GBR promises a better engineered railway

Great British Railways (GBR) offers significant benefits. It will bring together the control of costs and income at an operational level, remove contractual barriers, and should ensure that strategic decisions consider the whole railway system. In his interview with Rail Engineer, Network Rail’s CEO, Jeremy Westlake, explains how GBR will also benefit rail engineering. This includes better sharing of data, optimised tyre turning to increase track life, and better use of service trains for infrastructure monitoring. He also considers that the new integrated regional business units’ whole system approach is already delivering significant benefits. Creating GBR is a huge task. Its Bill is currently receiving detailed Parliamentary scrutiny and should receive Royal Asset this year. GBR is expected to be fully operational by the end of 2027. By then, two key strategies will have been published. The Long-Term Rolling Stock and Infrastructure Strategy (LTRS&IS) is to be published very soon. This will be followed a year later by the Long-Term Rail Strategy (LTRS) which will specify GBR’s strategic objectives over a 30-year period. Yet, it is curious that the LTRS was not published earlier to inform both the GBR Bill and the LTRS&IS by, for example, specifying traffic growth targets and the required increase in capacity. By now, the Government surely knows what it wants from its railways. Furthermore, in 2022, a consultation exercise was held on what was then the Whole Industry Strategic Plan. This attracted 307 responses which were summarised in a 90-page report. This exercise seemingly needs to be repeated before the LTRS can be finalised. Scotland published its fleet transition strategy in November which is its equivalent of the LTRS&IS. Malcolm Dobell’s report explains how it was developed by Transport Scotland and its engineers. This considers that routes with Inter City and Freight traffic should eventually be fully electrified. In contrast the UK Government considers that, due to advances in battery technology, each route’s optimum solution must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Hence, Westminster rejects the idea of a rolling programme of electrification while Scotland considers that such a programme is essential to maintain skills and reduce its electrification costs. Another difference between the Scottish and English view is the use of bi-mode traction. Various UK Government statements have advised that bi-mode trains provide passengers with the service they require without the need for electrification. It is doubtful that Midland Main Line passengers would agree. While there is certainly a role for bi-mode traction, using diesel engines on an electric train with sufficient power for 125-mph running adds weight, significantly increases lease and operational costs, and results in bi-mode trains suffering twice as many failures as electric trains. Scotland recognises the financial constraints that make electrification of its Inter City routes a long-term goal. Yet rather than procure bi-mode trains, the aging Scottish HST fleet is being replaced by more modern diesel trains as a transitional measure. Our LTRS&IS feature considers why the Westminster and Scottish Governments have such differing views. One difference is that shadow GBR seemingly has no engineering focus with the result that UK Government traction policy statements show a lack of understanding of the physics of rail traction and do not recognise the many benefits of electric traction such as increased capacity on a mixed traffic railway. Hence English traction policy would seem to be political diktat. It is to be hoped that GBR will eventually have a strong engineering focus to provide more informed decisions. Scotland’s fleet transition strategy does not mention ETCS signalling. In Scotland, it is considered that the benefits of ETCS are overstated and thus its high cost is not justified. It will be interesting to see how the LTRS&IS reconciles England and Scotland’s differing ETCS stance. Finland’s ETCS programme, however, is well underway as Clive Kessell reports in his feature about the IRSE’s internal conference in Helsinki. Among other issues, his report considers how Finland’s railway is adapted for its harsh winters. ETCS not taking account of low adhesion is a key aspect of the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) report on the Talerdigg collision as we explain. After the tragic accident at Elstow, we report how the risk profile of train accidents has changed over the years. This shows that key factors in the significant reduction in train crash fatalities have been the introduction of TPWS and improved train crashworthiness. As indicated, this issue has a rolling stock focus. Hence, in addition to the above, it includes features on Class 57 locomotives being overhauled and the construction of the Elizabeth Line’s Class 345 units. Our report on the IMechE’s annual Railway Challenge describes how teams of young engineers compete to have the best performing miniature locomotive. We also focus on stations with reports on two new stations. Belfast Grand Central (BGC) is both a bus and a rail station. We consider the complexities of its construction and the associated railway remodelling as well as describing the significant benefits that BGC offers Northern Ireland. The construction of Cambridge South, which opened in June, also required additional tracks. David Fenner describes this station and its significant benefits which include boosting the economic contribution of the adjacent Biomedical Campus and serving over a million passengers per annum. Many passengers at stations find it difficult to board their train. The solution is level boarding. Yet as we show, this is difficult to achieve as mixed traffic and variations in platform heights create a complex platform train interface. Hence a whole system approach is needed as low-floor trains with sliding steps are only part of the solution. Another increasingly complex aspect of stations is technology to monitor and inform passengers. Moreover, this technology can quickly become obsolete. Paul Darlington considers whether Station as a Service funding or ‘managed service’ type models might be the best way to provide this technology. The large amount plant and equipment on display at Rail Live which included a Ballast Undercutter & Trencher and Portable Sleeper Squarer are described in a report by Matt Atkins. This event took place at Porterbrook’s Long Marston Rail Innovation Centre which now has a 3.5km continuous electrified test loop which carried a train for visitors. This was certainly the place to appreciate how engineers maintain and enhance the railway. It is to be hoped that GBR will be able to offer them the opportunity to do so in the most efficient and effective way possible. However GBR is organised, it will not function without competent engineers. In a feature that celebrates rail engineers past and present we ask for nominations for Railstaff’s Rail Engineer of the Year Award to help ensure that engineers receive the recognition they deserve. Image credit: