There’s a role for a second train crew man – it’s just different from today

The strike by conductors working for Southern is not the first surrounding driver only operation (DOO), or driver controlled operation (DCO) as rail companies prefer to call it these days.

Wind the clock back to the 1980s and you’ll find some very acrimonious disputes about DOO, which was then a new concept. Pay too played a major role with, in 1982, a two-day walkout by the National Union of Railwaymen (now the RMT) and a drivers’ strike by ASLEF over July 4-18 around flexible rosters. Job losses played a major part in a decade that saw the closure of Swindon, Horwich and Shildon Works and cuts to operational staff of 28,000 and train staff of 13,000. DOO took seven years to implement from the time British Rail first suggested it.

More strikes and industrial action followed in the 1990s. Pay again featured strongly, together with restructuring, and DOO continued to cause problems between BR and the unions.

In contrast to the thousands of jobs shed through the 1980s, Southern’s extension to DOO/DCO involves no job cuts and no pay cuts. The RMT acknowledges this.

Southern has consistently said that it wants to keep a second member of crew for the trains on which it wants drivers to control doors, rather than guards. Rather than controlling doors, the second crewman should concentrate on passengers, says Southern. It says it wants that second member of staff to be trained in safety, including personal track safety, route knowledge and train evacuation. RMT wants the second member to be safety-critical. In other words, without this member of staff the train can’t run.

Southern says it wants to agree with RMT the circumstances in which a train could run without that second crewman. These circumstances are likely to be when trains are running late. Rather than cancel a train from London with perhaps 800 passengers on board, it could run without its second crewman (called an on-board supervisor (OBS) by Southern). That’s in passengers’ interests. It need not run its entire journey without this second crewman, they could join later. If Southern develops into a slick operator, it could ask an OBS on a late-running service to London to leave the train at Clapham Junction to transfer to that busy train from Victoria when it reaches the junction.

The RMT fears a thin end of a wedge. Without a guarantee of a second crewman, it fears that the role will be ditched, leaving just a driver on board. It’s very careful not to say it, but if the second crewman is not compulsory then the RMT loses its ability to stop the trains by striking.

DCO, that is operation with driver and on-board supervisor, is a compromise. Pure DOO would see the guard removed and not replaced. It’s what happens on most of Southern’s inner suburban services. It happens on Thameslink, also part of Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) that includes Southern and Gatwick Express. It happens on London Underground. When the RMT accuses GTR on just being interested in money, it should realise that it’s DOO that holds the potential for saving more money. If money was the sole object, Southern would have forced DOO and ditched the second crewman entirely.

That Southern hasn’t is a recognition that passenger numbers have risen dramatically since BR introduced DOO. It’s also a recognition that passengers deserve better treatment. Hence DCO is a compromise. It stops short of DOO and its removal of any RMT involvement on trains.

In time, there may be some savings from switching to DCO. Guards transferring to OBS role will see no pay cuts, according to Southern. It’s likely that new recruits into OBS jobs will be offered lower pay and so eventually the crew costs of trains could fall as today’s guards retire and new staff replace them. Whether or not any savings actually appear depends on whether drivers insist on being paid more to control doors.

With rail companies consistently receiving low scores in surveys about value for money, the cost of the railway cannot be ignored. Government plays a role in setting many fare rises and takes many millions from train operators (in turn giving Network Rail many more millions). DCO holds a prospect of lower operating costs and better on-board service for passengers, which just might increase those poor VFM scores.

ScotRail has seen a similar dispute over recent months. In early August, it agreed to keep the second crewman under all circumstances while transferring door control to drivers. ScotRail has caved into the RMT’s demands. By keeping the guarantee, it opens itself to strike action stopping trains if it offers future second crewmen less money than guards receive today. Combined with the possibility of drivers asking for more, ScotRail’s decision has in all likelihood pushed up the costs of running trains. If this cost is not borne by passengers in the form of higher fares, then it will be taxpayers picking up the bill for ScotRail’s decision.

Unsurprisingly, RMT has used its Scottish victory to ask why Southern cannot do the same. Here the views of England’s passenger franchising authority, the Department for Transport, come into play. It wants to see an increase in DCO working. It’s usually careful not to directly say the move to DCO is about curbing union power but you could expect to Conservative government to seek this outcome.

DfT specified in the invitation to tender for Northern’s franchise that from 2020 50% of Northern’s passenger mileage must be run with trains under the driver’s full operational control. It explained that this means that the train need not have a second member of staff. It added that this does not oblige the operator to reduce on-train staffing.

In winning Northern, Arriva will have submitted to DfT a list of routes and services that will have “a trained and knowledgeable member of staff to provide information and customers assistance in a prompt and civil manner, in both normal and disrupted operation on-board every train in addition to the driver” as the ITT puts it.

DfT’s ITTs place an emphasis on what it calls ‘customer experience’ and Arriva’s winning bid will have explained how it planned to increase National Rail Passenger Survey scores. This section of its overall bid carried a 12% weighting in DfT’s marking scheme. For context, its train service plan carried 20% and its punctuality plan 7%.

