Institute of Railway Studies and Transport History

Working papers in railway studies, number eleven

A history of British Railways’ electrical research

by A O Gilchrist Published by

Institute of Railway Studies and Transport History

National Railway Museum University of Leeman Road Heslington York YO26 4XJ York YO10 5DD UK UK

ISSN 1368-0706 Text Copyright A O Gilchrist 2008 This format Copyright IRS&TH 2008 i

CONTENTS

Text: page 1. Preface 1 2. Origins under the British Transport Commission (1960-1962) 2 3. Under – the Blandford House years (1963-1966) 4 4. The move to (1966-1968) 7 5. The period of the Ministry programme (1969-1985) 10 5.1. Two short-lived projects 11 5.1.1. Plasma torch 11 5.1.2. Autowagon 12 5.2. Signalling 13 5.2.1. By inductive loop 13 5.2.2. By transponder 16 5.2.3. By radio 17 5.2.4. Solid State Interlocking 18 5.3. Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) 20 5.4. Radio communications 21 5.5. Mathematics and computer science 22 5.6. Business machines 25 5.7. Electric traction 25 5.8. 27 5.9. Electrification 28 6. The final years under BR management (1985-1996) 33 6.1. The completion of SSI 34 6.2. Train detection 35 6.3. Signalling policy 36 6.4. IECC 39 6.5. Control Centre of the Future 41 6.6. CATE 42 6.7. VISION 43 6.8. Electric traction 44 6.9. Electrification 45 7. Conclusion 48

Figures (listed overleaf) are placed after the main text. ii

Figures:

Figure 1 Organisation of British Railways Research Department, 29 March 1968.

Figure 2 The “Project Manager” Organisation of British Railways Research and Development Division, 1 May 1972.

Figure 3 The Organisation of British Railways Research and Development Division, April 1974.

Figure 4 The Branch and Unit structure of British Railways Research and Development Division, introduced between 1978 and 1980 and shown here at September 1982.

Figure 5 Organisation of BR Research and Development Division, April 1986.

Figure 6 Organisation of Research, October 1989.

Figure 7 Engineering Research and Development Organisation, 18 May 1992.

Figure 8 British Rail Research Organisation, October 1993.

Figure 9 British Rail Research Organisation, July 1994.

Figure 10 British Rail Research Organisation, July 1996. A HISTORY OF BRITISH RAILWAYS’ ELECTRICAL RESEARCH

by A O Gilchrist

1. Preface

In March 2005 I completed a rather detailed history of “engineering research” on British Railways, in the sense understood within the Research Department for many years – namely research in the disciplines of mechanical and civil engineering.1 While preparing this, I hoped that a colleague might undertake a similar task on behalf of the electrical discipline. This has not happened. Therefore, with generous assistance from those involved, I have prepared a reasonably full account of the electrical research undertaken under the railway’s management – i.e. from the formal establishment of an Electrical Research Section by the British Transport Commission in July 19602 to the sale by the British Railways Board of its research assets in December 1996. Many former colleagues have helped me. I wish to thank especially Alan Wickens, Bob Sparrow, Donald Armstrong, Peter Law, Alan Betts, John Hawkes, Roy Harrison, John Birkby, Norman Shelley, John Rosser, Derek Watkins, Mike Furniss, Bill Parkman, Brian Hutchings, Malcolm Savage, Mike Kinsey, Tony Annis, Richard Gostling, Sandy Scholes, Peter Parkin, Mike McGuire, Alan Bradwell, Christopher Bull, Derek Linder, Alan Cribbens, Peter Lawrence, David Evans, Allan Wayte, Doug Holgate, John Hurley, Bob Holmes, Ian Mitchell and Brian Smith.

1 A O Gilchrist “A history of Engineering Research on British Railways”, Institute of Railway Studies & Transport History, York, working paper no. 10, 2006. 2 British Transport Commission minute 13/272 of 21 July 1960, National Archive AN 85 15. 2 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH

2. Origins under the British Transport Commission (1960-1962) During the later 1950s the desirability of conducting some electrical research “in-house” became a subject of discussion between the Chief Officers of the British Transport Commission. This seems to have been driven by three considerations: dissatisfaction with the performance of contractors in this respect; a feeling that some topics intimately associated with railway operation would require the railway’s initiative; and a desire to capitalise on opportunities emerging from the development of electronics. Concerned in these discussions were John Ratter, the Commission’s Technical Adviser, C C Inglis, their Chief of Research, S B Warder, the Chief Electrical Engineer and A W Woodbridge, the Chief Signal Engineer. All were members of the Commission’s influential Technical Development and Research Committee.3 A first step was taken in February 1957 when the Committee agreed to a proposal from Inglis and Warder to introduce a new post of Electric Traction Research Assistant into the Chief Electrical Engineer’s organisation. After a considerable delay (during which Professor Tustin of the Research Advisory Council expressed some impatience) Dr F T (“Freddie”) Barwell was appointed to this post. Dr Barwell took up his position, now titled Electric Traction Engineer (Research), in August 1958. He was in fact a mechanical engineer, well known to the senior staff of the British Transport Commission for his work at the National Engineering Laboratory on adhesion (limiting wheel/rail friction).4 Adhesion would continue to be an important subject of study for the Electrical Engineer because of its relevance to design. However Dr Barwell had much wider interests and his new role included a specific remit to survey the requirements for electrical research and to recommend action. His final proposals were ready by September 1959.5 They were presented to the Technical Development and Research Committee with a covering note by Messrs Warder, Inglis and Woodbridge in November 1959. The Committee accepted the “Phase 1” proposal to create a relatively small Electrical Research Section under the Chief Electrical Engineer’s responsibility. This recommendation was confirmed by the British Transport Commission in the following July. The establishment was set at 31 technical staff. Dr Barwell, as Electric Traction Engineer (Research), naturally took charge. Unsurprisingly, most subjects identified for research related to the traction interest. They included power equipment topics such as motor design and control. The adhesion studies, already mentioned, were proposed to continue. A third major strand related to the 25kV overhead electrification system recently selected as the standard for new work; studies were to include dynamic analysis of the catenary system, and the performance of insulators. However in addition, even at this early stage and despite the reporting line to the Electrical Engineer, signalling matters were identified as having important research potential.6 It was in this context that developments in modern electronics and modern computing methods were expected to show some of their best returns. Some members of the Chief Electrical Engineer’s staff transferred to the new Section, bringing their work with them. They included Dr H I Andrews, already established as Dr Barwell’s Assistant,7 and R G Sell, previously the Chief Electrical Engineer’s Assistant (Fixed Equipment). Sell, like Andrews, took the new title Assistant Traction Engineer (Research). It is probable that both

3 The relevant minutes and supporting papers of this committee are preserved at the National Archive as AN 97 291, 292, 301 and 302. John Ratter became chairman in October 1958; in January 1960 the committee was renamed simply Technical Committee. 4 A retrospective account of this work appears in F T Barwell and R G Woolacott “The NEL contribution to adhesion studies”, paper 9, Institution of Mechanical Engineers Convention on Adhesion, 28-29 November 1963. 5 He had given an interim presentation in January 1959. 6 This had the strong support – and was perhaps at the initiative – of the Chief Signal Engineer. The proposal to include signalling matters appears in the Warder-Inglis-Woodbridge covering note, not the Barwell paper. 7 Earlier, Dr Andrews, an electrical engineer, had been a prominent member of the LMS’s Engineering Research Section in Derby. His magnum opus there was the Mobile Test Unit, see H I Andrews “The Mobile Locomotive Testing Plant of the LMS Railway”, Proc. I. Mech. E., Vol. 158, 1948, pp 450-476. §2. ORIGINS UNDER BTC 3 brought subordinate staff with them, working on adhesion and electrification matters respectively. Of the external recruits, John Hawkes joined in September 1960 to provide general mathematical assistance; a significant early assignment for him was the application of digital computing to the construction of signalling control tables. Marcus Astle-Fletcher, the Section’s physicist, was already in post and contributing to the adhesion studies. Soon H H (Harry) Ogilvy joined and commenced a thorough survey of the requirements and opportunities for research in the signalling field. James Brown arrived from Metropolitan-Vickers (by then AEI ) and started a very active programme of work on locomotive traction systems. A later recruit was Roger Morris, an engineer with a strong analytical bent, who would contribute particularly to the dynamic analysis of the /overhead system. In October 1960 the recruitment position was reported to be satisfactory; with a good quality of applicants, the “professional” staff by December 1961 totalled 27, quite close to the originally authorised figure.8 The -based members of the Section were initially accommodated in rather cramped quarters on the top floor of 222 Marylebone Road. In 1962, proposals would be developed to move the staff to Blandford House at the opposite end of and to create a light electrical laboratory there. The Section already possessed an outstation at Willesden, where a specialist adhesion laboratory had been brought into use in July 1957.9 In June 1960, agreement had been reached to transfer the Rugby Locomotive Testing Station to the Chief Electrical Engineer’s responsibility.10 Its Rugby site also became the base for a team working on overhead electrification11 and so formed a second, more substantial, outstation. Throughout this period, C C Inglis had line responsibility for the Commission’s established Research Department, which it had inherited from the Railway Executive in 1954 and which had a history going back many years. It was responsible for research in mechanical and civil engineering, and it provided a chemical service to the railway. However Inglis is known to have found its then Director, T M Herbert, much too cautious.12 He and Ratter evidently agreed that a more suitable environment in which to build a new electrical research capability was under the aegis of the Chief Electrical Engineer. However, in April 1961 T M Herbert retired and was replaced, 11 months later, by Dr Sydney Jones. Inglis then had a Director of Research fully in tune with his own way of thinking. This left the way clear for the transfer of the electrical research effort to the central Research Department. Thus one of the first acts of the British Railways Board (at their meeting on 10 January 1963) was to agree the transfer of the Electrical Research Section to British Railways Research Department. There it would form a complete new Division, one of four,13 and bring to the Research Department an electrical capability previously lacking.

8 As reported to the Technical Committee by Minutes 881 (14 October 1960) and 1006 (15 December 1961), AN 97 292 and submitted paper of 11 December 1961, AN 97 303. 9 Engineering, 13 February 1959, p. 218 provides a very brief description of the Willesden Test Plant under the title “Electric train wheel adhesion studied at Willesden”. S B Warder had presented a full description to the Technical Development and Research Committee in July 1958; his report, dated April 1958, is preserved in AN 97 299. A R (Tony) Beadle was active at the Willesden laboratory. 10 The Chief Mechanical Engineer had placed the Test Plant on a “care and maintenance” basis by October 1959, it being no longer required for testing. 11 Certainly before May 1961 when Alan Betts joined the Rugby team to work (initially) on the Test Plant. 12 This is clearly expressed in his later paper to the British Railways Board “Arrangements for research”, 1 May 1963, AN 101 1. 13 The other three Divisions were: Engineering Research, Chemical Research and Regional Scientific Services (see my History of Engineering Research, op. cit.). Under British Railways Board Dr Jones’ title became Deputy Chief of Research, the title Director of Research disappearing temporarily. Sydney Jones would succeed Colin Inglis as Chief of Research in August 1964 on the latter’s retirement. 4 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH

3. Under British Railways Board – the Blandford House years (1963-1966) In January 1963, then, the Electrical Research Section became the Electrical Research Division of British Railways Research Department. Dr Barwell’s title became Director of Electrical Research. He also gained an Assistant in the person of Captain Lucien Hix, who transferred from his previous post as assistant to the Commission’s Electronics Advisory Officer, Brigadier G H Hinds. Otherwise the staff continued with their work as before, and were perhaps more conscious of their physical move to Blandford House (which happened to coincide in timescale) than with their change of organisational status. In all, some 43 staff transferred to the Research Department: 28 at the London location, 4 at Willesden and 11 at Rugby.14 Within perhaps a year of the move to Blandford House, the question of location again became an issue. Two options were canvassed: Rugby, with its access to 25kV supplies and a newly electrified railway; and Derby, alongside the Department’s much larger Engineering Research Division. During 1964 the choice became clear as proposals emerged for a major development of the Derby site. The Electrical Research building then became one element in the £4m Railway Technical Centre project, due for completion in 1967. In March 1965, Dr Barwell left to take up the Chair of Mechanical Engineering at the University College of Swansea. He was replaced (certainly by October 1965)15 by Dr Liviu Alston. Dr Alston would prove a vigorous supporter of, and advocate for, his Division’s work, particularly in its signalling aspects. His reporting line, initially to Dr Jones, soon moved to Mr S F (Stan) Smith,16 appointed Director of Research in December 1965 following Dr Jones’ appointment to the British Railways Board in the previous month. During the Blandford House years, substantial progress was made on the signalling front. Harry Ogilvy had already laid the groundwork. He had reviewed the benefits of continuous train control – “moving block” as opposed to “fixed block”. The former showed benefits in terms of track utilisation; it also offered the long-term prospect of automatic train operation. (The “cybernetic railway” was a subject much discussed at the time.) Since continuous control requires continuous communication, the latter soon became a research topic in its own right. Having reviewed the options, Ogilvy recommended dedicated conductors laid in the track 4-foot and coupling inductively to a receiver on the train. He went on to propose a zig-zag configuration for one of the pair of track conductors – the “wiggly wire” arrangement – to produce an amplitude modulation of the received signal. This provided a measure of actual train speed; also the pitch of the zig-zag could be set to define a target speed profile. By 1964, a practical demonstration was felt to be appropriate. Peter Law was recruited to take this forward, joining from ML Engineering in March of that year. A test site was quickly established between West Drayton and Colnbrook on the Staines West branch.17 Within a year, all the facilities specified in Ogilvy’s proposals (including two-way voice communication) had been demonstrated. A second strand of the signalling work derived from the work of Professor Barlow at University College London. The proposal was to use guided-wave radar as a means of train or obstacle detection and as a communication medium. Mike Birkin was recruited to liaise with Professor Barlow and to act as BR’s manager for the project. A test site was established near Ferranti’s premises. The waveguide had the appearance of a handrail built alongside the

14 “Staff position as at 20 April 1963” as reported to the Research Management Meeting (papers previously held at BRB Record Centre). 15 British Railways Board Directory, October 1965 (AN 22 5). 16 Stan Smith had himself joined in March 1965 as Director of Engineering Research. 17 “Inductive train communication trials”, Railway Gazette, 19 November 1965, pp 900-901. §3. UNDER BRB AT BLANDFORD HOUSE 5 track. Despite the sophistication of the science, the project was not successful – not least because unimportant occurrences were detected, such as passing birds.18 In mathematics, a start was made on a technique that would have an important future: the simulation of traffic flow through a network.19 In 1965, a manual simulation was made, using Borough Market Junction as an example.20 This was undertaken to check the working of an automatic train simulator proposed by Plessey UK Limited. The defects exposed proved too great, and the Plessey proposal was not pursued. Then in 1966, as a result of a collaboration with the Royal Aircraft Establishment, an automatic simulation was successful.21 At this early stage, to accommodate the limited computing power available, the simulation was arranged to step forward by “events” (e.g. “train clears signal”), rather than the more straightforward time steps. The programme was not general purpose, the Dartford area being modelled in this case. The work on traction systems suffered a setback with the sudden death in service of James Brown in April 1964. The work temporarily lost impetus and direction; certainly Brown’s planned enhancements to the Rugby Test Plant (by fitting electric brakes) were never executed. Then in January 1965 his successor, Donald Armstrong, joined, his remit specifically mentioning induction drives. Two such studies were already under way: on linear motors and on (rotary) locomotive drives. The former originated in a British Transport Commission collaboration with the ’s great advocate, Professor of Manchester University. A rail-mounted trolley had been constructed carrying an opposed pair of 36-inch linear motors acting on a vertical reaction rail and was first tested at Gorton Works.22 It was later moved to Derby for further tests and for demonstration at the opening of the new Engineering Research laboratories on 14 May 1964.23 It was moved again to Swindon to complete its testing. Superficially the linear motor had the attractions of simplicity and freedom from adhesion limitations. However, Donald Armstrong’s detailed scrutiny exposed serious practical difficulties, not least due to the length of motor required; also efficiency and power factor were relatively low; and finally the economic predictions were adverse, mainly due to the cost of the aluminium reaction rail.24 The study of locomotive induction drives centred on a second collaboration, in this case with the Brush Electrical Engineering Company. They had, by 1965, completed their Hawk locomotive by the very extensive modification of the redundant diesel- No. 10800.25 This was now fitted with four squirrel-cage three-phase traction motors each driven by its own thyristor inverter. The system (under manual control) was tested both on the Rugby Test Plant and at up to 40 mile/h on the Great Central main line. The square waveform delivered by the inverters was found to cause serious vibration of the motor transmissions; but again it was the unfavourable financial assessment that led to the project’s termination.

18 Both wiggly-wire and guided-wave radar are described in F T Barwell and H H Ogilvy “Communications and their effect on railway operations”, Proceedings of the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers 1965/6, pp 135- 154. See also Professor H M Barlow “High frequency guided electromagnetic waves in application to railway signalling and control”, The Radio and Electronic Engineer, Vol. 33, No. 5, May 1967. 19 The calculation of point-to-point timings of individual trains (“train performance”) had long been the province of the Engineering Research Division – and would remain so. See J E Hargreaves “Mathematical model for train performance”, Railway Gazette, 7 February 1969, pp 105-108. 20 P W Clark and J Hawkes, Report EL 56 “Manual simulation of Borough Market Junction: progress report”, July 1965 (NA AN 147 55). 21 J Hawkes, K N Dodd and R P Muddle, Report EL 63 “Digital simulation of traffic flow with application to train movements”, January 1966 (NA AN 147 62). The computation, in Mercury Autocode, was run on the Manchester Atlas machine. A 3-hour peak period (64 trains) was simulated in 30 seconds. 22 Private communication from Alan Betts who was called up from Rugby to assist with the tests. 23 The opening ceremony was performed by the Duke of Edinburgh. Two electrical exhibits were included in what was essentially the Engineering Division’s day, the other being the guided-wave radar. 24 A steel reaction rail was shown to be unsatisfactory. Donald Armstrong’s full argument is given in Railway Gazette, 17 February 1967, pp 145-149 “Application of the linear motor to transport”. 25 Railway Gazette, 19 March 1965, pp 237-239 “Diesel-electric drive without commutators”. 6 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH

Much of the work on adhesion during this period was concerned with adhesion improvement methods. Dr Ivan Andrews had already developed his theory of “secondary conditioning”.26 He also became convinced of the merit of treating low adhesion sites with a dilute solution of ethyl capryllate. In this connection he developed a rail-mounted distributor – it progressed to a Mk III version – and either recommended or applied the treatment to numerous sites all over the country.27 The practice was not destined to survive, however.28 Meanwhile the basic physics of the adhesion process, and the traditional remedy of sanding, were examined by Marcus Astle-Fletcher.29 Then, in 1966, a French proposal to treat the rail by electric sparking was tested at Rugby with some success. This was to prove the precursor of a more ambitious venture: the plasma torch. During the first half of this period, the 25kV electrification of the from Euston to Liverpool and Manchester was still under construction.30 This gave the current collection team under R G Sell a double objective: to achieve a satisfactory performance from the equipment being installed; and to devise improved equipment for future schemes.31 The first objective was achieved by fitting hydraulic dampers to the pantographs and by careful adjustment of dropper spacing and profile of the (compound) overhead. At “hard spots” such as overbridges and tunnels, the approach profile and stiffness were carefully graded and flexible under-bridge contact-wire supports were devised using leaf-springs. Under the second objective, the most important outcome was the invention of the “sagged-simple” catenary system. This would become the standard for future schemes. These results were achieved largely by empirical means, ideas being tested and confirmed by full-scale experiment. On the theoretical side, Andrews offered a static calculation method32 and Roger Morris a dynamic prediction by analogue computer.33 These supported the more intuitive arguments of the experimental team.

26 H I Andrews “The “secondary conditioning” effect of surfaces as observed on steel rails”, Wear, Vol. 6, 1963, pp 262-275. 27 Described later in Railway Gazette, 3 November 1967, pp 831-832 “Chemicals to improve adhesion”. 28 Whether the idea was unsound, uneconomic, or simply failed to survive the loss of its champion, I have not established. Dr Andrews is found writing (still on chemical adhesion improvements) from Enfield College in December 1971 (Railway Gazette International pp 473-476). 29 M W Astle-Fletcher “Mechanical methods of improving rail adhesion”, paper 12, I. Mech. E. Convention on Adhesion, 28-29 November 1963. 30 The first electric train ran through from Euston to Liverpool on 22 November 1965 (Railway Gazette, 3 December 1965, p. 930). 31 R G Sell “British Railways research on current collection”, Railway Gazette, 15 April 1966, pp 312-320. 32 H I Andrews “Calculating the behaviour of an overhead catenary system for railway electrification”, Proc. I. Mech. E., Vol. 179, 1964/65, pp 809-828. 33 R B Morris “The aplication of an analogue computer to a problem of pantograph and dynamics”, Proc. I. Mech. E., Vol. 179, 1964/65, pp 782-808. §4. THE MOVE TO DERBY 7

4. The move to Derby (1966-1968) In the spring of 1966, members of the London-based staff of the Electrical Research Division were given the option of transferring, with post, to Derby. Most of those who chose to move did so in the latter half of 1966. This necessitated some transitional office arrangements until the Electrical Research building (later “Lathkill House”) was ready for occupation. With the exception of part of the Systems Analysis Section, the move was completed in the early months of 1967.34 Dr Alston established himself in a fine directorial suite on the top floor of Lathkill House. The Willesden laboratory was closed. The Rugby outstation, on the other hand, was retained for high-voltage and overhead equipment work, the machinery of the locomotive test plant being dismantled and scrapped. A vigorous recruiting drive then followed – partly to make good losses occasioned by staff declining to move, and partly to increase numbers in line with a revised establishment. An important addition to the senior team at this time was Dr D E N (“Den”) Davies35 who joined from Birmingham University in October 1967 to become Assistant Director, Communications and Control. The fragment of the Systems Analysis Section – some half dozen staff – remaining behind in London occupied a small group of offices in Blandford House. John Birkby joined this team from in October 1967. Then in 1968, at Den Davies’ initiative, Norman Shelley was recruited from the Southern Region to head the Section and bring to it his combination of operating and engineering skills. The Section, still divided between London and Derby, was then renamed Automation. It would only finally be concentrated in Derby in 1969. Lucien Hix also remained behind in London, moving to the staff of Dr K H (Kenneth) Spring, by then Headquarters Research Manager.36 Complementing the 1967 staff moves, a new and improved wiggly-wire test site was established close to Derby.37 Some 6½ miles of the Derby Friargate to Eggington Junction freight line were equipped with track conductors, plus a new feature: “telegram coils” transmitting fixed data. Imitation colour-light signals were installed to simulate main-line practice. (The freight traffic, soon to be withdrawn, responded to semaphores.) A control room was established at Friargate. Transmitting and receiving equipment was designed and procured, while the locomotive computer and driver’s display panel were built in-house. A simulator was also created to exercise the locomotive equipment. Finally a battery railcar38 was commissioned to act as “locomotive”. By the spring of 1968, much of this equipment was in operation and confidence in the feasibility of signalling – even controlling – trains by these means was high. At this point, two nearer-term applications of the technique emerged. Firstly the Southern Region management was coming under criticism for their failure to fit the standard BR (AWS). Their operators in turn worried about the repeated cancellation of warnings implied by their short headways. Harry Ogilvy and Peter Law were quickly able to offer the Southern Region management a solution to this problem. Their proposal was to bring the approaching signal aspect into the cab by means of track conductors laid in advance of the signal, and to require the driver to acknowledge any cautionary aspect. On passing the signal, the approach aspect would be transferred to a “signal passed” display to act as a reminder. The system would also provide, and could revert to, the standard AWS function.39 The concept was soon named SRAWS for Southern Region AWS, later, and more accurately, Signal Repeating AWS. A demonstration was quickly prepared at Mickleover (on the now shortened Friargate line) by equipping two consecutive “signals” and installing a prototype driver’s display in the battery railcar. The system used signalling-approved components for modulation/demodulation of the carrier and for the logic functions on the train (tuned

