is essential. Above each possible entry to a DLR platform is mounted a counting rod which counts people as they pass and notes the direction of movement. This information is then fed back to the control centre and recorded for revenue use. When first introduced the system required a degree of calibration, not least to convince the Joint Fare Ticketing people that the counts were accurate. Following validation via comparisons with manual counts at selected stations, the system was accepted. LONG LINE PUBLIC ADDRESS This system provides automatic announcement of trains throughout the railway, triggered by the Alcatel system, and also enables the controllers to make specific announcements where necessary. The system equipment located at the control centre at Poplar has a graphical user interface to enable users to control and monitor the public
85
address system at the stations. These units also provide a scratch pad facility. Central public address equipment contains the required interface and driver circuits to enable announcements to be made to the station equipment on the North, South, East and West routes of the system. An additional output is provided for Bank station only. This unit also accepts train arrival information from the train control system via a serial interface. The system for the Lewisham Extension comprises a single computer, also installed within the equipment cabinet, which controls the public address equipment for its stations separately. This has been upgraded to control the public address equipment on the new stations on the City Airport Extension. The central equipment communicates with the outstations located at each station over copper pairs. “DAISY” This innovation for travel information takes information generated by the Alcatel signalling system for platform passenger information displays, and gives the relevant information on screens in offices for the nearest station. It works by taking the data from the Alcatel SMC system, processing it so that it can be transmitted on the DLR website, or sent via radio or cable to remote locations in serial form to be displayed by remote monitors programmed specifically to decode the relevant station information. A visit to the DLR website will show this system working in real time. It also provides a fascinating facility when you are aboard.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS DLR Ltd has a programme of schemes developed which cover the anticipated demands on the railway. They have now been brought very much into focus with the nomination of London as host city for the Olympic Games in 2012. The schemes are planned to equip the railway to meet not only the demands in 2012 but also those that are forecast to occur between now and then. They are: •
the Woolwich Arsenal Extension;
•
capacity enhancement, with 3-car operation on the Bank to Lewisham line;
•
the purchase of more rolling stock;
•
the new Stratford International link;
•
other capacity enhancements for the Olympic Games.
The Mayor of London has asked for a further scheme to be planned, the Dagenham Dock Extension, which will come after the Olympics. WOOLWICH ARSENAL EXTENSION The extension to Woolwich Arsenal involves another crossing of the River Thames, and work has commenced. The tunnel boring machine was launched by the Mayor of London in April. It is an end-on extension of the current City Airport branch.
86
DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY – A COMING OF AGE
It is scheduled to be opened to passengers in 2009. So far as S&T activities are concerned, it will require an additional update to the Alcatel VCC3 area to accommodate a plain track extension with a scissors crossover at Woolwich Arsenal station for turn-back. The City Airport branch telecommunications systems will be extended to cope with the extra station. THREE-CAR OPERATION BANK TO LEWISHAM A major capacity enhancement of the Bank to Lewisham Route will see three-car operation in 2009, giving 50% more capacity. The powers to do this have been granted and design work is under way. This will be extended to the North Route in 2010. The scheme has significant civil engineering aspects in that all but three of the platforms on the West and South routes will need extending by 30 metres. As mentioned earlier, the platforms at Bank station are already 90m long, and the forethought by the designers in 1990 must be warmly commended given the huge costs that DLR would otherwise have had to face in extending platforms in tunnels. Cutty Sark station on the Lewisham extension does present the challenge of extending underground. It has been agreed that these platforms will not be extended but instead selective door opening will be used, with the doors in the front half of the leading vehicle and the rear half of the third vehicle not opening at this station. The changes to the signalling system present less of a challenge in the moving of stopping points and coping with three-car trains. However significant changes are planned for the North Quay “Delta” and Royal Mint Street junctions. Although the North Quay junction was remodelled in 1991 from the original “delta” to facilitate access to the Beckton extension, removing unnecessary conflicts, there remains an issue with northbound Stratford Regional trains conflicting with southbound ex Bank trains at a diamond crossing. To remove this it is proposed that the line east of Westferry station, which at present climbs over the line to Beckton via Poplar, will dive under the Stratford branch to come up alongside West India Quay station straight into Canary Wharf. A fascinating ride experience for DLR passengers beckons!
The introduction of the new fleet of vehicles will present initial challenges for design as they differ in several respects from our current fleet. There are significant changes to the on-board equipment involving, amongst other things, a.c. traction motors and electric doors. The former will be a challenge to Bombardier and Alcatel in dealing with interface and EMC issues. The 24 vehicles are due to begin to come into service late 2007. They will enable us to operate the three-car service. A further 9 vehicles will be needed for the Woolwich Arsenal Extension, and 22 to support the service pattern for the Olympic Games. These are on order from Bombardier to be available in 2009. The new vehicles will not be designed to be able to work in a mixed consist with the current fleet, but will couple mechanically for rescue in a push-out situation. STRATFORD INTERNATIONAL EXTENSION The major extension to Stratford International involves the conversion of a hitherto infrequentlyused heavy rail link between Canning Town and Stratford to the DLR control system. Figure 7 shows the area of the scheme. The work needed to achieve this may be divided into two areas namely; •
Royal Victoria Station to Stratford Regional Station;
•
Stratford Regional Station International Station.
to
Stratford
For the former, the North London Line has now been closed south of Stratford and is to be upgraded to the DLR system. This will use much of the extant trackwork, with additional stations at Stratford High Street, Abbey Road and Star Lane, and additional crossovers to facilitate operation. A connection will be made to the Beckton Extension to the east of Royal Victoria giving access
The trackwork could therefore become much simpler here, but the need to make the changes while maintaining a service means fairly complicated stage works, so for the moment the present diamond crossing will remain in the revised layout offering some redundancy of operation. Royal Mint Street Junction, where Bank and Tower Gateway trains diverge, will be redesigned to allow better throughput. The signalling changes accompanying these remodelling schemes will be a challenge. NEW ROLLING STOCK DLR has a new fleet of 24 vehicles on order from Bombardier currently. They are being designed and manufactured in Bautzen in eastern Germany.
Figure 7 – North London Line Woolwich Branch conversion to DLR
DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY – A COMING OF AGE
to the Beckton Depot. At Stratford Regional use will be made of the existing low-level North London Line platforms. In order to allow this to occur, new platforms at Stratford Regional will be built north of the current Network Rail lines as part of the project, and the North London Railway trains will then terminate there. The second part of the route involves new build in cut-and-cover tunnel from the low level platforms at Stratford Regional to a station box adjacent to the station on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link lines. We propose to open this in 2010. During the Olympic Games this link will provide a key transport corridor between the main Olympic Park at Stratford and locations in the Docklands area where events are being held, notably the Excel centre on the East route, Greenwich and Woolwich. A service of 27 trains per hour is anticipated here. OTHER ENHANCEMENTS FOR THE OLYMPIC GAMES To support the Stratford Link, infrastructure improvements between Poplar and Canning Town will allow for three-car running to this important hub. They will be commensurate with the provisions on the City Airport branch and those to be provided on the North London Line conversion. Two stations serve the Excel Centre, one of the Olympic venues. Better access arrangements at Prince Regent Station will be provided to complement those at Custom House. This will provide better access at both ends of the venue. To meet the requirements for the enhancements illustrated above and the new link several infrastructure and systems upgrades will be needed: •
conversion of signalling and control to fully automatic operation;
87
•
provision of grade-separated junctions to avoid conflicting moves;
•
upgrade of the traction supply system to meet the increase demand;
•
integration of new rolling stock on to the railway.
At Canning Town, a flat junction close to the airport junction would present too many conflicting moves to cope with the foreseen throughput of traffic. To enable an effective service to be operated on the Stratford link emanating from either the Beckton or London City Airport branches and to enable integration of the services going towards Bank, a grade-separated junction is proposed instead as shown in Figure 8. Given the intensive service to be operated during the Olympic Games as well as the ongoing demands of capacity enhancements such as 3-car trains, the traction power system is in need of upgrade. This principally involves the upgrade of conductor rail and additional substation capacity configured in such a way as to cope with power outages whilst maintaining a service. This will be undertaken as an integrated programme and phased to cope with each additional demand on the railway as the Olympic Games approach. DAGENHAM DOCK EXTENSION This is to run from Gallions Reach on the East route, through to Dagenham Dock station on the Network Rail line to Southend. It will open out the north side of the Thames Gateway development proposals. We are looking at 2016 for this to open, and plans are already under way.
CONCLUSIONS
Figure 8 – Revised Airport/Stratford International junction at Canning Town
88
DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY – A COMING OF AGE
So has the DLR come of age? I suggest that the evidence given above points to an emphatic “Yes.” The DLR can no longer be described as a small railway in East London serving limited needs, but is a significant system fast becoming essential to the growth of London. With its three-car 90- metre trains and frequent service it is nearer to a metro than a tram system, hence the justification for the signalling system. However its light rail attributes give it the flexibility of access into areas where normal metros would not penetrate. To answer our President’s questions therefore, we have achieved much in such a short time through the nature of our contracts, which reward the will to succeed. We have kept the interfaces close with our stakeholders, contractors and the travelling public, which enables fast responses to solving problems as they emerge. We have tried where possible to break down the bureaucracy for decision-making in order to get things done. Of course we have, to some extent, been in the right place at the right time with the developments going on around us to bring investment in the system, but that in itself has increased the
challenges for us, and success can only bring the demand for more. We have tried hard not to lose sight of that fact as we expand the system further and keep the railway running at the same time. The relatively small team in DLR Ltd., its franchisee and concessions, across all the disciplines of engineering, planning and projects has allowed all this to happen, and we are of course keen for this to continue as we develop further and celebrate further significant comings of age.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank all colleagues in DLR and Serco Docklands in the information and guidance provided in producing this paper, including in particular Dr Mike Lockyear. Thanks are also due to London Rail and DLR Ltd for allowing me to publish the paper.
REFERENCES 1.
DK Ware and RS Wyles, Signalling and Control Systems for the Docklands Light Railway, IRSE Proceedings 1987/88
2.
Metro Signalling Handbook IRSE Publications
Discussion The discussion was opened by J. Corrie (Mott MacDonald) who noted that the Institution is often criticised for being far too interested in history but today we have heard of a fully automatic railway with modern signalling and he was impressed with the staggering amount of history that Docklands Light Railway (DLR) had created in the last 20 years which was well told by the speaker. He asked the speaker if his vision of control of a railway, and the excellent service provided by the automated DLR, was achieved by having a sound timetable, good service regulation and a signalling system that was rarely invoked in normal operation. He also asked about the use of moving block, especially over points, and what were the experiences of its characteristics; he finally questioned the speaker on the algorithms used for service regulation both in the control centre and use of ATO. R. Harding agreed that moving block was an emotive subject but the concept of its use on DLR was having a constant track-to-train communication with regular updates such that the positional information was as up to date as possible thus enabling trains to be run closer together, within their braking distance. He was unsure about how the algorithms functioned specifically but believed that the concepts were consistent with other systems where it was used. R. Barnard (Alstom) commented that this was a timely update on what is now a fully-fledged railway
and an important part of London. He noted that during the initial project stages, one of the objectives had been to provide an automated railway for the price of a tramway and he believed that this had been fully achieved; these being the two options that the Docklands Development Corporation had in mind at the time, and he felt that this was the right decision taking into account all the developments that there had been since! As the vehicles were designed to go around 25m radius curves, the Civil Engineer had made the most of this by squeezing the railway through difficult areas with steep gradients and sharp curves in the middle of interstation runs giving an overall leisurely performance to the network. He explained that when originally designed with a fixed-block system, the railway had some strange features, partly as a result of the Civil Engineering cramming features into an area where they wouldn’t really fit, but one requirement had been for very short overlaps, such as at Canary Wharf, which gave a two-minute interval. He asked the speaker if trespass was a problem and if the risk of people falling from platforms, where there are automatic driverless trains, had been an issue. He also believed that the use of the communications based signalling system had paid off; the lack of signalling infrastructure trackside had paid dividends, however, he questioned the use of moving block having recently observed operations, he noticed that trains still wait at the convergence point at junctions and then tend to hang back rather
DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY – A COMING OF AGE
than close up, in much the same way that they would with a simple fixed block system. He wondered if the speaker thought that the benefits of moving block with the short headways were being fully used or was there any intention to do so in the future? R. Harding noted that trespass was not as big a problem as might be expected, theft being the real problem, and people falling from platforms had also not been an issue; crowd control arrangements being implemented if necessary. The geography of the railway determined the use of moving block but he was unsure of why the closing-up wasn’t happening; any system is going to be limited by that geography and the fixed block proposed would have fulfilled the requirements but the flexibility of the communications was the overall winner. T. Godfrey (Thales) asked about the reliability of the SELTRAC system, the inductive loops used and the on-board equipment noting that tachogenerators can give problems when running over uneven track. R. Harding confirmed that the inductive loops had given some problems, although not endemic, and are more to do with the loop layout and the requirement to raise them to improve the inductive link. Radios are now being considered although the absolute determination of position is problematical but possibilities exist. Communications are sometimes lost, which causes havoc but does not affect operation of the railway and DLR are working with Alcatel to improve the situation; with expansion of services in the future, train-running will be less tolerant to this affect. The tachometers have also been an issue and were un-reliable but are now in the process of being upgraded. Overall reliability has been good with no major issues and the availability is very high compared to other railways in the country. K. Norgrove (Serco Docklands) clarified that moving block is used by default because it is programmed to do so; the junctions are close together and the layout is the constraining factor. The biggest advantage is that the SELTRAC equipment is all computer-based and nothing externally has to be changed so that a fixed block programme could be installed and would run in a similar way although by making blocks smaller to improve headway, you would eventually end up with a moving block system anyway. Moving block is more apparent and flexible in plain-line sections where vehicles can close up to one another; they can also then recover from any problems more quickly. The operational targets are being met and reliability is down to good maintenance and the renewals of cabling and relays; a process which is ongoing. Ultimately, the system still works well. A. Love (Thales) asked about the change to A.C. Traction, questioning what voltage was going to be used, when this was due to take place, if problems would be experienced with Axle Counters and if there were likely to be any immunisation problems. R. Harding explained that the 750V D.C. traction supply would still be used; the change was to using
89
A.C. Synchronous Traction Motors rather than the existing D.C. Traction Motors although it would still be necessary to check that any EMC footprint did not affect the signalling system. Trials and analysis of the effects are to be undertaken at the vehicle manufacturers’, where the test track is being fitted with the ALCATEL system, to ensure approvals can be given prior to delivery. The first three vehicles will be thoroughly tested on-site, the intention being to run them as three car trains but it should be noted that A.C. traction motors are not new and no real problems are envisaged. J. Francis (President) wondered if there were any other SELTRAC fitted lines using A.C. Motors that may be able to provide comparisons. A. Rumsey (Parsons Brinkerhoff) observed that DLR was one of the first railways to use CBTC technology and also one of the first to re-signal to CBTC; he asked if other administrations had benefited from this experience. He also noted that the trend was to move away from inductive loops to radio and he wondered how serious these considerations were. R. Harding answered that the new link to Stratford International was seriously considered as a pioneer for radio but both the political implications and the fact that it will be one of the key travel modes for the Olympics meant the decision was taken to stay with the tried and tested technology. The proposed branch to Dagenham Docks is more likely to utilise radio as it is more stand-alone and also close to Beckton Depot. Cy Porter (Past President) said that he had considered bringing a picture of the DLR train hanging over Island Gardens as an example of how not to test! He was interested in the expansion of the system and the constantly changing number of trains and routings available but the advantage is that the majority of equipment is on the train which can be taken back to the depot for upgrading before launching ‘as new’. He asked how this process was undertaken as he felt it would be impractical to upgrade all trains in one go. He also asked about future-proofing the equipment and asked what homologation meant. R. Harding explained that new versions of software do have to be done in one fell swoop with sufficient trains upgraded in one go to launch the service on a staged basis. Other than the complete change of system, which occurred with the change from the GEC to the ALCATEL System, which had been undertaken over various stages with a good deal of over-and-back between the two systems, other changes have not been to that level. Futureproofing was not deemed to be a problem as the system is considered as a ‘black-box’ with no real concern as to what goes on within the box as long as its functionality remains the same. Homologation means that all the vehicles are compatible within the environment in which they have to work. J. Barnett (ex NIR/Human Factors Psychologist) questioned the speaker on human factors as the DLR has always been compact and complex but is now spreading out and is still complex. He thought
90
DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY – A COMING OF AGE
that it would become increasingly important to make sure information to the travelling public is good and must match the quality of technology offered. R. Harding agreed that it was no use having a railway if people did not know how to use it and public information was key to that. He confirmed that there would be investment in Passenger Information Systems both for the railway as it is now and for the Olympics, with new types of display, and the quality of information is key to this especially during times of disruption. I. Harman (Network Rail) noted that the quality of rail/wheel adhesion is very important and asked if the railway had experienced any of these problems. R. Harding explained that there had certainly been no leaf fall type problems, only during a specific type of misty condition had some vehicles been affected and sand had been used to assist. He thought that it was remarkable that so few adhesion problems, either accelerating or braking, had been experienced taking into account the steep gradients on the railway. D. McKeown (Independent Consultant) thanked the speaker for his paper and with reference to Figure 2 in the paper, asked if he thought the same sort of growth in passenger numbers would continue beyond the projected date and what would he do about it; is the limit six-car operation or even, say, ten lines? He also questioned if, with the hindsight now available, whether he thought the railway would have developed in a different way as it gives the appearance of having grown a ‘bit like Topsy’. R. Harding didn’t think that, in terms of expansion, much more could be done in the middle section with the closeness of stations and lack of space for additional lines together with the time taken for longer trains to clear junctions; this probably limits this section to an optimum length of 3-car trains. Possible extensions might include westwards to Charing Cross, although this would require major tunnelling activity, southwards from Lewisham and continuing beyond Dagenham to Tilbury. If this were to happen, there is no doubt that the control areas would also have to change. C. Kessell (Centuria Com Rail) asked if the new trains were compatible with the old trains such that a consist of old and new stock could be formed and he also observed that there was no mention in the paper of the live on-train security CCTV coverage back to the Control Centre. R. Harding clarified that the old and new vehicles will not be electrically compatible but would be able to be physically coupled to assist one another should the need arise to recover a failed train. He also confirmed that the on-train CCTV is still provided and is recorded when necessary to provide evidence.
I. Mitchell (Delta Rail) referred to the passenger counting and asked what technology was used to do the ‘counting’ and questioned how the Oyster Card system was handled on DLR as it is an “opensystem”. R. Harding DLR described that a series of “rods” at each station count people in and out of the system and this has been accepted for revenue collection purposes. The Oyster Card ticketing relies on the public validating their cards on the readers provided throughout the system as they enter and leave DLR. J. Poré believed that the Olympics would provide a major challenge and asked what were the maximum figures for passenger numbers per hour per direction today and during that time. He also noted that the shape of DLR is a “star”, with the main junction in the middle, and any potential problems will come from that shape, and he questioned if, in the longer term, there were any plans to change the shape with a totally independent branch to the West separate from the Tower Hill to Bank branch. R. Harding advised that the Olympics would put a tremendous strain on the system but looking to 2012, it is the intention to run a special shuttle service of 27 trains an hour on the new Stratford International link to the Excel Centre at Custom House during the three weeks of the event. He was unsure of the specific capacity in terms of passenger numbers but the existing system would be unable to cater for this level of service and the normal passenger needs either side of the Olympics and hence the necessity to remodel the junction at Canning Town to allow the ‘normal’ passenger flows to continue. He concurred that the other junctions provide a bottleneck, but the grade separation, as was described in the paper, would help the situation. He also confirmed that other lines to the west are not presently being considered but if they were, they would probably continue westwards from Bank. C. Porter (IRSE) wondered what in the algorithm provides the “jerk” mechanism noticeable when travelling on the DLR and wanted to know why the terminating trains at Bank were taken out of and brought back into the station before departing. R. Harding agreed that there were issues with the algorithms, in particular at Tower Gateway where the setting of the target point does a sudden update, and some refinements are to be made, hopefully with the 3-car introduction. He also explained that no scissors crossover was provided at Bank, the two lines merging into a single headshunt; not an optimal arrangement. J. Francis (President) thanked the speaker for his comprehensive paper on the DLR, bringing the Institution right up to date and also for sharing some of the developments and proposals on this unique London railway.
91
Technical Meeting of the Institution held at
1 Birdcage Walk, London Wednesday 20th March 2007 The President, Mr. J Francis, in the chair. 63 members and visitors were in attendance. It was proposed by Mr. D McKeown, seconded by Mr. R Maiden and carried that the Minutes of the Technical Meeting held on 14 February 2007 be taken as read and they were signed by the President as a correct record. Mr Ko Tan from Tubelines was present for the first time since his election to membership and was introduced to the meeting with warm applause. In his introduction, the Chairman showed a number of photographs of the author enjoying local IRSE visits in Holland and remarked that there had been five conventions held in the Netherlands, and with a sixth coming up in May this year, it was appropriate to have a paper which provided an introduction to what members were likely to see there then. He then introduced Mr Maarten van der Werff from ProRail, the Dutch main line railway infrastructure owner (formerly NS) a Fellow of the Institution. Mr van der Werff then presented his paper, Recent developments in Dutch signalling. One small country, four Mega-projects. He started by describing the present organisation of railways in the Netherlands with twenty nine train operating companies using the ProRail network. A characteristic was the development of new regional rail networks, with differing levels of train protection provided. He went on to cover recent developments in Dutch signalling which had been brought about during the implementation of four major projects. He described their Mistral programme, started in 2000, which was intended to provide for the replacement of relay based interlockings coupled with the roll-out of ERTMS. Implemenentation of ERTMS has commenced on the Amsterdam-Utrecht, BetuweRoute and High Speed Line South project, part of the AmsterdamRotterdam-Brussels-Paris high speed route, although there have been development issues with the implementation. Following the presentation, the discussion was opened by Mr David Bradley (Atkins). Messrs Clive Kessell (REF), Malcolm Savage (consultant), Peter Duggan (Westinghouse), Peter Woodbridge (Network Rail), Stephen Dapre (Network Rail), Trevor Foulkes (Network Rail), The President, Colin Porter (IRSE), David McKeown (consultant), Xenophon Christodoulou (Union Railways) and Chris Bitten (consultant) all took part in the discussion. The President then proposed a vote of thanks, presenting the speaker with the commemorative plaque customarily awarded to authors of the London paper. The Chairman thanked members for their attendance and their contribution. Mr Francis then made announcements of forthcoming events and closed the meeting at 1925 by announcing that the next meeting in London would the Annual General Meeting and inauguration of the new President, to be held on the 27 April 2007.
Recent developments in Dutch signalling – One small country, four Mega-projects Maarten van der Werff BSC FIRSE1 This paper describes recent developments in Dutch signalling as a consequence of the preliminary results of three Mega-projects for extension of ProRail’s network. The fourth project comes from a part of the network that used to belong to ProRail. Known as RandstadRail and having its own identity, it links the local rail networks of the cities of Rotterdam and The Hague. With this IRSE paper we take the opportunity to describe part of the signalling infrastructure of both ProRail and RandstadRail (Figure 1). The following themes are described in this paper: •
the positions and roles of ProRail and RandstadRail;
•
changes in public transport, and the consequences of the start of new train operating companies;
•
signalling on Dutch railways, with lessons learned;
•
replacement, renewal and development: Mistral.
Within the scope of national heavy-rail traffic, the migration of signalling in the European context of an interoperable system is described. Signalling for light rail on regional lines is also described. All this in one small country. 1 The author is with ProRail, Netherlands
PRORAIL TASK ProRail is the network infrastructure manager as described in the management concession granted by the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. The Dutch railway infrastructure includes 385 stations on 2800 km of network with a total track length of 6500 km. Over this network 5000 passenger trains carry one million passengers each day. On top of this 230 freight trains each day carry 80000 tonnes of freight. ProRail was established on 1 January 2005, when a new railway Act came into force which introduces the role of Network Manager within a new institutional setting. Of course ProRail also incorporates 170 years of knowledge and experience, being the result of a merger of three subsidiaries of the formerly integrated Netherlands Railways. As Network Manager, ProRail provides access to the network, selling traffic management, traffic control and timetabling to train operating companies. ProRail is the asset manager and establishes and maintains the railway, the catenary (1500 V d.c.), shunting yards and so forth. ProRail specifies and manages projects itself mostly, outsourcing execution to contractors who compete for work. ProRail also owns and operates the
92
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN DUTCH SIGNALLING – ONE SMALL COUNTRY, FOUR MEGA-PROJECTS
Figure 1
stations used by the various operators of passenger services. As well as the hall and platforms, it also provides such facilities as information and communication systems and services. ProRail is also responsible for safety and environmental issues. As owner and permit holder the onus is on us to ensure compliance and to distribute contractual responsibility between operators, contractors, rolling-stock companies, other users of our network and ourselves. Today ProRail is required to submit a management plan to the Minister every year, detailing activities for the coming year and their costs. The railway authority (the Inspectorate of the Ministry) fulfils a supervisory role with respect to safety. NEW TRAIN OPERATING COMPANIES AND REGIONAL RAILWAYS At present twenty-nine train operating companies, mainly passenger operators and freight operators, make use of ProRail's network. Today Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS) is the largest train operator in the Netherlands. NS runs passenger services exclusively on around 60% of our network and generates 85% of all train-kilometres. What the future holds is still a matter of speculation. We do see some interesting movement in the market though. The freight operators are part of global transportation companies. On the passenger side also competition seems to be heating up. In the Netherlands the regional railways have a relatively high traffic density, of two trains or more per hour. The Dutch government hands these socalled contract railways over to the regions and local government and their traffic areas. The regions and
local government are responsible for public transport, and put it out to tender. After initial doubts, some of the regional lines are definitely in the top ten of the fastest-growing railway lines in the Netherlands. In various areas the regions and railway companies are working together with ProRail as railway infrastructure manager to make the timetable more reliable. Examples of these regional railways are RandstadRail (see Figure 2) and the Rijn-Gouwe Line (see Figure 3). RandstadRail is a hybrid tram, train and metro system in the area around The Hague, Rotterdam and Zoetermeer. The Rijn-Gouwe Line is a mix of light and heavy rail between Gouda and Leiden. The light rail rolling stock will run into the cities of Leiden and Gouda eventually as well. EUROPEAN RULES As a consequence of European rules, in the Netherlands we have seen more companies enter the train operation market, especially in the case of regional railways where new traffic concepts are developed with an impact on signalling and train control. The pan-European introduction of ERTMS should permit standardisation and guarantee interoperability on the heavy rail network. With the introduction of the Interoperability Directives for highspeed and conventional lines and the respective Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI) standards, the European Commission prescribes the direction towards European standardisation. Standardisation in European railway infrastructure will help to reduce costs. The Netherlands contributes intensively to these developments. The advantages they will bring, when
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN DUTCH SIGNALLING – ONE SMALL COUNTRY, FOUR MEGA-PROJECTS
3)
93
reviewing the way to improve maintenance in a structured way by implementing lifecycle management and by elaborating investment for replacements.
The future vision of the NS, laid down in the Vision 2020 study, is an integrated network of road traffic and public transport. In particular passenger traffic around the denselypopulated Randstad area, a cluster of the four biggest cities in the country, namely Amsterdam, Utrecht, Rotterdam and The Hague, will increase significantly in the rush hours. In this vision NS will offer a high frequency of six trains per hour, which will require an increased speed of 160 instead of 140 km/h, connecting with the running of trains on the regional lines such as RandstadRail.
SIGNALLING ON DUTCH RAILWAYS DISTURBANCES AND SAFETY ISSUES As already noted, the ProRail network includes 6500 km of track. On it there are:
introduced on a large scale, include: •
the financial benefits of economy of scale;
•
availability of systems from several suppliers;
•
sharing of know-how and experience between infrastructure managers.
TRAFFIC GROWTH In the long term (i.e. from 2012) additional measures will be needed to improve the quality of railway transport in order to cope with increased passenger and freight traffic. The current expectation of the growth of passenger train traffic in the Netherlands is about 50%, from 15 billion seat-kilometres in 2006 to an expected figure for 2020 of 21 billion seatkilometres, an annual growth of about 4%. Freight traffic is expected to triple almost, from 34 to 88 million tonnes per year. The BetuweRoute will play an important role in this increase. Further growth will depend on the privatisation of rail transport, European policy and the development of trade relations with the ten new members of the European Union. The growth of passenger traffic necessitates a railway enhancement plan. This consists of three phases: 1)
maintaining the current asset conditions of the railway for the near future;
2)
improving quality and preparing for future growth;
•
300 interlockings, of which 230 are relaybased, the others electronic;
•
8000 points, of which 4800 are controlled and locked;
•
9875 signals;
•
2800 level crossings.
About 40% of all infrastructure disturbances that affect train operation are caused by signalling installations. ProRail has decided therefore to put increasing efforts into making the signalling systems more robust. In the Netherlands fail-safe automatic train protection (ATP) is a requirement on the entire network. Legislation and recommendations of the railway authority demand enhanced attention to safety issues, including reducing signals passed at danger (SPADs). The current ATP system does not mitigate SPADs at train speeds of less than 40 km/h. ProRail must have a short-term solution to cope with these additional requirements. From 2008 technical measures will be taken at about 1000 signals to avoid SPADs for speeds less than 40 km/h. These are shortterm solutions, making use of procedures and additional ATP functionality. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW REGIONAL NETWORKS It is intended that technical solutions aimed at reducing the cost of operating secondary lines to avoid closure for economic reasons from the 1980s onwards will converge with those being implemented more recently to enable mixed light and heavy rail operation in the large conurbations. In the 1980s ProRail was confronted with the effect of new trains with poor train detection characteristics on track circuits, mainly when running in non-electrified areas. On the first section
94
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN DUTCH SIGNALLING – ONE SMALL COUNTRY, FOUR MEGA-PROJECTS
where this was observed, solutions such as guaranteed warning of trains at level crossings using treadles for additional spot detection, combined with a so-called stick circuit, were adopted. A time-based delay in the block release was also implemented. No automatic train protection was applied on these sections of the network originally. Later it was decided that the newly-developed Dutch ATBNG system (see below) should provide automatic train protection for light rolling stock on these regional lines in the Netherlands. Automatische TreinBeïnvloeding Nieuwe Generatie (ATBNG) or "automatic train protection new generation" was developed and installed from 1992 onwards in the north and east of the Netherlands. Like ERTMS Level 1, ATBNG is an intermittent braking curve system, using beacons (balises) for transfer of movement authority. In combination with this system an electronic axle-counter system was applied for the first time, avoiding the need for any modifications to the block systems. With these systems there was no need for other major modifications to the infrastructure for new train operators, provided they used rolling stock fitted with ATBNG. The only improvement being developed was to facilitate one-man train operation by providing the train driver with an infra-red remote control device to request routes. On other parts of the network local government defined goals for improving passenger transport, introducing new and lighter forms of rolling stock. A characteristic of these regional lines is that the infrastructure had to be adapted to systems originally intended for heavy rail traffic. Some examples of adaptation of signalling systems to these new traffic concepts are described below. RandstadRail For RandstadRail it has been decided to introduce light rail infrastructure and operation, with different types of rolling stock running on the same infrastructure to provide the new service. Rolling stock differences include the power supply and return current, platform height, signalling and traffic control, and dynamic driving and braking characteristics. Part of the old infrastructure is reused, and the various new parts are constructed to suit the rolling stock that will be used on each one. The chosen technology is a compromise, and the challenge has been to combine the different design and system philosophies of the constituent parts into a new, integrated and consistent system. So on part of the network we have a complete signalling system, including interlocking, axle-counters for train detection, signals, train protection and point controls. For the light rail vehicles a combined dispatching and traffic control system is used, together with an automatic system to control the points by means of train numbers and inductive transfer from vehicle to wayside. Signal aspects are passed to the vehicle by means of transmission coils on the track and under the vehicle.
Each vehicle has an on-board computer. An eightdigit code is transmitted, depending on the route to be demanded. This code is sent continuously through transmission coils below the vehicle. At the wayside it is received by an antenna or loop, and passed to a route-setting computer. After the new route is set from a starting signal, the computer follows the vehicle by means of the vehicle code. In case of disruption, or when the system is out of service, it is possible to request a route from the train traffic control centre. A train driver can also request a route, for example away from a stop before a level crossing. On the Hofplein line (between Rotterdam and The Hague) the interlocking controls the level crossings, ensuring that they close in time as vehicles approach. For the driver the signals and signs along the route take priority over the cab signalling. Automatic brake intervention is active in all RandstadRail vehicles, both trams and metro. On the transition from the RandstadRail area to the tram network in The Hague, the ATP is switched off, not being required on the tram network. Rijn-Gouwe Line The Rijn-Gouwe Line is a project of the province of Zuid Holland. The region has opted for a light-rail connection linking Gouda and Leiden to Katwijk and Noordwijk on the North Sea coast. Part of the line makes use of an existing railway, modified and extended for the purpose. Light-rail rolling stock and trains share the same tracks, and signalling and train protection systems are adapted accordingly. Planning requirements meant that implementation of ERTMS, which normally would have been ProRail policy, was not possible. It has been decided to implement the light-rail system with full brake-curve protection to achieve the required safety level, given the common use of the existing infrastructure. The required functionality is provided by ATBEG (see below) for heavy rail and ATBNG for light rail. Automatische TreinBeïnvloeding Eerste Generatie (ATBEG) or "automatic train protection first generation" is in general use in the Netherlands. Measures are required to protect the light rail vehicles in the event of a heavy rail vehicle passing a signal at danger. Because the rolling stock is electric, track circuits can be used for train detection. INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT ProRail has made important changes in infrastructure management. During the introduction of the new signalling for the High Speed Line and BetuweRoute megaprojects, the vision for use and management of infrastructure has changed profoundly, for the existing network as well as these new lines. Separation of use and ownership of infrastructure results from European regulations. At the time of privatisation the engineering branch of NS was transferred into what eventually became the two largest engineering consultancies in the
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN DUTCH SIGNALLING – ONE SMALL COUNTRY, FOUR MEGA-PROJECTS
95
Netherlands. Since then a number of others have entered the market, and are increasing their share.
Signalling Integral") programme, as described below.
ProRail now employs contractors for installation and maintenance, as Independent Safety Assessors and as Notified Bodies. Working with so many partners has made clear the important differences between the original single railway organisation and the present organisation with different parties each responsible for their own processes (such as maintenance, design, automation and safety).
For project and programme management it is important that a signalling development project should be linked to an implementation project. The programme management should define the framework for the implementation project. To reach the planned goals, milestones or gateways should be defined to synchronise the development and implementation projects, and progress should be monitored against them. The implementation project should be based on systems engineering principles.
Running of trains is not the responsibility of ProRail any more, and so the implementation of new functionality and regulations must be agreed with representatives of quite a number of train operators and the railway inspectorate. Since then the approach of working only with performance-based, high-level functional specifications when tendering new signalling systems has been abandoned. Instead more and more standardised specifications, both national and international, have become available for infrastructure components and subsystems in the field of signalling. System integration may be done by third parties, but ProRail retains responsibility. ProRail has decided to standardise computer aided design engineering and data interchange formats. Engineering consultancies will be requested to conform these standards. In the field of maintenance, work has started on defining performance-based maintenance specifications, to give contractors their own responsibility in maintaining the infrastructure. At the request of the government ProRail has, together with partners in the railway branch, set up an implementation strategy with respect to railway signalling, because the European Commission is taking further steps to increase the interoperability of the railways in Europe. Each member is committed to having an ERTMS implementation plan conforming to the Technical Specification for Interoperability for Control, Command & Signalling (CoCoSig TSI) by September 2007 at the latest.
MISTRAL INTRODUCTION Investigation of the need for an integrated replacement and renewal plan for the Dutch railway signalling systems – Mistral - was started in 2000. In the implementation phase Mistral covers: •
the need to replace old relay installations;
•
the results of system development for introduction of ERTMS within the BB21 programme;
•
requirements perability.
for
pan-European
intero-
PROGRAMME AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY In order to prepare for the future, projects and programmes were analysed. The experience gained has been integrated into the Mistral ("Migration
The remaining work on development and modification of recently-developed ERTMS systems for the BetuweRoute and Amsterdam- Utrecht projects will be put under the responsibility of the main signalling department of ProRail. To avoid patchwork the integrated signalling architecture must all be managed by the same department. The central signalling department should also coordinate the modifications and developments needed for signalling of regional lines. In the realisation of signalling projects in general, about fifteen stakeholders have been identified. Each has its own interests, and there has to be an approach to coordinating them. The importance of the maintenance organisation in particular as a stakeholder in the programme became evident. In the case of supplier management it was concluded that there should be a common approach for requirements management by ProRail, suppliers and engineering contractors. Requirements management is more than engineering. Process agreement, involvement of the stakeholders and the maintenance process after delivery are all part of requirements management too. ProRail has to define the commercial and technical objectives for the long term, and work with the supplier to reduce costs by means of standardisation. The knowledge strategy of the line organisation, the development organisation and special projects such as the High Speed Line needs to be followed up in the near future. More interaction between departments is essential. For project management, it became evident that generic requirements will grow during implementation projects. This means that the central signalling department must be involved as an actor in the specific projects. Close cooperation between the department of signalling and infrastructure projects has to be managed in conformity with the principles of systems engineering. For future signalling programmes and projects these lessons will be incorporated into the system. The framework that will be used is a so-called "VVV" model, with separate "V" models for development of the generic system, for implementation of the first specific application on site and for subsequent batch implementation of specific applications for any location in the Netherlands. Each "V" model includes all the phases defined in CENELEC specification EN 50126, from the concept phase to decommissioning and disposal.
96
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN DUTCH SIGNALLING – ONE SMALL COUNTRY, FOUR MEGA-PROJECTS
Each phase will be closed with a milestone (gateway). Closure of a phase involves completing the required output and must be approved by the stakeholders. REPLACEMENT OF AGED RELAY INSTALLATIONS The first interlocking replacement will be carried out in Deventer. Further replacement of the oldest existing installations (see Ref. 1) is planned to start soon following the results of interlocking developments. The first relay-based signalling systems were built more than 50 years ago, and approximately 25% of all signalling installations in the Netherlands are relay systems built between 1953 and 1968. Investigations have shown that these systems need to be renewed before 2018 due to safety, availability and cost risks arising from non-repairable ageing effects, mainly in wiring. At this moment they offer adequate performance, but with increasing traffic intensity they may become a bottleneck. Moreover it will be increasingly difficult to retain the skills required for the various phases of the lifecycle. Economic analysis has shown that lifecycle costs of relay-based systems are at their optimum level at approximately 30 years, and that systems reach the end of their useful technical life after about 45 years. Given the present age of systems, the proposed replacement programme will maintain the average age of signalling installations at the optimum value in economic terms and within the limits of the technical lifetime. Our investigations have shown that later replacement would lead to an increased risk of unsafe situations and to far higher maintenance costs. BB21 MISTRAL DEVELOPMENT AND ERTMS IMPLEMENTATION In the 1990s it was decided to start the socalled BB21 Programme. BB21 stands for "signalling and traffic control for the 21st century" in Dutch. Originally it consisted of four development projects: •
application systems;
•
improved traffic control system;
•
implementation of the mobile communication system (GSM-R);
•
of
ERTMS-based
signalling
25 kV a.c. power supply for electric trains.
In 2002 it was decided to develop a new generation of interlocking systems for the replacement programme. Such a development was outside the scope of the BB21 programme, which was kept separate in the ProRail organisation. So both development programmes had their own goals, their own staff and their own risks. It was envisaged that they could be merged later. This appeared to be the right approach only up to a point, and the two units were merged in the ProRail organisation from 2004 onwards. Around 2004 it was decided to focus the BB21 programme on the two mega-projects, Amsterdam-Utrecht and BetuweRoute. The emergence of ERTMS, resulting in ETCS and GSM-R standards, has brought about a degree of
cross-border co-operation not previously seen in the railway industry. ProRail needs to cooperate with other infrastructure managers and suppliers to achieve the common goal of an interoperable system within the framework of European legislation, a set of legal obligations with which all must comply. A set of standards has been created within these obligations but, as with any standardisation process, joint efforts are needed from all parties to translate such work into tangible results. This unique co-operation has made it possible to coordinate implementation of the constituent parts of ERTMS - the traffic management layer, the train communication system and the train control system. Further momentum can be added to the process by ensuring that the underlying systems, such as modern interlocking technology, are modified or developed in line with this programme. Railways are aiming for significantly reduced lifecycle costs, and must exploit all possibilities for cost-reduction in the various phases of implementation, from planning and site-specific engineering, through procurement and commissioning (including safety approval) to maintenance. Standardisation, increased competitive tendering and significant reduction of implementation times are considered to be key requirements for the near future. As a result ProRail has identified a need for well-defined strategies to achieve a migration from the present configuration towards a new, harmonised system enabling efficient integration of rail traffic management, ERTMS, interlocking and other relevant systems. During replacement of aged installations and migration to ERTMS, the greatest impact can be expected from interlocking and train control systems. The impact of the introduction of ERTMS as a replacement for the national ATP system (that is, ATBEG and ATBNG—see above) has required ProRail and the train operating companies to define a common migration strategy. CORRIDOR CONCEPT FOR THE ROLL OUT Starting in 2002 with its Mistral programme, ProRail intends to renew the interlocking systems of the Dutch rail infrastructure, in particular replacing relay technology with state-of-the-art electronic systems, and to prepare the infrastructure for the implementation of ERTMS. One of the additional goals of Mistral is to reduce the lifecycle costs of train safety systems by at least 20%. With a focus on investment costs for new systems, ProRail has made cost comparisons to demonstrate that implementation of the new generation of interlockings will lead to lower costs. In preparing the business case for Mistral, ProRail is currently looking for better understanding of the costs, broadening the scope and updating information on the results of development projects. In order to realise this objective ProRail compared conventional renewal costs per station with investment costs for replacement of signalling systems, along an initial corridor. The research addressed the following questions.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN DUTCH SIGNALLING – ONE SMALL COUNTRY, FOUR MEGA-PROJECTS
1.
What are the main differences between the budget comparisons and the current analysis as far as scope, preconditions and overall developments are concerned?
2.
What is the difference in the cost of implementation between conventional interlocking and modern technology?
3.
What parameters should be considered critical in these calculations?
4.
How sensitive is the outcome to different values of these parameters?
Based on a consistent research approach with clear starting points and assumptions, the following conclusions were drawn. •
•
On the scale of a corridor, the investment costs for interlocking systems can be reduced by more than 20% when modern interlocking is installed instead of conventional. It appears that an even higher saving, of 30% or more, can be obtained in a larger corridor or over a greater number of controlled elements; It appears that an increase in the amount of infrastructure elements leads to a more-orless linear increase in costs, with clear steps at points where the maximum capacity of a system is exceeded;
•
A further cost reduction can be realised if the distance between the main system which performs central interlocking functions and the local control units and outside elements is increased;
•
In the current arrangement, the cost of the interface between a main electronic system at a station and the relay technology for the open line is considered to be too high. A further reduction in cost of 10 to 20% can be achieved by making the signalling of the open line part of the same station interlocking.
ProRail is now ready to take the next step by introducing applications of new generation interlocking and ERTMS. The Mistral programme will implement them according to two baselines. Baseline 1 applies in places where ERTMS is not needed, yet at least, so that old installations can be replaced with new ones having the same functionality. Baseline 2 applies to corridors where ERTMS is required. EXTENSION OF RELIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY Standardisation, partnerships in the railway market, the corridor approach (combining enlargement of scale and reduction of interfaces, and anticipating further application of ERTMS) and automation of the design process are the main issues addressed by the Mistral programme. Besides cost calculations, which prove the benefit of the new approach, extra attention is paid to reliability and availability targets. The question was raised whether more complex systems and enlargement of scale would make the operation of the railway less rather than more reliable. This came up following occurrence of some major disturbances where computer failures seemed to be the main cause.
97
A working group investigated major disturbances on the railway in the Netherlands and produced conclusions and recommendations for the application of signalling systems. They concluded that structured reduction of the probability of disturbances is possible by: •
using equipment with high availability figures;
•
ensuring that specifications and architecture of ancillary systems (such as power supplies, communication networks and airconditioning) match the environmental requirements of the traffic control and signalling systems;
•
organising operational and tactical maintenance processes to ensure high reliability and availability, for example with reliable fault registration systems, problem management, structural evaluations and implementation of improvement actions.
•
fine-tuning measures for reducing the probability of failure, the geographic area covered by a system, functional loss and recovery time;
•
selecting the size of area to be covered by a system, depending on the location and characteristics of the infrastructure;
•
taking care of system integration to ensure that systems selection, central facilities, maintenance processes, incident management and the use of train traffic control are all compatible.
ERTMS Further ERTMS development brings the challenge of moving from complex trackside installations to flexible installations on board trains. On-board systems will partly replace track based systems. The amount of trackside equipment will be reduced significantly, and this will result in better maintainability, less failures and lower costs in future. Implementing ERTMS Level 3 by replacing the trackside train detection subsystem (track circuits with insulated rail joints or axle counters) with autolocalisation on board the train gives the most benefit for ProRail. However ERTMS Level 3 has not yet been developed, and only Levels 1 and 2 are actually available. ERTMS Level 1 is not suitable for largescale national implementation in the Netherlands because: •
Level 1 has only a limited added value in comparison with the existing train protection system;
•
migration from Level 2 to Level 3 is easier to implement than migration from Level 1 to Level 3.
ERTMS Level 2 will be applied where its benefits in terms of interoperability, capacity and safety can be exploited. So ProRail is focussing on Level 2 for the time being, but its objective is to implement Level 3 in the future. Further introduction of ERTMS in the Netherlands should be done by migration, with dual-equipped
98
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN DUTCH SIGNALLING – ONE SMALL COUNTRY, FOUR MEGA-PROJECTS
rolling stock. The overall costs can be minimised and the benefits can be achieved quickly by equipping the rolling stock with ERTMS and STMATB (see below). Automatische TreinBeïnvloeding Specific Transmission Module (STM-ATB) is trainborne equipment used in combination with ERTMS. It provides the functionality of the existing ATB train control system but puts the information on the standard ERTMS cab display. The introduction of ERTMS on the BetuweRoute, Amsterdam - Utrecht and HSL South projects has led to important results and provided a number of lessons. ProRail will use the experience of these projects in the strategy for implementation of ERTMS on the rest of the main railway network. ProRail is starting now on preparation for a national implementation for ERTMS aimed at reducing risks and uncertainties. In the short term implementation of ERTMS may be necessary and useful for a number of corridors. These include those parts of the BetuweRoute which have not been equipped with ERTMS, because they are part of the existing network (Kijfhoek, Zevenaar). Other busy corridors of the network will follow. A further requirement is a cost-effective migration path for ERTMS migration on selected infrastructure corridors. This includes involving external partners such as transport companies, industry, engineering contractors, suppliers, European infrastructure managers, the ERTMS Users Group etc. to optimise ERTMS implementation in the Netherlands. Priority will be given to those projects designated by the Government and by European authorities to cover gaps in ERTMS coverage. The next implementation of ERTMS on the main line network in the Netherlands will be between 2008 and 2012.