Arriva will have little choice but to implement DCO plans at Northern. It faces a battle with the RMT that’s been made harder by ScotRail’s decision. With a declining subsidy, Arriva will need to cut costs (as well as raise revenues by attracting more passengers). ScotRail’s decision makes this harder.

DfT’s ITT for South Western suggests that DCO might be a method bidders use to generate longer-term passenger benefits or operational improvements. It adds that it expects the winner to consult staff and passengers about such changes.

This is the area in which Southern has failed. It has not taken its staff with it. Under Chief Executive Charles Horton it’s taken a very hard line. Morale in the company is at rock-bottom, shown by high levels of sickness. There are strike ballots pending with station staff and drivers. With GTR’s majority owner Go-Ahead now predicting halved profits from the operation, it’s difficult to see Horton surviving. It’s hard to see staff morale improving while he remains in charge.

When the dispute is over, whatever the result, the company must put considerable effort into rebuilding staff morale and passenger trust. Charles Horton is not the man to do that.

This article first appeared in RAIL 807, published August 17 2016. For more about the magazine see railmagazine.com

Nexus faces tough questions as its seeks to expand North East light rail

The photo was small but eye-catching. In the background, a modern park-and-ride. In the foreground, rusting tracks and plenty of lush, green weeds.

The location? Durham, that compact city of small streets, topped by a glorious cathedral and imposing castle. It needs its park-and-ride because of those streets. It could use those rusting rails to improve public transport. The tracks belong Network Rail’s Leamside Line. They’ve not seen trains since the early 1990s but there’s barely been a year since privatisation two decades ago without a reopening proposal from somebody somewhere.

The picture and latest proposals come from Nexus, owner of Tyne and Wear’s Metro light rail system. It faces some momentous decisions. It needs a new fleet of trains to replace those built by Met-Camm in the 1970s.

Today’s trains saw a half-life refurbishment in the 1990s and have recently been through a three-quarter life upgrade. I used to joke that the fleet would have seven-eights and then fifteen-sixteeths life overhauls. It seems I might not have been far wrong with Nexus reporting that engineering consultants Interfleet suggest that the fleet needs another £10m if they are to run until 2025. To keep the fleet of 90 going until 2040 would need at least £50m.

This points towards a new fleet being the better option. There are no off-the-shelf designs suitable for Metro because its trains are 3.15m high, which is smaller than seen on light rail fleets elsewhere. The new trains are likely to have full-width cabs which will disappoint those small boys of all ages who delight in riding up front. Me included!

In specifying a new fleet, Nexus needs to balance flexibility with cost. Flexibility could bring trains that cope with the Metro’s standard 1,500V DC power supply and Network Rail’s 25kV AC. This permits NR to convert its Pelaw-Sunderland tracks to standard AC power. Filling in the short gap between Gateshead and Pelaw then allows Virgin Trains East Coast to run electric trains between London and Sunderland rather than being constrained to HSTs today and bi-mode IEPs tomorrow.

Pelaw marks the northern end of the Leamside Line. Stringing wires southwards to Ferryhill, where the line joins the East Coast Main Line, allows the Metro to serve Durham’s park-and-ride. Ferryhill could provide a useful interchange station (it had a station until 1967) with long distance services to London, Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland and thence far and wide. It also has a direct line to Teesside. Leamside opens Washington to Metro services, correcting a glaring omission and with potential passengers from a new International Advanced Manufacturing Park and its 5,000 jobs.

Nexus notes that its region is criss-crossed with disused railway lines, left over from an industrial past built on coal and heavy engineering. They could link the Leamside eastwards towards Sunderland, where Metro already runs to South Hylton. They could provide an inner North Tyneside loop that would see some trains running on the old formation between Percy Main and Backworth (ironically once part of the Metro’s test track). This cut-off would serve the busy Cobalt

and Silverlink business areas which contain 20,000 jobs. Extending this line north from Backworth provides a springboard towards Blyth and Ashington, two towns hit hard with coal’s decline, using NR tracks. That neither town has rail links despite both having rail lines shows the low priority successive governments have given rail in North East England.

Metro’s use of NR tracks to Sunderland comes with capacity constraints, notably the ‘double blocking’ signalling arrangement that provides more protection for Metro services because they use light rail stock that doesn’t meet heavy rail crashworthiness standards. They were not designed to because Metro started as a segregated network. Any new fleet could allow these constraints to be dropped, providing space for more services.

None of this will be cheap. Nexus estimates the new fleet at around £550 million and that’s for one sized for today’s service not the expanded vision, the cost of which Nexus admits will be significant. It expects to have to spend another £500m renewing the infrastructure it has today, with a large part of this going towards new signalling.