34 The Technical Centre extension as a whole was opened by Mrs Barbara Castle, then Minister of Transport, on 31 March 1967. I have not established whether the Electrical Research building was occupied by this date. 35 More formally, David; later, after a distinguished academic and public career, Sir David. 36 Dr Spring had joined as Director of Research Planning in May 1963. 37 Railway Gazette, 15 September 1967, pp 695-697 & 700 “Full-scale trial for inductive train communication”. 38 Strictly, battery electrical . It was a 2-car set, originally built for the -Ballater service. 39 This required the installation of an AWS permanent magnet within the loop. 8 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH reeds and miniature relays respectively). Its operation was demonstrated to the Chief Signal and Telecommunications Engineer, Mr J F H Tyler, probably in June 1968;40 his endorsement led to the substantial SRAWS development described in Section 5.2.1 below. The second application arose in connection with the unloading of merry-go-round coal trains at power stations. Here it was proposed that the low-speed transit of the trains through the unloading hoppers could be controlled remotely by the hopper-house supervisor, releasing the train crew for their rest break and saving the cost of a stand-by crew. This became known as the Eggborough project, based at the power station there. The mathematical activity within the Electrical Division was substantially strengthened during this period. In 1967, Phil Coates, the very capable head of the Engineering Division’s Mathematics Section, transferred to the Electrical Division with a promotion to Assistant Director. He took with him (in an organisational sense) the team responsible for operating the Department’s digital computer.41 Having a broad view of the role of a mathematics section,42 he had earlier proposed, for the Engineering Division, a study of the optimisation of traffic flow through a junction complex. Soon named JOT (Junction Optimisation Technique), the subject had been taken up by Malcolm Savage some 6 months after his joining in March 1966. Subsequent to his transfer, Phil Coates created positions in a new Electrical Mathematics Section, and recruited Roy Harrison, Malcolm Savage and others to it. Certainly by March 1968 (when an Open Day was held) JOT was moving forward under the Electrical Research Division banner.43 The germ of the technique is given in Phil Coates’ 1967 paper already cited; its full development is given by Malcolm Savage in 1969.44 From a very early stage, the target application for the method was the complex, and congested, series of junctions outside Central station. Meanwhile, the Systems Analysis Section (or latterly the systems analysis element of the Automation Section) continued their development and application of area simulations. Increased computing power prompted the move from the event-based to the more versatile time-based approach and the programming of a General Area Time-based Train Simulator (GATTS) was started in 1968.45 Following the move to Derby, Donald Armstrong became established there as the Head of a small Machines Section. Occasional queries on linear motors were fielded – for traction, and for other applications such as baggage-handling equipment. A watching brief was maintained on inverter developments, against the time when 3-phase traction drives should become practical and economic. The main studies, however, now centred on the conventional dc . They included investigation of a scheme for thyristor-assisted commutation in line with a suggestion of Professor Bates of Shrivenham Military College; and the use of separately-excited motors to improve the traction control of diesel electric . The control response was modelled by analogue computer.46 The adhesion studies now concentrated on the development of the plasma torch. The idea followed from the French idea of spark discharge.47 Principals in the work were David Dobbs and Derek Linder, reporting to Hugh Dell who had joined in 1964 as Head of the Physics Section.48 By

40 The Research Department Functional Report to the Board dated June 1968 states that “this [proposed scheme] was demonstrated last week”. 41 This had recently (May 1966) been upgraded from the original Elliott 402F machine to an ICT 1909. 42 See P J Coates “Mathematics in railway technology”, Railway Gazette, 3 February 1967, pp 96-99. 43 The Divisional organisation at the time of the March 1968 Open Day is shown in Figure 1. 44 M J Savage “Junction optimisation technique”, The Computer Journal, Vol. 12. No. 3, August 1969, pp 268- 272. 45 A very early stage of this work is described by P M Dawson in “General area time-based train simulator (GATTS)”, internal report ELD51, November 1968 (AN 150 50). 46 Research Department Progress Report No. 7 (January-December 1967). 47 Railway Gazette, 1 September 1967, pp 663-664 “Sparking to improve adhesion”. This very slightly postdates D J Dobbs’ internal report EL 70 “Electric discharge as a means of improving wheel rail adhesion”, August 1967 (NA AN 147 69). 48 The Physics Section had also transferred in 1967 from the Engineering Division to the Electrical Division. §4. THE MOVE TO DERBY 9 the end of 1967 laboratory tests were producing promising results, the width of cleaned rail having been usefully increased by the addition of 10% hydrogen to the original argon arc. A laboratory coach carrying two plasma torches per rail was nearly ready for line trials. During 1968, these track tests advanced to 30 miles per hour and were very encouraging.49 R G (“Dick”) Sell had previously supervised the overhead work from Marylebone. He now moved to Rugby to take direct charge of the established team there, now occupied exclusively with high-voltage and overhead equipment work. Trouble-shooting continued on the newly-electrified lines. The sagged-simple concept was consolidated as the BR/BICC Mark III design. A first study was made of a more radical simplification: the single “trolley wire” 50– an idea that was destined to recur but never to progress. For overline bridges, a simple alternative to the earlier leaf-spring design was tested: a glass-fibre resin-bonded rod with butyl rubber coating acting as both spring and insulator. For conventional insulators, the effect of atmospheric pollution was studied at Derby and at a Finchley Road test site.51 At Derby also, E A C Cardwell of the Mathematics Section began a new (digital) approach to the computation of overhead equipment dynamic behaviour.

49 D J Dobbs “The plasma torch as a means of improving wheel/rail adhesion”, Proc. I.E.E., Vol. 115, No. 6, 1968, p. 893; also D J Dobbs “Plasma torch proved for low speed applications”, Railway Gazette, 7 November 1969, pp 812-814. 50 Professor A Tustin and R Broomfield “Trolley wire overhead for main line railways”, Railway Gazette, 7 March 1969, pp 185-191. 51 Research Department Progress Report No. 7 (January-December 1967). 10 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH

5. The period of the Ministry programme (1969-1985) Dr Sydney Jones, as we have seen, was appointed in November 1965 to the British Railways Board. At his first Board meeting he requested, and obtained, permission to seek Government funding for an expansion of the research programme. His negotiations were eventually successful when, in November 1968, funding was agreed for a programme judged to be consistent with national transport goals.52 The money was to be channelled through the Ministry of Transport, and became available from January 1969. The agreed programme had three elements: 1. The 2. The Control of Train Movement 3. BR Expansion Budget The Ministry undertook to bear 50% of the cost of items 1 and 2, and the whole of the additional cost of item 3. In the allocation of funds, the Train Control Project received the largest share (by a small margin over the Advanced Passenger Train).53 Its central theme was the continuous control of trains, building on the work already well advanced at Friargate. An incremental introduction into service was envisaged. It embraced the SRAWS and Eggborough projects. It added a new project to be based at Wilmslow in (i.e. in 25kV territory) aimed at demonstrating continuous speed supervision and a two-way speech connection.54 The development of train movement simulations and of optimal control strategies were also included. Indeed the benefits of the improved control – foreseen to be increased safety, increased track capacity, improved timekeeping and general system effectiveness – were to be demonstrated by the computer simulations. Locomotive control systems, adhesion, and electrification research provided three of the 19 headings of the Expansion (“XP”) programme. Thus all the principal areas of the Electrical Division’s work were destined to benefit from the additional Ministry funding. The programme was initially authorised for five years (with a break point after two). A successful resubmission in 1973 ensured that it would in fact continue for a further eleven years and three months, until March 1985. Initially the organisation of the Electrical Division was strengthened by the addition of a third Assistant Director and the creation of some new Sections. By the time of the Duke of Edinburgh’s second visit on 24 November 1970, Phil Coates had resigned and the three Assistant Directors in post were Den Davies, Harry Ogilvy (Electrification and Devices) and Dr R N Maddison (Applied Science). (During his relatively brief service with the Department Dr Maddison’s most visible achievement was the replacement of the ICL computer by an IBM 370 machine.) One new Section can be identified: Devices under David Dobbs. Dr Spring by now has been promoted to be Head of Research BRB. Peter Law has succeeded Harry Ogilvy as head of the Signalling Section. 1971 then saw significant changes in both senior personnel and organisation. In that year, Stan Smith left to join London Transport, Den Davies returned to academia, and Liviu Alston left to join the World Bank. On 1 July 1971, Alan Wickens took up the new post of Director of Laboratories, effectively succeeding Stan Smith and reporting to Dr Spring as Head of Research. Alan Wickens immediately introduced a new internal structure in which responsibility was delegated to nine Project Managers reporting in turn to two Deputy Directors (Dr R W Sparrow for Engineering, and Dr K G A Pankhurst for Applied Science). This structure is shown (some 10 months later) in Figure 2.55 The main body of electrical research now falls within Bob Sparrow's remit, three Project

52 He was closely assisted in these negotiations by Kenneth Spring in his role as Headquarters Research Manager. 53 The costs allocated, to be spread over 5 years, were £2.4m for the APT, £2.5m for Train Control and £1.35m for the Expansion budget. The increase in establishment authorised for the Train Control project was 75 posts. 54 Research Department Report to the Board, August 1969. 55 Figure 2 is transcribed from an organisation chart dated 1 May 1972 in John Birkby’s possession. The original also shows four subordinate posts, not transcribed: P Hetzel (Electric Traction – Rugby Laboratory) under W R Smith, A F Haines (Tribology – Lubrication and Wear) under C Pritchard, F G R Zobel (Adhesion – Surface Physics) under D J Dobbs, and P Johnson (Physics – NDT) under H A Dell. §5. THE MINISTRY PROGRAMME 11

Managers being involved: Peter West, Norman Shelley and Harry Ogilvy. The Machines and Overhead Equipment Sections have been combined to become Electric Traction under Rennie Smith. In September 1972, the Department changed its name (and remit) to become British Railways’ Research and Development Division. By April 1974, adjustments to the structure had produced the organisation shown in Figure 3.56 The Mathematics Section under Malcolm Savage has now rejoined its former Electrical Division colleagues under Norman Shelley. Also by this time, a second strand of electrical activity, now detached from the Advanced Passenger Train, has become relevant to our narrative: namely the work of the Electromechanics and Electrical Systems Sections reporting to Mike Newman in his new role of Group Manager Vehicles. The project manager-based organisation lasted for seven years, until 1978. In September of that year, Dr Spring moved to lead the Strategic Planning Unit and Dr Wickens was appointed Director of Research. He then proposed a new structure of “Branches” and “Units”. This was introduced in two phases, in 1978 and 1980. Phase I established the Branches by a re-grouping of the old Sections; Phase II rationalised the old Sections into a smaller number of new Units. The resulting structure is shown (in 1982) in Figure 4.57 David Dobbs as Head of the Electrical Branch now has Malcolm Savage as his nominated deputy. His four Units are Electrical Systems (G B Smith), Train Control (Mike Birkin), Software Engineering (Malcolm Savage) and Micro-electronics (Alan Cribbens). The Electrical Systems Unit represents an amalgamation of the old Electric Traction and Electrical Systems Sections. Norman Shelley has moved (with no staff) to the new post of Manager, Operations Studies, a post that he will hold until taking early retirement in July 1982.58 On 1 January 1984, Alan Wickens was appointed to the new post of Director, Engineering Development and Research, thereby acquiring the additional responsibility of coordinating – or at least advising on the coordination of – the development activities of the Chief Engineers. Bob Sparrow moved to Director, Research while Peter Law was appointed Assistant Director (Development) to lead the studies of development policy (see Figure 5). One consequence of these changes for the electrical activity would appear in the next period, with the commissioning of the signalling strategy studies in 1986.59 The more significant technical achievements during the sixteen-year currency of the Ministry Programme are described below.

5.1: Two short-lived projects 5.1.1: Plasma torch In the adhesion studies, the electrical researchers had always given priority to the problem of traction. With the plasma torch, the original idea had been to fit torches to locomotives. With this in view, the argon/hydrogen torch itself had been developed into a compact encapsulated unit. However, the equipment needed to keep it supplied with gas, electricity and cooling water remained very bulky. Thus any idea of retrofitting the equipment to an existing locomotive was out of the question – and for new designs the financial justification was very doubtful. Therefore a new approach was taken, of constructing service vehicles to pre-treat troublesome sections of track, normally overnight. Two such units were completed. In Research, a diesel-powered unit was formed from two Metro-Cammell

56 The structure shown is that proposed in a Consultation document dated April 1974. Postholders are taken from an undated document which evidently relates. Note that the APT responsibility has now passed to the CMEE (in 1973). 57 September 1982 is the date of a surviving organisation chart in my collection which shows postholders. Changes in the Electrical Branch since 1980 are the identification of Malcolm Savage as Deputy Branch Head, and the disappearance of the Electro-chemistry Unit working on the sodium-sulphur battery. This activity had been privatised by management buyout earlier in 1982. 58 His major achievement during this period was to propose and gain approval for the RETB concept, see Section 5.2.3 below. 59 See Section 6.3 below. 12 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH

power cars, one engine providing traction and one the power supply for the torches. Argon was carried in a large vacuum container filling the space from floor to ceiling and replenished by road tanker, hydrogen in a rack of cylinders. Two substantial racks of electrical equipment provided the necessary constant-current electrical supply to the torches. Finally a water circuit, with pump and radiator, was needed to cool each torch. This unit was intended principally for the treatment of coal-contaminated lines on the merry-go-round network of . It was delivered to Tinsley Depot and operated from there by Research staff on behalf of the Eastern Region.60 The second rail treatment train was built by the Southern Region, in their case by putting two electrical multiple unit power cars together.61 It carried the more recently developed air torches. These used argon only for starting, thereby saving on gas but at the expense of a more powerful electrical supply. The unit was operated by Southern Region staff and was used mainly on leaf-affected track, such as the notorious Bairsted Bank. However, the plasma torch, like the chemical rail treatments before it, failed to survive the loss of its champion and the consequent review of its prospects. After Dr Alston had left in 1971, the Electrical Division’s interests in adhesion were passed to Tony Collins in the Applied Science wing of the organisation (Figure 2). Whilst the senior staff of the old Devices Section soon moved on,62 the small team associated with the Tribometer Train remained and were later absorbed into the Tribology Section under Colin Pritchard.63 This train had been commissioned as part of the plasma torch project and its construction successfully overseen by Derek Watkins and his small team.64 It consisted of an adapted and instrumented 2-axled van that provided the measuring element, plus a laboratory coach and match vehicle. It commenced operation in the summer of 1972 and was to prove an important asset for the adhesion work.65

5.1.2: Autowagon Autowagon was an extraordinarily ambitious project. It was very much in the spirit of the “cybernetic railway” – Captain Hix being a strong supporter.66 It envisaged individual self- powered container-carrying wagons routing themselves about the railway network and docking at special facilities where containers could be unloaded and reloaded automatically. The idea first emerges in the record in an internal paper by John Hopkinson in November 1968.67 It advances to the status of a full feasibility study by D E N Davies, N Shelley and J Hopkinson in March 1970.68 A period of intense practical activity ensued in which the feasibility of the automatic routing and docking of an experimental “wagon” was

60 The construction of the unit had been managed by John Rosser; its operation became the responsibility of Alan Starbuck. 61 Relevant internal reports are J A Rosser “Construction and operation of Southern Region plasma torch train”, ELD 270 (AN 150 187), and J C G Wheeler “Development of air plasma torch”, ELD 271 (AN 150 188), both dated June 1971. ELD 270 states that the Southern Region unit entered service in October 1970 and was brought to a reliable state by June 1971. 62 By 1973 David Dobbs, Derek Linder and Roger Goodall are all working on the Maglev project, see Section 5.8 below. 63 Tony Collins and Colin Pritchard had been active in the adhesion field for some years, see their paper “Recent research on adhesion”, Railway Engineering Journal (REJ), September 1972, pp 19-34. 64 His team included Alan Starbuck, Ken Argent and Sue Watkins. 65 The train and its extensive early adhesion surveys are described by D J Watkins in “Exploring adhesion with British Rail’s tribometer train”, REJ, July 1975, pp 6-13. 66 Lucien Hix had long been an advocate of automation, see his “Automatic control and systems aspects of train and railway operation”, I. Mech. E. Convention on Automatic Railways, 23-25 September 1964. 67 J Hopkinson “Individually powered freight vehicles: line capacity”, internal report ELD 50, November 1968 (AN 150 49). This was followed by his “Individually powered freight vehicles: preliminary findings”, ELD 62, January 1969 (AN 150 58). 68 D E N Davies, N Shelley and J Hopkinson “Individually powered freight vehicles: feasibility study”, internal report ELD 164, March 1970 (AN 150 128). §5. THE MINISTRY PROGRAMME 13

demonstrated, followed by the automatic transfer of its container.69 A study was also commissioned and completed to assess the computer requirements for the system control at both national and local level. Brian Mellitt was closely involved in this work. By the time of his Railway Gazette article in September 1972, the project had been closed down70 but he describes the work completed and discusses the conditions that would allow the concept to be viable.71

5.2: Signalling 5.2.1: By inductive loop In the summer of 1969, John Birkby transferred to the Signalling Section to take charge of the three projects using inductive loop data transmission: SRAWS, Eggborough and Wilmslow. All were derivatives of the wiggly-wire concept. However by now the zig-zag configuration had been dropped, SRAWS employing long rectangular loops, Wilmslow parallel conductors crossed over at 100 metre intervals. Also both were now designed to be compatible with existing (fixed block) signalling; aspirations towards moving-block operation were in abeyance. In the SRAWS project, the successful Mickleover demonstration was followed by a second demonstration on Southern Region territory. Three consecutive signals on the Christchurch to Bournemouth Down Line were equipped with track loops and AWS magnets; the receiving equipment, processing unit and driver’s display were fitted temporarily to a Southern Region driving cab. Their operation was demonstrated to the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways in October 1969. His approval allowed the planning of a pilot scheme to go ahead.72 A site on the Up Fast line from Bournemouth was selected, involving a sequence of twelve signals between Bournemouth and Totton. It was also agreed to fit the London- facing cabs of all eleven REP units providing the Bournemouth to Waterloo express service. The scheme was complete and in service by October 1971. It was well received by the drivers and by Regional management. During this scheme’s construction, ideas continued to develop. Firstly the operators called for a thorough review of the system specification. This was undertaken by a Joint Technical and Operating Working Party chaired by John Birkby which reported in November 1971. The new specification introduced a number of additional requirements to accommodate, for example, train splitting, bi-directional running, and speed restriction indications. A train trip facility was also specified. Secondly the emphasis moved towards suburban operation, necessitating a second trial in that context. Accordingly seventeen signals between Esher and Raynes Park were equipped to the new specification and commissioned in December 1972. Train equipment, also to the new specification, was fitted eventually to ten CIG units of the Portsmouth Direct service, the first five entering service in January 1975. The original REP units also ran through the Esher to Raynes Park section, but responding only in Bournemouth/Totton mode. The train-borne logic on all these vehicles was relay-based. In the case of the CIG units, the number of relays required had risen to 60. This gave rise to fears for the system’s

69 The “wagon” was represented by an unpowered “Conflat” coupled to a diesel-electric locomotive with modified power control. The automatic loading gantry was erected at Mickleover, the “depot” of the Friargate line. 70 Presumably it was deemed to be impractical, but I have not found a closing statement. 71 B Mellitt “Can Autowagon beat the lorry?”, Railway Gazette International, September 1972, pp 329-332. 72 Detail of this scheme is given by D E N Davies and P G Law in “Bournemouth Line cab signalling”, Railway Gazette, 18 July 1969, pp 545-546 & 549. A slightly later and more general description of the signalling work is L L Alston, D E N Davies and P G Law “Control of train movement”, ASME/IEEE Joint Railroad Technical Conference, New York 19-21 April 1971. 14 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH

reliability in full fleet operation. Therefore in 1972, Alan Cribbens and colleagues started work on a solid-state version of the train equipment. A duplicated processor configuration was chosen, in which a disagreement between channels would shut the system down; the driver would then revert to normal (AWS) driving.73 The laboratory prototype was successfully tested on the Southern Region’s VEP test vehicle in 1974, and prototype versions were tested on the Southern Region in 1976 using both the VEP test vehicle and the Research Department’s own test coach Hermes.74 From at least 1971, the SRAWS development had gone forward with the definite expectation that the system would be used to equip a significant Southern Region territory. In 1972, the Train Control Steering Group decided that the whole suburban area should be so fitted. The limits of this were subsequently defined, and the Dartford power box scheme was selected to lead the implementation. The equipment for this was designed and costed, and a parallel study was completed to establish the feasibility of laying the SRAWS track loops in an especially difficult location (London Bridge). However, the August 1975 R&D Division Report to the Board records that “it has been concluded that a major installation of SRAWS [can] not be justified on safety grounds alone”. The Dartford work had already been stopped in January 1975,75 although other work (such as the solid-state equipment testing) is still being reported up to September 1976. By then, the eleven REP units had been running successfully for five years and the CIG units for nearly two.76 Maintenance had been passed to the Southern Region. The termination of the project meant that the planned fitment of the solid-state equipment to one of the CIG units was never carried out; but useful experience had been gained. The work at Eggborough, on the remote control of locomotives through the hopper house there, progressed only slowly. This was due to competing calls on the Signalling Section’s effort and persisted in spite of substantial assistance from the Electrical Machines team. The control principle adopted was simple: receipt of the 29kHz carrier (or no signal) indicated “stop”; receipt of carrier plus audio tone indicated “proceed at 0.5 miles per hour”. However there were serious problems in establishing the track loop in the normal position (now over the hoppers). These were eventually side-stepped by placing the loop alongside the locomotive body and adding a second antenna in the locomotive roof. At first one, and subsequently two, Class 47 locomotives were equipped, both of the subclass with low speed control. By 1975 the system was working well on both hopper roads, and a series of demonstrations was given in the autumn of that year. A further demonstration was mounted for the Movements Committee in July 1976. However the safety implications of the arrangement were never satisfactorily resolved, and the financial case was not sustained (possibly due to the introduction of one-man operation). Therefore the expected extensions of the system to the power stations at Drax and Ferrybridge never went ahead, and the project was closed down. The first objective of the work at Wilmslow was to demonstrate a speed-supervision system, i.e. a means of advising the driver continuously of his maximum safe speed. For this, continuous track conductors were laid down and interfaced with the signals over five signalling sections on the line from Wilmslow. A duplicated on-train computer system was designed (each computer containing 360 integrated circuits) to receive the fixed and

