It is so easy as an engineer to look for the engineering solution to a problem. But have you thought that there might be another way to find a way to resolve the issue? Here are some examples:
Cost Saving
Overstressed bridge cross girders achieving savings of at least 95% of the cost!
In the 1980s British Rail tried to treat Major Projects as larger versions of standard projects. The construction of the Channel Tunnel prompted a change in structure and approach that has characterised many projects since.
With the Railways experiencing sustained growth, many people are looking at ways to increase capacity on existing lines, reopen freight lines or closed lines to passenger services or build complete new lines. Feasibility studies help to do this, but it is often advantageous to consider the added benefits that could be realised alongside achieving the projects objectives.
Mike joined British Rail in 1976 and has worked in Civil Engineering, Track Engineering, Project Controls and Scheme Development through his career. Retiring from Network Rail in 2018, Mike set up White Stone 55 to provide consultancy work to the railway industry. Mike has worked on many of the large UK projects, a full list is included in his CV.
Contact
Please fill out the form below:
Overstressed Bridge Girders
4-track possession that lets sleepers and freight run
During assessment, the cross-girders of an occupation overbridge were found to be overstressed in the centre because heavy lorries were now using the bridge.
Two solutions were proposed, a fifth longitudinal girder or doubling the number of cross-girders to resolve the overstress issue.
The cost-effective solution was to put an island down the middle of the road, moving the load away from the point of overstress, costing about 5% of the next cheapest option.
Possession Friendly
Major West Coast Main Line possession – kept one track open for freight/sleeper services.
During the reconstruction of Milton Keynes Station as part of the West Coast Route Modernisation in 2006 - 2008, it was necessary to take major possessions to install new trackwork. Access was only available from the sides when undertaking alterations in the middle tracks.
The concept design allowed for an extra track, the Down Fast that was to the west of the existing alignment, allowing trains to run on this track under special arrangements without restricting construction works which could be accessed from the Up side.
This allowed overnight sleeper trains to run as normal and a limited number of key freight services to run, reducing the impact of the possessions.
Disruption Minimisation
Major disruption to railway and commercial interests from a new railway reduced significantly.
During the development of Crossrail 2, consideration was given to reducing the impact of the works on both railway facilities and the neighbouring commercial interests. This project is subject to a Confidentiality Agreement and cannot be detailed here until the proposals are in the public realm.
Controls
Project Management Support Services.
British Rail expected their Project Managers to manage every aspect of their projects. When the decision was taken to provide a link to the Channel Tunnel from Waterloo in the 1980’s the £270 million project was bigger than any other infrastructure and rolling stock project that British Rail undertook. This project demanded a change in thinking and John Brown Engineers and Constructors were brought in to enhance British Rail’s own project management team.
This was the start of project management support services within the railway industry, something that is now common.
Subjects such as planning, change control, cost control and progress reporting now have specialists managing them and making them more effective.
Project Engineers sometimes now spend more time supporting the Support Services than they do progressing the work! This is the downside of the changes that have happened.
Clienting
Client side engineering support improving scope
The West Coast Route Modernisation Project included a Client Side organisation independent of the joint project management organisation (in-house staff augmented by a Bechtel team). The client side team managed funding, stakeholder liaison, timetabling/operations and scope changes.
Many in the project management organisation tried to reduce scope when difficulties with delivery were encountered. The client team had no ability to understand the validity of what they were being told.
A small team of Development Engineers were moved from the PMO into the Client team to provide a technical review of all changes to scope. This resulted in some descopings being rejected or agreement of a reduced scope being reached. For example, the scope may have been to raise the line speed on a stretch of track from 70mph to 100mph. The engineers determined that 100mph was not feasible and the project manager proposed to descope and leave the speed at 70mph. Review with the Development Engineers may have agreed that 100mph was not practical, but that 90mph was. The scope was then changed to 90mph instead of descoping completely to 70mph.
Providing the client with alternative advice delivered a better project and the advice of the engineering team was welcomed by the Department for Transport team.