Nexus expects a large cheque to come from government but there’s a possibility of funds raised locally through business and developer contributions or by borrowing against future fares revenue. Nexus could follow Nottingham’s workplace parking levy to raise money for public transport. One potential source of funds could have been the European Union but with Britain’s vote to leave, this source can only be regarded as very unlikely.

I hope Nexus succeeds with its ambitions. Aside from its extensions to Newcastle Airport and Sunderland, the Metro network has changed little. It’s not kept pace with the area’s development. It’s failed to serve areas that were important even when it first opened, such as Washington. It doesn’t serve several areas that have risen since it opened. Nexus now has a chance to correct those omissions and deliver a network that serves its region.

This article first appeared in RAIL 806, published August 3 2016. For more about the magazine see railmagazine.com

Safety studies show that DOO need not be dangerous

Here’s a conclusion to start: “A review of the safety implications of DOO(P) indicated that there may be changes to the risk profile, in terms of the likelihood of events occurring, or the severity of their consequences. However, with the right technical and operational mitigations the analysis has considered the provision of DOO(P) to be safety neutral.”

That means that when done properly, having the driver controlling the opening and closing of passenger trains doors makes no difference to safety. The conclusion comes from a report from Rail Standards and Safety Board (RSSB) in March 2015. Predictably, the RMT union attacked RSSB, claiming that because it was funded by rail companies, including train operators, it could not be trusted.

As the battle about guards controlling trains doors continued at Southern and ScotRail, RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said: “The RSSB is funded by the train companies so of course they are going to wade in to support one of their financial backers in this dispute over the safety-critical role of the guards. They are bought and sold by the TOCs and the idea that they are independent is ludicrous.”

Instead, the RMT published its own dossier which it said revealed the dangers of driver-only operation (DOO). In doing this, the RMT has asked people to reject one organisation’s reports because it’s not independent and instead asked them to believe its own report. That’s not a strong argument.

Cash says in the dossier’s introduction: “Everyone who works on the railway knows that the Passenger/Train Interface (PTI) is the number one area of risk. That fact is accepted by the safety agencies that monitor and manage the safety regime across the rail network.”

According to RSSB’s safety risk model, the biggest risk for passengers comes from slips, trips and falls, with the increase it recorded in 2014 coming from an observed rise in slips, trips and falls on stairs and escalators. So Cash is wrong.

The RMT’s dossier lists ten examples of accidents at the passenger/train interface over the last five years. The ten were subject to investigation by the Rail Accidents Investigation Branch (RAIB). Eight involved DOO services and two involved a guard (one of which – James Street Station in October 2011 – led to the guard being jailed for manslaughter). In seven cases, passengers became trapped in the doors, with one of them on a service with a guard.

A guard can certainly prevent accidents in which passengers become trapped in doors and dragged along as the train starts to move. So can a driver who correctly checks the doors of his train before closing them and moving away. Drivers use mirrors on platforms or CCTV monitors in cabs or on platforms to check doors. In some cases, a staff member might be provided on the platform to help the process. This depends on the circumstances of the platform, it might be very busy at certain times of the day or be curved.

The RMT’s dossier says: “The RMT believes that if there is any doubt when performing pre-departure safety checks that it is safe to dispatch the train then drivers should perform a visual check and not rely solely on CCTV, stepping out onto the platform if necessary.” Which acknowledges that DOO can be done safely.

The union argues that having a guard is better because they can help passengers. This is what Southern plans to have with its new on-board supervisors’ role into which it wants guards to transfer. This means that there will be no job cuts, as RMT Assistant General Secretary Mick Lynch acknowledged on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on June 21. Southern has also said that there will be no pay cuts as a result of this change.

Lynch argued that the strikes called by RMT were about safety although Cash later on June 21 muddied the waters when he said in a press release: “We regret the inconvenience to passengers but our fight for jobs today is about protecting your safety tomorrow”.

In addition to conducting research into rail safety, the RSSB also collates and publishes statistics of accident rates, helping focus effort on reducing them. They record the passenger and public harm from boarding and alighting incidents. The results come in a measure known as ‘fatalities and weighted injuries’ (FWI). They give a measure of the rates of different types of incidents. According to its 2014-15 annual report, over the last five years, ‘fall between train and platform’ rates are in the range 1.3-1.9, ‘caught in train doors’ 0.6-0.7, ‘other alighting accident’ 2.3-3.1 and ‘other boarding accident’ 1.2-1.7. This shows that being caught in train doors is the least risky category. The RSSB explains that the ‘other’ category generally comprises of trips into or out of trains. In either case, having a guard or on-board supervisor makes no difference to the trip although either of them, or other passengers (or the driver if you’re spreadeagled on the platform) can summon help.

RSSB has also examined real DOO, that is having the driver as the sole member of staff on board, rather than plans such as Southern’s to have a second member on board, which RMT is fighting.

This report dates from 2014 and looked at extending DOO onto regional lines. It notes that having just a driver makes it impossible for passengers needing assistance to simply turn up and board. The clearest example of such assistance would be having staff on hand to deploy ramps to allow wheelchairs on or off trains. Given that the report considers regional lines, it’s very unlikely there would be level access between platform and train.