73 The principles are described by A H Cribbens, D H Newing and H A Ryland in “The microprocessor as a railway control system component”, Microprocessors, Vol. 1, no. 1, September 1976. 74 Test coach Hermes was a driving trailer adapted by the Signalling Section to interface with a wide range of traction, including their own Clayton diesel-electric locomotive for use at Mickleover, with Southern Region d.c. stock in this instance, and with a.c. multiple unit stock for work at Wilmslow. John Berry was in charge. 75 Private communication, John Birkby. 76 A single Class 74 locomotive had also been fitted with relay-based equipment to the later specification, driving displays in both cabs. It was commissioned in July 1973 and so had been running for more than two years at this point. §5. THE MINISTRY PROGRAMME 15

variable data and to compute the current safe speed. This was displayed to the driver by means of miniature lamps set round a conventional speedometer. The system and cab display also provided all the SRAWS facilities.77 By September 1973, the demonstration had been extended to 10 signals, with the train-borne equipment carried in test coach Hermes.78 Before this, in June 1972, a more ambitious project had been initiated under the title TACT (Total Automatic Control of Trains).79 Its objective was to investigate, and to demonstrate as far as possible on a live railway, a system of centralised control for railway operations. A control centre was established at Wilmslow Station, becoming operational in October 1974. The inductive track loops were extended further to Mauldeth Road, providing a 12 km length of single track, plus a siding at Mauldeth Road and a crossover at Wilmslow, all equipped for TACT operation. The inductive loops were supplemented by track-mounted transponders to give the required positional accuracy. A telemetry system was installed to relay to the control centre the aspect of all relevant signals; also where appropriate the lie of points and the operation of train-entering treadles. The test train comprised the Division’s Clayton locomotive coupled to test coach Hermes. Two-way communication via the track loops allowed the train to report its position and status repeatedly to the control centre and to receive from the control centre its movement instructions. At the control centre two computers were installed – not duplicated at this stage – one receiving information and generating the train instructions, the other driving a colour video display of the operational area. With this set-up many aspect of centralised control could be demonstrated. With the assistance of John Capstick and John Gilbert (seconded from the Operating and Signalling Departments respectively) full operating and engineering specifications were draw up for the TACT system as implemented at Wilmslow, both completed in 1976.80 This implementation of TACT had necessitated the development of principles, equipment and software much in advance of its time. The integrity of the work was such that principles demonstrated by the R&D Division in the 1970s are still to be found in train control systems commercially available in 2007. From the outset, train driving modes were envisaged to range from advisory, through supervisory, to full automatic driving. To gain experience of the latter away from the operating railway, the battery railcar was first equipped and tested on the Mickleover test track between 1974 and 1976. Then in 1976, the TACT project was re-formulated with the specific aim of demonstrating automatic driving and was re-titled BRATO (BR Automatic Train Operation). The train-borne equipment was reworked and fitted to a Class 304 electrical multiple unit from the Wilmslow service. The on-board processing was arranged as two subsystems: a reliable, but not necessarily fail-safe, autodrive system which controlled the traction and braking systems; and a fail-safe speed supervisory system which would initiate an emergency brake application if a safe speed was exceeded.81 A major demonstration was mounted on 20 April 1979 in which the Class 304 unit was driven under automatic control between Wilmslow and Mauldeth Road. Visitors included members of the

77 See L L Alston and J W Birkby “Developments in train control on British Railways”, Proceedings of the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers, 1971/72, pp 24-36 (presented 13 October 1971). 78 R&D Division Report to the Board, September 1973 and Technical Committee paper “Speed supervision and two-way speech at Wilmslow using track conductors”, also September 1973 (the latter P W Parkin collection). 79 Technical Committee paper “Present development programme for TACT”, for presentation on 4 October 1973 (P W Parkin collection). 80 “TACT operating Specification, stage 1”, Automation Section April 1976 and “TACT engineering specification, stage 1”, Automation Section July 1976 (P W Parkin collection). 81 R C Short “The development of automation in railway signalling”, Railway Engineers Forum on Automation and Railway Engineering (courtesy of I.Mech.E.), 19 March 1979, in turn referencing W C Keats and D H Newing “The use of microprocessors in automatic train operation”, Proceedings of the Institution of Electronic and Radio Engineers Conference on Microprocessors in Automation and Communications, 19-22 September 1978, pp 207-216. 16 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH

Board’s Research and Technical Panel as well as senior representatives of the BR engineering departments and officials of the Department of Transport. Several automatic driving strategies were demonstrated, including operation for minimum journey time and for minimum energy consumption; also the ability to maintain constant speed on a varying gradient. The visitors were impressed by the consistency of performance and by the accuracy of the station stops.82 However, although the feasibility of automatic operation was demonstrated, the idea was not taken forward on BR and the project was later terminated. Wilmslow was also the site of experimentation on radiating cables and their application to speech and data transmission (active 1972/73);83 and on the early development of fibre-optic telecommunication techniques, including cable jointing methods (active between 1978 and 1982).84

5.2.2: By transponder The higher speeds planned for the Advanced Passenger Train, relative to conventional traffic on the same line, raised the question: how best to advise the driver of his new permitted speed? The operators favoured an in-cab indication, and the Automation Section was given the task of devising a solution. Their proposal became C-APT (Control-APT), a system comprising transponders fixed in the 4-foot and read by interrogators carried on the train. A market survey failed to find a fully suitable system. Approaching the requirement most closely was a Plessey system under development for road pricing applications; this became the starting point for an in-house design. The BR transponder took the form of a robust rectangular slab, strong enough to be walked on. It incorporated Plessey-supplied electronics and was encapsulated by BREL to a Plastics Development Unit specification. Two batches were manufactured. The first batch of 150 was laid down between London and Birmingham. By the summer of 1974 they were being intensively tested using the new test coach Mercury attached to a service train.85 The combination of elaborate coding and repeated reading of the messages proved very robust. A further 1000 units were then manufactured and deployed, in a major campaign by Regional staff, to complete the fitting of the West Coast Main Line to Glasgow. Further testing with Mercury showed that the signal could still be recovered reliably in spite of some serious electrical noise caused by track roughness. Meanwhile the train-mounted equipment had been designed and tested.86 It used duplicated processors with a second duplicated system on “hot” standby. A drum-type permitted-speed display was chosen so that its rotational position could be detected and transmitted back to the processor for confirmation. In the event of any failure, a shutter would drop to obscure the display and the driver would be required to revert to conventional train speeds. In the track the transponders were laid with a specified maximum interval (1 km) so that a “missed” transponder could always be detected. (This feature was used in the case of temporary speed restrictions; securing a metal cover over a transponder served to suppress the display.) The complete system was ready and fully proven in good time for the running of APT-P.87 The

82 “Major demonstration of automatic train operation”, Research and Development Division Staff Information Bulletin 2/1979. The date of 20 April 1979 was supplied by John Birkby. A copy of the “hand out” for the occasion is in Peter Parkin’s possession. 83 “Radiating cable systems”, paper for presentation to the Technical Committee on 4 October 1973. Radiating cable was seen as a possible alternative to inductive loops for continuous track/train communication. 84 See Research and Development Division Report to the Board, for year ending September 1977 and D.Tp/B.R. Joint Research Programme Proposals for 1980 and 1982. 85 “New British Railways laboratory coach tests transponders”, Railway Gazette International, July 1974, p. 267. 86 It was designed, using the early Intel 4004 microprocessor, by Malcolm Sutton. The C-APT project as a whole was led by Bill Parkman. 87 It is described in A A Cardani “Cab display of APT’s permissible speed”, Railway Gazette International, November 1977, pp 413-416. See also W T Parkman and M S Sutton “Advanced Passenger Train speed §5. THE MINISTRY PROGRAMME 17

train-borne equipment was fitted at manufacture to the six APT-P driving trailers, and the system was in use throughout the train’s running from 1979 to 1986.

5.2.3: By radio The R&D Division’s first involvement in radio-based signalling arose in response to a Scottish emergency. Winter storms in January 1978 destroyed much of the pole-route on the -Wick line, putting the block signalling instruments out of action. With temporary working arrangements in place, discussions between the S&T Department and Research identified an effective solution: to replace the vulnerable physical link by radio. The S&T Department undertook to provide the radio link, the R&D Division the necessary secure interface between radio and the retained block instruments. By now the Signalling Section’s work on microprocessor-based safety systems (and on secure coding of data) was well advanced, so that a quick response was possible. By December 1978 a prototype interface was demonstrated and accepted, and 16 production sets were commissioned.88 These were subsequently installed at the eight block posts between Tain and Georgemas Junction and were put into operational service in August 1980.89 The success of this project did much to enhance the reputation of Research in the eyes of the S&T Department. The economic gain would have been modest, however, as all the signalboxes and signalmen were retained. Meanwhile Norman Shelley, in his new role as Manager Operations Studies, was working to interest his fellow members of the Board’s Infrastructure Committee in more radical means of train control. As well as overseas examples, he drew the committee’s attention to the very successful telephone dispatching practice of the Vale of Rheidol Railway (then still part of BR) and the radio dispatching practice of the privately-operated Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway. Both procedures had the Railway Inspectorate’s approval. A visit by the Committee to the latter railway finally created a favourable climate of opinion and Mike Birkin quickly developed the proposal that became RETB (Radio Electronic Token Block). The idea centred on the transmission of a securely-coded radio message from the control centre to a designated train containing its authority to proceed from point A (say) to point B. On the train the message would be decoded into clear text; at the control centre the “token” issue would be interlocked electronically to prevent conflicting authorisations. Within a few weeks a laboratory demonstration had been constructed. Now with the Operating Department’s full support,90 the engineering development went ahead. It established the secure coding of the radio messages, the safe interlocking of the token issue (the now developed SSI interlocking was used – see next Section), and the safe functioning of the display and interaction facilities provided for signalman and driver. Once the Dingwall to had been selected for the first application, the radio arrangements could be finalised, test coach Iris providing the necessary field strength measurements.91 The radio also provided voice communication and an important feature of the final arrangements for advisory system based on microprocessors”, Proceedings I.E.R.E. Conference on Microprocessors in Automation and Communications, 19-22 September 1978, pp 217-216. 88 Unattributed article “Old and new technology combine to solve a problem”, Research and Development Division Staff Information Bulletin 1/1979. 89 A H Cribbens and L J Giles “The Inverness-Wick radio signalling scheme”, Institution of Electrical Engineers Conference on Railways in the Electronic Age, 17-20 November 1981. An earlier, shorter report is A H Cribbens “Radio control of block instruments on the Inverness-Wick line”, I.E.E. Colloquium on Use of Microprocessors in Railway Systems, 13 January 1981. 90 The consistent support of Stanley Hall, the Operating Department’s Signalling Officer, was especially valuable. 91 The operating principles of the system, not yet in service, are described in Railway Gazette International, November 1982, p. 909 “Radio data links can replace low-intensity signalling”. By this date, the Kyle line has been selected and the Iris test coach deployed. 18 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH

token exchange was a strict protocol of voice and data actions by driver and signalman.92 The system became operational on the Kyle line in November 1984. It was operated from Dingwall. The economies now included the elimination of all the outbased signalling staff.93 RETB was subsequently introduced on the East line; on the Inverness-Wick line (replacing the earlier radio scheme);94 on the (controlled from Banavie); and finally on the from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth and Pwllheli.95 At the time of writing (2006), all are still in operation.

5.2.4: Solid State Interlocking (SSI) The duplicated fail-safe microprocessor-based system developed as a replacement for the SRAWS on-train equipment has already been described.96 In the course of this work, the signalling team had acquired considerable expertise in the design of safety systems embodying microprocessor technology. 97 Thus by 1976, Alan Cribbens and his colleagues, Mike Furniss and Harry Ryland, felt themselves ready to tackle the prime signalling application: the signalbox interlocking with its outlying (trackside) peripherals. In the modern signalboxes of the time, failure to safety of the interlocking was obtained by the use of specialised (and expensive) signalling relays, often in their thousands. The motivation for replacing these by solid-state logic was economic; no change of function was proposed. In addition to the interlocking itself, major savings were expected in building costs, in cabling costs (by multiplexing), and in design and maintenance costs. A proposal to develop such a system was tabled and approved for the Ministry programme. An early decision was the selection of a repairable triple redundancy technique for the interlocking function. In it, two-out-of-three voting is used to identify a faulty channel which is then closed down. Properly designed, such a system will continue to work safely in duplicated mode and accept a repaired third channel without interruption of its function. By 1977, a laboratory model had been built, driving a clock, which demonstrated these properties. By now, the overall scheme design had been formulated; it is described by Cribbens, Furniss and Ryland in their 1978 paper.98 At its heart is the triplicated microprocessor interlocking. Communication with lineside equipment is made by means of twisted-pair cables carrying multiplexed coded data, the data link itself being duplicated and where possible taken by two separate routes. Solid-state lineside modules, also using duplication, interface directly with track equipment such as point motors and colour light signals, operating them by solid state switching. Other secure connections are made to the signalman’s operating panel and to a technician’s terminal incorporating diagnostic facilities and event logging. Since the three interlocking processors run a common program, rigorous steps were necessary to ensure its correctness. These included the use of formal design procedures and independent checking (carried out by staff of the S&T Department). The program itself was of general application, being customised to a specific location by geographic data. From the outset, the provision of computer-based design aids for the

92 See M S Birkin, W T Parkman and J Apperson “Radio Electronic Token Block signalling”, Railway Transport Conference, Moscow, 1986; also M S Birkin “Low cost signalling by radio”, Proc. I.R.S.E., 1984/85, pp 48-66 (presented 8 November 1984). 93 The ability to issue engineering possessions by radio gave additional savings. 94 Railway Gazette International, January 1986. 95 An extended version of RETB, in which Research co-operated, was installed by GEC in Botswana in 1987, see Railway Gazette International, October 1987, p. 679. 96 See Section 5.2.1 above. 97 A review of realistic safe configurations is given in Cribbens, Newing and Ryland, 1976, already cited. 98 A H Cribbens, M J Furniss and H A Ryland “An experimental application of microprocessors to railway signalling”, Electronics and Power, Vol. 24, no. 3, March 1978, pp 209-214. §5. THE MINISTRY PROGRAMME 19

generation of this data formed an integral part of the project; this was considered essential to the project’s viability and to the achievement of the intended reduction in design costs. Modular construction, with a minimum number of different module types, was another design aim. It would permit first-line maintenance by module exchange, to be assisted by appropriate diagnostic aids. By 1978, a laboratory version of the interlocking had been built and configured to represent a fictitious location “Stopham Junction”. It contained all the features to be expected of a typical signalled area. A Controlled Area Simulator was constructed to simulate the actions of the (missing) trackside equipment. The apparent operations of the latter could be set via a User Interface. Failure events and test cases could be input in this way; also traffic movements through the control area could be simulated. By 1979, experimental data transmission equipment and trackside interface units had been added, driving real signalling equipment in the form of a colour-light signal head and a clamplock point machine. The diversion of effort to the Inverness-Wick signalling scheme during this period (1978/79) had its compensation in enhancing considerably the reputation of the Research team in the eyes of the S&T department. Together with the convincing performance of the Stopham Junction demonstrator, the Chief S&T Engineer (now Mr A A Cardani) became persuaded of the SSI system’s potential. To bring SSI into service, it was necessary to involve the principal signalling suppliers. This was a difficult, protracted, and at times uncomfortable, operation. The contractors, GEC-General Signal Limited and Westinghouse Signals Limited, were at first reluctant partners, and were naturally, as competitors, wary of each other. The intellectual capital all rested with BR Research but had to be disclosed in the negotiations in advance of any contractual protection. Eventually, however, a tripartite arrangement was agreed between BR and the two companies and signed in June 1981.99 Each party was to carry its own costs. It committed the industrial partners to pursue the engineering development of the equipment in such a way as to produce a dual-sourced system with full compatibility at module level. Included in the tripartite agreement was an undertaking to collaborate on a pilot installation. Experience with this would then inform decisions on the production-standard equipment. The location chosen for the pilot was the Leamington Spa signalbox which controlled a junction and station area on the line between and Birmingham. Features recommending it were that the signalled area was small enough to be handled by a single interlocking; it was away from a premier main line where problems would be too conspicuous; and it already possessed multiple aspect signalling and power operated points, at the time controlled from an ex-GWR mechanical interlocking. Research staff took responsibility for system and circuit design, software design and production, integration testing and the design of support systems. The Director S&TE was responsible for specification, design evaluation, software validation, equipment type approval and project management. Non-competitive contracts were placed giving the two industrial partners equal shares of the work; their involvement included the important task of converting prototype design to fully engineered product as well as the subsequent equipment supply. The contracts were let in 1983 and the equipment was installed in January 1985. Initially connections were made as far as the lineside modules but not yet to the live track equipment. The plan envisaged 6 months operation with close monitoring in a simulated “off-line” mode prior to full commissioning. In the event commissioning was delayed by some 3 months, mainly due to disturbances of the data highway caused by a trackside module self-test procedure. This was corrected by a hardware modification. Commissioning finally took place on 5 September 1985 when no problems were encountered. The mechanical signalbox was demolished the following day.

99 “Joint venture to develop solid-state interlocking”, Railway Gazette International, August 1981, pp 660-661. 20 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH

In the ensuing service operation, the interlocking itself performed extremely well, 100% availability being maintained. The trackside interface equipment was not free of problems, however; point modules failed to tolerate switch bounce in the point detection equipment, and signal and point modules both suffered problems of electrical interference. A more tolerant software strategy was devised for the point modules; changes of internal layout were made to improve the immunity of both modules to electrical interference. In spite of these difficulties, the problems at Leamington caused no significant operational difficulties and the equipment often ran without fault for months at a time.100 The success of the Leamington Spa pilot established the status of SSI as the prospective future standard system and allowed the project to move forward towards full production as described in Section 6.1 below.

5.3: Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) From 1975 wagon movements on BR were monitored by the central computer system TOPS. However the reading of wagon numbers and their input to the system remained a labour-intensive manual process. In spite of international interest in methods of automatic vehicle identification, no accepted system had emerged. By the late 1970s, however, the success of the C-APT transponders suggested a way forward. A version of the transponder, fully encapsulated in a circular housing 200 mm in diameter, was therefore designed for fitting to vehicles, together with a compatible lineside interrogator. With the coal traffic flows to power stations offering a promising application, discussions were arranged between BR, CEGB and British Coal. As a result, a trial was set up in 1982 in which transponders were fitted to one complete rake of merry-go-round coal wagons operating between Cotgrave Colliery and Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station, and interrogators established at the entrance and exit of both colliery and power station.101 The trial convincingly demonstrated the system’s feasibility. With the data transfer technique secured, and with financial predictions proving favourable, the decision was taken to implement the coal traffic application. Mike Kinsey, who had been involved from the outset and had been the R&D Division’s representative in the earlier tripartite discussions, transferred in February 1984 to the Director of Operations’ staff to act as Project Manager. The agreement between BR, the CEGB and British Coal to implement AVI was formalised. Full specifications were developed for the hardware and software elements of the project, and contracts were put out to tender. Westinghouse Systems Limited was the successful bidder for the hardware contracts. BR Computing Services undertook the software development, TOPS being employed to track the wagon movements; automatic reporting and billing functions were added. Production installation (and operation) commenced with the Aire Valley power stations in 1987 and the total installation was complete by 1991. Events in the meantime (not least the miners strike) had reduced the number of collieries involved. Even so, transponders were fitted to some 11,000 wagons

100 The definitive description of SSI, written at this stage (i.e. late 1985), is A H Cribbens “SSI: an integrated electronic signalling system for main line railways”, Proc. I.E.E., Vol. 134, Pt. B, no. 3, 1987, pp 148-158. Earlier descriptions include A H Cribbens, M J Furniss and H A Ryland “The solid state interlocking project”, I.E.E. Conference Publications Vol. 203, 1981, pp 1-5; A H Cribbens “The Solid State Interlocking”, I.R.S.E. Conference on Railway Safety, Control and Automation towards the 21st Century, September 1984, pp 24-29. See also A H Cribbens “Microprocessors in railway signalling: the Solid State Interlocking”, Micrprocessors and Microsystems,Vol. 11, No. 5, June 1987. 101 R H Evans “The Automatic Wagon Identification project”, NewsRound (Research and Development Division Staff Newsletter), October 1982. In this first trial, designed to prove principles, the transponders were fitted facing sideways below the wagon solebar with interrogator aerial loops standing vertically at both sides of the track. In production the arrangement would be changed to the more efficient one with the transponder fitted below the wagon centre-line facing downwards and with the interrogator aerials lying horizontally in the track four-foot. §5. THE MINISTRY PROGRAMME 21 and 300 locomotives and interrogators with their related equipment102 were installed at some 30 collieries, 15 power stations and a small number of BR stabling locations. The system was in full operation until 1999 when EWS, the then proprietors, withdrew the system rather than undertake the “millenium” upgrade. The traffic had in any case reduced markedly.

5.4: Radio communications By a fortunate coincidence, two members of the Automation Section – Mike Birkin, the Section Head, and David Cree – had a close personal interest in radio communications at the time when the Board, through its Telecommunications Engineer J Boura, was planning the establishment of a nationwide radio network. Perceiving an opportunity, the Automation Section offered to undertake the radio field strength surveys for the scheme and a close collaboration developed. The objective of the National Radio Plan was to provide speech communication between control centres and outbased staff (including those on trains) with a reasonably complete radio coverage. Frequencies in VHF mid band were allocated for the railways’ use.103 To undertake its part of the work, the Automation Section equipped a road team with radio transmitter and mobile aerial masts, the team’s task being to set up temporary transmissions at candidate permanent sites. To quantify reception on track, a single-car diesel-powered vehicle was converted to form the radio survey coach “Iris”. It carried a calibrated radio receiver whose output was fed to a data logger triggered by an axle-mounted tachometer; this allowed radio field strength to be recorded at a selected spatial interval for subsequent analysis. A road-mounted equivalent to Iris was created to examine the relevant off-track locations.104 An extensive nationwide survey ensued to determine the most economic transmitter sites and to predict the resulting reception quality. The first areas to be implemented were Euston and Glasgow in December 1976 and January 1977 respectively. Some years after the establishment of this first National Radio Network, the Radio Communications Agency withdrew its VHF mid band authority and instructed the railway to migrate to the higher band 3 frequencies.105 This involved IRIS and the radio team in a complete re-survey to check, and where necessary restore, reception at the new frequencies. At the time of writing (2006), this network is still in operation. Proposals for driver only operation introduced a new and much more stringent radio requirement. Later named Cab Secure Radio, the availability of communication to the cab had now to be 100%. Frequency bands in the UHF range were allocated centred on 451 MHz.106 Schemes were now more locally based, normally in suburban areas, and Iris was deployed on its survey work on a scheme-by-scheme basis. The first two schemes (Kings Cross to Welwyn and St. Pancras to Bedford) were commissioned in the early 1980s.

102 The track-based equipment comprised the interrogator aerial in the four-foot with its electronics unit in a trackside cabinet; an axle counter array of three non-contacting wheel probes and their associated electronics; and an AVI processor programmed to assemble the relevant data (including weighbridge output) and transmit it to the TOPS mainframe computer. The system is briefly described in “AVI to track power station coal”, Railway Gazette International, December 1988, p. 841. 103 C Kessel “Radio communication on British Rail”, Proceedings I.E.R.E. International Conference on Land Mobile Radio, 4-6 September 1979, pp 247-256. Radio coverage is specified to be 98%. 12 frequency pairs were allocated to BR in the frequency ranges 105-108 MHz and 138-141 MHz. Kessel worried (rightly) about the long term future of the 105-108 MHz band. 104 “Surveying radio signal strength by rail and road”, displayed section within A H Wickens’ article “Technology assessment sets tomorrow’s research targets”, Railway Gazette International, April 1978, pp 195- 200. A full technical description is C R King and D J Cree “Quantitative techniques for mobile radio surveying”, Proceedings I.E.R.E. International Conference on Land Mobile Radio, 4-6 September 1979, pp 257- 271. 105 Specifically 196.85-198.3 MHz train (or mobile) to ground, 204.85-206.3 MHz ground to train (or mobile). 106 Specifically 448.34375-448.48125 MHz train to ground, 454.84375-454.98125 MHz ground to train. 22 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH

Other work by the radio team included an extended study of leaky feeder performance on behalf of ORE, and the development of an automatic radio connection system SPARCS.107 However leaky feeders were rather little used on BR – directional aerials usually sufficing, particularly at the UHF frequencies – and although SPARCS was used elsewhere, the Board itself chose a proprietary automatic connection system.

