Britain | HS2
HS2 starting to become a reality
The core section of Britain’s second high-speed line between London and Birmingham has been progressing at
pace. Mark Simmons talks exclusively with HS2 Ltd’s chief rail officer Emma Head about how much work
remains before the first trains start running.
The Colne Valley Viaduct near west London will become Britain’s longest railway bridge. Photo: HS2 Ltd
I
T might seem premature to imagine
the first trains running when even
the company responsible for
constructing Britain’s second highspeed line, HS2 Ltd, is quoting a fouryear window for its completion.
But rail passengers travelling into
Birmingham’s New Street and London’s
Marylebone stations already have a
very real sense that one of Europe’s
biggest construction projects is making
tangible progress. They can see for
themselves, respectively, the foundations
of HS2’s northern terminus of Birmingham
Curzon Street taking shape and the
elegant Colne Valley viaduct at the
southern end of the route near West
Ruislip extending itself, concrete segment
by concrete segment, for more than 3km
over lakes and waterways to form what
will become Britain’s longest railway
bridge.
A total of six tunnel boring machines
(TBMs) are currently burrowing their
way through a mixture of ground types
and tunnelling on HS2 is already
estimated to be around 50% complete
overall. In total, approximately two-thirds
of the budget for civil engineering work
between London (Old Oak Common)
and Birmingham has now been spent.
After several years of uncertainty
caused by rising construction costs and
political equivocation, culminating last
October in the cancellation of all
sections of HS2 north of Birmingham,
the future for HS2 is now much clearer.
Phase 1, 225km between London and
Birmingham, with a connection north of
Birmingham to the West Coast Main
Line at Handsacre (see timeline) is now
the only phase that will be built (see
panel, p21).
The most southerly part of the route,
the 13km tunnelled section between the
major hub interchange at Old Oak
Common in west London and the
terminus at Euston in central London,
has been paused for at least two years,
while the government assesses the
viability of attracting private-sector
finance to complete this stretch.
After the turbulence of recent times,
including the departure of CEO, Mr
Mark Thurston, last autumn - his
replacement is expected to take up their
post this summer - and reams of
HS2 timeline
March 2010
HS2 launches
20
January 2012
Plans approved; project
split into two phases
February 2017
September 2020
Phase 1 parliamentary Phase 1 construction
offically starts
approval
February 2021
November 2021
Phase 2A parliamentary London Old Oak Common
approval
station construction starts
IRJ May 2024
“My job is to keep an eye on the key
decisions to make sure they will come
together to deliver an end-state railway
and I have the power to instruct change
and make better programme decisions
where I can see a new scope or a need
to alter delivery to make sure we
protect that end-state outcome.”
High Speed 2
Prime system integrator
Source: HS2 Ltd
negative media coverage, to attempt to
get the project back on track might
seem a brave undertaking. Yet this is
exactly the challenge that HS2 Ltd’s
chief rail officer, Ms Emma Head,
accepted when she began work earlier
this year.
With two decades of civil engineering
experience in rail, and a member of HS2
Ltd’s executive team since 2015, Head is
just the kind of person the project
needs, especially as 11 major contracts
are due to be awarded later this year
(see table, p22).
When she sits down for an exclusive
interview with IRJ it is immediately
apparent Head has the whole route
very clearly imprinted on her mind, as
she talks seamlessly about each section
without hesitation or recourse to maps
or other paperwork.
She explains that her role emerged as
a direct result of lessons learned from
Crossrail, the £18.8bn project to build a
new east-west rail tunnel across
London, where the first trains began
running on what is now the Elizabeth
Line in 2022. In the heat of construction,
with many contractors on board, it
became evident that responsibility for
managing certain tasks was unclear.
“So HS2 Ltd has mapped all of the
interfaces between the construction
packages and between the systems
where we expect there to be interfaces
that need to be managed, and which
contractor we believe should be
discharging that integration activity,”
Head says.
What hope for Phase 2?
W
ITH all sections of Phase 2, including 2A, 2B east and 2B west, now
officially cancelled by the current government, it is unclear whether
either of the two northern parts of HS2’s original Y-shaped network
could still be built at a later date.
Head confirms that safeguarding for Phase 2A was removed earlier this year.
Despite this withdrawal of protection from other development, it is unlikely that
the route will be immediately lost as it remains protected by the Act of Parliament
authorising the construction of HS2 that continues in force until 2026.
At present, safeguarding remains in place for Phase 2B as some of the line might
be required for other new lines in northern England, collectively known as
Northern Powerhouse Rail and informally as HS3.
With a general election due to held by January 2025, some proponents of HS2
suggest that an incoming government might reverse the decision to cut Phase 2.
The leader of the opposition, Sir Keir Starmer, has already said this is not
something that his government would do if the Labour Party is elected. However,
his shadow transport minister, Ms Louise Haigh, has previously vowed “to get
the job done,” suggesting that the prospects of reviving at least part of Phase 2 are
not completely dead.
The elected mayors of Birmingham and Manchester, Mr Andy Street and Mr
Andy Burnham, are working with a private-sector consortium, including Arup,
Mace and Arcadis, led by former HS2 Ltd chair Sir David Higgins, to put forward
alternatives. These include a lower-speed line that would cost less, and
improvements to and or new sections of the West Coast Main Line. A full set of
proposals is expected this summer.