The report says: “Assisted travel would have to move to a booking system where passengers who required assistance would have to book in advance where they would be met to be assisted on and off the train. Hazards arise if people turn up without a booking and attempt to board but it is believed that the majority of cases would be captured by educating passengers.”

I suspect that education would just teach potential passengers not to bother with rail. That reinforces the case for having a second staff member on trains. But they need not be a guard.

RSSB notes that a driver alone may find it difficult to control passengers if a train is badly delayed. He may be busy trying to discover or fix a problem and not able to keep broadcasting messages to reassure passengers. These situations can easily run out of control. Passengers open doors to escape which means the train cannot then move. I witnessed this in Manchester the other year on a very crowded tram that was being held just outside Victoria station because the tram in front had failed. Eventually we were evacuated because, despite the broken tram being moved, we could not get all the doors shut at the same time to allow us to move. And that was with several staff on hand to help.

There’s a plan to help lone drivers keep contact with passengers with a modification to train GSM-R radios that allow control office staff to broadcast directly over trains tannoys. This allows the driver to concentrate on fixing the problem.

This 2014 report matches the conclusion of 2015’s when it says: “A broad analysis of incidents (exact comparisons are impossible) and the related risk levels shows that there is no significant difference in the number of dispatch incidents between DOO(P) and conventional dispatch, suggesting that if used at appropriate locations, DOO(P) dispatch is not necessarily associated with an increased risk.”

It’s unpalatable to the rail unions, the RMT in particular, but recorded safety statistics and several studies don’t support their claims that DOO is unsafe.

This article first appeared in RAIL 804, published July 6 2016. For more about the magazine see railmagazine.com

Signalling obstacles in the path of NR’s Digital Railway

Railways and technology go hand-in-hand. Switching from saturated to superheated boilers improved the efficiency of steam locomotives. Introducing electro-mechanical Automatic Warning System (AWS) improved safety. Tilting trains have allowed speeds to increase.

Philip Haigh Colas 66850 Watton at Stone ERTMS test section 091213 DSC_0309Colas 66850 hustles an infrastructure train through Watton at Stone on December 9 2013. It’s running along the stretch of line Network Rail uses as its ETCS test track. The string of red signals behind the train mimic the signalling being installed on the central section of Thameslink under London and shows that high-capacity signalling is not only possible with ETCS, although ETCS would not need the signals which helps cut maintenance and installation costs. Copyright: PHILIP HAIGH.

The pairing does not always work. Gas turbines never caught on and some technology was too advanced for its day – British Rail’s APT tilting train of the early 1980s comes to mind.

Signalling is one area in which technology has always played a major role. It linked communications systems with computers and incorporated safety features to minimise mistakes causing accidents. The Victorians linked their telegraph method of transmitting information about trains to the mechanical computers that sat under every signalbox and made sure that signals could only be cleared if points and trains were in particular positions. This application of logic is no different today then it was then, albeit it’s done by a few grams of silicon rather than tons of steel.

Network Rail now describes the future as ‘Digital Railway’. This overlooks British Rail’s work in pioneering solid-state interlocking (SSI), which it introduced in the 1980s. Interlocking is the logic that links points, signals and train locations while solid-state merely means that it’s based on solid semiconductors such as silicon chips, that is, it’s computerised, digital.

That said, NR’s ambitions will take the railway to a higher level. It should be easier to plan and implement timetables and it should be easier to deliver accurate and timely information to passengers when trains are delayed. Between now and that nirvana lies a long and expensive road. It relies on implementing systems that cannot be bought off-the-shelf today. No-one knows the cost and no-one knows the timescales. NR’s plan has seen various timescales – it was 50 years, then Mark Carne arrived as chief executive and pledged 2029, now it seems to be settling on 25 years. The 50-year was figure was based on installing Digital Railway signalling when current equipment reached the end of its life. This would give a patchwork with drivers switching from traditional to cab signalling, with a risk of confusion. Faster options would lead to current signalling being removed part-way through its life, which is more expensive. There is no perfect answer.

NR’s vision of the Digital Railway comprises European Train Control System ETCS) signalling (initially at Level 2 and then Level 3), GSM-R radio communications and a traffic management system (TMS). Put all together and they form the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS). Trains on the Cambrian Coast already run under ETCS signalling, which tells drivers how far they can proceed via a screen in their cab, with information coming from a control centre via GSM-R radios. NR’s history of TMS has been more patchy. It pulled plans for widespread implementation and is instead trying a couple of testsites based around Cardiff and Romford. It’s TMS that provides a better ability to plan timetables in real-time and release accurate information following incidents that delay trains.

There’s another strand to NR’s plan that sits outside ERTMS. It’s another acronym, C-DAS, standing for Connected Driver Advisory System. It build on current DAS technology that advises drivers of the best speed to use to keep to their timetable. This can save fuel by promoting coasting when suitable and can reduce the number of red signals drivers encounter by ensuring they don’t run ahead of timetables. But DAS works on fixed timetables and can’t account for what other trains are doing.