5.5: Mathematics and computer science The area of work described here was the province of the Applied Mathematics Section, later Maths Applications, then Software Engineering (see Figures 2 to 4), always under the capable leadership of Malcolm Savage. He was assisted throughout by Roy Harrison, and later (following completion of the Maglev project, see Section 5.8 below) by Derek Linder. After 1982, Harry Ryland joined as the third team leader within Software Engineering. By the start of the Ministry programme, the work on JOT and its application to the Glasgow area had been underway for two years, while the development of the time-based area simulation GATTS had just started. In 1974, it was the GATTS work that first reached a useable – even a marketable – form. In his paper of that year, Stewart describes its facilities and its application (amongst others) to the planning of the proposed service on the Mersey loop line.108 The program was written in a general-purpose form (although with a preference for colour light signalling), individual applications being specified by supplying data to define track layout, station facilities, characteristics and the intended train service. Subsidiary programs were provided to facilitate the preparation of this data and to check its consistency. In the simulation, in addition to stepping the trains forward in accordance with their available performance and the operating rules, it was also necessary to model the actions of the signalman in responding to disturbed running. Several strategies were programmed: time-table order, first come first served, and – more realistically and importantly – a procedure of considering conflicting trains in pairs and selecting the option giving the least aggregate delay. Program output was available in forms familiar to train planners: for example timetables, time/distance graphs and platform occupation diagrams. At the time of Stewart’s paper, the data was held on punched cards and the programme ran in batch mode on the mainframe computer. To study operating disturbances, the simulation would be re-run with, in effect, a varied timetable. A development was planned to introduce arrest points at which the program could be stopped to allow perturbations to be input by the user (soon implemented as “check point restart”). A facility PACE (pathing and capacity evaluator) was already available for track capacity studies. The development of GATTS was actively continued from this point, later moving to a dedicated workstation so as to allow interactive use, and finally emerging as VISION (see Section 6.7 below). The application of JOT to the operations at took longer to emerge in practical form. Whilst the original JOT algorithm was applicable to the junctions at the station approaches, the business of allocating trains to platforms in the station itself called for a new approach and much additional programming.109 Factors affecting a platform’s choice are listed by Dr Sparrow in his 1978 paper; they include physical constraints, operational constraints, and passenger facilities and convenience.110

107 D J Cree and A J Whittaker “SPARCS – a stored program automatic radio connection system”, The Radio and Electronic Engineer, Vol. 50, No. 7, July 1980, pp 345-352. 108 J M Stewart “Computer simulation aids train service planning”, Railway Gazette International, January 1974, pp 21-23. 109 Described by A J Annis and G L Brook in “A real-time computer system to aid regulation at Glasgow Central Station”, 4th ORE Colloquium on Computer Programs, Munich, 29 May 1974. See also M J Savage and R P Harrison “Real time systems for train scheluling”, ISAC/IFORS/IFIP 2nd Symposium on Traffic Control and Transportation Systems, Monte Carlo, September 1974. 110 R W Sparrow “Platform optimisation by computer”, Railway Gazette International, September 1978, pp 647- 651. Where convenience was an issue, the predicted delay was weighted by a penalty factor to prevent inconvenient situations being introduced too readily. §5. THE MINISTRY PROGRAMME 23

With the programming completed and tested, a real-time computer system was installed in the Glasgow signalbox in the summer of 1976. Through its link to the computer-based train describer and with additional data provided on planned operations, the system was able to compare actual train running with the timetable schedule and to identify potential train movement conflicts. The actions needed to avoid these conflicts and to minimise traffic delays were then assessed by the computer and offered as advice to the signalling supervisors. The system was first run on-line by R&D Division staff in January 1977, and, after testing and staff training, was handed over to Regional staff for evaluation in January 1978.111 Two video screens were provided to advise the traffic supervisor on scheduling and platform allocation; a third screen and keyboard enabled the supervisor to input data and to interrogate the system. The computer-generated advice was updated every 30 seconds. As a pioneering real-time exercise the JOT system was entirely successful. It demonstrated for the first time the feasibility of capturing data on actual train movements and using the data to develop solutions to avoid movement conflicts – capabilities that would prove fundamental to the development of future intelligent operations control systems. However at Glasgow operational success was limited: the process of operating through a human intermediary was too slow to be fully effective; and the computer-generated recommendation had to be offered early, whereas (as GATTS showed) the later the recommendation could be made the better. It was concluded that a future system should be more timely and, importantly, automatic. This thinking prompted the next development: automatic route setting (ARS). ARS commenced as a defined project in 1979. From the outset it was targetted for incorporation into the proposed new signalbox at Three Bridges (West Sussex), planned for completion in 1984. (The commissioning date was subsequently brought forward by one year, and the ARS project accelerated accordingly.) Tony Annis led the project team throughout. Like JOT before it, ARS took its real-time train running information from a modern computer-based train describer. The timetable data in this case was taken from the Southern Region’s Master Timetable System, itself computer based and updated daily. The status of the signalling equipment was obtained from the interlocking relays and assembled for input into the ARS system by a dedicated interface processor. The regulation strategy adopted by ARS derived from the GATTS process of pair-wise comparisons. Any train approaching its last-but-one green signal (and therefore requiring more route to be set) was identified by the system. If a potential conflict was detected (e.g. other trains requiring the same route), the consequences of resolving the difficulty in the ways available to the system were projected forward and the option chosen giving the least aggregate delay.112 This process resulted in the selection of a train for route setting from the trains involved. If the route were available (in signalling terms), it would be set automatically via the signal interlocking; if not, the train was flagged for reconsideration as soon as the route should become available. As well as sequencing, a minor element of re-routing (recessing) was available, although major re-routing would be referred to the signalman. Status was continuously displayed to the signalman and he had the facility to intervene at any time. This first operational ARS system was designed to control the 13 km of route through Copyhold Junction, Haywards Heath station and Keymer Junction. Data capture covered a wider area so as to identify trains approaching the control area. The full-scale system was first built and thoroughly tested in a laboratory simulation. It was transported to Three Bridges and commissioned on schedule on 4 July 1983. With only minor correction, the system worked well from the outset.113

111 An illustration of the system in use at this stage appears in A H Wickens “Technology assessment sets tomorrow’s targets”, Railway Gazette International, April 1978, pp 195-200. 112 Strictly, least aggregate weighted delay – weighting was applied to individual delays to favour the more important services. 113 “Automatic Route Setting at the new Three Bridges signalbox”, NewsRound (Research and Development Division Staff Newsletter), No. 10, December/January 1983/84 and “Automatic route setting eases the signalman’s load”, Railway Gazette International, October 1984, pp 787-789. A contemporary technical 24 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH

Its effectiveness derived from its ability to manage train movements based on prevailing conditions rather than calling on predetermined alternative plans. A wide range of traffic patterns and degrees of lateness in train running were all handled successfully. For the first time, computer-based technology was deployed to generate intelligent decisions on train sequencing and to implement them automatically. Attention paid to the man/machine interface in the system design was rewarded by the ready co-operation of the staff. During the next two years the system performance was closely monitored, and a study made of the operating requirements in other typical BR areas. An enhanced version of ARS would become a key component of the very successful Integrated Electronic Control Centre (see Section 6.4 below).114 From 1980, the Mathematics activity (now Software Engineering, Figure 4) included the provision of an internal service for digital data capture and analysis. The small team under Mike McGuire was equipped with four System 90 computers115 deployed in various mobile laboratories (rail and road) and capable of the very high speed transfer of digitised data to magnetic tape. A suite of programs written for the mainframe computer performed the analysis. Then in 1984, the move was made to provide data analysis on site. PDP-11 computers were purchased and deployed in pairs, one writing to magnetic disc and tape, the other reading the disc and undertaking the on-site analysis. This proved a very powerful facility. Systems were deployed in laboratory coaches,116 in the Vehicles Laboratory and one “portable” set was built for trackside use. In the ensuing years, the work areas supported included vehicle dynamics, overhead dynamics, vehicle structures, aerodynamics, acoustics and track stress measurement.117 A contemporary project, also involving on-board computation, was TCAS (Train Coasting Advisory System).118 With a view to energy saving, the TCAS proposal was to monitor a train’s progress to establish whether it had time in hand relative to its schedule, and if so to recommend to the driver a period of coasting until the train returned to schedule. This required the on-board computer to be supplied with fixed data relating to route layout, timetable and traction characteristics, and live data giving location and speed. The forward prediction followed the established train performance routines. A practical system to achieve all this was successfully produced and fitted to five HST sets running on the by July 1985.119 Service experience showed modest fuel savings (between 2% and 5%) and a useful saving in brake wear.120 More applications were canvassed (and equipment actually prepared for a suburban trial), but the implementation difficulties were considerable and in the event the matter was not progressed further.

description is A J Annis “Automatic route setting for railway control”, Canadian Conference on Industrial Computer Systems, University of Ottawa, May 1984. 114 J Hurley “The British Rail automatic route setting system”, I.R.S.E. International Conference “Aspect 91”, London, 7-9 October 1991, pp 334-342. 115 One of these four computers was the original Redcor machine purchased for data recording on APT-E. This area of work had been originated by Barrie May, whom Mike McGuire had joined and then succeeded in 1979 when Barrie left to join Prosig, the providers of the later PDP-11 computers and DATS analysis software. 116 One set was installed as original equipment in the Division’s general-purpose laboratory coach Argus, commissioned in September 1986, see “Argus tests Cheetah at 233 km/h”, Railway Gazette International, January 1987, pp 50-51. 117 The data capture and analysis activity continued strongly into the early 1990s, and then declined. Organisational changes from 1992 reduced the Division’s direct involvement in experimental work (see Section 6), while the increasing power of personal computers gave engineers greater ability to undertake data analysis at their desks. 118 Both TCAS and data capture fell within Derek Linder’s remit as Team Leader Maths Services. Principals on TCAS were John Hargreaves and Ian Bools. 119 Research Division Progress Report to the Research and Technical Committee for period ending September 1985. 120 Research Division Progress Report to the Research and Technical Committee for period ending September 1986. §5. THE MINISTRY PROGRAMME 25

5.6: Business machines This group of projects originated with the team within the Electrical Systems Section of the Vehicles Group (see Figure 3) concerned with microprocessor applications. Having produced successful microprocessor-based auto-test equipment for APT-P, the team, led by Chris Bull, embarked upon a campaign to demonstrate the potential of microprocessors to the railway businesses (this in the late 1970s, before the appearance of the ubiquitous personal computer). The campaign made use of mock- ups and demonstrations of possible machines to gain the business interest. In the 1978/80 reorganisation, Chris Bull and his team (which included Richard Barwick and Graham Freestone) moved to the Microelectronics Unit (Figure 4) while maintaining close links with Software Engineering. A first result of this approach was the creation of the APTIS and PORTIS ticket issuing machines. APTIS (All-Purpose Ticket Issuing System) was a desk-top machine designed for use in ticket offices, while PORTIS (Portable Ticket Issuing System) was for guards’ use on trains; both being components of an overall system. Having engaged the interest of the Director of Financial Accounting Services, the team became closely involved with developing specifications, evaluating tenders and, once the contract was placed with Thorn-EMI of Wells, , with monitoring the progress of manufacture and commissioning. The system was introduced in 1986 and showed immediate benefits.121 A second system (actually coming into service a year earlier, in 1984/85) was the Red Star Parcels business machine. This system (“machine” is a misnomer) was devised initially by Derek Linder, Richard Barwick and Graham Freestone. It provided comprehensive facilities for managing the premium parcels traffic, including weighing on automatic scales, the printing of bar-coded labels, consignment charging and routing. It also tracked a parcel’s progress on its journey, maintained customer accounts and compiled statistical data. A demonstration system was assembled in the laboratory and installed in the Birmingham parcels office by September 1981.122 A second system was installed at Manchester Piccadilly soon after.123 With these pilot installations approved, equipment for nation-wide application was put out to tender and no fewer than 543 Red Star offices equipped.124 Staff savings were made and (at least in the short term) the business improved. A third proposal was PASSTIM, an automated travel enquiry system. A desk-top computer was programmed with the published timetable data and a search routine devised by Ian Earnshaw and James Blanco-White. It could offer route and train timings for journeys involving up to four timetables, and was extensively demonstrated.125 It was destined to be superseded, however, by CATE (see Section 6.6 below).

5.7: Electric traction The small Machines team became, in the 1971 reorganisation, a part of the Electric Traction Section under Rennie Smith. Work continued for a time on design, prompted by some American proposals; in the event, no appreciable improvement in performance was predicted. From 1973, Donald Armstrong himself became heavily involved in the high-speed maglev study described in the next section. Meanwhile the team’s work on dc motor applications included investigation of the design and performance of thyristor chopper drives, with some attention given to the interference they generated. In 1975, the team was commissioned to provide instrumentation and undertake analysis for the test running of locomotive 87101, the experimental variant of the 25kV Class 87

121 Terry Gourvish “British Rail 1974-97”, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 226. Gourvish’s illustration of APTIS (plate 40) is dated 1985. 122 Electronics Week Exhibition “British Rail in the electronic age”, 14-18 September 1981 (author’s collection). 123 Private communication, Chris Bull. 124 G B Smith “A survey of the financial benefits to BR of implemented historical research – 1987/88 revision”, BR Research, October 1988. 125 Electronics Week brochure, op. cit. 26 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH series having (separate) thyristor control of the armature and field currents to its dc motors.126 For ac drives, the development of higher-powered transistors seemed to offer a route to improved inverter design. Accordingly a collaboration was arranged with Westinghouse Semiconductor Devices to produce transistors of increased rating. As these became available, they were incorporated into an in- house design of transistor inverter whose development became a significant project in the later 1970s. In the meantime, the Electrical Systems Section under Richard Stokes had entered the traction field. Originating within the APT electrical team, and now forming part of Mike Newman’s Vehicles Group (Figure 3), the Section’s instinct was for innovation. Their first proposal was the Tubular Axle Induction Motor (TAIM). This was an inside-out induction machine having its squirrel cage rotor attached to the inner face of a large diameter tubular axle. The inside stator was supported on a shaft through the inner race of the wheel bearings. The hope was that the mechanical simplification would compensate for the still high cost of the inverter drive equipment. Four experimental machines were completed quickly (the first in September 1976) by using existing APT-E axles. Using commercially available inverters, these were successfully tested back-to-back in the laboratory and on the brake dynamometer; also on the track (in braking mode) under an adapted Mk I coach.127 The four experimental machines were then followed by four pre-production machines of a more powerful and robust design developed in conjunction with GEC Traction Limited. After laboratory testing, two were fitted to the three-car experimental trainset engaged in proving thyristor control equipment for the Glasgow Class 314 EMUs.128 The motor was not destined to go into production, however. Secondly, during 1980 and 1981 an extensive paper study was made into the potential for traction applications of the switched reluctance motor. This was a salient pole machine of normal (outside stator) configuration which dispensed entirely with armature windings. The design of a 200 kW motor with its drive electronics was postulated in detail. Its performance and costs were calculated and compared with those of equivalent induction motor and dc motor drives. In spite of savings in motor first cost and in maintenance costs, the switched reluctance motor scheme proved slightly more expensive than the equivalent induction motor scheme. Both had costs some 40% greater than a dc machine with chopper drive. It was concluded that there was no incentive to take the switched reluctance motor development further.129 A third venture returned to the dc traction motor but in the novel “slotless” form, i. e. with the armature bars cemented to the surface of a cylindrical laminated core. This arrangement could be expected to ease greatly the commutation problem thanks to the much reduced self-inductance of the armature circuits. The problems would be those of mechanical strength (particularly in fault conditions) and new sources of eddy current loss. These matters were thoroughly examined analytically and by the building and testing of a 90 experimental machine.130 This experience was then used to convert five 340 horsepower traction motors of an existing design. Two were used for laboratory testing, after which three were passed to the DM&EE (in March 1986) for

126 “Prototype thyristor controlled locomotive begins BR test programme”, unattributed article in Railway Engineering Journal, July 1975, Vol. 4, no. 4, pp 39-40. 127 “Three-phase motor built into hollow axle”, Railway Gazette International, November 1975, p. 433; R W Stokes “BR 200 km/h tubular axle motor”, Railway Engineer, November/December 1977, pp 13-15; E Spooner, N M Rash, M J Lilley and M Lockwood “Novel traction systems for railway applications”, Electronics and Power, October 1978, pp 737-740; R W Stokes, M J Lilley, M Lockwood, N M Rash and E Spooner “Tubular- axle induction motors for railway traction”, Proc. I.E.E., Vol. 125, no. 10, October 1978, pp 959-966. 128 R W Stokes and A Sutton “Tubular-axle induction motors to be tested on a train”, Railway Gazette International, January 1980, pp 47-50; a fuller technical description is P StJ R French “Axle motor and inverter driven MU for BR”, Railway Engineer International, Vol. 5, no. 4, July/August 1980, pp 35-38. 129 P StJ R French “Switched reluctance motor drives for rail traction: relative assessment”, Proc. I.E.E., Vol. 131, Pt. B, No. 5, September 1984, pp 209-219. 130 E Spooner “The dc traction motor with slotless armature”, Proc. I.E.E., Vol. 132, Pt. B, 1985, pp 61-71. §5. THE MINISTRY PROGRAMME 27 experimental fitting to a Class 45 locomotive. They were not in fact fitted as support for the project (now reliant on DM&EE funding) was withdrawn in September 1986.131 By 1984, the work on the transistor inverter, mentioned above, had led to the successful completion and demonstration of a 200 kVA vehicle-compatible induction motor drive. However by that time the gate turn-off (GTO) thyristor had appeared on the scene and its promise was quickly recognised.132 It was destined to displace the transistor technology (at traction powers levels) and would eventually make induction motor drives affordable. Finally, two achievements outside the traction field should be mentioned. In the early 1970s, the Chief S&T Engineer requested an opinion on the performance of the then-standard AWS receiver at speeds above 100 miles per hour. The Machines team reported that it could not be relied upon, and went on to assess three alternatives from which the bi-stable reed was selected.133 This was brought to production standard in co-operation with S&T staff, and became the new standard fitment from 1977.134 Then in the 1980s, the Scientific Services laboratory at took the initiative in proposing the replacement of the traditional oil tail lamp by a battery-powered equivalent. The electrical work fell to Gerry Fisher, who quickly showed that the specified one-year battery life could only be obtained by using efficient light emitting diodes and by accepting a flashing mode of operation. Agreement to the flashing principle was obtained from the Operators, and the design was again worked up to production standard, the Crewe laboratory providing the plastic housing. The new lamp displaced the old from 1987.135

5.8: Maglev The R&D Division’s work on magnetic levitation originated in the Government’s decision, in early 1973, to withdraw support from the Tracked development. The Department of Environment, through its Transport and Road Research Laboratory, then placed a contract with the Division to study the potential of magnetic levitation specifically for an urban “people mover” application, but also keeping in mind extension of the technology to high-speed transport.136 This study, which included laboratory experiments and some drag tests on track, was completed by the end of 1974.137 For the people mover, it suggested that a maglev vehicle could be competitive with a wheeled equivalent, offering comparable first cost but the prospect of lower operating costs. A successor contract was then placed which comprised the construction of a practical demonstrator to confirm the low-speed predictions, and a paper study to investigate the prospects for a high-speed maglev application. The latter was based on the London to Glasgow corridor and compared two maglev variants with a high-speed railway to the same specification. Speeds considered were 200, 300, 400 and 500 km/h. At the two lower speeds, the conventional railway had a distinct cost advantage. At the higher speeds, costs were found to be similar, but the uncertainties and difficulties lay predominantly with the maglev versions. Not least of the latter was the difficulty

131 Research Division Progress Report to the Research and Technical Committee for period ending September 1986. 132 J K Hall, C D Manning and P StJ R French “Switching properties of gate turn-off thyristors”, International Conference on Power Electronics and Variable Speed Drives, I.E.E. London, 1-4 May 1984, pp 58-61. 133 The other two alternatives were the Hall-effect probe – an idea canvassed by Arthur Kettlety of the Engineering Research Division in the late 1950s and early 1960s – and the flux-gate magnetometer. 134 G B Smith “A survey of the financial benefit to BR of implemented historical research – 1987/88 revision”, October 1988 (author’s collection). 135 G B Smith 1988, op. cit.; also Research Division Progress Reports to the Research and Technical Committee for periods ending March 1986 and March 1987. 136 The R&D Division Report to the Board dated 26 September 1973 describes this programme item as “just incorporated”. Derek Linder reports that work commenced in summer 1973. 137 See two papers by D Linder and R M Goodall respectively to the I.E.E. Conference “Advances in magnetic materials and their applications”, London, 1-3 September 1976, pp 96-103. These were later combined as TRRL Supplementary Report 300, 1977. The internal report on which they are based is D J Dobbs et al “Magnetically levitated and wheeled minitram comparison study”, TR EDYN 5, January 1976. 28 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH of gaining access to city centres with a system incompatible with any existing infrastructure. The problem of switching the maglev variants was also unresolved. Their wayside noise advantage reduced with increasing speed, and was lost at 500 km/h.138 The system selected for the low speed demonstration centred on a small 5-place vehicle 3.6 m long. Since many design options had already been reviewed, the Electrodynamics Section139 was able to move quickly. The vehicle was ready for testing by the summer of 1976. As well as laboratory test rigs, a short test track had been built in the Research sidings to impose the specified maximum gradients and minimum radii. The vehicle rode above its T-section guideway, carried by eight controlled electromagnets working in attraction to the two laminated steel rails. The magnet control itself provided all the necessary suspension requirements. Two single-sided linear motors performed the traction and braking duties. This little vehicle satisfactorily confirmed the earlier favourable expectations concerning feasibility and cost. This success led to a commercial application. The West County Council emerged as an enthusiastic customer, interested in building a short people-mover link from Birmingham International Railway Station to their new airport terminal then under construction. A consortium – the People Mover Group – was assembled under the leadership of GEC Transportation Projects Limited.140 The Birmingham vehicle was effectively a twice-scale version of the Derby prototype.141 The Derby team was closely involved in the design process and provided a site engineer to supervise installation and commissioning. The system entered passenger service late in 1984. In the expectation that the Birmingham installation would be the first of many, two enhancements were studied. One was a switch mechanism,142 a prototype of which was operating in the Research sidings by August 1983.143 The second was lighter, and therefore more flexible, track. This was studied theoretically.144 In the event neither development was put to use. The consortium failed to take the commercial initiative needed to promote further installations, and the pioneering Birmingham application of maglev remained unique.145

