INFORMED SOURCES e-Preview November 2021
INFORMED SOURCES e-Preview November 2021
This month’s column gets away, mostly, from the usual topics, with an analysis of some recent research on air quality inside rail vehicles and an examination of reservation policies on Intercity trains – which may make me unpopular.
INFORMED SOURCES November 2021
Government raises train air-quality concerns
Wigan-Bolton wiring - business case trumps high cost
Electrification - taken to task on central direction
Reservations – walk-on versus ambience
On 16 September the Department of Transport issued a press release headed ‘Government commissions action to improve rail air quality’. Well, we are all in favour of improvements and air quality at stations has been a matter of concern for several years, with Birmingham New Street the prime example.
But the announcement was not about station air quality. According to the press release, Rail Minister Chris Heaton- Harris had launched a review to ensure that air quality standards and regulations are fit for purpose following ‘concerning findings that air quality on some diesel trains is poorer than desired’.
For the research behind the announcement, a battery powered portable system was used to record concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter in passenger accommodation for a range of diesel trains. Measurements were taken throughout typical journeys.
A point made by the study is that there are sources of particles inside the passenger areas other than from the diesel engine exhaust. However, reducing particulate pollution is a matter of improved filtration in the air conditioning system.
Levels of nitrogen dioxide are a different matter. I was unable to find a specification for permissible levels inside vehicles. However, the Quality Standards Regulations 2010 do give an annual mean concentration plus an hourly mean limit value which should not be exceeded more than 18 times in a single year. All the trains were below the concentration of nitrogen dioxide defined as ‘Moderate’ air pollution.
Surprisingly the highest levels were measured inside the Class 800 bi-mode. This is puzzling, because the Class 800 engines are fitted with exhaust gas treatment and should have produced lower readings than the untreated engines under the second worst performer, the Class 221 Voyager. The Stadler Class 755, which also has exhaust treatment, gave the lowest Nitrogen dioxide levels of all.
My explanation for this discrepancy is that the key to nitrogen dioxide levels within passenger trains is a combination of aerodynamics and air-intake location. While the engines powering the EMR test IC125 were pumping out full strength nitrogen dioxide, the smooth airflow along the train meant that not much of it was getting down to under-frame level where it could be sucked in to the ventilation system. This was reflected in the comparatively low readings.
In contrast, on the Class 800, instead of a smooth roofline, the equipment modules, including the air conditioning units, create a series of bumps which cause turbulent airflow. Combined with the roof level diesel exhaust of the bi-mode, the turbulence round the protuberances will be creating high and low pressure and possibly stagnant locations where exhaust gasses could accumulate.
Wigan-Bolton electrification costs
There were sucked teeth in the industry when Government approval for the electrification of the six miles of double track railway between Wigan East and Lostock Junction was announced at the beginning of September. The cost of £78 million equated to £3.9 million per single track kilometre (stkm).
ScotRail, the UK leaders in electrification, now reckons the ‘should be’ cist at £1m/stkm if the route is electrification ready – such as the Borders Railway – or £2m/stkm if clearance work is needed.
At a notional £2m/stkm, Wigan-Lostock ‘should’ cost £40 million. However, there are multiple mitigating factors. It is a small but complex project but even at this price has a very strong business case.
There are 17 bridges in the six miles. Around a third of these are on minor roads, probably with brick arches. Platforms will also be lengthened at three stations. This means that, potentially, lots of civil engineering work is being spread over a few single track km.
However, the biggest issue affecting cost is factoring in the risk associated with old mine workings. This was one of the reasons for the problems which helped delay the North West Electrification Programme schemes.
But even assuming that the electrification work alone comes in at current actual cost levels of £1.5m per stkm, then the associated civils work is costing £48 million. Knock off £5 million for the platform lengthening and civils work for electrical clearance must be a major cost factor.
A worst case that all 17 bridges required clearance works equates to just over £2.5m per bridge. If just the minor road bridges were involved, the average goes up to around £6 m each. Somewhere between £2m and £6 million work on a bridge, seems a bit steep given the recent applications of surge arrestors and insulating coatings to minimise the clearances needed.
These clever work-rounds have been developed by the electrical engineers who are doing their bit to make a rolling programme more affordable. Surely, now it is time for the civil engineers to cut the cost of raising those bridges where even track lowering and clever electrical stuff can’t provide the necessary clearance?