THE FOUR MEGA-PROJECTS INTRODUCTION There will be presentations on the four Megaprojects and also visits during the May 2007 IRSE Convention, and so they are only described briefly in this paper. PRORAIL The main line railway network in the Netherlands shows significant changes. In 1999 ProRail signed a framework agreement for the development of an ERTMS signalling system. The deployment plan of ERTMS / ETCS within the Dutch railway infrastructure is reflected initially in the following infrastructure projects: Amsterdam-Utrecht The Amsterdam-Utrecht line is part of the TransEuropean Network (TEN) high-speed route linking Amsterdam, Utrecht, Arnhem and Germany. Work has included upgrading and quadrupling. ERTMSbased signalling has been implemented in a number
of releases, with facilities brought in to match the phases of the overall project. The project is being commissioned currently, and is expected to enter operational service in April 2007. Application of ERTMS will follow in a subsequent phase. BetuweRoute The BetuweRoute is a new railway in the Netherlands with a length of 107 km, which connects the port of Rotterdam with the German network and forms part of the TEN conventional line to Genoa. The line has been designed for freight traffic with maximum speeds of 120 km/h, and is equipped with 25 kV a.c. traction power supply. ERTMS Level 2 with ETCS cab signalling has been implemented, except for the section between Zevenaar and the German border and in the marshalling yard at Kijfhoek. The control systems on the BetuweRoute and the connecting systems on the adjacent tracks form a fully-integrated signalling system, which has to fulfil all tasks needed for guaranteeing both safe train movement and maintenance working on the tracks. HSL South The HSL (High Speed Line) South is part of the Amsterdam – Rotterdam – Brussels - Paris high speed line. The line is electrified at 25 kV a.c. It runs from just south of Amsterdam to Rotterdam, where trains will rejoin the existing network to serve Rotterdam Centraal Station. The new alignment restarts south of Rotterdam, continuing past Breda to reach the Belgian border at Hazeldonk. Work on the connecting Belgian line as far as Antwerp is also well in hand. In 2001, a 30-year railway systems contract was awarded to a consortium to design, build and maintain the electrical and mechanical equipment. Under EU Directive 2001/14 the infrastructure will be managed by ProRail, and agreements covering the management duties have been signed by ProRail and the Ministry. HSL South will be fitted with Level 2 ERTMS. The consortium is responsible for development and installation of the wayside equipment, balises, radio block centres, interlockings and GSM-R based communications. Only ERTMS-fitted trains will be able to use the line. RANDSTADRAIL RandstadRail is a hybrid tram and metro system. The area between The Hague, Rotterdam and Zoetermeer is being built up very rapidly. New residential and business locations are appearing over a wide area. More and more people require fast, comfortable public transport between home, office and recreation locations. That is why at the end of 1990s the Rotterdam and The Hague region took the initiative to extend the existing railways in this area and to link them to create a single system better fitted to the increasing traffic demands. This was the start of RandstadRail. Rotterdam has a metro company operated by the Rotterdamse Elektrische Tramwegmaatschappij
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN DUTCH SIGNALLING – ONE SMALL COUNTRY, FOUR MEGA-PROJECTS
99
(RET) with a complete signalling and train protection system.
with the same on-board train protection system as the metro.
The Hague has a tram company, Haagsche Tramweg Maatschappij (HTM). Here the tram traffic does not have a signalling system, but has to obey traffic rules and traffic lights.
In 2002 it was decided to implement RandstadRail systems by issuing invitations to tender. The changeover from the national railway network to RandstadRail on the line between The Hague and Rotterdam had to be as quick as possible because it was not desirable to suspend services for too long. A period of twelve weeks is planned for the reconstruction, during the summer of 2006. Only overall requirements, covering key functions and performance, were established at the beginning of the project. Suppliers have derived the detailed requirements and specifications and the complete design.
Both traffic systems were connected to existing Dutch Railways lines, the Zoetermeer City line near The Hague and the Hofplein line between Rotterdam and The Hague. Both lines were owned by ProRail. For RandstadRail these lines were reconstructed and linked to the Rotterdam metro network and the tram network in The Hague. The new system, with a length of about 45 km of double track, is no longer connected to ProRail's network. On the Hofplein line RandstadRail operates with rolling stock from Rotterdam for the time being until the end of 2008. Passengers can travel directly to the centres of the cities without changing. By the end of 2008 RandstadRail will also run to Rotterdam Central Station, and from mid-2009 to Slinge, in the southern part of Rotterdam. On RandstadRail two types of light rail vehicles are in use, high-floor vehicles suitable for the metro lines in Rotterdam and intended for running on the metro lines to The Hague Central, and low-floor vehicles suitable for the tram lines in The Hague and intended for running to Zoetermeer and on the Zoetermeer City line. Both types of vehicle run on the same tracks for a distance of five kilometres. For that reason part of the tram fleet has had to be equipped
RandstadRail is an example of a regional railway making a significant addition to the national railway at a time of great expansion of the entire railway system in the Netherlands.
BIBLIOGRAPHY van der Werff, M.H., Mistral, a wind of change blowing through Dutch railway signalling, IRSE Proceedings 2005-6, pp.41-53.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Among others my special thanks go to Kie Liang Tan and Henk Scholten from the signalling department of ProRail and Dirk Hengeveld of RandstadRail for giving me support in writing this paper.
Discussion The discussion was opened by D. Bradley (Atkins Rail) who thanked the speaker for his presentation and explaining the current situation that the Dutch Railways are facing. There is evidently evolution with respect to European legislation and privatisation and the paper was a sound commentary of the problems being faced together with how they are being tackled and this has set the scene for the IRSE Convention in May. He noted that under privatisation it appeared as if the engineering expertise had been widely dispersed but there is now talk of merging while the conglomerate of expertise is still evolving and he asked the speaker what he thought the final stable situation of engineering expertise might be together with what level of this expertise would be in-house with ProRail. He also observed that the performance based specifications are being abandoned in favour of a more specification-way of doing things, which appears to go against the competitive-tendering mantra of privatisation, and he questioned what had prompted the move to more detailed specifications. He wondered if there would be a standardisation of interlocking types throughout the country and finally referred to the recent disruptions making the headlines, noting that redundancy has been provided for greater reliability purposes but is costly to provide, and asked if there was an example of where this had been done and had proven to be cost effective.
M. van der Werff explained that because of the challenging level of projects, former employees are coming back in-house enlarging the department and strengthening the expertise to manage the projects, although he didn’t believe that a stable situation had yet been reached but signalling is now on the management’s agenda. The performance based requirement had been a lesson learnt on the BB21 project when the contractors, after signing the contract, asked exactly what was wanted; the suppliers do not have any information on either the functionality of, or how to actually run, the railway and therefore the right level of specification was key. Quoting the European Standards has brought a certain level of standardisation, not as abstract as performance based specifications or as detailed as bits and bytes, but somewhere in-between. Performance requirements are still required for RAMS together with safety criteria whilst the interfaces with existing equipment do need to be specified down to bits and bytes level. An example of the use of redundancy was at Utrecht where it was assessed as being more sensible to have three smaller interlockings for each of the types of line: local, regional and light rail, rather than the one large interlocking both to make it more reliable and reduce the consequences of any failures; the additional cost was small compared to the overall cost of the scheme.
100
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN DUTCH SIGNALLING – ONE SMALL COUNTRY, FOUR MEGA-PROJECTS
C. Kessell (Railway Engineering Forum) was interested in system integration; having referred to the suppliers and contracts, there was no mention of the on-board signalling equipment and who was responsible for it. In the UK, the IMechE Rail Division have a very clear philosophy; if it’s on a train they buy it and fit it; they wouldn't expect the electrification engineers to buy the pantograph and motors and give to the T&RS to fit on the train, and they are questioning why it should be any different for train-borne signalling equipment. He wondered if this was the experience in Holland and what was being done to tackle the issue? M. van der Werff advised that the national ATP system had been the entire responsibility of the signalling department but with the infrastructure and rolling stock split at privatisation, the TOC, or rolling stock provider, became more responsible for the on-board equipment and specifications were defined for the maintenance requirements so that this could be outsourced. For new installations, the situation was easy as there was only one system and the supplier delivered the equipment for the train so, in reality, very little changed. With the new systems such as ERTMS, ProRail have nothing to do with the on-board equipment; the interfaces and equipment are defined in the specifications and the rolling stock owner provides the on-board equipment although ultimately the Government is the overall manager. M. Savage (Savoir Ltd) referred to the train km per network km diagram in the paper and asked how these figures were achieved; is this because there are either very few lightly used lines (similar to the Southern Region in the UK), a very robust timetable or is something very clever being done with the existing signalling. M. van der Werff clarified that figures for ERTMS lines are not yet available, the regional lines do have a high density of traffic, especially around the cities, and there are a few lines with low density traffic noting that this equates to having a minimum average of two trains an hour. The timetable delivers approximately 86% right time and the recently introduced (new) timetable still delivered a similar figure despite some major failures. Signalling failures account for 40% of all the infrastructure failures and it is the intention to improve this figure. The existing signalling is reliable, only relay or electronic systems with no mechanical signalling, and Holland has the most centralized Traffic Control Systems in Europe.
P. Duggan (WRSL) observed that there is a safety philosophy based on as good as/as safe as it is now and questioned the speaker on how this is measured on the new lines with their complex high speed trains. M. van der Werff was unsure and stated that this was a question for the Convention although the mega-projects comply with what is described in CENELEC, being based on safety cases and proving what you do and apply and measure afterwards. With the High Speed Line, there is a situation where a consortium has built it under a PPP and they are responsible for the future maintenance and safe running of trains and their performance will be measured and the contract re-let in the future with penalties if the required performance is not achieved. P. Woodbridge (Network Rail) assumed that the various contractors have a verification and validation process to meet the functional requirement specification and wondered if ProRail undertook any additional checks themselves to make sure that the specification is met and he also asked what ProRail do if the contractor is unable to meet a specific requirement. M. van der Werff believed that they have reached the position where the requirements are unambiguous and they additionally define test specifications, user scenarios, functional requirements and documents required to show how the system functionality is met. A lot of outside equipment testing and system integration is required to prove correct functionality but if a supplier cannot deliver a certain requirement they should advise ProRail, who have experience of the suppliers' test systems, to prove that the required functionalities are provided together with the CENELEC requirements. W. Coenraad (Movares) added that one problem is how to test for a specification of, say, 10 trains an hour when there isn't that number of trains to physically prove that requirement and this is made more complicated if the contract is just for the supply of the signalling equipment; system integration needs to be considered.
J. Francis (President) asked about the maintenance regimes and methodologies and asked what is being done to overcome the recent failures.
S. Dapre (Network Rail) referred to the size of interlocking areas citing the example where SSI struggles with the amount of trackside equipment together with the fact that a large interlocking can create difficulties both when failures occur and access for maintenance or data changes is required. He questioned the speaker on the conclusion of the Dutch study either to make the interlocking bigger, but more reliable, or run at less than the designed capacity controlling a smaller area?
M. van der Werff confirmed that this is also changing; one attempt to make the system more robust has been to try to specify the outcome of the maintenance rather than specify how, when and how often, the problem is how to measure the outcome of signalling maintenance and some trials are presently taking place.
M. van der Werff stated that ProRail had no ambitions to change the interlocking, it is up to the supplier to find the solution, but as infrastructure owner they would rather shut down only part, rather than all, of a station and this is for the supplier to decide as the reliability of the different sections of the station is defined in the specification.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN DUTCH SIGNALLING – ONE SMALL COUNTRY, FOUR MEGA-PROJECTS
T. Foulkes (Network Rail) was aware that there were difficulties in proving the GSM-R system at its boundaries and believed that there were also problems in doing this in Holland and he asked if any lessons had been passed from the GSM-R experience into signalling taking into account the similar acceptance regimes but different specifications for infrastructure and trains. He thought the coming IRSE Convention could be the place to discuss this and also considered that European legislation did not clearly define the boundaries such that both infrastructure owner and rolling-stock operator can both say that they have fulfilled their obligations to ensure system integration will be achieved. M. van der Werff confirmed that there had been no interchange of information to the best of his knowledge. J. Francis (President) asked if ProRail undertook any smaller tasks in-house or are contractors used for this work also. M. van der Werff clarified that ProRail had no inhouse capability whatsoever, other than producing the functional specifications, and all work is out-sourced to contractors except for tasks required of the network manager. ProRail only get involved in the technical issues if there are problems or things need to be improved and even detailed design is not approved as they rely on the usage of competent designers. C. Porter (IRSE) thought that there were parallels with the situation in the UK; the necessity for clear specifications before work starts, difficulties with suppliers understanding operational requirements, the intelligence and knowledge existing within the railway industry but not readily available to suppliers and the real difficulty of the interface with rolling stock, especially with more equipment being put onboard the train. He asked the speaker what size of organisation ProRail had to keep their signalling department going. M. van der Werff advised that the central size of the signalling department would grow to 50 people in one to one & half year's time; there are 40 at present and some consultants but it is the intention to just use in-house personnel. When project BB21 was developed, they also had to develop the 25kV systems and there were more than 100 people on the project in addition to the central department. The number of people within projects would probably also increase as the projects are implemented. D. McKeown (Independent Consultant) asked for the speakers' view on who takes responsibility for the track-to-train interface issues and, noting that 30 year design, build and maintain contracts were let for the mechanical & electrical equipment, wondered if these were considered for the signalling system. He also asked if, at the time of specifying the project, any input from the maintenance organisations was considered from the point of view of either reducing the whole life costs, by paying up-front to reduce the maintenance costs, or reducing the capital costs, with more maintenance costs throughout the life of the contract.
101
M. van der Werff replied that ProRail are not responsible for any train-borne equipment failures, only infrastructure equipment. He had no strategic information for the future but at present there are three main maintenance contractors geographically located who have sufficient expertise to cope with any failures. With the electronic systems, there are separately let contracts with the suppliers for second and third line support. There will be one design, build and maintain contract for the High Speed Line but there has been no experience of this as yet. He finally confirmed that, as the network is small, maintenance requirements were included in the project specifications. X. Christodoulou (Union Railways) thought that to reduce life cycle cost by 30%, it was necessary to justify the initial costs with the promise of benefits later on and wondered if there would be an expectation to prove realisation of the benefits and asked how this could actually be proven. M. van der Werff explained that the goal at the beginning of the replacement programme was to forecast how much it would actually cost and management had actually required this calculation. The costs were broken down into investment and design costs, for the realisation part of the project, and this was broken down into unit prices from suppliers for system and sub-system delivery and this definition became part of the contract, although they could not give the complete costs because of the unknowns and project management costs. The cost of signalling and track circuits can be defined as a unit cost and prices from suppliers were compared to produce a model with various scenarios used to review the optimum solution. In Holland, using a different supplier for the interlocking and outside elements with an open interface was 10% cheaper than the German system where the same supplier was used for both. C. Bitten (Independent Consultant) noted that there are two pilot lines for equipment and questioned how effective they were in finding the problems before installing for real and asked if there was any advice for staff on the Cambrian Line Project M. van der Werff confirmed that use of the pilot lines gave good experience of the equipment although different equipment will be installed in the final situation and it only proved that particular equipment used in that particular interface. There were some advantages to doing so and some disadvantages too but a lessons learnt report should be produced. He believed that the Cambrian Line Project should be investigated in detail taking into account the contracts, suppliers and applications, but it is a complex subject. J. Francis (IRSE President) thanked M. van der Werff for bringing to the Institution an overview of the situation and developments that are in progress in The Netherlands, providing a taster for the upcoming Convention, and for the question and answer session that followed.
102
Technical Paper read to the
IRSE Australasian Section AGM 2006, Melbourne, Victoria
Common Law Safety Cases Richard M Robinson BE(Elec) FIRSE1
ABSTRACT A common law safety case is an argument as to why an organisation is confident that all statutory, regulatory and common law obligations have been met. It is primarily a demonstration that all sensible practicable precautions are in place. This means that target risk levels are not strictly relevant. Legally at least, if a business or activity is prohibitively 'dangerous' then it must be stopped. Otherwise the common law principle, the balance of the significance of the risk versus the effort required to reduce it, applies. As such, 'risk' is only invoked to test the value of the possible precautions, rather than the significance of the 'hazard'.
business is viable (Redmill et al. 1997). The objective of the business case is to ensure that all significant factors affecting the business have been identified and that appropriate measures are in place to maximise the positive factors and minimise the negative ones. A safety case is intended to provide the same assurance with respect to safety of a system, project or complex. Board
Safety Audit
Safety Management System
INTRODUCTION - TRADITIONAL TECHNICAL SAFETY CASES The process of managing safety, health and environmental issues in large and/or complex processes and organisations usually requires a formal management system generally referred to as a safety management system. A safety case is developed as a reasoned argument by the technical people that all significant hazards have been identified, are properly managed and are 'safe', that is, an 'acceptable' or 'tolerable' level of risk has been achieved. Historically, safety cases were developed by technical people using bottom up asset management hazard identification techniques to optimise safety performance. Regulatory safety case regimes cover such industries as offshore petroleum, gas safety, electrical safety management, major hazards, mining and rail transport. There are parallels to a business case, which is usually developed to convince a financier that a 1 Director, R2A Pty Ltd
CEO
Business Management System
Financial Audit
Middle Management
Business Units
Idealised Safety Management System Once established, a safety case effectively manifests itself as a contract between an organisation and a regulator that permits the organisation to operate within defined limits in accordance with documented procedures. Compliance failure is a breach of contract. If damage to third parties, or injury or death occur due to such breaches then serious liabilities arise.
DUE DILIGENCE It is the common law duty of employers to provide a safe workplace for employees and the obligation of owners and occupiers of premises to ensure they are safe with respect to members of the public and
COMMON LAW SAFETY CASES
the surrounding environment. Failure to ensure such may be negligent, and can lead to the significant costs associated with common law claims. It may also lead to statutory penalties for 'responsible' individuals depending on local legislation and regulations. In order to meet this common law duty of care, it would appear that risk management is shifting away from the concept of 'acceptable' risk to 'tolerable' risk. If an identified risk is found to be 'intolerable', that is prohibitively dangerous, then the activity must be stopped. The concept that risks can only be 'tolerable' (meaning ‘not intolerable') seems to be supported in the recent revision (October 2004) of the Australian Risk Management Standard AS4360 which appears to have deleted all reference to the term 'acceptable' risk. For risks not identified as 'intolerable', the common law principle applies, that is, the balance of the significance of the risk versus the effort required to reduce it. This is represented by the diagram below adopted from Sappideen and Stillman (1995).
Magnitude of Risk Probability of Occurence Severity of Harm
Expense Difficulty and Inconvenience Utility of Conduct
103
arise when there are unimplemented good ideas rather than the existence of hazards or vulnerabilities in themselves. The impact of the adversarial legal system appears to have changed the nature of a safety case from being a statement by the technical people as to why they are confident that all relevant hazards are being managed to an 'acceptable' level of risk to a due diligence argument as to why the organisation is confident that all reasonable practicable precautions are in place. This seems to be so because the courts appear to be consequence driven. Risk is generally considered to be a combination of likelihood and consequence. However, after the fact, the likelihood is certain. Any view that the event occurs very, very rarely is not relevant. To paraphrase a judge in NSW: 'What do you mean you didn't think it could happen, there are seven dead'. This is a very powerful argument after the event. The expert witnesses then look to see what could have been done, which if it had been done, would have prevented the occurrence. Risk per se is not relevant. It is only raised to assess the reasonableness of the possible precautions in view of the state of knowledge before the event. Thus for senior management and board members at least, liability management is very nearly identical to consequence management. Frequency and therefore risk management is not really an issue. If a serious loss event can credibly occur then it must be (seen to be) managed.
COMMON LAW SAFETY CASES HOW WOULD A REASONABLE DEFENDANT RESPOND TO THE FORESEEABLE RISK? The overall situation is perhaps best summarised by Chief Justice Gibbs of the High Court of Australia: Where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk, though perhaps not great, nevertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means, which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent. Turner v. The State of South Australia (1982) (High Court of Australia before Gibbs CJ, Murphy, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ). Liability can also arise if 'good practice' has not been implemented. For example, the UK Health and Safety Executive in a document titled, Reducing Risks, Protecting People (2001) states: ... the starting point should be an option which is known to be reasonably practicable (such as one which represents good practice). Any other options should be considered against that starting point, to determine whether further risk reduction measures are reasonably practicable. (Bolding by R2A). For this reason it would appear that an effective safety case will have to demonstrate at least 'good practice' in a way that is transparent to nontechnical personnel including the public and potentially the courts after a loss event. In terms of a common law due diligence sense liability appears to
A common law safety case consists of a number of arguments that demonstrate that all reasonable practicable precautions are in place. This process includes the application of the hierarchy of controls consistent with OH&S legislation (elimination, engineering/design, training and administration) based on the balance of the significance of the risk verses the effort required to reduce it. It also includes management contingency plans up until the event horizon. 'Good practice' is usually considered to be a starting point. It essentially ensures 'due diligence' is (seen to be) demonstrated, not that accidents / incidents won’t happen. Based on the due diligence arguments above, a common law safety case is a documented demonstration by an organisation that all statutory, regulatory and common law requirements have been met. The latter aspect distinguishes it from a statutory safety case which deals with statutory and regulatory requirements only. This is represented by the diagram on the following page, shows that a statutory safety case focuses on the left hand side of the event horizon. A common law safety case targets both sides simultaneously. The loss of control (LOC) point is the point at which it becomes technically unclear as to what the scale of the event may be. Contingency plans, especially for small events may be effective. The event horizon is the point at which perception and control of the event passes from the ken of management. The public response systems
104
COMMON LAW SAFETY CASES
Statutory Satety Case Parliamentary and Regulatory Scrutiny
Judicial Scrutiny
Pre-Event Barriers
Post-Event Barriers
L O C
Threat / Hazard Scenarios
Event Horizon
Courts Public emergency response etc
Hierachy of controls: design, administration and training: corporate contingency plans and insurance
Common Law Safety Case
(emergency services like the Fire Brigade and Ambulance Services) and the courts are invoked. A concept threat diagram is shown below and an actual threat barrier diagram appears overleaf, developed for South Port, New Zealand in 2003 (shown with permission).
This seems to a powerful way to demonstrate the efficacy of existing and proposed controls. Each of the threat scenarios can then be modelled as a fault tree. Loss of control due to mechanical failure is shown on opposite page.
x Likelihood Barriers y Consequence Mitigation Barriers n Threat Scenarios
Threat Scenario #1
Barrier #1 Barrier #2
Possible Outcome #1
Barrier #3 Barrier #(x-1)
Barrier #x
Barrier #2 Threat Scenario #2
Possible Outcome #2
Barrier #7 Barrier #6
Loss of Control LOC
Barrier #8
Threat Scenario #3
Possible Outcome #3 Barrier #1 Barrier #y
Threat Scenario #n
Barrier #5
Possible Outcome #m
Barrier #4 Note: Solid lines show existing barriers. dotted lines show proposed project barriers. Line thickness represents barrier effectiveness.
m Possible Outcomes
105
COMMON LAW SAFETY CASES
Threat Scenarios Preliminary Passage Plan error
Long term environmental damage
Vulnerabilities and Escalation Scenarios
Passage Plan error
Pilot skills Harbour Movement Team
Alternate navaids
Bridge check
MPX
Pilot check
Loss of visual nav aids
Hull breach Oil clean up plans Fire and Explosion plans Training
Pilot/tug response plan Emergency anchor Soft grounding contingency Harbour Management Team
Loss of Control Outside operating envelope Track, speed, leeway at channel abort points and in Reach 3
Helmsman error
Ship breakdown
Grounding
Pilot Execution Error
Double hulls Hull thickness
Harbour Movement Team Harbour condition assessment, (remote sensing), passage pilot, tugmaster and launchmaster
Agreed Passage Plan error
LOSS OF CONTROL CAUSED BY MECHANICAL FAILURE E1 Ship defect
5.00E-02 pa 20 ybt
E3 0.001
&
E2
Ship defect
E5 0.0001 &
MPX failure
4.50E-02 pa 22 ybt 2.25E-02 pa 44 ybt
Blackout
E4 0.1
0.00009 &
Pilot fail/can’t test
E6 0.9
4.50E-05
Pilot skills and HMT fails 0.5
Exposure of the number of occasions where trains are placed in a potential collision situation
Trials
The number of red signals seen by drivers
Quick Time and a None decompressor are needed to see this picture.
Signals The risk management system designed to prevent accidental collisions
Wrongside failure probability per trial
Outside envelope
Loss of Control
The presence of ship defects (E1) is tested during the Master/Pilot Exchange (E2) when the pilot asks the master if there are any known faults. If possible and necessary the pilot tests equipment / manoeuvres (E4) to ensure it is operational. The pilots then rely on experience and skills and the harbour management team (E6) to deal with a mechanical failure. The vulnerabilities and escalation scenarios can be modelled as an event tree. For train signalling, the overall risk model for this process would look like this, see left.
COMMON LAW SAFETY CASE ARGUMENTS Driver + enforcement
Driver failure probability Brake failure probability
Concept Signalling Model
Any argument that an expert witness could formulate after an event needs to be considered prior to the event. The Engineers Australia Safety Case Guideline (available online through Engineers Australia http://www.engaust.com.au/epub.html ) attempts to
106
COMMON LAW SAFETY CASES
Technique
Expert reviews reviews
Facilitated workshops
Selective interviews
Yes (legal opinions)
Yes (Arbitration, moot courts)
Yes (Royal commissions)
Yes (Risk surveys, actuarial studies)
Yes (Risk profiling sessions)
Yes (especially moral risk)
Risk Management Paradigm 1.
The rule of law
2.
Insurance approaches
3.
Asset based, ‘bottom-up’ approaches
(QRA, availability & reliability audits)
Yes (HazOps, FMECAs etc)
Difficult
4.
Threat based ‘top-down’ approaches
Difficult in isolation
Yes (SWOT & vulnerability)
Yes (Interviews)
5.
Business (upside AND downside) approaches
Yes (Actuarial studies)
Difficult in isolation
Yes (Fact finding tours)
6.
Solution based (good practice) approaches
Difficult to be comprehensive
Difficult to be comprehensive
Yes (Fact finding tours)
7.
Simulation
Yes (Computer simulations)
Yes (Crisis simulations)
Difficult
8.
Risk culture concepts
Yes (Quality audits)
Difficult
Yes (Interviews)
outline the different ways in which such risk arguments can be formulated. These are also expanded in the R2A text, Risk & Reliability - An Introductory Text 6th Edition (2006).
vii) The development of biological, systemic mutual feedback loop paradigms, practically manifested in hyper-reality computer based simulations.
Efforts to demonstrate how risk should best be managed has given rise to a number of risk management paradigms. Here, a paradigm is defined as a universally recognised knowledge system that for a time provides model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners (after Kuhn, 1970). New paradigms based on more comprehensive or convincing theories may supersede older ones or exist co-jointly with them.
viii) The development of risk culture concepts including quality type approaches.
The most common risk management paradigms are: i)
The rule of law.
ii)
Traditional risk management historically typified by the Lloyds Insurance and the Factory Mutual Highly Protected Risk (HPR) approaches.
iii) Asset based risk management, typified by engineering based Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA), Hazard and Operability (HazOp) and Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) 'bottom-up' approaches. iv) Threat-based risk management typified by Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) and vulnerability type 'topdown' analyses. v)
The comparatively recent market based risk management, which uses the notion of the risk being equal to variance with an equivalent risk of gain as well as risk of loss.
vi) Solution-based “good practice’ risk management rather than hazard based risk management.
Many proprietary risk management systems integrate several of these approaches. One of the first tasks when developing a safety case is to determine which of the above paradigms are to be adopted. Although there are a number of risk techniques available, there appears to be only three generic methods by which organisations can proceed with strategic tasks to address the concept of risk. These are: a)
Expert knowledge provided from experts, literature and research
b)
Facilitated workshops of experts and interested parties
c)
Interviews with selected players.
Each of these methods has different strengths and weaknesses depending on the culture of the organisation and the nature of a particular task. The best methodologies that might be used to demonstrate due diligence in the implementation of a safety case are highlighted in the table above.
CONCLUSION The purpose of a (common law) safety case is to ensure 'due diligence', not to achieve target levels of risk or safety. That is, accidents may still happen but organisations, in addition to their regulatory and statutory responsibilities, also have a common law obligation to demonstrate that all reasonable, practicable precautions are in place.
COMMON LAW SAFETY CASES
REFERENCES Engineers Australia (2002). Safety Case Guideline. Published on-line by Engineers Australia Pty Ltd, Crows Nest, Sydney. Kuhn T S (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd Edition, enlarged, sixth impression. University of Chicago Press. Redmill, Felix and Jane Rajan (1997). Human Factors in Safety Critical Systems. ButterworthHeineman, Oxford. Risk & Reliability Associates Pty Ltd in association with Maritime Safety Management Systems (2003). Formal Safety Assessment to Determine Guidelines / Decision Criteria for Pilotage Services and Risk Management of Marine Infrastructure. South Port New Zealand Limited, Bluff, New Zealand. The R2A Text Robinson, Richard M, Gaye Francis et al (2006). Risk & Reliability - An Introductory Text. 6th Edition. R2A Pty Ltd. Melbourne
107
Robinson Richard M, Gaye E Francis, Kevin J Anderson (2003). Lessons from CauseConsequence Modelling for Tunnel Emergency Planning. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Safety in Road and Rail Tunnels. University of Dundee. pp 149-158. ISBN 1 901808 22 X. Sappideen C and R H Stillman (1995). Liability for Electrical Accidents: Risk, Negligence and Tort. Engineers Australia Pty Ltd, Crows Nest, Sydney. Standards Australia / Standards New Zealand (2004). Risk Management. Australia / New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4360:2004. Standards Australia / Standards New Zealand (2004). Risk Management Guidelines. Companion to AS/NZS 4360:2004. HB 436:2004. Turner v. The State of South Australia (1982). High Court of Australia before Gibbs CJ, Murphy, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ UK Health and Safety Executive (2001). Reducing Risks, Protecting People. HSE's decision making process. Crown, Norwich.
108
Technical Paper read to the
IRSE Technical Convention, Adelaide, South Australia October 2006
The In Cab Activated Points System Enhancement to Trans Australia Railway Paul Furniss BEng(Hons) CEng MIET1
SUMMARY The In Cab Activated Points System is a system which provides the Train Crews with a window of opportunity when approaching a crossing location to operate the points reverse in a controlled manner to allow the train to enter the crossing loop without the need to stop. A self restoring points system exists on the Trans Australia Railway between Port Augusta and Kalgoorlie which provided considerable benefits at forty four crossing loops when it was introduced in 2000 by ARTC. The In Cab Activated Points System is an enhancement to the self restoring system so that a train movement into a crossing loop is as efficient as practicable. This paper will review and describe the system components that have been used to provide the function of remotely reversing the points at the crossing locations across the Nullabor from within the locomotive cabs. The components to be described are the ground based systems at the loop end equipment huts, an air interface, and the train borne locomotive systems. A current project status is also provided.
INTRODUCTION The project proposal was to implement the system on the forty four crossing loops between Port Augusta and Kalgoorlie and on the fleet of locomotives that regularly traverse the corridor. The crossing loops between Port Augusta and Kalgoorlie required In Cab Activated Points System equipment to be installed at both ends of the loops to interface with the existing self restoring system.
The self restoring system at the loop ends is a Westinghouse Rail Systems Australia designed system that provides colour lights, called Enhancers, which display the indication of how the points are set and push buttons to control the point positions. The fleet of locomotives to be fitted were categorised into two types. The first type is the NR class and the other type was the remaining fleet of mixed class types of locomotives. The reason for this was due to the existing radio equipment to be used to provide the points activation functions on the NR class. Where as the other locomotives would require a standalone unit to be fitted. The key issues when considering remote operation of the points from the cab were safety, traffic density, loop numbers, method of communication, and simple consistent use of the system by the Train Crews. The solution that was developed provides a cost effective fit for purpose system by using existing technologies in a manner appropriate to the requirements.
NOTATION The specialised nomenclatures associated with the In Cab Activated Points System are listed below: AI – Air Interface AWARE – Australia Wide Augmented Radio Environment (Pacific National NR class radio system) BS – Base Station wayside loop end receiver unit CCIR1 – CCIR 1 standard 5-tone communication GIS – Geographical Information System GPS – Global Positioning System
1 Australian Rail Track Corporation
HMI – Human Machine Interface
THE IN CAB ACTIVATED POINTS SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT TO TRANS AUSTRALIA RAILWAY
109
ICAPS – In Cab Activated Points System
2.1 SRS Overview
RF – Radio Frequency
The SRS whilst many signalling principals were applied the need could not justify the cost of a traditional signalling solution.
SRS – Self Restoring Points System TAR – Trans Australia Railway TBU – Train Borne Unit UHF – Ultra High Frequency VHF – Very High Frequency WRSA – Westinghouse Rail Systems Australia
The main items of the SRS are the Enhancer, the push buttons, a vital radio link between both ends of the loop, and the circuitry including a track circuit that interlocks the point motors and the Enhancer indication.
THE ICAPS ENHANCEMENT This paper is separated into five sections •
Overview of the Operation of ICAPS
•
Base Station System
•
Air Interface
•
Train Borne System
• Project Status First the processes of ICAPS operation are discussed. Second a review of the SRS and how it interfaces with the ICAPS. The third section details the features of the air interface and fourth the TBU is explained. Lastly a look at the current status of the project works. Figure 1: Wilban East SRS
1.
OVERVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF ICAPS
The normal operation of ICAPS is controlled by the TBU striking in and out of windows of opportunity that are identified by GPS coordinates. The window of opportunity is located typically at 7.5km for the strike in and 5.5km for the strike out on the approach to each loop in both East and West travelling directions. Upon striking in to the window the TBU identifies the name of the loop and whether it is the East or West end of the loop. Further to this the Train Crew is informed that the point operation is available. Reverse or dismiss options are provided. After choosing the reverse option the TBU prompts the Train Crew to confirm point operation or decline. A short time delayed is used before the confirm option can be selected. This is to increase awareness of the choice being taken. Confirming a request for the point operation starts the UHF communication between the TBU and the BS and a REDUCE SPEED request sent message is displayed. The TBU does not positively confirm that the points have or will operate. It is the SRS Enhancers that provide this indication.
The Enhancer is a colour light point indicator which the SRS uses to delivery information to the Train Crews regarding the position of the points. This includes information regarding the points at the opposite end of the loop. The SRS has push buttons for the Train Crews to use to drive the points reverse or normal. The push buttons are located in a locked housing on the side of the equipment hut. The SRS controls the movement of the points by using time delays to prevent inappropriate or unsafe operation. The time delay restricts any buttons from being active for 90 seconds once the housing door is opened. Also the Enhancer displays a red indication during this time. With the points reverse and the movement of the train over the track circuit, going into the loop, the points self restore to the normal position after 90 seconds has elapsed. The Enhancer then shows a green indication that means the points are set and locked normal at both ends of the loop.
The BS reacts to the remote point operation request once identity, security and validation criteria are satisfied. The SRS responds to a remote request by putting the facing Enhancer to red for ninety seconds before driving the points reverse and the Enhancer displaying the appropriate indication. The SRS self restores the points after the passage of the train over the track circuit and a further ninety seconds has elapsed. 2.
BASE STATION SYSTEM
The ICAPS BS interfaces with the SRS and therefore a brief overview of the SRS is provided.
Figure 2: SRS Push Button Housing
110
THE IN CAB ACTIVATED POINTS SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT TO TRANS AUSTRALIA RAILWAY
The interface between the SRS and ICAPS was seen as needing to be as simple a solution as possible. It was therefore a requirement that the normal state and operation of the loops using the SRS not be compromised in any way by the introduction of the ICAPS. 2.2
ICAPS Base Station
The BS unit was supplied and developed by NEC Australia in conjunction with Westinghouse Rail Systems Australia. WRSA designed the SRS circuit alterations required to accommodate the changes to the control of the SRS from a remote source.
and access to the logs that are created. The logging functions provide details for analysis of events that have happened. 3.
Air Interface
The AI, developed by NEC Australia, provides a means of signalling between the train and the wayside, using 400MHz UHF conventional radio with CCIR 1 5-Tone signalling. The same state wide frequency for both South Australia and Western Australia was licensed by ARTC for the ICAPS. This removes any complexity regarding the transceiver. The protocols used delivers open access to ICAPS from other ICAPS configured systems than just NEC hardware. This was necessary to be able to reconfigure the NR class AWARE system with the ICAPS functions. The decision for UHF was based on the availability of transceivers on the AWARE system. Either VHF or UHF could have technically been used for ICAPS. The main features of the AI are as follows: Analogue 5-tone signalling,
Figure 3: NEC ICAPS Base Station Unit
The installation of the BS continues to allow the operation of the SRS via the push buttons in the housing on the side of the hut. The Train Crews will continue to operate the loop as previously when no ICAPS was available until the locomotives are instrumented. This also delivers the advantage in an ICAPS failure situation the Train Crews can revert to push button operation. The BS upon receiving a remote request for the points reverse from the TBU would firstly recognise that the communication was indeed a message that required a reaction. Each BS is given a unique identity. This ensured the TBU's only communicate with a single specific BS. This is important for the reason that both BS at the loop ends are normally within the RF propagation of the incoming points reverse remote request. Conversely the BS would recognise and check that the TBU was a particular unit allocated to a particular locomotive fleet with the correct security protocols incorporated in the messaging. The air interface is discussed further in section 3. The BS therefore engages in two way communication to fulfil the requirements of the security and identification of the TBU and to establish that the request is valid. With a correct request received the BS provides an output to the SRS. This output puts the Enhancer indication to red for 90 seconds. After which the points are driven reverse and the Enhancer displays the appropriate indication. The BS comprises of an antenna, UHF transceiver, 5-tone generator/decoder, and output relays. The HMI is for changing parameters, diagnostic tools,
•
The protocol contains identification of each TBU and each BS, to ensure the correct end point is identified. This is implemented to avoid unintentional operation of distant points and for log analysis.
•
Security features are implemented to authenticate the TBU sending the remote control request. The security features contain a rolling encrypted handshake to authenticate the request.
•
The protocol contains features to detect transmission errors. A re-transmission scheme is used to counter radio transmission problems for control requests and responses.
•
Driver initiated remote control requests are logged at the train and wayside for diagnostics.
•
A radio transmission health check is used to log a train's passage when the driver has not requested a route change.
•
BS status (alarms) may be passed to the train for reporting to maintenance staff. The use of 5-tone signalling is not a new concept for use with a remote point operation system. In Victoria the DICE system provides the function by the Train Crews entering the appropriate numbers into the train consol which is then sent over air to the signalling system using 5-tone. It has proved a reliable format for the RF part of the DICE system. Therefore its adoption on ICAPS was accepted as appropriate. Process control is dependent on the message sent from the TBU. If a remote request is sent then process controls are used for re-transmissions. Other types of message are not controlled in such a manner to reduce transmission time. The distance for the ICAPS RF propagation from the TBU to the BS is a maximum of 8km. However there are geographical areas on the corridor that presented potential propagation issues. After an RF
THE IN CAB ACTIVATED POINTS SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT TO TRANS AUSTRALIA RAILWAY
111
repeaters are in place the windows are located in accordance with speed and the location of the repeater so that the train does not pass a repeater at red. This gives the Train Crew the same environment with respect to controlling the train on the approach to the loop without any distractions from the ICAPS system.
Figure 4: NR class AWARE consol prior to using DICE approaching Tatyoon
survey four loop ends were installed with high gain jagi antennae to mitigate any issues. 4.
TRAIN BORNE SYSTEM
Train Crews use the train borne system to request the points reverse. This therefore forms the HMI for the system. It is this part of ICAPS system that sets up and is responsible for the timing of when a remote request for the points reverse can be sent.
In the event that the TBU does not receive a response from the BS then retransmissions of the request will be sent until either a response is received, the retransmission limit has been reached, or the train GPS subsystem indicates that the window of opportunity has been left. Leaving the window of opportunity terminates any outstanding point request transactions. Once the on train GPS subsystem indicates that the window of opportunity has been left and the Train Crew did not request point operation, then the TBU will transmit a message to the BS to indicate that no commands were transmitted. This is used as an operation check of the system. If the Train Crew explicitly rejects the option of requesting point operation, then a no commands message is transmitted to the BS immediately, instead of waiting for the end of the window of opportunity.
It was recognised that controlling the time and location of a remote request required a datum from which the system initiated the opportunity. Ideas were explored with respect to locating the train on the network in a cost effective way ranging from RFID technology to satellite based systems. GPS was reviewed with respect to its suitability for the task. Availability and accuracy were considered as issues. The service availability of GPS is observed to be 99.9% on a global basis on any given day, and since selective availability was removed in May 2000 the accuracy achieves the requirements. Disruption to the GPS network has the potential to affect the availability however for systems such as ICAPS the achievable parameters of the GPS are appropriate. GPS is successfully used in a number of other rail transportation functions such as a Train Crew alerter on the NR class which is implemented on the TAR, and the NSW Train Order Working TMACS computer system both of which have the same or more reliance on GPS performance. As indicated previously any failures of the ICAPS will result in the Train Crews using the push buttons on the side of the equipments huts as has been done since the installation of the SRS system. This provides the operational back up for the corridor. ARTC has had the network surveyed in a format suitable for interrogation within a GIS environment. The GPS points for the windows of opportunity were identified in this manner. The windows of opportunity are 2km in length giving the Train Crews at least one minute at maximum line speed to use ICAPS on the approach to the loop. The strike out is at a position that if ICAPS was used at the latest opportunity within the window then the SRS will have driven the points reverse by the time the train arrives at the 2.5km sighting point the sighting distance of the Enhancer. Where
Figure 5: SRM 9030 Control Head used for ICAPS
The non-AWARE locomotives that traverse the TAR typically have VHF and UHF transceivers for voice communication. Therefore a standalone ICAPS system has been developed by ComGroup Australia located in Melbourne. It is based on the automatic vehicle location technology that is extensively used in the road vehicle positioning field such as taxis and couriers. The SRM 9000 series transceiver and SRM 9030 control head are already used for communication in the rail industry therefore ICAPS builds on the rail application of the units. There are a variety of locomotive classes that have been nominated for ICAPS that require a survey for the siting of the control head and installation of the transceiver, antennae and cables. The Pacific National NR class AWARE system has evolved over the years to deliver increasing levels of functionality. Incorporating ICAPS into AWARE was seen as a distinct advantage early in the project resulting in ongoing consultation with Pacific National to ensure compatibility of the parameters of the two systems. AWARE currently uses GPS technology, incorporates multiple transceivers including VHF, UHF, GSM and satellite, and has 5-tone capability. ICAPS makes use of these features. An upgrade to AWARE can be rolled out on the NR fleet efficiently through known processes and procedures resulting
112
THE IN CAB ACTIVATED POINTS SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT TO TRANS AUSTRALIA RAILWAY
in ICAPS functionality on approximately one hundred and twenty locomotives that traverse the TAR on a regular basis.
of installing ICAPS at Parkeston. Therefore the loops are currently being operated by the push buttons on the equipment huts will no significant issues with the ICAPS functions available.
5.
The implementation of the alterations to the Pacific National NR class AWARE system is under way. The proposed time scale for locomotive testing is January 07 with the roll out thereafter. ComGroup who developed the standalone ICAPS TBU are the team that are working with the AWARE upgrade and therefore have experience of the requirements of the system. Successful timely delivery is anticipated.
PROJECT STATUS
The project started with a risk assessment process moving next into a consultation period with stakeholders. After the design and development, trials at Tent Hill, the most Easterly location, and Golden Ridge, the most Westerly location, were used to review the proposed solution. The trials formed part of the consultation process with stakeholders invited. A road rail Land Cruiser was instrumented with ICAPS and the system demonstrated. The design work began on the remaining loops by WRSA with racks pre built and tested in Adelaide by ARTC Services Company and delivered to site for installation. Dedicated ARTC SC installation teams worked ahead of the test and commissioning team.
The non-AWARE locomotives will be instrumented once standalone ICAPS TBUs have been trialled successfully on a locomotive. TBUs are to be trialled once the network rules in the National Code of Practice have been approved to allow the system to operate on the network which is anticipated in Oct 06. The TBUs will then be rolled out as the locomotives become available for survey and installation.
CONCLUSION The ICAPS project builds on the effectiveness of the SRS system installed in 2000 by ARTC. The ability to remotely request the points reverse allows the Train Crews to travel into the crossing loop without the need to stop at the crossing location across the TAR. The remote request is controlled and simple for the Train Crews which does not alter the normal operation of the loop via the existing push buttons. The use of UHF transceivers, GPS, and 5-tone are consistent with technology in use on rail networks that deliver the ability to provide the ICAPS function. Figure 6: 43 Work Sites Located Across 1700km of Track
The logistics of completing the work was a major exercise requiring flexibility and cooperation from the people involved. It is a credit to all that were part of the delivery for the effort put in. At the time of writing the project is an advanced position with respect to the equipment installation at the loop ends. ICAPS base stations have been installed and the modifications to the SRS completed on all the loops apart from Parkeston. Parkeston was initially reviewed and did not require ICAPS. Subsequently a further review has been done and ARTC is working through the implications
The project has delivered the ground based equipment apart from Parkeston and the locomotive work is under way with the NR class work currently being done and surveys for the standalone system to progress after locomotives trials have been concluded.