5.9: Electrification For the first half of the Ministry programme period, the electrification work fell within Rennie Smith’s responsibility (see Figures 2 and 3), his staff being divided between Rugby and Derby. The Rugby team under Peter Hetzel was concerned with pantograph and overhead line dynamic performance, following on from the work of Dick Sell. The Derby team’s interest centred on the high-voltage and high-current aspects of the electrical supply; its senior members included Marcus Astle-Fletcher, Alan Bradwell, Jeremy Wheeler and Bob Holmes. In 1977, the Rugby outstation was closed and its staff moved to Derby, although the high-voltage/high-current test compound at Rugby

138 D Linder “High speed guided ground transport of passengers”, TRRL Supplementary Report 450, 1979. This was a summary of the internal report D Linder (ed.) “High speed guided ground transport of passengers: parts 1 and 2 and summary report”, TR EDYN 10, November 1977. 139 The Section had been formed at the start of the project, in 1973. Its senior staff included David Dobbs (Section Head), Derek Linder, Roger Goodall and Maurice Pollard. 140 The other members were Brush Electrical Machines, Metro Cammell, Balfour Beatty, GEC , GEC General Signal and GEC Witton Kramer. The launch of the group on 24 February 1981 is reported in Railway Gazette International, April 1981, pp 296-297. The track structure was designed by Henderson-Busby Partnership. 141 The vehicle was 6m long. There is a good description of the complete system by Johnson and Nenadovic in Railway Gazette International, April 1983, pp 260-262. 142 The scheme is illustrated in M G Pollard “Maglev – a British first at Birmingham”, Physics Technology, Vol. 15, 1984, pp 61-72. 143 Railway Gazette International, August 1983, p 577 has a pair of photographs with caption. 144 A Lawton “Design limits for a maglev vehicle on a flexible guideway”, IAVSD Symposium, Prague, August 1987. 145 It remained so until being withdrawn in 1999 due to lack of spares. One vehicle is preserved at the , York. It now (2006) has a successor in Nagoya, Japan. §5. THE MINISTRY PROGRAMME 29 was retained. In 1982, Rennie Smith joined ORE in Utrecht as BR representative and was succeeded by G B (Brian) Smith (Figure 4). From 1971, following the proposal for a 25kV electric APT, the current collection work was targetted at speeds above 160 km/h. In the absence of a reliable theory, a mainly experimental approach was necessary. To further this, a scaled catenary (at half-scale in the along track direction only) was erected on the Research Department test track at Widmerpool, allowing tests to be run at half prototype speed.146 At the same time a pantograph with variable parameters was designed, based on the GEC crossed-arm design. Specialised instrumentation was developed to measure the quality of current collection (line uplift, pantograph head force, loss of contact). Since correlation between scaled line and live line was required, careful screening and optical isolators were employed to allow the instrumentation to operate in both situations. The team possessed its own laboratory coach “Prometheus” equipped with instrumented pantograph, viewing window and full recording facilities. Analysis of tests both at Widmerpool and on the main line gave good indicators as to desirable pantograph properties.147 The CMEE incorporated some of these in the modified Faiveley pantograph used for the initial APT trials. When APT-P itself became available for high-speed running (1979), the pantograph instrumentation was transferred to it and high-speed testing moved to the main line (usually between Lockerbie and Beattock). Three problems quickly emerged: unsatisfactory aerodynamic behaviour of the Faiveley pantograph; pantograph damage at neutral sections; and excessive uplift allowing collision with out-of-running metalwork.148 The second problem was traced, using high-speed photography, to impact against the neutral-section skids. It was solved by designing, and proving, a new skidless neutral section insulator. The uplift problem would later be solved by the introduction of the BR/Brecknell,Willis “Highspeed” pantograph with suitable aerodynamic tuning, as described below. Earlier, following the opening of the WCML extension in 1974, some serious problems had arisen with the Mk III overhead line equipment. The new range of bolted aluminium clamps and some compression lugs suffered premature failure resulting in conductor burning and even fracture. Thermal testing of existing and proposed designs produced a successful long-life replacement. Problems (not of an electrical nature) arose with the hydraulic overhead line tensioning units and were solved by incorporating a diaphragm between the pressurising gas and the actuating oil. More generally, there were problems with insulators. A spate of failures of the normally reliable glass-fibre neutral section insulators was traced to poor bonding at their terminations. Ingress of moisture then gave rise to a novel cracking mechanism; a new bonding specification provided a solution.149 Also the glass-fibre rod insulators, in use on BR since the 1960s as cantilever bridge and tunnel wire supports and as in-line insulators, gave only a very short service life. The problem was traced to a pollutant mix of brake dust and carbon which could be ignited by high-voltage sparking in the wet. Tests in the fog chamber150 were followed by longer-term tests using water sprays in the high-voltage compound on the Kelvin House roof.151 The problem was traced to failure of the butyl rubber coating.

146 “Scaled catenary to simulate high-speed current collection”, Railway Gazette International, June 1973, p. 231. 147 A R Beadle, A I Betts and W R Smith “Pantograph development for high speeds”, Railway Engineering Journal, November 1975, pp 72-81. 148 W R Smith “Researching high-speed current collection”, International Railway Journal, December 1979. 149 A Bradwell and J C G Wheeler “Tensile failure of glass-fibre insulators due to acid notching”, 13th Reinforced Plastics Conference, London, November 1982. Also A Bradwell “Importance of preventing moisture ingress to polymeric insulators”, Proc. I.E.E., Vol. 131, Pt B, 1985, pp 1-17. 150 J C G Wheeler “Fog chamber tracking test for evaluating outdoor insulators”, I.E.E. Colloquium on Tracking of Electrical Insulation and Tracking Test Methods, November 1982. 151 A Bradwell “An accelerated rain simulator for evaluating outdoor insulators”, I.E.E. Colloquium on Tracking of Electrical Insulation and Tracking Test Methods, November 1982. 30 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH

Silicone rubber and PTFE coatings were shown to be much superior, and adoption of the former effectively solved the problem.152 The vast majority of overhead line insulators were solid-core porcelains. However the (shorter) Mk III designs were liable to flashover in polluted conditions. The BR standard wet test failed to simulate this behaviour, or to rank the different designs correctly. A salt fog test chamber was therefore designed and added to the Kelvin laboratory facilities. A series of tests was performed to rank insulators in terms of the salinity they could withstand. This quantified the influence of insulator geometry, and the salt fog test subsequently became an obligatory element of BR specifications.153 Rainfall and pollution monitoring at troublesome sites by the Electrification Team allowed insulators to be matched appropriately to their location. Porcelain insulators are also prone to damage by vandalism. To counter this, silicone rubber rings were produced to fit tightly over the sheds and proved very successful in giving protection.154 Finally, the slow but very troublesome succession of porcelain insulator failures due to ageing led the Electrification Team to evaluate shedded glass-fibre insulators for overhead lines. Tests in the outdoor accelerated test site identified suitable designs with silicone rubber shedding,155 able to meet all the new BR specifications for tracking, erosion and acid attack of the glass-fibre rod.156 They would come increasingly to supersede the ceramic types.157 Another contribution in the high voltage field with large economic consequences was the redesign of the live end-fitting of the under-bridge cantilever arms. By careful shaping to reduce the local electric field strength, the previous 11 inch minimum clearance could be reduced to only 4 inches.158 On new schemes, this often allowed the 25 kV wires to be run without lifting the bridges, a major saving in civil engineering costs. It also allowed the elimination of the troublesome 6.25kV overhead previously introduced in London and Glasgow at locations where the old 25kV standard could not be met. Since surge voltage, rather than the nominal 25kV, is the determinant of safe clearance, monitoring was necessary of surges on overhead lines and in substations to demonstrate to the Railway Inspectorate that the risk of flashover at the new minimum clearance was low. Switchgear and cable insulation also received attention, not least because insulation failure associated with oil-filled equipment has the potential to cause serious explosions. Failure of a paper- wound transformer cable-entry bushing at the Wolverton feeder station in 1973 was a case in point. The Electrification Team investigated each of these failures. The cause was traced to voids in the insulating paper of the bushings; internal electrical discharge then led to carbonisation and eventual failure. The problem originated in a bad batch at manufacture. An extensive programme of work was initiated to assess the condition of all remaining bushings, at first audibly and then electrically using portable high-voltage instrumentation. All 92 substations from London to North Glasgow were

152 A Bradwell and J C G Wheeler “Evaluation of plastic insulators for use on British Railways 25kV overhead line electrification”, Proc. I.E.E., Vol. 129, Pt. B, 1982, pp 101-110. 153 J C G Wheeler “Testing of solid core insulators for use on BR 25kV electrification”, Proc. I.E.E., Vol. 130, Pt. B, 1983, pp 278-283. 154 So successful that BR and Electricity Boards also used the idea to protect porcelain insulators in substations. The shed protectors are illustrated in Railway Gazette International Product News, May 1984, p. 371. 155 A Bradwell “Evaluation of shedded polymeric insulators for use on BR overhead lines”, I.E.E. 5th DMMA Conference, Canterbury, 27-30 June 1988. 156 A Bradwell and R H Billinge “Acid notching of glass-fibre insulators”, British Electrical & Allied Manufacturers Association (BEAMA) Conference, Brighton, 19 May 1986. 157 When the Birmingham-Redditch line was electrified in 1990, rubber-coated porcelain-cored insulators were used; when the Leeds-Skipton line was energised in 1992, rubber-coated glass-fibre insulators had replaced porcelain completely. 158 A Bradwell and J C G Wheeler “Developments in glass-fibre bridge and tunnel insulators for minimum clearances on BR”, Proc. I.E.E., Vol. 131, Pt B, January 1984, pp 1-6. A demonstration is illustrated in A H Wickens “Technology assessment sets tomorrow’s research targets”, Railway Gazette International, April 1978, pp 195-200. §5. THE MINISTRY PROGRAMME 31 checked over a period of 3 years.159 Defective bushings were removed from service and new specifications applied to their replacements. Service lives in excess of 30 years were the result. Faulty cable terminations in rolling stock also have the potential to cause explosions, shattering roof porcelains or bursting transformer tanks within the vehicle. Each such failure was investigated by the Team and shown to be a cable problem. The whole of the relevant fleet would then be checked to eliminate cases of weak bushings. The roof-end cable termination was supported by an oil-filled porcelain insulator; the hazard it represented was eventually overcome by the introduction of a silicone rubber encapsulation as replacement. A substantial investigation was also undertaken of the thermal rating of track feeder cables on the 750V system of the Southern Region. Assessment is not straightforward due to the transient nature of the traction demand, with practical peak currents exceeding the steady-state rating of the cable. Prediction methods were developed and results compared with laboratory tests simulating different buried and covered cable environments, with outdoor tests taking account of solar input, and with in-service measurements. The knowledge gained enabled the Electrification Team to advise on cable ratings, including, for example, for the strengthening of the supply to accommodate the trains running into Waterloo Station.160 Other areas investigated by the Electrification Team during these years included the effectiveness of different designs of point heaters,161 and the design and use of live-line maintenance tools.162 In 1972 and 1973 two further groups of staff had become involved in the electrification work. In 1972, the task of applying computer-aided techniques to the design of the overhead system was placed with the Engineering Applications Section under Sandy Scholes. By then, the sagged-simple concept had undergone extensive value engineering to emerge as the standard Mk IIIA design. Components and design codes were both closely specified – a situation favouring computer techniques. Conventional surveys were still required to produce the scheme design in plan (the “layout”). The computer was programmed to perform the subsequent strength calculations and to select components of an appropriate rating (this included foundation and mast type, as well as superstructure items). Elevation drawings were plotted automatically and bills of quantity compiled and printed. By 1977 the work was sufficiently well advanced to be used on the Bedford to St Pancras scheme.163 A more developed status is described by Scholes in 1980.164 By January 1986, the system was being enhanced for application to the design of the East Coast Main Line electrification.165 The programs then remained in use to the end of the BR period, and indeed beyond.166 In 1973, the transfer of APT responsibility to the CMEE freed the Dynamics Section under Tony Hobbs to initiate a new theoretical study of the dynamic interaction of pantograph and overhead

159 A Bradwell and G A Bates “Analysis of dielectric measurements on switchgear bushings in BR 25kV switching substations”, I.E.E. Proc., Vol. 132, Pt B, January 1985, pp 1-17. 160 Work on the fire resistance of cables is reported in R Holmes and A L Thomas “Evaluation of materials for insulating and sheathing track feeder cables”, BEAMA International Conference on Insulating Materials, Brighton, 1982. Alun Thomas’ work on the transient current loading of cables was the subject of his successful PhD submission to Birmingham University. 161 Described by Alun Thomas “Electric switch heating – R&D sets the standards”, NewsRound (R&D Division Staff Newsletter), March 1983. The work was formally reported by Bob Holmes in TM ES 71, June 1986. 162 A Bradwell, J Tansley and R H Billinge “Developments in the design and assessment of quality of glass-fibre live-line tools on BR”, I.E.E. DMMA Conference, Lancaster, September 1984, pp 72-75. 163 A Scholes, J Christophers and C R Jones “Overhead system design by computer”, Railway Engineer, January/February 1978, pp 42-47. 164 A Scholes “Computer-aided design of overhead line equipment”, Railway Gazette, March 1980, pp 209-210. 165 British Rail Research Annual Report 1985, issued January 1986. 166 Shortly before the privatisation of Research, the “OSD by computer” team under David Evans joined Powertrack, a BR subsidiary company formed out of the DMEE’s Overhead Electrification Section. Powertrack was subsequently purchased by W S Atkins where the work continued. 32 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH line.167 Mathematical models were first developed and validated for overhead line and for pantograph separately. For the overhead line, it was found to be important to control friction at the wire tensioning pulleys. For the pantograph, advantage was taken of the excellent Brecknell,Willis “Highreach” pantograph;168 as modified for high-speed use, it conformed well to a simple two-mass analytical model. Combination of the overhead and pantograph models then gave excellent agreement with running experiments.169 These demonstrated that the combination of MK III overhead and experimental pantograph was fully adequate for 200 km/hour service. This practical success concluded the first stage of theoretical development. Thereafter the programs were re-activated and extended as the need arose, for example for studies of neutral section behaviour, of high-wire problems at level crossings, of stitched two-wire overhead for yet higher speeds, and for operation with multiple pantographs. It was also used to predict the current collection performance of the Eurostar trains on the East Coast Main Line. The adaptation of the Brecknell,Willis “single arm” pantograph for high-speed use was so promising that an engineering development followed to prepare it for service use. The adaptation involved mechanical and aerodynamic aspects.170 Mechanically, the lightweight box-section frame was given a pneumatic main suspension and a flexible head suspension comprising a pivoted “apex frame” restrained by a torsion bar. Aerodynamically, the problem of variation of uplift with speed and direction of running was solved by fitting small aerofoils to the apex frame; aerodynamic trimming of the head itself ensured equal pressure on the two contact carbons. In its developed form the pantograph became accepted as the standard for BR. By 1987, its service introduction was well under way.171

167 A fuller description of this work is given in my History of Engineering Research on British Railways, op. cit. 168 D L Dixon “A new British lightweight single-arm pantograph”, Rail Engineering International, November/December 1974. 169 R J Gostling and A E W Hobbs “The interaction of pantograph and overhead equipment: practical application of a new theoretical technique”, Proc. I. Mech. E., Vol. 197, 1983. An earlier report had been given by Hobbs in Railway Gazette International, September 1977, pp 339-343. 170 D J Coxon, R J Gostling and K M Whiteland “Evolution of a simple high-performance pantograph”, Railway Gazette International, January 1980, pp 44-47. 171 A I Betts, R J Gostling and A E W Hobbs, “Development of a pantograph for high speed running on economic overhead”, International Conference on Electric Railway Systems for a New Century, I.E.E. London, 22-25 September 1987, pp 209-213. §6. THE FINAL YEARS UNDER BRB 33

6. The final years under BR management (1985-1996) The cessation of Ministry funding in March 1985 introduced few immediate changes to the research programme. For the R&D Division as a whole, the loss of income from the Ministry172 was largely offset by the introduction of a Board-funded Exploratory (later Strategic) Programme. The decline in staff numbers, which had commenced in 1980, continued without a marked acceleration. The organisational structure, with David Dobbs in charge of the Electrical Branch, persisted. Outside the Exploratory programme all work now needed to find a business sponsor. Signalling, which had benefited substantially from Ministry funding, found ready sponsors in the Directors of Signalling & Telecommunications Engineering and of Operations. The Director of Mechanical & Electrical Engineering became principal sponsor of the electrical and electrification work. This situation continued until 1989. Changes then followed from a review of the Division’s work by consultants Knight Wendling which also recognised the Board’s aim of improving cost transparency. The Research Division (trading as “BR Research”)173 was accordingly constituted as a Self-Accounting Unit – one of several established at this time – and was required to defray all its costs against contracts. At the same time, the responsible Board Member (David Rayner) decided that a more aggressively commercial style of management was required and appointed Dr George Buckley to the post of Director of Research. Drs Wickens and Sparrow both opted for early retirement, as did David Dobbs. Dr Buckley then introduced the new senior structure shown in Figure 6. He strengthened the Electrical Branch under the new title Electronic Systems and Software, and appointed Malcolm Savage to lead it. Already in 1988, the electric traction and electrification work had become separated, the traction work joining Vehicle Systems Unit in Mechanical Branch and the electrification work joining Scientific Services. George Buckley would later create a new Electrical Engineering Research Branch to recombine them and develop these areas of work; Dr Khaja Khan was recruited in May 1991 to lead it. A more radical Board initiative impacted upon the Research Division in 1992. This was the OfQ (Organising for Quality) initiative, whose principal thrust was the strengthening of the Business Sectors, first introduced in 1982. They now took direct responsibility for engineering (and other) activities directly relevant to their operation. However a number of specialist roles, including engineering ones, remained centralised. These were grouped within a new Central Services organisation. BR Research, considerably expanded and renamed Engineering Research and Development, became one of twelve Profit Centres within Central Services. George Buckley, who had been largely responsible for the design of the Central Services organisation, stepped up to lead it; he was replaced as Director of Research by Dr Maurice Pollard. In this reorganisation, both the Electronic Systems and Software Branch and the Electrical Research Branch received major additions of staff. The former, renamed as Signalling and Software Engineering, gained two substantial Sections from the previous DS&TE organisation and absorbed the DM&EE’s Train Performance Section within its Simulation and Modelling Section. The Electrical Engineering Research Branch gained three complete Sections from the DM&EE organisation as shown in Figure 7. At Divisional level, the Technical Support activity was lost to Production Services, a sister organisation within Central Services. From 1994, the final phase of the Division’s existence was determined by the Conservative Government’s intention to privatise the railway industry. Preparation of the Department for sale involved successive rounds of staff reduction (by means of voluntary redundancy), and a progressive collapsing of the organisational structure. Already in 1993, the Mechanical and Electrical Branches had been merged under the title Traction and Rolling Stock (Figure 8). Seven Capability Groups replaced the Branches in 1994 (Figure 9), and were reformed again as five Business Groups in April 1996 (Figure 10). In July 1996, a reduced BR Research, having lost its Scientific Services

172 In the later years the Ministry contribution had provided almost exactly one quarter of the Division’s income. 173 The Development responsibility was dropped. 34 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH component, was formally established as a Board Subsidiary and offered for sale with a staff establishment of 270. It was purchased by AEA Technology plc on 20 December 1996. During these later years, the proportion of the Division’s effort devoted to research reduced. From 1989, the need to recover costs was interpreted in practice (with an eye to eventual privatisation) as a requirement to show a (paper) profit. This encouraged the acceptance of “bread and butter” tasks, such as supporting software and generating data for innovations already introduced. Then in 1992, the incoming staff from the M&EE and S&TE departments brought with them a workload, certainly of a good technical quality, but not properly characterised as research. The train performance team from the DM&EE, for example, continued to apply their established techniques to the production of train timings on request; while the incoming signalling staff acted essentially as internal technical consultants to their former colleagues engaged in new works and maintenance activities under Sector management. These production-directed activities are not reflected in the following sections, where the description is limited to projects involving a significant element of research and innovation.

6.1: The completion of SSI At the time of the Leamington Spa pilot, SSI lacked three facilities that would be essential for larger scale installations: the ability to operate interlocking computers in multiple; the ability to communicate with trackside equipment over long distances; and the availability of a properly integrated scheme design and testing facility. To operate interlockings in multiple, a dedicated data highway was needed to exchange vital information between them. This had been allowed for in the original hardware design but not implemented. The software design was difficult, due to the asynchronous operation of the individual interlockings. It was completed successfully, however, in time for the first multi-interlocking installation at Inverness, commissioned on 3 June 1987.174 It has performed faultlessly in service. The baseband data transmission employed to communicate between interlocking and trackside was limited in range by signal distortion effects. Its range could be extended to perhaps 40 km by using SSI data link modules in pairs as baseband repeaters, a technique used in fact at Inverness. However for larger schemes, a more powerful approach was to make use of the high- capacity telecommunication links then beginning to be installed by BR. This required the development of an additional SSI module, the Long Distance Terminal, to act as protocol converter, at safety level, between SSI and Telecom standards. This was under development during 1987, with Richard Waterman in charge, and moved to an extended trial based at St Pancras in 1988.175 It was first used in production at York (commissioned in May 1989), and became standard equipment thereafter. The third development, that of producing a fully-integrated design facility for SSI schemes, was placed outside the tripartite agreement and was progressed solely by BR. The development of this, the SSI Design Workstation, was the responsibility of Ian Mitchell.176 Its facilities provide for the creation of a Scheme Design Database, which describes the distribution of equipment within the installation and produces appropriate documentation. It has editors for creating a description of the signalling functions required using a specially developed design language, and data compilers outputting the information required to configure the interlocking. It also includes a powerful

174 “Solid state signalbox commissioned”, Railway Gazette International, July 1987, p. 429. 175 Research Division Progress Reports for March and September 1987 and British Rail Research Review, 1988. A technical description is A H Cribbens and R C Waterman “Long distance data transmission of safety information for the Solid State Interlocking”, I.E.E. Conference on Main Line Railway Electrification, York, 25- 28 September, pp 322-326. 176 He briefly describes successive versions in “Four generations of SSI data preparation”, IRSE News, Issue 100, December 2004/January 2005. An earlier, more formal, description is included in A H Cribbens and I H Mitchell “The application of advanced computing techniques to the generation and checking of SSI data”, Proc. I.R.S.E., 1991/92, pp 54-64. §6. THE FINAL YEARS UNDER BRB 35 simulation system, which exercises the installation being designed and allows formal functional testing of the interlocking logic to be carried out in the design office. It was in use on BR Regions by 1988,177 and was made available under licence to GEC and Westinghouse. Despite the experience gained from the Leamington Spa pilot, the entry into service of the production-standard SSI equipment was not without its problems. Early installations at Docklands, Inverness, Oxted and Dorchester gave rise to a number of problems involving the distributed parts of the system. In response, lightning protection was improved as well as immunity from mains interference. Two specific software problems (concerned with timing and address decoding) were identified and corrected. Then in early 1989, severe difficulties arose during commissioning of the installation at Liverpool Street.178 Several causes combined: inadequate earthing of traction supply and signalling equipment cabinets, exceptionally severe interference caused by certain traction units, and (critically) a design feature of the Westinghouse trackside modules that made them unduly susceptible to interference. Fortunately a batch of GEC modules (prepared for another scheme) was available and could be quickly substituted to allow traffic to run while the problems with the Westinghouse equipment were resolved. The engineering challenges presented by the trackside electrical environment had been recognised early in the SSI development. Nevertheless, the severity of the events at Liverpool Street was quite unexpected and necessitated a thorough examination of the internal design of the equipment. This identified the critical points of vulnerability and led to a number of improvements in mechanical design and the level of interference suppression. The eventual result was the production by both Westinghouse and GEC of modified trackside equipment which had greater resilience to electrical disturbances and much improved reliability in service. Meanwhile the traction bonding at Liverpool Street was improved and the traction units causing the very large voltage transients were taken out of service. Reliable operation at Liverpool Street was quickly restored and within a few months SSI had recovered from this major setback. Its status as BR’s standard signalling system for future schemes was secure. It has been extensively installed on BR and (with upgrades) remains the standard system at the time of writing (2007). Both industrial partners also obtained substantial export business with SSI installations, thereby giving the project a significant world-wide impact.179 SSI had been a major project carried through to complete success. Its leader, Alan Cribbens, was deservedly awarded an MBE in the Queen’s birthday honours of 1993 in recognition of his contribution to this achievement.