One problem is that clearances at bridges are being considered at the end of the design process rather than driving it. For example, it is assumed that the track engineers will require provision for the rails to be lifted 4 inches (100mm) to allow for future tamping.
There has also been a self-inflicted constraint. As the RIA Electrification cost challenge noted, the previous British Rail standard featured a ‘normal’ 270mm clearance between catenary and structure, with 200mm (reduced) plus 150mm (special reduced) clearances for ‘tight’ locations. These derogations could be agreed by the accountable engineer.
A new standard was subsequently introduced requiring a minimum clearance of 270mm unless a risk assessment is undertaken and the identified safety measures implemented. An individual safety case for each bridge is either a penalty in time and cost or an encouragement to assume bridges will be lifted when costing projects rather than going for reduced clearances. The common sense solution is to have a generic safety case which can be applied to bridges with similar clearances issues – sorry consultants.
However, there is some good news. Shortly before writing this I joined a webinar organised by the Permanent Way Institution. The topic was providing electrical clearances under structures on electrification schemes. And the heartening conclusion was that it should be possible to restrict the need for reconstruction to as few as 5% of bridges when the rolling programme eventually starts.
Electrification 2 -Taken to task on central direction
When challenged on something I’ve written, my initial reaction is to stand my ground and argue it out. But when four very senior managers take me to task simultaneously, it’s time to shut up and reconsider.
What brought down this storm of opprobrium was my concern, in the September column, that Network Rail’s Regions were rushing off in all directions with their electrification aspirations. I was worried that when, and if, a rolling programme is funded, uncoordinated Regional projects going out to tender could cause the market to overheat.
I suggested that the future Great British Railways (GBR) should emulate Indian Railways, featured in the same column, and have a central Electrification Directorate. This would coordinate the prioritisation and sequencing of schemes within a rolling programme. So far, so uncontroversial.
But then I added that the new Directorate could also set technical standards and delivery methods, liaise with standards and safety bodies and coordinate power supply updates with the National Grid and the DNOs. Ooof!
A Regional Managing Director gently pointed out that electrification is already centrally controlled with ‘no aspects delegated’ including design of equipment. Contracting strategy and prioritisation of routes is covered by the Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy. In fact, what I was proposing was what we have today.
An even-more Senior Colleague added that the central Infrastructure Projects had been where problems started and hadn’t I been a critic of that part of the organisation? Fair point, although how the Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy (TDNS) will be transposed into GBR is one of the many unknowns in the Williams-Shapps Plan.
Next, a Network Rail client also sympathised with my critics. Experience has shown that the engineers at the centre are so far disconnected from the commercial reality of a railway business ‘that we need to re-set the approach’.
My longest ear-bashing came from a senior supply industry chum with experience on both sides of the Network Rail contract. Bluntly, I had got it completely wrong and our extended chat included various case histories illustrating the malign influence of Infrastructure Projects – the sins of commission including various aspects of the Great Western Electrification Programme.
As you might expect, the suppliers want electrification schemes to be let as a complete system, with the tender based on a performance specification. This would cover, for example, train frequency, performance and so on, compared with specifying the work in detail as at present.
So that’s me told. Of course, it’s all theoretical until the rolling programme starts. However, the contractors’ concept of a turn-key deal could be trialled on suitable freight infill electrification scheme and, if my contractor chum is right, make it more affordable!
Why reservations are needed
For rail commuter services a measure of overcrowding is Passengers In Excess of Capacity (PIXC). The PIXC percentage can also be expressed as the number of standing passengers per square metre of floor space. One example equates a PIXC of 40% to five standing passengers per square metre.
As anyone who has just squeezed into a Tube train will know, at this level of PIXC, you can barely move. Ambiance is not an issue.
But for Intercity or inter-urban train ambiance has always been a selling point. This is even more important today, as the operators seek to woo the only potential growth market, the leisure traveller.
With many people still nervous about Covid, and the divide between the masked and unmasked, a full and standing train can be a deterrent to making more journeys in future. Apart from that, aisles and vestibules crowded with standing passengers and their luggage hamper movement along the train.
When the Covid restrictions came into effect, taking seats out of use to maintain social distancing resulted in some operators introducing compulsory reservations. Cue a storm of protest which still rumbles on – especially in the case of LNER which has retained a degree of control aimed at limiting the number of walk-on passenger.
I have long believed that if Intercity has a point of difference with other long distance transport modes, it is ambience. ‘Full and standing’ and Intercity ambience are inimical.