REFERENCES Mackiewicz G – "ICAPS Air Interface Specification" NEC Australia Pty Ltd, April 06 John A.Volpe of National Transportation Systems Centre - Vulnerability assessment of transport infrastructure relying on the GPS – Final Report Aug 29, 2001 A McGuinness – "ICAPS User Guide ver 4î ComGroup Australia Pty Ltd, November 05
113
The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (Incorporated 1912)
Ninety-Fourth Annual Report 1st January to 31st December 2006 INTRODUCTION To become President of the IRSE is an achievement I could never have envisaged when I first started out in the employ of British Railways at the age of 17. The honour is especially pleasing as I have interspersed technical capacities with other roles during the intervening years, although I have always been engaged in some position or other that was directly involved with signalling, sometimes even as a signalman. So it could be said that as well as the Institution having had two Porters become President (Cy in 1998 and Colin in 2003) it has now had a signalman become President too! It has been a busy year for the staff and volunteers of the Institution who have dealt admirably with change and progress. In addition to taking over the employment of our small staff directly from the IIE, consequent upon that Institution’s merger with the IEE, we also embarked upon a relocation of the London office premises to Birdcage Walk in Westminster, whilst also transferring London technical meetings to the IMechE Lecture Theatre. During the year we saw a change of Chief Executive. After seven years Ken Burrage decided to retire from the position, to be replaced by Past President Colin Porter. I was pleased to bestow the President’s medal upon Ken for his services to the Institution and the signalling profession during his long career. As I declared at the Members’ Luncheon, Ken is the best President the Institution never had. Ken has not abandoned active involvement in Institution affairs as he has taken over the role of Chairman and Senior Engineer of the Licensing Committee.
recruitment has seen numbers start to rise once again and am confident that the 4,000 figure will be surpassed in the very near future. I have enjoyed participating in IRSE activities during the year and been touched by the welcome I have received wherever I have gone, particularly when visiting the Local Sections, whether in the UK, North America, Southern Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore or Australasia. The year has certainly enhanced my travel experiences and reminded me how wonderfully diverse our profession is, whether it be inspecting the CSX computer controlled hump classification yard at Osborn in Kentucky, trying out the power frames in the Johannesburg suburbs, riding the newly opened high speed line in Taiwan, or viewing KVB ATP on a British railway at St Pancras. Being present at the 25th anniversary of the Southern African Section provided me with the pleasure of bestowing upon them a commemorative medallion at a special dinner in Johannesburg. Whilst all the visits have been enjoyable and I was pleased to be the first President to visit Taiwan, I must confess that the trip to Brisbane, to attend the
On the subject of Licensing, the staff and committee have worked hard to keep the scheme running and, following the introduction of a new International Standard (ISO17024), which superseded the previous one, were rewarded for their efforts by gaining accreditation from UKAS for the scheme to the new Standard. This is an independent endorsement of the operation and intent of the scheme, which should give its users confidence that it is achieving its goals and being run correctly. The year started with a reduction in membership to back below 4,000. This was largely due to a number of Accredited Technicians, who had joined by virtue of being licensed, not renewing their membership after the gratis period. The initiative to increase the numbers of Accredited Technicians can however be recorded as a success as half of those initially recruited have maintained their ongoing membership. I’m pleased to say that steady
The President invests Bob Woodhead, Chairman and a founding member of the Southern African Section, with a silver anniversary commemorative medallion. (C.H. Porter).
114
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
AGM of the Australasian Section early in 2007, will be especially poignant as it comes just over 25 years since my wife and I first arrived there to work, shortly after we were married. Indeed, it was via the Section there that I first joined the Institution. A visit to Singapore is also pending, at which time I will be able to share in the progress of this, our newest, Section. I have been impressed with the wide range of technical meetings and events organised around the world and throughout the UK by all of our Sections. The world wide programme of activity has set out to target the interests of all members with a mixture of technologies, eras and allied subjects and I think it has succeeded in its aim. The Local Sections are essential components of the Institution’s activities, bringing regional focus and applicability to members. Amongst the seminars held in the UK was a full day given over to the S&T Engineers practising in the heritage sector. A lively and wide-ranging programme attracted 140 participants to Kidderminster for this event which explored some of the many issues facing those responsible for safe working on our private railways. Such was their enthusiasm that many stayed on discussing into the evening and an additional visit was arranged for the next day. Yet another full day in London, with over 140 attendees, covered the achievements, progress and plans of those involved with the upgrading of the London Underground. After four years of the Public Private Partnership there was much to promote and discuss. The series of London Papers tackled subjects that were ready to be revisited, some being long overdue like signalling power supplies and the relationship between engineering and the rule book. Visits took place to Network Rail’s Operations Training Centre at Watford and to St Pancras International. The latter, which was over subscribed, enabled inspection of the redeveloped station together with a look behind the scenes at the unique combination of equipment installed to control traffic in and around the station and its approaches prior to it being brought fully into service later in 2007. A technical visit was also held at mid-summer to Oslo, where members and guests were able to experience main line and metro developments whilst experiencing the delights of Norway’s capital. In September 300 members and guests participated in a very memorable Annual Convention hosted by our Swiss Members. Railway visits were enhanced by blue skies, blue lakes, green fields and white, snow capped mountains. Communication with members is a key benefit that we must look to enhance. To this end IRSE News continues as a popular publication covering a wide range of topical subjects in addition to reporting on Institution business. Electronic media plays an ever important part in communication today. The first phase of our makeover to the Institution’s web site was completed in December, launching a refreshed look and revised navigation. I am pleased to report that feedback has been
The President with Jacque Poré and Oskar Stalder during the 2006 International Convention (P. Olofsson).
positive. The second phase, which will enable additional features aimed at enhancing membership and making interaction with the Institution more straightforward, is now in the planning stage. The Institution is held in high esteem, a justified position but one which we must all constantly strive to maintain. To raise the profile of the Institution amongst the industry a four page supplement about our aims and activities was published in the October 2006 edition of Modern Railways magazine. Support was extended to Fastline Films to assist with producing reproductions on DVD of British Transport (BTF) training films covering Mechanical Signalling and Level Crossings. These will prove invaluable to those responsible for installing and maintaining this type of legacy equipment, whether on the national network or in the heritage movement. After concerted effort by members of the North American Section much progress has been made on the preparation of a text book covering North American signalling practice. This will be a welcome addition to the stock of learned material available to the profession once completed in 2007. Luckily, in my library, I have a complete set of IRSE Proceedings, covering the whole of the Institution’s 95 years. This is a fantastic resource which, thanks to members of the Australasian Section, and in particular Bob Taaffe, will now be available to any member following scanning into electronic format. That’s 95 years of the profession of signalling on a couple of DVDs. A number of other initiatives have been formulated during the year with plans put into place to ensure these come to fruition in due course. These include a revision to some of our publications, the next Aspect Conference and, as mentioned, stage 2 of the development of our web site. I have been impressed by the enthusiasm of our Younger Members who have been particularly active this year. Not only did they organise a highly
115
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
successful one-day Seminar in Birmingham entitled “Making Use of the Best of the Past, Looking to the Future” at which I was pleased to speak but they also took a lead in arranging the “Making Headway on London Underground” Seminar in London. Following an initiative by my predecessor, a Younger Members’ Forum has been set up as an adjunct to YM activities. The aim of this is to act as a thinktank for younger members’ comment and opinion, producing articles of current interest and relevance to the industry for publication in the railway press.
profession and this Institution has an exciting future but we must enhance our position in the railway industry, looking to appeal to everyone practising in railway signalling and communications. It is only five years before we will achieve our 100th anniversary at which time I am looking forward to celebrating this centenary in a special way. I have enjoyed being your President, with the only regret being that the privilege lasts for just one year.
MEMBERSHIP
What a special Institution this is, focusing as it does on the needs of the S&T profession. It is a privilege for me to work within it, especially during my year as President. One might suggest that our industry is not a glamorous or attractive one yet it is surely technically challenging, with its variety of mechanical, electrical and electronic systems with which we contend. It is fulfilling and, from time to time, exciting. The degrees of fulfilment and excitement in the future will be down to us to create in the way we take the profession forward.
The registered membership on January 1st 2006 was 4089, with 3908 at 31st December 2006. The following tables give details of the membership changes during the year. There has been a net decrease of 181 (-4.43%) members during the year as illustrated below. This is mainly because 206 Accredited Technicians failed to renew their subscriptions for 2 years following their initial “free”’ year subscription and thus shown as lapses with the overall position at 31st December 2006 being:-
In general, railway investment is at high levels all around the world. There are new lines being constructed, previously closed lines being reopened and single lines being doubled. Hence now is a good time to be working in our profession - make the most of the opportunities that are available. Pay is no longer a problem but we must attract new talent through sound and imaginative training initiatives and by portraying the diversity and technically rewarding opportunities that exist within the realms of train control. Not least of these will be the migration to train borne systems that we must prepare for.
Total UK membership Total Overseas membership Total Membership
2608 1300 3908
-270 +89 -181
Membership Statistics 2006
300
216
200 100 0
21
Resignations
Deaths
Lapsed Reinstatements
-15
-100
-80
New Members
-200
The Institution continues to evolve, led by the aim of serving the membership, the profession and public interest. With the future development in mind a new survey has been launched to canvas the views and aspirations of all members in order that your Institution moves in the direction that the membership at large desires. I am convinced our
-300 -323
-400
The Membership Committee met nine times throughout the year and processed over 270 applications or transfers of membership. One
Membership Changes 2006 Registered Membership at January 1st 2006 Corporate members Hon Fellows Fellows Members Assoc Members Total:
29 423 1188 936 2576
Non-Corporate members Hon Fellows 3 Companions 20 Accred Technicians 631 Students 257 Associates 602 Total: 1513 Grand total:
4089
Elections, Re-admission
Deaths
Resignations
Lapses
Transfers from class
Transfers to class
Registered Membership at December 31st 2006 Change total 7 5 8 3
Grand total 36 428 1196 939 2599
0 2 0 17 23
Change total -1 5 -223 18 -3
Grand total 2 25 408 275 599 1309
69
-181
3908
UK
O’seas
UK
O’seas
UK
O’seas
UK
O’seas
UK
O’seas
UK
O’seas
UK
O’seas
0 0 11 25
0 7 31 34
0 -2 -5 0
0 -2 -2 -1
0 -3 -8 -11
0 -1 -6 -1
0 0 -11 -14
0 -5 -7 -21
0 -3 -14 -10
0 -4 -4 -8
3 14 14 10
4 4 9 0
3 6 -13 0
4 -1 21 3
UK
O’seas
UK
O’seas
UK
O’seas
UK
O’seas
UK
O’seas
UK
O’seas
UK
O’seas
0 3 8 32 31
0 2 0 18 35
-1 0 0 0 -2
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 -22 -12 -14
0 0 0 0 -2
0 0 -206 -16 -33
0 0 0 -1 -9
0 0 -3 -3 -8
0 0 0 0 -1
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
-1 3 -223 1 -26
110
127
-10
-5
-70
-10
-280
-43
-41
-17
41
17
-250
116
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
member of the Institution was registered with the ECUK as an Incorporated Engineer, and three members were registered at an interim stage of the register. Council is appreciative of the efforts of the Membership Manager, Derek Edney, and the members of Membership Committee for their work in consideration and recommendations to Council of applications for membership and/or registration. Obituary It is with regret that the Council records the decease of the following 15 members during the year. PHF Dibden (Honorary Fellow); JS Curtin, P Homan, R Hurst, J McGadie (Fellows); KJ Donnelly, A Hepworth, GH Gimbrett, D Mathers, CK Chu, L Georgoulis, D Forrester (Members); R Kulkarni (Associate Member); RP Sweet, SJ Thomson (Associates). Council was saddened by the loss of all these members; some of whom were strong supporters of the Institution for a considerable number of years and in various ways had contributed significantly to the Institution’s work.
LONDON HQ OFFICE With the termination of the arrangement whereby our staff and accommodation were provided by the Institution of Incorporated Engineers in Savoy Hill House, London as a consequence of the merger of the IIE and IEE. all ‘our’ staff were transferred to the IRSE from 1st January 2006. From 1st May, a 10 year lease for 4 rooms on the fourth floor of 1 Birdcage Walk, Westminster, London was entered into with the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. This provides two offices for the staff, a room used by the Chief Executive and for internal meetings and small file store room. In addition, we have the use of a storeroom in the basement for storage of publications, the publicity stand and archived records. The Office is normally staffed Monday to Friday, 0900 to 1800, UK time. The transfer was effected seamlessly and Council is grateful to the staff, Mike Tyrell, and Mike Ogley and Spencer Williamson from Lloyd’s Register Rail for their hard work in ensuring that this move did not impact on the member services. With Karen Gould’s decision to resign to pursue other interests, we recruited Christine White as the Professional Development Manager from July 2006. An early task was to get to grips with the Institution’s professional examination administration, supported by Linda O’Shea. Linda Mogford, as Administration Manager, continues to be the initial point of contact for requests and queries from members and non-members alike. She is responsible for keeping the membership database up to date, progressing membership subscription payments and the administration of the Institution’s seminars and conferences. Richard Hobby in his new role as Licensing Registrar since February 2006 continued to manage the particularly heavy workload of the Licensing Scheme because of the changes brought about by the implementation of ISO17024. He was ably supported by Roger Button, Linda Collins and Linda O’Shea. Roger Button and Linda O’Shea became permanent members of staff in July 2006 having
worked under contract for us for a period of years. Mark Watson-Walker, as System Manager, has ensured that the Institution’s IT systems, upon which the management of the Institution’s membership and licensing activities heavily depend, have been maintained and developed to provide members and licence holders with good quality services. The major task during 2006 has been the implementation of an extension to the main membership database system to accommodate the requirements of the licensing scheme. This has proved more troublesome and time consuming than envisaged. Mark also became a qualified first-aider during the year. Derek Edney, as Membership Manager, deals with all membership and most Engineering Council registration matters. He also manages the Institution’s Recruitment and Publicity activities. Martin Govas continues to serve as the Institution’s Treasurer, but he also acted as the project manager for the move to Birdcage Walk and is determined to get the new licensing database system implemented before summer 2007. With the need to employ our own staff directly, we were fortunate to retain on a part-time basis the services of Renate Maceke, the former Personnel Manager of the IIE. Renate’s job is to ensure we follow best practice in employment law and codes of practice. Renate juggles the responsibility/pleasure of living in Cornwall with keeping in touch with all our staff and visiting the office on a monthly basis. With the retirement of Ken Burrage as Chief Executive at the end of June 2006, Colin Porter took over as the Chief Executive Officer and General Secretary of the Institution in July 2006. This proved a very straightforward transition because of Ken’s extremely methodical organisational system which was able to be seamlessly transferred to his slightly less organised successor. Colin is responsible for managing the London office and for implementing the decisions of Council. He provides the focal point of contact for other Institutions and external organisations, liasing with the Engineering Council (UK), Government departments and the Chief Executive Officers of other professional bodies to make certain that the IRSE viewpoint is heard. He is also responsible for ensuring that the legal requirements of the Institution’s Articles of Association, the Registrar of Companies, and the Charities Commission are met.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Another year of changes, including the renaming of the Training and Development Committee to Professional Development Committee. This was done to more accurately reflect the changed emphasis and work of that Committee. Karen Gould left the Institution in March to pursue a different career and Christine White joined the staff in July as the new Professional Development Manager. There were three resignations from the PD Committee due to members’ other commitments. However, three new members joined; John Joyce (Tube Lines), Kevin Marchand (GoSkills, the sector skills training council for passenger transport) and Jeremy Ricketts (Bechtel Ltd/CTRL). Their contribution was appreciated over the year as, of course, was that of the other members. One of the tasks of 2006 was to
117
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31st DECEMBER 2006 Group 2006 £
Group 2005 £
Charity 2006 £
Charity 2005 £
24,029 295,662
5,862 182,334
21,648 200,812
5,862 187,412
319,691
188,196
222,460
193,274
53,058 97,592 30,098 1,177,820
47,631 159,109 29,058 1,048,049
47,338 47,863 30,098 695,404
47,631 154,342 29,058 1,045,549
1,358,568
1,283,847
820,703
1,276,580
Notes Fixed Assets Tangible assets Investments
1
Current Assets Stocks Debtors Investments Cash at bank and in hand
2 3 4
Creditors: amounts falling due within one year
5
Net current assets Total assets less current liabilities Creditors: amounts falling due after more than one year Net assets
6
(574,762 )
(488,368 )
(212,807 )
(486,179 )
783,806
795,479
607,896
790,401
1,103,497
983,675
830,356
983,675
(273,141 )
(318,875 )
–
(318,875 )
830,356
664,800
830,356
664,800
The Funds of the Charity Restricted funds Unrestricted funds General Designated funds
29,835
29,484
29,835
29,484
457,129 343,392
313,065 322,251
477,907 322,614
313,065 322,251
Total unrestricted funds
800,251
635,316
800,251
579,310
830,356
664,800
830,356
664,800
2006
2005
13,555
12,237
Total charity funds
THE WING AWARD FOR SAFETY BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31st DECEMBER 2006 Fixed Assets Listed investments at market value Current Assets Fund manager – IRSE Main fund
(673 )
Capital Accumulated fund
11,956
12,882
11,956
Approved by the Trustees on 20th March 2007. Please see the following page for the Auditor’s Report. J D FRANCIS President Director and Trustee
A FISHER Vice-President Director and Trustee
(281 )
12,882
M H GOVAS Treasurer
118
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st DECEMBER 2005 Restricted £
Unrestricted £
Total 2006 £
2005 £
8
–
255,963
255,963
232,087
9 7 10
– – 681
103,605 782006 35,922
103,605 782006 36,603
646,068 47,825 29,217
681
1,177,496
1,178,177
955,197
11 7
– –
91,072 634,479
91,072 634,479
560,246 30,847
12
450 –
280,154 17,373
280,604 17,373
328,968 1,750
Total resources expended
450
1,023,078
1,023,528
921,811
Net incoming resources before other recognised gains and losses
231
154,418
154,649
33,386
Other recognised gains/losses Gains on investment asset revaluation Realised profit/(loss) on sale of investments
120 –
12,544 –
12,644 –
26,474 (39)
Net movement in funds
351
166,962
167,313
59,821
Reconciliation of Funds Brought forward
29,484
635,316
664,800
604,979
Total funds carried forward
29,835
802,278
832,113
664,800
2006
2005
108 447
– 439
555
439
RESOURCES EXPENDED Awards and other costs
500
500
Income less expenditure Gains on revaluation of fixed asset investments
55 871
(61 ) 1,344
Notes INCOMING RESOURCES Incoming resources from generated funds Voluntary income Activities for generating funds: within Charity within Trading Company Investment income Total incoming resources RESOURCES EXPENDED Costs of generating funds Fund-raising trading: cost of goods sold and other costs within Charity within Trading Company Charitable activities within Charity within Trading Company
THE WING AWARD FOR SAFETY FUND INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st DECEMBER 2006 INCOMING RESOURCES Donations Dividends from fixed asset investments
Accumulated fund brought forward
11,956
10,673
Funds available for use
12,882
11,956
STATEMENT OF THE AUDITORS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS We have examined the summary financial statement set out on pages 5-10. Respective responsibilities of trustees and auditors – The trustees are responsible for preparing the Annual Report. Our responsibility is to report to you our opinion on the consistency of the summary financial statement within the Annual Report with the full annual accounts and trustees’ report, and its compliance with the relevant requirements of section 251 of the Companies Act 1985 and the regulations made thereunder. We also read the other information contained in the Annual Report and consider the implications for our report if we become aware of any apparent misstatements or material inconsistencies with the summary financial statement. Basis of opinion – We conducted our work in accordance with bulletin 1999/6 “The auditor’s statement on the summary financial statement” issued by the Auditing Practices Board. Opinion – In our opinion the summary financial statement is consistent with the full annual accounts and trustees report of The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers for the year ended 31 December 2006 and complies with the applicable requirements of section 251 of the Companies Act 1985, and the regulations made thereunder. Ian Katte & Co. Registered auditors Addlestone 20th March 2007
119
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
THE INSTITUTION OF RAILWAY SIGNAL ENGINEERS NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31st DECEMBER 2006 1
Investments Group Equities £
Government Securities £
Total £
Market value At 1 January 2006 Additions Disposals Revaluations
153,224 131,179 (28,758) 10,812
29,110 – – 95
182,334 131,179 (28,758) 10,907
At 31 December 2006
266,457
29,205
295,662
Equities £ 166,457 – – – 100,000
Government Securities £ – 4,647 1,235 23,323 –
Total £ 166,457 4,647 1,235 23,323 100,000
266,457
29,205
295,662
Subsidiary Company £
Equities £
Government Securities £
Total £
Market value At 1 January 2006 Additions Disposals Revaluations
5,078 – – 72
153,224 31,179 (28,758) 10,812
29,110 – – 95
187,412 31,179 (28,758) 10,979
At 31 December 2006
5,150
166,457
29,205
200,812
Investments at market value are split between the funds and trading subsidiary as follows:
IRSE Main fund Scholarship fund Thorrowgood Scholarship bequest Robert Dell bequest Trading subsidiary
Charity
The company holds 20% or more of the share capital of the following company: Company
Country of incorporation
Share class
%age owned
IRSE Enterprises Limited
England and Wales
Ordinary
100
At the last relevant financial year end the aggregate of the share capital and reserves of the above company and its total profit for the year to date were as follows: IRSE Enterprises Limited
2
3
Share capital and reserves
Profit for year
£5,150
£72
Stock
Group 2006 £
Group 2005 £
Charity 2006 £
Charity 2005 £
Goods for sale and presentation items
53,058
47,631
47,338
47,631
Debtors
Group 2006 £ 52,315 23,285 – 21,892
Group 2005 £ 110,210 14,555 – 34,344
Charity 2006 £ 15,296 23,385 – 9,182
Charity 2005 £ 110,210 14,555 11,940 17,637
97,592
159,109
47,863
154,342
Group 2006 £ 30,098
Group 2005 £ 29,058
Charity 2006 £ 30,098
Charity 2005 £ 29,058
30,098
29,058
30,098
29,058
25,871 4,227
25,039 4,019
25,871 4,227
25,039 4,019
30,098
29,058
30,098
29,058
Trade debtors VAT Amounts due from group undertakings Other debtors
4
Investments held as current assets
National Savings The investments are split between the funds as follows: Scholarship fund Thorrowgood Scholarship bequest
120 5
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
Creditors: amounts falling due within one year Trade creditors Subscriptions received in advance Amount owed to group undertaking Other taxes and social security costs Other creditors Deferred income and accruals
6
Creditors: amounts falling due after one year Deferred income
Group 2006 £ 80,587 120,463 – 20,599 68,660 284,453
Group 2005 £ 46,566 116,808 – – 15,891 309,103
Charity 2006 £ 48,197 120,463 36,206 250 7,691 –
Charity 2005 £ 46,566 116,808 – – 13,702 309,103
574,762
488,368
212,807
486,179
Group 2006 £
Group 2005 £
Charity 2006 £
Charity 2005 £
273,141
318,875
–
318,875
Representing the proportion of licence fees received which will be credited to Incoming resources after more than one year. 7
Activities of the trading company
Gross proceeds of functions for generating funds: Conventions ASPECT Conference Dinners Technical visits and seminars Direct costs of functions for generating funds: Conventions ASPECT Conference Dinners Technical visits and seminars Licensing Scheme: Fundraising activities Licence fees received Appraisal fees received Assessing agent fees Technical publications Licensing Scheme: Direct costs of fundraising activities Licence Registrars services and offices Appraisal Engineers received Logbooks Licence review costs Accreditation Scan files Depreciation of Licensing equipment Licensing audit fee Administrative expenses Fees and honoraria Auditor’s fees Other administrative costs
Operating profit/(loss) Interest received Amount gift aided to charity Retained in subsidiary Licensing fixed assets Investments Current assets Current liabilities Long term liabilities
8
2006 £
2005 £
184,474 124,166 39,806 9,690
– – 35,175 12,650
358,136
47,825
176,703 100,094 23,194 5,824
– – 22,110 8,737
305,815
30,847
238,533 84,862 82,000 18,475
– – – –
423,870
–
204,063 81,507 1,442 15,000 8,794 14,110 2,048 1,700
– – – – – – – –
328,664
–
4,620 1,175 11,578
– 1,000 750
17,373
1,750
130,154 16,145 (146,227 ) 72 2,381 100,000 574,071 (398,161 ) (273,141 )
15,228 – (10,250) 4,978 – – 19,207 (14,129) –
Total net assets
5,150
5,078
Share capital and reserves
5,150
5,078
Voluntary income
2006 £
2005 £
1,437 16,955 237,271 300
712 9,854 221,521 –
255,963
232,087
IRSE Main fund: Donations Subscriptions received: Arrears Current Scholarship fund: Donations
121
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
9
Activities for generating funds: charity IRSE Main fund: Entrance Fees Advertisements Sundry sales: Examination Fees Gross proceeds of functions for generating funds:
Booklets and text books IRSE ties Conventions Dinners Technical visits and seminars
Other activities (Strategic Rail Authority contracts) Licensing Scheme: Licence fees received Appraisal fees received Registered employer fees Assessing agent fees Technical publications
10
Investment income – Group Fixed asset investments Current asset investments
Equities and Government stocks Interest receivable on cash deposits
Split between the funds as follows: IRSE Main fund Scholarship fund IRSE Enterprises Licensing Scheme Thorrowgood Scholarship bequest Robert Dell bequest
11
Fund-raising trading cost of goods sold and others costs: charity IRSE Main fund: Proceedings: editing, printing and distribution Newsletter: editing and printing Printing of technical papers and blocks Booklets and textbooks
Opening stock Purchases Closing stock
IRSE ties
Opening stock Closing stock
Prizes Direct costs of functions for generating funds:
Conventions Dinners Technical visits and seminars Direct costs of other activities (Strategic Rail Authority contracts) Thorrowgood medals Grants to local sections Secretarial fees overseas
Licensing Scheme: Licence Registrars services and offices Appraisal Engineers fees Logbooks Accreditation Development of website/IT system
2006 £
2005 £
4,125 47,502 38,664 85 11,650 – 1,579 – –
3,975 48,023 19,131 85 13,053 152,294 1,447 1,115 20,000
103,605
259,123
– – – – – –
223,720 67,017 41,396 34,280 20,532 386,945
103,605
646,068
2006 £ 3,733 32,870
2005 £ 3,356 25,861
36,603
29,217
18,839 938 16,145 – 237 444
14,510 1,005 – 13,015 254 433
36,603
29,217
2006 £
2005 £
19,818 45,747 1,972
20,402 59,511 4,363
44,027 15,051 (45,179 )
35,388 13,975 (44,027 )
13,899
5,336
1,119 –
833 (1,119 )
(1,119 ) 368 – 2,264 140 – 33 400 5,312
286 96 143,144 2,063 – 10,652 33 1,160 4,436
91,072
250,910
– – – – –
174,379 75,388 5,512 9,487 44,750
–
309,336
91,072
560,246
122 12
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
Charitable activities: charity
IRSE Main fund:
Office rent and services Fees and honoraria Payroll costs Auditors’ fees Investment manager’s fees Depreciation Other administrative costs
Licensing Scheme:
Fees and honoraria Auditors’ fees Depreciation Other administrative costs
Scholarship fund: Robert Dell bequest: Thorrowgood Scholarship bequest:
Awards Awards Awards
2006 £
2005 £
29,958 32,700 82,643 5,200 1,312 4,611 122,880
133,543 55,220 – 4,970 1,360 2,480 83,227
279,304
280,800
– – – –
4,525 525 4,474 37,344
–
46,868
850 300 150
850 300 150
280,604
328,968
COMMENTARY ON THE 2006 FINANCIAL RESULTS The figures shown above are extracts from the consolidated accounts for the IRSE and its wholly owned trading subsidiary IRSE Enterprises Limited. The term ‘Group’ at the top of a set of figures refers to the two companies combined and ‘Charity’ to the IRSE alone. The Institution had a successful financial year. Taking the IRSE and IRSE Enterprises Limited together a record turnover of £1,178,177 and a surplus of £154,649 were achieved. These figures can be seen on page 5. £100,000 has been allocated to future development activities. IRSE Enterprises Limited completed its first full calendar year of trading. The activities undertaken through the entity were expanded in accordance with the business plan to include the annual convention, technical visits, seminars and the licensing scheme. This explains why the comparative figures for 2005 and 2006 are on different tables e.g. Licensing income for 2005 is shown in note 9 and for 2006 in note 7. The 2006 ASPECT conference was also run through the subsidiary and it made a significant contribution of £124,166 to the overall turnover. The surplus achieved was £24,072. The next such conference is being planned for 2008. £95,206 was made on the trading activities of the Licensing Scheme but the figure is expected to reduce considerably in future years. Overall the trading subsidiary was able to donate £146,227 to the IRSE using the gift aid mechanism and this accounted for most of the overall surplus mentioned above. The transfer of the London office to 1, Birdcage Walk, Westminster at the beginning of May presented a number of opportunities to reduce base costs. On 1st January 2006 our loyal team of staff became direct employees of the IRSE and savings were made in the associated administration costs. The accommodation now occupied, which is of similar area to that used before, has been leased for ten years whereas previously we had a short term rental agreement. The rooms have all been newly furnished and some new computer equipment provided. Overall the office staff are better able to work together and the resources are more efficiently used. The performance of the investment portfolio is analysed is some detail in note 1. The equity revaluation figure of £10,812 was achieved entirely by the IRSE Main fund because the Trading subsidiary invested its £100,000 very late in the year. Note 3 shows a further improvement in Trade debtors and the Institution no longer has any bad debts. The full extent of the activity of the trading company is shown in note 7. the Licensing Registrar’s services and office charges include a proportion of costs initially paid by the IRSE. £14,000 was spent on a contract to create electronic versions of current licence holder records. The scanned paper files are now securely stored outside London. The income from subscriptions shown in note 8 was significantly ahead of the budget and included a pleasing number of people who decided to retain their membership by clearing their arrears. The sales of textbooks were exceptionally high due to a one-off bulk purchase by Network Rail. The comparative figures can be seen in note 9. The sales of ties were again insignificant and so the value of the stock has been written off as can be seen in note11. A new design is being considered. The Charity’s risk assessment and reserves policy were both reviewed during 2006. With the completion of the office move a significant financial risk has been minimised for ten years. The viability of the Licensing Scheme appears to be secure although some uncertainty about the potential number of maintenance licence holders remains. The charges for the scheme have not been increased for 2007 and possibly could be lowered when this uncertainty is removed. Work continues on improving the functionality of the IRSE’s website and will result in some new ongoing support costs. A comprehensive survey of the IRSE’s stakeholders and its less enthusiastic supporters is planned for 2007. This will be professionally supported and appropriate funding made available. The results will help ensure that the IRSE’s services are aligned to the emerging needs of both its members world-wide and the railway signalling and telecommunications industry.
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
complete the remaining projects which were originally funded by the former Strategic Rail Authority. A review of all documentation relating to the Examination and the Professional Development process was initiated. Finally, the Committee agreed to the IRSE’s participation in an on-line Professional Development Scheme pilot, described below. The IRSE’s professional development work continues to rely heavily on the enthusiastic involvement of people from across the industry and on the PD committee itself. We are grateful for the voluntary efforts of these people and the support of their employers. IRSE Examination Student Resource Packs (Former SRA Project) After some difficulty in locating an appropriate person to produce a resource pack for Module 2, this was finally achieved and the process is now underway. Because of the relatively low numbers of candidates applying to take Modules 4 and 6, and bearing in mind the wealth of information available to those who do, it was agreed that it would not be a productive use of resources to compile packs for those modules. BTEC Railway Signalling Teaching Resource Pack (Former SRA Project) A review of the BTEC National awards commenced in 2006 and is still underway. Once the Railway Signalling Modules have been reviewed, the resource packs will be considered and amended to come in line with the newly reviewed modules. Engineering Technician Training Scheme (Former SRA Project) An assessment of the contents of the Engineering Technician Training Scheme was carried out and a report was made to the Professional Development Committee. The Committee accepted the recommendation that, as it was found to have limited benefits, any proposed work should be terminated. IRSE Professional Examination To help reduce the number of candidates withdrawing from sitting modules at a late stage, as well as to contribute towards covering the costs involved in running the examination, Council agreed that from 2007 the fees would be increased to £40 per module (the initial registration fee will no longer be charged). The number of candidates who sat the examination in 2006 was 164 and 294 modules in total were taken, and the examination was conducted at 13 centres around the world. The Institution’s examination has been running in its current modular form for eleven years now. In 2005 the then President (John Corrie) established a small working group to take forward a review of the exam and Council remitted the PD Committee to consider the syllabus, structure and administrative arrangements. After much consideration of the perceived need for change, some initial proposals were made, which were rejected by Council for a variety of reasons. As a result there have been no changes to the examination so far, other than the change to the costing structure, described above.
123
The impact of this change will be assessed during 2007. Further work to address the Council remit is continuing. IRSE Endorsement of Courses During the year, the PD Committee who had been asked by Membership Committee to look at approving courses as ‘equivalent’ to the IRSE Examination for the purposes of IRSE membership, spent some time assessing a signalling graduate diploma course developed by the Central Queensland University with the help of the Australasian section. Council accepted that a pass in the CQU Graduate diploma is an appropriate equivalent qualification for a candidate to offer for IRSE membership. (Byelaw 2.6 refers). The Council also agreed that a distinction or higher in the CQU course would be accepted as an exemption from the IRSE exam. Continuing Professional Development Recognising that the recording of CPD can be a bureaucratic task, the Institution along with a group of other engineering institutions, both large and small, is participating in a pilot trial of a web-based record system for both initial and continuing professional development. The project has been initiated by ECUK and the Engineering Technology Board (ETB) following implementation of a similar system by the IMechE. Volunteers to participate were sought from an advertisement in IRSE News, and the trial will take place during the summer of 2007.
AWARDS Thorrowgood Scholarship The Thorrowgood scholarship is awarded annually under a bequest of the late W J Thorrowgood (Past President) to assist the development of a young engineer employed in the signalling and telecommunications field of engineering and takes the form of an engraved medallion and a cheque for a sum to be used to finance a study tour of railway signalling installations or signalling manufacturing facilities. The award is made to the Institution young member attaining at least a pass with credit in four modules in the Institution’s examination. The Thorrowgood Scholar for 2005 was Mr Dominic Taylor, of Network Rail, Swindon. The President presented him with his award at the Annual General Meeting in April 2006. Dell Award Under a bequest made by the late Robert Dell OBE (Past President) this award is made to an employee of London Underground Ltd or its successor bodies for achievement of a high standard of skill in the science and application of railway signalling. The winner of the 2006 Dell Award was Mr Gab Parris of LUL Ltd and he was presented with his award at the Annual General Meeting in April 2006. Wing Award for safety The 2006 Wing Award for Safety, commemorating the life and work of the late Peter Wing (Fellow), was presented to Mr Colin Wheeler, of RailStaff, at the
124
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
looking for opportunities for the scheme to improve through the internal audit process. John Colvin (Chairman), Richard Hobby, Mike Moore, Maurice Poole;
Annual General Meeting in April 2006 for his very significant contribution to improving track safety performance on the UK railway over very many years.
• Scheme Procedures Sub Committee: responsible for reviewing the existing regulations and procedures and improving them, and aligning them to the new ISO 17024 standard. Andy Nattrass (Chairman), Philip Wiltshire and Richard Hobby
LICENSING 2006 was another very busy year for the Licensing Scheme as it continues to meet the demands of the industry. As of 31st December 2006 the number of valid licences stood at 7,037. Sales of the IRSE Professional Development Log Book also continued to be high with over 700 being sold. Dave Weedon stepped down as Chairman of the Licensing Committee in June 2006 to be replaced by Ken Burrage. Ken also undertakes the role of the IRSE Licensing Scheme Senior Engineer. Our thanks go to Dave for all his help over the 12 months of his tenure, which was a particularly challenging time for the Scheme. Five Sub Committees continued to operate and proved very successful in aiding the smooth management of the Licensing Scheme. They remain as follows: • Management Review Sub Committee: responsible for continuous improvement of the Scheme and ensuring that it operates to the requisite standards. Paul Mann (Chairman), Dudley Hoddinott and Francis How. • Formal Complaints Sub Committee: responsible for ensuring that the Scheme’s Formal Complaints process is implemented consistently, in accordance with the Scheme’s procedures. Dave Weedon (Chairman), Richard Hobby, Dudley Hoddinott and Maurice Poole; • Audit Sub Committee: responsible for reviewing the activities of all Assessing Agencies, and
• Licence Development Sub Committee: responsible for the review and development of competence standards. Francis How (Chairman), Andy Nattrass, Mike Moore, Mark Watson-Walker and Richard Hobby The number of Assessing Agents now stands at 32, This includes 2 Assessing Agencies that have had their approved status placed on hold and 3 Assessing Agencies that were granted provisional approval in 2006, it is envisaged that they will be granted full approval in mid-2007. One of the two Assessing Agencies who were awarded their provisional approval in 2004 have been granted full approval, the other is still working under provisional status. The Land Transport Authority Singapore is still currently working towards gaining provisional approval and the Licensing Scheme has also attracted a lot of interest in India. The audit programme was completed in a timely manner for 2006 and our thanks go to the Appraisal Team Members who worked so hard to achieve this. As part of ongoing two-way communication with users of the Scheme two Appraisal Team members’ meetings took place during the year, as did two Assessing Agency meetings. Thanks are expressed to Network Rail for hosting the latter two meetings.
The Licensing Committee Membership at 31st December 2006 Voting Members Ken Burrage – Chairman John Colvin Dudley Hoddinott Francis How - Vice Chairman Alan Metcalfe Paul Mann Mike Moore Andy Nattrass Maurice Poole David Weedon
IRSE Licensing Scheme Senior Engineer Consultants (Mass Transit) Public Interest Consultants (Main Line) Supplier - Equipment & Systems Infrastructure Controller - Mainline Technical Advisor Occupational Standards Supplier - Telecomms Infrastructure Controller - Mass Transit IRSE Council
IRSE Mouchel Parkman ORR, HMRI Atkins Rail/IRSE Council Westinghouse Rail Systems Network Rail Atkins Rail Ltd/City & Guilds Thales LUL Network Rail
IRSE Chief Executive Licensing Registrar IRSE Licensing Scheme Treasurer
IRSE IRSE IRSE
Richard Bell
Australasian Representative
Mark Watson-Walker Philip Wiltshire
IRSE Systems Manager Technical Advisor
Independent Mainline Consultant IRSE Atkins Rail Ltd
Ex-Officio Members (Non Voting) Colin Porter Richard Hobby Martin Govas Advisers (Non Voting)
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
The Licensing Scheme website continues to operate specifically for IRSE licensing. Its address is www.irselicences.co.uk. The website contains both general information about licensing (how to obtain a licence, maintaining a logbook etc.) and also the competence assessment checklists, which are used to assess competence for the various categories. From the 1st January 2006 – 31st December 2006 the website experienced 34,000 sessions and a total number of 682,000 hits. The work on reviewing the Scheme to the new ISO17024 standard, which superseded EN45013 in April 05 and against which the Scheme has to demonstrate compliance, was successfully completed. In April 2006 the IRSE underwent a successful audit by UKAS against ISO17024 and in September full approval was granted. The staff within the Licensing Office has remained largely un-changed with the exception of Karen Gould who resigned from her role in April 2006 to pursue other interests. Richard Hobby continues his role as Licensing Registrar as does Linda Collins in the capacity of Licensing Administrator concentrating her efforts on the financial / credit control aspects of the scheme. Roger Button and Linda O’Shea have become permanent employees undertaking Certification and Competence Assessor Approval duties respectively. Mark Watson-Walker has continued to provide his expert guidance on the Scheme’s Systems issues and in addition to this has been working closely with Martin Govas and our Software Developers on the creation of a new IRSE Licensing Database. It is hoped that this will be rolled out before summer 2007. Licence Status as at 31st December 2006 Total Licences issued since the start of the scheme 9548 Total Licence valid
7037
Licences issued or renewed in 2006
908
Additional Categories / Replacements
378
Formal Complaints received in 2006
3
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING The 93rd Annual General Meeting was held at the Institution of Engineering & Technology, London on Friday 28th April 2006 with about 120 members present, when the composition of the new Council was announced, as follows: President: Vice-Presidents:
J D Francis W J Coenraad A J Fisher
Members of Council from the Class of Fellow: F Heijnen C R Page F How Miss A Parker J M Irwin Dr A Rumsey P A Jenkins A Simmons I Mitchell D Weedon Members of Council from the Class of Member: A S Kornas G Simpson P Grant D N Woodland Mrs C L Porter N C Wright
125
Members of Council from the Class of Associate Member: J Haile C Lake The formal proceedings included a warm vote of thanks to the following members retiring from Council for their long and valuable service to the work of the Institution. K L Walter, Member, Council member for 12 years J F Wilson, Fellow, Council member for 8 years. Election of Honorary Fellows The President announced that the Council had decided to elect the following to become Honorary Fellows of the Institution in recognition of their long and distinguished service to the profession and to the IRSE. Cy Porter, President 1998/1999. Clive Kessell, President 1999/2000. Helmut Uebel, President 2000/2001. Bob Barnard, President 2001/2002. Also Phil Gaffney, Country Vice President for Hong Kong, and Machiel Baaijens, Country Vice President for the Netherlands for their efforts over many years in support of the work of the Institution in those countries. The meeting showed their approval of this announcement with warm applause. Karen Gould The Chief Executive in introducing Karen Gould to the meeting outlined her considerable achievements in the training, registration, professional development and licensing fields since she had joined the Institution in 1998. He said that members were pleased that Karen was able to be present with her partner Tim and wished them both all the very best in the future as they start the new phase of their life together looking after children who need the help, guidance and support of caring adults. The President, on behalf of the IRSE and Karen’s many friends and colleagues from all over the world, then presented Karen with a gift of an ornamental clock and picture frame to say thank you and best wishes for the future. This was followed by the inauguration of the new President, Mr J D Francis, who gave his Presidential Address.
COUNCIL MEETINGS Seven meetings of the Council were held during the year during which the business of the Institution was conducted. The Articles of Association provide for the current Chairmen of local sections, both in the UK and overseas, and also Country VicePresidents to attend Council meetings and Council is always pleased to welcome any who are able to be present at a Council meeting in London.
TECHNICAL MEETINGS Having held its technical meetings at the Institution of Electrical Engineers since 1915, with the move of the office accommodation to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers at 1 Birdcage Walk, it was decided that it would be more
126
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
convenient for the Council and technical meetings to be held there also from the beginning of the session in October 2006. The technical meetings now take place in the Lecture Theatre in that building.
IRSE ENTERPRISES LTD As mentioned in the finance section of this report, IRSE Enterprises Ltd is the trading company wholly owned by the Institution. An increasing number of activities are handled by the trading company. The “constituencies” of the Board members were agreed by Council in 2005. The Directors appointed for the year 2006/7 at the Board meeting held on 28 April 2006 were: A co-opted Past President to be Chairman – P W Stanley The current Junior V-P to represent the Trustees – A J Fisher The current Chairman of Finance Committee to provide oversight – J D Corrie The IRSE Treasurer to be Treasurer – M Govas The IRSE Chief Executive to be Chief Exec & Secretary – K W Burrage until 30 June 2006 – C H Porter from 1 July 2006 Any taxable profits from the company after meeting all its costs are gift-aided back to the Institution.
EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL AUDIT The finances of the Institution are subject to audit annually by independent external auditors who submit their report to the Annual General Meeting. The Licensing Scheme is subject to ongoing annual external audit by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS). As a registered Charity the Institution is subject to periodic external review by the Charity Commission. As an Institution licensed by the Engineering Council UK to register Chartered and Incorporated Engineers and Engineering Technicians, the Institution is also subject to review periodically by the Engineering Council to ensure compliance with ECUK registration standards. The last ECUK review visit took place in June 2006 and other than having to change the bi-lateral arrangements to another Institution following the merger of the IIE, no items of significance were raised. The external audit of the Licensing Scheme by UKAS took place in May 2006 and is covered in the licensing section of this report. In March 2000 Council decided to set up a process whereby an internal audit committee comprised of senior Fellows of the Institution would, over a period of time, undertake independent internal scrutiny of the Institution’s management of all its activities not subject to formal external audits. The internal auditors report annually to Council and Council uses their reports and the recommendations that they make to continually improve the management of the Institution’s affairs and the delivery of its services to members. The subjects covered in 2006 included Council, professional development and recruitment and publicity activities.
ANNUAL DINNER The Savoy Hotel, London, was once again the venue for the 42nd Annual Dinner held following the Annual General Meeting on 28th April 2006. As last year, about 450 members and their guests were present for the occasion. The newly installed President Mr John Francis introduced his principal guest Mr Phil Gaffney, the former Operations and Business Development Director of MTRC, Hong Kong and a newly elected Honorary Fellow of the Institution, who addressed the members and their guests. He later proposed a toast to the Institution, which was enthusiastically endorsed. An excellent 4-course meal was efficiently served to the large gathering by the staff of the Savoy. Council continues to be grateful for all the hard work that Mr Quentin Macdonald undertakes every year to ensure the success of this popular event.
MEMBERS’ LUNCHEON The eighth annual Members’ Luncheon was held on 14th June 2006 when 85 members of the Institution, with 14 Past Presidents in attendance, including the longest serving Past President, Victor Smith OBE, who was President in 1974 and also 26 members with over 50 years membership, including the Chief Executive Ken Burrage, took luncheon at the Victory Services Club in Seymour Street London. A very pleasant 3-course luncheon with wine was served. The 82nd person to serve as President since the Institution’s formation in 1912, Mr John Francis, was present and he addressed the members present with a brief speech mentioning that Tim Howard, the last President to come from Westinghouse as well as Tony Howker who had been with Westinghouse for many years, and both of whom were present, bore a significant responsibility for him becoming involved in the IRSE many years ago. He then went on to outline the illustrious career history of Ken Burrage who would be handing over as Chief Executive at the end of the month. To Ken’s complete surprise, particularly as he thought he held the Institution’s stock of awards, the President went on to award him with the President’s Award, a silver medallion on a green ribbon, and thanked him on behalf of all the members for his outstanding leadership of the profession, his very significant contribution to the development of the Institution, and being the best President the Institution never had. Mr K W Burrage, the retiring Chief Executive, reported that the current membership of the Institution was approximately 4000 and although it had had a recent dip with the loss of a number of accredited technicians at the end of their “free” period of subscription, continued to grow steadily. 48 members have over 50 years’ membership, 9 members having gained this status this year; Hugh Murray, John Raindle, Ron Gilbert, Ralph Thatcher, Frank Hounsom, Dennis Sharp, Alan Fleet, Frank Rayers and he said that he had had the pleasure of writing to himself to invite himself to the luncheon as
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
a guest of the Institution having now achieved 50 years membership. 26 of these members had been able to accept the President’s invitation to be present at the luncheon as guests of the Institution. He continued by saying that members having over 60 years membership were no longer a rarity and were represented at the lunch by Mr Ronald Post with 67 years of membership. The IRSE’s longest serving member is Mr Wilfred Hardman, residing in New Zealand and aged over 90, with 77 years of membership. Mr Hardman still corresponds from time to time with the office. Many other members who were unable to attend in person had also sent letters of apology and good wishes. Regrettably 15 members had died since the lunch last year including two of our 50-year members, Mr J D Mathers and Alan Webster. Also among the deaths were Mark Brookes and Percy Dibden, both strong supporters of the Institution. The Institution is grateful for the service that these friends and colleagues performed for the S & T discipline and the Institution during their time with us. He concluded by stating that this was the last official IRSE function for which he was responsible before handing over to his successor Colin Porter on 1 July 2006. He wished to say a sincere thank you to all the IRSE staff, officers and colleagues for making the last 7 years of his 50 year railway career such a most satisfying and rewarding experience. Members attending the luncheon with over 50 years membership of the Institution were Messrs G H D Amoss, A R Brown, David G Brown, D Graham Brown, R Bugler, K W Burrage, T Eccles, H Fensom, I Foster, J Gilbert, B Grose, E Harris, B Hillier, F Hounsom, F Kerr, P G Law, J Lethbridge, M Page, D Plummer, R J Post OBE, J Raindle, F G Rayers, V H Smith OBE, E Sutton and J Waller. Past Presidents present at the luncheon were Messrs A R Brown, J D Corrie, C Hale, T S Howard, A C Howker, R Nelson, J Poré, C A Porter, C H Porter, F G Rayers, V H Smith, P W Stanley, J Waller and A D Wilson. The luncheon concluded in a most pleasant and happy atmosphere of friendship and camaraderie and had been thoroughly enjoyed by all present.