November 2021
December 2021
March 2023
Phase 2B east
curtailed
Alstom-Hitachi joint venture
wins rolling stock contract
London Old Oak Common Euston terminus section paused
IRJ May 2024
Head admits that she has already had
to make changes surrounding railheads
and placeholder assumptions on behalf
of systems. “One thing we’ve done
which I think is unique in our rail
systems contracts is that we’ve specified
that HS2 will undertake a role we’ve
called prime system integrator, where
we’ve identified multi-face interfaces,
which are the hardest to integrate and
are often critical,” she says.
“We will retain accountability for
each one and we will actively integrate
it, rather than outsourcing it to a supplier.
One of things I’m trying to work out
now is what are the critical pinch points
and not shy away from them.”
Head is keen to point out that many
October 2023
Phases 2A, 2B west and
remainder of 2B east cancelled
January 2024
Birmingham Curzon Street
station construction starts
21
Britain | HS2
HS2 contracts to be awarded in 2024
Package
Value band
(£m at 2020-21
prices)
Shortlisted bidders
Engineering Management System (EMS)
50-100
= Thales Transport &
Security
= Siemens Mobility
Third-Party Communications
50-100
= EE/BT Group
= Thales GTS
Overhead Catenary System (OCS)
100-250
= Colas Rail
=Balfour Beatty Group,
ETF and TSO
(BBVT joint venture)
Washwood Heath Depot and Network
250-500
Integrated Control Centre
= Gülermak
= Vinci Construction
= VolkerFitzpatrick
Operational, Telecommunications and
250-500
= Thales Transport &
Security SystemsSecurity
= Siemens Mobility
Tunnel and Lineside
250-500
Mechanical & Electrical
= Alstom
= Costain Group
Track Installation
250-500
= BBVT
(Phase 1, Lot 1 Urban)
= Colas Rail
= Ferrovial Construction/
BAM Nuttall joint venture
= Rhomberg Sersa/
Strabag joint venture
High-Voltage Power System
250-500
= SMC Rail Power
joint venture of
Siemens Mobility and
Costain
= UK Power Networks
Services (Contracting)
Track Installation
250-500
= BBVT
(Phase 1, Lot 3 North)
= Colas Rail
Ferrovial Construction/
BAM Nuttal JV
Track Installation
250-500
= BBVT
(Phase 1, Lot 2 Central)
= Colas Rail
= Ferrovial Construction/
BAM Nuttall joint venture
= Rhomberg Sersa/
Strabag joint venture
Control, Command & Signalling (CCS)
500-3000
and Traffic Management
Source: HS2 Ltd
2028-29
2029-33
2025
Rolling stock
First trains ready Phase 1 opens from
construction starts for testing
London Old Oak Common
to Birmingham Curzon
Street
22
= Alstom
= Hitachi Rail
= Siemens Mobility
other lessons learned from the
construction of Crossrail have been
taken on board by HS2 Ltd. These
include software integration and
performance measurement. For the
former, although many software
systems are off-the-shelf products, they
each have individual update cycles,
which can impact on other systems.
HS2 has already appointed a head of
software, so that assumptions of how
software systems will work can be
mapped out and monitored in real time.
“There are around 200 software systems
needed to build HS2, but only 10 are
critical,” Head explains. “Without
having gone through our initial analysis
we wouldn’t necessarily be aware of
that, whereas we certainly are now.”
Measuring and managing
performance should allow HS2 to avoid
some of the public relations disasters
experienced by Crossrail when key
milestones were missed. “I remember
speaking with my colleagues at
Crossrail when they thought it was 90%
complete. Not long after, they told me it
was only 68% complete because they
realised that things hadn’t been built,”
Head says. “So, we’re making sure that
we really understand technical debt.
And when we proceed to build
something, we are clear what is owed to
us later.”
While Crossrail has certainly proved
useful for navigating around potential
system integration pitfalls, it does not
provide a comprehensive blueprint, as
the project involved tunnelling under
London and the use of existing
infrastructure at either end, therefore
avoiding many of the planning issues
that HS2 Ltd is contending with in
order to build a new railway between
London and Birmingham. With a mindboggling 8500 individual planning
consents required for Phase 1, Head has
her hands full ensuring that planning
conditions, especially those around
environmental impact and risk, are
properly met and construction
schedules managed accordingly.
As a delivery body, working on
behalf the British government via the
Department of Transport (DfT), HS2
Ltd has also had to navigate the fallout
2031-35
November 2030
First trains enter service
Handsacre spur opens,
(on West Coast Main Line first trains to/from
if HS2 not yet open)
conventional network
20??
Old Oak Common London Euston opens
IRJ May 2024
of political decisions, over which it has
no control. Head won’t be drawn on
how a potential change of government
(a general election must take place
before January 2025 - see panel, p21)
might affect prospects for reinstating
those sections of HS2 cancelled by the
current administration. Nor will she
comment on the ongoing debate over
the rising costs of the project (see panel,
right) - those are matters for politicians,
she insists.
The rise and fall and rise of HS2’s costs
Preparatory work
Head is, however, able to clarify a
couple of points that have been widely
misunderstood in the British media.
One relates to the paused tunnel section
to Euston. Reports that tunnelling has
already started at Old Oak Common are
wide of the mark, she says. To allow
progress with extensive surface work at
Old Oak Common, the two TBMs that
will bore the tunnel will be lowered into
their launch chambers later this year.