Possessions
Integrating possession planning with TOC Access Agreements
In 1995 – 1996 plans were being made for the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link – now known as HS1. Construction would need possessions on a number of routes and this access had to be negotiated with the Train Operating Companies and included in a Supplementary Track Access Agreement.
At the same time, the Department for Transport was letting the first TOC franchises and didn’t want the works to negatively impact the franchising process.
The first step was to understand the works proposed that would impact the existing railway, based on the scheme that was being prepared to be put before Parliament in a Hybrid Bill.
Secondly there needed to be an estimate of the possessions required to construct the works.
Finally there was the negotiation with the TOCs about the compensation they would require for the possessions.
Every TOC was different, from those who just wanted to get as much money as possible to not run their services, to those who could and would divert services such that only a few stations would not be served.
New Developments
New Stations with Housing Development
As part of a proposed commercial and housing development, the developer was interested in providing a new station on an existing railway.
In support of his planning application, a report was prepared identifying the best location for such a station, how it could be best integrated into the development by providing a new road bridge across the railway, rather than just a new footbridge and how the station building could be used to provide a hub for services for the communities being created.
Service Reintroduction
Problems Converting Freight Lines for Passenger Use
There are a number of schemes proposed under the Department for Transport’s “Restore Your Railways Fund” where existing freight lines are proposed to have a passenger service reinstated. There is often an assumption that because there are tracks there already, it will be a simple job to reinstate the passenger service. This is rarely the case! There can be many reasons why this is so.
Track is usually maintained for passenger comfort which is often more onerous than the safety limits. Freight lines will always be safe, but may not meet the most onerous passenger comfort criteria.
A new passenger service often requires trains to run at higher speeds than the freight services do. This will require higher track standards or for the track to be realigned or for longer transitions to be provided.
The introduction of passenger services often means that a lot of relatively light axles pass over the track rather than a few heavier ones. This puts extra burden on the track formation which may need to be renewed and its drainage improved before passenger services commence.
Many sidings off a freight line will need to have trapping protection installed to prevent trains straying onto the passenger lines by mistake.
Signalling controls may need to be upgraded for passenger working or signals moved to facilitate platform positioning.
Infrastructure interventions may be required to enable the freight services to operate with the passenger services.
Timetable restrictions may be necessary to allow freight to run (such as a reduced off-peak frequency to create freight paths).
Line Reopenings
There are a number of schemes proposed under the Department for Transport’s “Restore Your Railways Fund” where former lines are proposed for reinstatement, sometimes as Heavy Rail, sometimes as Light Rail and sometimes as a Tram-Train. There is often an assumption that because there used to be tracks there, it will be a simple job to reinstate them. This is rarely the case! However there are often solutions that can be considered that make such reopenings practical.
The biggest obstacle to reopening the Glazebrook Junction to Skelton Junction line is the condition of Cadishead Viaduct which carries the line over the Manchester Ship Canal. It was the condition of this bridge which closed the line in 1984 and major work would be required to reopen the line.
A further obstacle to reopening the Glazebrook Junction to Skelton Junction line is one bridge which was installed as a single track bridge when a new road or motorway was constructed. This has happened elsewhere on lines that are still open to passenger traffic too. In this case it is often necessary to construct the timetable around the single line section or sections as providing a second bridge is often very expensive and only something to consider when traffic levels on the route have built up and can create a revenue stream to justify the expenditure.
There are many places where housing has been built on or across the old alignment. Reopening of the High Wycombe to Bourne End line has this problem in a number of locations. Fortunately there is a field alongside the old trackbed and a new cutting through this will resolve the problem. On the Bolton to Radcliffe line, housing has been built across the alignment in a couple of places. This can be resolved by using trams (Manchester Metrolink extension) and street running in Bolton Town Centre and using sharper curves to go round the estate in another place.
Many old lines incorporated level crossings and it is unlikely that reinstatement of many of these crossings would be acceptable. On the High Wycombe to Bourne End line, some of the old crossings can be replaced by a new bridge with steeper road or footpath gradients. In another case, the crossing of an A-Road can be replaced by a bridge over the railway incorporating 1 in 40 gradients on the railway – something that modern trains can manage but 1950’s trains would struggle with!
