Opinion
Don’t let corrosion eat away at you
Utilising the latest anti-corrosion techniques saves money on UK railways and delays to the travelling public, says corrosion and coatings specialist David H Deacon. The key to these objectives is the right training
T
he refurbishment of the railway network is costing billions of pounds, with the cash mainly being spent on bringing some sector structures up to a reasonable standard. A major part of the cost of this refurbishment is necessary because of the lack of maintenance against the ravages of corrosion on the network. Without a proper understanding of the most effective control techniques, methods and materials, the costly ‘battle against corrosion’ will not be won. The financial implication of not properly tackling this issue is generally not realised by rail engineers and architects – the very people responsible for designing, specifying, constructing and maintaining buildings, stations, bridges, tunnels and other structures in rural, industrial and marine environments. And we must not forget the associated rolling stock. More than 40 years ago, the then government minister for technology, Anthony Wedgwood-Benn, set up a Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
PAGE 58 DECEMBER 2012
Committee to work on establishing more accurately the cost of corrosion to the UK. This original DTI Committee, chaired by Dr T P Hoar, a past president of the Institute of Corrosion, produced a DTI report entitled The Cost of Corrosion in the UK. The findings of this committee showed that the cost of corrosion in the UK was a staggering 3.6 per cent of the gross national product (GNP). Although these figures were produced by a national report from the DTI published in 1971, a second repeat survey was produced in a report published 30 years later. This second report showed that the cost of corrosion to the UK was still of this significant order, 3.5 per cent of GNP – literally billions of pounds annually. Now that the UK is in the grips of a financial straight jacket, it is even more important that careful cost controls are implemented on both new rail infrastructure, as well as in the maintenance of existing structures. The original DTI report stated that 25 per cent of this cost could be saved by
‘more awareness in selection, specification and the control of the application of protective coatings’. The second report in 2001 reconfirmed this figure of 25 per cent of savings with protective coatings. As a result, the UK’s Institute of Corrosion set up a subsidiary company called Correx Ltd to discuss the issues with a number of government agencies and authorities, including Network Rail. The outcome was the creation of a recognised training programme and qualification for the companies and operatives specialising in protective coating contracts. The Industrial Applicator Training Scheme (ICATS) was launched and established in 2005 and was immediately accepted by specifiers within industry.
Although supported by Network Rail, the ICATS scheme has met with only mixed success. Drawbacks relate to the element of self-certification by the contractors. In the 2007 government white paper, Delivering a Sustainable Railway, concerns relating to self-
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