C-DAS provides a link from signalling systems. It’s use is best shown by considering a junction busy with trains approaching from two lines to join one line. C-DAS can advise drivers on the best speed to ensure they arrive at the junction in sequence and can pass through it without stopping. It’s rather like car drivers adjusting their speed on a slip road to join a motorway without coming to a halt.

The prospects and pitfalls of all these changes has netted enough interest from the MPs on the Transport Select Committee for them to hold public hearings to quiz rail leaders. Mark Carne took command of the hearing on May 23, leaving committee chairman Louise Ellman almost a bystander. He pushed a strong case for Digital Railway although he wouldn’t be specific on costs, benefits or timings.

I’ve some sympathy for his reticence. NR was badly stung by revealing early costs for Great Western electrification that it couldn’t match as plans developed. Carne is determined not to fall into this trap again but he must also contend with Treasury funding rules now that demand accurate costs before money is released. Beyond admitting that it would be “a great deal of money” Carne said MPs would have to wait until the end of this year before NR would have a better idea.

He argued: “We spend about £1 billion a year renewing signalling systems. Over the next 25 years, if we don’t do anything we will still spend £25bn just renewing worn-out signalling systems. We believe that £25bn can be better spent transforming the whole signalling system and train control system.”

NR’s written evidence said that the annual figure spent on operating, maintaining and renewing signalling was “in excess of one billion pounds” which suggests that Carne might have been taking advantage of the MPs’ lack of knowledge.

This wasn’t the only time he left himself open to challenge. He later said: “At the moment, a lot of our tracks are one-way streets essentially because that’s the way the signalling system is set up. As soon as we move to digital train control, all of those tracks become two-way streets so that we can really run the network in a much more flexible way and a completely different kind of way.”

In itself, it’s true that ETCS cab signalling makes it easier to use a line in either direction. That’s because it doesn’t need a ‘light on stick’ signal to control movement onto and along that line. But it ignores the fact that if the railway is today as busy as NR claims, and tomorrow will be even busier, there’s very likely to be a train coming the other way along that track you wish to use. More bi-directional lines will help the railway recover from incidents but it does little for normal working and little for improved capacity. The flexibility Carne desires also needs points to switch trains from one track to another and any increase in them will need to be factored into Digital Railway’s case.

Carne did give some ground on one of NR’s more controversial claims. That’s the claim that Digital Railway will bring a 40% increase in capacity. Carne stood by the claim for dense commuter lines but admitted that DR wouldn’t deliver this on long-distance routes.

Squeezing more trains onto a line needs shorter gaps between them. This demands more accurate information about their location. Conventional signalling can do this by erecting more signals and installing more track circuits or axle counters. These circuits and counters determine a train’s position and allow signalling systems to more accurately place trains. At Level 2, ETCS does away with the signals but it still needs the circuits or counters. Simply switching signals for a screen in the cab does not improve capacity.

Level 3 removes the need for circuits or counters because the train itself works out its position and sends this via radio to the control centre. This allows for ‘moving block’ (as opposed to the fixed block created by track circuits). The signalling then computes the best distance between trains depending on their speed (just as car drivers do – nose-to-tail in crawling traffic, longer gaps at higher speeds). Signalling company Thales reckons ETCS L3 is ten years away from widespread deployment.

In any case, signalling experts will point out that capacity is not limited by the distance between trains on plain track. More constrains comes from the mixof fast and slow trains, their stopping patterns and the capacity of termini to receive and dispatch trains.

Termini challenge ERTMS, especially its GSM-R radio system, which is based on ageing technology, akin to 2G in mobile phone terms. This means that it does not have capacity to cope with the number of trains in a busy station. Upgrading it to GPRS will help and this forms part of NR’s plan. Elsewhere in Europe, railways swerve around this problem by retaining conventional signalling at busy termini, which negates any capacity benefit ETCS might deliver elsewhere. It shows that Europe sees ETCS installation simply as a signalling renewals. NR sees it as a much wider project.

There are further problems with GSM-R. GPRS is now old technology and will be obsolete in a decade. Even today, commercial mobile phone networks interfere with it. That’s why there’s a 3G transmitter in Cardiff that’s switched off because it interfered with railway communications.

The railway radio of the future must have sufficient capacity and must not be susceptible to interference from other networks because that would be another source of delays to trains. The UIC has just issued the specification for a future rail radio system. Yet, as NR’s chief digital railway engineer, Andrew Simmons, told MPs, this specification is likely to take two to three years of discussing before plans can be further developed.

Part of NR’s problem is that its tracks are crowded and busy now. In the rest of Continental Europe, there’s less pressure for technology to solve congestion and less impetus to move forward. There are hints that signalling manufacturers are in little hurry to move towards ETCS L3 because they want to recoup their investment in L2. The European Railway Agency would like to see L2 being used successfully before moving to L3, according to the Institute of Railway Signal Engineers. This gives NR and Britain an opportunity to lead L3’s development but also the challenge of dragging European railways along a road they don’t yet wish to travel.