Head says this is part of the preparatory
work for the Euston tunnels, which is
funded to 2025. Until a decision has
been made by DfT on proceeding with
construction, the TBMs will remain
stationary, effectively buried at Old Oak
Common.
Head is also able to shed light on
potential service levels and routes to be
served by the new high-speed train
fleet, construction of which is due to
start next year (see panel, p24). “We
IRJ May 2024
W
HEN HS2 was launched in 2010 it was costed at £37.5bn in 2009 prices
and included the full route from London Euston to Birmingham
Curzon Street (Phase 1), with separate lines continuing to Crewe
(Phase 2a), Manchester (Phase 2b west) and Leeds (Phase 2b east). By 2020, as the
Covid-19 pandemic hit, the projected cost had rocketed to £106bn. After Phase 2b
east was curtailed in 2021, the total costs were estimated at £53-71bn. And when
the British government cancelled Phase 2 in its entirety in October 2023 it said it
was taking the £36bn saved to redistribute to local transport projects.
A report by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons in
February described HS2 as “very poor value for money.” HS2 currently expects
the project to cost £67bn, including inflation. The PAC notes that the current
estimate does not take into account the potential difficulty of raising private
finance to complete the Old Oak Common - Euston section. Approximately £2.2bn
has been spent on the now-abandoned Phase 2. Although inflation in Britain is
currently on a downward trend, it seems inevitable that in the next five years or
longer until opening costs will rise further. The question is by how much.
23
Britain | HS2
don’t have a formal set of revised train
specifications from DfT yet, but we’ve
been given the working assumptions
that we can use to mature our design
with,” Head says.
Direct trains
These assumptions are that three 400m
trains, each composed of two 200m-long
high-speed trains with a total capacity
of around 1000 passengers, will run
every hour between Old Oak Common
and Birmingham Curzon Street. And,
when the Handsacre spur is complete,
an additional six single 200m trains per
hour will run from Old Oak Common
directly to destinations north of
Birmingham.
Suggestions that the 400m trains will
split or join at Birmingham are firmly
dismissed by Head. “There’s no time
benefit to that,” she explains. So, at
present, there are not expected to be
any direct trains between Birmingham
Curzon Street and the north of England
and beyond. This means that the line
connecting Birmingham and the
Handsacre spur (see map, p21) will not
be used in regular service.
For the trains running through from
London to destinations on the conventional
network north of Birmingham, HS2 is
working with the manufacturers on
detailed design issues, such as how to
achieve level boarding after the trains
leave the HS2 network. “The Network
Rail stations that the trains might be
able to stop at include platforms that
don’t have a consistent height and
tracks that don’t have a consistent cant
and profile,” Head says.
New high-speed trains still on schedule
A
LSTOM and Hitachi Rail are
the 50:50 partners in a joint
venture that in December 2021
was confirmed as the winning bidder
to supply new trains for HS2. The deal
for 54 eight-car high-speed trains, each
200m long, plus 12 years maintenance,
was agreed at a price of £1.97bn. Each
train will have capacity for 550
passengers and will be configured to
run in multiple.
Siemens, Talgo and CAF were
shortlisted for the contract, with both
Siemens and Talgo launching legal
challenges during the procurement
process. The Talgo case was settled in
June 2021, but the Siemens case, started
in the same month, went to the High
Court, where the challenge was rejected
on all six counts in November 2023.
Construction of the new fleet was
expected to start in 2025 at the time of
contract award and, perhaps
remarkably, Head says that the original
timescale remains in place. The trains
will be built in Britain, with the work
shared between Alstom’s facilities in
Derby (interiors and electrical systems)
and Crewe (bogies) and Hitachi Rail’s
plant in Newton Aycliffe (carbodies).
The whole fleet will be designed to
operate on both HS2 (built to the larger
mainland European loading gauge) and
the conventional rail network north of
Birmingham. Head says that a gauge
clearance programme is already
underway to ensure that the new trains
don’t foul station platforms and other
structures on the lines that they are
expected to use. The first trains are
expected to start testing in 2028, with
entry into service at least 12 months later.
“We found the [single]-step configuration
challenging and so we are now looking
at a two-step solution, which is able to
deploy differently, yet optimises safe use
on both networks. That is a change
driven by us. I’ve been asked if infrastructure
enhancements would work instead, but
that means doing it to every station you
might stop at, so it’s much better to do
it using the rolling stock.”
The two-step solution, which has
already been implemented in Florida,
adds a couple of seconds dwell time at
each stop, as the train’s software
assesses which step configuration to
deploy, but Head is convinced that this
is the most viable way of achieving
level boarding at all stations.
While Head focuses on the myriad of
unresolved issues relating to rolling
stock, infrastructure and systems, one
key question remains: when will the
line open for passengers?
Perhaps learning again from Crossrail
and the Elizabeth Line, which very
publicly missed a succession of opening
dates, HS2 Ltd hasn’t specified a precise
opening date or even tied it down to a
specific year.
