South Western pink flamingos overlooked

Traction power supply issues threaten the SWR franchise

Back in November 2001 I went to Network Rail’s offices at Waterloo for a meeting with Southern Region Director Michael Holden and Cliff Elsey, his Head of Electrification. The extended technical briefing they provided resulted in an item in the January 2002 ‘Informed Sources’ under the heading ‘Power supplies compound Mk 1 crisis’. That it was a serious issue was confirmed by the rare appearance of an ‘Exclusive’ banner.

Why this dip into the dawn of privatisation? Because, 17 years later, exactly the same issue that was taxing Michael Holden is now threatening First MTR’s South Western Railway franchise plan.

In his book The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, Nassim Nicholas Taleb provided a new shorthand for unexpected events that materialise out-of-the-blue. But today’s concern is the opposite of the black swan.

What about something in plain sight? That everyone should have seen coming, based on past experience, but did nothing? These are the pink flamingos of the South Western main line.

MK 1 REPLACEMENT

Back in 2001, the Health & Safety Executive had finally woken up to the fact that the replacement of Mk 1 slam door stock, to which British Rail had committed following the inquiry into the Clapham accident, hadn’t happened. Indeed, franchises had been let on the basis that the Class 4xx fleets were good for a few more years.

This late awakening resulted in a diktat that all slam door stock must be out of service by 2004 and fitted with cup and cone over-ride protection from 2002. Thus began what today’s transport ministers would have no doubt hailed as the biggest rolling stock replacement programme since Sir Herbert Walker’s time.

Southern Region traction power supplies had evolved over four decades in lockstep with the legendary traction combination of the English Electric camshaft controller and the direct current EE507 (DC) traction motor. In terms of current drawn by trains from the third rail, demand rose in two steps to a peak, after which it followed the falling constant power curve. When the Class 465 Networkers brought three-phase drive to the Southern, followed by Class 375 Electrostars and Class 450 Desiros, the symbiosis between power supply and train was disrupted in a number of ways. Figure 1 from the 2002 article (opposite) shows the difference.

BLAME GAME

Of course, when Modern Railways revealed the crisis everyone blamed Railtrack for not having upgraded the power supplies. But it wasn’t until the end of 2000 that Adtranz, as it was then, could provide the traction characteristics of the Class 375 so that power supply modelling to determine the scale of demand could start. Siemens was only just starting to supply the traction characteristics of its trains at the time of my interview.

So it wasn’t until the Class 375 data was available that the OSLO model could be loaded. And Railtrack had told the potential tenderers for the Mk 1 replacement stock that power supplies would be a major issue. As a backstop, the Strategic Rail Authority had begun a parallel train procurement programme.

So the need for new power was not exactly a black swan even then. Mind you, as I remarked helpfully at the time, neither had it been obvious that the new trains were going to be ‘power hungry lard-butts’.

Anyway, it was eventually resolved, sort of. And you would have thought that this high profile embarrassment would have stuck in the corporate memory, but apparently not.

FUNDING REQUIRED

‘We are looking at a substantial upgrade programme, which is not yet defined, which has no funding attached to it and which is essential to the Mk 1 replacement over the next three years, and yet it will take us more than three years to do it even if we get the funding.’ Michael Holden, Southern Region Director, Railtrack, November 2001

SOUTH WESTERN

First, some background. When First MTR South Western Trains (FMSWT) took over the South Western franchise from South West Trains in 2017 it inherited the existing Track Access Contract (TAC) that would expire in December 2018. It therefore applied for a new TAC to run from that date.

However the application was under Section 17, rather than Section 18 that applies when the operator and Network Rail are agreed on the rights being sought. Network Rail had been unable to agree to all the rights requested. Here we get the first echoes of 2001. In a letter to the Office of Rail & Road dated September 2017, Network Rail pointed out that Section 17 applications allow for ongoing discussion and agreement to be reached. But, the letter added, ‘to reach a point where support for an application for firm rights could be considered, it required sufficient detail of the rights sought in order to carry out adequate evaluation of them. Such detail has not been provided’.

Network Rail added that with FMSWT continuing to work on proposals for the timetable ‘and expecting to carry out a further public consultation’, it was not possible to support the application ‘subject to defined conditions’.

DISPUTED

Which is where the fun begins. In its letter, Network Rail paraphrased the aims of the new FMSWT timetable as ‘the operation of earlier first and last trains, more Sunday services across the network and the introduction of new trains. The combination of the recast of the December 2018 mainline timetable and the delivery of the new train fleet for suburban lines by December 2020 forms the basis of the plan to deliver the stated improvements’.