All the while, passenger numbers in Britain keep rising. As Carne admits, DR is not a panacea and major projects such as High Speed 2, Crossrail and Crossrail 2 are needed, in addition to smaller improvements. But he’s in a hurry to deliver his vision of a better railway. “150,000 people a day are standing on commuter trains, we have to do something and we have to do something fast,” he told MPs.

Is it churlish to suggest that if he finds seats for those 150,000, their floorspace will simply be taken by another few hundred thousand standees?

This article first appeared in RAIL 802, published on June 8 2016. For more, see railmagazine.com

Save Gresley’s Duck

What a shame The Gresley Society has ditched the duck from a proposed statue of the great locomotive designer that is planned for King’s Cross.

Not only was it Sir Nigel Gresley’s ‘A4’ locomotive Mallard that took – and still holds – the world steam speed record but the man himself, by all accounts, was rather fond of the birds.

Save the duck, I say!

This article first appeared in RAIL 772, published in April 2015.

Rising costs plunge Network Rail into crisis

Network Rail is running out of money. It can’t afford its enhancement programme because costs have increased beyond initial estimates. No longer can it borrow private money and public money from its owner, the Department for Transport, is subject to annual limits.

A quick look at the figures shows how deep are NR’s problems. When it published is Strategic Business Plan for 2014-2019 (Control Period 5, CP5), NR reckoned on enhancement projects worth £12.4 billion. Of this around 30% was allocated to electrification schemes, equating to around £3.7bn. Once projects that were to be funded separately (such as Thameslink, Crossrail, some parts of the Edinburgh-Glasgow Improvement Programme and Borders Rail) were taken from the £12.4bn, it left £7.8bn.

Regulator ORR cut NR’s £7.8bn to £7bn by applying efficiency assumptions and by cutting risk allowances. Electrification’s £3.7bn was now around £3.3bn on this basis although this figure is not specified within ORR’s final determination of NR’s costs for CP5 because the regulator realised that NR’s plans were not fully developed and thus costs for individual projects could not be determined.

To determine these costs, NR and ORR use a process called ECAM (Enhancement Cost Adjustment Mechanism) to come to an efficient cost against which NR’s performance can be measured. Two electrification projects have gone through ECAM and the results are shocking.

NR had estimated for its Strategic Business Plan that Great Western and Midland Main Line electrifications would cost £1.3bn. After ECAM, that figure stood at £2.8bn, of which £2.2bn was allocated to 2014-2019 (the final stages of Midland electrification had already slipped into the 2019-24 control period).

Take that £2.2bn from the £3.3bn leaves change of just over £1bn. For this, NR’s Strategic Business Plan contains electrification projects for Trans-Pennine (£239m), Cardiff Valleys (£305m) and rolling programme for Scotland valued at £171m. There are other projects but the trio mentioned total £715m. That’s the price before ECAM, a mechanism that broadly doubled the price of GW and MML wiring. So make that £715m a more realistic £1.4bn and that’s NR’s enhancement programme bust.

So what to do? What to drop? TP is as good as gone already but that still leaves NR short. So Wales or Scotland? Politics comes into play now. Railway funding is devolved in Scotland, taking it our of the hands of Westminster ministers. That leaves Wales looking vulnerable but that might be short-sighted. Stringing wires above the Welsh Valley lines to allow electric trains to run will release diesel units for use elsewhere and it’s very likely that, apart from Pacers, they will be needed elsewhere. So perhaps ditching Wales is not such a good idea.

Eyes then turn to the Midland Main Line project. It’s already slipped into 2019-24 and the long-distance operator, East Midlands Trains, has a partially modernised inter-city fleet. Its Class 222s have a decent life ahead of them but EMT’s High Speed Trains are reaching the end of their lives. Aided by stock being released from Great Western as a result of its electrification, it could be possible to add a few more years to HSTs but the line needs a more credible answer that’s yet to be found. DfT needs to decide its approach before bidders to replace EMT draw up their plans next year for a 2017 takeover.

Cancelling – ok, Network Rail, postponing – MML electrification would release the team currently working from Derby to help other wiring projects, making them more likely to run to time. Of course, this would not ease the MML’s congestion problems but perhaps it’s time to call a short-term halt to predict and provide. After all, High Speed 2 will release a good deal of long-distance capacity from MML when it opens to the East Midlands and South Yorkshire around 2033.

Of course, NR could try to extract more money from DfT but with the Chancellor of the Exchequer having just said that he wants savings from DfT of just over £500m this year, it is very unlikely that the Treasury will release more money for DfT to pass to NR. The infrastructure owner can no longer borrow from the private markets. Its loan agreement with the DfT contained a buffer to cope with the risks that both knew where in ORR’s tough final determination but it did not allow for ECAM.