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION The International Convention was held in Interlaken, Switzerland from 4th to 7th September 2006. 300 members and guests representing 19 countries from around the world were present at the event. A slightly different format was followed this year with an afternoon start. Following the welcome speeches members enjoyed a number of technical presentations and during the ensuing days viewed a wide variety of interesting technical installations as well as mountains. Whilst the members were engaged on technical activity a number of interesting and enjoyable tourist visits were arranged for the guests, and members and guests together enjoyed a number of excellent social events. The striking scenery, Swiss timetabling precision, grand scale of civil tunnelling works, evidence of progress with implementation of ETCS as well as a very well
127
arranged programme made for a memorable fifth convention to be held in Switzerland. One of the key organisers of the Convention, Oskar Stalder from SBB was made an Honorary Fellow at the Convention Dinner for his outstanding support to the Institution over very many years culminating in what had been a most successful event. A full report on the Convention has been published in IRSE News and will also appear in the Institution’s proceedings. The Council is appreciative of the arrangements made by the Convention organisers and the officials and staff of the railways in Switzerland, and also for the generous support of the Convention’s sponsors that made the occasion a memorable and enjoyable one. Particular mention should also be made of hard work of the Convention Co-Ordinator, Mr Roger Penny, and those involved with him in ensuring that the Convention ran smoothly.
LONDON TECHNICAL MEETINGS The move to Birdcage Walk did not result in any lessening of attendance at the six technical meetings held in London with an attendance level of between 80 and 110 for the meetings. The Council is grateful to those who find the time from their increasingly busy schedules to prepare and present papers at these meetings, which always secure a high degree of audience participation with the questions. Thanks are due to Mr P Grant, papers Assistant Editor, for the service he has provided in the transcription and editing of the tapes of the discussion following the London papers for publication later in the proceedings. Thanks are also due to Mr D Stratton, the papers Editor, for proof reading and preparing the papers for publication.
CONFERENCES AND TECHNICAL VISITS The Institution programme again contained a wide variety of opportunities for attendance at technical conferences and technical visits. This year a slightly different conference was held on 4th November in Kidderminster on S&T Engineering on Heritage Lines and another conference on Upgrading the Underground was held in London on 20th February 2007. Both conferences were very well attended with over 140 delegates each. There were three technical visits this year, all well supported. The first, held on 16th-17th June was to Oslo in Norway visiting both the Metro and main-line installations. The second, held on 24th November 2006 was to the Network Rail signaller Training Centre in Watford near London, and the third held on 23rd February 2007 enabled 90 members to see the resignalling and building works at St Pancras station, London, the new terminus for the UK high speed rail link to the Channel Tunnel. Reports of these events will appear in IRSE News and the Proceedings. Council is appreciative of the hard work and effort contributed by those concerned with the organisation and administration of the events, especially to Keith Walter for his help with the technical visits.
128
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
NETWORK RAIL/IRSE FORUM In February 2006, a workshop Forum held on “Signalling for Business Needs” was the culmination of a working group of experts drawn from the ranks of senior Fellows of the IRSE in the UK representing a cross section of the signalling industry with the objective of giving consideration to the provision of signalling from first principles. This has led to Network Rail initiating a command and control Future Rail Group, the objective of which is to provide a forum to define the future vision of the command & control system that is fully integrated with the operational rules/signalling principles in order to improve efficiencies for the renewal and operation of the future railway. The first meeting of the group was held on 2nd November 2006, with meetings envisaged every two months. The group which is chaired by Andrew Simmons, the Head of Signal engineering for Network Rail, comprises the Head of Telecommunication engineering and Head of Operations of Network Rail and representatives from the Department for Transport, the Office of Rail Regulation, the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), the Rail Safety & Standards Board and Colin Porter, the Institution’s Chief Executive represents both the Institution and UK railway supplier interests.
PUBLICATIONS AND PUBLICITY IRSE News The Institution magazine has continued to be developed during the past twelve months as a result of the changed production arrangements in 2005 whereby Stuart Angill, a former Council member, became Production Manager. The most obvious change is to the design of the front page with a topical photograph used across the whole cover, but the internal layout has continued to subtly evolve to provide a more modern and interesting format. It is only when you compare a current issue with one produced five years ago that you really notice the changes. There have been a significant number of interesting articles this year generated from non-UK sources. The Institution magazine is produced in a high quality colour A4 format, with ten issues each year, the July/August and December/January issues being combined. The size of each issue usually runs to 28 pages; however from time to time this size is increased and the January/February 2007 issue was issued as a bumper 56 page edition. This has been as a result of the size of the London technical papers, which have now been incorporated. There has been a good income from advertising throughout the year, the proceeds of which help support the production costs of the magazine. Regular features that continue to be produced include the News View, Interesting Signals, Curiosity Corner, IRSE Matters, Section News, Feedback and Membership Matters, and it appears to provide a good mix of articles of both new and historical techniques providing interest to the membership as a whole. During the year, a number of “guest editors” from within the industry have provided the
“News View” and they have brought a different perspective to that provided normally by the editors. The editors acknowledge the continued support of all the contributors and wish to encourage all members to offer and provide articles, letters and high quality pictures, diagrams and photographs for inclusion within this topical publication, thus enabling IRSE News to correctly represent the worldwide industry as a whole. They want to continue to make a positive influence upon the worldwide signalling and telecommunications industry and supporting it where possible through this popular communications medium. The Council is very grateful for the hard work of the Honorary Editor, Mr I Allison, the Honorary Assistant Editor, Mr A J R Rowbotham and the Production Manager, Mr S Angill for the effort they undertake in continuing to produce in a very timely fashion this most important means of communication with and between members of the Institution. Proceedings The Institution’s Proceedings for 2005/2006 were published as usual in October, within six months of the close of the session and the Council is grateful to Andrea Parker, Honorary Editor, for her work leading to such prompt publication. This year the Proceedings were again also made available in CDROM format. All members have been given the opportunity to indicate their preference for receiving the Proceedings in either hard copy or the new CDROM version in future years. Website During 2006, Council agreed that the web-site which had been developed over a number of years needed to have a complete revision, to update it, make it more modern in appearance and functionality, and to make it slightly easier to use with a variety of web-browsers. Views were sought from all sections of the Institution to determine what changes were to be considered and a “User Requirements Specification” was drawn up from which the software developer worked. During the year until December 2006, the existing site continued to be updated to reflect changes to the programme and other information, but the new site was launched on 21 December 2006. There has been very positive feedback about the site and no complaints (to date). The intention, in phase two of the development, is to provide a members area with facilities for updating contact details, hopefully permit payment of subscriptions and gain access to other useful information. This will however, have to await the completion of the changes to the licensing scheme database system as the web-site will need to access the main Institution database to provide existing contact details. Updating of the contents on the newsite will be able to be carried out by the London office staff as soon as training has been given. The content on the website continues to be a major source of reference for members and nonmembers alike and major additions or changes are often announced in IRSE News. The website is particularly useful for non-members who are able to
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
find out more about the Institution and obtain membership information directly. The website contains details of technical meetings and events held at the London centre, together with those held at UK provincial centres and these are publicised as early as possible and reviewed often to ensure the site remains up to date. The website also contains details of overseas sections, visits, seminars, etc., and in some cases hyperlinks are provided to registration and application forms for technical visits, conferences, dinners, etc. There is a link to the licensing web-site www.irselicenses.co.uk managed by a separate company on behalf of the Institution. Council is grateful to Mr David Mackay and Lloyd’s Register Rail for their very significant support for the development of the new site, and also to Mr David Crabtree for his years of voluntary assistance in developing and maintaining the former Institution website. Recruitment and Publicity activity The Recruitment and Publicity committee has met four times throughout the year and is grateful to the companies who have sponsored these meetings by the provision of the venue and hospitality. Work continues in the active promotion of the Institution’s activities with the local sections and throughout the profession. In May a review of the committee’s remit was held to ensure that, it was both up to date and reflected the current strategic aims of Institution. A review of the content of the display panels for the IRSE Publicity Stand was completed; resulting in a new range of panels easily tailored to suit specific events. The Publicity Stand, at the “S&T Engineering on Heritage Lines”, held on the 4th November 2006, at Kidderminster, utilised these new panels. For the first time a limited range of IRSE Publications were available for purchase from the stand; these raised a total of nearly £700. The stand was used again at the Railtex 2007 exhibition at Exel, London between the 20th and 22nd February 2007. An internal audit of the workings of the R&P committee was carried out in November 2006. The R&P Committee will review the audit report and any recommendations will be included in the committee’s action plan for 2007. Council is appreciative of the efforts of Derek Edney and the members of the Recruitment and Publicity committee for all the work they do to promote the activities of the Institution, including manning the display stands and to encourage people to become members. Publications Over the years the Institution has produced a number of excellent text books and other publications that are of significant benefit, not only to those studying for the examination but also as a continuing professional development service to all professional signal and telecommunications engineers. During the year, the Institution supported the production of 2 DVDs containing historical signal engineering training material originally
129
produced by British Transport Films. Work has been initiated on a review of a number of the Institution’s text books to ensure the material they contain is upto-date. These and a full list of the publications available for purchase by members at preferential rates can be obtained from the Institution’s website together with an order form.
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER BODIES Engineering Council UK The Institution is a fully nominated body of the Engineering Council UK licensed to register Chartered Engineers, Incorporated Engineers and Engineering Technicians. The Chief Executive and Past President, Mr Colin Porter, continues to represent the Group C Institutions (these are the smaller ones similar to the IRSE) on the governing board of ECUK. In addition, he represents the Group C Institutions at the meetings of the G15 (the Chief Executives of the larger engineering institutions). Institution of Incorporated Engineers With the merging of the IIE and the IEE to form the Institution of Engineering and Technology in April 2006, the collaborative arrangements with the IIE that permits joint membership of both Institutions at reduced subscription levels will be terminated. The IIE through both it’s Council and Chief Executives, originally Alan Gingell and latterly Peter Wason, was always very supportive of the Institution, providing premises, staff and support services as well as helpful advice. The IRSE Council is grateful to the IIE for the support received since 1993 when the then IEEIE employed our first full-time staff member, Mark Watson-Walker. Institution of Railway Operators The Institution continues to liaise with operating colleagues in the continued development of the Institution of Railway Operators by the exchange of ideas and information. Railway Engineers Forum Together with the Civil, Engineering & Technology, Mechanical and Permanent Way engineering Institutions the IRSE has continued as a member of the Railway Engineers Forum that arranges technical meetings and produces papers on railway engineering topics of multi-disciplinary interest. The chairmanship of the body transferred from the IRSE to the Institution of Engineering & Technology (IET) in 2005 although Past President Mr C Kessell has continued to serve as the REF chairman.
INTERNATIONAL TECHNICAL COMMITTEE The International Technical Committee has continued with its work, but has adopted a different mechanism for the preparation and publication in the railway technical press of shorter technical articles on matters of current interest. It’s initial work in this new format has concentrated on cross acceptance, level crossings and ERTMS in operation.
130
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
COMMITTEES The following were appointed to serve on the standing committees shown and the Council extends its thanks to them for the valuable work they undertake on behalf of the Institution: Management Committee: Messrs W J Coenraad (Chairman), J D Francis, J Poré, J D Corrie, M Govas, A J Fisher, F Heijnen, J Irwin, P Jenkins, P W Stanley, D Woodland and C H Porter (Secretary). Membership Committee: Messrs C Kessell (Chairman), R Blakey, J D Corrie, D A Edney (Secretary), P Grant, D Mason (ECUK rep), R Harding, D Harford, F Heijnen, I H Mitchell, R W Penny, , Mrs C L Porter, P W Stanley, J H Tilly, D Weedon, F Wilson and C H Porter. Finance Committee: Messrs J D Corrie (Chairman), W J Coenraad, A J Fisher, J D Francis, M H Govas (Treasurer/Secretary), F Heijnen P W Stanley and C H Porter. Professional Development Committee: Messrs A P Smith (Chairman), W Alexander, B D Chowdhury, D Cornall, O King, J Joyce, K Marchand, R Moore, J Ricketts, G Wire, D Woodland and Ms C White (Secretary). Advisor, C H Porter. Examination Committee: Messrs D N Woodland (Chairman), J Alexander,I Brown, P Darlington, K Harrison, P Hetherington, D A Hotchkiss, D Jones, Miss U Khaleel, A Kornas, T Lee, C Lovelock, M Miller, S Rodgers (Secretary), R C Short, N T Smith, C I Weightman, C R White and Ms C White. International Technical Committee: W J Coenraad, (Netherlands), I Gal (Hungary), E O Goddard (UK), G Hagelin (Sweden), F Heijnen (UK), Y Hirao (Japan), S Hiraguri (Japan), C Kessell (UK), F Kollmannsberger (Germany), L Lochmann, (Belgium) L Matikainen (Finland), I McCullough (UK), F Montes (Spain), J Noffsinger (USA), J Poré, (France), H Rochford (Secretary), R Seiffert, (Switzerland), C Sevestre (France), A Simmons (UK), O Stalder, (Switzerland), P W Stanley (UK), J Stutzbach (Germany), K-H Suwe (Germany), A Zierl (Austria). Licensing Committee: Messrs K W Burrage (Chairman), J W A Colvin, T Godfrey, D S Hoddinott, F How, P Mann, A J Metcalfe, M D Moore, A Nattrass, M K Poole, D N Weedon and Ex officio: M H Govas (Treasurer), and R Hobby (Licensing Registrar/Secretary). Advisors R Bell, M WatsonWalker, F P Wiltshire and C H Porter. Recruitment & Publicity Committee: Messrs D A Edney (Chairman), I Allison, D W Crabtree, A Davies, P Eldridge, A Fisher, M Glover, M Hewitt, I Mitchell, R H Price, A J R Rowbotham, D H Stratton, S D Turner (Secretary), and G F Wire. Internal Auditors: C Kessell, R W Penny and F Wilson.
OVERSEAS and UK LOCAL SECTIONS AND YOUNGER MEMBERS The overseas Sections of the Institution in Australasia, Hong Kong, North America, Singapore and Southern Africa, and the Midland & North Western, Scottish, Western and York local Sections
in the United Kingdom all continued to operate successfully, but the Plymouth section has had to curtail its meeting programme this year due to uncertainty about employment prospects in the area. Each section arranged its own programme of meetings and other events during the year, details of which appear in the Proceedings. Local meetings of members in Central Europe continued to be held occasionally. The Younger Members continued to arrange meetings during the year for the Younger Members of the Institution. This year’s programme included the usual meeting for the IRSE Examination review as well as a conference event organised jointly with the Midland and North Western section and entitled Making Headway. The President gave the opening address to this conference and a full report on the proceedings has been published in IRSE News. The Council wishes to record its thanks to the Officers, Committee members and all others in the Sections, both overseas and in the UK for the excellent work they undertake in organising the meetings and other events. Their dedication, hard work and enthusiasm, when under increasingly heavy day-to-day work pressure, is a major contribution to the success of the Institution. The Officers of the Sections were: Overseas Australasian Section: Chairman, Mr R T Stepniewski; Country Vice-President, Mr P R Symons; Vice-Chairman, Mr R A Bell; Hon Secretary & Treasurer, Mr G Willmott. Hong Kong Section: Chairman, Mr F Fabbian; Vice-Chairman, Mr K W Pang; Hon Secretary, Mr F L Hui. Southern African Section: Chairman, Mr R Gould; Vice-Chairman, Mr B van der Merwe; Hon Secretary, Mr P Meyer; Hon Treasurer, Mr J C van de Pol; Country Vice-President, Mr G B Paverd. North American Section: Chairman, Mr D Thurston; Vice-Chairman, Mr K Bisset; Secretary, Mr G Young; Country Vice-President, Mr W J Scheerer. Singaporean Section: Chairman, Mr I Tomlins; Vice-Chairman, Mr R Shield; Secretary, Mr M White; Treasurer, Mr D Quastel. UK Midland & North Western Section: Chairman, Mr A Knowles; Vice-Chairman, Mr B D Chowdhury; Hon Secretary, Mr W Redfern; Hon Treasurer, Mr C Williams. Plymouth Section: Chairman, Mr J Easterbrook; Vice-Chairman, Mr A Moore; Hon Secretary & Treasurer, Mr D Came. Scottish Section: Chairman, Mr T Gallacher; Vice-Chairman, Mr A McWhirter; Hon Secretary, Mr I Hill; Hon Treasurer, Mr B McKendrick. Western Section: Chairman, Mr E Gerrard; ViceChairman & Treasurer, Mr A Scarisbrick; Hon Secretary, Mr M Glover.
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT
York Section: Chairman, Mr I Moore; ViceChairman, Mr A Kornas; Hon Secretary, Mr J Maw; Hon Treasurer, Mr A P Smith. Younger Members: Chairman, D Young; Hon Secretary, Ms Lynsey Thompson; Hon Treasurer N Reddy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is not possible to reach the position of President, nor fulfil the role, without assistance from many people and organisations. For support throughout the year, enabling me to make that fulfilment to the best of my abilities, I must thank Westinghouse Rail Systems and extend this to the period leading up to this year when serving on Council and as a Vice President. To the Past Presidents of the last 18 years I also extend thanks, for it is these gentlemen, unwittingly, that I have watched and learnt from. The international scope of our Institution is reflected in the fact that I was preceded by a President from mainland Europe and will be similarly followed. I wish Wim Coenraad every success as our first Dutch President and look forward to the future day when we are able to inaugurate a President who resides outside of Europe. I extend special thanks to the many people that have played a part in making my year a success and therefore memorable to me. I have received so much help - thank you to all of you. There are those that have written and presented papers, that have presented at Seminars, and that have organised technical meetings, visits and the Convention. Particular thanks must go to the members of the committee in Switzerland who, under the able leadership of Oskar Stalder, excelled in delivering a truly wonderful Convention with precision arrangements that will be remembered as a highlight of my year. Similarly, those involved in staging the technical weekend in Oslo achieved an occasion enjoyed by all those that ventured to Norway for the event. Both of these continental excursions were favoured with sunshine and fine weather.
131
The business climate nowadays does not always readily assist individuals or companies to participate in the affairs of the Institution. Those that have recognise the importance of this assistance. They will have reaped professional, educational and business benefits despite the general perception. Many of the events have been made possible by generous sponsorship from industry, for which I am extremely grateful. I am grateful also to the members of Council for their stewardship of the Institution. They are your elected representatives drawn from constituent areas of our profession. Similarly, the various Standing Committees and Local Section Committees have performed sterling work in supporting Council in running the Institution in a manner designed to achieve its objectives. Under Colin Porter, in his first year as Chief Executive, the headquarters staff have yet again shown their abilities in administering the business of the Institution. Also deserving of praise are all the other volunteers, working behind the scenes in a myriad of ways to run, promote and improve our Institution. There is one special person without whom I could not have enjoyed the year as I have. That’s my wife Rachel who has been there to encourage, support, organise, advise and accompany me. She understands my enthusiasm, exhibits her own and even enjoys helping out and meeting all the tremendous people that make the Institution what it is. Above all I am appreciative of you, the members, for allowing me to be your President and for supporting me during the year. I hope you have all found value in your membership. John Francis President 1 Birdcage Walk Westminster London, UK
March 2007
132
Ninety-Fourth Annual General Meeting Minutes of the Ninety-Fourth Annual General Meeting held at 1 Birdcage Walk, London, SW1 on Friday 27th April 2007 The Retiring President, Mr J D Francis, in the Chair
The President, in welcoming members to the Annual General Meeting stated that it was being held in the presence of a painting of George Stephenson, as it was the first time that the AGM had been held at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. The first AGM had been held in Birmingham, the second, in 1914, at St Pancras and all those since had been held at the Institution of Electrical Engineers at Savoy Place, until this evening.
PREVIOUS MINUTES AND AUDITOR'S REPORT. It was proposed by Mr P Wiltshire (Fellow) and seconded by Mr J Waller (Fellow) and carried that the minutes of the 93rd Annual General Meeting held on 28th April, 2006, be taken as read and they were signed by the President. The President then asked the Secretary to read the Report of the Auditor, which he did.
ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS, 2006. The President commented briefly upon the main features of the Annual Report for 2006 and expressed his thanks to all those who had contributed to a successful year of office. At the request of the President, the Institution's Treasurer, Mr M.H. Govas, commented on the finances of the Institution. He said the Institution had achieved a satisfactory financial result in 2006. On a total turnover of nearly £1.2M a surplus of £154,649 had been achieved, which increased to £167,313 after taking into account changes in the value of investments. The President then asked whether anyone present wished to discuss any point in the Annual Report and Accounts. No one did.
Members of Council from class of Fellow F How J Irwin P A Jenkins I Mitchell Miss A Parker
Mrs C L Porter C R Page Dr A F Rumsey A Simmons D Weedon
Members of Council from Class of Member P J Grant A S Kornas J Ricketts
G J Simpson D N Woodland C Wright
Members of Council from Class of Associate Member B Chowdhury
J Haile
The President then proposed a vote of thanks to the following retiring members of Council for their long and valuable service to the Institution; Peter Stanley, after 18 years service on Council and Chris Lake, after 4 years service on Council The meeting showed its appreciation and thanks with applause.
AUDITOR. The President announced that the Institution's Auditors, Ian Katte & Co., of Addlestone, Surrey, had indicated their willingness to continue in this capacity for a further year and it was the recommendation of the Council that they should do so. It was proposed by Mr. M Tyrell (Fellow), seconded by Mr. R Rao (Member) and carried with none against that Ian Katte & Co., be appointed Auditors to the Institution for the year 2007.
OTHER BUSINESS. AWARDS Dell award
COMPOSITION OF COUNCIL, 20072008.
The Dell award is made annually under a bequest of the late Robert Dell OBE (Past President). It is awarded to a member of the Institution employed by London Underground Ltd (or its successor bodies) for achievement of a high standard of skill in the science and application of railway signalling. The award takes the form of a plaque with a uniquely designed shield being added each year with the recipient’s name engraved on it and a cheque for £300 to spend as the recipient wishes.
The President announced that as a result of the ballot that had been held the Institution's Council for the year 2007-2008 would be composed as under: -
The winner of this year’s Dell award is Matthew Holder of Metronet Rail and Mr Francis presented Mr Holder with the Dell award amidst applause.
There being no further questions it was proposed by the President, seconded by Mr F How (Fellow) and carried that the Annual Report and Accounts for the year 2006 as presented be adopted. The President then put the motion to the meeting which was carried with none against.
President:
W J Coenraad
Thorrowgood Scholarship
Vice Presidents:
A J Fisher F Heijnen
The Thorrowgood scholarship is awarded annually under a bequest of the late W J Thorrowgood (Past
NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
President) to assist the development of a young engineer employed in the signalling and telecommunications field of engineering and takes the form of an engraved medallion and a cheque to be used to finance a study tour of railway signalling installations or signalling manufacturing facilities. The award is made, subject to satisfactory interview, to the Institution young member attaining at least a pass with credit in four modules in the Institutionís examination. The Thorrowgood Scholar for 2006 is Mr Mohanakrishnan Sarvepalli, of Atkins Rail in Sharjah, UAE and Mr Francis presented Mr Sarvepalli with his award amidst applause. The Wing Award for Safety. Mr Francis announced that the "Wing Award for Safety" would be presented this year at a national rail awards ceremony being held later in the year. Election of Honorary Fellows The President announced that the Council had decided to elect the following to become Honorary Fellows of the Institution in recognition of their long and distinguished service to the profession and to the IRSE. Peter Stanley, President 2002/2003 Colin Porter, President 2003/2004. And also Les Brearley and Richard Bell of the Australasian section for their work in support of the IRSE in Australasia over many years. The meeting showed their approval of this announcement with warm applause. Election of Companions The President announced that the Council had decided to transfer Roger Ford, from Modern Railways, to the class of Companion to recognise his great interest in signalling and railway engineering, and since Mr Ford was present, somewhat to his surprise, he was asked to come forward to receive his new membership certificate, to very warm applause.
CLOSING REMARKS. The President then went on to say: “Our Institution deals with the today and the future of S&T engineering, a profession that creates and maintains technical safe working solutions on the world’s railways. We have a Greek motto on our insignia but I am also reminded of words from Shakespeare‘s King Henry IV, Part 1 spoken by Hotspur which succinctly apply to our work and which we would do well to remember: They are ‘out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.’ Out on our railways I’m pleased to see that fresh impetus is being applied to tackle bottlenecks so as to reduce delays and unlock capacity. I look forward to these initiatives delivering their intended improvements. But I continue to be dismayed that project delivery failures bring our profession into disrepute.
133
Having been incorporated in 1912 our organisation is approaching its 95th year of operation. We must begin to contemplate a fitting way to celebrate its Centenary in 2012. One of my present colleagues on Council can look forward to being President in that year. And what a year we must make it. You, the members must help us decide how to celebrate it. But in the meantime we have a good year ahead of us under my successor Wim Coenraad. If you journey from France to the Netherlands you quickly travel through Belgium on the way. My time as President has been a bit like that short interlude between France and Holland because I find myself in a unique situation as I extract myself from a sandwich between a Frenchman and a Dutchman. As I have said on previous occasions I now know what it feels like to be a Belgian. My predecessor Jacques Poré was the fifth overseas President out of 81 Presidents in the entire history of the Institution. Wim will be the sixth overseas President out of 83 Presidents. I have been the President in the middle. Between them these two gentlemen have taken the overseas Presidential average from 5% to 7.23% in just two years, an achievement in itself. As our 83rd President, Wim also makes history as our first incumbent from the Netherlands. Members in the Netherlands have long been firm supporters of the Institution and so it’s about time they were honoured with a President from their ranks.”
NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TAKES THE CHAIR. The retiring President, Mr J D Francis, then invited the newly elected President, Mr W J Coenraad, to take the Chair, which he did amidst applause, and Mr Francis invested him with the Presidential Chain of office.
VOTE OF THANKS TO MR J D FRANCIS Having taken the Chair, Mr Coenraad invested Mr Francis with his Past President's Medallion and proposed a hearty vote of thanks to him for the excellent way in which he had carried out the Presidential duties during the past year. This proposal was carried with enthusiastic applause.
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. The President, Mr W J Coenraad then delivered his Inaugural Address ‘Sustainable Signalling’, a copy of which will appear in IRSE News and in the Proceedings. A vote of thanks to him for his Address was proposed by Mr P W Stanley (Fellow), and carried with applause. The President then declared the Annual General Meeting closed.
134
43rd Annual Dinner The 43rd Annual Dinner was held again at The Savoy Hotel, London WC2, on Friday 27th April 2007 following the Annual General Meeting. About 420 members and their guests were present. In a slight change to the normal proceedings, since the Annual General Meeting was held at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers building at 1 Birdcage Walk, Westminster, a double-decker bus was hired to transport members between there and the Savoy. It is not clear whether this was a precedent for the Savoy, but it was probably a precedent for the Institution.
Photos: Colin Porter and Ken Burrage
Wim Coenraad, installed as our new President only two hours earlier, introduced his guests for the evening, but had to apologise on behalf of his guest of honour, Mr Anthonie Bauer, Director of Inframanagement, Prorail, Netherlands who had to withdraw that morning due to the sudden ill-health of a close family member. Mr Bauer had delegated delivery of his speech to Maarten van der Werff, also of Prorail, and a signal engineer. Mr van der Werff
then addressed the members and their guests with Mr Bauer’s speech, which he did with considerable skill, before proposing the toast to the Institution, which all present responded to with great enthusiasm. An excellent 4-course meal was, as ever, very efficiently served to the large gathering by the staff of the Savoy. Members and their guests spent another most successful and enjoyable evening together. Thanks must go to Quentin Macdonald who organised the event with his usual aplomb despite it taking place only a few days before the York local council elections, together with the staff of the Savoy who dealt with us as well as ever. It is likely that next year, a different venue will have to be found as the Savoy will be undergoing a significant restoration. Nevertheless, it is likely that the Savoy will help find the venue for us, as they are keen for us to return!
Jim Waller proudly showing off his enammelled IRSE cufflinks, presented to him at the end of his 2nd term as President in 1991/2 as it seemed difficult to make him wear two Past-president’s medallions!
135
IRSE Convention 2006: Interlaken, Switzerland by Derek Edney
Convention hotel – Hotel Lindner Beau Rivage
Switzerland - the land of integrated transport; railways, lake steamers and buses set in the magnificent scenery of lakes, mountains and snow, was the venue for the 2006 International Convention held in Interlaken between Monday 4 September and Thursday 7 September. This was the fifth Convention to be held in Switzerland, the first being Berne in 1957. Interlaken is situated in the Bernese Oberland region of Switzerland between the lakes of Thun and Brienz at the foot of the imposing snow capped mountain ranges of the Eiger, Mönch and Jungfrau. The President John Francis, accompanied by his wife Rachel and together with the Swiss Organising Committee, had arranged a format different from previous Conventions. The event this year was held over four days instead of the more usual five. Following the opening reception on the Monday morning there were technical presentations and guests visits in the afternoon. The remaining three days were filled with a very varied and interesting programme of presentations, technical visits, and social activities. Thus the overall content of the Convention was no less extensive than in previous years. Each participant had been issued with a 1st class ‘Swiss Pass’ valid for free travel to/from the entry point into Switzerland and Interlaken, together with 50% reduction at other times. This was much appreciated by the attendees, and being valid for one month allowed leisure travel opportunities outside the Convention.
Convention – ‘being to excite you with the Swiss popular theme - that seeks to maximise the use of the railway for the transport of goods and people’. He went on to mention - ‘all the sponsors of the Convention both from the railway administrations and suppliers, recommending the audience to their posters and exhibits’. He commented that - ‘2007 marks the 160th anniversary of railways in Switzerland and the BLS Lötschbergbahn AG (BLS) had marked its 100th anniversary on 26 July 2006. Interestingly two-thirds of the cost of Bahn 2000 projects has been raised through increased lorry and petrol taxes agreed by the Swiss residents by way of referenda. The Institution had visited the European Train Control System (ETCS) pilot line between Olten and Luzern in 2002 and would visit the new Mattstetten - Rothrist high speed line fitted with ETCS Level 2. This is currently under trial operation with ETCS in full operation from December 2006. There are also visits to installations on the BLS, the Zentralbahn (ZB), Berner Oberland Bahn (BOB) and Jungfraubahn (JB)’. He thanked Paul Trenor for the booklet on ‘The Railways of the Bernese Oberland’ which had been given to all the participants and in closing - ‘wished everyone an enjoyable Convention’. The guests then left for their afternoon tour of Interlaken with the members having an interesting programme of technical papers. MEMBERS: The President welcomed and introduced Oskar Stalder, Swiss Federal Railways (SBB), who was the leader of the 2006 Swiss Organising Team and had been involved with the organisation of previous Swiss Conventions. Oskar then spoke of the following: •
‘Welcomed everyone to Interlaken and the Convention’;
•
Outlined the programme for the week;
•
Introduced the group guides and members of the Swiss Organising Committee;
MONDAY 4 SEPTEMBER During the morning, registration for members and guests took place at the Hotel Lindner Beau Rivage. Together with an informal reception, there were also technical exhibitions and displays by the various sponsors of the Convention. Members and Guests then enjoyed a substantial buffet lunch before assembling for a short welcome by the President, John Francis. John commented ‘there were 300 members and guests attending this year representing 19 countries and that many people had been here before’. He spoke of the Aim of the
The first afternoon comprised a Technical Conference held at the Lindner Beau Rivage Hotel in Interlaken, at which delegates filled the conference room to learn about developments on the railways of Switzerland. (CH Porter)
136
IRSE CONVENTION 2006: INTERLAKEN, SWITZERLAND
•
‘The last Swiss Convention was held in Luzern in 2001 and now Interlaken for two reasons; the landscape and public transport system’;
•
A free bus ticket was provided for all participants due to the number of hotels used in Interlaken and their location;
•
Interlaken Ost station is operated by four Railway operators – BLS and SBB (standard gauge 1435 mm) plus the Zentralbahn (ZB) and Berner Oberland Bahn (BOB) (narrow gauge 1000 mm) with both a.c./d.c. overhead electrification systems;
•
Interlaken is dominated by the three mountains - Eiger, Mönch and Jungfrau. The outline of which was used as the Convention logo;
•
•
‘Fresh snow had fallen during the previous week in the mountains and at Kleine Scheidegg, the highest railway junction in Switzerland, there will be a picnic!’; It was stressed that the Convention, for most part, utilised scheduled service trains, buses and lake steamers and they would not wait for stragglers - ‘Miss them and you would have to find your own way to the various venues at your own cost!’.
Concluding, Oskar handed over to Dr. Markus Montigel (CEO, systransis AG Transport Information Systems) for the technical papers session. Marcus outlined Convention:
the
main
topics
for
•
Two new transalpine base tunnels of Lötschberg and Gotthard; will encourage environmentally friendly freight transport between northern and southern Europe. However this increase in transit freight traffic will also be a big challenge for network operations;
•
The paper concluded with a look at the further development of long distance passenger services and at some regional and urban projects.
‘Planning Method for Bahn 2000’ by Dr. Peter Grossenbacher, (SBB, Infrastructure, Operations Management - Head of Development Processes) •
Bahn 2000: This is the introduction of more regular services with shorter journey times; more direct and more comfortable trains together with station refurbishment;
•
The first major step was the new highspeed line between Bern and Olten. This was introduced on the 12 December 2004;
•
To achieve Bahn 2000, the use of efficient planning processes and methods were necessary;
•
These are characterised by firstly clarifying the various transport policy goals with the responsible bodies. With these requirements follows the actual transport planning;
•
Within the vertically integrated SBB, the necessary rolling stock and infrastructure for passenger and freight transport were determined in a process of multiple iterations. This helped an optimum to be achieved from both the point of view of the market and SBB;
•
The private railways and bus operators of Switzerland were also fully integrated in the process;
•
After fifteen years of planning and ten years of construction Bahn 2000 is a success for public transport throughout Switzerland.
the
•
Achievements of the Swiss Public Transport System;
•
ETCS Interoperability issues.
He went on to introduce the speakers who then presented technical papers expanding on these main themes. A summary of each paper follows: ‘Public Transport in Switzerland - Key Success Factors and New Challenges’ by Prof. Dr. Ulrich Weidmann (ETH Zürich/ Institute for Transport Planning and Systems) •
Overall view of public transport in Switzerland with special emphasis on the role of railways as the backbone of the system;
•
Including facts and figures: network length and density; transport volumes, transportation flow and market share;
•
Switzerland’s railway network forms a critical part of the European railway system. With public transport playing a central role in the Swiss tourism industry;
•
Identified the key public transport success factors: finely developed network, the regular schedule and station hub principle (called Bahn 2000);
•
The suburban mass transit system (SBahnen), the established transport links for rail freight transport;
•
Collaboration between the nationwide SBB network, private local train and bus companies;
‘European Train Control System (ETCS) Deployment and Interoperability Issues’ by Dr. Guillaume de Tilière (ERTMS Standard Director ALSTOM Transport) •
In the last decade, the European Transport Policy aimed at promoting interoperability along international rail corridors. This harmonisation is to keep the railway system competitive with road and air transport. The global trend is embedded in new innovative rail technologies i.e. ETCS;
•
The ETCS Specifications are the result of a process where both ‘Industry’ (UNISIG) and ‘Operators’ (EEIG) are involved leading to proposed ‘System Requirements Specifications’ (SRS). These are included in the official ‘Technical Specifications for Interoperability’ (TSI) following approval by ‘European Association for Railway Interoperability’ (AEIF) and The Committee Art21 (European Union Member States);
•
Considerable experience has been gained
IRSE CONVENTION 2006: INTERLAKEN, SWITZERLAND
137
needs of regional and mountain railways. The functionality having been amended for the special requirements of these railways; which are largely self-contained and not interoperable in terms of ETCS. This allows the implementation of additional functions such as departure prevention when the signal is a red, (signal overrun protection), or operating mode monitoring; •
Thanks to the use of the ETCS platform, the operator's investments are safeguarded to the greatest possible extent.
‘ETCS Migration Strategy for Switzerland’ by Bernhard Stamm, (Siemens Switzerland, Transportation Systems) from the main steps of the technology development and its deployments phases; from the first test tracks in 1998-2000 to projects that are commencing commercial operation. An analysis of this experience and difficulties that have been overcome was given; •
ETCS technology will in the future be functionally improved by the ‘Change Request’ process. This is now managed by the new ‘European Rail Agency’ (ERA);
•
The UNISIG vision of how some current open issues and open questions can be solved was discussed;
•
UNISIG and the ‘European Economic Interest Grouping’ (EEIG) will continue to provide expertise to the ERA in order to enhance the ETCS specification.
•
Introducing ETCS on a railway network leads to the question of migration;
•
Existing train control systems have to work in parallel with ETCS before they are replaced;
•
If the question of migration is not dealt with from the beginning; then ETCS might result as an additional system. Thus adding both cost and complexity to a network’s operation;
•
SBB has placed high emphasis on defining a migration strategy before the introduction of ETCS. Both industry and the Federal Office of Transport have been involved in defining and optimising this strategy. The goal being a fast cost efficient and complete replacement of the existing train protection systems (Signum and ZUB);
•
Defining this strategy has resulted in a number of novel approaches, especially in using ETCS components in conjunction with the existing train protection systems, but also in defining some universally usable extensions to ETCS, especially a new ETCS mode ‘Limited Supervision’ (LS);
•
The paper described the strategy to introduce ETCS in Switzerland, the products developed to implement it, and the new ETCS mode LS.
At the end of the papers a panel ‘Question and Answer’ session was held followed by a coffee break. The final session for the day consisted of a further three papers: ‘Interlocking Systems and ETCS in Mountain Environments’ by Dr. Hans Schlunegger (JB) •
Signalling systems for mountain railways, in particular rack railways, have a number of specific specialities;
•
With generally shorter inter-station distances and the extremely short braking distances, signal overlaps are not used;
•
Permissive block working is often used to allow a number of trains to follow at short intervals;
•
In contrast to usual (continental European) narrow gauge practice, rack railway points are non-trailable;
•
The signalling interlocking must therefore provide unambiguous indication of the position of the points;
•
A modern electronic interlocking, for rack railways, accommodating these features was described;
•
Similarly, the automatic train protection system (ZSI 127), based on ETCS components and procedures, is tailored to the
‘Interoperability in the ETCS Level 2 Lötschberg Project’ by Georg Köpfler (General Project Manager Lötschberg Project, Alcatel) •
The Lötschberg Project is being built by BLS Alp Transit Ltd. (BLS-AT);
•
The scheduled completion date is December 2007, when the tunnel will open for full freight and passenger operation;
•
The entire project is divided into several subprojects; with the signalling contract let Spring 2003;
•
There has been substantial progress to date; and resulting from positive field tests the political scepticism towards ETCS systems has been effectively reduced;
•
The ‘Interoperability Process’ introduced for this Swiss project has resulted in significant progress. By enabling various different suppliers of ETCS components to collaborate as a consortium under the supervision of a neutral body;
138 •
IRSE CONVENTION 2006: INTERLAKEN, SWITZERLAND
This approach paves the way for future Europe-wide collaboration between national transport authorities, railway infrastructure owners, railway operators and suppliers of ECTS trackside and train borne equipment. Giving scope for European standardisation.
These presentations concluded with a ‘Question and Answer’ session. The President closed the Technical Conference with a short summary of the day and thanked all the speakers and contributors for their presentations. GUESTS: The guests enjoyed a tour of Interlaken by the ‘Jungfraubahn Road Train’ viewing ‘Mystery Park’, the Casino, and the old squares and houses in the town, returning to the Hotel Beau Rivage from where a short walk led to the funicular railway station for Harder Kulm. Here they joined the train for the short journey to the summit. From the restaurant’s terrace there are wonderful panoramic views over the town, the surrounding lakes of Thun and Brienz, as well as the spectacular snow-capped mountain ranges. MEMBERS AND GUESTS: On this evening there were shuttle buses to the ‘Mystery Park’ for a reception and dinner. ‘Mystery Park’ is a theme park that introduces visitors to the great unsolved mysteries of the world. It is made up of several pavilions in which are displays focusing on the meaning of ancient monuments, such as the pyramids of Egypt, posing questions such as ‘how did the ancient Maya devise their calendar’ and investigating the origins of religion in ancient cultures. A further section is devoted to outer space and the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. [ED: There was once a plan for the BOB to build a short branch to the park, but this idea has now been dropped.] On arrival at the park and during the reception the President gave a short speech welcoming everyone and commenting on the following: •
convince other administrations on the use of ETCS systems. John thanked Hansjörg for his kind words and introduced Dr Mathias Tromp (BLS): •
Welcome on behalf of the BLS Company;
•
Described the size of the company and its operation of both trains and lake steamers.
At the end of the welcoming speeches an excellent buffet dinner awaited, with music by the ‘Dreamline Band’. During the meal the President introduced Peter Teuscher BLS AT who outlined the ‘Lötschberg Base Tunnel’ (LBT) project: •
Construction of the LBT with the final breakthrough of the tunnels achieved in April 2005;
•
Programme to date is that fixed installation complete and ETCS test running has commenced in the south of the tunnel;
•
Completion of testing 15 June 2007 when the tunnel will open for freight traffic with full passenger operation from December 2007;
•
Members will be able to visit the construction site on Thursday.
Thanking Peter for his speech John then invited Walter Steuri (JB) to give a few words: •
The JB is a private company but part of the Swiss railway network;
•
JB services form part of the integrated Swiss timetable with through-ticketing available throughout Switzerland;
•
Remarking that when a JB train is delayed; jokingly the JB announcer may say - ‘delays due to signal problems at Zürich!’
Thanking the speakers for their kind words the President concluded the speeches by listing some notable recent Anniversaries including: •
500th of the Swiss Guard for the Popes’ protection in the Vatican City;
•
100th of the BLS railway;
•
100th for the Swiss Post Bus network.
Four previous Swiss Conventions namely: Berne (May 1957), Montreux/Zermatt (May 1967), Zürich/Pontresina (September 1977), Luzern (May 1991) and now Interlaken (September 2006);
A limited edition Swiss coin has been minted to celebrate the anniversary of the Swiss Post Bus. As a token of appreciation the President presented one of these coins to each of the railway guests.
•
Thanked the railway companies of SBB, BLS and JB for their support;
TUESDAY 5 SEPTEMBER 2006
•
Special SBB tilting ICN train used on Tuesday will be the first passenger working to/from Interlaken;
John then introduced Hansjörg Hess (SBB):
MEMBERS: The members assembled at the Beau Rivage for an introduction to the day’s programme on ‘ETCS in Switzerland’ by Vincent Passau:
•
Welcome to Interlaken and the Convention on behalf of SBB;
•
Honoured to host Convention in Switzerland;
•
This is a new double track line;
•
Commented on growth of traffic;
•
•
Spoke of the in-cab video displays for the ICN train and the issues of retrofitting of locomotive cabs for ETCS;
ETCS Level 2 with ‘Global Standard of Mobile - Rail’ (GSM-R) communications for both voice and data transmission;
•
•
Following the Swiss example, hoped to
ETCS train borne-equipment has been retrofitted to over 400 vehicles. Fully interoperable
One of the key elements of the Bahn 2000 project is the new high speed line Mattstetten - Rotrist:
IRSE CONVENTION 2006: INTERLAKEN, SWITZERLAND
139
expandable design and standardised software. A high level of availability by 2 out of 3 system configuration to give ‘Safety Integrity Level’ (SIL) 4. ETCS system: •
The Automatic train control system (ZSI 127) with continuous braking curve monitoring and signal overrun protection. Based on ETCS components and procedures, supplemented by non-ETCS functions as required. A simplified cab display having been developed for the ZB application.
Axle Counters: Photo: Derek Edney
•
with the existing ATP systems of Signum and Zub; •
Test running in ETCS mode continues with full ETCS operations from December 2006;
•
Essential that all the different suppliers’ equipment are fully and properly integrated to ensure safe reliable operation;
•
The Swiss railways have a migration strategy that will complete ETCS fitment to the SBB network by 2015.
Siemens AzS 350 U axle counting system for Swiss railways. Low cost per section as four sections are monitored by one system. Compact design with simple reconfiguration by means of switches. Connection to any interlocking via parallel interfaces and fully compatible with ETCS.
In-sleeper point machine: •
Following the introduction to the day, members split into colour groups for the various technical visits. Walking to Interlaken Ost station where they joined the Die Zentralbahn (ZB), formally SBB Brünigbahn, train for Giswil. On route the train reversed at Meiringen for the rack assisted climb (maximum gradient of 12%) over the Brünig pass.
Low-maintenance pawl lock machine housed in sleeper allows full mechanised track tamping through out the switch length. Preassembly of the hollow sleeper operating mechanism off-site in the factory results in reduced line occupancy for installation.
From March 2002 till May 2005, the ZB line between Luzern and Interlaken Ost was automated with remote control introduced: •
Ten electro-mechanical interlockings replaced by Siemens electronic interlockings type Simis IS;
•
The existing railway level crossing controls were integrated into the new electronic interlockings;
•
•
The Siemens Iltis control system was introduced providing remote control and automatic route setting; The Siemens ZSI 127 automatic train control system was provided for the entire line.
Arriving at Giswil and dividing into smaller groups; there were a number of inspections and technical presentations:
Photo: Derek Edney
Lineside Equipment Unit (LEU): •
A demonstration of the LEU, which had current sensing devices attached to the signal lamp driver circuitry, was given. The LEU converts the signal aspects to telegram messages. These are transmitted to balise in
The station control room and electronic interlocking: •
The control system (Iltis) provides a PC workstation featuring a graphical user interface with integrated timetable database for automatic route setting. Capability to interface with a wide range of different electronic and relay interlockings providing remote control facilities;
•
The electronic interlocking (Simis IS) is designed for small to medium-scale interlockings and includes ETCS Level 1 capability. Flexible interfaces with a modular
Photo: Derek Edney
140
IRSE CONVENTION 2006: INTERLAKEN, SWITZERLAND
Photo: Derek Edney
During the trip, on-board live video from the drivers cab was presented during the run over the new line demonstrating the drivers ETCS screen displays. GUESTS: Today there was a visit to the Swiss Open Air Museum at Ballenberg; where are located about a hundred historic rural buildings from several regions of Switzerland. These have been carefully dismantled and reconstructed set in gardens and fields. They are grouped according to their area of origin and furnished traditionally thus creating an impression of Swiss rural life in bye-gone days.