Then Network Rail parked its tanks on the Department for Transport’s lawn. While agreeing that these plans formed part of the bid that secured the franchise, satisfied the requirements of DfT’s Train Service Specification (TSS) in the Invitation to Tender and included additional services over and above the TSS, Network Rail pointed out that the ‘subsequent rights necessary are not awarded to the franchise holder as part of the process led by the Department for Transport’. Ouch.

That is only the first of several ‘ouches’. Network Rail also pointed to an evaluation of the First/MTR timetables developed during the bid process. This ‘concluded (that) the broad level of capacity required existed from a train planning rules point of view’.

However, it did not look in detail at the implications on engineering access, train performance, safety or traction power supply. Network Rail’s ‘ongoing concerns’ over these latter issues were raised in its specialist technical reports submitted to DfT during bid evaluation. Ouch, again. Furthermore, these concerns ‘were also stated within several formal letters to the DfT’. And again!

TRACTION POWER

While power supply is only one of these contentious issues, it is the most obvious pink flamingo. Over the years the power supply network has been upgraded in a series of incremental local enhancements responding to specific timetable requirements, including, as we know, meeting the needs of more power-hungry trains. In other words, there is no ‘standard’ specification across the power supply network.

While in 2017 Network Rail could start modelling the traction power for the proposed new timetable, it claimed that the information provided by FMSWT did not include such parameters as the length and type of units that will operate the services and their electrical characteristics. Given that SWR is acquiring Bombardier Aventras that are happily running on Network Rail’s Anglia Route, I’m not convinced by this claim. Yes, Anglia is AC and Southern DC, but Bombardier should be able to provide a generic set of characteristics quickly.

ALL-DAY PEAK

A critical factor in the FMSWT timetable is the potential impact of running additional off-peak services. To meet peak demand, the classic Southern substation can run at 150% of its nominal current rating for two hours. At a push this could go to 300% for two minutes. But running at overload requires time for the electrical equipment to cool down – for example, after the morning and evening peaks. Similarly, reducing headways means that the substations have less time to cool between trains.

NR made this point in its September response to ORR, noting that equipment which is currently based on a morning and evening peak-rated overload period may not be able to sustain the peak load all day. All this was aired in 2001.

FIGURE 1: COMPARISON OF TRACTION CHARACTERISTICS

The way it was done: in 2002 Hitachi adapted a former Class 310 EMU to form V-Train 1 (Verification Train), which was a project designed to test – and prove – that the company’s electrical traction equipment would work in the UK.

MISUNDERSTANDING

Now we come to what seems to be a basic misunderstanding. In its Section 17 application FMSWT referred to specific traction power enhancements in Network Rail’s Enhancements Delivery Plan (EDP) for Control Period 5. The assumption being that these should be capable of supporting the proposed new timetable. Network Rail responded that whether these upgrades could support the timetable would have to be confirmed by modelling of the power supply. Until that modelling is carried out there is the risk that further upgrades may be required to run the enhanced timetable.

As you can imagine, Network Rail’s comments did not go down well with FMWST, which responded vigorously to ORR in October 2017. The letter ‘emphasised’ that the rights sought for the December 2018 timetable involved only ‘minor changes’ compared to the rights existing in the May and December 2017 timetables.

On top of which the rights sought are in line with the DfT TSS for the new South Western franchise, ‘which was issued to all bidders and now forms part of our Franchise Agreement’. Well, yes, but according to informed sources DfT required bidders to take the risk on the capacity needed to run the timetable, including sufficient power, being available.

QUALIFIED

While the South Western bidding was underway, sole rival bidder Stagecoach was starting to realise that the East Coast main line capacity enhancements, on which its Virgin Trains East Coast bid had been based, weren’t going to be ready in time. With its South West Trains franchise having effectively developed and led the Control Period 5 High Level Output Specification Waterloo capacity enhancements, Stagecoach had a clear view of the pink flamingos flapping around DfT’s TSS for the new South Western franchise.

Busy railway: the South Western’s power requirements are on the up. This is Waterloo on 14 April 2018. Jamie Squibbs

As a result, Stagecoach qualified the TSS when preparing the timetable in its bid, effectively disqualifying itself. With First/MTR willing to meet the TSS in full, the consortium was rightly awarded the contract.

CONSISTENT

Anyway, back to the present. In its response to NR’s original concerns, FMSWT reiterated that the rights being sought are consistent with the outcomes specified for the South Western route. Under last year’s Waterloo capacity upgrade, the infrastructure had been upgraded for 10-car operation on the Main Suburban and Windsor line services to Reading, including a power supply upgrade (PSU) and platform lengthening. Ten-car operation ‘on all Main Suburban services was a key element of the specification of this franchise’.

FMSWT also noted that it had not received the specialist technical reports that Network Rail had sent to the DfT. These reports certainly identified the circling cerise avians. So concerned was Network Rail that I understand it even raised the issue directly with DfT Director General Bernadette Kelly.