Nor did it allow for another ORR adjustment process, this time relating to civils spending on such things as bridges, embankments, cuttings, structures and tunnels. Once again, when it came to assessing NR’s CP5 spending plans, ORR found that for civils they were not sufficiently developed to allow robust spending estimates to be produced. ORR is expected to reveal its figures at the end of June before confirming them by the end of September. There’s scope to blow another hole in NR’s finances.

The process of setting NR’s spending and income for CP5 – the periodic review –  took several years’ work by ORR and an army of consultants. Yet within months of its decisions taking effect, NR was having to talk to its DfT paymasters as its finances unravelled. If those finances become much worse then NR will have little option but to ask for an interim review. This would be humiliating for ORR because it would very publicly reveal the flaws in its original review.

ORR is now investigating NR’s enhancement performance having revealed that NR has already missed 30% of its CP5 targets. ORR will look at four areas; project delivery including managing and estimating costs, project delivery, managing major projects such as Great Western Route Modernisation and management of the CP5 investment portfolio. ORR has already commented that common failings “seem to be happening because each project is starting from a ‘blank piece of paper’ with little central guidance”.

That may be so but ORR has just spent years crawling all over NR’s plans before announcing that they were deliverable.

DfT cannot escape this mess. Its 2012 High Level Output Specification massively upped the number of electrification projects, not least with its Electric Spine plan. It was the first of four strategic priorities to provide an electric freight route between Southampton and the Midlands. A large part of this top priority is MML electrification but it also extends over the Bletchley-Bedford route and then over the currently disused route to Bicester. Will DfT now agree that its top priority be dumped?

This article was first published in RAIL 777 in June just days before the DfT announced that it was ‘pausing’ electrification projects for the Midland Main Line and North Trans-Pennine route.

Network Rail chairman talks cars at National Railway Museum dinner

Richard Parry-Jones talked cars at last week’s National Railway Museum 40th anniversary dinner, warning the assembled railwaymen that cars were closing the gap on rail’s environmental advantage.

Parry-Jones has had a distinguished career in the motor industry so he knows his stuff when it comes to cars. He talked of the latest technology from Volvo in autonomous cars. He talked of the improvements in computing power that sit behind the switch to autonomy and said it could benefit rail operators. There should be fewer level crossing collisions, he reckoned, because the car would know that a train was approaching and refuse to obey any driver’s command to move onto the crossing.

He reminded his audience that cars intervening in their drivers’ actions is nothing new – it started with ABS braking.

NR’s chairman predicted a change in the way we own and use cars. He reckoned we would shift to car hire by the hour, noting the very poor utilisation of cars at the moment. Today’s rail commuter might drive to their local station where their car would sit for the next nine hours. It might spend even longer idle every night. For an expensive object, he’s right to say that represents poor use. Trains certainly work much harder even if not every seat is occupied on every journey.

Autonomous car hire by the hour could see commuters catching a car to their station before a train to work, he suggested. This is fine but the companies owning these fleets of cars would have the same problem that rail companies have today. That’s very high asset use during peak times and then idleness for the rest of the day. How much of the costs of that idleness do they factor into the peak journey price?

For rail, Parry-Jones suggested that increasing computing power would lead to ‘atomisation’. Best described as a modern version of ‘slip coaches’ this would see trains split into constituent vehicles before being sent to their final destinations. Each self-powered vehicle could be controlled to its destination while the rest of the train carried on. I can see how this might work, even with points switching the vehicle into a bay platform to allow the next train to pass unhindered.

The opposite is slightly more challenging. ‘Re-atomisation’ would be a series of controlled collisions between vehicles moving at speed. It happens on space stations I suppose but it’s a very new concept for railways to consider!

Class 319s come to Northern England

Let’s welcome Northern’s newest electric train fleet to service. And welcome its oldest fleet into use.

For they are the same. Northern’s Class 319s entered passenger traffic with that operator on March 5 2015 but they were built in 1990, making them older than the operator’s other electric trains – the ‘321/9s’ of 1991, the ‘323s’ of 1992-96 and the youthful ‘333s’ built over 2001-03.

Perhaps that’s to pick hairs. The ‘319s’ are now working between Liverpool Lime Street and Manchester Airport via the newly electrified Chat Moss route.

Northern 319 Liverpool 050315

Northern 319362 waits in Platform 1 at Liverpool Lime Street on March 5 2015. This was the day ‘319s’ entered service between Liverpool and Manchester Airport. PHILIP HAIGH.

For the time being they are working to timings set for Sprinter diesel trains but that may change in the future. My journey on March 5 suggested the ‘319s’ are quicker off the mark than the diesels but owner Porterbrook lists the acceleration of ‘319s’ as “unknown” making comparisons difficult.

If the ‘319s’ can stretch their legs, their 100mph maximum speed is above the 90mph limit that applies for a good part of the Chat Moss route. By contrast, the ‘150’ and ‘156’ Sprinters are 75mph.

