INBOX


From: John Subject: Greengauge 21 report into freight benefits of HS2


This is really tentative. In order to realise this, the three paths an hour have to be utilised by shifting some of it onto the HS2 route and I can’t see that unless it is overnight. Then a real selling job has got to be done on the operators to get the truck loads onto the trains and then offering incentives to go to the train and disincentives to keep it on the roads. The all-powerful HGV lobby will go into overdrive on this – after all, it was them who campaigned long and hard to close the railways down in the first place!


From: Mikey B Subject: Balfour Beatty NW electrification win


It makes sense to give the phase 2 contract to Balfour Beatty, as they will now just carry on westward from Earlestown. Otherwise there might be a lengthy break in work, whilst they moved their equipment off site and the new contractor moved in.


From: Christopher George Subject: DfT


It is a great pity that the transport portfolio has been seen as a minor political position and has been held in low esteem by governments of both major parties for many years. Transport is a vital part of life and it is about time that it was taken seriously in Government. Being Transport Minister is not the nadir of political life but a great opportunity to shine and make a huge difference to peoples wellbeing.


From: Terry Subject: NSARE and improving training practices


Whilst I agree with NSARE in their vision to improve safety and


skills training in the rail industry, I feel they overlooked the main issue regarding sponsorship and safe delivery of training.


The


potential is there for a conflict of interest to occur between organisations which hold or intend to hold contracts with Network Rail and their internal training departments.


of sliding probes on the running surface. This conversion work all taking place in the Derby Carriage Works.


I managed its production throughout this period, initially for the Research Department and subsequently for the Director of Civil Engineering in London.


Therefore contractors should not be allowed to deliver approved safety and skills training to their own staff; this policy would fall in line with NSARE’s vision to improve the integrity of training and assessment in the rail industry. The industry overall would benefit with training organisations dedicated to providing training/ assessment only!


From: Philip Johnson Subject: The first Ultrasonic Test Train


[The news that Network Rail has launched


its fourth Ultrasonic


Test Train prompted Philip Johnson to get in touch with this account of his work on the development of automated rail ultrasonic testing.]


The first Ultrasonic Test Train was built during 1969/70 in a converted Derby Lightweight DMU under contract to a firm specialising in ultrasonics. It was based on a unit operating in Germany, installed in a short length two axle vehicle. The BR unit was a long length bogied vehicle with the testing bogie equipment at the centre. This required significant changes in the attachment of the test equipment bogie to allow for the overthrow on curves. Ultrasonic testing was carried out by a series


10 | rail technology magazine Oct/Nov 12


The rail and defect information was recorded on 35mm film as a continuous record with a 1000’ film giving the information from some 10 miles of track. The train was capable of examining some 100 miles of track during one night shift at 20mph. The films were then examined for rail defects by a group of staff with projectors. Location was provided by milepost details manually input at the time of recording.


On good quality track, the system worked reasonably well, detecting many potentially serious defects. On lower quality track various problems arose from stepped joints and many recovered rails. Here, the damaged rail ends in jointed track were cut off and new bolt holes drilled: these ‘new rail ends’ suffered from the presence of bondwire holes between and close to the new bolt holes. The effect of this was to make many of the joints appear defective or cracked. Fortunately these problems have now been eliminated.


The principal problem with this arrangement was the film analysis being fairly slow, and difficulty in getting staff to carry out this onerous task.


During the mid to late 1970’s, contact was made with Harwell, who were working on data digitisation and analysis. A contract was placed to develop this process to the analysis of the Ultrasonic rail test film produced. Results were produced but repeatability was a problem


with minor artefacts on the film, namely small scratches and odd dust particles. The contract was extended to digitising the rail information on board the train and carrying out a partial data reduction so that solely ultrasonic features were recorded on magnetic tape.


This was then analysed at the base office comparing the information against a series of recognised signal patterns. Discrepancies were displayed on an electronic screen for manual checking or verification.


The benefits here were manifold in that a full night’s work of some 100 miles of testing could be analysed and reported on in a couple of days or so.


By the late 80’s the equipment in the train was becoming unreliable and authority was obtained to build a replacement unit. This again was to be centred around a diesel multiple unit. The method of translating the ultrasonic energy into and out of the rails was considered, either by sliding or wheel mounted probes. The installation of a central bogie similar to the previous was considered but there were several inherent problems with this method. The Research Department had been developing a wheel probe system mounted on one of the main bogies.


It was decided to employ the research developed system and this was installed in a central unpowered coach of a three car unit. Commissioning of the completed final unit took place in the early 90s.


The fourth Ultrasonic Test Train


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