RESPONSE

In this game of Box and Cox, Network Rail replied to the points in the FMSWT letter in December 2017. On power supply, the letter reiterated that previous enhancements have been scoped to provide additional capacity ‘based upon a specific timetable and (traction) power characteristic’. Any deviation from these parameters would introduce the risk of further power supply upgrades being required, upgrades that Network Rail was not funded to provide.

To justify its concerns, Network Rail challenged FMSWT’s claim that the proposed December 2018 timetable contained only minor changes compared to the rights in the current timetable. Network Rail’s comparison of the two timetables showed that FMSWT was applying for an additional 405 rights per weekday, an increase of 23%, 405 Saturday rights (up 27%) and an additional 343 Sunday rights (32%). In fact, power supply is a secondary concern in the December 2018 timetable, compared with capacity and engineering access. It really kicks in only with the arrival of the new trains during 2019.

Even so, the all-day peak service to Reading and Windsor proposed for 2018 would require the modelling for the existing 10-car PSU to be revisited to review the continuous rating of the equipment against the new demand. As was the case in 2002, you can safely exploit the overload capacity of the transformers and rectifiers during the two-hour peaks, after which demand falls and everything cools down. But with an all-day peak demand, the equipment has to be rated accordingly.

CLASS 442

There are also additional services on lines outside the scope of the Wessex Capacity and Windsor line PSU proposed for December 2018. Portsmouth to Guildford is of particular concern, plus the Portsmouth to St Denys line.

As in 2002, Network Rail is saying that it requires a final timetable with the type of trains, length of trains and timings. ‘At the very least’ a summary of the number of trains per hour on each section of line, including unit type, length plus traction power characteristics, is needed before the new power supply requirements can be modelled.

Fitted with AC motors: Class 455 at Wandsworth Town on 9 September 2017. Tim Squires

Interestingly, in its reference to the need for power characteristics of any new trains, Network Rail highlighted the Class 442 units. These were due to have been re-tractioned with three-phase drives by Kiepe Electric as part of the refurbishment before entering service on the enhanced Portsmouth service in the December 2018 timetable.

As reported in ‘Moving Wheels’ last month, the re-tractioning has been deferred and will now take place during 2019. This could be a blessing in disguise for the power supply issue, because the Class 442 with camshaft control equipment is less demanding than the equivalent three-phase drive.

CURT

To conclude this epistolary item we have FMSWT’s response to Network Rail’s response to its response to Network Rail’s original response to the Section 17 application. FMSWT was pretty curt, noting that Network Rail had ‘clarified’ that on the Wessex Capacity Programme Waterloo upgrade, all power supply enhancements had been scoped to provide additional capacity based on a specific timetable and power characteristic.

FMSWT also reiterated that the rights it is seeking ‘are consistent with the outcomes specified for the South Western franchise and the infrastructure investment delivered by NR to facilitate delivery of the specification’.

The operator had no further comment to make on this topic. As for the highlighting of the Class 442, FMSWT ‘does not consider this aspect relevant in consideration of a track access application’. Well, not unless the combination of re-tractioning plus the addition of rheostatic braking actually reduces traction current demand.

I do find this complete non-meeting of minds on the issue of what the current PSU will handle puzzling. One of the requirements of the Section 17 process is that the parties work together to resolve issues ‘to identify agreeable elements from the application that may be progressed as a Section 18 application’. This has been continuing, with the aim of ‘minimising the risk and providing contractual certainty to both parties with regard to track access and timetabling for December 2018’.

DEUS EX MACHINA

But all these issues were overtaken on 9 July, when the Rail Delivery Group announced that SWR was one of the operators that would not be implementing a new timetable in December 2018 in the wake of the May timetable meltdown. It appears that the intention is to make the next timetable change in May 2019.

This means that DfT now has to renegotiate the franchise agreement since FMSWT can’t introduce the new timetable, which was intended to bring in more revenue. This is likely to blow a hole into an already fragile revenue line.

If FMSWT really believes that power supply is not an issue, then negotiations can continue with Network Rail on a new track access agreement for May 2019. But were I the operator I would use this hiatus to renegotiate infrastructure risk back onto the ultimate infrastructure owner and specifier: DfT.

As a final note, Network Rail’s capacity study concluded that both SWR’s aspirations and Alliance’s Grand Southern open access services could fit into the notional 2018 timetable. No mention was made of possible traction power constraints. Easy to trip over these pink flamingos.

The South Western in September: Class 444 on a diverted Portsmouth Harbour to Waterloo working on Richmond bridge on 24 September 2017. Jamie Squibbs
Crowding problem: passengers seek to board a Class 700 at St Albans. Daisy Cooper/Herts Advertiser