Northern Managing Director Alex Hynes told me that he was not sure whether quicker journeys would follow but said ‘319’ timings would be used when they had more information with which to calculate them.

According to the Northern Electrification Task Force, the new trains provide no increase in capacity when replacing a four-car diesel formation in the peak and add costs to off-peak services that do not need four cars.

The task force adds more generally of prospective northern electric services: “The units so far identified have very poor acceleration and so there will be few benefits from faster journeys due to the frequent stops which characterise the local services in the north and the significant gradients on some routes – these trains have worked predominantly outer suburban routes in flat country.”

Of the ‘319s’ themselves, they still have that deep whine on starting. Their external doors rattle and bang. Internally, their refurbishment looks good with recovered seats and new floor coverings. They’ve kept the 3+2 seating layout. They are a step forward. Let’s hope Northern makes the most of them, not least by transferring redundant diesel units to other routes than need extra capacity.

New trains show the railway’s progress

There’s nothing like new trains for showing visible progress in modernising a railway.

New signalling passes most passengers by and there’s not much a following for new lifts and escalators. New trains are another matter!

Passengers on all but one of London Underground’s sub-surface lines now enjoy the air-conditioned comfort of S-Stock now that the last of the ageing C-Stock has been withdrawn. The latest of the S-Stock – S-7 – is running on parts of the District Line, having already entered service on the Circle and the Hammersmith & City Lines.

Its longer variant, S-8, has been running on the Metropolitan Line for a couple of years, displacing A-Stock and sending these Sheffield-built trains to the scrapyard.

The Victoria Line also has modern trains, introduced from 2009 and, like the S-Stock, built by Bombardier in Derby. Those for the Jubilee Line date from the late-1990s, as do the Northern Line’s, with the Central Line’s stock from earlier in that decade.

This all makes the trains used by Bakerloo and Piccadilly Line passengers very old. The Bakerloo’s stock is the wrong side of 40, while the Piccadilly’s – which serves Heathrow Airport – is approaching that anniversary.

Both lines should see new trains at some point in the future as part of London Underground’s ‘New Tube for London’ project which also includes the Central and Waterloo & City Lines.

Transport for London’s latest investment report describes the project thus: “The programme provides a unique opportunity for LU to deliver long-term business transformation by introducing LU to efficient maintenance models and higher levels of automation. Technology-enabled change and asset renewals will enhance the customer experience and improve the operating and maintenance model of the ‘Deep Tube’ lines, creating a paradigm shift for the future operating and business model of LU.”

Cutting through this tortuous management speak, it seems to point to driverless trains that can also inspect tracks as they pass, which removes the need for drivers (but probably keeping a crew member on the train as happens on Docklands Light Railway) and gangers to inspect tracks when no trains run, although repair teams will still be needed.

Obstacle detection trials continue, providing further evidence of the move towards driverless trains. TfL expects to issue an Invitation to Tender this coming December.

New trains also feature in the next c2c franchise (is it too much to hope a new name might appear?) that begins in November and runs to 2029.

Franchisee National Express is promising another 68 carriages while the DfT said it was 17 brand new trains. The figures equate to the same thing but NX’s version could make one think that today’s trains were being lengthened rather than the DfT’s expansion of the overall fleet.

c2c today operates 74 Class 357 four-car EMUs, all first-generation Electrostars built by Bombardier. Such trains are no longer built so the operator is destined to run a mixed fleet from 2019 onwards. By this time the ‘357s’ will be approaching their 20th birthday. Perhaps we might then see a gradual replacement to give c2c a new fleet with the ‘357s’ cascaded elsewhere but I’m told this does not feature in the company’s thinking.

It plans to refurbish its current fleet and alter some to make them more effective for inner-suburban ‘metro’ traffic. Combined with new trains, this will give c2c three sub-fleets.

Other eye-catching features of the new deal include automatic compensation for passengers on trains more than two minutes late. These passengers will doubtless need some form of smart card for the automatic aspect of the compensation to work.

The operator is also to switch to a new performance measure. Late trains will be classed as anything over one minute behind rather than five minutes. c2c’s target will be 90% on time by this new measure. The operator is usually at or around the top of the performance table. As I write this at the end of a morning peak, it has delivered 84 out of 84 trains to destination ‘on time’ in the five-minute measure.

Spokesman Chris Atkinson tells me that the latest four-week period saw a record 88% of trains on time by Network Rail’s ‘right-time’ definition of within 59 seconds of timetable. “We can’t sit back and let nature take its course” was his conclusion of the switch to the new 90% target.

More c2c services will run to Liverpool Street, rather than the route’s traditional Fenchurch Street terminus. Liverpool Street should have more space once many of its inner-suburban services are switched to Crossrail. To reach Liverpool Street, c2c trains will call at Stratford for Westfield shopping centre (NX says a quarter of weekend trains will go this way). Stratford also provides a link to Crossrail and so make it easier for residents along the Tilbury and Southend route to reach central London or Heathrow.