“It will be sometime between 2029
and 2033,” says Head, whose appetite
for hard work and solid results suggests
that opening will come sooner rather
than later. IRJ
The V-shaped piers that carry HS2 into Birmingham Curzon Street have been specially designed to maximise space on the ground. Photo: HS2 Ltd
24
IRJ xxxxx 2016
IRJ May 2024
Britain | light rail
Coventry’s Very Light Rail project
aims for 2025 demonstration
The prototype CVLR vehicle is currently housed in its own shed at the Black Country Innovative
Manufacturing Organisation’s National Innovation Centre test track at Dudley. Photo: BC Collection
The British city of Coventry is on track to open the world’s first Very Light Rail (VLR) demonstration line next
year. Mark Simmons finds out more and examines the possibilities that VLR could unlock in urban areas across
the globe.
T
HE British city of Coventry, just
30km away from its betterknown neighbour Birmingham,
is famous for its motoring heritage.
Having produced the first British car in
1897, the city went on to become a
major automotive manufacturing hub
and picked up the title of the British
Detroit. Those days are long gone for
both cities, but Coventry is on the cusp
of a new transport revolution.
Next year Coventry City Council,
working in partnership with regional
transport authority Transport for the
West Midlands (TfWM), aims to have a
working demonstration of the Very
Light Rail (VLR) mass transit system it
has been pioneering for around a decade.
An 800m stretch of mainly double track
will run from Warwick Road, close to
Coventry station, to Corporation Street,
north of the city centre. A single
battery-powered demonstrator vehicle
(see panel, pxx) will run on the tracks
and will carry invited guests, though
not fare-paying passengers.
IRJ May 2024
As a demonstrator line that will not
be open to the public it can avoid the
lengthy planning procedures, including
obtaining a Transport and Works Act
Order, that a fully-fledged light rail
system would have to go through,
although it will still need planning
approval to operate on public roads –
an application was submitted in
February. The demonstration line will
include a segregated cycleway to enable
testing to focus on interaction with road
vehicles.
Real-world conditions
The main purpose of the
demonstration line, however, is to
prove in real-world conditions that
Coventry’s recently-patented track
system can be installed speedily. The
innovative track, developed in
partnership with the nearby University
of Warwick’s Warwick Manufacturing
Group, is designed to be laid in a trench
just 300mm deep and with curves as
tight as 15m radius (IRJ March p32).
The fundamental aim of Coventry
VLR (CVLR) has always been to
significantly reduce the cost of building
an on-street light rail line in a city
centre. This is largely due to the need to
divert existing utilities, a process
rendered unnecessary by the CVLR
low-depth trackform. Determining
whether the original goal of achieving a
construction cost of around £10m per
km, compared with £25-100m per km
for conventional light rail, will be met
will be one of the key outputs of the
demonstration project.
The CVLR concept originally arose
when Coventry realised that it, along
with similar towns and cities with a
population of 300,000 or less, could
simply not afford conventional light rail
solutions, even though passenger
numbers are high enough to warrant
them. Since its inception, CVLR has
been funded by the public sector and
the current phase of development,
costing around £15m from a total
25
Britain | light rail
budget of £40m, is being funded by the
Department for Transport (DfT).
Before construction of the
demonstration line can begin, the DfT
has asked an independent review panel
to assess the project’s viability. “We will
provide evidence to the panel that the
project is technically sound, can be
delivered within the cost envelope that
has been set, has an appropriate safety
case and that the vehicle and track are
fit for purpose,” says Ms Nicola Small,
TfWM programme director for VLR,
who is hopeful that the project will be
approved later this summer, allowing
construction of the demonstration line
to begin before the end of the year.
DfT approval will unlock a £16.5m
funding package that will not only
build the demonstration line, but also
provide other city-centre traffic
improvements for Coventry, including
the segregated cycleway, which will
enhance the journey experience for all
types of users, from pedestrians to car
drivers. “The next phase of funding also
covers the operating cost of the
prototype vehicle that we already have
and adapting it to run in a live
environment,” Small says. “We’ll be
focusing on areas like crashworthiness,
to make sure that it can safely
withstand getting hit by a bus or a car.”
With procurement of an operator for
the demonstration line already underway,
and assuming that the timetable outlined
above runs to plan, test running could
start in 2025. “this is our opportunity to
make sure that future iterations of the
vehicle meet public needs and to
showcase it to other cities that might be
interested, as well as potential privatesector investors” Small says.
The accurate data that the
demonstration line will provide will
help to build future business cases not
only for Coventry but also for other
similar-sized cities. Completion of the
line will release a final £8.5m of the
current budget that will allow the
compilation of an outline business case
for the first full-scale route in Coventry,
as well as the start of work to build a
digital twin of the next-generation
CVLR vehicle.
The long-term aspiration for Coventry
is for four CVLR lines radiating from
the city centre in a four-leaf clover
configuration – see map, right. The first
route to be built would likely connect
the city centre with University Hospital
Coventry and Warwickshire, and
ultimately a park and ride site at Ansty,
in two phases. This line, that has
Autonomous running: when, not if
A
T present the CVLR vehicle is controlled by a driver in the same way as
most conventional light rail vehicles. But those involved in urban planning
suggest that the most efficient way of running relatively small rail vehicles
in urban areas is by using autonomous control technology. Engineers involved in
CVLR say that producing autonomous vehicles is “straightforward.”
Small agrees, though she points out that the law has yet to catch up.
“Technically, I think that’s a fair statement,” she says. “Autonomy has been
developed by the private sector and, in theory, it should be possible to install it in
a rail vehicle that has only longitudinal movements. But, legislatively, it is far from
straightforward, as there is currently no legislation to support autonomous
operation of an urban rail vehicle.”