(Top) (Next down)) (Above)
Departure Board showing IRSE Special. Grand Hotel Giessenbach. Funicular up to the Hotel for some. photos: Derek Edney
the track adjacent to the signal. Provides for ETCS L1 operation. On the conclusion of the visit the party joined the local ZB train to Alpnachstad (on Lake Luzern) where they joined the lake steamer (‘Flüelen’) to Luzern; on board a light lunch was served during the trip. Arriving at Luzern, the landing stage being adjacent to the main station, they joined the special SBB ICN tilting train for the return to Interlaken via the new high speed line Mattstetten – Rothrist: •
New high speed double track line, (45 km), with 242 trains per day and an operational headway of 120 s at 200 km/h;
•
Fitted with ETCS L2 together with a fall-back system of conventional signals;
•
Full ECTS L2 operation in December 2006 for commercial operation.
The guests travelled to Brienz by ZB train before joining the post bus for Ballenberg West. On arrival at Ballenberg West there was a short walk to the Museum where on assembly in the Wirtshaus Alter Bären they enjoyed a Swiss Znüni (coffee, bread and jam). Following which there was a walking tour with local guides and demonstrations were given of various arts and crafts. The guests then all reassembled and walked to the Gasthof Wilerhorn for lunch; afterwards returning to Interlaken by post bus and train. MEMBERS AND GUESTS: In the evening, converging at the landing stage at Interlaken Ost, members and guests joined the lake paddle steamer, (‘Lötschberg’), for a cruise on Lake Brienz to Giessbach. On arrival at the landing stage there is a funicular railway up to the restaurant of the Grand Hotel. From the terrace there are spectacular views of the magnificent Giessbachfälle waterfalls.
IRSE CONVENTION 2006: INTERLAKEN, SWITZERLAND
141
(Above) Another view of the exhibition at Giswil with a Brunigbahn train descending the rach section in the background. (Below) Peace descends on Lake Brienze as the delegates return to Interlaken.
WEDNESDAY 6 SEPTEMBER 2006 MEMBERS AND GUESTS: Throughout today all the members and guests stayed together to enjoy a mixture of technical visits and magnificent mountain scenery. A number of options for the day were available, each summarised here: (Above)
The Delegates at the Dinner. (Photos on this and some of previous page: Ian Allison, Stuart Angill, Roger Phelps)
A superb dinner was thoroughly enjoyed by all during which the President gave a speech which included: •
Reference to the 127 year old funicular from the landing stage up to the Hotel;
•
The wonderful restoration of the paddle steamer ‘Lötschberg’;
•
Thanks to all the sponsors for their generous support including the various trains and lake steamers;
•
‘Tomorrow we visit the Jungfraujoch and the weather forecast is good with a high pressure system over the mountains’;
•
Stressed that the paddle steamer would depart at 23.00hrs – ‘miss it at your peril!’
At the end of a fascinating evening everyone joined the paddle steamer for the return to Interlaken.
FOREST GROUP - ‘GRINDELWALD’ Having travelled by BOB train from Interlaken to Grindelwald, the group changed to a WAB train at Grindelwald, for the short journey to Grindelwald Grund. Upon arrival at the station, members and guests had the opportunity to view the Traffic Control Centre and the Interlocking equipment within the station buildings, to view the magnificent Wengernalpbahn Depot facilities with its immaculately placed tools and the clean workshop floors and walkways and to observe the views from the station of the beautiful valley in which it is all contained. Interesting features of the signalling within the station area at Grindelwald Grund included the LED signals, the permissive working of trains and the unusual diamond crossing with the adjustable rack equipment, controlled by the interlocking for all signalled moves. The sunshine was all too much for some at this location, with members and guests partaking in refreshments and a certain President’s wife was seen sunbathing! On completion of the depot visit the group travelled on to Kleine Scheidegg.
142
IRSE CONVENTION 2006: INTERLAKEN, SWITZERLAND
Viewing from inside the mountain at a crossing station on the Jungfraubahn. Photo: Stuart Angill Casino photo: Martin White
WATER GROUP ‘TRÜMMELBACH GLACIER WATERFALLS’ The group travelled by train from Interlaken to Lauterbrunnen where they joined the local ‘Die Post’ (post bus) for Trümmelbach. This is a Unesco World Natural Heritage site of ten waterfalls inside the mountain. The falls accessible by tunnel lift are illuminated. They drain water from the Eiger, Mönch and Jungfrau mountains at a rate of up to 20,000 litres of water per second. Over 20,200 tons of rock, timber and other material are swept down the falls per year. This drainage area covers 24km2, half of which is covered by snow and glaciers. After visiting the falls there was time for a refreshment break at the local hotel; before returning to Lauterbrunnen by post bus and joining the Kleine Scheidegg train.
Members of the ‘Mountain Group’ on the Sphinx’ terrace enjoying the panoramic views of the Altesch Glacier Photo: Stuart Angill
the Eiger and over the Fiescher Glacier. The summit station, at 3454m (11,333ft) above sea level and the highest in Europe, was reached at 10.11hrs. Here the group were free to enjoy this Unesco World Natural Heritage site including the ‘Ice Palace’ with ice sculptures, the ‘Sphinx’ terrace with panoramic views of the Altesch Glacier, (at 24kms the longest in the Alps), and walking trails in the snow on the plateau. Following a very enjoyable visit the group returned down to Kleine Scheidegg by train. With all the groups having arrived at Kleine Scheidegg; there was time for a visit to the JB maintenance depot. Also inspection of the rack points, (‘Strub’ rack and pinion system), in the station area. The new signalling, with LED signals which are fitted with snow protection screens and the train control centre for the JB.
Photo: Stuart Angill
Others just took ‘time out’ to relax and admire the tremendous mountain scenery. MOUNTAIN GROUP - ‘JUNGFRAUJOCH TOP OF EUROPE’ BY TRAIN An early start was required as the metre gauge, Berner Oberland Bahn (BOB), train from Interlaken to Lauterbrunnen departed at 07.50hrs. Changing trains at Lauterbrunnen, to join the 800mm rack railway, Wengernalpbahn (WAB), that climbs up through Wengen to Kleine Scheidegg. From here a separate metre gauge rack line, Jungfraubahn (JB), heads up to the Jungfraujoch; stopping on the ascent at two observation stations, (‘Eigerwand’ & ’Eismeer’) carved out of the rock. These gave spectacular views from the North Wall of
The JB rolling stock depot had been cleared of all vehicles and the tracks boarded over. Here a buffet lunch had been set up for members and guests within the actual depot. During lunch musical entertainment was provided by a group of eight alphorn players. Some intrepid members attempted to play these instruments - much to everyone’s amusement! The afternoon was free with a range of different ways of returning down the mountains to Interlaken: •
‘Some of the party enjoyed the fresh mountain air at Kleine Scheidegg and returned by train to Interlaken;
IRSE CONVENTION 2006: INTERLAKEN, SWITZERLAND
WAB and BOB trains at Grindewald
143
Photo: Stuart Angill
THURSDAY 7 SEPTEMBER 2006 MEMBERS: The members travelled by train to Spiez for technical presentations and visits to the new Lötschberg base tunnel (LBT). This is a major project to construct new tunnels through the Alps; details as follows:
Alpenhorn serenade
Photo: Stuart Angill
A chance to ‘drive’ a train under ETCS Level 2 in the JB depot at Kleine Scheidegg Photo: Stuart Angill
•
•
‘Others departed for Grindelwald, as they had not visited the WAB depot previously, returning from there by train to Interlaken; ‘Finally there were the group who went by hiking trail for the walk to Männlichen; from where they joined the cable car for the descent into Wengen. Thence joining the train back to Interlaken.
Arriving back at the hotels the evening was free of organised activities.
•
‘Tunnel 34.6km in length between Frutigen and Visp with 110 trains per day with an operational headway of 120s at 250km/h;
•
‘Control centre in Spiez with train control by ETCS L2. Conventional signals at the tunnel entrances only;
•
‘Commissioning dates are June 2007 for freight and December 2007 for passenger traffic.
Arriving at Spiez for a welcome speech given on the platform by Edward Wymann (BLS) who commented: •
‘BLS is the largest private rail operator in Switzerland;
•
‘Infrastructure and train operator;
•
‘Own staff for signalling maintenance with a mixture of Interlockings (inc. electronic) and level crossings;
•
‘The new LBT and the introduction of ETCS L2 will give new opportunities;
•
‘Safety in the tunnel is paramount with the introduction of the new ‘Fire and Rescue’ train.
The party then split into a number of groups for visits around the station: •
‘Joining the new ‘Fire and Rescue’ train for the short ride from the station to the depot. This is a four unit vehicle with each unit self propelled should the need arise. Two units are equipped for fire fighting using foam and water. The other two vehicles are the rescue vehicles and can accommodate up to 60 persons.
•
‘A demonstration of processes for ‘Automation of Signalling’, with reference to the LBT, was given:
144
IRSE CONVENTION 2006: INTERLAKEN, SWITZERLAND
– ‘Optimisation of the Operational Schedule’ for trains through the tunnel. Both the running lines are bi-directionally signalled. A critical area being the single track section. The system ensures that entry into the tunnel is given only if there is no conflict or possibility of a deadlock situation arising; – ‘‘Line Speed Optimisation’ regulates the train speed for trains in the tunnel arriving at a conflict – by slowing the second train earlier in the approach to ensure that at the conflict it arrives at the maximum permitted speed dependant on the traffic conditions. This gives a saving in terms of energy consumption and optimises the transit time; – ‘Automatic Evacuation’ of the tunnel is possible should the operator require. The automatic evacuation is carried out in the following phases: entry to the tunnels is blocked and unaffected trains driven out of the tunnel. Trains that cannot be evacuated forward are reversed out of the tunnel. Stops trains that are safe or cannot be evacuated. Deadlock prevention ensures that the ‘alarm train’ can always be evacuated forward. The evacuation plan uses the following information: train positions, distance to the ‘alarm train area’, train data, maintenance sectors etc.
Railway Radio Enhanced Network’ (EIRENE) specification; – In the future GSM-R will be linked to the Germany and Italy systems; – GSM-R for the LBT requires a fully redundant, high availability system. There are four GSM cells within the tunnel with two base stations per cell. The new planning and operational train control centre of BLS at Spiez was visited. Previously there were many local station signal boxes throughout Switzerland. These have now been grouped by line for better regulation and control into local traffic centres. The intention will be to further centralise these by remote control into five regional control
– The ‘test tool’ performs regression tests by simulation mode of all the Lötschberg system applications. There is provision for manual evaluation or the production of test scripts. •
A presentation of GSM-R and wireless transmission in tunnels was given: – GSM-R in Switzerland is for both voice and data; – GSM-R network rollout programme will replace all existing radio systems by 2010; – Current GSM-R situation; line Berne – Olten Zürich in operation and under construction Basle – Luzern, Thun - Brig via the LBT; – The network management centre is located at Berne with main switching centres at Zürich and Basle; – The radio coverage rules are based on the requirements of the ‘European Integrated
Control Centres: Top: WAB – Grindewald Grund Centre and Bottom: BLS – Spietz
Photos: Ian Allison and Derek Edney
IRSE CONVENTION 2006: INTERLAKEN, SWITZERLAND
centres for the whole of Switzerland with the centre at Spiez for the BLS and LBT. •
•
The centre has a total of 60 operators, working in shifts, which despatch, co-ordinate and control the BLS rail network; Inspection of the existing control room during which an outline of the future developments of the centre including the new LBT was given. The desk for the LBT will also include the other functions specific to the tunnel operation i.e. fire alarms, air conditioning etc.
At the end of the presentations the party travelled by train to Kandersteg where a splendid buffet meal was enjoyed by all. After lunch, and with restricted access to the tunnel works, the party was spilt in order to travel to either Goppenstein or Frutigen for the LBT visit. On arrival there was a mini-bus transfer, via service tunnels, to Ferden or Mitholz operations centres deep inside the tunnels. Arriving at the Operations centre there were inspections and explanations of the following: •
The group viewed the completed tunnel and the line-side equipment consisting of the signal marker boards, balise and axle counter heads;
•
Equipment rooms inside the tunnel are stainless steel, prefabricated and tested in the factory, shipped to site and connected. The I/L rooms are fully air conditioned;
•
Redundant Axle Counters (AzLM) for high operational availability with 2 sets of counters per section;
•
Application of I/L ELECTRA in tunnels, separate I/L’s for each tunnel. The ‘Radio Block Centre’ (RBC) for whole tunnel is at Spiez;
•
The tracks in the tunnel are constructed using concrete slab technology;
•
Data transmission is via ‘Synchronous Digital Hierarchy’ (SDH) technology;
•
Voice communication by GSM-R;
•
Currently integration testing of the ETCS L2 trial running in completed South tunnel.
After the visits the members returned to Spiez and then Interlaken by train. GUESTS: On Thursday, guests departed from Interlaken by train to Thun; where there was time for sightseeing and shopping in this old town with its castle and shops. After an enjoyable morning everyone reassembled at the landing stage to join the lake steamer for Interlaken; during the journey lunch was served. On return they disembarked at Interlaken West and made their way back to the hotels. MEMBERS AND GUESTS: Thursday night, the last official activity was the traditional IRSE Convention reception and dinner; held at the Casino being built in 1859 and renovated
145
in 1968. Before dinner, drinks were served in the Casino gardens entertained with traditional Swiss ‘Örgeli’ music. Following which the members and guests sat down to an excellent meal served in the beautiful wooden panelled and beamed hall of the Casino. Throughout the meal they were entertained by ‘Big Band’ music. After the meal the President rose to make his final address. He commented: ‘In my formative years there was an expression ‘Join the Navy and see the World’. However not being keen on water I considered other ways of achieving this goal. Now railways are a form of transport; and a career in railway signalling enabled me to see the world, with its rich variety of people, cultures, landscapes and wide variety of signalling. The last four days have been no exception. How neat, tidy and efficient the Swiss railway transport system is – wouldn’t you all like a railway like this one? Also notice how the Swiss find a mountain and then decide to build a railway up it or through it!! The planning and execution of this week has been masterful – we have had tremendous hospitality, by wonderful people in a beautiful country. We have achieved the three ‘E’s’ – ‘Entertained, ‘Educated’ and I hope ‘Excited’. Technical content of our lectures and visits have been fascinating, the scenery and food first class. Hope you all take home some fond memories of this week where the weather had been good’. He thanked all the sponsors, hosts, Swiss members and railway companies who had contributed so much to make the Convention successful. This was greeted with sustained applause. Continuing he then made a surprise presentation of ‘Honorary Fellow of the Institution’ to Oskar Stalder; ‘who has over many years been a staunch supporter of the IRSE giving technical papers, organising both this, previous Swiss Conventions and Technical Visits; as well as leader of the Swiss Organising Team 2006’. The presentation was greeted with loud applause. John then spoke of ‘his wife’s tremendous support and companionship throughout’ and asked Rachel to say a few words. She then gave her own thanks and ‘hoped that you had all enjoyed yourselves and that the last four days had flown by. Many thanks to the guests’ guides, helpers and wishing you all a safe onward journey’. The President then asked everyone to raise their glasses for toasts to the ‘Swiss Railways’ and the ‘Swiss Federation’. John then asked Wim Coenraad (Senior Vice President) to give details of next years Convention. Wim spoke ‘this will be held in Rotterdam, between Monday 29 May and Friday 1 June 2007. A leaflet describing the Convention will be distributed to you all and I invite you all to the Netherlands next year and hope to see you all in Rotterdam’. John continued with the comment he had heard all week “where are the ties?” ‘Well you will not be disappointed as there are being handed out limited edition ties and scarves’. Thank you for supporting the IRSE, Rachel and myself. Good wishes for the journey home’.
146
IRSE CONVENTION 2006: INTERLAKEN, SWITZERLAND
Lötschberg Tunnel with a signal marker board and below ETCS balises
Above: In giant caverns deep inside the mountain, Stainless-Steel ISO containers serve as equipment rooms for interlockings, control systems and Telecomms, as well as for storage and offices.
Above: Mechanical Delights.
Above: Lectures beneath 3000m of porous rock can be somewhat disconcerting. Photos: Ian Allison, Ian Moore, Derek Edney
Photos bottom right and left and next page top: Roger Phelps, Ian Moore, Derek Edney, Per Olofsson
IRSE CONVENTION 2006: INTERLAKEN, SWITZERLAND
Oskar Stalder leads the expedition from Kleine Scheidegg to Männlichen – a wonderful way to walk off lunch
147
An excellent Buffet Lunch was provided at Kleine Sxheidegg
The President then asked Lord Robert Methuen (Member of the UK House of Lords) to say a few words: ‘thanked the organisers and new friends met during the week. Commented that as a Member of the ‘All Party Rail Group’ I will promote rail transport; and it was bought out this week how the Swiss encourage railways. I have great pleasure to thank you all for the week’. this then closed the 2006 Convention and the Band played; whilst goodbyes were said amongst the gathered members and guests.
The Convention was once again thoroughly enjoyed by everyone, with many representatives from all the UK and overseas sections; a truly global event with excellent hospitality.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion; this is my last Convention report as having written these for the last eleven years, since Salzburg 1996; it is time for a fresh view and style. Over the years its been a pleasure to cover this annual key event in the calendar of our Presidents’ year and I look forward to reading next years report on Rotterdam’.
To end with a few personal thoughts:- ‘An excellent mixture of technical and social events made a week to remember for myself and my wife. We have already decided to return next year for a holiday, I am sure many others will, to explore further this wonderful region of Switzerland.
The building of new lines, alpine tunnels and the issues of implementing ETCS projects in Switzerland were all covered with great presentations. I look forward to the time when you can travel through the Lötschberg base tunnel under full ETCS L2 control. Next year we return to the Netherlands and I hope you can join us in Rotterdam.
Recognising Enthusiasm – The S&T Engineering for Heritage Railways Seminar By Ian Allison south-west of Birmingham. It is also home to the eastern terminus of the Severn Valley Railway.
Photos: this page: Ian Allison (Others supplied by the presenters)
Some 140 persons attended what was a well received day on Saturday 4 November 2006, at the Kidderminster Railway Museum. Kidderminster is a town in the Wyre Forest district of Worcestershire, UK, and it is located approximately twenty miles
As an Institution, the IRSE has a duty, within its objectives, towards helping all engineers practising in the field of signalling and telecommunications. At this particular event the participants welcomed the Institution’s decision to organise the programme which was supported by the Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate (HMRI), the Heritage Railway Association (HRA) and the National Railway Heritage Awards. Generous sponsorship from Henry Williams, Signal House, Westinghouse Rail Systems and Timesegment enabled all costs to be covered whilst the Severn Valley Railway provided free travel. A wide range of topics were discussed covering technical solutions, processes, legislation and competence. The attendees showed a ready awareness of their responsibilities and an ability for harnessing modern, novel and unique solutions to address the demands placed upon them. Following on from an all inspiring introduction by the President, a total of twelve presentations were delivered during
148
RECOGNISING ENTHUSIASM – THE S&T ENGINEERING FOR HERITAGE RAILWAYS SEMINAR
the course of the day, each triggering lively question and answer sessions. These were as follows:
MAINTAINING FOR SAFE PERFORMANCE
• Do we need to change these? Or can we devise in-situ tests which assure continued safe operation. How to set a maintenance regime
JOHN JENKINS, WEST SOMERSET RAILWAY Why do we need to do it? • To keep the equipment/systems safe; • To keep them operating efficiently; • To maximise the life of the installation - minimise wear and deterioration.
• We need specifications that set down WHAT has to be done • We need to set WHEN the tasks have to be done. A good start would be this: » Oil lubrication 6 weekly; » Grease lubrication 3 monthly; » FPL tests 3 monthly;
What do we need to maintain? • The simple answer is - everything we call signalling equipment! How can we quantify what we have to do? • Simple passive inspection/cleaning/security;
» Power supply tests 3 monthly; » Basic operational tests 3 monthly; » Detailed monthly.
equipment
service/overhaul
• Dynamic/operational check;
Who carries out the maintenance?
• ‘Consumable’ maintenance;
• • Split tasks into ‘disciplines’:
• Tests on equipment; • Specific equipment servicing;
» Lubrication equipment;
• Time limited equipment.
» Power supplies, track circuits;
Dynamic/Operational Check • Operation of signal/points/level crossing, to confirm smooth and effective operation and that there is not significant loss of travel/motion due to worn/loose equipment. ‘Consumable’ Maintenance
‘outdoor’
mechanical
» Signal box equipment, point machines, signal machines; » Mechanical locking; » Cables and telecomms equipment. Keeping records • ‘On site’ equipment/system records – provide history to assist in faulting and maintenance – typically track circuit and power supply records;
• Lubrication; • Checking tightness of fittings; • Changing primary cells;
• ‘Assurance’ certification – FPL tests – testing records;
• Topping up secondary cells; • Lamp changing;
• Work completed records – records of when/what/by whom maintenance activities undertaken;
• Track circuit bonding check; • Terminal protection.
• Failure records – causes, action taken.
Tests on Equipment • Facing point lock (FPL)/Detection tests – tests to ensure that FPL cannot be bolted/detection obtained with an obstruction in switch toes; • Power supply tests – that voltages are correct that a standby battery is capable of running an installation for a given period when the mains is off; • -Insulation tests – that insulation remains safe;
and
12
cable/equipment
Assessment of renewal requirement • How do we decide when something needs renewing? » Failure history; » Worn/damaged beyond site repair – unlikely to last until next maintenance; » Fails tests and not able to rectify. Structures - are these signalling or not?
• Track circuit tests – that safety tolerances remain;
• The equipment mounted undoubtedly signalling;
• Often requires gauges or meters – tests what simply can’t be observed.
• The posts, girders, struts are ‘structural’;
Specific equipment servicing • Self-contained units – single line instruments, point/signal machines, track circuits, mechanical lever frames; • More intrusive – requires higher degree of skill/knowledge. Time limited equipment • Time-based changing of equipment due to potential degradation of safety tolerances track relays, polar relays;
on
them
is
• Do we need some form of specialised ‘structural’ assessment? Special Inspection Notice (SIN) system • On national network provide a controlled form of urgent inspection/action; • Follow a serious failure/potential failure due to a previously unknown cause; • Do Heritage Railways need to be associated with/introduce this process – we share many equipment types?
RECOGNISING ENTHUSIASM – THE S&T ENGINEERING FOR HERITAGE RAILWAYS SEMINAR
‘Modern’ problems • Wire degradation. Occurs where there is a chemical reaction which degrades the insulation – maybe caused by heat, ultraviolet light or external chemicals – particularly oil; • Silver migration. Migration of silver ions through Bakelite. Occurs where there is (or has been) moisture/condensation and an electrical potential exists across silver contacts separated by a thin piece of Bakelite. Occurs mainly in black plug boards for BR Miniature Relays (‘930’ Series). Centralised procurement and servicing ‘call off’ contracts for Heritage Railways
149
• Written safety verification scheme and appointed a competent person to undertake safety verification. Regulatory changes • Under Secretary of State decision; • Regulation 29: ‘ROTS’ in force until 2010; • Regulation 4: Establish a Safety Management System, 31 March 2007. Transitional provisions • For systems operating at a maximum speed of 25 mph (41 km/h): » ROTS stays in force until 1 October 2010. • Providing that:
Have these ever been considered?
» The application is received before 1 October 2008;
Conclusion There is a lot more to maintenance than oiling. The presentation has probably provided more questions than answers on maintenance, but is intended to be thought provoking.
» The equipment or works will be in service by 1 October 2010. HMRI Guidance • RSPG Section H for Minor Railways;
THE ROLE OF THE HMRI
• HS(G)29 Steam Locomotive Boilers;
DAVID KEAY, HMRI
• Enhanced guidance for Steam Locomotives;
Role of the Inspectorate
• RSPG Section D Signalling;
• Enforce the will of Parliament;
• RSPG Section E Level Crossings.
• Provisions of the Transport & Works Act 1992; • Health & Safety at Work Act etc. 1974;
MARTIN DUNCAN, FFESTINIOG RAILWAY
• Regulations made under the Acts;
Martin gave an inspiring talk of how he and his railway managed the everyday activities to achieve their goals.
• Advice and guidance. Organisation & deployment New Legislation • SI 2006 No. 599 The Railways & Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 ‘ROGS’. Reasons for change • Implement Directives;
some
of
the
Railway
THE REALITY OF DAILY LIFE
Safety
LEVEL CROSSING SYSTEMS CALVIN STEPHENSON, HENRY WILLIAMS ELECTRICAL Calvin gave in insight of what services and products his organisation has and can provide to both the mainline and heritage railways within the UK.
• Extend broadly to other guided transport; • European Railway Agency;
LEVEL CROSSINGS & SIGNALLING
• Lighter regulatory touch;
JOHN TILLY, HMRI
• Reduce the number of regulations.
Heritage Railway Level Crossings
New Regulations replace • The Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000 (RSCR); • The Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994 (RSCWR); • The Railways & Other Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant & Equipment) Regulations 1994 ‘ROTS.’ Approach Taken • Adopt a Safety Management System ‘SMS’ adapted to the character, extent and other characteristics of the operation in question; • Risk assessments and implement; • Co-operate; • Replaces RSCWR , simplified and applicable to volunteers;
• Vehicular crossings probably highest risk area on heritage railways; • Local population regularly consider heritage railway crossings to be ‘toy’ railway; • Need to regularly assess risks; • Need to upgrade in relation to risks;
150
RECOGNISING ENTHUSIASM – THE S&T ENGINEERING FOR HERITAGE RAILWAYS SEMINAR
• Level Crossing Signage very poor on some railways;
• Trout Farm Private User Worked level crossing;
• High risk crossings on Romney (some being upgraded currently); Strathspey, Severn Valley, North York Moors and others;
Heritage Railway Level Crossing Incident – A Potential Example
• HMRI plan intervention work on 12-14 Heritage Railways over next 12-18 months where we will be looking at risk assessments, quality of maintenance and warning times etc;
• The railway concerned has not risk assessed this crossing properly – sufficient warning time is only available in 3 of the 4 directions.
• Highly politically charged area of railway safety; • Get involved with the Highway Authorities and local police to improve matters – Dalfaber Crossing on Strathspey Railway – police cameras, regular prosecutions;
• No injuries.
• The train is parked;
Heritage Railway Level Crossings – General Issues to Consider! • Worn signs (faded); • Wrong Phone Number for the monitoring signal box or organisation;
• Duties on users at private and footpath crossings – start reminding the users;
• Illegal signs;
• Some heritage railway filming - inappropriate messages to the public.
• Heritage Railway ‘Chocolate Box’ ambience is quite acceptable BUT if road traffic levels are sufficiently high, road signals and modern equipment may well be required;
Heritage Railway Level Crossings - 2000-2006 • Three fatalities;
• Vegetation Control needed;
• 31 Incidents;
• HMRI will use LCA83 powers if necessary to force upgrade;
• 2006 – One incident to date.
• EU compliant signals required.
Heritage Railway Level Crossing Incident - 14 May 2003 • East Lancashire Railway; • Irwell Vale Private User Worked Level Crossing; • One Fatality. Heritage Railway Level Crossing Incident - 3 August 2003 • Romney Hythe & Dymchurch Railway; • Burmarsh Road AOCL (Automatic Open Crossing, Locally monitored) Public Level Crossing; • One (railway) Staff fatality – 2nd fatality more recently; • Motorist convicted. Heritage Railway Level Crossing Incident - 16 August 2004 • Severn Valley Railway; • Coombys Farm Private User Worked Level Crossing; • One Serious injury. Heritage Railway Level Crossing Incident - 10 September 2004 • North Yorkshire Moors Railway;
The Vale of Rheidol Railway • Pre 1989 - In BR days – maintenance holiday – no signalling infrastructure – single line (12 miles in length) no passing loops. Trains signalled by some form of staff & ticket arrangement with a half way telephone. Railway purchased by current trust; • 1990 – Re-instated passing loop at Aberffrwyd (eight miles in length) with electric point machines, strange indicators and an approved, but bastardised method of staff & ticket single line working – no formal method of recording train movements. Passing loop position unbalanced leading to some operating inflexibility; • 2003 – New system introduced. Capel Bangor passing loop reinstated Aberffrwyd re-signallled. Ground frames introduced at both loops. Semaphore home signals, Stop Boards and a token system with mechanical interlocks. Formal recording of all train movements. All movement authority given by telephone. An Increase in Demand – a pragmatic solution • Railway divided into three new sections;
RECOGNISING ENTHUSIASM – THE S&T ENGINEERING FOR HERITAGE RAILWAYS SEMINAR
• Aberystwyth – Capel Bangor (Section A - 3 Tokens); Capel Bangor – Aberffrwyd (Section B 2 Tokens); Aberffrwyd – Devil’s Bridge (Section C - 1 token); • At Capel Bangor, two mechanical interlocks provided – requires sequential operation to release next token (Token A1 releases Token B1 etc); • At Aberffrwyd, one mechanical interlock provided. (operation as Capel Bangor); • Tokens release respective ground frames; • Passing loop points operated behind each movement to give rear end protection; • Whistle boards utilised as fixed distants; • Shunting tokens Aberystwyth
at
each
• Ground Frame movements;
controlling
passing all
loop. station
• Starting signal to single line requires token release to clear signal; • Three numbered tokens kept in secure cabinet; issued by Duty Officer. Capel Bangor & Aberffrwyd • Train whistles at ‘W’ board/fixed distant, to warn railway staff of approach; • Stops at stop board; • • With token, operates points at rear of train to give rear end protection; • Telephones duty officer, reports train complete and is given authority to proceed, inserts token
151
into numbered interlock, and obtains token for Capel Bangor – Aberffrwyd section – interlock requires correct token to release – and retains tokens in a captive manner. Operates points in front of train if required and proceeds; • Assuming the railway wishes to run a second train from Aberystwyth, then token A2 would be issued – on arrival at Capel Bangor the same procedure is adopted. If a third train is authorised on arrival at Capel Bangor there are no tokens available for the onward journey; • Likewise the second train arriving at Aberffrwyd has no token to proceed; • Shunting token for emergency situations and running round within station limits.
COMPETENCE MANAGEMENT FOR HERITAGE SIGNAL ENGINEERING DAVID VARO, CHURNET VALLEY RAILWAY In order to work safely, signalling equipment must be Designed, Installed, Tested & Maintained by competent staff. We must consider: • Legal Requirements; • What Is Competence; • Competence Standards; • Management of Competence; • Practical Application. Legal Requirements • Health & Safety at Work Act (1974); • Protect persons against risks to Health and Safety; • ROGS (2006); • Regulation 23. Defines Safety Critical Work. Scope includes Voluntary Work; • Regulation 24. Safety Critical Works only to be undertaken by Competent Persons. What is Competence? • Dictionary Definition – ‘Suitableness’; • RSPG Part 3 Section A - ‘the ability to perform activities to the standards expected in employment. It is a combination of practical and thinking skills, experience and knowledge;
• In House Standards - RSPG Part 3 provides guidance: » In house skills may not be available. • IRSE Licences: » Costly; » Administrative overhead;
152
RECOGNISING ENTHUSIASM – THE S&T ENGINEERING FOR HERITAGE RAILWAYS SEMINAR
Competence Cycle Unconscious Incompetence (unaware of limitations)
Conscious Incompetence (aware of limitations)
New Task or assessed as not competent Unconscious Incompetence (develops bad habits)
Conscious Competence
• Visitors see signals – keep as authentic as possible but use modern controls. Sheffield Park • Out with FPL and retaining bar; • In with point machine;
Conscious Competence (develops good habits)
» May not be entirely suitable.
• New bullhead Switch & Crossings; • Track circuited throughout;
• ‘Go Skills’ Standards: » Originally produced by CRS; » Free for use; » Modular format enables them to be tailored to suit individual railway requirements. Potential Competence Grades • Assistant Technician: » Basic Skills; » Act in an assisting role. • Maintenance Technician: » Routine Non-intrusive tasks; » inspection, testing, adjustment. • Fault Technician: » Intrusive fault finding and rectification. Conclusions • Competence Management is a requirement not an option; • Systems are available to suit the Heritage Movement;
Sheffield Park Down Home
• Modern circuitry with detection continuously monitored; • Power worked lower quadrant signals.
RENEWING BEWDLEY SOUTH’S HOME SIGNAL JOHN PHILIPS, SEVERN VALLEY RAILWAY John gave an insight to how his team and railway renewed a major signalling structure at Bewdley within twelve months, without disruption to normal services.
• Grading system may be seen as a structured development process for staff and assist recruitment of volunteers.
AUTHENTICITY VERSUS SAFETY CHARLES HUDSON MBE, BLUEBELL RAILWAY Public Expectations • A safe journey; • Slower trains than the ‘big’ railway; • A perception of ‘toy’ trains by many; • What can go wrong; • But if it does – compensation culture; • Impact on the heritage movement generally; • The potential of bad press. Safety in signalling • Foremost in the signal engineers mind;
Bewdley South Down Home signal after restoration
• Takes precedence over authenticity; • However keep the ‘shop front’ as authentic as possible; • No compromise for operating expediency; • Adhere to current signalling principles; • Good reminder to read ‘Red for Danger’ (L.T.C. Rolt) – Abermule, Hawes Junction etc. Authenticity • Use current engineering solutions; • Still give ‘heritage’ appearance where possible; • Track circuits, section locking, electrical detection etc, all transparent to customer;
Bewdley South Down Home signal during restoration
RECOGNISING ENTHUSIASM – THE S&T ENGINEERING FOR HERITAGE RAILWAYS SEMINAR
THE MANUFACTURING OF PARTS
• No hazardous chemicals;
ADRIAN CRAFTER, TIMESEGMENT
• No hazards from power tools;
Scrapheap Challenge
• Less loss of metal;
• Can your scrapheap deliver the goods that meet today’s standards and specifications:
• Easy to manage/control process;
• Safe and standards;
• Washing Soda;
effective
signalling
–
today’s
153
• Large plastic water tank; • Battery Charger.
• Railway Safety Principles Guidance; • IRSE Green Books; • Railway Group Standards;
THE ‘A’ BLOCK ON THE KENT & EAST SUSSEX RAILWAY
• Network Rail company standards;
NICK WELLINGTON, KENT & EAST SUSSEX RAILWAY
• HRA Guidance notes.
Timeline
To buy of not to buy? • Restore if you can meet the standards;
• Prior to 1980s – One Train Working sufficed, Only one box – Tenterden Town
• Cost;
• Simple, easy to resource small operation;
• Make it fit your timesacle;
• 1983 – 1990: Wittersham Road in use – allowed for two train service, passing at Wittersham Road – on Summer Sundays, and Bank Holidays. Loco Depot and sidings controlled by Intermediate Key Token instrument and Ground Frames;
• Buy; • Not restorable; • Not in stock; • Costs; • Longer working life. What limits supply? • What governs the manufacturing process; • Drawings; • Tooling; • Ownership of copyright; • Worthwhile for the manufacturer. Bulk Purchases Pros and cons include: • Attractions for manufacturer; • Benefits for eacy railwayp; • Delays while bulk order developed; • Bespoke items not always possible; • May not require the parts being offered immediately. Where can I find new equipment? Suppliers include: • Tyers from STS Signals; • Westinghouse - huge portfolio of historic companies; • Timesegment; • Henry Williams; • National Railway Supplies; • Collis Engineering; • Signal House. Timesegment’s role • New developments with Network Rail; • Bulk Purchase Facilitator; • LNER – Leyton Works; • Manufacturing of Parts. Electrolytic process • Environmentally friendly;
• 1990 – Northiam extension opens – Headways require Rolvenden box, most trains passed there; • 2000 – Bodiam extension opens – Unknown potential traffic quantity – desire for full headway flexibility. Rolvenden box reduced number of passing moves. “A” Block – Core Operation Requirements • “Only one piece of metal” for any section • Train crew exchange tokens themselves, at a site that is switched out • Signal boxes can be used as Ground Frames by train crew, PICOPs (Persons In Charge Of Possessions) etc • Signal boxes can open or close in any order, with or without a train present “A” Block – Core S&T requirements • Must be reliable; • Avoid using more than one pair of overhead wires between any two block posts, for economy / resourceability;
154
RECOGNISING ENTHUSIASM – THE S&T ENGINEERING FOR HERITAGE RAILWAYS SEMINAR
• Should use templated circuits at each site and standard relay types; • Tablet instruments needed to work like token instruments, as one could be working with each other; • Must be able to open intermediate box during failure so as to shorten length of degraded working, and allow timetable to operate. How was this achieved? • Token Instrument commutation to be removed from the instrument to the interlocking, using QL1 latched relays;
tokens, or an “in-phase” plunge on the block lines from both sides, in conjunction with the Signaller / Guard operating a button, to “split the block line” and examine the incoming plunges from both sides; • Signaller / Guard replace signals to danger. Frame can be worked as a ground frame, and on completion closed out again, and the train proceed; • Or, Guard can “shut away” train and give up release, but only with the cooperation of one Signaller;
• Technician’s panel in relay room;
• Or, Signaller places Closing Switch in, and presses “Normalising Plunger” to convert site to “box open” status, and clear occupancy of the section(s);
• Outline circuits produced;
• Box now operates in the conventional way.
• Tablet instruments also modified to work like token instruments using latching relays;
• Ideas “Bounced” off expert opinions such as John Wagstaff;
Switching Out
• Early discussions with HMRI (1986ish);
• One train or no train present. (Latest version also checks track circuits clear)
• Demonstration rig produced, tested and shown to HMRI;
• Tokens obtained from both sections to prove clear / “in phase”;
• First installation at Rolvenden.
• Opposing locking on signals released by interlocking lever, one token then replaced to release King Lever, both if no train present;
But then it started to founder….. • Operated in “supervised” mode, with train crew supervised carrying out operation; • Train crew could not reliably cope with tablet machines; or the complexity of mechanical locking on layout / lever frames; • Some “Militants” completely opposed to the idea; • Rolvenden site got busier, fewer opportunities to close out, and also maintain competencies. Now to get it back on track….. • Rewiring at Wittersham Road part introduced, for opening and closing box. BUT - Long section staff retained as overlay; • HMRI approval achieved for this stage. Northiam – Bodiam (2000) • Decision from the outset – “one piece of metal” Northiam – Bodiam – “No long section staff”; • Auxiliary instruments required on platform to avoid walk to box / intruder alarms;
• Closing switch placed out, “In phase” plunge from one side finally moves the interlocking into closed status – indicated on diagram; • Signallers carry out block test if no train in section. Through Working • With a box switched out, the two block section lines are joined by the interlocking; • Incoming plunges are repeated in the same phase as that they are received – Bell signals pass through, without delay or distortion by high speed relays; • If a box is released as a ground frame, an artificial reversal is placed in one side of the block lines, to maintain the protected status of the occupied section. Operational Experience
• Although not token working beyond Northiam, train staff circuits to be designed for key token working and then “backstaged” to current arrangement
• Rolvenden – abandoned as impractical at that time. Equipment subsequently strapped out to avoid relay servicing costs. Mechanical locking removed;
• “Remote Operator” provided to respond to incoming plunges on Bodiam side;
• Wittersham Road – 70% in use, operational convenience of Long Section staff avoiding token changing, perceived to outweigh flexibility, but now to be reviewed;
• Lever frame to be simple to open & close – why work levers for motor signals when this can all be done in the relay room; • Determination to go for 100% operation of the system facilities; • HMRI full approval granted 2003. Opening a box that is switched out as a ground frame: • A box always opens by opening as a “ground frame” first, and then “Converting” to a box if required; • Requires either the arrival of one or other
• Northiam – working day in day out. Two incidents of staff failing to change tokens, albeit this is still a “safe” condition. Simplified instrument built from a key token lock has given a few reliability problems – would not do this again! Next Steps – Wittersham Road • Upgrade Wittersham Rd to latest version of circuits; implement enhancements and lessons learnt at Northiam. Abolish Long Section Staff as an anachronism;
RECOGNISING ENTHUSIASM – THE S&T ENGINEERING FOR HERITAGE RAILWAYS SEMINAR
• If used on a regular basis, Auxiliary instruments will be required on platform, to avoid accessing signal box. Next Steps – Rolvenden • Staffing difficulties for a growing commercial operation causing a revisit as to whether Rolvenden can be switched out, for one train working for say evening dining trains; • Lessons learnt from other installations could make this a practical proposition • “Window of Opportunity” created by replacement of location cases by relay room.
155
• But many seem to vanish into black holes; • Try to find where they go in your organisation; • Or contact
[email protected]; • Please try to meet the closing date! The Westinghouse Signalling Award • For the best restored operational signal box or signalling system on any system, in any ownership. Open to any entry. What constitutes a signalling installation? • Almost anything from a single signal to a large installation; • But the project must excite enthusiasm. What do the Judges look for? • Burnished lever handles are obligatory; • Entries can be a single interesting signal; • Try to use period instruments with historic context; • Period style and well-presented diagram; • Structures etc should be wellmaintained and presented; • We look for quality and interesting historic equipment;
SIMPLE SOLUTIONS
• We notice if you make a special show on judging day;
BRUCE MACDOUGALL & DAVID HARRISON, KEIGHLEY & WORTH VALLEY RAILWAY
• Well kept track, equipment and neat and tidy surroundings;
Bruce spoke about the evolving signalling upon his railway from the early days of preservation. He also spoke about the simulation of a ‘No Signalman’ unit capable of being used at both ends of a section based on a Smart Relay (mini plc), to which the idea and technology will appear as a further article within IRSE NEWS in the near future.
• Authentic style and readable name boards;
David gave a vivid insight to the resignalling proposals for Keighley Station in the near future, with a presentation of superimposed signal structures upon current views of the relevant area. A credit and worthwhile decision in order to give full appreciation to motive power colleagues.
THE NATIONAL RAILWAY HERITAGE AWARDS CHRIS SMYTH & RICHARD FOSTER, RAILWAY HERITAGE ASSOCIATION What’s it all about? • The National Railway Heritage Awards are an annual celebration; • They cover any building, structure or signalling installation associated with railways or tramways; • The area covered embraces the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man. What isn’t eligible? • Railway Vehicles. What’s the Timetable? • Entry forms are issued in the Spring; • We circulate them as widely as possible;
• Keep modern equipment out of sight; • Are there any differences between Heritage Projects and Installations on the National Network; • We understand that on the national Network an excellent project may be adjacent to a less well presented area under the control of ‘others’. This is less likely to apply on a Heritage Railway; • Many Heritage Railways are Educational Charities. So an element of Interpretation will add value. Examples of foreign climes were provided during the presentation as a comparison to signalling infrastructure within the UK and Ireland. A fabulous buffet lunch at the halfway point was followed by visits to Kidderminster station, museum and signal box which added to the informative nature, whilst an optional Sunday visit to Bewdley and Arley was enjoyed by around 40 delegates who stayed over. Indeed, at the close of the Saturday Seminar following the closing remarks from the President, many people remained to continue discussing issues amongst themselves, keen to make full use of their time together.
CONCLUSION “Thanks for a well organised, thought provoking and entertaining day”. “Congratulations on a most successful event and many thanks for inviting our participation”. “I think all appreciated it and could not see how it could be improved”.
156
RECOGNISING ENTHUSIASM – THE S&T ENGINEERING FOR HERITAGE RAILWAYS SEMINAR
“Congratulations on the conference! Well supported and enthusiastically received by all concerned”. “I really enjoyed the day and got lots of positive feedback”. These were just some of the responses following the Seminar from S&T Engineers working on Heritage Railways. All of the feedback was positive and it would seem that this was an event long overdue.
Going forward it was agreed that a web based forum would be a good way for this sector of the industry to remain in touch to share ideas and issues as they arise. Longer term another Seminar would be useful to maintain personal contact and stimulate further presentations on subjects of mutual interest. Perhaps we should even consider an IRSE Heritage Section?
Midsummer to Oslo By J D Francis JBV, the main line quadrupling works to the west of Oslo, the Oslo Control Centre, GSM-R rollout, future main line signalling and ETCS, the Airport Express train operator, the history and development of OS, the metro signalling, the Ringbane project and future metro plans.
Friday evening socialising on board the MS Lånan on Oslo Fjord
Blue skies and warm temperatures greeted members and their guests on arrival in Oslo for the first ever Institution technical visit to Norway. Taking place across Friday, 16 and Saturday, 17 June 2006, the weather remained fine, complementing the warm welcome and hospitality received from the local people. Hosts for the event were the two railway owners; Jernbaneverket (JBV), the national infrastructure operator; and Oslo Sporveier (OS) which owns and operates transport services within the City, including the T-Bane (Metro). For those interested in progress of the World Cup football there were plenty of venues at which to watch the games, including a large screen in the park adjacent to Akerhuus Fort. Further distraction was provided by the busy quay with its ferries, pleasure craft and cruise liners coming and going. Following registration members and guests were treated to a mouth-watering buffet lunch in the staff restaurant at the JBV main office in the city centre before being welcomed by the President, John Francis, and the Technical Director of JBV, Jens Melsom, in the adjacent well equipped auditorium. Guests were then allowed to depart on an organised tour which took in the city centre followed by some of the local attractions including Vigelands Park with its myriad of naked statues, the Viking Ship Museum, the Kon Tiki Museum and a 180º wide screen film of coastal Norway at the Maritime Museum. Meanwhile, the technical proceedings for members continued in the auditorium with a series of ten comprehensive presentations introducing
The current focus for JBV is on capacity improvements and completion of the GSM-R rollout. The latter, already in use in certain areas, is due to be complete throughout the network in 2007 whilst a programme of improved functionality runs in parallel. Amongst the future strategy of JBV for its 4087 km network is the intention to embrace the European Technical Specifications for Interoperability even though the country is not a member of the EU. To address the fact that 60% of interlockings have an average age of 40 years, a renewal plan is envisaged for these over the years 2010 to 2040 in conjunction with the simultaneous implementation of ETCS level 2. The first ETCS pilot is planned for 2010-2015. The T-Bane has undergone continuous improvement in recent times including resignalling in part, connection of the eastern and western networks for through running and the delivery of new trains. Future plans include resignalling on the Kolsâs line, the elimination of level crossings, extensions to existing lines and the construction of a new driverless line to Fornebu. Timely preparation ensured all of the presentations were informative, well received and generated lively question sessions. Electronic copies of the presentations were provided to delegates on CD, along with printed material.
A view of Oslo Cental station from the JBV Control centre
MIDSUMMER TO OSLO
157
Whilst at Tøyen a demonstration of the Driver Simulator was given to each group of members. As well as an explanation of the features, being given here, members were allowed to try out the mock cab and have a go at driving
A very pleasant Friday evening followed for all, with a cruise on the MS Lånan around Oslofjord to continue social discourse and networking. Supper on-board comprised shrimps, salad and bread, followed by strawberries and coffee as the boat edged between islands in the fjord where it seemed most of the local inhabitants were enjoying a Friday evening relaxing on their own craft or alongside the water edge. The late sunset below the mountains formed the finale before disembarkation at the quay, beyond which a rock concert was taking place with around 70,000 participants. On the Saturday, guests were able to make their own arrangements for further sightseeing and shopping whilst members had an 07:45 start for technical visits. Travel was by a combination of metro, NSB (Norges Statsbaner) train and Flytoget airport express service allowing members to sample each. Two control centres were visited; the JBV centre above Oslo Central Station and the OS centre at Tøyen. The JBV centre, one of four nationally, controls all of the 92 interlockings and 941 km of main line network in the greater Oslo area using a mixture of Ebicos and Vicos technology with Automatic Route Setting, the whole area being displayed on a giant back-screen projection wall. Members were able to see the effect on working conditions created by a temporary ceiling, held up by props, to enable modifications to the air conditioning system.