6.2: Train detection For many years, the operation of low-voltage track circuits by lightweight track maintenance machines had been problematic, requiring them to be moved under special operating arrangements. Then with the introduction of the new classes of diesel multiple unit – the 2-axled “Pacers” from late 1983 and the “Sprinters” from early 1986180 – the problem became much more general. Some ten years before this, during commissioning of the second batch of C-APT transponders, the Automation team had observed bursts of noise on the transponder interrogator output. These they attributed to changes of impedance at the wheel/rail interface, no doubt due to vibration on corrugated track. It implied that inductive coupling was occurring between the interrogator antenna and some external circuit, causing current to flow through the wheel/rail interface where it could be affected by

177 British Rail Research Review, 1988. 178 This scheme was associated with the first installation of an Integrated Electronic Control Centre, commissioned in March 1989, see Section 6.4 below. 179 By November 2000 (i.e. in the first 13 years) some 65 locations on BR had been equipped involving 290 interlockings and perhaps 11,000 trackside modules. By 1998, Westinghouse alone had installed 73 interlockings in 6 countries overseas; one result of GEC’s overseas activity was that SSI became standard equipment in Belgium. (Information provided by Alan Cribbens). 180 See Railway Gazette International November 1983 (introduction of Class 141 railbus) and Railway Gazette International January 1986 (introduction of the Class 150/1 DMU). 36 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH the vibration. Later, when investigation of the track circuit failures was called for, the then Train Control team offered the C-APT interrogator as a candidate item of instrumentation. In the event, it emerged as a solution. A rust film on the rail surface (possibly with other minor contaminants) was known to exhibit semi-conducting behaviour. It was now seen that the alternating secondary current flowing in the circuit formed by the two neighbouring axles and the sections of rail between them was providing a sufficient “junction bias” at the wheel/rail interface to allow the track circuit current to flow.181 The concept was therefore worked up as the Track Circuit Shunt Assistor (TCSA, or simply TCA). It used a large rectangular aerial, vehicle mounted, with drive electronics operating at 165kHz.182 The device proved effective at all normal levels of rail contamination, and as a result was specified for fitment to all diesel multiple units and other at-risk vehicles such as track maintenance machines. Fitting of existing stock was complete by the end of 1994.183 The Shunt Assistor was specified as original equipment for new builds in these categories. It was also licensed for use overseas. A year or two before this, a particularly severe autumn leaf fall had demonstrated that TCA was not proof against heavy leaf contamination – for which, indeed, it had not been intended. However, with the assurance that all at-risk vehicles would now be fitted with TCA, a solution could be offered in the form of TCAID (the Track Circuit Actuator Interference Detector). In TCAID, a detector is connected across the rails in the affected track circuit section to “listen for” the tell-tale 165 kHz current in the rail.184 When detected, the track circuit relay is forced to close. Although offered initially as a short-term expedient, TCAID systems are still (2007) in use at problem locations in the leaf fall season. The economic justification of the above rested on the impossibility of modifying, or replacing, at any reasonable cost, the many thousands of low-voltage track circuits on BR. However at specific locations, or where renewal was planned, the problem could be bypassed altogether by the use of axle counters. These were conventionally used in pairs feeding an evaluator unit, the combination functioning as the equivalent of a track circuit. In the context of the Secondary Line Signalling Policy study,185 the Microelectronics Unit proposed a direct axle counter to SSI interface whereby the raw counts would be processed within the interlocking, offering a more versatile and economic system that would require less hardware. A broader proposal was also tabled advocating the deployment of networks of axle counters in complex areas, having the potential to displace numerous track circuits and their associated insulated joints.186 The axlecounter interface was taken as far as a tested prototype,187 but in the event neither development was taken forward.188

6.3: Signalling policy In 1986, Alan Wickens, in his role as Director, Engineering Development and Research, instituted two studies of future Signalling Policy in conjunction with Maurice Holmes, then Director of Operations, and W H (Bill) Whitehouse, Director S&TE. Under this (informal) steering group two policy groups were formed: for Main Lines and for Secondary Lines respectively. Both had

181 Analysis of this effect was active in mid 1987, see BR Research Progress Report for period ending September 1987. 182 The Specification of the fully developed system by Malcolm Sutton is dated July 1991. 183 Eye to Eye (British Rail Research staff magazine), February 1995. 184 Normally several detectors would be deployed per track circuit section. The development of TCAID is mentioned in the BR Research Annual Review for 1993 and described in Eye to Eye, February 1995. 185 See next Section. 186 BR Research Technical Memorandum TM MIC 019 “Train detection by a system of low cost axle counters”, R W Barwick, July 1988. 187 Research Division Progress Report to the Research and Technical Committee, March 1988. 188 The axlecounter interface was later deployed by GEC-Alsthom in Belgium. BR Research undertook the modification of the SSI software to provide the axle counter functionality and to accommodate the signal aspect sequencing rules of the Belgian railways. The system was worked up to production standard by GEC-Althom and remains in the catalogue. It has never been licensed for use on BR, however. §6. THE FINAL YEARS UNDER BRB 37 representation from Operations, S&TE and Research. The Main Line Policy Group was chaired by Peter Law supported by Ken Hodgson, then Deputy Director S&TE.189 Its analysis work was undertaken by a Research team of five led by Doug Holgate and drawn from the Microelectronics Unit, the Train Control Unit and the Transport Technology Assessment Group (TTAG). Cost data was contributed by Brian Hesketh of the Region S&T Department and the team included Paul Grant representing the Operations Department. The West Coast Main Line was chosen as the test case and three options were compared: . Extension of the existing Multiple Aspect Signalling . A new track-intensive signalling system . New train-based signalling The Secondary Line Policy Group was chaired by the S&T Department’s representative at a level less senior than Deputy Director. It too was presented with a number of alternatives. For very lightly trafficked lines, RETB was already well established.190 For lines with a higher traffic density but still in the secondary category, one option canvassed was an “extended” version of RETB (ERETB), the most significant enhancement being the ability to exchange tokens on the move. A second alternative, proposed by the Microelectronics Unit,191 was Block Post Interlocking (BPI). This consisted of a simplified variant of solid-state interlocking concentrated at points of track complexity and operating the local trackside equipment directly (i.e. dispensing with trackside modules). BPIs would communicate with each other and with a control centre at a low data rate suitable for standard telephone lines or radio. Intermediate sections of plain line would be unsignalled and protected by entry and exit axle counters incorporated in the local BPIs. By the end of 1987, however, both these options had been rejected on cost grounds in favour of a simplified version of SSI.192 The simplifications envisaged included a low data rate and the use of axle counters. In the event even these developments were not actioned, and the several opportunities for cost saving were lost. In the Main Line study, the advantages in principle of the “train intensive” approach to signalling were again apparent: increased line capacity due to “moving block” operation, the elimination of line-side signals, the ease with which Automatic Train Protection could be incorporated. However, some of the technical requirements could not be met with proven (or even known) equipment, so that the level of risk was very high. Also the transition from the existing situation to the new one, and the interfacing with connecting lines not equipped for the new system, presented very serious problems. The outcome of the study, therefore, was to recommend an evolutionary approach, i.e. to stay with multiple aspect lineside signalling but to add enhancements where appropriate. Cab displays and Automatic Train Protection (ATP) were foreseen as the most probable enhancements, the latter being the more important. The pressure to develop ATP stemmed from the continuing hazard presented by signals passed at danger (SPADs). For InterCity the case was strengthened by the prospect of increased speeds, for Network SouthEast by the prospect of increased traffic density. Therefore with the support of Maurice Holmes, first as Director of Operations and then (from December 1988) as Director of Safety, two substantial pilot schemes were planned: one on the from to London, and one on the Chiltern Line from Marylebone to Aynho Junction and Aylesbury. Both schemes were authorised on 6 March 1989.193 Their management was placed with

189 Ken Hodgson followed Peter Law as chairman on the latter’s retirement in Spring 1987. He succeeded Bill Whitehouse as Director S&TE in February 1988. 190 See Section 5.2.3 above. 191 A H Cribbens and D H Newing “An introduction to Block Post Interlocking”, internal paper dated 23 December 1986. 192 British Rail Research Review, 1988. 193 Coincidentally 6 March 1989 was the date of the Belgrove accident, the second of two SPAD-related accidents in three days. The Hidden enquiry, already commissioned to investigate the Clapham accident (not SPAD related), then had its remit widened to include the Purley (4 March 1989) and Belgrove (6 March 1989) SPAD-related incidents. It would lead Anthony Hidden QC to recommend not only completion of the two ATP pilots but also the rapid general implementation of ATP thereafter. 38 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH the Director Projects, Bob Walters taking charge on his behalf. Doug Holgate was seconded from Research to the Director of Operations to prepare the operating contribution to the specification. Contracts were placed in February 1990, GEC-General Signal receiving the Chiltern Line commission194 and ACEC of Belgium that for the Great Western Main Line. Both installations were to prove troublesome, the modifications required to both rolling stock and to signalling being complex and intrusive. Limited trials began in 1991, but neither scheme was fully complete until 1994.195 Experience with these schemes then informed a review of the costs to be expected for a general introduction of ATP. Relative to the benefits, these were found to be impossible to justify.196 The Board (and ) therefore agreed to persist with the two pilots, to introduce full ATP only in connection with new high-speed lines, and to commence a search for a more cost-effective (although necessarily more limited) approach. This last commitment was important technically to improve railway safety, but also politically in view of the retreat from the Hidden recommendations. The Research Division accordingly became involved in an interdepartmental project SPADRAM (SPAD Reduction and Mitigation), its contribution being assigned to a project team led by David Hill (later Peter Dunkerley) and including Allan Wayte as Project Engineer. Several approaches were considered, from which two emerged for practical development and then implementation. The minor one was a Driver’s Reminder Appliance – a traction interrupt and cancellation button – designed to counter the problem of starting against a red signal. The major scheme, originally Enhanced AWS, later became the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS). In TPWS, the normal AWS function is retained, albeit now using electronic control logic, while two new features are added: a “train stop” at the signal post, and a “speed trap” (later renamed “overspeed sensor”) on the approach to the signal. The train stop is implemented by means of two adjacent coils in the four foot, energised only when the signal is at red. The first coil transmits a trainstop arming signal, and the second coil a trigger signal. When the train’s TPWS equipment receives these two signals in the correct sequence, an immediate emergency brake application is applied. This can be expected to stop a fairly slow-moving train within the signal overlap.197 The overspeed sensor also involves two coils, now set some 250-350m before the signal and some 20-25m apart, depending on track layout. Again the coils are generally energised only when the signal is at red. The first coil transmits an overspeed sensor arming signal which starts a timer within the train’s TPWS equipment, set to around 1 second for passenger stock and 1.2 seconds for freight. If when the TPWS equipment receives the trigger signal from the second coil the timer is still running, an emergency brake application is activated. Again depending on circumstances, this should prevent an overrun of the signal overlap for approach speeds of up to 75 miles/hour for most passenger stock. The overspeed sensor function can also be used to provide protection at permanent speed restrictions and station buffer stops. On the basis of fitting all cabs but only those signals most at risk, costs and benefits were predicted to meet the agreed target of £2m per life saved – although costs did rise later. Calls to tender for a prototype system were issued in 1995, Redifon MEL being the successful contractor.198

194 GEC-GS nominated SEL of Germany as subcontractor for design, production and supply of equipment. Later it was agreed to exchange roles, SEL becoming the main contractor with GEC-GS handling installation and commissioning. 195 T Gourvish “British Rail 1974-97”, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 357. Both pilot schemes benefit from the relative simplicity of involving only a single type of rolling stock. The general case is therefore more difficult in this respect. Both pilots remain in operation at the time of writing (2007). 196 The cost of a general ATP deployment was found to be between £500m and £600m, equivalent to a cost per life saved of some £14m (Gourvish op. cit. page 358). A more reasonable figure was believed to be £3m-£4m per life saved. £2m was set as the target for a future, reduced, scheme. 197 With a full (200 yard) overlap and good modern train braking, a stop from 45 miles per hour should be possible. For freight, the equivalent speed may be as low as 25 miles per hour. 198 An important contributor to controlling costs on the rolling stock side was the practice, devised between Redifon and the project team, of issuing conversion kits, exactly compatible in size and connections with the AWS modules being displaced. This avoided the expensive interference with train wiring involved in the ATP §6. THE FINAL YEARS UNDER BRB 39

Trials at Old Dalby in 1996 were followed by pilot schemes on in 1999 (at Luton and Three Bridges) and then by nationwide implementation during 2000-2003. With some more recent refinements, the system remains in use at the time of writing (2007). Earlier (in late 1993) Doug Holgate had become involved, as BR (later UK) representative, in the work of ERRI Committee A200.199 The Committee’s remit was the definition of a standardised European Train Control System (ETCS) to replace the plethora of incompatible cab signalling and automatic train protection systems that were a barrier to through running of trains across national borders. The ETCS specification defined a number of “levels”, from a simple ATP system using transponders to communicate to trains, to a radio-based moving-block cab signalling system as envisaged in the BR Main Line Signalling Study. Later ETCS would become part of a wider European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) which would be extensively promoted by the European Commission to encourage international railway traffic and a competitive market in signalling equipment. However development was destined to be very slow because of the complexity of the specification required to satisfy the differing needs of all the European railways, and the need for six competing manufacturers to agree on how to ensure compatibility of their equipment.

6.4: IECC The target of the SSI project had been the signalbox relay room – or more accurately the interlocking logic and the distributed equipment controlled by it. However, opportunities also existed on the signalbox operating floor for substantial cost savings and for functional improvements. These were the subject of a later, but overlapping, project: the Integrated Electronic Control Centre (IECC). On the operating floor, the conventional interface with the signalman was the hard-wired NX (entry-exit) panel. These were very large – often 100ft in length – and required large buildings to accommodate them. They were also expensive, inflexible in terms of the information they could display, and difficult to modify in the event of an infrastructure change. In addition, by the 1980s, a number of software-based products had begun to appear on the floor, such as Automatic Train Reporting by Exception, other information systems, timetabling systems and finally SSI itself. Their introduction led to an inefficient accumulation of serial data links between the different systems. The objective of the IECC project, then, was to undertake a thorough-going re-design of this area so as to produce an integrated software-based system of general application. Like SSI, it would be customised to a specific location by data. Design aids would be provided to facilitate the preparation of this data.200 As a secondary objective, it was hoped to introduce new IT-industry suppliers to the business, thereby widening an otherwise very narrow supply base. An early decision was to replace the hardwired NX panel by a series of high-resolution colour monitors. Work on this started in 1983.201 The monitors would eventually be grouped in fours to create a signalman’s workstation which included tracker ball, function buttons (for “set”, “clear”, etc.) and keyboard. Two of the monitors gave an overall view of the signalman’s area, the third a detailed view as required; the fourth displayed colour-coded messages in text. The screens also carried “soft keys”, which could be used to select special displays. Also from the outset, it was decided to incorporate a developed form of the Automatic Route Setting pioneered at Three Bridges. The ability of ARS to set routes automatically, even in conditions of seriously perturbed running, would prove to be a major selling point of the finished IECC. In designing the interface with the interlocking, SSI was assumed to be the standard provision. Relay interlockings could also be accommodated, via an conversions. Some 6000 cabs were fitted. Costs of the track-based element, now under Railtrack, were less well controlled; the installation cost per signal rose substantially and the final number of signals fitted was around 11,000, compared with the original estimate of 5,000. 199 ERRI (the European Rail Research Institute) had succeeded ORE (the Office for Research and Experiments of the UIC, the International Union of Railways) in January 1992. 200 See C S Dennison and B Needle “Signalling design automation”, I.R.S.E. International Conference “Aspect 91”, London, 7-9 October 1991, pp 69-79. 201 Proposal for 1983 DTp/BR Joint Research Programme. 40 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH interfacing processor mimicking SSI. The overall system architecture of IECC was centred on two local area networks – a signalling network and an information network – communicating with each other via a gateway processor. All subsystems communicated with one or other of these networks.202 Many of these elements were duplicated for reasons of reliability, safety being assured by the SSI. The system ran under the control of a special operating system developed for the purpose by BR Research, commercial operating systems of the time not being adequate to the duty. In computing terms, IECC represented a complex real-time system with multi-tasking capability and an interrupt structure which ensured that data was captured completely and efficiently. The provision of simulation facilities was critical to the success of the project. Simulation was used both to aid the software development and to demonstrate the system’s capabilities to prospective customers. It was structured to provide a fully realistic model of the IECC operation, responding to user actions and to changing external circumstances exactly as if connected to the actual railway. The first simulation was based on the Leamington Spa layout and was operational by September 1985.203 Route setting via the colour monitor was successfully demonstrated. Then with the approval of the Director S&TE, the full specification of IECC was worked up in detail and was provisionally approved for three forthcoming re-signalling schemes: at Yoker (Glasgow), Newcastle and Liverpool Street. A contract was placed with the systems house CAP (later SEMA) for systems integration and installation (and a small amount of hardware development). Close liaison was maintained between CAP/SEMA and BR Research, the latter providing the bulk of the installed software. Initially Yoker was expected to take the lead,204 but in the event it was Liverpool Street that hosted the first installation. By 1988, the laboratory simulation had been reworked to model the Liverpool Street layout and simulators had been provided for factory testing of equipment and software, and for staff training (the latter installed at Rail House, Crewe).205 The commissioning of the control centre equipment at Liverpool Street followed in March 1989 and was a complete success, despite the temporary problems with the SSI trackside modules already described. In the reporting of the event, the performance of the ARS was especially praised.206 The train regulation strategies, substantially the work of John Hurley, successfully met the challenge of controlling more than 100 trains per hour, featuring mixed traffic patterns over a complex layout, making and implementing decisions automatically. This introduction of software-based intelligent control to traffic management was indeed a bold step at the time, its successful realisation being greatly to the credit of Malcolm Savage’s Research team responsible.207 Installations at York and Yoker soon followed (in May and November 1989 respectively), and the system became firmly established as the standard for future schemes. By early 1995, 14 IECC systems had been installed at 11 sites on BR.208 Under Railtrack’s management several systems were added at existing sites, but no new sites would be introduced until ’s initiative at Edinburgh Waverley in 2006. At the time of writing (2007) IECC is in competition with a number of other signalling control systems for new installations, but remains the only one with a fully functional automatic route-setting capability.

202 See “First IECC signals breakthrough”, Railway Gazette International”, April 1989, pp 229-232; also R P Harrison and H A Ryland “An integrated electronic control centre”, Railway Technology International, Stirling Publications, London, 1989, pp 213-216. 203 Progress Report to the Research and Technical Committee for period ending September 1985. 204 The first published description of IECC is in this context: R C Nelson “Yoker Integrated Electronic Control Centre”, Proc. I.R.S.E., 1986/87, pp 134-152 (presented 9 March 1987). 205 British Rail Research Review, 1988 and Progress Report for period ending March 1989. 206 See Railway Gazette International”, April 1989 op. cit. 207 Senior members of the team included Roy Harrison, Tony Annis, Harry Ryland and Gerald Brook. The pioneering nature of the intelligent control and its significance for future developments is emphasised by Tony Annis in his article “Integrated Electronic Control Centre – exciting future for railway operations control”, UK Transport Projects, 1995. 208 Eye to Eye (British Rail Research staff magazine), February 1995, gives 13 sites, in error. A correct listing of sites and systems introduced up to the end of 2002 is given in I H Mitchell “Signalling Control Centres today and tomorrow”, Proc. I.R.S.E., 2002/2003, pp 49-62 (presented 15 January 2003). §6. THE FINAL YEARS UNDER BRB 41

In 1990, work commenced on the Information Generator, an additional processor communicating with the IECC information network and assembling the data needed to drive staff and passenger information systems.209 The first (and, as it turned out, only) application to an automatic passenger information system was with the IECC installation of 1993/94.210 Also in 1990, the responsibility of maintaining IECC software and data was placed with Research.211 This included the preparation of data for new installations and stageworks, and provided an ongoing fee-earning activity in line with the new commercial outlook. It continued to provide a useful source of income up to privatisation, and indeed for the successor private companies.

6.5: Control Centre of the Future Following IECC’s acceptance, BR’s signalling centres were progressively equipped with state-of-the- art electronic technology, while the signalman’s task of traffic regulation was substantially eased, and the operational performance improved, by the inclusion of Automatic Route Setting. The Research team therefore turned its attention, with the Director of Operations’ encouragement, to the next higher level of traffic management: the Control Office.212 The Control Office’s task is to oversee train movements over a wider area, the territory of several (sometimes many) signalboxes. The controller’s responsibility includes the allocation of rolling stock and crews to train diagrams to meet the intended service; also devising responses to planned variations arising, for example, from engineering possessions or rolling stock withdrawals. However, his most important and critical role is that of organising the response to disturbances caused by accident, equipment failure or any other source of traffic disruption. In the late 1980s, many Control Office systems were paper based. Established BR main-frame computer systems such as TOPS and TRUST recorded resource allocations and reported train movements respectively, but there was little assistance with data collation and decision making aspects of control. This could cause problems in responding rapidly or reliably to perturbed situations. The new project “Control Centre of the Future” accordingly set out to investigate the extent to which to modern (or emerging) computer methods could assist Control Office staff in their work. The project involved two main areas: the collection and presentation of real-time operational data; and the provision of decision support tools. The data collection was achieved by interfacing electronically with other computer-based systems, not least the IECCs themselves. The presentation was very effectively implemented by the combination of powerful modern workstations equipped with colour monitors and a hierarchical software structure.213 Thus at the “overview” level a complete control area could be shown in simple outline form with each section of route colour-coded to indicate its current status. A sequence of highlight colours was chosen from grey through to red to indicate the average lateness of trains within a section. The controller is thus alerted to developing problems. He can then call up a detailed view of the area in question, colour-coded as before but now showing the location of individual trains together with their headcode. By pointing and clicking on a train’s headcode, tabulated data can be obtained on screen giving that train’s timetable, its actual times and projected times for the rest of its journey. Constraints such as engineering possessions and temporary speed restrictions are automatically allowed for in the forward prediction, and the operator can himself enter emerging constraints such as line blockages. A replay facility is also provided which allows an event sequence to be re-run and the quality of decisions reviewed. This system of presentation plus forward projection was developed at Liverpool Street based on the control area and proved very popular with the staff there.