She suggests that issues such as insurance risk pose a big challenge and while
the CVLR has flagged the key points that need to be addressed with the DfT,
responsibility for changing the law to allow autonomous operation is something
that ultimately rests with government.
However, Small reveals that although current CVLR plans initially involve
vehicles with drivers, feasibility work for Coventry’s first full-scale route includes
the use of driverless vehicles. “We assumed that by 2035, we’d be upgrading our
fleet to be autonomous and operating it in that way from then,” she says. “That’s
based on when we think there might
be legislation in place to support it.”
Small adds that there are sound
economic reasons for pursuing a
driverless future. Projections for CVLR
show that revenue can triple following
its introduction. “It is something that
needs to be taken forward if we’re
going to be able to achieve viable
commercial cases for smaller cities,”
she says. “Autonomy needs to be
Although CVLR vehicles will initially feature drivers,
autonomous operation is planned. Photo: BC Collection
factored in.”
26
already been costed at around £189m,
would require 20 next-generation
vehicles. Small suggests that an outline
funding case for this route could be
submitted for the next public-sector
funding round in 2027, offering the
possibility of the first CVLR vehicles
running in passenger service before the
end of the decade.
“
We’ll be focusing
on areas like
crashworthiness, to
make sure that it
can safely withstand
getting hit by a bus or
a car. Nicola Small
The timetable for this first line could
be accelerated if a private-sector partner
decides to invest in the project. Small
says that Coventry has already held
preliminary discussions with potential
candidates. “But we always get to the
point that we need to build a
demonstrator, because every
conversation we have had leads to that
conclusion,” she says. “They think it’s a
cracking idea, but at this stage it’s still
an idea and they want to see a proof of
concept they can invest in, as they’ve
already acknowledged it has global
potential. So we’re confident that the
city-centre demonstrator can attract
private sector investment.”
CVLR’s global appeal could be
substantial. Because the patented track
form is compatible with standard light
rail track, VLR vehicles could run
through to destinations on existing
conventional light rail networks. Even
more intriguing is the possibility that
conventional light rail vehicles could
run on VLR track, providing a
considerably less expensive alternative
for extending existing light rail networks.
A steady stream of visitors has been
heading to see the CVLR in test
operation at the National Innovation
Centre (NIC) in Dudley, with recent
domestic interest coming from London,
Oxford, Portsmouth and West Yorkshire.
Delegations from further afield include
parties from Canada and Thailand.
“I’m sure we’ll continue to get plenty
of interest,” Small says. “But I think
seeing is believing, isn’t it? And that’s
why we’ve just got to deliver this
demonstrator.” IRJ
IRJ May 2024
CVLR’s battery vehicle prototype
C
VLR’s prototype lightweight
battery vehicle, owned by
Coventry City Council, was
completed by Transport Design
International in 2022 and was moved to
the Black Country Innovative
Manufacturing Organisation’s National
Innovation Centre test track at Dudley,
where it is housed in its own building.
The vehicle body panels are made from
lightweight composites so the total mass
per linear metre is just over 1 tonne.
Unladen, the 11m-long vehicle weighs
around 11 tonnes and when fully loaded
weighs 16 tonnes, resulting in an
axleload of 4 tonnes for the twin-bogie
design. The vehicle is 3.17m high, 2.65m
wide and can carry 70 passengers with
20 seated.
The prototype, designed for a service
life of 20 years, has a maximum speed of
70km/h and can traverse gradients of up
to 5%. All axles are driven by a 750V
54kWh lithium titanate underfloor
battery, delivering a continuous power
rating of 175kW. Its range between
charges is around 35km, though this
varies considerably according to
temperature, load, and other factors.
The battery can be charged overnight
from a 20kW shore supply and, during
the day, receive rapid charges taking 3
min 30 sec from a 200kW supply, as
well as being charged during
regenerative braking.
This year the vehicle has been
undertaking load and wheel wear tests
at the Dudley test track.
The prototype CVLR vehicle undergoing wheel wear testing on the Dudley test track balloon loop in
March 2024. The bogies are normally covered by protective skirts. Photo: Phil Marsh
IRJ May 2024
Riding the CVLR
prototype vehicle
I
RJ was invited to sample the CVLR
prototype in March 2024 on the test
track at the Black Country
Innovative Manufacturing
Organisation’s National Innovation
Centre in Dudley. The wide 900mm
doorway made accessing the vehicle
easy and the interior felt spacious,
even when all seats were occupied.
The ride was exceptionally smooth,
even around the 15m balloon loop,
when not even the slightest steel-onsteel squeal normally associated with
traversing tight curves was audible.
The vehicle easily reached a speed of
40km/h and felt stable at all speeds.
Although its maximum service speed
is 70km/h, it will be limited to 32km/h
when in operation on the Coventry
demonstrator line, the maximum
speed for all vehicles in the city centre.
Visibility is good throughout the
vehicle and the public address system
worked well, with announcements
easy to hear. The overall feel was of a
high-quality product, matching any
current conventional light rail vehicle.
27
Freight | Asia
Developing the Middle Corridor for regional economic growth
While the Middle Corridor through Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Georgia has been receiving increased attention
as an alternative route for containers moving between China and Europe, a recent World Bank report
highlights the potential of developing it as a regional economic corridor. Robert Preston reports.
