Insight from Richard Lungmuss
The British can be pretty parochial when it comes to taking advice, technology, processes and equipment from outside the UK, and indeed domestically within different parts of it.
This is never more apparent than on the rail network, where a national UK rail network could easily be misconstrued as a series of individual regions working uncomfortably alongside each other with different rolling stock, infrastructure types and even working practices. Thank goodness the British Army is not the same, or we would be fielding Regiments armed with differing arms and equipment, a logistical nightmare in a time of war!
Introducing new techniques, equipment and even working practices into this myriad of different apparent “fiefdoms” has often proved exceptionally difficult, the more so since it only takes one important stakeholder’s negative opinion to prevent them, or indeed the ultimate red card measure of “safety”.
My own experience of this rather political approach to implementing innovation dates as far back as the TPWS project, which I will discuss in later articles (which was delivered on time and £40m below the anticipated final cost in Dec 2003), but here I would like to discuss a technique brought onto the UK railway around 2009, and which won a Rail Innovation Award in 2009.
As Network Rail Maintenance Director for Scotland in 2009 I was champion of this technique and saw at first hand how complex it could be to implement change nationally, despite there being tangible financial and performance benefits for doing so. The change was the rail head repair technique using a partial thermite portion, which involved cutting out a templated portion of the railhead and then repairing it with a smaller thermite portion. The benefits being the lack of need to fully cut out a section of rail, weld in a new “check rail” necessitating two full thermite welds, the equipment and manpower to bring a heavy check rail to site, the far longer time to carry out the two welds and of course the restressing of the rail after this had been carried out.
The effect on the operational railway in having a rail head defect removed rapidly and the service restored are tangible, The savings for such a process were measurable, the more so since it was estimated that around 1/3 of defects being repaired were simply in the rail head.
Of course cutting a piece out of the rail head is not to be taken lightly and the safety implications of a weld failing are considerable. A large number of “trial” welds were done around the UK, removing many of the rail head welds for full examination before the process was eventually signed off. As I moved from Maintenance in Scotland to Route Director LNE in York I was confident that I had made a real difference to the railway’s bottom line.
The link to my title is that this rail head repair technique has been, and is, extensively used in both Australia, the USA and , where its advantages in speed and effectiveness make it an attractive option. In the UK we appear to have gradually dropped (or phased out) the use of this technique in favour of MMA welding.
My interest is always piqued when I hear talk of “efficiencies” on the railway and I was curious to see how many rail head repairs were being carried out by the use of thermit. Although figures were hard to come by it appeared that of the thousands of rail head repairs carried out in 2016/17 very few if any used thermit, relying on Manual Metal Arc (MMA), Flux Cored Arc welding or Automatic welding. More concerning was that the failure rate of these welds appeared high, compared to those for Aluminothermic (Thermit) welds.
Whilst Network Rail are introducing (or have introduced) a Rapid Automated Repair of Rail Head Defect System, nominated for a Rail Innovation award in 2021, that seeks to undertake this work in 30 minutes, it is still hard to look past this very basic, inexpensive and highly effective technique that has been available for the past 17 years or so. I cannot imagine that the new system has been cheap to implement, or whether efficiency savings have be taken in reducing the number of welders required in doing so but if that hasn’t happened I would contend that the new system owes more to Engineers’ love of new technology than a railwayman’s love of keeping the railway running at an affordable cost!
About Richard Lungmuss
Following a full career in the British Army, which culminated in taking my Artillery Regiment to the slopes of Mount Igman during the Bosnian War in the mid 90s, I left in 1999 determined to pursue a second career in Project Management. I was fortunate to be immediately given responsibility for a major IT project to completely re-requip Lufthansa’s airports and offices. Delivering this across the period of Y2K proved both challenging and rewarding.
My eventual success in solving the many issues of the project and delivering it were instrumental in my being offered the post of General Manager for the TPWS project on the UK railway in 2001. Delivery of this business critical national project was a fantastic introduction to the UK rail network and the project was delivered on time and some £40m under budget in December 2003. The lessons I learnt during this project have proved invaliuable in subsequent roles I have undertaken, which have included Maintenance Manager for Kent, Maintenance Director for Scotland and Route Director for the LNE route.
I have a relentless curiosity regarding cost efficiency, I have a very healthy scepticism regarding the part that technology has to play in making the UK railway both more efficient and more reliable and I appreciate that the UK rail workforce is its single biggest asset. I intend to explore a wide variety of topics in my weekly articles, but the underlying theme will be how a better railway can be delivered at an affordable cost. I look forward to sharing my views, and would always welcome dialogue regarding them.”
