Informed Sources e-preview by Roger Ford (view all archives)

INFORMED SOURCES e-Preview February 2014

There are only three items in this month’s Informed Sources, but between them they cover the topics which I like to think the column covers best. There’s procurement, politics, privatisation and technology with a leavening of practical operating experience to remind us that there is a working railway underneath what former Rail Regulator Tom Winsor used to call the froth and bubble.

LU Sub-Surface Line resignalling contract cancelled

Network rail nationalised

Traffic Management System in (simulated) action

First up is one of those slow-burn procurement sagas which seem fated to end in tears. It started in April 2003, under the ill-fated London Underground Public Private Partnership (PPP). The Infrastructure Company (Infraco) Metronet placed a contract with Westinghouse (as was) to resignal the Victoria and Sub-Surface Lines (SSL).

When Metronet collapsed, LU regained control of the resignalling projects. While the Victoria Liner signalling was deemed too advanced to halt, the SSL contract was cancelled on the grounds that it was ‘over-priced’. After re-scoping and retendering a new contract was awarded to Bombardier in June 2011 based on the company’s Cityflo 650 Automatic Train Control (ATC) system.

LU was responsible to the Department for Transport for meeting the contractual milestones in Bombardier’s contract. Speaking at a conference on 27 March 2012 David Waboso, then LU’s Director of Engineering, warned ‘If we don’t achieve these dates very bad things will happen to us’.

Reporting on progress in the January 2013 Modern Railways LU’s Programme Director for the SSL upgrade, expressed confidence in the signalling. Not only was it a proven product but there would be very little adaptation to the standard specification. In addition Cityflo 650 would be tested at the Old Dalby facility ‘so we have confidence in its functionality and reliability before putting anything on the railway’. 18 months of demonstration operation at Old Dalby were due to start in August 2013.

Trouble

But by September, it had emerged that ‘significant challenges remained to deliver the capacity uplift by 2018, within the overall programme funding’. In particular, the forecast date for the start of demonstration running at Old Dalby had slipped to December 2014.

By November, it was clear that the project was in serious trouble. As we reported in last month’s Newsfront, following an LU Review and challenge, Bombardier had put back the demonstration of the ATC system at Old Dalby to at least June 2015 – 22 months after the ‘key date’ in the contract.

Finally, on 31 December, in a joint statement, LU and Bombardier said that the £354 million SSL resignalling contract had been cancelled and would be re-tendered.

Non-judgmental

You might have thought that LU might have been the tiniest bit cross about this set-back. Far from it. Managing Director Mike Brown, explained that LU had been working closely with Bombardier ‘to find a way forward on what is one of the most challenging and complex pieces of work on the Tube’. But, it had become apparent to both parties that for the work to be completed ‘within or close to the planned deadline’, LU needed to push on the works with another contractor.

So on 2 January, a new OJEU Notice was issued. Estimated value of the contract is put at between £450 million and £600 million and it is ‘imperative’ that the renewal and upgrade of the signalling and service control systems is completed in 2018 ‘or as soon as practicable thereafter’.

Only proven systems ‘requiring little or no product development for deployment on the SSL’, and with ‘demonstrated high levels of reliability’, should be offered, warns the OJEU. ‘Companies with ATC systems requiring high levels of product development will not be considered’.

So that looks like a straight fight between Siemens and Thales – which is currently getting on with the Northern line resignalling. The Pre-Qualification Questionnaire will be available from January 27. Invitations to Tender to shortlisted bidders are expected to be issued ‘around’ the week commencing March 10. The earliest date for contract award is June 2014.

Network Rail debt on Government’s books

While we knew it was coming, the announcement on 17 December that, from 1 September this year, Network Rail’s debt will fall under the public sector was still moderately earth shattering. The change is the result a revised European System of Accounts which comes into force across the EU from that date.

Naturally, the Government played down the implications. Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander claimed that it is ‘a statistical decision which does not change the industry structure or affect the day-to-day operations of the rail network’. But analysis of the reasons for the reclassification by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) plus the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between DfT and Network Rail setting out the implications of the reclassification and how the new relationship between the two will be developed, say otherwise.

Note, above all, that the ONS has decided not just that Network Rail is Government controlled but that it is also part of Central Government. In other words, the railway infrastructure has been renationalised.

According to the MoU there will now be a new ‘Framework Agreement’ between Network Rail and the DfT. I go through this in some detail in the column and several significant changes are foreseen, even if the detail still has to be worked out.

In particular, is seems likely that the Office of Rail Regulation will become less influential. It will continue to act as the independent economic, competition and safety regulator for Network Rail’s activities, in accordance with the requirements of EU and UK law. But the Periodic Review process is likely to change.

There will also be a new approach to funding. While Network Rail was in the private sector, DfT was able to fund enhancements without the debt going on the Treasury’s books.

It worked like this. Network Rail borrowed to fund DfT specified enhancements: then, when the work was completely the ‘efficient value’ was added to Network Rail’s Regulatory Asset Base (RAB).

In setting Network Rail’s income at each Periodic Review, ORR determined the return on the RAB to cover debt interest and amortisation. This return was added to Network Rail’s required income and covered by the Direct Grant from DfT. Not for nothing has the RAB been known as the ‘Network Rail credit card’.

From the end of CP5 the credit card will be cut up and DfT will have to record a capital budget for Network Rail’s borrowing. How the Treasury handles this change of status could be significant.