D
UE to its many border crossings,
the need to transfer containers
from rail to ship and road and
between track different gauges, as well
as other operating inefficiencies, the
Middle Corridor has traditionally
enjoyed less favour for moving longdistance freight between China and
Europe.
Also known as the Trans-Caspian
International Transport Route, the
Middle Corridor is defined by the
World Bank as running from the border
crossings between China and
Kazakhstan at Dostyk and Khorgos and
then across Kazakhstan by rail to the
port of Aktau on the Caspian Sea.
Consignments then move by sea to
Baku, and by rail again through
Azerbaijan and Georgia, and either
continue to Europe by rail via Turkey or
across the Black Sea. Due to what the
World Bank describes as inefficiencies
and infrastructure gaps in Turkey, the
Black Sea route is currently preferred.
Despite being the shortest route
between the Pacific coast of China and
Europe, transit times on the Middle
Corridor are three times longer than the
northern route via Russia, according to
a World Bank report published in
November 2023, and are comparable
with the maritime route via Singapore
and the Suez Canal. However, the
attractiveness of both of these routes
has declined following Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine and, more recently,
28
Kazakhstan Railways (KTZ) is the Middle Corridor’s
largest railway company. Photo: David Gubler
due to the security crisis in the Red Sea
that has seen shipping diverted via the
Cape of Good Hope. The Middle
Corridor remains the least vulnerable
route between China and Europe in
terms of external shocks.
Following the Russian invasion of
Ukraine, container traffic on the Middle
Corridor increased by 33% in 2022 when
compared with 2021. But as shippers
moved unprecedented volumes of traffic
to the corridor in the immediate aftermath
of the invasion, its limits quickly
became apparent. While technical
operational capacity was not reached,
difficulties at border crossings and with
transhipment and coordination led to
very lengthy delays. Traffic moved back
to alternative corridors with the result
that container traffic fell by 37% in the
first eight months of 2023 when
compared with 2022.
Three country focus
Despite the current focus on
providing an alternative overland route
between China and Europe, the World
Bank study says that the Middle
Corridor primarily provides an
opportunity to diversify trade routes
and improve connectivity between
Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Kazakhstan,
and accordingly focuses on these three
countries. It notes that all three at
present rely heavily on Russia to
provide access to ports served by global
trade routes and as a trading partner,
with 39% of imports to Kazakhstan
coming from Russia. As well as
diversifying imports and reducing
dependence on Russia and China, a
well-functioning Middle Corridor offers
the potential to export more to Europe
and reach new markets that could
include the Middle East, North Africa,
south and southeast Asia.
The report sets out the policies and
investment required to triple freight
traffic and halve transit times by 2030.
With these in place, it forecasts that a
total of 11 million tonnes of freight will
move along the Middle Corridor and
via the Caspian Sea in 2030, an increase
of 209% on 2021. Of this, 4.4 million
tonnes will be transit traffic moving in
containers, up by 303%. Although trade
from Azerbaijan, Georgia, and
Kazakhstan is forecast to grow by 169%,
at 7 million tonnes it will represent a
larger proportion of the total. The
World Bank believes that the Middle
Corridor will remain a minor player in
handling intercontinental trade between
China and Europe due to the
availability of other options, especially
deep-sea shipping. In contrast, at the
regional level, developing the corridor
and diversifying flows will favour high
value-added commodities such as
fertiliser, where traffic is forecast to
nearly double, as well finished metals,
prepared foodstuffs, machinery and
chemicals. Time-sensitive and other
IRJ May 2024
higher-value freight will partially shift
from the northern route to Europe via
Russia, and the proportion of Middle
Corridor traffic made up by raw
materials will fall from 60% to 53%.
The World Bank says that the
assessment undertaken for its study
corroborated a stakeholder survey
which found that transport costs on the
Middle Corridor were high and, more
importantly, unstable.
While the cost fluctuates, it is close to
the fixed rate of the alternative northern
route, even though the transit time is
twice as long on the Middle Corridor.
The study says that in 2022 it took an
average of 50-53 days to move freight
from Dostyk or Khorgos via the Middle
Corridor to the Black Sea port of
Constanta in Romania.
Although the longest delays occur
during sea crossings, mainly due to a
shortage of vessels, the key issues
affecting the rail component of the
Middle Corridor are high prices,
unpredictable transit times, the lack of
tracking systems, the difficulties of
transhipment and last-mile delivery,
and the poor quality of both rolling
stock and logistics terminals. End-toend rail infrastructure comes third in
the list of the five main factors limiting
capacity and causing operational
bottlenecks on the Middle Corridor (see
panel, above right), ranked in order of
time cost. The study says that rail
operations “suffer from localised
constraints at the port-rail interfaces
where a lack of equipment, poor
connections, and inefficient operational
practices cause delays and increase costs.”
Examining the rail component of the
Middle Corridor in more detail, the
report notes that Kazakhstan Railways
(KTZ), Azerbaijan Railways (ADY) and
Georgian Railway (GR) are highly
interoperable, sharing a common track
gauge of 1520mm as well as operational
and cultural characteristics inherited
from the Soviet era that allow the
movement of rolling stock between the
different networks. Although the
positive impact of this interoperability
is reduced by the need to tranship
freight at the Caspian Sea ports, some
wagons travel across the Caspian Sea by
train ferry. Containers move on flat
wagons that are interoperable across the
different railways, offering
opportunities for the acquisition of
common fleets that can be shared.
