This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT


Wood and metal don’t have a monopoly on railway infrastructure – composite materials can be a cost-effective solution in the long-term, says chemical engineer Ken Forsdyke.


C


omposite materials are often over- looked because of their initial cost,


but railway station projects especially could benefit from them.


Engineers and designers could take advan- tage of the properties and benefits which the specialised materials can offer.


Ken Forsdyke, principal of Fortech and a former director and company secretary of industry body Composites UK, said: “In the past there were certainly a number of London Underground stations where phe- nolic linings where used.”


Phenolic materials are also used in the casings of television monitors at the end of a lot of London Underground platforms, which enable the driver to see right up to the back of the train.


The casings of television monitors on many surface stations platforms are also made from composites but, because there is less demand for ultimate fire properties, this is often polyester/glass.


Forsdyke is sure there is much more scope for composites to be used in the construc- tion of stations and other rail infrastruc- ture.


He said: “There is a huge amount of poten- tial for composites to be used. However, the main sticking point is that many sta- tions are unique and therefore you are back to the old problem with composites, which is that unless you are making a large batch of a product, the tooling costs be- come high.


“Therefore, if it is possible to build some- thing out of angle steel or wood, then de- signers and engineers often choose to do this rather than using a composite, be- cause it is easier to make ‘one-offs’ out of these materials.


“You are starting to see some glass-re- inforced plastic (GRP) mouldings being used. Some of the more modern digital advertising boards use GRP for their hous- ings – again, this is a case where you can make a large number of casings to be used at stations all over the country.”


Whilst composites may not always be the best option for individual station projects,


there are of course many large infrastruc- ture projects – Thameslink, Crossrail and HS2 – where there is scope to plan ahead and use the same product, mitigating the high up-front cost to a certain degree.


Forsdyke said: “There is definitely scope for the use of composites in projects like these. If the designers looked at using pultruded section, rather than steel or aluminium section, they would see that al- though the up-front costs may be higher, there would never be a need to service it, paint it and maintain it in any way.


“While composites will always lose out over one-off items, pultrusions offer the same flexibility as steel or any other simi- lar material.”


This means that although other materi- als might offer a ‘quick fix’ in terms of up-front price, when the whole life cost is taken into consideration composites offer potentially better value for money over that entire period.


At a time when cost is a key issue, compos- ites can therefore gain an edge over more traditional building materials.


But Forsdyke said: “Unfortunately, an aw- ful lot of infrastructure jobs have a fixed price upfront which stops those in charge from looking at the whole life costs in- volved.”


Composites must also only be used for


New stairs, lifts and overbridge at Hooton station. Image: Network Rail


projects which suit their physical proper- ties, he explained: “Composite materials are completely safe as long as you use them for the right applications – i.e. choosing fire retardant materials where you need there to be a high level of fire protection, such as on London Underground.”


So is the future bright for composites in rail infrastructure?


“Indeed it is and as designers move to- wards using lightweight materials this will only increase and there have now been 40 tonne road bridges made out of com- posites. There is also the issue of ease, be- cause the engineers can come along with the bridge on a lorry, put it down, secure it and go away instead of going through all of the hassle of traditional construction, which takes a lot longer.


“I wouldn’t go so far as to say that com- posites could be used for railway bridges yet, because the weight of trains is enor- mous but they could be very suitable for footbridges over rail tracks, signal gan- tries, etc – so it just comes down to find- ing the places where composites offer the best solution.”


Ken Forsdyke


FOR MORE INFORMATION www.compositesuk.co.uk or Fortech on 01443 228867


rail technology magazine Feb/Mar 11 | 95


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112