Funding committed in DfT’s Statement of Funds Available (SoFA) for the next Control Period starting on 1 April should be secure. But in today’s febrile political climate and an election 15 months away, who knows what might happen?

TMS at first hand.

As you may have noticed I have been struggling to get my head round what Network Rail is expecting its new Traffic Management System (TMS) to do. That is, the high level aspirations are clear, but how the benefits are achieved on the daily railway at the Control Centre level has have never been articulated.

That is, until 13 December last year, when Thales, invited me to their headquarters near the Tower of London. After a brief introduction they sat me down at their demonstration TMS work station alongside a controller and a signaller and let the two highly experienced professionals show me the tunes they have learned to play on the new system.

An intensive hour followed as I was taken through various operating scenarios based on Leeds station. And by the end of this time I was fully up to speed on what TMS will bring to the railway.

My mentors were from Network Rail’s 18 strong TMS evaluation group. Formed into three six-man teams, they had spent the previous three months rotating round the three trial TMS model offices produced by Signalling Solutions, Hitachi and Thales.

I go into the various procedures in detail in the column. But what struck me at Thales was that my guides were using the predictive tools and other facilities provided by the ARAMIS TMS to help them run the railway – as opposed to letting automation do its thing. As one of them said, TMS ‘takes what’s in our heads and makes it visible’.

What was clear from this demonstration was that when resolving perturbations controllers and signallers already routinely do much of what TMS promises. The big differences are that conflict prediction gives them more time and that where the ‘best guess’ from their mental data base tells them that a course of action might incur 300 delay minutes, TMS runs the scenario and predicts the impact. So when asked ‘why did you do that?’, there is justification for the decision.

At one point a Thales manager pointed out that the ARAMIS TMS can also be set to Automatic Conflict Resolution mode. Like ARS, this follows a set of rules in determining priorities. ‘Be careful what you wish for’, cautioned my neighbour at the workstation.

Philosophy

As the Controller from the duo put it, TMS takes ‘what’s in my head and makes what’s in my head better’. His demonstration of how ARAMIS handled platform 3 at Leeds being taken out of service made the point. Using the mouse, it took him just over 10 seconds to re-platform the two trains affected. The changes would then appear immediately on the Passenger Information system (PIS)

Compare that with the current procedure where the Controller would ask the Train Running Controller for permission to re-platform the two trains. The Train Running Controller would ask the signaller to set the routes accordingly. Confirmation of the moves would then have gone back up the chain before PIS would display the new platforms.

There has been more positive feedback from Train Operating Companies on re-platforming than any other TMS facility. As a result ‘TM-Phased’ is being considered. This would see the early deployment of the non safety critical elements of TMS in control locations in advance of the full TMS roll-out.

In a recent interview Ian Chapman, Network Rail’s Programme Manager for Network Operations described the ability to automate more regulation and supervision tasks as ‘central’ to the case for installing TMS. That was not how the ARAMIS TMS capabilities were presented to me. Rather ARAMIS helped improve the quality of human decision making and simplify the implementation of those decisions.

It seems clear that there is a philosophical debate in the making over the extent to which TMS should include people in the control loop. Any thoughts or comments from controllers and signallers would be very welcome.

Roger’s blog

Our inaugural Fourth Friday Club pre-Christmas networking reception went down well and we hope to repeat the event this year. The notebook got a good hammering. Later that week I not only got to see Eversholt’s refurbished Class 321 EMU but had enough time to go on the demonstration run. I would have written about this in this month’s column but for the nationalisation of Network Rail and the collapse of the SSL resignalling taking precedence.

Eversholt really are polishing their assets, as the saying goes, because last week they launched another refurbishment, this time the Class 365 at Kings Cross. I wasn’t able to go on the trail run, but this expenditure of millions of real private sector money to keep ex-BR rolling stock in service makes the DfT’s reluctance to engage with the Rolling Stock Companies, perverse.

Otherwise January remains quiet-ish. This coming week see the Fourth Friday Club hosting the Golden Whistles Awards for operating excellence. Then, on 28 January I’m looking forward to the IRSE seminar on ‘Track, traction and S&T’ where the signal engineers will no doubt complain about the impertinence of traction engineers wanting to run electric trains near their equipment.

On the same day First Capital Connect has a press call with the Transport Minister to see a mock-up of Siemens’ new Desiro City EMU for Thameslink. Luckily the timing means I should be able to break off from the conference and nip over to the ExCel centre, missing only one session.

February sees something completely different, when I give a talk to the local Women’s Luncheon Club. I’ve given the odd talk to retired businessmen’s clubs, where the eccentricities of privatisation are always good for a few laughs interspersed with shocked gasps at the cost. I’m still contemplating what to talk about – probably not memories of Finsbury Park in the 1960s or the role of the HLOS and SoFA in the periodic determination process. I’ll let you know how I get on.

There’s also a reception at the House of Commons with the Derby & Derbyshire Rail Forum on 11 February. If, as Informed Sources are suggesting, the decision on the supplier of the new Crossrail trains, should have been announced by then, either the champagne will be flowing like water or it will be orange squash with bread and scrape for canapés.

One last thing. Several readers questioned my comments on Class 165/66 Networker Turbo gauging in my interview with Mark Hopwood in the January issue. This looked like becoming the rolling stock equivalent of the Schleswig Holstein question with even former Network SouthEast chums having forgotten. Fortunately, my top rolling stock guru not only knew the answers but had the drawings. All will be revealed when space permits.

Meanwhile, it’s off down memory lane for an upcoming china anniversary on the railway.

Roger