Modernisation
To meet its full potential, the rail
component of the Middle Corridor
requires modernisation and investment
to relieve localised capacity constraints
caused by equipment, infrastructure
and operating practices. These cause
bottlenecks that cancel out efficient
movement over the rest of the corridor.
The physical pinch points are mainly
located where freight is transhipped or
handed over to a different operator.
While containers are relatively
standardised, the report says that KTZ,
ADY and GR still need to fully adopt
equipment and operating procedures
for the efficient movement of containers
throughout the Middle Corridor. This is
being prevented by shortages of
specialised wagons, cranes and other
equipment, such as those needed to
handle 20ft containers rather than the
40ft boxes that are the norm in the
corridor. The report says that 20ft
containers sit idle at most interchange
points due to the lack of specialised
equipment, putting the Middle Corridor
at a competitive disadvantage.
Without improvement, current
Capacity limitations in
order of time cost
1. lack of corridor-wide coordination and
management
2. poor operational efficiency of ports and
Caspian Sea shipping services
3. lack of end-to-end rail infrastructure
4. delays at border crossing points, and
5. lack of integrated IT systems for data and
information exchange.
railway infrastructure could be an
impediment to further development of
the Middle Corridor. Capacity varies
widely along the corridor; the northsouth lines tend to have substantially
more capacity than the east-west routes,
a legacy of the Soviet era.
Since the ability of the corridor to
perform well is determined by the
sections with the lowest capacity, the
report says that KTZ, ADY and GR
must focus on a well-designed and
coordinated plan to increase total
corridor capacity. The report identifies
the key issues limiting capacity on the
most critical sections of the Middle
Corridor (see table, p30). In the
meantime, “quick wins” could be
delivered by ensuring the availability of
rolling stock and improving shunting
operations in Kazakhstan. Limited
availability of rolling stock is a
particular constraint in Azerbaijan and
Georgia, where transhipment from rail
to maritime and road transport also
requires immediate attention.
In the longer term, the report says
that the introduction of automatic block
signalling, other signalling
modernisation work and the acquisition
of new locomotives and flat wagons can
lead to large efficiency gains across the
three railway networks of the Middle
Corridor. Priority projects that must be
Middle Corridor
Standard gauge
1520mm gauge
A Akhalkalaki
B Gardabani
UKRAINE
RUSSIA
GEORGIA
Cmbdl!Tfb
Pati
Batumi
Istanbul
22
Cetinkaya
5
SYRIA
Beyneu
Dbtqjbo
!Tfb
Aktau
30 Tbilisi
10
AB
23
ARMENIA
TURKEY
Mersin 10
IRAQ
Seyfullin
Shalkarand
10
60
8
Saksaulskaya
74
Mojynty
Aktogai
18
15
Dostyk
74
Zhetigen
17
Shu
77
Khorgos
40
Almaty
KYRGYZSTAN
N
CHINA
KAZAKHSTAN
16
18
UZBEKISTAN
Baku
Arys
TURMENISTAN
AZERBAIJAN
14
0
km
500
TAJIKISTAN
IRAN
IRJ
Numbers indicate capacity of section of line in total number of trains per day.
IRJ May 2024
29
Freight | Asia
studied further in Kazakhstan include
increasing capacity on the Dostyk Mojynty section, building the Almaty
bypass, and rebuilding the Arys Saksaulskaya, Beineu - Mangistau and
Seyfullin - Saksaulskaya - Shalkarand
sections. In Azerbaijan, work should be
undertaken to finalise the implementation
of rebuilding the section from Baku to
the Georgian border, including replacing
signalling and telecommunications
systems, raising the maximum speed
and changing the overhead electrification
system from dc to ac. Finalising the
reconstruction of the Tibilisi Akhalkalaki section should be a priority
Key Middle Corridor capacity constraints
Country
Section
Estimated
capacity,
trains
per day
(pairs)
Current
usage, %
Notes
Kazakhstan
Dostyk - Mojynty
18
80
Capacity limits exceeded. Line
is part of the northern route
via Russia and Belarus and also
a major artery for exporting
commodities from Kazakhstan to
China.
Kazakhstan
Seyfullin Saksaulskaya
10
70
Single-track non-electrified line
with over 50% of trains carrying
ore and metals. Potential to
accommodate an additional one
or two at a speed just above
10km/h.
Kazakhstan
Khorgos - Arys
17 - 77
17 - 40
Non-electrified single-track
Zhetigen - Almaty section
operating at full capacity of
24 train pairs. Double-track
electrified line west from Almaty
is a key constraint as all freight
trains pass through the city
centre and locomotives must be
changed from diesel to electric.
Usage exceeds 70% on the Shu
- Arys section due to 35 pairs of
passenger trains and Kazakhstan Uzbekistan freight.
Kazakhstan
Shalkarand Aktau
8 - 80
8 - 60
Section carries low traffic and
not considered a bottleneck, but
key issues are low train speeds,
locomotive shortages and steep
gradients on Beineu - Mangistau
section. Trains must be split in
two when moving east, causing
wagons to build up at Mangistau
and the port of Aktau.
Azerbaijan
Alat - Georgian
border
25
80
High wear on the catenary
and poor track condition on
this double-track line limit
capacity. ADY plans to install
new overhead electrification
equipment in 2024 and increase
capacity to 53 trains a day.