Buried in the archives I found Virgin Trains submission to the Williams Review. This was based on compulsory reservations and in the column I quote some of Virgin’s arguments in support.
Yet, this highlighted one of the key problems with compulsory reservations. I have characterised this as the Tony Miles Conundrum. ‘What is the point of a service with three trains an hour if Advance fares limit you to a specific train’?
For me this is the National Exhibition Centre question. I book a return ticket to Birmingham International and select my return train. What happens if I run out of interesting stands and want to return early or, more likely, as I am leaving the exhibition I run into an Informed Source?
While this is essentially linked to Advance Fares, with a flexible ticket and compulsory reservations I would be tempted to reserve seats on the trains either side of my expected return service. This strategy is clearly a concern for operators who want to maximise load factors and who could lose revenue if reserved seats remain empty.
But still the issue of ambience is unavoidable. I don’t want to spend my journey with someone’s posterior or back-pack nudging my ear and having to fight my way to and from the buffet.
What is the real world post-lockdown situation?
On the East Coast, LNER reports that leisure travel is back to 95% of pre-Covid levels. Business travellers, as widely expected, are showing less enthusiasm and are back to just under 40%. A figure that surprised me is that over 80% of sales are for Advance tickets which come with an automatic reservation anyway.
Visiting the LNER website, there was no reference to reservations being ‘compulsory’. In marketing-speak the term is ‘Seat Sure’.
This is ‘nudge’ in action. ‘Some tickets such as Off-Peak and flexible returns don't have a seat reservation’, the website explains. Then goes on to say ‘So that you have the most comfortable journey (and don’t end up standing on busier trains) we recommend you check your ticket already has a seat reservation, and if it doesn’t make one before you board’.
But what about the practical issues? A key feature of Seat Sure, is that it includes provision for walk-on passengers if the train is ‘fully booked’. On all LNER trains, the 84 standard Class seats in one coach together with a number of First Class seats are available for walk-on.
That seems a sensible compromise. But the big challenge is how the operator handles disruption or crowding at the traditional annual peaks. Who, for example, monitors capacity before departure and turns away those without reservations when the unreserved coach is already full and standing? Similarly, at station stops en-route. The railway is not used to saying ‘no’.
Having to managing capacity on Intercity services is a welcome problem, but it is never going to be easy. However, in the post- lockdown travel market I suspect it is going to be increasingly important. And will continue to be controversial.
New Train TIN-Watch
This month, all but six of the fleets in the reliability table show a month-on-month improvement. Most of the improvements are in single percentage figures however those in double figures are worth commending.
The much-delayed, Greater Anglia Alstom 720/5 electric multiple units are starting to appear in numbers and showed a 21% improvement for MTIN MAA in Period 5. The Class 710/1 fleet of Arriva Rail London showed a 12% improvement. Finally, Greater Anglia’s Stadler Class 755/5 bi-modes made a 19% gain.
However, we must never forget that reliability and percentage improvements are relative. The Class 755/3 is now at 10,482 MTIN. For comparison the GWR Class 150 fleet is at 10,307 MTIN.
Meanwhile, the latest on the Hitachi 800 Series cracking crisis is that the proposed recovery programme has been submitted by Hitachi and Agility Trains to the customer, the Department for Transport. A spokesman for the Office of Rail & Road told me on 3 October that it is now reviewing Hitachi’s separate proposals for repair and strengthening of the 800 Series vehicles.
Roger’s blog
October has had a lively start. As mentioned above, last week the Permanent Way Institution ran a webinar on ‘Cost effective minimum clearance electrification’. This was a full blown conference, with 250 listening in, reflecting the theme of this month’s piece on the need to reduce civil engineering intervention to provide electrical clearances under bridges. With a very experienced panel of speakers covering all the aspects from civil engineering to electrification techniques and gauging, it was a stimulating and encouraging afternoon.
Looking ahead we have the Chancellor’s new Comprehensive Spending Review on 27 October. Optimists are hoping that he will find some money for rail enhancement projects. Then we have COP26 – nearly a fortnight during which hydrogen and battery trains will no doubt fill our screens – and the last chance for something positive from government on electrification. But as I type this, the freight operators are putting electric locos into store because the cost of electricity for traction has become uneconomic compared with diesel fuel.
And on that cheerful note I will get back to my contributions to the Modern Railway.
Roger