At Tøyen, headquarters of OS, the complete Metro system is supervised automatically according to timetable from dual multibus II processors with WESTCAD operator interface terminals. A combination of mimic indication panel for the eastern network, together with back-screen projection for the western and ringbane lines provide an overview of the complete network. In addition to an Ebilock interlocking at Majorstuen and almost 50 Westrace interlockings, Tøyen directly controls a large number of relay interlockings, comprising a total of 1600 I/O points, via dual redundant PLCs. Whilst at Tøyen the opportunity was also provided to see, hear about and try out the driver simulation room with its complete mock cab and video projection. This hands-on interlude proved very popular even though rain, snow and low sun were introduced for the IRSE drivers along with other situations such as Elk on the line. Two further visits took in an interlocking on the main line and one on the Metro. A journey out to the south-west, where line quadrupling is in progress, allowed members to travel over both the old route and the new tunnelled section of JBV to Asker. Here the station has been modernised and a new Simis-C interlocking installed, controlled from Oslo Central. Members were able to view this, together with the emergency local control facility.
Visits included control centres at Oslo Central and Tøyen. Here members take in the T-Bane control room at Tøyen
158
MIDSUMMER TO OSLO
For those staying on a while, a look at the Holmenkollen ski jump and nearby park was one way to walk off the lunch before returning downhill to Oslo. Thanks must be expressed to all those at JBV and OS who gave up their time in preparation for the event and in helping across the two days. Hosts JBV and OS provided refreshments, rooms and transport. The national operator, NSB, and Airport express operator, Gardemobanen also assisted with rail travel. The result was an educational visit enjoyed, not just by those that attended, but by members of the two railways and their contractors who were all proud to show off their achievements and plans to the IRSE.
Inspecting a.c. track circuit vane relays in JBVs Asker Interlocking Photos: John Francis
The location of the visit to a metro interlocking was the new station at Nydalen on the first portion of the recently opened ring line to the north of the city centre. This is fitted with a Westrace interlocking and track circuit code selector controlled from Tøyen. Opportunity was given for a tour around the station and surrounding area that has been redeveloped from a former steel-making plant into a modern, clean University and business district. The culmination of the day was a lunch for members and guests at the Holmenkollen Restaurant reached by metro train on line 1 which climbs to Holmenkollen at an average 5% grade. Not only was the food and company enjoyed here, but also the tremendous view down to Oslo below and the fjord beyond.
Here is a picture of the escalator at Nydalen station. One of the features of the new Nydalen station is the ever changing lighting patterns and colours that illuminate the escalators Photo: Mark Glover
IRSE President’s Award for Exceptional Service Ken Burrage was presented with the President’s Award at the Members’ luncheon held on 14 June 2006, in recognition of his exceptional support and contribution to the Institution’s work over many years and in particular his role as Chief Executive and General Secretary of the institution from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2006. In making the award, the President John Francis echoed the words originally used by Cy Porter, past President upon Ken’s appointment as the Chief Executive, describing him as “the best President the Institution never had.” The IRSE President’s Award was a new award especially created in 1999 to recognise a very exceptional level of personal contribution to the work of the Institution by an individual.
Ken Burrage, John Francis and Colin Porter
IRSE PRESIDENT’S AWARD FOR EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE
159
The first recipient of the President’s Award was Mr R L Weedon, who retired on 30 June 1999 after 41 years service to the Institution as its General Secretary. The second recipient was Mr Peter Winter of Swiss Federal Railways (SBB), who was presented with the award in 2003 in recognition of his personal and significant contribution to the development of ERTMS/ETCS. The award takes the form of a special medallion, (similar to the design of the Past President’s medallion), suitably inscribed and with a distinctive green ribbon. The award is made from time to time at the discretion of Council upon the nomination of the current President supported by two past Presidents and, because of its nature in recognising exceptional service, it was anticipated that the award would be made only rarely. The award is normally presented to the recipient at a meeting of the members of the Institution. The criterion for making the award is as follows. i)
To an individual IRSE member for exceptional service to the Institution, or
Ken Burrage
ii)
To an individual for a significant achievement of benefit to the signalling profession, or
iii) To a company for a significant event or development of benefit to the signalling profession.
London Underground Seminar
With over 140 people attending the “Making Headway on the Underground” Seminar on 20 February, its success was recognised by them with many positive comments received during and after the event.
Younger Members, the all day event benefited from sponsorship provided by some of the key players engaged in upgrading the Underground. These were Bombardier, TubeLines, Atkins Rail, Lloyds Register Rail and Westinghouse Rail Systems.
The tight programme, whilst restricting speakers to short presentations, enabled a wide breadth of topics to be covered. Organised and run by the
Kicking off with a Keynote Address from David Waboso, Engineering Director of LUL, that provided an overview of the agenda and ending with a panel
160
LONDON UNDERGROUND SEMINAR
discussion session, populated by six senior industry figures, the intervening period was filled with thirteen well-delivered presentations providing an insight into the upgrading works that are underway on London’s Underground. David Waboso
Held at No.1 Birdcage Walk, Westminster, London, the line up of speakers covered strategy, major projects, interoperability, maintenance and innovation.
John Francis
Discussion panel comprising: Eddie Goddard, TC Chew, Bob Bayman, Howard Smith, Toby Nicholson, Colin White
“MAKING HEADWAY” PROGRAMME
TC Chew
KEYNOTE ADDRESS: Maintaining System Integrity whilst Upgrading David Waboso SESSION 1 The Role of Standards and the Metro Application - Colin White London Underground Today Sub Surface Strategy
- John Francis - Atique Latif
SESSION 2 Upgrading the Victoria Line PPP Programme - A Soft Side of Project Delivery
- Richard Roberts - T C Chew
Migrating Towards a TBTC System on Jubilee
- Andrew Dalgleish
Interoperability on London Underground
- Kevin Moore
Eddie Goddard
SESSION 3 Maintenance Improvement
- Maurice Poole
Still Replacing a 122 Year Old Point Machine
- Edwin Hopper
Existing Asset Minor Improvement Works
- Martyn Buttery
Tunnel Cooling
- Stuart Westgate
LED Signals
- David Rudge
Circle Line Seven Car Project
- Andy Dawes
Atique Latif
161
LONDON UNDERGROUND SEMINAR
DEBATE SESSION
Kevin Moore
Of immediate recognition was the scale of the work going on, not just with the significant upgrade projects such as the Victoria and Jubilee Lines but with the many other initiatives aimed at maintaining performance and improving services. The necessity to keep things going was paramount, there being over 120 interlockings and 5000 signals on the network. Keeping the railway running whilst performing surgery on it over extended periods and in full view of the travelling public, and with the Evening Standard newspaper as their voice, it is ever present in the planning and implementation process. Multiple stageworks will constitute much of the work and inevitably drive the programme and cost. Scarce and dwindling resource with the ability to understand, maintain and modify the existing assets was seen as a critical factor. Amongst the challenges yet to be fully addressed was the need to ensure interoperable working on certain parts of the network where trains fitted with one particular style of transmission based signalling would need to work across lines equipped with another. Similarly, the interface issues associated with sharing tracks with national rail services are set to exercise engineering minds. All parties working together to resolve issues was seen as the only way forward. The day proved highly educational with some fundamental statements being shared such as: “It’s just engineering”; “too many black boxes”; “unreliable means unsafe”; “standards are there to help”; “signalling is a tool for the operator with which to run the railway”; “you can rely on something failing”; “confront problems early”; “acronyms give me a headache”. One comment towards the end was directed at senior managers: the average age of attendees in
Colin White
Boy Bayman
the room may be over 40 but how many young engineers were allowed, or indeed encouraged, by their managers to attend. Good point, the whole rationale of the IRSE is to educate and stimulate. To do this engineers at all levels must be provided with access to it.
Behind the Scenes at St Pancras The 14 November 2007 will be an important date for the railways of Britain and Europe for this is when the International station at St. Pancras together with phase 2 of the High Speed Line linking London with the continent open for service. The 23 February 2007 was an important date for the IRSE as this is when the Institution was afforded the opportunity to look behind the scenes at St. Pancras in a window between completion of construction and the commencement of test running. Thus it was that a group of members were welcomed at the Gymnasium alongside St. Pancras station by the President, John Francis and André Leboucher, UK Branch Director for Systra on the Friday afternoon. The Gymnasium houses a display, models and information related to the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the redevelopment of St Pancras so was the ideal location at which to convene. For logistical reasons the total number of attendees had to be limited to 90 which, because of the huge interest from members, meant that only the
first 90 applicants were successful in securing a place. Before splitting into groups for the visit, members were able to partake of a buffet lunch, courtesy of Systra, and network with colleagues. As well as undertaking a visual inspection of the station, including the Midland Main Line platforms that are already in operation, and inside the original 140 year old restored Barlow train shed from a viewing platform, the tour included a stop at the Signalling Equipment Room (SER) and trackside equipment. These were supported by presentations given at the Gymnasium which covered the key facts and statistics of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the redevelopment of the station, the signalling provided and the contractual arrangements for design, implementation and testing of this. The station might be international but the signalling certainly is too with a mix of components from a variety of sources. Key elements include the ITCS interlocking and NS1 relays from CSEE, High Voltage Impulse track circuits and KVB Automatic
162
BEHIND THE SCENES AT ST. PANCRAS
Train Protection from ALSTOM, fibre optic signals from Bombardier, High Performance Switch System switch machines from IAD, Train Protection Warning System from Thales, and even QECX11 lamp proving relays from Westinghouse. These are all configured to provide a unique finished system that meets the specific needs of the location. Housed within the SER are the interlockings, relays, KVB encoders and cable terminations for the whole area. Four interlockings are required to handle the complexity and amount of trackside equipment. One of these deals with the St. Pancras end of the High Speed Line with its TVM430 ATP and UM71
track circuits, interfacing to the next interlocking at Stratford, whilst the other three handle the station area and its approaches. On the trackside, members were able to view the local protection, release and manual operation devices as well as inspect a fibre optic signal fitted to a tilting post. All in all the afternoon proved enlightening. The pride in what has been achieved was very evident from the staff making presentations and those acting as guides. Thanks are extended to all those staff that played a part in organising and hosting the event. For further reading a description of the signalling arrangements at St. Pancras can be found in issue No.120 of IRSE NEWS.
Watford Visit MEMBERS SEE COMMITMENT TO TRAINING Following introductions and welcomes from the President and from David Carrier of Network Rail, some 40 visitors were given the opportunity to see behind the scenes at Network Rail’s Watford Operations Training Centre on Friday, 24 November 2006. Based at Claremont House on the Croxley Business Park, the centre, which opened in 2004, is one of two, the other being located in Leeds. With eight “theory rooms” fitted out with smart boards and digital projection systems, two model railway rooms, two computer based training suites, and two NX panel and two lever frame simulators, the centre is primarily engaged in the training of new signallers but does undertake many other courses. Amongst these are: Rail Incident Officer; Mobile Operations Manager, Operations Appreciation, Managed Stations; Train Delay Attribution (for Train Operating Companies as well as Network Rail); and
(Photos: Ian Allison and Nick Rushby)
London Underground Limited (LUL) Connect (the new LUL communications system, for where Network Rail controls LUL trains such as at Wimbledon and Richmond). With around 6000 signalling staff on Network Rail, the turnover rate of 5% leads to a demand for 300 new signallers every year. Courses covering Absolute Block last eight weeks whilst those trainees requiring knowledge of Track Circuit Block take an additional one week conversion course. There are usually 14 trainees on each course, the panel and lever frame simulators allowing hands-on experience and assessment before they are despatched to the particular box they will learn. The simulators are provided by Lancashire based company EDM, who specialise in building this type of equipment in a range of industries including the aviation and military sectors. The NX panel recreates a typical layout containing many of the features to be found on the real railway, together with a train
WATFORD VISIT
describer and CCTV level crossing. Likewise, the 15 lever mechanical frame, together with its associated block instruments, bells and illuminated diagram is typical of a junction signal box. Training staff are able to monitor performance and introduce failure scenarios to test the skills of the trainees in a practical fashion. Computer based learning and assessment is also a key feature of the centre. Suites of interactive software are provided by EBC of Milton Keynes covering the rules and regulations and the on-screen simulation of signal box equipment. Prior to touring the facility, IRSE visitors were treated to a buffet lunch, courtesy of EDM, and received presentations from Network Rail, EDM and EBC. They heard about the background to training in the past, which was regionally organised before the move to standardise on a national basis. In addition to the two main centres, simulators have also been placed out in the Territories to assist with ongoing competence management at a local level.
163
A total of £11m has been spent on providing this new equipment. Looking to the future, the Watford and Leeds centres will be improving their methods to help tackle Signaller competence by addressing issues beyond just training in rules and regulations, such as misrouting and other Signaller errors. Network Rail has now embarked on the creation of five new centres for the training of their maintenance staff, including those in the S&T disciplines. With a price tag of £22m, these centres will start to open in 2007, being located at Paddock Wood, Guildford, Bristol Parkway, Walsall and Larbert to give geographic coverage across the UK. The afternoon was enjoyed by all those who attended, opportunity having been given to try out the computer training packages and the simulators. Thanks must go to EDM and EBC for supporting the visit and to Network Rail for hosting the event, particularly David Smith who runs the Watford Centre.
164
2006 Examination Results Congratulations to all of the following who achieved Passes (P), Credits (C) and/or Distinctions (D) in one or more of the Modules (M) of the IRSE Exam held last October. Surname
Forename
Athey
Stewart Philip
Baggott
Guy Richard
Bignell
Jessica
Botwright
John
Burkett
Robert
Caporn
Scott
Carrier
David Michael
Chan
Irene Tien-Yan
Chapman
Alan
Chaurasia
Shubh Lal
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 C P
P C P
C P
P P
Yik-Yen
Chu
Man Yu
C
Chu
Ka Wing
P
Connolly
David John
Crockford
Graham David
Denham
Dan
D'Sa
Brenella
Edwards
Matthew Felipe
Frend
Derek
C
Gowthaman
Selvaraju
P
Peter Pequignot
Guest
Helen Maxine
Handley
Nigel William
P
P
Mark
Harris
Martin
P
Highnett
Charlie Ian
P
Horton
Neil Patrick Paul Michael David John
Ireland
Robert Andrew
C
James
Jana Joy
P
Johnson
Julia Gail
Johnson
Stuart David
Joseph
Shibu Mon
Joyce
James John
Katawatcharakul
Apinya Anthony John Manish
King
Orry James
Kirkham
Richard Alexander
Gerrit
Mahajan
Anurag Vasudeo
Makwezva
Wilbert
Martell
Peter
D
D
Mitchell
Geoffrey Robert
P
P
Mittal
Mukesh Kumar
Mohanakrishnan
Sarvepalli
P
C
Morris
Mark John
Morris
Andrew Justin
P P
P P
P
P P
C C
C C P P
P
Mulla
Lukman Ismail
P
P
Mulliss
Andrew
P
Murungu
Livingstone Matambudziko
P
Neptune
Senthil Vel
O'Donnell
Mark Richard
Percival
Alexander
P
P
C
P P
Pochroj
Bradley Carl
Rizman
Raymond
Rowley
Gareth
P
Ruddy
Christopher Stephen
P
P
Sanderson
Christopher William
Sealy
Nathan Paul
D
C
C
P
P
P
C
C
P
P
C
P C
Sharpe
Jo-Anne
Shenoy
Rajath Ramachandra
P
P
Singh
Sarvesh
P
Smart
Daniel James
P
Smith
Paul James
P
Sparks
Siripunt
P
Sumesh
Appuni
P P P
P
Sunderland
Philip John
Surman
Robert Leslie
P
Tam
Tak Lung
P
Verma
Gajendra Kumar
P
P
C
P
P
Webster
Matthew Anthony
P
P
P
Westerman
Damian
C
P
P
Safety of Railway Signalling and Communications Signalling the Layout Signalling Principles Communications Principles
P
P
C
P
P
P P
P
C
M1 1 4 20 12 40 77
P P
P
C
P
P
P C
C
C
P
Summary of results - year 2006 Distinction Credit Pass Near miss Fail Total Candidates
Loots
C C
Angela Alison
The Modules M1 M2 M3 M4
Kwok Pong
Cleopas
P
P
Li
P C
Moyo
C
P
Matthew CO
Mott
C
Hutton
Lawson
P
P
Hunnikin
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
P
P P
Chawalit
P
C
Alan George
Forename
Kulkua
D
P
Hardcastle
Khanna
C
P
Handley
Kerry
C
C
Chong
Gracey
P
P
Surname
P P
P
Wichachai
Niti
Wright
Stephen
P P
Young
Douglas
D
P
M5 Signalling Applications M6 Communication Applications M7 Systems, Management and Engineering
M2 3 11 20 11 16 61
M3 0 6 22 8 30 66
M4 0 1 3 0 5 9
M5 1 5 18 6 12 42
M6 0 2 1 1 1 5
M7 0 6 14 6 8 34
Totals 5 35 98 44 112 294
165
Report of IRSE Study Tour Dominic Taylor S&T Design Engineer, Network Rail
INTRODUCTION Railway signalling systems and railways in general, interest me because of the benefits they bring to society, their variety and the potential they hold for the future. In my current role, I work with UK signalling principles and technology. The Thorrowgood Scholarship allowed me to broaden my experience by visiting signalling installations in other European countries. I began my tour by attending the IRSE Convention in Switzerland. This was followed by a technical visit to ALSTOM in Italy. This report documents what I have learnt of heritage signalling systems and of European Train Control System (ETCS) installations in these two countries.
IRSE CONVENTION IN SWITZERLAND For the first part of my study tour, I attended the IRSE convention in Interlaken. Situated just north of the Swiss Alps, Interlaken takes its name from its picturesque location between two lakes: Lake Brienz to the east; Lake Thun to the west. Swiss Federal Railways (SBB) hosted the convention, which began with a series of lectures introducing the Swiss railway system and developments in ETCS. Technical visits were arranged for later in the week. These included a ride on an ETCS fitted ‘ICN’ tilting train, along the new Mattstetten-Rothrist line, and a visit to the Lötschberg Tunnel. There was ample opportunity to admire the beautiful scenery. Situated in the centre of Europe, Switzerland is crossed by key, international, passenger and freight traffic flows. These share the main rail corridors with frequent intercity, suburban and rural services. National journeys are characterised by short transit times, often involving at least one change of train. For this reason, punctuality and simple connections are vital. Main line infrastructure and rolling stock is owned and operated by SBB. Additionally, there are a large number of private standard gauge, narrow gauge and rack railways. Electric traction is used on all lines. Main lines are electrified at 15kV 162/3Hz a.c. Two colour light speed signalling systems are employed on these lines: • system L (luminous), permitted speeds are indicated by different arrangements of coloured lights; • system N (numeric), permitted speeds are indicated by numbers. The Signum train stop and warning system, dating from the 1920s, is fitted to all signals. Signum is an intermittent, contactless system which informs the driver whether a signal is showing a stop, cautionary or unrestrictive proceed aspect.
Two magnets are mounted in the track adjacent to each signal, one between the rails and one outside the rails. The signal aspect is communicated by the polarity and sequence of magnetic fields as a train passes over. If the signal displays a stop aspect, train brakes are applied immediately. If a signal displays a cautionary aspect, the driver is given an audible warning; should he/she not acknowledge this warning, train brakes are applied. If the signal displays an unrestrictive proceed aspect, no intervention is necessary. During the 1980s, the Zugbeeinflussung (ZUB) 121 train protection system was fitted to the top twenty percent high risk signals. ZUB 121 is also an intermittent, contactless system. It includes speed supervision functionality, similar to that of ETCS Level One, which mitigates the risk of fitted signals being passed at danger. Although the system cannot mitigate the risk of unfitted signals being passed at danger, the collision risk associated with these signals is much lower. Consequently, a significant proportion of total collision risk is mitigated at a fraction of the cost of fitting every signal. ZUB inductive loops, located at fitted signals, transmit data packets to passing trains. These data packets inform the train of signal aspect, permitted speed, target distance, target speed and gradient. An onboard computer calculates a safe braking curve, based on this information. Should train speed exceed this curve, brakes are applied. Infill loops are provided on the approaches to two thirds of ZUB fitted signals. These loops give early indication of the signal clearing to a less restrictive aspect, thus improving headway. Neither Signum nor ZUB 121 can be used where line speed exceeds 160 km/h (100 mph). Both systems are now due for renewal. The decision was taken to migrate to ETCS, rather than to perpetuate
166
REPORT OF THE IRSE STUDY TOUR
these existing systems, because ETCS presents the opportunity to raise line speeds, improve capacity and promote interoperability. Signum magnets and ZUB 121 loops are being replaced by Eurobalises and Euroloops. In addition to ETCS data, these Eurobalises/Euroloops transmit Signum and ZUB121 data using the packet 44 protocol. [Packet 44 enables proprietary data to be communicated via ETCS equipment.] Existing trains are being fitted with ETCS antennae and Eurobalise Transmission Modules (ETM) to enable on-board Signum/ZUB 121 equipment to read data contained in packet 44. New, ETCS fitted, trains will receive ETCS data from these beacons and be supervised by ETCS onboard equipment. To avoid the cost of fitting Eurobalises to every signal, as required for ETCS level one, a ‘limited supervision’ mode of ETCS has been developed. In this mode, Eurobalises are only fitted to high risk signals as is the case with ZUB 121. ‘Limited supervision’ ETCS provides train protection functionality at fitted signals. It cannot provide cabsignalling, because data is not available from unfitted signals. Cab-signalling functionality is, therefore, suppressed. Experience, with ETCS, was initially gained on the Olten – Lucerne line. New, high speed lines are being fitted with ETCS level 2 to permit higher speeds and shorter headways. The first is the MattstettenRothrist line, between Bern and Zürich. The line is designed for 200 km/h running; it isused by over two hundred and forty trains per day, all of which are fitted with ETCS equipment. Trains are detected by axle counters. Line-side signals are used as an interim measure, whilst operational experience is gained with ETCS. The full speed and capacity benefits, of ETCS level 2, will be realised when these signals are switched off. The second, high speed line is under construction through the new Lötschberg Tunnel. This line is designed for 250 km/h running. Trains will be detected by axle counters, which are doubled up for availability. Eurobalise groups (pairs of Eurobalises) are located at the boundaries between axles counter sections. These balises inform the train of location, permitted speed and gradient profile. Movement authorities will be transmitted from a single radio-block centre via GSM-R (Global Satellite Mobile – Railway) leaky feeder cables. No fall-back signalling will be provided.
A key challenge, for the Lötschberg project, is to ensure that track-side equipment can interface with train-borne equipment supplied by different manufacturers. ETCS is defined by System Requirements Specifications (SRS), which have been developed over time. The purpose, of SRS, is to ensure compatibility of equipment and practice between countries, manufacturers and operators. As more experience is gained, with ETCS, so the SRS can be refined in successive versions. [SRS version 2.2.2 is currently being used for ETCS implementation in Switzerland.] It remains necessary to prove that equipment, from one manufacturer, functions correctly with equipment from another manufacturer. A test desk, agreed by all participating manufacturers, has been developed to fulfil this need. This test desk allows identification of compatibility issues in the laboratory so that they can be rectified prior to installation. Trains, such as the Cisalpino, which use the Lötschberg Tunnel, will also need to interface with existing signalling systems outside the tunnel. These include Signum, ZUB 121 and the Italian Sistema Controllo Marcia Treno (SCMT). In the case of the Cisalpino train, several Driver Machine Interfaces (DMI) are required. The train also has to interface with 3kV d.c. and 15kV 162/3Hz a.c. electrification systems.
TECHNICAL VISIT TO ALSTOM IN ITALY The second part of my study tour was a technical visit to the ALSTOM offices in Bologna. Located in northern Italy, Bologna has been a site of human civilisation for well over two thousand years. Its university, dating from the eleventh century, is the oldest in Europe. During my visit to ALSTOM, I learnt
REPORT OF THE IRSE STUDY TOUR
167
about Italian signalling systems, the new high speed network and ETCS developments. The Italian railways carry a mixture of freight, long distance, inter-urban and local passenger traffic. Railway infrastructure is owned and operated by Rete Ferroviaria Italiana (RFI). Trenitalia is the main passenger train operating company. There are also several freight and local train operating companies. Italy is crossed by two, main international traffic corridors: • East – West, Portugal to the Ukraine; • North – South, Germany to Sicily. A high speed, high capacity rail network is being developed to accommodate these corridors in Italy. This began with the construction of the Firenze – Roma high speed line in the 1980s. The Firenze– Roma line is 254 km long and has a line speed of 250 km/h. It was followed by the opening of the Roma – Napoli and Torino – Novara lines, earlier this year. Further lines are planned to complete the East – West and North – South corridors. Approximately two thirds of Italian railways are electrified. With the exception of the Roma – Napoli and Torino – Novara high speed lines, 3 kV d.c. is used throughout. Colour light speed signalling is employed. Speed indications are given by steady, inphase or out-of-phase flashing coloured lights. On most lines, this is supplemented by the BACC cab signalling and train protection system. BACC is a continuous system, which uses coded track circuits to communicate signal aspects, representing target speeds, to drivers. This improves headway, because drivers receive early indication of signals clearing to less restrictive aspects. It also allows a limited degree of speed supervision. The original BACC system, dating from the 1960s, can display five different aspects. A 50 Hz carrier wave is modulated by one of four active codes (Ripetizione Segnali 4 Codici – RSC4), corresponding to four aspects. The fifth, most restrictive, aspect is communicated by the absence of a code. A more sophisticated version of BACC was developed during the 1970s for use on high speed lines. This uses a secondary, 178 Hz, carrier to transmit additional codes. There are a total of nine active codes (RSC9). Nine different signal aspects can be transmitted, representing speeds up to 250 km/h. More recently, the Sistema Controllo Marcia Treno (SCMT) has been developed to provide full train protection. SCMT receives continuous information, on signal aspects, via the interlocking and via BACC. This is supplemented by gradient, distance-tosignal and line-speed data, received intermittently from fixed Eurobalises. Data is encoded using the packet 44 protocol, described above. An on-board computer uses this information to construct a safe braking curve. Speed and distance are measured by a tachometer. Should the train exceed the safe braking curve, brakes are applied. In the long term, migration to ETCS Level 1 is planned for the interoperable lines. Fitment of rolling stock will take place in two phases.
• In the first phase, trains are fitted with ETCS equipment alongside BACC; • In the second phase, BACC will be decommissioned and ETCS will be integrated with SCMT. The first line, in Italy, fitted with ETCS Level 2 is the Roma – Napoli high speed line. The 178 km line is designed for 300 km/h running, enabling a reduction in journey times from 1hr 45min to 1hr 6min. 25 kV 50 Hz a.c. electrification is used. No fall back signalling is provided. Instead, the risk associated with the new technology is being mitigated by a trial period with non-commercial traffic followed by a gradual introduction of commercial services. At the time of writing, the line carries fifteen trains per day. The line is designed for a five minute operational headway and a two and a half minute theoretical headway. The benefits of this will be realised as traffic levels increase. Train detection is by audio frequency track circuits. Generally, each track circuit corresponds to a signalling block section. Eurobalise groups are located at each track circuit boundary. These transmit fixed data, pertaining to location, permitted speed, gradient and distance to the next balise group. Between balise groups, the train calculates its own position based on distance travelled since the last balise group. Frequent balise groups ensure that odometry errors remain within acceptable tolerances. Movement authorities are received from Radio Block Centres (RBC) via a GSM-R network. The line is managed by three radio block centres, which interface with a total of eighteen interlockings. Each RBC calculates movement authorities based on the occupancy of track circuits and interlocking routes set. This information is provided by the interlocking. Each train reports its position, to the controlling RBC, every five seconds. If communication between train and RBC is lost then the RBC can no longer be certain of the train’s position. The train is required, by its on-board computer, to proceed at a reduced speed so that the driver can inspect that the line is clear of obstruction. Normal operation can resume when communication is restored and the train reaches the next track circuit boundary. At this boundary, the RBC can be sure that there is no obstruction in front of the train if subsequent track
168
REPORT OF THE IRSE STUDY TOUR
circuits are unoccupied. Furthermore, the train can report its exact position due to the presence of a Eurobalise group. There are five junctions, where the Roma – Napoli line connects with the conventional railway network. At these points, there is a change in both electrification system and signalling system. Trains enter the line in a limited supervision mode, ETCS ‘level zero’. ETCS ‘level zero’ enforces a low speed limit whilst movement authorities are still received from line-side signals. When communication has been established with an RBC, the train has passed over a balise group and reported its position, full ETCS level two operation can begin. Elettro TReno (ETR) 500 trains are used on the Roma – Napoli line. Each train consists of two 4.4 MW locomotives and eleven carriages. ETR 500s have been in service on the Firenze – Roma for some time. They are being converted into dual voltage (3 kV d.c./25 kV 50 Hz a.c.) trains, fitted with ETCS and SCMT, for use on the newer lines. [The locomotives can also work on 1.5 kV electrification systems, but at reduced power.] The first part of the 131 km Torino – Milano high speed line, between Torino and Novara, opened shortly after the Roma – Napoli line. Further high speed lines are planned: • Milano – Verona (116 km); • Verona – Venezia (101 km); • Milano – Bologna (176 km); • Bologna – Firenza (85 km, mostly in tunnels); • upgrade of Firenze – Roma line
• Both countries have heritage train protection systems. The Swiss systems are intermittent and, in the case of ZUB 121, fitted only to those signals with the highest collision risk. The Italian systems are continuous and fitted to every signal; • Both countries have an ETCS migration strategy involving heritage ATP systems, packet 44 and a degree of limited supervision; • Both countries have built new, high speed lines fitted for ERMTS level 2 operation. Different approaches have been taken to mitigating the technical risk, associated with this new technology. The Swiss line uses proven colour light signalling in addition to ETCS. The Italian line has no colour light signalling, but currently carries much less traffic.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank: • SBB for hosting an interesting and informative IRSE convention; • ALSTOM for their hospitality and support in Italy; • The IRSE, for awarding me the Thorrowgood Scholarship, which financed this tour, and for their invaluable help in organising it; • My employer, Network Rail, for giving me the time to undertake this tour.
This high speed network will reduce passenger journey times in Italy. It will also release capacity, on the conventional network, for additional freight and local passenger services. Some station remodelling work will be required to accommodate additional services, notably at Bologna. However, in most cases, station capacity is not a serious constraint.
The Thorrowgood Scholarship is awarded annually to a student member excelling in the Institution’s Professional Examination. The award consists of the Institution’s Thorrowgood Scholarship Medallion and a cheque that are presented at the Annual General Meeting of the Institution in the April following the examination.
CONCLUSION
The terms of the Thorrowgood bequest require that it should be utilised to assist the development of young engineers employed in the railway signalling and telecommunications field. A requirement of the award is that it is used to finance a study tour of railway and/or signalling installations or manufacturing facilities, usually in a foreign administration, and that the award holder presents a report about the study tour to the Younger Members Section.
The tour has given me an appreciation of signalling systems, in Switzerland and Italy, and of the pioneering work being undertaken to implement ETCS in these two countries. By way of conclusion, I would like to note a number of similarities and differences in the approaches taken. • Both countries use colour light speed signalling systems. In Switzerland, speed information is presented to the driver by arrangements of colour lights or by numeric indicators. In Italy, speed information is conveyed by the flashing phases of coloured lights and by an in-cab display;
To be eligible for the award students are usually expected to have sat the required 4 modules in the same year, and achieved outstanding results.
169
Section Reports Australasian Section Inc. Inc. Association No. A0019465H Incorporated in Victoria Fifty-ninth Annual Report – Year Ending 31st December 2006 During the year, meetings of the Australasian Section were held as follows.
The following members will remain in office for 2006.
1. ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING COMBINED WITH A TECHNICAL MEETING, THEME “RAIL SAFETY AND RISK.
NSW
MELBOURNE FEBRUARY 17 -18 -19, 2006. Mr. Trevor Moore welcomed the 120 members and visitors and then introduced the keynote speaker, Mr. Terry Mulder, who is the Liberal Party Shadow Transport Minister in the Victorian Parliament. He proceeded to outline the appalling investment decisions in relation to the Victorian rail infrastructure, stating that he would make no apologies for his remarks. The Government has been in Office for seven years, essential infrastructure projects have had to be cancelled to service what started as a $90 million Fast Train Service to Country cities, that has now turned into a $750 million white elephant, with the cost continuing to grow, the timetable show that six minutes has been shaved from the shortest run Geelong to Melbourne. Another of his great concerns that should alarm all Victorians, is his belief that the Victorian Government’s intentions is to exclude the Australasian Safety Bureau from providing independent investigations to rail accidents in Victoria. Mr. Mulder concluded his address by answering three questions from the floor. Mr. Moore continued with the formal AGM business, outlining the Technical and local meetings held during the year. The last Technical meeting for the year was combined with the inaugural meeting of the Singaporean Section and held in Singapore with great success. Election of Officers & Committee 2006 Chairman Mr. R.A. Stepniewski (F) NSW Vice Chair Mr. R.A. Bell (F) Vic Secretary Mr. G. Willmott (A) SA Committee NSW Mr. P.J. McGregor (M) Mr. J.J. Aitken (A) Mr. S.D. Cotton (M) Qld Mr. P.A. Huth (AM Vic Mr. R.B. Baird (F) Mr. Mr. H.B. Luber (M) Mr. S.W. Boshier (M) WA Mr. A.M. Godber (AM)
Qld Vic SA WA NZ
Mr. M.R. Lyons (AM) Mr. P.A. Baker (M) Mr. H.J. Revell (F) Mr. L. F. Brearley. (F). Mr. M.R. Donald (M) Mr. L.D. Tran (M) Mr. I.G. Costa (F) Mr. A.E. Neilson (F)
The Public Officer and Auditor are selected by the Committee. The Country Vice president is selected by a broad measure of support of the members. Mr. P. R. Symons was nominated and his selection requires approval by the UK Council, this position is a three year term. Rules amendment In recognition of the change that Associate Members (AMIRSE) are corporate Members of the Institution, the Rules of the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers required amendment. Clause 21(1) to read:“The Chairman and Vice Chairman shall be “Fellows” “Members” or “Associate Members” of the institution”. Rules additions Clause 22(1) Subject to Section 23 of the Act, the Committee shall consist of:Add sub clauses (c): The Australasian Country Vice- President. (d): The immediate two past Chairman of the Section. Clause 24: Rename the existing clause as 24(1) Add sub clause (2). The Public Officer shall be elected by the Committee from the members of the Committee. The amendment and additions were presented to the floor, were accepted and passed individually by a show of hands. Awards 2005 Sandra Karrasch was awarded the Byles & Calcutt for her presentation of the paper “QR Engineering Graduate Programs” at the Rockhampton Technical Meeting 2005. A special mention was made of the excellent results by Ray Rizman in the IRSE exams and also by Tanya Norton in the CRC course at CQU.
170
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION
The incoming Chairman Mr. Richard Stepniewski was congratulated and handed the badge of Office. He reminded the members of the value of the IRSE to members in broadening our knowledge of signaling a telecommunications. Although membership does increase every year, we are still looking for younger members and this year we are offering an incentive for all new members, two years membership for the price of one and it is up to us to promote this to our contacts and to the industry management. With all business completed he thanked all for the opportunity and honor of chairman and was looking forward to the year ahead. Technical Papers presented. Mr. Phillip Jordon, Principal Consultant, Road Safety International. A Trial of a Low Cost Level Crossing Warning Device. Due to the high costs associated with traditional active level crossing protection and the large number of low volume passive crossings in the State (1500), a group, in the early 1990’s, came together in the Victorian Rail Level Crossing Committee. The initial aim was to produce a warning device that would: • Cost about a tenth of conventional active protective systems • Be suitable for use in remote areas, away from mains power • Be fail safe • Improve conspicuity of the passive crossing at the critical time that a train was in the vicinity • Be vandal proof • Be able to be maintained maintenance teams
by
existing
• Create no conflicts with the existing Road Rules • Be easily understood by road users After stages of testing the chosen LCLCWD was installed in late 2004, close to Melbourne, for unobtrusive testing in the “real world”. The device has been undergoing testing under full train conditions for about a year, hidden from public view and is being monitored remotely by a data logger. The system offers a very real and practical option for use at rural rail crossings, the move to a live trial is imminent. Mr. Owen Traynor, Technical Westinghouse Rail Systems Australia.
Director,
Safe platforms for the Integrated Control of Railways. Safety is a growing concern, with the trend to viewing the railway as a complete system, rather than “Islands of Safety” but where safety is systemic characteristic of the whole railway. The “Paper” looks at the safety implications of control systems, the corporate assumption of risk and delivering safe systems.
Introduces platform-based Integrated Control, overview of a generic product safety, quality management, safety management, safety approvals strategy. Mr. Phillip Barker, Senior Transport Safety Investigator, Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Using Independent Railway Safety Investigations to Help Manage Risk. A greater understanding of safety related occurrences can assist railway operators and managers to prioritise resources to manage risk. Before you can manage a hazard it helps to understand how accidents and incidents are occurring. Implementation of corrective action, policy development and planning comes from a process of risk assessment. Given that occurrences pose a safety and financial risk to railway operators and managers, a program of analysis to look at the range of contributing factors, should form part of any safety management system. This should lead to greater safety and potential gains in efficiency. This paper will briefly outline the general process adopted by the ATSB to analyse occurrences. The status of the National Rail Occurrence Database will also be outlined. Mr. R. Robinson, Director, R2A Pty Ltd. Common Law Safety Cases. A common law safety case is an argument as to why an organization is confident that all statutory, regulatory and common law obligations have been met. It is primarily a demonstration that all sensible practicable precautions are in place. This means that target risk levels are not strictly relevant. Legally at least, if a business or activity is prohibitively ‘dangerous’ then it must be stopped. Otherwise the common law principle, the balance of the significance of the risk versus the effort required to reduce it, applies. As such, ‘risk’ is only invoked to test the value of the possible precautions, rather than the significance of the ‘hazard’. Mr. Terry Spicer. Update on Australian Level Crossing Assessment model (ALCAM). ALCAM is a rigorous process to evaluate relative safety risk of at-grade railway crossings and a method to determine the optimum treatment for individual railway crossing sites. At the May 2003 Australasian Transport Council Meeting, all state and territory transport ministers endorsed the adoption of this innovative method of railway crossing risk assessment as a national application throughout Australasia. In 2003/04 Queensland and NSW who had developed their own version of crossing assessment, combined into one national ALCM using the knowledge and expertise gained since implementation, together with additional input from Victoria, SA and WA. Panel Session, chaired Mr. R. Baird, members: Messrs. A. Webb, W. Cathrop, T. Spicer, B. Luber. Topic “Safety – Value for Money”
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION
171
After a lively debate the discussion was summed by Robert who, considered that there were strengths and weaknesses in both sides.
and issues presented by train braking and its effect on signaling design and system capacity.
The US rail operation have defined Regulations, enough had to be invested to meet those requirements to be in business. Any further investment is on a “business case basis”.
Generation of Optimised Automatic Signalling layouts with Computer Simulations.
The European model:- Safety projects are mandated for in legislation, it is the supplier’s innovation to deal with the application. No safety justification is required – it is the law. Australia is somewhere between these two. Mr. P. Baker moved a vote of thanks to all speakers for the effort to present an interesting and informative day; this was accepted by the usual acclamation from the floor.
Mr. David Caldwell, Worley Parsons TMG.
This paper discusses the application of computer simulations to optimizing the layout of signals operating on the Automatic Block principle. Considerable efficiencies can be achieved in signal design and capacity analysis by methodically applying computer simulation tools. A system for quickly and accurately testing the influence of variables (such as train types, dwell times and speed limits) on track capacity and their interrelation with signal placement is proposed.
A Melbourne Port cruise with luncheon completed the day.
The aim of the layout is discussed in the context of either maximizing line capacity or optimizing the layout to specific traffic requirement. Application of existing simulation tools is explained and weaknesses are discussed. There is complex interaction between braking distance, signal spacing and clearance times, particularly under diverse traffic conditions. A method of analyzing these interactions quickly and efficiently is suggested. A method of locating signals for maximum unrestricted track capacity is also discussed.
SUNDAY FEBRUARY 19.
Mr. Marcus Chadwick, Asia Pacific Rail.
A bus trip started the family day to the Werribee open Range Zoo some 45 km from Melbourne, the herbivore animals were viewed from the safety of safari type vehicles while the meat eaters were in open range, but behind substantial fencing. Meer Cats were in an enclosure, but were a great draw.
TPWS – A Train Protection System for Regional Victoria.
Lunch was enjoyed at an Italian Restaurant in Werribbee, before heading to the airport and Melbourne on the way home from a great weekend.
TWPS was specified as the technology for the enforcement function of the Train protection system after consideration of performance, cost and supply factors.
SATURDAY FEBRUARY 18. The field inspections involved two groups, led by project managers, being shown the rebuilding of Spencer Street Station to the now renamed Southern Cross Station, the whole group then walked the short distance to Bourke Street to visit the Pacific National control centre.
2. SYDNEY TECHNICAL MEETING JULY 21 – 22, 2006, THEME “SIGNAL ENGINEERING”. Chairman Mr. Richard Stepniewski opened the meeting at 0900 hrs, welcoming the 208 members and guests, which is an Australasian attendance record. Mr. Warwich Allison, Chief Engineer Signals, RailCorp. Brakes and Signalling. One of the main elements of signalling is to ensure sufficient warning is given to drivers of where they need to stop, or reduce speed such as for a turnout. Clearly there needs to be a suitable braking distance between this warning and the stop signal or speed restriction.
Until now, the maximum permitted track speed has been 130 km/h. With the advent of the Regional Fast Train project, train speeds up to 160 km/h will occur and in order to support this increase in speeds, a train protection system has been applied.
This paper describes the development journey of the train protection system. From the selection and adaptation of the generic TPWS product through to its integration with the signalling system to form an effective protective system. the paper identifies the objectives of the train protection function, highlights the differences between the UK application of TPWS and the Victorian application, details the engineering and signal principles, and identifies the stakeholder consultation process adopted in delivering the train protection System. Mr. Kaniyur Sundareswaran, United Group Infrastructure. VPI Application with Radio Links.
The Central Queensland University post graduate course in Railway Signalling provides new signal engineers with a comprehensive, accelerated way to skill up in this specialized discipline.
United Group Infrastructure have commissioned an Alstom Vital Processor Interlocking (VPI) system using radio links for transmission of vital information, between two VPI’s, each installed at either end of the Kinalung crossing loop, on the Parkes to Broken Hill line.
This paper is presented around the course elements for train braking and signaling CPD 3, Signalling the Layout, Week 1, topic 2 and 3, Week 2 topic 1 and expands on some of the practicalities
This project is part of a contract with Australian Track Corporation (ARTC) for extending the crossing loops at Kinalung and Matakana to 1850 metres in length.
172
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION
This paper describes the architecture employed in Kinalung and its interfaces to the radio link. It explains the basic components of a VPI system and its configuration for the location. Also it covers the type of radio system used for this communication, its configuration parameters and explores how a non-vital radio system could be used to communicate safely. Mr. John Keys presented a paper jointly written with Mr. Peter Warhurst, United Group Infrastructure. Epping–Chatswood Rail Link, Radio Systems. The aim of this paper is to highlight the unique aspects of the design and engineering required to implement radio communications within the EppingChatswood Rail Link. The project was unique in that the tunnel sections were much longer than other tunnel projects in Australia and therefore presented some challenging problems for the design. Although our scope includes the radio coverage for both UHF and mobile telephones, the challenges for UHF (train radio and emergency services) were the greatest and so this paper will focus on that aspect. To meet the radio MTTR specification, it was necessary to locate repeaters in the station and service buildings (rather than the normal tunnel cross passages) which necessitated some extremely long tunnel sections to be served by certain repeaters. The maximum tunnel section span of 3750 metres required the design of specially engineered radio repeaters and customized leaky feeder cables. The paper describes the processes followed to evolve the UHF design and specification for the radio repeaters and leaky feeders, highlighting the limitations of each of the technologies used. Mr. Gary Josh, ARTC. NSW Train Control Consolidation. The Australian Rail Track Corporation has embarked on a significant program of train control consolidation and signal box closures throughout New South Wales. Ultimately two Network Control Centres will control rail traffic over the majority of the NSW rail network. Train control consolidation is underway during a time of significant organizational and cultural change as the NSW rail system evolves from a government entity to business and customer focused corporation which can be considered both an advantage and major hurdle simultaneously. The Train Control Consolidation Project is comprised of a number of minor and major resignalling works to replace the mechanical, hybrid interlockings and signaling systems to allow their remote control from PC based train control systems. Additionally ARTC has a number of complimentary projects within its various corridor strategies which also need to be considered. Mr. Geoff Everist, Union Switch & Signal Pty Ltd. Telemetry System Upgrade for NSW North Coast CTC. (Applying the Puddle to fit the Pretzel) To suggest that the Australian railway operations suffer from the “tyranny of distance” is not only a
cliché but an understatement. Australian freight rail lines are characteristically long and thin (pretzels), with critical infrastructure often in remote and isolated locations. From an economic standpoint, the negative impact of distance is compounded by the curse of low density. For railway communications perspective, this isolation combined with a critical operational dependence on the availability of communications infrastructure has historically led to in-house provision of this infrastructure. Competitive pressures combined with advances in technology have driven modern railways towards centralization of control of their signalling systems. Telemetry data communications are often neglected but a critical component of any centralized and therefore remote controlled signaling system. The data communication backbone is generally common to elements in the over all scheme; therefore the entire system is dependent upon its reliable operation. Traditionally, telemetry data communications have been provided over bearers provided primarily for voice communication. Australian Rail Track Corporation has recognized that in-house provision of communications infrastructure is not sustainable and are implementing strategies to also use existing service provider networks. Utilisation of existing commercial service provider networks (puddles) solves many problems, but introduces new problems that require careful consideration and management. The telemetry system upgrade for the NSW North Coast provides a useful illumination of some of the issues involved and their innovative solutions. Mr. Andrew Blakeley-Smith, Andrew Blakeley Smith & Associates. Appreciation and Testing of Communication Circuits (for Signalling Engineers). Railway signalling technology has evolved over the years from the primary discipline of the mechanical engineer to the electrical engineer to the IT/computer science engineer. The design philosophy and hardware underlying analogue communications links is very familiar to those with, or exposed to, a telephony background but does not seem to be adequately covered in most electrical engineering courses. There are still many analogue links forming essential and even vital, components of signalling systems. Some of these links, in service for many years, from the authors experience, have never been tested or commissioned properly and fail when relatively minor configuration changes are made. System testing is often prolonged because new communication bearers are not tested systematically. Effort is then mistakenly put into reconfiguration of the equipment at the end of the bearer, perhaps because the digital interface is better understood. This paper covers some telephony history and basic principles, some elementary transmission theory that may have been forgotten (or passed over as no longer relevant or black art) and discusses,
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION
from experience, some practical testing strategies that do not need a truck full of expensive and difficult to drive equipment. Mr. R. Baird moved a vote of thanks to all speakers for the effort to present an interesting and informative day; this was accepted by the usual acclamation from the floor. SATURDAY JULY 22. Approx 45 members and guests boarded a coach to visit and inspect the new interlocking at Sefton Park junction and the new control facility at Sydenham. At Sefton Park, after the now becoming mandatory safety briefing, the innovative power supply arrangements were explained by Paul Szacsvay and groups inspected the power supply and Microlok CBI rooms. The party then traveled to Sydenham where the new control room for Southern Sydney was inspected. The latest developments of the RailCorp train control system, ATRICS, were explained by Andrew Dwyer, followed by an inspection of the local relay based interlocking.