209 British Rail Research Progress Report to the R&T Committee for period ending March 1990. 210 British Rail Research Annual Review 1993. 211 British Rail Research Research Highlights, July 1990. 212 The first mention of the new project in the six-monthly reports to the Research and Technical Committee is in September 1988. By March 1990 the work is well underway, funded under the Corporate Strategic budget. 213 See David Rawlings “Control Centre of the Future gives operators the means to regulate effectively”, Railway Gazette International, September 1994, pp 583-586. 42 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH

The design of decision support tools in the Control Office context raised some difficult computational problems. Control problems are much less structured than signalling problems and involve many more parameters: a wider area, more trains, plus the allocation of stock and crews. This called for the consideration of advanced computing techniques such as constraint-based programming, expert systems and neural networks. Target applications were rolling stock rescheduling, crew rescheduling and train pathing decisions. By September 1994, solutions to the first and third of these, in the form of the Stock Rescheduling Tool and the Train Pathing Tool, were sufficiently advanced to be proposed for inclusion in the Control Centre of the Future installation commissioned for the Upminster control centre of the London Tilbury and Southend Line.214 However the railway privatisation structure introduced in that same year proved fatal to this aspect of the project. Under the new regime, the responsibility for train operation passed to Railtrack, while that for stock and crew scheduling passed to the Train Operating Companies. In the event, the decision support tools were not installed at Upminster and support for this aspect of the work was withdrawn. On the other hand, the workstation presentation of current status with its forward projection facility was taken forward strongly, now known simply by the acronym CCF. During the period between the formation of Railtrack in April 1994 and the sale of BR Research in December 1996, CCF project work was largely concentrated on further installations of the current-status display system. Additional workstations were installed at the Liverpool Street control centre and new installations were completed at the Upminster control centre and in the control room of the West Anglia Great Northern at Hertford House, London. Feasibility studies into CCF installations for Railtrack’s London North Eastern and Southern zones were carried out during 1995 and by November 1996 a programme for the national roll-out of the CCF system was under discussion with Railtrack. Following the sale of BR Research in December 1996, the CCF activity was taken forward by AEA Technology Rail.215 In the new railway structure, “delay attribution” became an important task and the CCF system – in particular its replay facility – was developed to support this. The national roll-out of the system, discussed in 1996, was achieved during the years 2000-2002.

6.6: CATE (Computer Assisted Timetable Enquiries) With BR’s 82 telephone enquiry bureaux fielding 36 million enquiries annually, the desirability of automating the journey selection process was evident, particularly for complex cases.216 The first Research attempt, PASSTIM, is described in Section 5.6 above. It essentially implemented a computer look-up of tables from the published timetable and was able to handle journeys involving up to four tables. However, its recommended journey would not necessarily be the quickest. A different approach was offered by Dr K Brown of the Dundee College of Science and Technology.217 His method involved a user-defined hierarchy of geographical areas with specified stations linking areas. However the success of the approach was very dependent on the selection of these areas, a subjective process that might need to be revised with changes in the rail service. Again the recommended journey would not necessarily be the quickest. The final, successful, approach was devised by Derek Linder during 1984 while responsible for the liaison with Dr Brown. Later named CATE, two features were critical to the method’s success. Firstly a list of permitted interchange stations was defined, this being a commercial/marketing decision, not a subjective one on the part of the programmer. Secondly a powerful search routine (“A*”) was employed, taken from the field of Artificial Intelligence, which

214 Rawlings op. cit. 215 J Hurley “Optimized control of railway operations”, I.Mech.E. Conference on Railways as a System, 11-12 May 1999. 216 The position is described here for the mid 1980s, as provided by Derek Linder. 217 His work first came to the Division’s attention in 1979, see Malcolm Savage’s short article in the Staff Information Bulletin 3/1979 “Could you tell me the time of the train to…”. Dr Brown later received some sponsorship from BR. §6. THE FINAL YEARS UNDER BRB 43 was now guaranteed to give the quickest journey time. The method could be used for anywhere-to- anywhere enquiries and placed no restriction on the number of changes of train. Requests could specify the time to arrive by or to depart after. Work on the program started in early 1985. By the end of 1986 it had reached a stage where, implemented on a Pinnacle 68000 computer, it could be released for testing at four telephone enquiry bureaux on the Southern Region of Network SouthEast. The system quickly proved a success and found an enthusiastic champion in the person of the NSE Director Chris Green. In April 1987, the program was ported to a faster IBM 6150 machine and the trial was extended to 10 sites with 66 operator positions. Response times now ranged from less than one second for simple enquiries to perhaps 7 seconds for the most complex. The next year the project moved into full production in association with the Director of Passenger Marketing Services. It equipped 280 operator positions at 26 sites on NSE (by June 1988), and then 600 positions at 56 sites nationwide (by November 1989).218 Eventually all the BR enquiry bureaux were equipped. However CATE did not long survive privatisation. The Association of Train Operating Companies chose to call in tenders for a new system, ICL being the successful bidder. Liaison between Research and ICL ensured that the proven features of CATE were carried forward. Some features, such as the option to avoid London or to restrict the number of changes of train, were discontinued.

6.7: VISION VISION – the Visualisation and Interactive Simulation of Infrastructure and Operations on rail Networks – was a direct descendant of GATTS. The successful creation of the GATTS simulator in the early 1970s is described in Section 5.5 above. It continued in use in that form up until the late 1980s – by Research staff developing the regulation strategies that fed into ARS, and by train planners investigating the effects of infrastructure and timetable changes. However, running as it was on a mainframe computer, GATTS was less than user-friendly and required considerable skill and care in the setting up and running of a simulation. By 1987, the increasing power of desk-top computers offered the possibility of recasting the programme in interactive form – the development that became VISION. To achieve this, the algorithms were transferred to an IBM RISC machine equipped with a high-resolution colour display. At the same time, the input and output routines and the presentation were drastically overhauled. Starting in 1988, the work was sufficiently complete by March 1990 for the system to be offered to Eastern Region train planners for trial.219 The first action in preparing a simulation is to define the infrastructure layout to be studied. This could now be performed, much more easily than before, by elaborating a mimic diagram on the screen. A library of special icons was provided, representing signals, platforms etc., and pop-up menus could be called to enter numerical data such as along-track position, gradient, curvature, signal type, and so on. The additional data, required to specify train characteristics and the proposed timetable, were also facilitated by being entered via the screen with suitable prompts and templates. The train regulation strategies available derived from GATTS: timetable order, first come first served, minimum overall delay, minimum weighted delay. During the running of a simulation, the train movements could be observed on the mimic diagram which also displayed track occupied, routes set, signal aspects and brief train status information. On completion of a run, detailed reports were available such as the traditional train graphs and platform occupation diagrams; also summaries such as overall lost time or total weighted delay. Optional simulation modes included the “timing run” in which train movements are calculated

218 The sequence is provided by Derek Linder. The progress can also be followed in the series of Research Division Progress Reports to the Research and Technical Committee between September 1985 and March 1990. More detail of the four-site trial appears in “CATE makes the going easier”, Research News (Research Division Staff Newsletter), Spring 1987. 219 Research Division Progress Reports to the Research and Technical Committee for March 1989, September 1989, and March 1990; see also “Eastern Region tries out VISION”, Research News (Research Division Staff Newsletter), March 1990. 44 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH without taking account of the interaction between trains – often providing a useful benchmark. The robustness of a service pattern could be tested by introducing specific perturbations or by running an automatic sequence of simulations in which random perturbations were constrained to obey a specified probability distribution. In 1993, a new facility was added in the form of OSLO – the Overhead Systems Loading programme.220 Specifically for ac electrified lines, OSLO allowed account to be taken of the effect of the train service on the electrical supply and the interaction between the two. The program had been developed in the early 1970s within the Engineering Applications Section under Sandy Scholes. Like GATTS, it had been in regular use for many years in its main-frame form. Following its integration with VISION, the power distribution system was displayed in mimic diagram form overlaid on the track layout and showing the position of track feeds. This simplified the data input and helped to avoid errors. There were also improvements to the presentation of the output. VISION in this form was very successful.221 It was used extensively by BR, operated either by train planners directly or by Research staff on their behalf. It was licensed for use overseas and operated on behalf of overseas clients. At privatisation, it passed as a valuable asset to AEA Technology plc.

6.8: Electric traction Since 1982, the machines and power electronics work under Donald Armstrong had formed a part of Brian Smith’s Electrical Systems Unit (Figure 4). This arrangement continued until 1988 when the team transferred (briefly as it turned out) to the Vehicle Systems Unit under Kevin Preston. In 1991 it moved again, now raised to Unit status, to become part of the newly re-formed Electrical Engineering Research Branch under Dr Khaja Khan. Finally, some two years after Donald Armstrong’s retirement in June 1992, the work area was absorbed into Alan Bradwell’s Electrification Unit which then assumed the old title of Electrical Systems (Figure 9). “Improved Control of Traction and Braking” was a substantial new project started immediately following the close of the Ministry programme in April 1985.222 For the traction element of the project, an early step was the conversion of a Class 46 locomotive “Ixion” to act as tribometer in traction. It involved diversion of the locomotive’s full power to one axle which in turn was converted to separate excitation. Towed by a second locomotive, the measuring axle was then driven up to and through the point of maximum adhesion while its rotational speed was accurately measured by a 1000-tooth tachometer. Results showed that, while the level of maximum adhesion was extremely variable, the peak value tended to occur at a slip velocity close to 0.8 m/s. This speed difference was sufficiently large to suggest the possibility of controlling to it. Using analogue computer simulation, a scheme to do this was developed by Sue Quick and Brian Downing. It was applied in the first instance to the Class 58 freight locomotive. Microprocessor based, it detected wheel slip and applied very rapid correction to the generator exciter field. Fitted experimentally to a single Class 58 locomotive, it was shown to be extremely effective – so much so, that the earlier expectation that separate excitation of traction motors would be necessary for adequate control was disproved.223 The Class 58 system did not go into production, however; the Freight interest had by then turned to the prospect of the American-sourced Class 59 locomotive which offered control to 5% relative slip. In line with a general interest in condition monitoring, a study was reported in 1989 which reviewed the diagnostic techniques available for the condition monitoring of dc traction motors.224

220 British Rail Research Annual Review 1993. 221 A good description is M McGuire and D Linder “Train simulation on British Rail”, Transactions on the Environment Volume 6, Institute of Technology Press, 1994. 222 The braking element of the project is described in my “History of Engineering Research on British Railways”, York, 2005, op. cit. 223 The Class 58 trials were current during 1988, see British Rail Research Review 1988. 224 British Rail Research Progress Report for period ending March 1989. §6. THE FINAL YEARS UNDER BRB 45

The avoidance of failures due to commutator or insulation deterioration would indeed have been valuable; however, in the event, no techniques could be found suitable for service use. Fortunately the problems would start to recede from 1992 onwards with the progressive introduction of 3-phase traction motors. Solid-state control of traction equipment had been a subject kept under review by the traction team since the 1960s. In 1979 the first production thyristor controlled multiple units were delivered; the first locomotives followed in 1987.225 This prompted more detailed studies. Digital simulation methods were developed, as reported for example by Walczyna (a Polish visitor) and Phillpotts.226 The interest was in predicting current drawn and particularly its harmonic content. The latter was to assume great importance. The simulation skills proved especially valuable for checking manufacturer’s calculations when new equipment was on offer. For many years, the harmonic content of traction return currents in the rail had been restricted to avoid interference with signalling circuits. The introduction of thyristor controlled traction made this consideration much more demanding. It also raised the question of the acceptable level of electromagnetic radiation generally. By 1989, the European electrical standards organisation CENELEC had already issued a comprehensive standard specifying acceptable levels of radiation from domestic electrical equipment to ensure their electromagnetic compatibility. Frequencies ranging from dc to the GHz band were covered by the specification. CENELEC then resolved to undertake the equivalent task for railway equipment. A committee was formed for the purpose; it had five working parties and included BR representation.227 Standards were finally issued (strictly in “final provisional draft” form) in 1999. Existing vehicles continued to comply only with local standards. However all new vehicles were required to comply both with the CENELEC standard and any local conditions imposed by the S&T Engineer relating to the specific route on which the vehicles were intended to run. For each new vehicle type, this required first a paper review of the manufacturer’s predictions at the time of offer, and, on delivery, very thorough measurements of electromagnetic radiation to atmosphere and traction return current in the rail.

6.9: Electrification Throughout this period, the Electrification work was led by Alan Bradwell. Marcus Astle-Fletcher had long since retired; Jeremy Wheeler left early in the period to join GEC Central Laboratories in .228 Bob Holmes remained throughout as the team’s senior electrical specialist; Alan Betts, as the senior mechanical engineer, would lead the pantograph and overhead equipment work until his retirement in 1994. The organisational position of the Team was more varied, however. In 1988, the Electrical Systems Unit was disbanded and the Electrification Team, raised to Unit status, moved to Scientific Services under Jim Ward. Then with the appointment of Dr Khaja Khan in May 1991 and the creation of the new Electrical Research Branch, it rejoined its old electrical colleagues, and thereafter retained its Unit status under the several reorganisations that led up to privatisation. Through all these changes, it maintained its close liaison with the Board’s Electrification Engineer and forged new links with the Sector Engineers on their appointment.

225 These were Classes 314 and 90 respectively. Earlier prototypes had been the Class 87 prototype locomotive 87101 of 1975 and the APT prototype power cars of 1977. The first production vehicles with gate turn-off thyristor control and 3-phase traction motors were the Class 323 multiple units of 1992. 226 A M Walczyna and R E Phillpotts “Simulation model of ac/dc traction converters and drives for the calculation of input power characteristics”, I.E.E. Conference on Main Line Railway Electrification, York, 25- 28 September 1989. 227 The working party remits were 1: general; 2: emissions to atmosphere; 3: apparatus on the train; 4: signalling equipment; 5: substations. Donald Armstrong was a member of working parties 1 and 2 and chairman of working party 5. 228 There, he soon completed the development of a plastics encapsulated vacuum circuit breaker, thereby removing the explosion hazard presented by the oil-filled porcelains associated with both earlier vacuum and air-blast circuit breakers; see J C G Wheeler and D Vernon “Development of a plastics-encapsulated vacuum interrupter for traction applications”, BEAMA Conference, Brighton, 19-22 May 1986. 46 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH

Condition monitoring of electrification equipment now became an important element of the team’s work. The experience of excessive contact wire uplift due to poor pantograph operation on the APT and other locomotives, particularly in high winds, led to a proposal to monitor pantograph condition from the trackside. A test site was established on a high embankment at Cheddington on the West Coast Main Line. Contact wire uplift was measured at two structure positions and lateral wire acceleration at two positions between structures. The uplift measurement was made “live side” and transmitted to ground by fibre-optic link, the acceleration measurement by fibre-optic sensor. Wind speed and direction and train speed were also recorded. Commissioned during 1987,229 the installation proved successful in identifying defective pantographs. It was then developed into a regular condition monitoring installation with automatic locomotive identification and automatic defect reporting (initially to Derby).230 Its success led to its duplication on the East Coast Main Line in 1990 and later on Scotrail and West Anglia Great Northern with direct reporting to Electric Control and Depots. Named PANCHEX, the developed system was also marketed abroad. In a related venture, the Electrification Team set up a series of high-definition zoom cameras at Euston and Kings Cross stations. These allowed rolling-stock maintenance staff to check the pantograph carbons for damage (by impact or arcing) before each train set off north.231 Wear of the overhead contact wire was a problem liable to cause creep, excess maintenance and early scrapping of the wire. It was the subject of an extended laboratory study undertaken in conjunction with the Tribology Section. In parallel, actual wear data was obtained by the Electrification Team from measurements on the West Coast Main Line extension and on other routes. The latter data proved the more relevant and showed that the critical factor determining the life of the contact wire was the increase of contact force at the approach to features such as registration and underbridge arms. Arcing due to loss of contact in exiting these features was found to be less important. This understanding gave rise to new criteria for current collection performance, based not on loss of contact but on peak forces and uplift.232 Running slightly behind the development of PANCHEX, a further condition monitoring system OLIVE was developed which was in effect the reverse of PANCHEX in that it used an instrumented pantograph to monitor the health of the overhead line. Initially a single Class 87 locomotive was equipped with a pantograph incorporating a fibre-optic accelerometer. Abnormal vertical accelerations of the pantograph head or excessive movement of the overhead line across the head were taken to indicate defects in the line. The fully developed system included GPS position referencing and data transmission by cellular radio and landline.233 Repeated impacts at a given location over a period of days allowed maintenance staff to pinpoint a defect without the need for extensive along-track searches. The concept proved a great improvement over the previous infrequent inspections by special coach.234 A version of the system was in operation by 1993.235 Its success led to its propagation to other vehicles and routes.

229 BR Research Reports to the R&T Committee for March and September 1987; see also Alan Betts and John Hall “Condition monitoring of pantographs”, Research News (Research Division Staff Newsletter), August 1987. The important data handling element of the project – covering data capture at site, its transmission to Derby and the software to handle it there – was the work of Peter Keen. 230 A I Betts, J Hall and P M Keen “Condition monitoring of pantographs”, I.E.E. Conference on Main Line Electrification, York, 25-27 September 1989. 231 The installation was in use before September 1988, see BR Research Report to the R&T Committee for that date. 232 A I Betts, R Holmes and J Hall “Defining and measuring the quality of current collection on overhead electrified railways”, International Conference on Electric Railway Systems for a New Century, I.E.E. London, 22-25 September 1987, pp 214-217. 233 A Bradwell, G A Bates, P M Keen and S Conway “Monitoring overhead line/pantograph parameters”, I.C.E. Conference on Measuring, Monitoring and Recording on Track, 2 July 1996. The work on OLIVE was led by Gerry Bates; it included data collection on the locomotive, capture of the GPS information, electronic tagging of the locomotive, interfacing with the mobile telephone network, and reception and analysis of the data at Derby. 234 The DMEE maintained a special coach “Mentor” for this purpose. “Prometheus” could also be called up. 235 British Rail Research Annual Review 1993. §6. THE FINAL YEARS UNDER BRB 47

Also in the later 1980s, the Team originated an improved regime of transformer maintenance. It was applied to both rolling stock and trackside power supplies. Based on the examination of failed units, a number of diagnostic techniques were investigated to identify incipient failures, of which dissolved gas analysis of the transformer oil emerged as the most promising. Oil monitoring systems were then put in place by Scientific Services. A database of oil characteristics assembled over a number of years allowed norms to be established and rogue transformers to be identified. Suitable arrangements with Depots for regular oil testing proved effective in improving transformer reliability.236 Over many years, Bob Holmes and his colleagues were active in developing computer models to predict the electrical and electromagnetic consequences of 25kV ac operation. The contemporary OSLO program (see Section 6.7 above) was available to predict gross current flows due to service traffic. However further calculation is necessary to quantify the resulting environmental effects. In many contexts also, fault conditions are of greater importance than service conditions. Safety considerations are paramount. For example, traction return currents must not produce voltages on exposed metalwork sufficient to pose a hazard to staff or the public. Magnetic fields must not be so large as to induce dangerous voltages in circuits running parallel to the railway such as internal or external telecommunication circuits. The programs developed allowed safety issues such as these to be addressed.237 They also contributed generally to electrification system design, supporting the writing of Specifications and Codes of Practice, and assisting with scheme designs where special electromagnetic constraints applied, for example in the Heathrow tunnels and on the rail link. In the later 1980s, the exposure of humans to electric and magnetic fields became an issue with guidelines for maximum permitted exposure being proposed by the National Radiological Protection Board. The predictions were extended to create a convenient tool for assessing the degree of compliance with these limits on or near to railway property. In the same period, the emergence of ac traction drives discussed in the last Section (6.8) raised new problems, including the possibility of resonance with the overhead supply causing dangerous overvoltages. This involved the Electrification Team in a series of measurements to characterise the frequency response of the overhead line equipment. The broader question of electromagnetic compatibility involved Bob Holmes personally, collaborating with Donald Armstrong on the science of the subject,238 sitting on the CENELEC subcommittee concerned with telecommunication systems interference, and advising the Board’s Electrification Engineer on the implications of emerging regulations. The EMC work also involved the Electrification Team generally in an extensive programme of measurements of the electromagnetic signature of the railway under different traction conditions. Other ventures by the Electrification Team during this period included: furthering the replacement of ceramic insulators by silicone rubber types both for overhead line and in vehicle roof- mounted applications; devising surge suppression for traction equipment converting from air-blast to vacuum circuit breakers;239 continuing the investigation of electrical accidents and advising on improved safety practices and equipment; and a review of the fire and smoke hazard from cables in BR underground stations and tunnels.240

236 A Bradwell, D A Smith, N Harrison and D Green “Diagnostic testing of transformers on British Railways”, I.E.E. 5th DMMA Conference, Canterbury, 27-30 June 1988. The activity is also described briefly in Research News (Research Division Staff Newsletter), February 1988, and noted as a heading in BR Research Review, 1988. 237 See R Holmes “Some aspects of safety on an electrified railway”, I.E.E. Conference on Electric Railway Systems for a New Century, 22-25 September 1987. 238 Two companion papers are R Holmes “EMC aspects of electrified railways at low frequencies” and D S Armstrong “EMC aspects of electrified railways at high frequencies”, both at I.E.E. Colloquium on EMC in Large Systems, 1 February 1994. 239 An unpublished report by A Bradwell and G Bates is dated November 1988. 240 This was given added urgency by the Kings Cross fire of November 1987. 48 ELECTRICAL RESEARCH

7. Conclusion This history shows that the foresight of the founding fathers of the electrical research activity was, in the end, amply justified. One suspects, however, that they would have been surprised – even dismayed – at the timescale involved. Certainly one early development was implemented quickly: the sagged-simple design of overhead electrification equipment. The early signalling research, on the other hand, was so far ahead of its time – both in terms of the available technology and the appetite for its implementation – that some 20 years were to elapse before any substantial service introduction was achieved.241 In facilitating this long haul, the injection of Ministry funds negotiated by Sydney Jones and Ken Spring was of critical importance, as was the sustaining of the Joint Programme thereafter by the Research directorate of Alan Wickens, Bob Sparrow and Ralph Wall.242 This funding allowed the recruitment of good-quality staff and a progressive building of expertise. With the arrival of the early microprocessors, practical results became possible by the later 1970s. Thus a form of cab signalling with automatic train stop (SRAWS) was approaching service readiness by 1976 when the work was stopped on cost/benefit grounds; and a system of fully automatic train operation (BRATO) was demonstrated in 1979. Limited service applications soon followed with C-APT (1979) and the radio-connected block instruments (1980) – the former limited to the six APT-P driving cabs (although the entire length of the West Coast Main Line was equipped), the latter limited to a single line in Northern . Then with the growing reputation of the Research staff and a more progressive attitude by Signal Engineer and Operator, a series of research initiatives entered service in the mid 1980s: Automatic Route Setting (1983), Radio Electronic Token Block (1984) and Solid State Interlocking (pilot 1985, production 1987). Finally the introduction of the Integrated Electronic Control Centre in 1989 set the seal on a major transformation of signalling practice. Contemporary contributions to business operations included the Red Star Parcels Machine of 1984, and the APTIS/PORTIS ticket issuing machines of 1986. The introduction of Automatic Vehicle Identification to the coal traffic commenced in 1987. The CATE enquiry system emerged in the same year. The VISION traffic simulator replaced the original GATTS simulator in 1990. The assistance given to the creation of the first National Radio Network had started earlier (in 1976). Significantly, all these projects (with the exception of the radio support work) were implemented, or were under development, near the end of the Ministry programme, at a time when the full benefit of the Joint Programme funding had accrued. In the traction field, the original intention of using the research to drive industrial development forward was not achieved. In the important case of ac traction drives, for example, there proved in the end to be no option but to keep abreast of developments while awaiting the production by industry of traction-rated thyristors (and in particular their gate turn-off variant). The introduction of international competition was also important in this context. Thus a technique that was under investigation in 1964 eventually produced service equipment in the mid 1990s. Of the more innovative projects, only the mag-lev people-mover achieved service introduction (in Birmingham in 1984) – but even it was destined to remain the sole representative of its type. In electrification, the early success of the sagged-simple overhead equipment has been mentioned. Designated Mk III, it became the standard equipment for new work from about 1967. It

241 Some of the original proposals, such as the “moving block” signalling canvassed by Harry Ogilvy in the early 1960s, have still (in 2007) achieved only very limited application. Moving block signalling with inductive loop communications was successfully developed in Canada for mass transit railways and is used on the . The level 3 (moving block) version of the European Rail Traffic Management System (with radio communication) remains in the realm of future possibilities. 242 The positive support of Ian Campbell, as responsible Board Member in (near) succession to Sydney Jones, was also important. The Board Members with responsibility for Research, up to 1994, were: John Ratter (to 1965), Sydney Jones (1965-1975), “Bobby” Lawrence (1975-1976), Ian Campbell (1977-1984), Geoffrey Myers (1984-1985), David Kirby (1986-1987), David Rayner (1987-1991) and Peter Watson (1991-1994). §7. CONCLUSION 49 was joined 20 years later by a second Research innovation, the BR/Brecknell,Willis pantograph.243 This became the standard BR pantograph from about 1987. In the intervening 20 years, consistent effort was applied to raising the reliability of the high-voltage electrical equipment. A rigorous approach was employed of fault diagnosis followed by appropriate equipment modification. A notable strand of the work was the progressive displacement of ceramic insulators by polymeric types, either developed by or championed by Research. Savings resulted in maintenance cost and also in first cost, a prime contributor to the latter being the easing of electrical clearance requirements achieved by the redesign of the underbridge support arms. In the final years of BR Research, the introduction of specialised condition monitoring systems such as PANCHEX and OLIVE enabled further reliability gains to be made. In addition to SSI and IECC, three further projects in the signalling/operations area active during this last period of BR Research produced results of national significance. The Track Circuit Assister (TCA) was fitted by 1994 to all diesel multiple unit stock (and some track maintenance machines); with its related TCAID, it effectively solved the problem of operation of low-voltage track circuits. CCF, the information display element of the Control Centre of the Future project, was implemented nationwide during 2000-2002 and provided controllers with much improved access to timely information. Thirdly, the national implementation of the Train Protection Warning System (TPWS) was completed in 2003 and provided a very significant level of protection against signal overruns. Meanwhile the influence of SSI and IECC continued to extend, SSI being established as the standard equipment for new signalling schemes and IECC being a leading contender for control centre installations, or the exemplar for proprietary alternatives. Taken overall, the years of electrical research had been conspicuously successful. The expertise generated (enshrined in both people and computer code) was dispersed at privatisation with some loss in terms of creativity and initiative. However, much of the Research expertise continued to be available to the industry through successor organisations (notably AEA Technology, then DeltaRail), through signalling suppliers and through consultancy arrangements.