3. ADELAIDE TECHNICAL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3-4, 2006. Theme, Matching Technology with Operational Requirements. Mr. Richard Stepniewski opened the meeting at 0900 hrs. welcoming the 99 members and guests. Mr. Peter Foley, Australian Transport Safety Bureau, presented the key note address. This paper outlines the development of the “safety investigation”, the genesis of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and its accident investigation methodology with reference to its systemic focus on the contribution of human factors issues, in particular, the man/machine interface. Safe transport, whether by air, sea, road or rail underpins our modern society and we depend on it for our standard of living. The public demand a high level of safety and in the event of an accident, that it should be investigated. Transport accidents may be investigated by various bodies for various purposes. The Safety Investigation The concept of an independent, objective technical investigation, which is not for the purpose of attributing blame or the apportionment of liability, has become accepted internationally as the best way to achieve safety improvements in the aftermath of a transport accident. Such investigations do not enjoy the gravitas of legal/judicial procedures and evidence is not heard in open court. But safety investigations are less expensive and usually quicker to come to their findings. Most developed countries now have agencies like the Australian Transport Safety Bureau which fulfill this function.
TRANSPORT SAFETY INVESTIGATION IN AUSTRALIA In the last thirty years there has been a gradual but significant move away from regulator-based
173
investigations and judicial inquiries. In jurisdictions, such as the US and Canada the investigator is created as a separate legal body from the regulator, which remains within the Transport Department. In 1967 the US government set up the National Transportation Safety Board. Similar boards were created as independent multi-modal transport safety investigation bodies in Sweden (1978 – initially aviation, but multi-modal since 1990), Finland (1986), Canada and New Zealand in 1990 and the Netherlands in 1999. In recent years in Japan, Korea and France, independent multi-modal investigation organisations have been created separate from the government-based regulator. On 1 July 2003 the TSI Act came into force and it included a new jurisdiction over accidents involving interstate rail operations. This led to the formation of the ATSB’s Rail Safety Unit. Up to this time the ATSB had conducted a number of systemic rail investigations using investigators from other modes who were not rail specialists. These investigations were conducted at the behest of various States and performed under the provisions of their legislation. From 2003, the ATSB’s Rail Safety Unit has grown to the point where there are now eight investigators who have qualifications and experience in all of the various rail technical disciplines as well as expertise in psychology and data recordings.
CONCLUSION Safety investigations, in their approach must be seen as being dynamic and as keeping abreast with contemporary expectations and evolving safety issues. Investigators continue to face two main challenges in an evolving “no-blame” culture aimed at learning from mistakes: • Determining why accidents occurred in light of what made sense to people at the time. That is trying to assess the circumstance of incomplete knowledge and random cues and whether on that basis the decisions made before the accident were reasonable or rational. Turner observes: While an apparently logical and determined pattern of preconditions is easy enough to construct with the benefit of hindsight, these patterns are far less apparent in advance given the ambiguity and complexity of the operation of large-scale socio-technical systems • Devising an investigation methodology which establishes a boundary between culpability and actions, in hindsight contributory to an accident, but which had a rationale at the time, given imperfect knowledge. Wagenaar and Groeneweg: Errors do not look like errors at the time they are perpetrated, and the accidents that are caused by them look impossible beforehand. Looking forward there are always challenges for safety investigation authorities, particularly those of competing for resources in both funding and people. It can be argued that this competitive element encourages relevance and sensitivity to changing expectations by government and the public. This
174
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION
certainly applies to safety investigation organisations. But while shifts in public attitudes are relevant, investigators must enjoy a charter or constitution of independence to resist short term or sectional interests that may seek to pervert or compromise safety investigations. Mr. George Erdos, TransAdelaide. The TransAdelaide CTC Replacement Project. This paper is the final in a series to be made to the IRSE regarding TransAdelaide’s Centralised Train Control (CTC) replacement project. In this paper I will review the project from inception through to commissioning. The paper is not intended to embrace the technical aspects of the project which will be covered by the principal contractor, United Group Infrastructure. However, in the paper I will provide a light hearted overview of some of phases of the project including definition, deliverables, elements of the implementation/commissioning and training as used to provide the operational system. Finally we will look at some of the lessons learned. The contract specification mandated that the contractor work with TransAdelaide in developing a Functional Specification before any of the design work would commence. The Functional Specification was intended to detail how the features of the Technical Specification were to be delivered.
CONTRACT EXECUTION User Groups were established, their task was to assist and provide feedback in the development of the Functional Specifications. In this way, it was possible to ensure that all stakeholder requirements were addressed and documented. It also gave each group a sense of ownership and involvement in the decision making process. Six Functional Specifications were developed comprising: • General Description - Section 1 to 4 • Operator Interface - Section 5 • Maintenance, Replay, Simulator - Section 6 • Database - Section 7 • Passenger Information System - Section 8 • Automatic Route Setting - Section 9 The system was brought on line several times, but was changed back to the old system due to operational problems, firstly over the weekend of 06 May 2006 with all train services being successfully operated/managed by the new system. The system was again brought back online on the 14 May 2006 and performed well throughout the day. The system finally was again brought on line over the long weekend of 10 June 2006. Based on the positive performance of the new system it was operated through to the peak service on Tuesday 13 June 2006, no significant issues arose. The old system was then switched off and decommissioned, at 1830 Tuesday 13 Jun 2006, with the final cut-over of remaining workstations occurring during the week of the 13–18 June 2006.
CONCLUSION TransAdelaide’s old CTC and PI system required replacement. It was based on obsolete technology with parts and OEM support no longer available. Investigation identified that the complete replacement of the CTC and PI system was a necessary strategy. A contract was awarded to ALSTOM Aust Pty Ltd, subsequently United Group Infrastructure. Following the award of the contract there were various project risks arising, not previously identified, in particular the loss of key TransAdelaide staff that put the project at risk. These risks were effectively managed leading to the successfully commissioning of the new system on 13 June 2006. The project generally progressed well. There were, however various pre/post commissioning issues that required resolution. With a complex project problems should be expected and operational strategies must be put in place to mitigate risk. The original contract should have been written more flexibly to accommodate post commissioning system acceptance. The project was completed within budget excluding variations not covered by the contract and was commissioned successfully albeit three months outside the original 3 year date specified by the contract. Although the project was in principal intended to cover a one for one replacement the new system offers a number of enhancements that will improve TransAdelaide’s operational efficiency. Mr. David Hickson, project manager, Mr. Nik Dimos, project engineer, United Group infrastructure. TransAdelaide CTC and PI System Upgrade. TransAdelaide’s Centralised Traffic Control & Passenger Information systems have recently been upgraded. The new system was commissioned in June 2006 by United Group Infrastructure, replacing 18 year old equipment that had become prone to failure and difficult to maintain. This paper describes how, over a 3 year period, system performance requirements were developed into a series of functional specifications which in turn were used as the basis for detailed design work. The paper describes how disparate subsystems were integrated in a network configuration around a central SigView /SigMap core to form a CTC system. And how the CTC system interfaces with the new PI system to provide real-time service information to audio and visual display devices. The paper explores in detail the design of the Automatic Route Setting and Timetable Database facilities developed specially to meet TransAdelaide’s requirements. Finally, it describes how the staged changeover between old and new systems was managed without interruption to rail services.
175
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION
TransAdelaide’s metropolitan rail network serves 80 stations on 4 lines radiating from Adelaide Railway Station in the CBD. Since 1988 the network of 120 route kilometres had been controlled from the Operations Control Centre by a Centralised Traffic Control and
Communications Exchange Server which updates the local PI controllers. They in turn are triggered by either train movement, or manual operation, to broadcast accurate up to date information to the travelling public as well as to TransAdelaide’s own staff.
Passenger Information system. The equipment providing this service had become technically obsolete and suffered from a lack of available maintenance support. In March 2003 TransAdelaide awarded the contract to Alstom Australia Ltd. (subsequently novated to United Group Infrastructure) to upgrade the system utilising the latest available technology, in order to improve the operation, reliability and maintainability.
The new system was taken into service on 13th June 2006, with the final workstation configuration completed six days later. Generally the system has proved highly reliable, with no system failures in the intervening 4 months. Like many projects of this scale and complexity, there have been a number of post commissioning issues, which are being progressively addressed.
The upgraded Centralised Traffic Control and Passenger Information system was required to provide the train controllers with a more fully integrated system. Also, to provide faster and more accurate service information to the public. The new system was designed around UGI’s SigView and SigMap products and utilised a web based Database Management System. A configurable Timetable datase provides information to the Automatic Route Setting (ARS) system and to a Communications Exchange Server (CES) which drives the synchronised Passenger Information System. Most central equipment, including 8 new workstations, was to be located in the existing equipment room and operations room at the Operations Control Centre (OCC), despite both rooms already being full to capacity and no network shutdown allowable during the project’s implementation phase. The involvement of TransAdelaide’s operating personnel during the detailed design definition stage, significantly reduced the risk of the new system not providing the required functionality and being poorly received as a consequence. It created a channel of communication that continues to produce benefits today, in the post commissioning defect phase of the project.
From initial specification through to commissioning, all parties maintained a flexible and proactive approach to ensuring delivery of a system that would provide TransAdelaide with immediate benefits in operation and reliability, plus longer term improvements in maintainability, as well as the flexibility to modify or expand the system in the future. Mr. Leon Welsby, Corporation.
Australian
The next Generation Communications.
of
Rail
Track
ARTC
Train
A Power Point presentation. Background. ARTC has researched the available communications media to improve the effectiveness of its current systems and meet the requirements of ATMS. 3G850 was chosen as the most appropriate and cost effective media to meet ARTC’s current and future data needs. ARTC’s rail network has been surveyed and assessed in detail. The Company is working with Telstra on a solution that will provide coverage of the Interstate and Hunter Valley rail networks. Additional 3G850 coverage sites are to be built to provide coverage along the rail network.
The new control system was built around a SigView / SigMap / Database Management System core. Sigview providing the graphical user interface. SigMap providing the system and subsystem interface. And the Database
The 3G850 Network
Management System, in particular the timetable, providing TransAdelaide with the means of managing the overall service rather than concentrating on individual train movements. The system was designed to interface to existing SSI and Relay Interlockings and to numerous other existing external subsystems, which TransAdelaide did not otherwise want affected by the project.
Through an agreement between ARTC and Telstra, an additional 91 radio sites will extend this coverage along an estimated 1,750 km of the rail corridor, including 20 tunnels and the Nullabor.
The major features of the new control system are the Automatic Route Setting and Timetable management, both which revolve around real-time service information, train IDs, positions and movements. The real-time information managed within the control system, is relayed to the PI system
3G850 will be deployed to more than 5000 radio sites nationally. Along the ARTC rail corridor, around 700 existing Telstra Mobile sites will be upgraded to 3G850.
In Train Communications Environment CCU3 Processor is the core processor. It is an industrial rated PLC platform proven in the field and designed for hazardous environments. Architecture is modular. HMI operated by keypad. If HMI fails, keypad can make emergency and or pre-defined call to TCC. Communications automatically routed to 3G850 or satellite. Calls established via key entry or drop down list.
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION
176
Voice communications is either hands free or via handset. Redundant power supplies and simultaneous voice and data. Satellite handset available in event of total ICE failure. Software communicates with Message switch to provide wireless data. reliability and network switching smarts. CCU3 constantly monitors system and self diagnosis down to component level errors reported to Telstra Help Desk. Full data log of voice and data activity for reporting. Data can be Passed-through to Windows based PC.
KPI’s Call drop outs; Call connection time; Warranty repair time on ICE Telstra maintenance and management services Maintenance of 3G850 Infill and Augmented Infrastructure includes – scheduled maintenance services; replacement of faulty equipment; message switching and terrestrial transmission network;
PMR Radio for out of cab comms. ARTC/Telstra agreement overview Design and Construct of additional sites.
3G850 Availability. The 3G850 network along the rail track shall be available 99.0% of the time; 3G850 and Satellite availability. In the event that both 3G850 and Satellite is unavailable at the same time Telstra shall pay ARTC a fee based on the number of trains the outage effects
91 3G850
Maintenance of 3G850 infrastructure over 8 years. Supply / rental and management of terrestrial voice and data connectivity network. Systems integration for terrestrial networks providing comms from TCC to ICE. Supply, design, build and test of Message switch at Telstra’s hosting facilities. Supply of solution documentation. Project Management of solution deployment. 24/7/365 Help Desk Service within ITIL compliant framework for duration of Services Contract. Transition Strategy Train control centres
scheduled maintenance services; replacement of faulty equipment; 24 x 7 x 365 Help Desk to – provide single point of contact; fault management reporting;
ICE warranty and support Warranted for 12 months from installation Warranty turn around within 10 business days (KPI) Spare Parts Component listing available to Operators Available via Telstra, Technisyst or Base2 Replacement Value $26K - $32K
Extensive trials Supply ICE kits for Operator fit out Training Program for drivers Train the trainer Help desk Regulatory involvement NTS will require regulator approval. material change for both ARTC and its customers Joint submission suggested. Presentations have been made to all Regulators. sub group created to liaise with regulators (all jurisdictions represented) Service level assurances and KPI’s SLA’s Message Delivery. A 300 byte message will be delivered across the 3G network in no more than 30 seconds;
service
resolve billing issues
VCS capable of using legacy systems and NTS at the same time Fit ICE to 10 locomotives
resolution
SLA management;
VCS system capable of using all media
Build network in parallel
and
Delivery around 12 weeks from order Training Services Train the Trainer classes as per contract with ARTC User manuals Installation guides Suggested Maintenance information sheets Mr. Leon Welsby, Corporation.
Australian
Rail
Track
Advanced train Management System for the ARTC. A Power headings)
Point
presentation.
(presentation
ARTC’s key principles for modern train control technology. New train control system goals. The move toward new technologies provides impetus. Key characteristics of modern train management systems. Prequalification & request for proposal confirmed
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION
that the ATMS concept was feasible & that industry was prepared to commit to delivery. ARTC Board authorizes ATMS Phase 1. Phase1 of the ATMS program is now complete. Outline of ARTC’s proposed Advanced Train Management System (ATMS). ATMS will provide safe & effective movement of trains across the Interstate & Hunter Valley rail networks. ATMS will use centralised interlocking via an Authority Management System. ATMS Concept of Operation. ATMS Electronic Block. Electronic Block reduces traditional track side infrastructure required. ATMS will draw on the NAJPTC train display concept developed in consultation with human factors experts. ATMS comprises four major sub-systems.
This paper will review and describe the system components that have been used to provide the function of remotely reversing the points at the crossing locations across the Nullabor from within the locomotive cabs. The components to be described are the ground based systems at the loop end equipment huts, an air interface, and the train borne locomotive systems.
Train borne system. Trackside system Communications system. ATMS Architecture. The Integrated System. Advance Train Management System Scope. ATMS Program Phasing & Timeline. ATMS as part pf the Digital Railroad. Synergies with North American Railways. Rail Environment-Nth American Class 1. Norfolk Southern RailRoad. Northern Southern Public Remarks to Wall Street Conference. Train Management Systems. OTC Optimized Train Control. Rail
The in Cab Activated Switch Enhancement to Trans Australia Railway.
The normal operation of ICAPS is controlled by the TBU striking in and out of windows of opportunity that are identified by GPS coordinates. The window of opportunity is located typically at 7.5km for the strike in and 5.5km for the strike out on the approach to each loop in both East and West travelling directions. Upon striking in to the window the TBU identifies the name of the loop and whether it is the East or West end of the loop. Further to this the Train Crew is informed that the point operation is available. Reverse or dismiss options are provided.
Network Control System.
Australian
The In Cab Activated Points System is an enhancement to the self restoring system so that a train movement into a crossing loop is as efficient as practicable.
OVERVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF ICAPS
Operating principles.
Mr. Paul Furness, Corporation.
177
Track System
SUMMARY The In Cab Activated Points System is a system which provides the Train Crews with a window of opportunity when approaching a crossing location to operate the points reverse in a controlled manner to allow the train to enter the crossing loop without the need to stop. A self restoring points system exists on the Trans Australia Railway between Port Augusta and Kalgoorlie which provided considerable benefits at forty four crossing loops when it was introduced in 2000 by ARTC.
After choosing the reverse option the TBU prompts the Train Crew to confirm point operation or decline. A short time delayed is used before the confirm option can be selected. This is to increase awareness of the choice being taken. Confirming a request for the point operation starts the UHF communication between the TBU and the BS and a REDUCE SPEED request sent message is displayed. The TBU does not positively confirm that the points have or will operate. It is the SRS Enhancers that provide this indication. The BS reacts to the remote point operation request once identity, security and validation criteria are satisfied. The SRS responds to a remote request by putting the facing Enhancer to red for ninety seconds before driving the points reverse and the Enhancer displaying the appropriate indication. The SRS self restores the points after the passage of the train over the track circuit and a further ninety seconds has elapsed.
CONCLUSION The ICAPS project builds on the effectiveness of the SRS system installed in 2000 by ARTC. The ability to remotely request the points reverse allows the Train Crews to travel into the crossing loop without the need to stop at the crossing location across the TAR. Train Crews which does not alter the normal operation of the loop via the existing push buttons. The use of UHF transceivers, GPS, and 5-tone are consistent with technology in use on rail networks that deliver the ability to provide the ICAPS function. The project has delivered the ground based equipment apart from Parkeston and the locomotive
178
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION
work is under way with the NR class work currently being done and surveys for the standalone system to progress after locomotives trials have been concluded.
Furthermore, and in order to tie in with the theme of this conference, I have elected to concentrate on the history of Adelaide Station and Yard itself rather than the entirety of the network.
Mr. Wayne McDonald, Systems Australia.
Adelaide’s first railway station was built in 1856. It connected Adelaide to Port Adelaide via a solitary line, a distance of 11km. This was the first Government owned railway and operated steam railway in the British Empire. Between 1868 and 1895 the network size increased 320% to a total route length of 2,237km.
Westinghouse
Rail
Controlling the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway. The Alice Springs-Darwin Railway is the longest Australian rail construction undertaken in over 100 years. Trains traveling over its 1,420 km join with the Alice Springs-Tarcoola Railway to provide a land bridge between the port of Darwin and the southern capital cities. This paper describes the peculiar requirements for the signalling system to control the new (Alice Springs-Darwin) and existing Tarcoola-Alice Springs) railways that both transverse long, sparse distances. Trains are controlled for the whole route from an Adelaide based computer assisted train order system compliant with the Australian Code of Practice of the Defined Interstate Rail Network and utilizing electronic equivalents of the existing paper forms all linked to a track overview display. Trains pass and cross at autonomous, train-operated passing loops fitted with self restoring points interlocked over a vital end to end radio telemetry link. The design of this signalling system is predicated on an expanding traffic volume from an initial low base and so the system has to fulfill prime cost targets and provide expansion and automation capabilities to support the growing traffic without increasing Signaller and driver loading. Foreshadowed enhancements are described. ADrail required minimal trackside equipment that must operate ultra reliably in a harsh and remote environment where maintenance can be many hours away. Trackside communications infrastructure is almost non existent and trains must utilize satellite communications with the control centre or short range local radio.
A new Commissioner was appointed in 1922, American William Alfred Webb. Commissioner Webb called an architectural competition for a new Adelaide Station. The foundation stone for the new building was laid by the Premier of the day Mr. John Gunn on 24th August 1926, the building was completed in June 1928. The station included many features designed to provide for its customers. Including:• 13 individually canopied platforms to allow for the escape of smoke and steam • A dining room • Two hairdressers, • 3 refreshment rooms • A well appointed waiting room • And allowance for 2 future platforms to service the extension of the Commonwealth Railways standard gauge Port Pirie to Port Augusta track to Adelaide. From opening of the original Port Adelaide line until 1910 train movements into and out of the Adelaide Yard were controlled by a system known as “Winters Block”. Basic operation of the unit was as follows:• Signalman at Cabin "A" sends Is Line Clear? to Cabin "B".
Mr. David Ness, Connell Wagner.
• Cabin "B" acknowledges Is Line Clear? to accept the train.
A Short History of Adelaide Railyard.
• Cabin "A" sends Train Departure to Cabin "B"
INTRODUCTION
• Cabin "B" acknowledges Train Departure and turns the Switch to ON
When first asked if I would be prepared to present a paper for the Adelaide IRSE I was somewhat mystified as to what I would present. Although I have had a considerable association with the Adelaide urban network over the last 20 years it has, to be honest, some years since that involvement, has involved practical activity, that I consider may be of professional or technical interest to the membership of the IRSE. After a little thought however I realised how little I knew of the history of the Adelaide network, or indeed the history of any of Australia’s rail networks, and decided that as many readers are likely to be in the same position as myself, ie. railway professionals unfamiliar with the history of the assets they work with daily, that a short summary of a selection of historic highlights pertaining to the Adelaide system would be as good a topic as any.
• Cabin "A" presses the Button and the Plunger, which places the Red Needle at Cabin "B" and the Black Needle at Cabin "A" to ON LINE • On arrival at Cabin "B", the signalman there places the Switch to OFF and sends Train Arrival to Cabin "A" • Cabin "A" acknowledges Train Arrival and presses Button to restore both needles to CLEARED In 1915 traffic volumes in the yard and signalling workload demanded a new approach be adopted. Under the guidance of Mr. Pilkington, the Adelaide Yard was upgraded by the installation of the first power frames in South Australia and the largest in the southern hemisphere (One at Adelaide Yard and the other at Adelaide Wye Junction).
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION
The power frames installed in Adelaide Yard and Adelaide Wye Junction were General Railway Signal (GRS) Company, Model 2 unit lever type interlocking machines. A key feature of this interlocking type was the much relied upon “dynamic indication” principle by which “energy is furnished by a momentary dynamic current generated by the motor of the operated function itself when and only when the actual operation of such function shall have been properly completed”. When combined with mechanical and electrical locking, and optional extras such as track circuits, indicators and annunciators this interlocking type represented a major leap forward in safety and operability. The fact that it lasted 62 years was testament to its engineering credentials and reliable design. Adelaide was also the home of Australia’s first Train Describer. Although not recognisable when compared to the modern equivalent the function was the same i.e. to identify which train was where in the system and where it was going. A relatively new American innovation in 1915 the equipment was installed in the new Adelaide signal cabins from opening day and remained there until the cabins were closed. When I first arrived in Adelaide in November of 1987, as a young, green but keen signalling engineer, the Adelaide Resignalling Project was well underway. The key driver for the resignalling scheme had been the need to replace what was without doubt by that time obsolescent, maintenance intensive signalling infrastructure. By early 1990 when I departed Adelaide the Adelaide Yard, once again exhibited the mix of cutting edge technologies and efficient architecture that had been its hallmark and fame in the 1920’s. At that time it boasted:• The only fully centrally controlled metropolitan rail system in Australia, • Australia’s first, and for a 3 week period the world’s largest, SSI interlocking, • Full timetabled Automatic Route Setting (ARS) capable train describer • The only network in Australia with a fully integrated, real-time automated passenger information system, • A revised, simplified 4 aspect colorlight signal aspect system that blends the best of speed signalling and route signalling. The outcomes of the project for rail operations were significant. Maintenance requirements increased slightly in the short term due to increased infrastructure. Operational staff reduced by more than 50%. Overall staff savings exceeded 45. This is not to say controversy did not trouble the project. Cost over runs did occur and there were certainly teething troubles with the new SSI and Train Describer technologies.
179
Although a small and relatively simple network when compared to other capital cities the Adelaide network and system design, still represents, at least in my opinion, an example of the type of outcomes that signal engineers can provide if investment decisions are approached in a logical, planned and comprehensive manner. Incremental upgrades to the Adelaide Yard infrastructure have continued. The SSI’s have been upgraded from Mark I type to Mark II. The Train Control System has been upgraded and replaced with a modern equivalent. It is a fact that no modern computer based equipment is ever likely to last anywhere near as long as the mechanical equipment upon which the Yard developed. Even the relay based infrastructure deployed throughout the outer sections of the network will most likely require replacement within another 20 years. Panel Session, Matching Operational Requirements.
Technology
with
Chaired:- Mr. George Erdos ATSB Panel members Messrs :Adam Boughton, Pacific National Peter Foley, ATSB David Marchant, ARTC Bill Watson, TransAdelaide This developed into a light hearted discussion with for and against discussion with the operators. The debate was summed up by the chairman, followed up with a vote from the floor with a 50/50 decision. Mr. Philip Baker, moved the vote of appreciation to all presenters. SATURDAY NOVEMBER 04, FIELD INSPECTION. The new upgraded TransAdelaide CTC Train Control Centre was the first location, however the following GWA inspection had to be cancelled due to the Management of that company had also arrived from overseas to do the same. An alternative, with thanks to TransAdelaide, was a visit to the Glengowrie tram depot, where newly purchased cars were being inspected and entering service, also track turnouts were viewed due to modifications as wheels were being derailed when entering the depot. The lunch at “The Tap Inn” completed the meeting. Thank you is extended to the following, for their assistance in providing sponsorship for events, trade displays and advertisements at Technical Meetings through the year. Invensys Westinghouse Rail Systems Australia Siemens Transportation Systems Rail Personnel Connell Wagner Ansaldo Signal-Union Switch & Signal United Group Infrastructure Asia Pacific Rail Australian Rail Track Corporation Skilled Rail Services
180
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION
TransAdelaide WorleyParsons Rail Transient Controls Australia
LOCAL MEETINGS QUEENSLAND, March 14, over 35 members and guests attended a local technical meeting held at US&S offices at Eagle Farm. The meeting started at 5:30 pm with a talk by Neil Robinson on the CENELEC standards and what they mean for signal engineering. The CENELEC standard is having an increasing impact on what we do, particularly as new or modified systems are developed. Neil included a "fact or fiction" session to see how much of the information was absorbed. The second paper was by Dave Norris on the ATMS (Advanced Train Management Systems) that is under development by Lockheed Martin for the ARTC. The overall concept was explained and some interesting discussion followed on the total system and in particular on the train detection system. Following the presentations informal discussions continued as pizza and refreshments, compliments of US&S, were enjoyed by all. May 18, at the QRI, Brisbane a local technical meeting was held, with 30 attendees from all signalling companies in Brisbane and also interested parties from the QUT research centre. Two interesting topics were presented and they were SEQIP and Sigtools. Dennis Walsh presented SEQIP and gave a very informative presentation on the transportation projects in the pipeline for the upcoming years for South East Queensland to overcome the building traffic congestion on the roads. He also explained the new alliance agreement between QR and all of the companies in the alliance including the sharing of liability expenses and the dispersion of the costs for the projects that overrun their budget and dates for installation. More information for the infrastructure program is available on the QR website at www.qr.com.au/seqip. Sigtools was presented in two parts by two presenters. George Nikandros discussed what sigtools is (a program that converts a signalling layout into Brisbane Suburban control table format), the aim of the program and the expanding scope as the program is tested by engineers in QR. A practical demonstration was given by David Tombs (one of the engineers who programmed the code for Sigtools). David showed how a layout was converted into a control table and also how an error list is generated in the program when the incorrect data is input. David also demonstrated how the verification tool operates. June 13, a small group of Queensland members had an extremely interesting visit to the Patrick automated container facility at the Port of Brisbane. The automated container terminal consists of up to 18 automatically operated straddle cranes, each 60 tonnes, moving containers from the dockside to the storage area and then to and from trucks. We were
given a presentation of the overall terminal operation by the terminal manager who explained the drivers and development process for the automated straddle cranes. Discussion followed on some of the technical aspects including location of the straddle cranes and conflict management. We then had a tour of the facility including the control tower, the truck marshalling area and refrigerated container area. The interlocks to ensure the safety of people working in the area were demonstrated. August 15, there were 22 in attendance at the QRI Conference Centre including a number of Civil Engineers as guests. There were two presentations given by United Group both relating to Upgrading Old Railway Lines i.e. the Regional Fast Rail project in Victoria. So it was multi discipline and multi State! Glen McIlroy gave a presentation on the civil aspects including the use of technology from the wind turbine industry. Stuart McLean then explained the signalling arrangements, where mechanical interlockings were replaced by SSI and operated by remote controlled panels. Interfacing with the existing signalling arrangements posed some challenges. Both speaker referred to the necessity to maintain good communications with the client in a project in a performance type contract where there were changing client requirements. October 10, at the QRI Conference room, twenty one members and guests listened to a very interesting presentation by Howard Revell and Keith Walker on the IRSE International Convention held in Interlaken in September 2006. The presenters gave an overview of the Swiss railway network and some of the very interesting features of mountain railways. Howard and Keith covered the main technical aspects of the convention, including updates on ETCS implementation, mixed with photos of the spectacular scenery in Switzerland. Light refreshments were enjoyed as Howard explained some of the social highlights of the convention. December 2006, at the recently formed TrackStar Alliance premises in Milton, Brisbane. Frances Walker of TrackStar Alliance presented an overview of the Alliance and the four rail projects they are working on worth around $700 million over the next six years. Noel Burton of Westinghouse Rail Systems Australia gave a presentation & working system demonstration of the WESTLOCK interlocking that will be implemented on the upcoming Alliance works for the Corinda to Darra re-signalling project. After the presentations, the 22 members and guests were treated to a full tour of TrackStar Alliance offices followed by an interactive question and answer session. NSW May 18, May 18 at the Wests Leagues, Newcastle. Mr. Trevor Moore, ARTC Signalling, will give a presentation “Reviewing Railway Incident Reports for Safety Lessons”.
AUSTRALASIAN SECTION
Followed by Mr. John Aitken, US&S Principal Communications Engineer. You can get lonely out there! (Especially if your radio fails.) VICTORIA
181
Mr. Wagdy Abdel-Nour United Group Infrastructure • RFR Train Control – The United Experience Mr. Stuart McLean United Group Infrastructure
June 14, forty five members and guests attended three presentations.
STH. AUST.
1. Richard Flinders, Electro-Mechanical Manager, Westinghouse Rail Systems.
September 07, presentation to a joint meeting of the IRSE & RTSA at the Riviera Hotel.
"The Idiots Guide to Turnout Operation" - Richard provided an interesting overview of the various turnout configurations and explained some of the typical traps people fall into.
“The Australian Level Crossing Assessment Model”
2. Nick Thompson, Senior Signalling Adviser, DOI “ERTMS” – Nick provided short overview and status update on the development and implementation of ERTMS in Europe. 3. Robert Baird, Director, Rail Networks "Middleborough Road Project " - A large multidisciplinary project with a very tight time frame. Robert explained some of the challenges associated with sinking the railway within a 5 week period whilst still operating passenger services. August 23, at the DOI theatrette. Presentations on; • Overview of an In-Sleeper Point Machine
Mr. Graham Cook, Department Transport, Energy and infrastructure. Extracts from Committee Minutes 2006. • Recruitment drive, applications received prior to July 01, 2007, will have the second year of membership free of charge. • Byles & Calcutt Award increased to $1,500.00. • Semaphore Award, CQU final, best aggregate with a minimum of two credits, valued at $2,000.00. • Australasian Papers can be accessed by all Australasian Members at the CQU website.
By Mr. John Cilia Siemens Transportation Systems • Diagnostics for Axle Counter Systems By Mr. John Cilia Siemens Transportation Systems • Craigieburn Rail Project – A Different Way? By Mr. Mike Donald Senior Project Manager Westinghouse Rail Systems Australia October 11, at the DOI theatrette. Presentations on; • Spencer St to Southern Cross Updating the Signalling to Match the New Station
MEMBERSHIP The Australasian Section membership as of December 31, 2006 was 449. There has been an increase of membership by 36 this year, with 19 new applications and 17 ex UK members now employed in Australia. There are 7 applicants on the data base not approved or taken up membership. The Committee wishes to thank members for their support to the Australasian Section during the year they look forward to the continuing attendance at meetings and functions in the future. Geoff Willmott
182
Midland & North-Western Section The section had a full programme of 5 Technical Meetings, 1 Technical Visit and a combined Lunch & Technical Visit this session. The Technical Visit to the Talyllyn Railway on Saturday 3rd June was attended by some 19 members and friends of the Section who enjoyed one of the “Great Little Trains of Wales”. Our thanks go to our hosts Don Newing and Don Southgate who had also presented our 2006 AGM talk on Talyllyn Railway Signalling. The 3rd Annual Lunch and Technical Visit was held at the Great Central Railway on Saturday 15th July. Graham Bannister and his S&T team were our hosts for the day and enthusiastically shared much knowledge with the 80+ members, friends and guests who attended this event on the GCR double track main line preserved railway. At the GCR visit our outgoing Chairman, Ian Johnson, presented the Chairman’s Trophy to John Slinn of Park Signalling in recognition of his and Park Signalling’s ongoing expertise and contribution to the development of Railway Signalling products and systems. John Francis, the IRSE President, also attended the GCR visit & lunch and spoke words of encouragement and thanks to all who participated in IRSE events. John Francis also visited our section again in February ‘07 when he presented a version of his London paper “Back to Basics” at our Technical Meeting in Manchester. John was also joined at this meeting by the new IRSE Chief Executive, Colin Porter, both of whom took time to talk with members during refreshments. Our October techncal meeting at Derby was the “Taiwan High Speed Railway” presented by Clive Avery of Delta Rail. The November meeting at Birmingham was one of our best every attended meetings when Andrew Simmons of Network Rail presented “Systems Reliability – Axle Couters and Points”. The December meeting at Crewe was “The Network Rail Special Trains Business” by Stephen Cornish. The January meeting at Derby was “Upgrading the Underground” presented by Richard
Roberts of Westinghouse. Our thanks go to all the organisations who provided sponsorship for our meetings and also to those who provided articles on the events for IRSE News. My thanks go to the Committee and the Officers who have given their time and effort to organise the Technical Meetings and Visits Programme. I wish the Section & membership well for the next session and the future and thank you for the privilege of serving you as Chairman. IRSE Midland and North Western Section – 2006/7 Committee officers: Chairman Vice Chairman Visits Secretary Hon. Treasurer Hon. Secretary
Tony Knowles Buddhadev Dutta Chowdhury Buddhadev Dutta Chowdhury Clive Williams Bill Redfern
Professional Development Representative Younger Members Representative
Buddhadev Dutta Chowdhury Matthew Lupton
Members of the Committee: Ian Allison Bob Barnard Ian Bridges Paul DuGuay Buddhadev Dutta Chowdhury Peter Halliwell Ian Johnson Tony Knowles Matthew Lupton Ian H Mitchell Melvyn Nash Bill Redfern Andy Stringer David Stratton Clive Williams Tony Knowles Chairman 2006/7
183
North American Section
Booth Louisville
The North American Section held its 2007 Annual General Meeting on Thursday, 24 May in the Walter/Bannerman room at the Hyatt Regency in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. In all, 20 people were in attendance. The IRSE is an international organization, based in London, of professionals in the railroad communication and signal field. The organization was chartered in 1912, and presently has over 4,000 members worldwide. The goals of the Institution are, first: “The advancement of the science and practice of signalling by the promotion of research, the collection and publication of educational material and the holding of conferences, seminars and meetings”, and second: “The maintenance of high standards of practice and professional care amongst those working within the industry”. The IRSE sponsors technical papers, published in advance of their presentation. Each year the papers are gathered in the Annual Proceedings along with a summary of the discussions. The IRSE publishes a monthly magazine for members, the IRSE News, with technical articles and information on the Institution. There are annual meetings, major technical conferences, and technical visits. The IRSE has also published several textbooks and reports on various aspect of railroad signaling and communications. The North American Section (NAS) was formed on May 23, 2002 to support the goals of the Institution in North America. The NAS presently has about 35 members, and is hoping that more railroad communication and signal professionals will join. NAS members must be members of the IRSE; the NAS Local Committee can help prospective IRSE members with their applications. The formal portrait of the 2007 IRSE Annual General Meeting
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm, and the meeting minutes of the May, 25, 2006 Annual General Meeting were approved. In addition, congratulations were given to Bill Scheerer for his appointment as Country Vice President representing the North American Section in matters with the IRSE home office in London. The NAS has been working on a text book on North American Signal practice. Ken Bisset provided a status report on the task. The textbook will be written for new signal designers and be based on the format found in the UK IRSE text “Introduction to Signaling”. Twelve chapters have been reviewed, with the following approaching the review point: Cab Signals – In preparation Defect Detectors – In preparation
184
NORTH AMERICAN SECTION
The schedule is slipping, but Book committee chairman Kendrick Bisset is confident that final progress can be made in the coming year. Next was a presentation by David Thurston on the IEEE Guideline for Stopping Distance. David is the chair of the IEEE Working Group 25, which is attempting to standardize the terminology and specification of train stopping distance in preparation for block layout and control line design. The document is currently in final review within the IEEE Rail Transit Vehicle Interface Standards Committee and should be published in 2008. IRSE Chief Executive Colin Porter then provided a message from London, and gave IRSE President Wim Coenraad's regrets for not being able to attend due to the conflict with ongoing IRES activities. Colin proceeded to present a very informative slide show on IRSE philosophy, practice, organization and current initiatives. In addition, Colin answered many questions from those present concerning IRSE activities and licensing schemes in the UK. The ballots were then tallied for officers and members of the local committee positions that were due this year. . The results are listed below: Chairman: Kendrick Bisset System Engineer, Safetran Systems Corporation Vice Chairman: David Thurston, Vice President, SYSTRA Consulting Local Committee members: Bill Scheerer, Chief Engineer, General Electric Transportation Systems – Global Signaling Joseph Noffsinger, Market Development Leader, General Electric Transportation Systems – Global Signaling At the conclusion of the meeting, special Thanks was extended to the following:
Vic Babin for his work on our representation at the RSSI show. Colin Porter, IRSE Chief Executive, for his support and presentation. A special presentation was made for Bob Nash of CP Rail. It was noted that Bob’s support of the NAS for this years meeting included Booth Material at the RSSI Show, and arranging for the Field Tour of the CP Rail facilities in Calgary for NAS members. The AGM would not have been possible, or a success without Bob’s help. Another important mention for this year’s AGM is the Railway Systems Suppliers Incorporated (RSSI). The NAS AGM is held in conjunction with the annual RSSI product show, and the RSSI provides the NAS with booth space within the show to promote the membership, as well as providing meeting space for the AGM itself. The NAS expresses its extreme gratitude to the RSSI for their continued support. It was also noted that two members will be changing their affiliation within the industry; Bill Petit will be retiring from Safetran Systems this fall. Bill has served on the NAS Local Committee since its inception. He has been involved in numerous standards adoptions, and has provided the industry with invaluable knowledge. Mr. Bill Scheerer will also be retiring in the near future. However, Mr. Scheerer will be merely reducing his hours and remain as Chief Signal Engineer at GE Global Signaling. For those that are not aware, Bill was the driving force behind the creation of the NAS, and we will be forever in his debt. A technical Visit was made to the CP Rail Network Control Centre the following morning. Ten members took advantage of the gracious hospitality of CP Rail and posed for this photograph outside the CP Rail Headquarters building in Calgary.
Morants Curve
Plymouth Section During the session 2006-7 no events took place due to local staff movement as a result of the Bombardier
reorganisation. It is proposed to recommence section activities in 2007-8.
185
Scottish Section Our 2006-7 sessions started in October with a lecture on “Trent Valley Four Tracking” from John Adair and Ian Hay of Scott Wilson Railways. The presentation detailed the upgrade of the Trent Valley line from double to four track, and included an explanation of the Virtual Reality technique for signal sighting. (Attendance: Members 15, Guests 7) In November we were pleased to welcome members of the institution and guests from all parts of the British Isles (and beyond) to the Annual Dinner. Our speaker was Andrew McNaughton: Chief Engineer of Network Rail and his subject was “The 2030 Railway”. Andrew gave an excellent presentation detailing the changes required to meet people’s expectations of rail travel in the future, and included an insight into several new developments. It was encouraging that there was a significant increase in guests actually attending the lecture as opposed to just the dinner (previously 27 members and 25 guests.) Scottish Track Renewals sponsored this lecture.
Company
kindly
(Attendance: Members 47, Guests 35 ) The dinner that followed this lecture provided ample opportunity to continue related discussions informally, while catching up with colleagues from across the industry in a most relaxed atmosphere. The Marriott Hotel again proved it’s capability to look after us well. In January we had a lecture on “Signalling Power Supplies & Earthing” from Graham Brindle of Amey. Graham compared the various systems that are currently being used or proposed and describe how an earthing system that complies both with Network Rail standards and the Electricity at Work Regulations can be achieved in a practical and economical manner. Again there was a significant increase in the number attending the lecture (previously 7 members and 3 guests.) (Attendance: Members 21, Guests 10) In February Alan Ross of Network Rail presented a lecture on “Life Extension of the RETB Radio Bearer Network.” Alan provided an overview of the approach being taken by Network Rail to extend the functional life of the radio network and associated telecomms infrastructure essential to RETB Operations. Alan also covered the history of RETB Operations, the National Life Extension Strategy and Radio Base Station Development. As always it was pleasing to have such strong support from railway telecomms engineering colleagues at this lecture. (Attendance: Members 19, Guests 11) In March the section arranged a successful visit to Edinburgh Signalling Centre. Attendees were given the opportunity to see the new IECC installation and to use the simulator. In addition an overview of the on-going project was given by Stephen Brown of
Network Rail MP&I. This provided details of the remodelling of the west end of the station and the provision of new platforms at Edinburgh Waverley & Haymarket. The success of the visit was reflected by a good attendance. (Attendance: Members 18, Guests 6) Our session ended with the joint AGM and Quiz Night. This was held locally in licensed premises. Scottish Section Committee 2006 / 07: Chairman: Vice Chairman: Secretary: Treasurer:
Tom Gallacher Alistair McWhirter Ian Hill Brian McKendrick Alan King Peter Allan Peter Rowell Simon Lowe Paul Smith
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT – SESSION 2006/07 Section Meetings In line with our established format, there were 5 presentations over the session, one of which took the form of a technical visit. We have been particularly pleased by the increased levels of attendance at each of the meetings, but always appreciate feedback and suggestions for future subjects. My thanks go the speakers for giving their time and invaluable knowledge towards a topical and most enjoyable programme for the benefit of the Scottish Section. With the exception of the talk preceding the annual dinner and the site visit, all meetings were held in the Caledonian University. Sponsorship The section enjoyed support and sponsorship for only one of its activities, principally STRC for the annual dinner. Ongoing support for the normal technical meetings is sought and members are encouraged to seek employers’ contributions to support our activities in Scotland. It is noted that the funding of our meeting venue at the University continues to reduce our year-end bank balance to the extent that it is highly likely we will be seeking some financial support from IRSE HQ for the coming 2007/08 session. IRSE London HQ has agreed to sponsor our membership of the SCOTETA steering group for next year in the form of a £500 grant. Social Activities The Annual Dinner continues to be a very popular event on the social calendar, and the preceding lecture by Andrew McNaughton (Network Rail Chief Engineer) on “The 2030 Railway” also had an increased attendance. The occasion is now regarded as the largest annual rail event in Scotland, and once again the Marriott Hotel, Glasgow was the venue for the 2006 event. The President John Francis was able to join us for that occasion. Special thanks are due to the Scottish Track Renewals Company who generously sponsored the event. The
SCOTTISH SECTION
186
2007 Annual Dinner has been booked at the Marriott Hotel again for Thursday 8th November 2007. Running of the Section The Scottish Section continued to run on the previous year’s format with the practice of the committee, elected by the membership, allocating specific duties amongst themselves and the roles of Chairman & Vice Chairman worked on a rotational basis. This format has proved very successful and the year has brought home the value of the individual roles and Vice Chairman, particularly as much of the Committee activity in one session involves organising the programme for the next session. I therefore propose that the 2007/08 Section committee should continue to allocate this role which should include responsibility for overseeing the co-ordination of the following year’s activities. Advance Publicity of Section Meeting The wide use of the e-mailed publicity poster with a synopsis has proved very successful with an increase in attendance numbers, especially in the January meeting which usually has a low attendance. This year’s programme had no joint lectures; this was due to conflict with other professional bodies programme.
successful this session when the section visited Edinburgh Signalling Centre working in conjunction with the new IECC. The committee endeavoured to embrace section member’s ideas on future lectures, and would be grateful for any future lectures ideas. Acknowledgements I have been very appreciative of the support of the all committee for their hard work and time for the planning and the efficient running of this session’s program. The individual roles of the committee run very smoothly and the strength of the commitment and dedication was very high to achieve another successful year. I have enjoyed my year as chairman due to the efforts of the committee and ordinary member’s enthusiasm for a successful session programme. I wish to acknowledge the support of Ian Hill Scottish Section Secretary for organising the technical visit to Edinburgh Signalling Centre and annual quiz, and also Peter Allan for organising the annual dinner. Finally, I would like to thank all of the committee, ordinary members, and employers who have supported IRSE Scottish Section over the past year. Tom W Gallacher Chairman, IRSE Scottish Section 19th April 2007
The 07/08 programme will continue to have the same structure of main topics; Projects, Maintenance, & Telecommunications themes. This will include a technical site visit which proved very
Singaporean Section TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS Four technical presentations were given during 2006/7 session, the first in May from Dr Daniel Woodland of LUL on London Underground Signalling Renewals. The second, in July from Tan Yih Long of the Land Transport Authority on Singapore North East Line – High Capacity, Fully Automated Transit System Return of Experience and the third, in January from Tom Godfrey on Resignalling London’s Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly Lines. The fourth presentation in April from John Francis was in two parts. Part one was John’s IRSE Presidential Address entitled Time Zero, updated to include some of John’s experiences as President. In the second part he gave a paper entitled Train Separation, Block Working and Route Holding. All four presentations organised by the IRSE Singaporean Section were very well attended. Our thanks go to SMRT for use of their Auditorium at North Bridge Road and to the LTA for use of their facilities at Hampshire Road. During the next year, the section will be looking to maintain the number and quality of technical presentations.
SINGAPOREAN SECTION AGM For our first AGM, it was decided to have a combined Technical Presentation and Site Visit. Two
papers were arranged to follow the formal AGM business. The first was kindly presented by Mr Franco Fabian, Chairman of the IRSE Hong Kong Section. The Hong Kong section has just celebrated its tenth anniversary, Franco’s paper detailed the progress the section has made over those ten years and highlighted some of the problems faced during the early years. Tom Khella from the Land Transport Authority presented the second paper; an update of progress on the construction of the Circle Line, this paper also gave an introduction to the Site Visit to Kim Chaun Depot the following day. The visit to Kim Chaun Depot was conducted on the following morning; three groups were expertly escorted around the depot. The visitors were taken in turn to the Operations Control Centre, a new 3 car EMU and around the trackside installation. The size and complexity of the Circle Line construction was seen first hand by all who attended. The Committee would like to thank all those who helped with the organisation of the AGM and Site Visit, especially to all those who gave their time and effort to conduct the tours of Kim Chaun Depot. IRSE Singaporean www.irse.org.sg
Section
Web
Site
-
The Singaporean Section web site was launched
187
SINGAPOREAN SECTION
IRSE President, John Francis with members of the Singaporean Section and Mr Leong Kwok Weng, Chief Engineer LTA.
during the year. Thanks to David Quastel for the huge amount of time and effort invested in the site. The section aims to keep the web site updated with useful information for section members. All contributions welcomed, David is always on the lookout for new content to add to the site.
COMMITTEE Chairman Vice-Chairman Secretary Treasure Committee Members
IRSE EXAM STUDY GROUP In early 2006 a study group was set up for a small group interested in preparing for the IRSE exams. Other potential candidates are encouraged to make use of this resource provided by the section. This study group will continue for those interested in taking the exam.
(Photo Lim CK)
Ian Tomlins Russell Shield Martin White David Quastel Mark Appleyard Norm Grady Tom Khella Toh Kim Toon
Ian Tomlins Chairman, Singaporean Section
Southern African Section The year 2006 saw the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the formation of the Section. It was inaugurated during July 1981 as the South African Section by the then President, Mr. Leslie Lawrence accompanied by his wife Jackie. At that time, there were 22 members in the country, but after formation this quickly increased to over 120 members. This was maintained for a number of years, but after the decline in railway expenditure from around 1990 onwards, this number has gradually decreased to the present levels. During the Presidentship of Robin Nelson, the Section was expanded to become the Southern African Section, which was inaugurated in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe in 1993, from which we attracted a small number of members from neighbouring countries. The following, year we held our first over-border Technical visit to Gaberone in Botswana.
Current membership figures at the end of the 2006 Session were as follows: Companions 1 Honorary Fellows 3 Fellows 6 Member 31 Associate Members 2 Accredited Technicians 5 Total 48 The General Committee for the 2006 Session consisted of: Chairman Vice-Chairman General Secretary Treasurer Membership Stage Manager Papers and IT Visits
Bob Woodhead Harry Ostrofsky Vic Bowles Johan van de Pol Ryan Gould Derek Marais Philip Meyer Rod Kohler
188
SOUTHERN AFRICAN SECTION
The committee was charged with the additional tasks of organizing the events for the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary functions, which were greatly successful, particularly due to the efforts of our Stage Manager, Derek Marais.
to ensure practical safety of its operations. This presentation was aimed at giving an insight into the way Metrorail has approached this challenge and also laying another cornerstone towards striving for a World Class Customer experience.
All our Technical Meetings were held at the Wits Club, a venue which offered all the facilities we wished to have, including snacks and a bar. This club is easily accessible and is proving popular with our members.
25TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATIONS
FIRST TECHNICAL MEETING The 2006 Session opened with a Technical Paper presented by the President, Mr Jacques Poré who was making a further welcome visit to this country. His paper was entitled “Innovative Ideas for Single Line Operation”. Existing command and control systems adapted for medium-traffic density lines remain too expensive to allow their use on so called Low Density Lines. Even the new ERTMS/ETCS (European Rail Traffic Management System/ European Train Control System) are not really optimised for such applications. As a consequence, many such lines all over the world are still equipped with outdated or human-assisted safety systems. In this context, there is clearly a need for an innovative and cost-effective system for these Low Density Lines. The paper presented the LOCOPROL project and its abilities to provide innovative and efficient, low cost solutions for single / low density traffic lines, including an approach for the case of South Africa. SECOND TECHNICAL MEETING
The Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Celebrations of the Southern African Section consisted of events covering four days. These started with the Fourth Technical Meeting held on Thursday 27th July at which the President of the Institution, John Francis presented a shortened version of his Presidential Address entitled Time Zero. Mr. Francis discussed the effects of time on our industry, particularly the time in the history of the Institution and the role of time in interlockings and the control of railway traffic. He then indicated his perception of the involvement of time in the future of our industry. The Annual Dinner was held on the following day with a total of 72 members and guests attending. We tried a new venue this year, the Randpark Club, which proved to be excellent. We were delighted to welcome among our guests, the President of the Institution, John Francis and his wife Rachel, together with the recently appointed Chief Executive Officer of the Institution, Colin Porter and his wife Claire. We were also very pleased to have a PastPresident, Clive Kessell and his wife Penny with us for our anniversary. Both John and Colin presented their congratulations to the section and gave their views on te development of the section as seen from the UK. John took the opportunity to present the
This meeting took place on Thursday 16th March and was held jointly with the South African Institute of Electrical Engineers on a subject common to both disciplines. The paper was entitled “Railway Signalling and Electrical Power Supplies” and was presented by Mr. L. Borchard (SAIEE) and Dr. B. M. Steyn (IRSE). Railway signalling systems are dependant on its electrical power supply system and the interfaces to it. The safe and efficient operation of the signalling system is not only dependant on the availability of the electrical power supply, but also depends on the quality of supply and the characteristics of the various interfaces. This paper discussed some of the interfaces, their characteristics, the uniqueness of the specifications and the configurations employed to ensure compatibility. This was the first joint meeting with the SAIEE and was considered a great success. It was proposed that further joint meetings should be held. THIRD TECHNICAL MEETING “Safety Management System for Metrorail” was the subject of out Third Technical Meeting held on Thursday 11th May and was presented by Mr. Louis Beukes of Metrorail Cape Town. With the promulgation of Act 16 of 2002 all Railway Operators are required to apply for operators permits issued by the Rail Safety Regulator (RSR). The applicant has to demonstrate to the RSR that the organisation has a Safety Management System in place that ensures compliance with the Regulations of the Act and also
The president had the pleasure of investing the Chairman of the Southern African section, long standing member Bob Woodhead, with the 25th Anniversary Medallion. this took place at a celebration dinner held at the Randpark Club in Johannesburg (CH Porter)
189
SOUTHERN AFRICAN SECTION
Chairman, Bob Woodhead, with the new redribboned medallion, awarded to Chairmen of Local Sections, and to be worn by the current Chairman at all official IRSE functions. Our guest speaker at the dinner was Viv Crone, President of the South African Institute of Electrical Engineers, accompanied by his wife Amedia. His gave us an excellent exposé on the subject of the skills shortage in the general engineering industry in this country, and referred the problems affecting our own segment of the railway industry, a matter of current concern to us all. The Technical Visit was arranged, thanks again to the efforts of Charles Erasmus, his Metrorail team and Chief Signal Engineer of Metrorail, Sorin Baltac, as a trip on the Metrorail “Thuthukani” driver training train. The trip, held on Saturday the 28th July, started at Johannesburg station, and included visits to the signalling installations at Eloff, Delmas, Argent and Ogies . We were accompanied by the President of the Institution, John Francis and his wife, Rachel; also by two Past Presidents and their wives, Clive and Penny Kessell together with Colin and Claire Porter. The celebrations culminated on the Sunday with a Steam trip around the Northern areas of Pretoria, Some thirty members and their guests were treated to the nostalgic sounds of railways as they used to be and is always a popular event with our members and also with our visiting guests from the UK. FIFTH TECHNICAL MEETING “SPAD Alarm Development” presented by Mr Piet van den Bergh from Spoornet was the subject of our fifth Technical Meeting, held on Thursday 24th August. The CTC, Central Traffic Control, makes use of Desk and Diagram to control one or more stations. For any additional function, dedicated applications such as Train numbers, Train Time Printing and Automatic Train Routing, separate application needs to be added. This lends itself to the need for a single application to fulfil all this requirements and more. The CS90 system with the VDU based train control provides all the basic functions of the desk and diagram but also adds a dual line remote control, train number system, automatic routing, SPAD detection, speed monitoring, authorisation register, real time dashboards and event recording. By altering the user log-on, the system provides operating and maintenance tools such as event player, interlocking and train simulation and faultfinding tools. All of this can be locally viewed on multiple screens or remotely viewed via the Ethernet. This paper explored the functionality of this system as implemented on various CTC’s in South Africa and highlighted the SPAD implementation as an early warning system to the Train Control Officer to prevent damage or derailments. SIXTH TECHNICAL MEETING Dr Wiehan le Roux of Spoornet presented his paper with the lengthy title of “Simulation Studies and
Experimental Measurements of 50 Hz Locomotive Impedance and DC Substation Interference Sources”. The requirements specified in the locomotive acquisition specifications for the compatibility with the 50 Hz train detection systems usually result in severe design restrictions in the electric power vehicles. They require bulky inductors and capacitors in the input filters of power electronic converters with associated weight and space problems. Usually the impedance of the locomotive is specified which implies a worst case 50 Hz substation supply voltage. The conditions necessary for this voltage to be present and simulation results obtained with the study were presented. Simulation is also performed on proposed measurement setups to be employed during practical measurement of locomotive impedance. Actual measurements were shown. SEVENTH TECHNICAL MEETING Our Seventh Technical Meeting was held on Tuesday 26th October at which the paper was presented by Pierre Meunier of Interlocking Solutions Manager at Alstom. It was entitled “A path towards standard Computer Based Interlocking interfaces The ALSTOM experience” which is summarised as follows. Interfaces have always been known to be an area of technical risks and cost when designing and implementing an interlocking system. Interfaces include interfaces with the trackside objects, but also communications with adjacent interlockings, control centres or speed control systems. The products to be connected can be from the same manufacturer or not. Up to now, most of the solutions are based on parallel interfaces requiring a lot of I/O, cabling and often vital relays or proprietary digital interfaces and protocols. This paper described a technical solution totally based on industry standards that allows to exchange vital signalling information over closed or open networks between computer based signalling equipment.This technology has already been successfully implemented by ALSTOM and other major signalling suppliers. Various application projects using this standard were presented.
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING Our Annual General Meeting at the end of the 2006 Session was held at the same time as our Seventh Technical Meeting. This saw the retirement from the General Committee of both the chairman Bob Woodhead and the Secretary Vic Bowles Otherwise the committee was unchanged but with the addition of elected members Ben van der Merwe and Anita Padayachee. We wish the new committee for the 2007 Session success in their endeavours to carry on the good work undertaken by the outgoing committee. R.B.Woodhead Chairman 2006
190
Western Section The fifty-first session of the Western Section consisted of a full programme of technical papers, all of which were well attended by a cross-section of colleagues from across our area, and beyond. The papers covered a wide range of topics from Point Machines and Backdrives, through ETCS and a snapshot of Network Rail Signalling, to a review of the signalling on the West Somerset Railway. As in previous years, the technical papers have been of great quality and interest, and all have been followed by lively question and answer sessions which have shown how thought-provoking the content has been. As in previous years the members of the Western Section Committee would like to thank Network Rail, Amey IS, Westinghouse Rail Systems and Hyder Consulting for their continuing support, both in terms of allowing us to use their facilities, and in providing refreshments. We would also like to thank our speakers for the hard work they put into putting their papers together, and to giving so freely of their time.
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE Chairman
Ed Gerrard
Vice Chairman and Hon Treasurer Hon Secretary Members
Andy Scarisbrick Mark Glover Peter Duggan Peter Martell Chris Napper Malcolm Peters
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING The section’s AGM was held immediately before the first Technical Paper of the 2006/7 session. The Treasurer, Andy Scarisbrick, reported that the section’s finances are in a healthy state, due largely to the kind support of the sponsoring companies and in particular due to the vast majority of speakers funding their own expenses. The outgoing Chairman, Chris Napper, explained that Doug Gillanders has moved to York in connection with his work, and is therefore unable to continue with his role of Hon Sec. However the gratitude of the section was expressed to Doug for his unstinting commitment to the role over an extended period of time. Mark Glover will take over as Honorary Secretary. Ed Gerrard was elected as this year’s Chairman.
OCTOBER TECHNICAL MEETING Topic:
SURELOCK Point Machines
Presenter:
Colin Burton, Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd
Venue:
Network Rail, Swindon
Attendance:
18 Members, 2 Visitors
Colin started his paper by explaining the background to the Style 63 Point Machine which SURELOCK is intended to replace in the fullness of
time. Colin explained that the Style 63 was developed in a period of six weeks by a team of six draughtsmen – engineers, working for the late Ossie Nock (former Chief Mechanical Engineer of Westinghouse and President of the IRSE). SURELOCK has been developed to build upon the strengths of the Style 63 Point Machine, and yet to improve on the (few) niggles that have been identified over the 40 plus years that it has been in service. In particular the design Mean Time Between Failure has been increased from the 13 months of the Style 63 and HW machines to some 30 months, and Mean Time to Repair has been reduced to 15 minutes. SURELOCK is modular in design, sealed to IP67, floodproof and connected to the permanent way using sealed spherical bearings. Separate lock and switch detection allows for enhanced operation and maintenance. A clear and detailed presentation was used to demonstrate how SURELOCK is made up of a main casting unit, and four separate, replaceable modules, each of which may be removed by one technician, using a single spanner. Drawings of the Motor, Drive Module, Escapement Module and Control Unit were used to explain the major advances made in the design of SURELOCK. Other key features which Colin brought out during the presentation included the use of Plug Couplers, the provided Crank Handle and the provision for Condition Monitoring as an option. Colin brought the presentation to a close by stressing that SURELOCK is a complete points drive system, not simply a point machine, and explained the advances made in terms of Linear Backdrive and Redundant operation. Both of these are patented, the LBD allowing longer points to be driven by a single SURELOCK machine, and the redundant operation allowing a number of machines to be connected together for use in critical areas. Loss of one machine will not prevent the points being operated.
NOVEMBER TECHNICAL MEETING Topic:
Network Rail Signalling Snapshot
Presenter:
Chris Binns, Network Rail
Venue:
Westinghouse Chippenham
Attendance:
28 Members, 11 Visitors
Rail
Systems,
Chris outlined the background of the increasing age of signalling equipment and previous run-away expenditure which had led to a freeze in the carrying out of signalling work. Design phases have now been brought in-house, and five types of Framework have been put into place to allow projects to move forward more rapidly than before, but in a controlled manner. The GRIP process was mapped to CENELEC EN50126, and the way in which at each stage of the process working with Stakeholders was
WESTERN SECTION
emphasised. Network Rail is ensuring that GRIP stages 1 to 4 aren’t rushed, and is also intending to move some of the activities that are currently included in GRIP5 back into GRIP4. Chris explained that whilst in-sourcing allows standardisation of design methods, there is still a considerable amount of “Preferential Engineering” with regional differences between design offices. In order to reduce this issue, some £3m per year is now being spent on design office tools to support standardised design procedures. Network Rail now has 215 staff working on GRIP Stages 1 to 4 in eight Design Offices, with a target of 280 by the end of March 2008. Chris talked through some examples of remodelling including Severn Tunnel Junction / Newport, Clacton and Faversham. He cited examples of improved layouts, merging track renewals with signalling renewals and negotiation with Train Operating Companies to ensure that what is delivered is acceptable to all parties. In terms of Tools and Methods, Chris explained the intention of capturing data once but using it many times. This requires the automation of data exchange between tools that help modelling of options and simulations – this also allows the integration of toolsets and the reduction of trackside activities. Much use is being made of Virtual Reality Modelling which can allow for office risk-based signal sighting, arrangement of Level Crossings and so on. Work is going into Automatic Mapping produced from data collected by the Measurement Train. Whilst this cannot pick up items such as Train Ready to Start Plungers and other local equipment, it does allow for much of the scheme plan information to be gathered automatically. The summary was that (1) Signalling Renewals are happening again, and the market is buoyant. (2) Railways are in “an up-cycle” with increased ridership driving a demand for more flexible signalling and layouts and (3) Efficiencies in Signalling Design are starting to be delivered, with plenty more on the way.
DECEMBER TECHNICAL MEETING Topic:
West Somerset Railway
Presenter:
John Jenkins, West Somerset Railway
Venue:
Amey IS, Bristol
Attendance:
18 Members, 7 Visitors
John used both a Powerpoint presentation and a number of 35mm slides to show both the history of the West Somerset Railway and the manner in which it has been signalled through successive generations. The West Somerset Railway (WSR) is at present the longest standard gauge heritage line in the UK, running from Norton Fitzwarren (near Taunton) to Minehead, over some severe grades. The railway is currently signalled to GWR / BR Western Region principles, and has been used for a number of revenue-earning freight workings in recent years
191
associated with civil works carried out by the local authorities. The railway is constructed to allow operation of 12-coach trains, and has been used for the running of the Royal Train in 2002. The Heritage Railway Association named the WSR as “HRA Railway of the Year” in 2006. The railway is one of the most significant tourist attractions in the region, and generates around £2.5M pa for local businesses. The railway originally opened as far as Watchet in 1862 following a Board of Trade inspection, and was extended through to Minehead in 1874. Most of the line remained independently owned until grouping, but was operated by the Bristol and Exeter Railway from inception until that time. Whilst very much a branch line it was always signalled as a secondary line, and through trains operated from London to Minehead throughout the WSR’s life as part of the railway network. Freight was an important source of income for the line until a Seamen’s Strike lead to sea-borne traffic falling off in the 1960s. Saturday only trains continued from Minehead to Oxford and London until shortly before closure in 1971, feeding the Butlins complex at Minehead. Closure came following Beeching’s review in the 1960s, with the line ultimately closing in 1971. However infrastructure remained in tact following closure with very little equipment being removed to support signalling schemes elsewhere. The movement to save the line started shortly after closure, with the intention to use the line for commuter traffic in addition to steam workings, to augment ridership. There were a number of political issues during the sale of the line, but legalities were complete by 1975. The line reopened in part in 1976, and completely in 1979. The timing was such that it was no longer possible to buy steam traction “out of service”, but this was overcome in a number of ways. Traffic built up well to start with, then tailed off in the 1980s, but is now strong and the railway is successful. The line was originally operated using simple ticket and staff type working, and then a number of boxes and other signalling equipment were added as the platforms on the line were extended – the earliest of these upgrades being in the 1870s. Electric staff operation was replaced by electric token (of the type eventually produced by Tyers). In the 1930s the signalling was further upgraded with a number of new frames and boxes introduced, but by the 1960s various track simplifications lead to removal of signalling capability. In order to reopen the line as originally envisaged to support commuter traffic, the aim was to minimise manning and maximise availability, as a result of which crossings were converted to AOCL or Miniature Stop Light types. Boxes were added back in – and a point motor (secondhand) was added in at Blue Anchor. Bishops Lydeard box was commissioned in 1998. Electronic Token working was commissioned in 2006. Future aspirations are to increase incoming traffic,
192
WESTERN SECTION
develop facilities at Minehead (including the addition of a turntable) and the construction of a triangle at Norton Fitzwarren – allowing trains to be turned at both ends of the line. A major issue for the railway remains the recruitment and retention of staff and volunteers.
JANUARY TECHNICAL MEETING Topic:
Earthing and Bonding of Signalling Power Systems and Equipment
Presenter:
Graeme Brindle, Amey IS
Venue:
Hyder Consulting, Bristol
Attendance:
28 Members, 31 Visitors
Graeme introduced his paper by explaining that this was going to be a tutorial, not a friendly chat, and that members would be expected to learn something! The paper used a Powerpoint presentation to illustrate the principles described, which started with a series of definitions on what is meant by “Earth”, “Bonding” and “Earthed”. The reasons that systems and equipment are earthed were identified as being to protect people, to protect property and livestock, to protect equipment and systems, and to ensure correct system functionality – and of course because it is law. The presentation talked through what the legal requirements for earthing and bonding are, and how Network Rail group standards are implemented. A detailed analysis of Touch Voltage was presented to the members, using circuit analysis to show how local earth resistance must be reduced to reduce Touch Voltage – and how multiple earthing needs to be used to achieve this. Graeme finally went through a series of difficult situations that exist on the UK railways in relation to earthing and bonding, specifically related to the use of Traction Earth, and Electromagnetic Compatibility issues that arise from stray traction currents. The paper concluded that: • We have to earth unless everything is of “Class II” construction. • Multiple earthing and simple protective devices are the preferred solution. • Keep fuse sizes small. • Higher voltages can be a benefit. After the presentation a number of questions were asked dealing with topics such as: • Coping with dual ac / dc electrification systems. • Applying the regulations when new equipment is added to existing. • Linking of traction and signalling Earths. • EMC problems. • Application of the various group standards.
FEBRUARY TECHNICAL (JOINT WITH IET)
MEETING
Topic:
ERTMS Progress
Presenter:
Richard Bloomfield, Network Rail
Venue:
Westinghouse
Rail
Systems,
Chippenham Attendance:
23 Members, 17 Visitors
Richard’s paper covered the full range of ERTMS activities and background. Major points included: At the heart of ERTMS are three systems, ETCS (the train control system), EIRENE (the train radio system) and ETML (European Traffic Management Layer). The rest of the paper focussed on ETCS which has five levels (0 to 3 plus STM – Specific Transmission Module), and sixteen modes of operation. Mandatory specifications are embedded in the Technical Specifications of Interoperability (TSI) with a Functional Requirement Specification and System Requirement Specification, currently baselined at SRS 2.3.0. This is tested, approved and ready for application, but the next version, SRS 3.0.0 is being agreed in late 2007 with products available in 2011. A series of slides showed kit that is currently being prototyped or used by the six UNISIG suppliers. The key to ERTMS is the business case, reduced lifecycle costs, reduced maintenance and increased number of train paths. The first UK application will be on the Cambrian Line where Ansaldo kit will be applied by a consortium including the RSSB, ATOC, Arriva and others. This will be a test bed, partially isolated from the mainline, therefore disruption in the event of problems will be minimised.
MARCH TECHNICAL MEETING (JOINT WITH PWI) Topic:
Points Backdrive Update
Presenter:
Derek Smitheman, Amey IS
Venue:
Kings Hotel, Newport
Attendance:
13 Members, 8 Visitors
With this meeting taking place shortly after the unfortunate derailment at Grayrigg on the UK’s West Coast Mainline, Derek began by saying that there would be positively no mention of stretcher bars – in fact he broke this rule just once, in passing. He went on to say that the talk would be a look at the causes of points failures where back drives were involved, and then presented a series of slides illustrating his comments. Track gauge tolerance should be between 1430 and 1438 mm. He showed the effect of wheel wear on switch opening, and the distortions caused by the load on the rails – how measurements taken with no train present could be misleading. Dipped joints, axle hunting, rail twist and the resulting cyclic faults were mentioned. The differences between various rail sections were important. Modern layouts use RT60 and this has presented both losses and gains in point layout maintenance. Equally important are the effects of different types of rolling stock. It is important to measure the wheel forces as well as improve track geometry. Switch tip stagger, that is the relative linear movement of the switch tips as they move from left
193
WESTERN SECTION
to right, was mentioned. A major item in point operation and maintenance is lubrication. Grease has its uses but several disadvantages – reduction in effectiveness by both rain and sunlight, removal by the movement of the switches, contamination of surrounding areas. Derek referred to work on this topic in Germany. Another form of friction reduction can be provided by the use of Schwihag rollers. Point movement generally was discussed. There is inevitable distortion both vertically and horizontally when a rigid frame is repeatedly forced from a bent to a straight attitude, and it is difficult to get a natural lie of the steelwork in both left and right positions. Back drives can help, but in the end it is the train that pushes the rails into the required position. Detection can be lost as the train passes over, if not set up correctly. Derek presented some pictures of actual layouts. Aynho Junction was one where a high speed junction with RT60 rail had to be relaid; he was sorry that they had removed and cut up the rails before he had a chance to investigate them. Supplementary back drives can help to move the rails correctly and reduce failures. The importance of correct setting and adjustment of drive and backdrive components such as holes, adjuster sleeves, travel and crank bases was stressed, and this was illustrated by views of badly
distorted rods at a number of locations – some even bent into an S shape. Other failures such as broken crank bases and bent turnbuckles were also illustrated. Back drives located in the four-foot were not a good idea, though on layouts where third rail was present or points very close together they may be inevitable. Put back drives in the 6 foot wherever possible. 113A drive lugs were mentioned, and the one reference to stretcher bars concerned the need to use the correct type of nut when fitting them. A picture of the Stafford trials test layout was shown. This led on to mention of the current drawn when points are moved and the proportion due to main, and to back drive. Other topics included crank setting calculations and the effects on different types of channel rod. The effects of temperature differences on channel rod were discussed and Derek demonstrated that in point layouts they are rarely significant. He did go on to show some slides of distorted track layouts but said these are usually due to inadequate destressing. Derek completed his talk with reference to the various point components and their relationship, rail types and the “enemies” – vibration, weather, vehicle stresses. Test trains can check the state of pointwork.
York Section MEMBERSHIP The York Section membership stands at 322, which is a decrease in last year’s numbers. This represents 8.1% of the total IRSE membership compared with 8.6% last year.
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE The Committee consists of: Chairman Vice Chairman Treasurer Visits Secretary Recruitment Secretary Membership Secretary Secretary Committee
I.T. Moore A.S. Kornas A.P. Smith K. Yews R.H. Price A.P. Smith J. Maw D. Dyson R.A. Pinkstone K. Yews
TECHNICAL MEETINGS The first Technical meeting of this year’s session was Mark Irving’s paper “Practical Systems Engineering in Action” which was sponsored by Atkins Rail. Mark talked about his time with Interlogic/Bombardier. A particularly interesting period was his next career phase with Siemens where, amongst other things, he had to structure
British Interlocking Principles into a form that would be understood unambiguously by German designers! Other work with Siemens was a proposal for TPWS to be achieved through ETCS architecture including Eurobalises. A great deal of effort went into producing presentations for stakeholders based upon the material generated in the course of development. The proposal was not accepted but, if it had, it could have proved a significant steppingstone to full ETCS. 20 members and guests attended this meeting. The next meeting was “Maintenance of Tubelines” by Stewart Mills. Tubelines look after all the assets on the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly lines that is track, fleet, signalling and buildings. These three lines account for 50% of the passenger movements on the London Underground. Tubelines owns and operates its own Control Centre to manage faults and incidents as well as passing up to date information to Tubelines and London Underground. The Jubilee and Northern Upgrade Project aims to improve service performance from 24 to 31 trains per hour and improve journey time. One of their successes has been a better integration of the track and signalling workforce, which has led to better insulated joint maintenance and fewer failures. One signalling failure, for example, could cost in the region of £60k.
194
YORK SECTION
20 members and guests attended this meeting. The December meeting was changed at short notice due to the original speaker being unavailable. Bruce MacDougall of the Keighley & Worth Valley Railway very kindly stepped into the breech and presented his paper “Signalling Solutions for a Heritage Railway”. The Keighley and Worth Valley Railway’s signalling is installed and maintained entirely by volunteers. The railway has heeded the advice from the Railway Inspectorate in the early days that they should “keep it simple”. That is despite the challenge of having to be able to run an intensive service at some times whilst being able to operate a one train service with no signalling personnel at others. A modernisation plan was described whereby fully signalled working would be possible at Keighley although there was no target date for implementation. Other developments include the use of an LED unit in a Fixed Distant signal and the testing of the key token circuits to prove their integrity before switching in. During a lively discussion, arrangements for working to and from Network Rail (in cooperation with York IECC; the historic, listed Keighley Signal Box is no longer in use!) were explained. 23 members and guests attended this meeting. 70 members and guests attended the January meeting when Steve Bick of WRSL presented his paper “WESTLOCK”. The operation of WESTLOCK has been demonstrated on a Reference System, using data from 4 heavily loaded SSIs at Willesden; 431 routes and 199 TFMs being controlled from a single WESTLOCK. It was then necessary to demonstrate how WESTLOCK would function in real life and validate the Reference System. For this purpose, Leamington Spa was selected as a trial site. Leamington Spa has 3 SSIs; 1 for Leamington Spa itself (LSpa) and 2 provided under the Cherwell Valley project for Fenny Compton, all controlled from a WESTCAD VDU control centre. The results from the Operational Pilot (and subsequently, as the WESTLOCK had remained in use) - including no failures or train delays attributable to, and 100% availability of, WESTLOCK – had enabled Network Rail’s Infrastructure Review Panel and HMRI to consent to an expanded trial. Successful completion of the expanded trial is planned to lead to authority to make the Leamington Spa installation permanent and Generic Acceptance once 3 installations – expected to include Scunthorpe – have been completed successfully. This meeting was sponsored by WRSL. In February Andrew Coombes presented his paper “West Coast Main Line – From Revolution to Evolution” to 32 members and guests. The revolution was intended to be a Network Management Centre in the West Midlands to control the WCML from Euston to Manchester. The evolution of this plan began with staged signalling renewals beginning in December 2003 with the Hanslope to Rugby Resignalling up to the Wigan Junction remodelling in April .2006. During this period a number of key quantities were delivered including 636 point ends, 3799 signalling units installed, 4501km of signalling cable laid, 686 TASS
balises installed and 176 GSM-R transceiver stations installed. In terms of service delivery the journey time to Preston was reduced from 2h 25min to 2h 10min, to Manchester 2h 30min to 2h 05min, to Birmingham 1h 34min to 1h 21min and to Glasgow from 5h 06min to 4h 25min. several signal boxes were combined into Stoke SCC, namely Colwich, Norton Bridge, Madeley and Betley Road. In conclusion Andrew spoke of the challenges for the future, the route being fully restored and services growing, London – Manchester a 4 hour journey time by 2020 London to Glasgow, reduction in journey time, more Anglo – Scottish container traffic, migration to ERTMS and the next generation of control. Siemens Transportation Ltd sponsored this meeting. The March meeting saw 37 members and guests listen to a presentation by Steve Hailes on “Telecommunications – The Future’s I/P”. The application of I/P, or Internet Protocol, will mean changes to the way we work and changes to the technology of the equipment we use. The driver for the industry is cost as well as a bit of efficiency. The Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) means that each telephone is able to convert speech into IP format and communication is established over the IP network. One of the benefits is managing how people contact each other. At present the sender chooses with no prior knowledge of how successful they are likely to be. In the future the sender will log on and be able to indicate the easiest method of contacting them. BT is working towards converting all its applications to data streams with a proposed target date of 2009. The applications for Signal Engineering were outlined, like condition monitoring (points, axle counters), non-vital controls from Signal Box to interlocking, CCTV for level crossings and many more. However delay in an IP network could be as high as 50mS, which could pose problems, also security is an issue but if managed by Rail professionals the risk is reduced. The benefits to the Signal Engineer are reduced cost by using standard off the shelf products, resilience, by a reduction in the loss of data communications paths and of course it is inevitable so don’t ignore it! This meeting was kindly sponsored by Thales Telecommunication Services Ltd.
OUTDOOR VISITS NENE VALLEY RAILWAY The first visit of summer 2006 took the York section to the Nene Valley Railway. We were met at Peterborough station and transported to Wansford station via a London Transport Routemaster bus kindly provided by the Nene Valley Railway. The Nene Valley Railway runs over a seven and a half mile section of the London and Birmingham Railway, later to become the LNWR. The line opened in 1845 with a connection to the WCML with a connection to the GNR in 1867. The final section closed in 1972. The present line is all single track and runs from Yarwell Junction via Wansford station to Peterborough Nene Valley. All the signalling, except one set of electric points, is mechanical, based on main line practice. All the
195
YORK SECTION
signals are semaphore, most of arms being to BR or LMS design and the points are mechanical “S” locks except one being electric. The relays are mainly shelf type with the power derived from a 240/12 transformers with 12v battery back up. After arriving at Wansford we boarded a service train made up of a class 56 loco and coaching stock originating from Denmark. This took us to Peterborough Nene Valley Station. The Signal Box at Peterborough although not in commission originated from Welland Bridge, Spalding with the frame coming from Grassmore Junction, March, both Great Eastern Railway. We returned to Wansford where we were shown round Wansford SB. This is one of the largest preserved Signal Boxes in its original position. The Down starters and two subsidiary signals have GNR somersault arms. We were then shown around the engine shed, access from the main lines via a ground frame released by an Annett’s key on the Wansford – Yarwell staff. In the shed we saw various locomotives, some of which were in storage for their owners and for sale. There was an example of a Travelling Post Office which was undergoing restoration. We then boarded the last train to Peterborough for our homeward connections. HOWELLS We were joined on our visit to Howells by our President John Francis and started with a presentation on the history of the company. How it was started in 1947 and is still a family run business. We were shown an example of an Autocad drawing of an REB and with all the components to scale, you could be sure that all the equipment could fit and all material lists could be derived from this drawing. We split into 3 groups and started the tour. We observed route indicators being manufactured from sheet metal along with Impedance bonds being assembled. We were then shown Trainborne AWS equipment under refurbishment along with the area where signals are aligned to the required standards. We were than grateful to be shown into an airconditioned room where Howells will undertake Relay refurbishment, having just received Network Rail approval to undertake this task. An automatic winder for transformers was then shown, it was then pointed out that in the latest transformers manufactured by Howells they have reduced the inrush current by 60%. Westpac Interlocking renewals have been undertaken and we were shown a point set under test. After it had been given a 3C, as a double check an electronic device was programmed to the particular geographical set type. This was then attached to the relevant relay bases and a full continuity test was undertaken all wires and paths in 4 seconds. We were then shown an example of the latest LED technology. An example demonstrated how 7 LED’s produced the same amount of light as an SL35.
Development was under way to make changing LED’s on signals easier for maintenance staff. Next we were shown an example of work under progress that is trying to reduce phantom displays. A Route indicator was shown with a lamp shining on to the display side. No light was reflected from the indicator display. Lunch and transport to the station was then kindly provided by Howells. Keith Yews Visits Secretary
CHAIRMAN’S ANNUAL REPORT It has been my great privilege to be Chairman of the York Section of the IRSE for the last year; something I will always remember as a particular high point of my career. We have been able to arrange the normal full programme of Technical Meetings, achieving a balance between (in no particular order!) projects, maintenance, telecommunications, heritage, technology, systems engineering and metros. Attendances have averaged 33 with a maximum of 67 for Steve Bick’s paper on “WESTLOCK”. The March paper, Steve Haile’s “Telecommunications – the Future’s I/P” was the occasion of the pleasurable annual visit by the IRSE President – John Francis this year - his day job as Head of Research at Westinghouse enabled him to make a valuable contribution to the discussion! As sometimes happens, it was not possible to finalise arrangements for one of the papers and we were delighted to be able to obtain one on “Signalling Solutions for a Heritage Railway” presented by Bruce MacDougall of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway; the very short notice was not evident from the quality of the presentation. There was also a North Eastern Railway Engineers Forum symposium entitled “Under the Hills and Far Away” at which Charles Weightman presented a paper on behalf of the IRSE. The changes within the industry have led to increasing difficulties in obtaining sponsorship of meetings – so we appreciate the sponsorship we do get even more. This has been somewhat offset by the need to move our meetings to the Bar Convent while our normal venue at the National Railway Museum was refurbished. The Bar Convent have been anxious to please and have strived to give us very good service with refreshments included within a lower overall cost; I believe the only major disadvantage to have been a lack of free car parking. Refurbishment has led to an increase in the NRM’s charges and so we are negotiating to return to the Bar Convent again in 2007-8. Our Dinner Dance was attended by 163 people and was, I think, most successful. Our Guests of Honour were Wim Coenraad from the Netherlands the IRSE Senior Vice President - and his wife Conny. An enjoyable evening finished with dancing to the Longhawn Trio and this was very well supported. Our Visits Secretary arranged very successful visits to the Nene Valley Railway and Howells. In both cases, the hosts went to great lengths to provide an excellent programme and this was much appreciated.
196
YORK SECTION
Chairmen of local Sections are able to attend IRSE Council; Tony Kornas is a member of Council and Andrew Smith attends through his role on a Committee so there is a regular York presence in any event but I was able to enjoy the privilege of attending their March meeting. I would like to thank the Section Committee for their wisdom, support and hard work throughout the year. Particular thanks are due to John Maw for his very considerable work as Secretary, Rod Price for his work as Recruitment Secretary and his superb work in organising the Dinner Dance – achieved largely by prior preparation and further support from John this year due to his unpremeditated absence on the day, Andrew Smith for his work as Treasurer and in managing the membership database and emailing members and Keith Yews for his work as Visits Secretary and with the North Eastern Railway Engineer’s Forum. To conclude, I would like to welcome Tony Kornas as the new Chairman of the Section and wish him a pleasurable and rewarding year of office. Ian Moore Chairman
TREASURERS REPORT In the same manner I as have adopted for recent years, I have presented the 2006 accounts in two different formats. The side everyone is used to is titled “Income and Expenditure”. This is a simple presentation of all the money we have received and spent during the year from 1st January to 31st December. The second I have termed “Profit and Loss”, although I admit some of the sub-headings are probably not technically correct to an accountant. Here I have taken the business we have transacted during the year, the lectures and the dinner, and detailed the total cash flow relating to them, ignoring the year in which the income and expenditure was actually made. (The common disadvantage of the “Income and Expenditure” presentation is that, for example, for the Dinner Dance, some of the payments may be received in 2005 and some during 2006. In the worst case it could appear that we had made a huge loss one year if people were really enthusiastic and paid by the end of December in the previous year. Unusually this year all the receipts for the Dinner Dance were received in the correct year) A good example of the disadvantage of the “Income and Expenditure” account can be seen this year. This suggests that the Section made a loss of around £540 over the year, based on the level of the bank account at the end of 2005 and 2006. However, the situation can be seen to be more serious if the “Profit and Loss” account is considered. Here, whilst in 2005 we made a profit of around £710 in 2005, last year we made a loss of just over £1200. There are two main reasons for this big swing between years. Firstly, in 2005 we had a significant income from the sale of the anniversary ties, which has now dropped to a trickle. Meanwhile, we also had a significant reduction in sponsorship income to support the Technical Meetings during
2006, whilst the cost of hiring the Gibb Theatre at the Railway Museum went up. It is to be hoped that the move to the Bar Convent will allow our accounts to come more nearly into balance this year as the bills have reduced to around 2/3 the size of last year. A third reason for the move to loss from profit is the net income from the Dinner Dance. Whilst this is not intentionally designed to make a profit, we must ensure that we will cover our costs. In 2005 this resulted in a surplus of around £950, whilst last year this reduced to around £300. It is possible that we will increase the surplus from the 2007 dinner, helping to reduce our deficit. I am very grateful to our sponsors for the support they give us, which has meant that we have not had to approach Council for a grant for a large number of years. Members should be aware, however, that I have already indicated to Council that it may become necessary to request grants again in the near future, something we have managed to avoid for several years now. We have yet to determine the level of sponsorship that we will seek from our supporting companies, but it is to be hoped that we can keep at or near the same level as for this current session, recognising our slight reduction in total costs. I am also very grateful to Ernie Thomson for auditing the accounts once again. Andrew Smith, Treasurer
2007 DINNER DANCE The 49th York Section Dinner and Dance was held on Friday 23rd March 2007 at the Park Inn, York. Approximately 160 members, guests and their partners attended the event. After an excellent meal the Chairman of the York Section, Mr. Ian Moore invited those present to be upstanding and he proposed a toast to Her Majesty the Queen. The Senior Vice President, Wim Coenraad was invited to propose a toast to the York section. Wim thanked Ian for the kind invitation extended to him and his wife Conny to this year’s event. He remarked on the special bond between the York Section and the Dutch Section of the IRSE. They have exchanged visits over the years to their mutual benefit. He continued by hoping that the section would continue to thrive and proposed a toast to which all the members, guests and partners raised their glasses. Ian responded by thanking Wim for his kind words and expressing his pleasure that he and Conny could join us. He said that next year, meetings would continue to be held in the Courtyard Room of the Bar Convent in Blossom Street beginning at 17:30 with refreshments from 17:00. Following the formalities Ian announced that the ever-popular tombola would be starting where, for a few pence the members and guests could walk away with fabulous prizes. Dancing to the Longhawn Trio continued until 12:30am. Once again the Committee thanks Rod for his hard work in successfully arranging this year’s Dinner & Dance, which was the 11th that he had organised. John Maw Secretary, York Section
197
Younger Members’ Section The YM (Younger Members) of the IRSE has just completed another extremely successful year. The IRSE YM are fast developing a reputation for quality events, accessible to all interested parties. The first success of this year took place in Birmingham, with an extremely well attended one-day event. This seminar entitled “Making Use of the Best of the Past, Looking to the Future” was over-subscribed – luckily a bigger venue was available at last minute. Following that event, the yearly AGM and exam review took place in London, with the addition of a lecture by the Thorrowgood scholarship winner (Dominic Taylor), a lecture on professional development, and a challenging presentation about the state of the IRSE Exam. This was followed by the Exam Review. February saw the YM take the lead in organising a full day event about the London Underground entitled: “Making Headway on the Underground”, this event was organised jointly by the YM and HQ, with particular assistance from John Francis and Linda Mogford. It has been another busy year for our committee, and we look forward to next year, and the challenges it will bring.
CONFERENCE “MAKING USE OF THE BEST OF THE PAST, LOOKING TO THE FUTURE” Despite the lengthy title, significant numbers of members carried on to read the content of this seminar and decided to attend. Held in the IET’s Austin Court in Birmingham, over 100 people attended on the day, after a last minute surge in applications. This prestigious venue and the quality presentations given belied the fact that the event was free to attend. Thanks must be given to our generous sponsors, Network Rail, Westinghouse, and Parsons. The event focussed on several topical projects throughout the mainline network. To give the attendees an accurate “snap-shot” of all the technologies still applicable, each presenter examined one main technological solution, and why this was the most suitable for the project. Feedback from the attendees suggested that this was a real eye-opener; to discover that mechanical interlocking can still be the most appropriate solution for a modern project!
AGM The YM AGM took place in January in which the committee members for the forthcoming session were introduced, and recommendations were invited as to how the YM should be taken forward. The YM Forum was introduced and is continuing to be driven forward by a small team. This was an idea, introduced by Jacques Poré to allow YM throughout the globe to develop and maintain relationships, discuss and exchange ideas, electronically. This forum will undoubtedly be invaluable, and is currently working towards unveiling its first deliverable in 2008. The forum team are keen to expand; so if you are interested in becoming involved, please contact a committee member.
EXAM REVIEW The exam review directly followed the AGM, and was attended by many who either sat the exam the year before, or are planning on undertaking the exam in the future. This session is invaluable as many candidates learn common potential pitfalls, and they can propose questions to the examiners directly. It is highly recommended that anyone planning on attempting the exam should attend the annual exam review. The YM are grateful to all the examiners for the time they spend throughout the year preparing for the exam, and then attending the review. Peter Woodbridge and Daniel Woodland gave a couple of presentations regarding the IRSE exams, with respect to a previous study into potentially altering the format for future years, and what the YM could do to assist students in preparing for the exam. A debate ensued, showing that students are indeed concerned with the format of the exam. A questionnaire was distributed asking the YM for their opinions on the exam. If you have any concerns or comments, please contact the committee. The exam committee will not know the issues unless we tell them!
THORROWGOOD SCHOLARSHIP LECTURE This year’s Thorrowgood scholar was Dominic Taylor. His study tour began by attending the IRSE Convention in Switzerland. This was followed by a technical visit to Alstom in Italy. Dominic gave an excellent presentation, reporting on what he learned about heritage signalling systems and of the European Train Control System (ETCS) installations in these two countries.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE IRSE Derek Edney, the IRSE Membership Manager, gave a presentation to the attendees with regards to obtaining professional qualifications through the IRSE. The IRSE have recently received registration with ECUK to award professional qualifications such as Chartered and Incorporated Engineer. This is a particularly significant to older YM who have passed the exam and may be thinking of upgrading their membership soon. Please contact Derek Edney for further information at
[email protected] .
MAKING HEADWAY ON THE UNDERGROUND With the Public Private Partnership (PPP) in its 4th year, our President John Francis, informed the YM that he felt this was an opportune time to hold a Seminar dedicated to sharing the progress being made on the signalling & communications of London’s underground system. The seminar was not solely a YM seminar, however the YM were asked to organise the event for the wider body of the institution. Held on Tuesday 20th February at No 1 Birdcage
198
YOUNG MEMBERS SECTION
Walk, London; the seminar was divided into three sessions to explore what PPP is, compare the underground with its main line neighbour, look at strategy and obligations, interdisciplinary relationships and interoperability issues. The seminar also dealt with some of the major upgrade projects, and a selection of the many maintenance and innovation initiatives that are being undertaken to provide an efficient and improved railway system.
SESSION 2007-2008 As we move into the next term, plans are already underway for the future opportunities we want to provide our members. Our Chairman advised the AGM of the forthcoming events for 2007 – 2008. There shall be a mainline event in Autumn 2007, the AGM and exam review in January, a metro event in Spring 2008, and a new trial event to help with students sitting Module 5 of the IRSE exams and possibly more; further detail will be available in the Programme Card and through IRSE News. If you would like to be included on the YM mailing list and receive details of our upcoming events, please send an email to
[email protected] .
COMMITTEE The sterling work that the YM achieve throughout the year could not be maintained without the tireless enthusiasm of the committee members. The committee composition changes yearly, and is always open for new members/helpers. It is only with your support that we can continue to deliver what the YM require. The committee members for the 2006 - 2007 session were as follows: Chairman General Secretary
Douglas Young Network Rail Lynsey Hunter Network Rail Nevin Reddy CTRL
Publicity Secretary Committee Members
Jill Poyton Network Rail Jessica Bignell Network Rail Owen Cooke Network Rail Damian Westerman Network Rail Jeremy Ricketts CTRL Edwin Hopper Tube Lines Daniel Woodland LUL Buddhadev Dutta Chowdury Bombardier Mark Lyons RailCorp Anita Paddayachee Arcus Gibb
Two notable resignations this year include Jill Poyton and John Haile. Jill has helped the YM on several key events over the last few years. John has been a committee member for many years and is a former Chairman who has moved the committee from strength to strength. Many thanks for their support. Many thanks to all of the committee members, and also those non-committee members who have worked and supported the YM over the past year. If you are interested in becoming involved with the YM, please contact any member of the committee. Lynsey Hunter
199
Advertisers Page Bombardier
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Henry Williams Group Halcrow Groups Ltd Amey
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2
11
ibc
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
bc
200
The Editor would like to thank Linda Mogford, Peter Grant, John Francis, Colin Porter, all the UK and Overseas Section secretaries and the staff of Fericon Press, Reading, for their assistance and co-operation in the production of the Proceedings. The Institution is also most grateful to our colleagues within the signalling industry who have kindly supported the Proceedings by placing an advertisement.