243 Credit here is due to the Dynamics Section and to Tony Hobbs, who moved from Dynamics Head of Section to Technical Director of Brecknell,Willis Ltd in 1980. Board Member Dr Sydney Jones

Director of Research Headquarters Research S F Smith Manager: Dr K H Spring

Advanced Projects Director of Engineering Director of Electrical Director of Chemical Director of Scientific Engineer: A H Wickens Research: Dr R W Sparrow Research: Dr L L Alston Research: Dr K G A Pankhurst Services: S Bairstow

Assistant Director Assistant Director (Communications and (Electrification and Applied Control): Dr D E N Davies Science): P J Coates

Signalling Section: Systems Analysis Machines Section: Mathematics (including Overhead Equipment Physics Section: H H Ogilvy Section, soon to be re- D S Armstrong Computer Bureau) Section: R G Sell Dr H A Dell named Automation Section, the Mathematics under N Shelley element under M J Savage

FIGURE 1: ORGANISATION OF BRITISH RAILWAYS RESEARCH DEPARTMENT, 29 MARCH 1968. Director of Laboratories Dr A H Wickens

Administrative Assistant Research Finance Officer S Greatorex R Wall (responds to Head of Research)

Deputy Director of Laboratories (Engineering) Deputy Director of Laboratories (Applied Science) Dr R W Sparrow Dr K G A Pankhurst

Project Manager Project Manager Project Manager Project Manager Project Manager Computing Train Control APT Design Materials Technology Scientific Services P E West N Shelley M Newman Dr G W J Waldron E D Henley Project Manager Project Manager Project Manager Project Manager Track Electric Traction APT Development Process Technology C O Frederick H H Ogilvy A O Gilchrist A H Collins APT Electrical Systems Muswell Hill Applied Mathematics A L Fairbrother Signalling A L Astles M J Savage APT Systems Plastics J W Birkby Derby Systems & Services G Mitchell B J Hawthorne Automation (vacant) O Benz APT Structural Design Electrochemistry M S Birkin Doncaster J L Wildhaber J L Sudworth Engineering G B Buckley Applications APT Power Design Materials Science Electric Traction Swindon A Scholes B L King B A W Redfern W R Smith M T Hall APT Mechanical Design Polymers Crewe Instrumentation D Boocock J Batchelor Soil Mechanics R B Lewis W J Hair J M Waters Project Engineering Tribology Glasgow Field Trials Services Structures I G T Duncan C Pritchard R J Ward J C Lucas R A Fowler Adhesion Traffic & Fracture Mechanics Laboratory Operations D J Dobbs Dangerous Goods R McLester P T Mabbitt (vacant) Physics E-train Support H A Dell Central Analytical Drawing Office and Laboratory R Puntis Surface Coatings Workshop P T Corbyn A E Kitchen Aerodynamics F D Timmins R G Gawthorpe Security J H Littlewood Power Systems Disinfestation FIGURE 2: THE “PROJECT MANAGER” J R Mitchell D L Jenkins Dynamics ORGANISATION OF BRITISH RAILWAYS RESEARCH A E W Hobbs AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, 1 MAY 1972 HSFV Project A R Pocklington Director of Laboratories Dr A H Wickens Admin

Deputy Director of Laboratories (Engineering) Deputy Director of Laboratories (Applied Science) Dr R W Sparrow Dr K G A Pankhurst

Project Manager Project Manager Group Manager Project Manager Manager Scientific Track Electrification & Services Vehicles Materials Technology Services C O Frederick H H Ogilvy M Newman Dr G W J Waldron E D Henley Project Manager Project Manager Project Manager Transport Technology Project Manager Train Control Dynamics Assessment: PG Law Process Technology N Shelley Dr A O Gilchrist A H Collins Muswell Hill A L Astles Soil Mechanics Electrification Applied Mechanics Plastics Doncaster J M Waters W R Smith A Scholes B J Hawthorne G B Buckley Track &Structures Instrumentation Electromechanics Electrochemistry Swindon J C Lucas R B Lewis Dr D J Dobbs J L Sudworth A Smith Fracture Mechanics Engineering Services Light Vehicles Materials Science Crewe R McLester A E Kitchen Dr P J Howarth B A W Redfern M T Hall Field Trials Vehicle Structures Polymers Glasgow J L Wildhaber R J Ward Signalling I G T Duncan J Batchelor Experimental Services Central Services J W Birkby Tribology W J Hair Automation Dynamics J D C Brown Dr C Pritchard A E W Hobbs Power Systems Freight Studies M S Birkin Physics Traffic & Dangerous J R Mitchell Maths Applications Aerodynamics Dr H A Dell Goods R G Gawthorpe Suspensions Urban Studies M J Savage Surface Coatings P T Mabbitt A J Bing F D Timmins Central Services Electrical Systems P T Corbyn R W Stokes Security C Maskery Disinfestation A S Waterhouse FIGURE 3: THE ORGANISATION OF BRITISH RAILWAYS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, APRIL 1974 Director of Research Dr A H Wickens

Deputy Director of Research Dr R W Sparrow

Assistant Director of Head, Technical Support Head, Scientific Services Head, Electrical Head, Civil Engineering Head, Mechanical Research A H Collins M T Hall Engineering Branch Branch Engineering Branch R Wall Dr D J Dobbs C O Frederick (acting) Dr A O Gilchrist (acting)

Manager, Area Deputy Manager, Track Deputy Laboratories M J Savage J C Lucas (acting) Dr G W J Waldron R J Ward

Group Manager TTAG Engineering Services Analytical Services Electrical Systems Aerodynamics Suspensions Dr P J Howarth A E Kitchen P T Corbyn G B Smith R G Gawthorpe Dr M G Pollard Research Planning Officer Experimental Services Surface Coatings & Train Control Acoustics Power Systems P G Law J D C Brown Corrosion M S Birkin C G Stanworth Dr C Pritchard Commercial Manager Instrumentation Services F G R Zobel Software Engineering Physics Plastics J W Birkby R Hartle Hazards M J Savage Dr H A Dell Development Research Training Officer Field Trials & Services (vacant) Micro-Electronics Instrumentation Dr J Batchelor H H Ogilvy I G T Duncan Lubrication & Wear A H Cribbens Development Fracture Head of Admin Services Safety & Laboratory G R Morley R B Lewis Mechanics S Greatorex Facilities R McLester Head of Financial Control A Hurton Crewe Vehicle/Track Vehicle Systems H Acomb B Littlewood Interaction A C Wayte (vacant) Manager (Operations Doncaster Engineering Studies) G B Buckley Track Research Structures (vacant, prev. N Shelley) London J C Lucas A Scholes Engineer ORE, Utrecht P T Mabbitt Track Development W R Smith Glasgow J M Waters R K Hughes Swindon J G Maddock Pest Control (Manchester) A S Waterhouse FIGURE 4: THE BRANCH AND UNIT STRUCTURE OF BRITISH RAILWAYS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, INTRODUCED BETWEEN 1978 AND 1980 AND SHOWN HERE AT SEPTEMBER 1982. Director, Engineering Development and Research Dr A H Wickens

Director, Research Dr R W Sparrow Assistant Director (Research) Dr A O Gilchrist

Assistant Director (Resources) Assistant Director (Programmes) Assistant Director (Development) J W Birkby A H Collins P G Law

Training Officer Public Affairs Manager Head of Financial Control Technical Development Officers: P J G Hetzel S J Cormak M Browne Computer Bureau Manager Head of Admin Services Manager Transport Technology Development M Jallands B C Lawmon Assessment Group M C Powell Commercial Manager ORE P L Dunkerley Policy Dr G S Lane W R Smith Programme Planning Assistant (vacant) Assistant Commercial Manager P Garrington Dr A E Inckle

Head of Mechanical Head of Civil Head of Electrical Head of Technical Head of Scientific Engineering Research Engineering Research Engineering Research Support Services R J Gostling C O Frederick Dr D J Dobbs Dr G W J Waldron R J Ward

Vehicle Dynamics Track Research Electrical Systems Experimental Services Crewe Laboratory D Lyon Dr D L Cope G B Smith J D C Brown B Littlewood Aerodynamics Fracture Mechanics Software Engineering Instrumentation Services Doncaster Laboratory R G Gawthorpe R McLester M J Savage R Hartle G B Buckley Engineering Structures Acoustics Train Control Engineering Services Glasgow Laboratory A Scholes C G Stanworth M S Birkin A E Kitchen R Hughes Braking Systems Instrumentation Microelectronics Field Trials and Services London Laboratory Dr C Pritchard Development Dr A H Cribbens M Collins P T Mabbitt Vehicle Systems RB Lewis Swindon Laboratory K S Preston I J L Cotter Analytical Services D A Smith Coatings Polymers and Corrosion Dr F G R Zobel Products and Services FIGURE 5: ORGANISATION OF BR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, APRIL 1986 R Strand Lubrication and Wear G R Morley Director of Research George Buckley

Commercial Director Finance Director Personnel Manager Technical Director Mike Powell George Upson Kate Johnson Alastair Gilchrist

Sales & Marketing Manager Head of Financial Control Personnel Officer Roy Lawrence Martin Browne Brian Lawmon Contract Administration Manager Project Manager, Business Training Officer Geoff Lane Systems Colin Pritchard Strategic & EEC Affairs Manager Brian Smith ORE Utrecht Chris Bull Rennie Smith Transport Technology Assessment Group Peter Dunkerley

Head of Scientific Services Manager, Technical Manager, Electronic Systems Manager, Civil Manager, Mechanical Jim Ward Support & Software Research Engineering Research Engineering Research Geoff Waldron Malcolm Savage Charles Frederick Richard Gostling

Services Manager Granville Morley Instrumentation Safety Systems Acoustics Vehicle Systems Colin Stanworth Crewe Laboratory Services Alan Cribbens Kevin Preston Brian Littlewood Roy Hartle Operations Control Instrumentation Aerodynamics Development Doncaster Laboratory Engineering Services Roy Harrison Roger Gawthorpe Analytical Ray Lewis Geoff Toole Derek Brown Maths Modelling Vehicle Dynamics Services Fracture Mechanics London Laboratory Building Services Derek Linder Derek Lyon Dave Smith Gwyn Jones Tony Smith Alan Kitchen Systems Engineering Vehicle Structures Health & Safety Track Swindon Laboratory Field Trials Harry Ryland Sandy Scholes Vince Morris David Cope Ian Cotter Martin Collins Products & Consultant Glasgow Laboratory Computing Services Services Roger Hughes Mike McGuire Keith Sunley Alan Starbuck Coatings, Polymers & Electrification Alan Bradwell Corrosion Frank Zobel Lubrication & Wear FIGURE 6: ORGANISATION OF BRITISH RAIL RESEARCH , OCTOBER 1989 Ian McEwan Director of Research Maurice Pollard

Technical Assistant Jonathan Hyde

Commercial Director Finance Director Technical Director Safety & Quality Director OfQ Manager Personnel Director Michael Powell Jim Coates Alastair Gilchrist Jim Ward Brian Lawmon Kate Johnson

Sales & Marketing Manager Financial Controller Quality Manager Employee Relations Roy Lawrence Martin Brown Shah Khan Manager Contracts Manager Project Manager Safety Officer Steve Richards Geoffrey Lane Business Systems Godfrey Graver Training & Development Communications Manager Brian Smith Manager Jackie Robertson Head of Computing Helen Knox Patents Trade Marks & IPR Services Recruitment Manager Manager Graham Sawyer (acting) Dave Brewin Alan Inckle Purchasing Manager Personnel Systems Strategic & EEC Affairs Tony Menzies Controller Manager Alan Silvester Chris Bull

Manager Manager Manager Manager Signalling & Manager Civil Manager Mechanical Manager Electrical Scientific Services Implementation Group Site Services Software Engineering Engineering Research Engineering Research Engineering Research Granville Morley Peter Howells Alan Kitchen Malcolm Savage Charles Frederick Richard Gostling Khaja Khan

Regional Scientist Project Manager Head of Safety Critical Head of Civil Head of Dynamics & Head of Electrification Crewe Track Relaying Systems Engineering Structures Suspensions Alan Bradwell Brian Littlewood Andrew Hinton Alan Cribbens Clive Lemmon Derek Lyon Head of Electrical Regional Scientist Project Manager Head of Operations Head of Track Head of Vehicle Systems Doncaster Track Geometry Control Research Systems Don Armstrong Geoff Toole Alan Parsons Roy Harrison Keith Sunley Kevin Preston Head of On-Train Regional Scientist Project Manager Head of Simulation & Head of Acoustics Head of Aerodynamics Communication Swindon Stoneblower Modelling Brian Hemsworth Roger Gawthorpe Clive Avery Ian Cotter Peter McMichael Derek Linder (acting) Head of Vehicle Head of T&RS Regional Scientist Head of Signalling Head of Infrastructure Structures Electrical Systems Glasgow Centres Monitoring Systems Sandy Scholes Gordon Lindley Roger Hughes Harry Ryland Ray Lewis Consultant Head of Electrical Head of Coatings Head of Projects & Head of Strength of David Hill Machines Polymers & Corrosion Strategy Materials Derek Law Frank Zobel Bill Parkman Gwyn Jones Head of Lubrication & Signalling Technology Mining Engineer Wear & Standards Engineer Melvyn Grainger Ian McEwen David Wittamore Acoustics Consultant Head of Analytical Consultant Colin Stanworth Services Mike McGuire Peter Williamson Civil Engineering Consultant Head of Health & David Round Safety Vince Morris Head of Products & Services Alan Starbuck Consultant Dave Smith FIGURE 7: ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION, 18 MAY 1992 Managing Director Maurice Pollard

Technical Assistant Jonathan Hyde

Commercial Director Finance Director Personnel Director Manager, Civil Manager, Traction & Manager, Signalling Manager, Scientific Michael Powell George Upson Kate Johnson Engineering Research Rolling Stock and Software Services Keith Sunley Richard Gostling Engineering Granville Morley Malcolm Savage Principal Safety Officer Godfrey Graver Proposals & Contracts Financial Controller Employee Relations Project Manager Head of Dynamics & Head of Safety Head of Scientific Manager Jon Pollett Manager Track Renewals Suspensions Critical Systems Services Crewe Manager, Reliability Roy Lawrence Steve Richards Andrew Hinton Bridget Eickhoff Alan Cribbens Alan Gaukroger Pat O’Connor Purchasing Manager Business Development Tony Menzies Training & Head of Track Head of Vehicle Head of Operations Head of Scientific Manager Development Manager Research Systems Control Services Doncaster Quality Development Peter Shrubsall (acting) Project Manager Helen Knox John Tunna Kevin Preston Roy Harrison Geoff Toole Manager Business Systems Graham Fairweather Transport Studies Tim Lowe (acting) Recruitment Manager Head of Acoustics Head of Head of Simulation & Head of Scientific Manager Dave Brewin Brian Hemsworth Aerodynamics Modelling Services Swindon Peter Dunkerley Manager Site Services Roger Gawthorpe Derek Linder Ian Cotter Alan Kitchen Personnel Resources Mining Engineer Consultant Manager Melvyn Grainger Head of Vehicle Head of Signalling Head of Scientific Peter Howells Alan Silvester Structures Centres Services Scotland Head of Sandy Scholes Tony Annis Roger Hughes Personnel Services Infrastructure Manager Clive Lemmon Head of Mechanical Head of Projects & Head of Materials Maureen James Engineering Projects Strategy Science Strength of Materials Derek Lyon Bill Parkman Ian McEwen (acting) Consultant Dave Cannon Head of Electrification Signalling Technology Head of Analytical Alan Bradwell & Standards Engin’r Unit Track Consultant David Wittamore Peter Williamson Mike Shenton Head of On-Train Communication Consultant Head of Safety Acoustics Consultant Clive Avery Mike McGuire Vince Morris Colin Stanworth Head of T&RS Consultant Civil Engineering Electrical Systems Dave Smith Consultant Andrew Goodwin David Round (acting) Senior Electrical Consultant Khaja Khan

Consultant David Hill

Consultant Bob Holmes (acting)

FIGURE 8: BRITISH RAIL RESEARCH ORGANISATION, OCTOBER 1993 Managing Director Maurice Pollard

Technical Assistant Jonathan Hyde

Commercial Director Finance Director Technical Director Human Resources Operations Director Michael Powell George Upson Richard Gostling Manager Paul Wise Erica Bonner

Proposals & Contracts Business Sytems Technical Consultant Employee Relations Manager Manager Alan Cribbens Manager Roy Lawrence (vacant) Steve Richards Quality Manager Business Development Purchase Manager Alistair Young Training & Manager Tony Menzies Development Manager Peter Shrubsall Alex Nadelman Safety Officer Godfrey Graver Finance Manager Senior Commercial Mark Willett Recruitment Officer Coordinator Pam Ray Bill Hutchison Management Accountant Resources Services Technical (vacant) Officer Writer/Public Affairs Nigel Lee Manager Operations Support Neil Johnson (vacant)

Far East Account Manager David Round Group Leader Group Leader Group Leader Group Leader Group Leader Group Leader Group Leader European Account Projects Track & Civil Systems & Monitoring Structures Dynamics Operations Signalling Technology Manager Peter Howells Engineering Derek Lyon Sandy Scholes Bridget Eickhoff Roy Harrison (acting) David Wittamore Paul Straw Clive Lemmon

Planning Manager Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader, Control Team Leader (vacant) Civil Engineering Electrical Systems Structural Integrity Acoustics Centre Development Standards & Structures Alan Bradwell John Benyon Brian Hemsworth Tony Annis Evaluation Head of Reliability Alastair Kennedy Ian Mitchell Pat O’Connor Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader, Track Condition Monitoring Structural Analysis Aerodynamics Simulation & Team Leader Train Performance Systems & Mechanics Kevin Preston Keith Robinson Roger Gawthorpe Modelling Systems Development Engineer Geoff Hunt Peter Lawrence Richard Waterman Phil Williams Team Leader, Safety Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader Systems & Braking Laboratories Techniques & Team Leader Team Leader, Senior Consultant Track Maintenance Clive Avery Jim Cahill Interaction Product Support Product Support & Peter Dunkerley & Machines Graham Scott Brian Needle Services Don Asprey Team Leader Team Leader Don Newing Senior Consultant Infrastructure Structural Team Leader Team Leader David Hill Monitoring Development Suspensions & Production Paul Harborough John Lewis Applications (vacant) Senior Consultant Allan Carter Bill Keats Team Leader Materials Kevin Sawley

FIGURE 9: BRITISH RAIL RESEARCH ORGANISATION, JULY 1994 Managing Director Paul Wise

Human Resources Commercial Finance Director Technical Director Group Business Group Business Group Business Group Business Group Business Manager Director Rachel Stretton Richard Gostling Manager, Signalling Manager, Track & Manager, Traction Manager, Products Manager, Specialist Erica Bonner Mike Powell & Operations Civil Engineering & Rolling Stock David Hooper Services (vacant) Clive Lemmon Bridget Eickhoff Peter Howells

Employee Relations Senior Account Finance Manager Technical Strategist Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader & Resourcing Manager Dorothy Lolley Tony Annis Development & Track Maintenance Structures & Vehicles Monitoring Transport Studies Manager Peter Shrubsall Support Don Asprey Laboratories Kevin Fry Peter Dunkerley Steve Richards Quality & Safety Richard Waterman John Benyon UK Account Manager Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader Training & Manager Alistair Young Team Leader Track Systems & Team Leader Infrastructure Trackside Safety Development Chris Rogers Production Mechanics Electrical & Safety Monitoring Colin Simpson Manager Bryan Needle Geoff Hunt Cases Paul Harborough Alix Nadelman UK Account Clive Avery Team Leader Manager Team Leader Team Leader Group Contracts Train Performance John Consultancy Civil Engineering Team Leader Manager Bill Batters Meredith Ian Mitchell Structures Dynamics & Stephanie Wheldon Contracts & Legal Graham Clarke Graham Scott Team Leader Officer Group Contracts Noise & Vibration Roy Lawrence Manager Group Contracts Team Leader Rick Jones Terri Yates Manager Aerodynamics Account Manager Alan Rumble Terry Johnson Team Leader Europe Group Contracts Reliability Paul Straw Manager Group Contracts Mike Walley John Jones Manager General Manager Andrew Eames Team Leader Asia Pacific Office Light Rail Transit David Round Group Contracts Trevor Griffin Manager Stephen Ford Group Contracts Manager Mark Rees

Group Contracts Manager Andrew Hough

FIGURE 10: BRITISH RAIL RESEARCH ORGANISATION, JULY 1996