Gardabani border crossing
congested due to a lack of
locomotives and average crossing
time is three days.
Georgia
Azerbaijan
border - Poti/
Batumi
30
70
Capacity to the Black Sea port
of Poti is limited by a lack of
locomotives. The branch to
Batumi can only accommodate
seven trains a day and over 85%
of containers arrive at the port
by road.
30
in Georgia along with starting work to
rebuild the line from Akhalkalaki to
Kars in Turkey.
There are four border crossings along
the Middle Corridor, which vary greatly
in operational performance,
infrastructure and equipment, as well as
the specific issues that affect the speed
and predictability of freight services.
The border crossings at the break of
gauge between China (1435mm) and
Kazakhstan (1520mm) at Dostyk and
Khorgos are the most developed, with
facilities for handling intermodal traffic,
but there are disparities between
westbound and eastbound traffic
throughput. The World Bank report
says that from the Chinese side, a very
large number of westbound trains are
allowed through without delay, while
eastbound trains are limited to between
six and 10 trains a day at Dostyk.
Border crossings
The border crossing at Dostyk has a
throughput capacity of 18 pairs of trains
a day. As this barely meets current
demand, the report says that expansion
will be required as the Middle Corridor
develops. The key issue is the waiting
time at the border which can be as long
as 60 hours, due in part to an insufficient
number of sorting tracks and the lack of
an automated and unified system for
providing preliminary notification of
train arrival times. There is also
inefficient management of shunting
locomotives and the distribution of
wagons across the sorting tracks and
transhipment areas.
Similar problems have been identified
at Khorgos. Although infrastructure is
more developed on the Kazakhstan side
of the border, there are only two tracks
in the transhipment area on the Chinese
side which prevents trains from passing
each other. Throughput capacity is
17-18 trains a day and the transit time is
roughly the same as at Dostyk. There is
no marshalling yard and an insufficient
number of reception and dispatch tracks,
as well as those for storing empty wagons.
Rolling stock flow management is
inefficient and there is a lack of electronic
data exchange. The construction of a
marshalling yard or a container
terminal should be studied further as a
priority, the World Bank says.
The busiest border crossing on the
Middle Corridor is between Böyük
Kasik in Azerbaijan and Gardabani in
Georgia, but infrastructure here is
weaker than at Khorgos or Dostyk and
it forms a major bottleneck. The average
crossing time is three days, with
IRJ May 2024
capacity limitations and a shortage of
locomotives exacerbated by the lack of
electronic data exchange for completing
customs formalities. Neither Böyük
Kasik nor Gardabani were designed as
border stations and lack facilities for
sorting or reforming trains, while their
location in populated areas limits the
scope for future development. There are
more tracks at Böyük Kasik than at
Gardabani, with the result that trains
may take longer to cross the border if
they are required to undergo customs
inspection in Georgia.
The border crossing at Akhalkalaki in
Georgia opened in 2017, and its modern
design and equipment allow for
efficient transhipment between 1520mm
gauge and the 1435mm-gauge network
in Turkey. However, the report says
that this border crossing may become a
bottleneck following the completion of
the new line to Sivas in Turkey. It
recommends that further studies to
increase capacity here should be
undertaken as a priority.
Funding partners
Although the World Bank says that
massive efficiency improvements can be
achieved in the short term through better
coordination, logistics, and digitisation,
it says that large-scale investment will
also be needed over the next 10 years and
that KTZ, ADY and GR will need publicsector support for the necessary capital
spending. While all three generate
respectable freight revenue, the report
says, past debt obligations and
unfunded government requirements
prevent them from being able to meet
the cost of infrastructure projects.
Five key messages of World Bank report
1 Reimagine the Middle Corridor as an economic corridor. Adopt an institutional mechanism
that transcends national boundaries and is empowered to develop, promote and maximise use
of the corridor as an integrated trade route and economic region.
2 Offer corridor-length logistics solutions. Offer end-to-end standards of service and tariffs,
as opposed to the fragmented practices that are in place today.
3 Reform and simplify processes and procedures. Form a strong partnership with an
international container operator to take charge of container operations and provide better
coordination between border agencies and especially customs authorities to simplify
processing goods in transit. Coordination is particularly important between the railways of
Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Kazakhstan.
4 Leverage the potential of digital data flows. Digitise corridor processes and make use of
digital data flows to ensure speedy and accurate sharing of information between operators
and shippers.
5 Continue to improve infrastructure and equipment along the corridor following a robust
prioritisation process. Certain elements of the capacity expansion programme should have a
higher priority as they pose specific risks, including connectivity between ports and railways.
As the largest railway, KTZ generates
around $US 2.5bn in annual revenue,
but its debt burden means that it is
unable to find commercial finance on
competitive terms, relying on publicsector support through increases in
direct government funding or loans
from international financial institutions.
ADY is in a similar position and relies
for the most part on public-sector
financing. It is Georgian government
policy that GR should be financially
independent and self-sustaining, but
the report says a recent €500bn
Eurobond issue “has topped its
financial capacity for the foreseeable
future” and that GR’s ability to fund its
own capital needs is likely very limited.
In November 2022, Azerbaijan,
Georgia, Kazakhstan and Turkey signed
a roadmap setting out the priority
investment projects and other actions
needed to improve the Middle Corridor
Azerbaijan Railways (ADY) relies mainly on public-sector financing. Photo: ADY
IRJ May 2024
between 2022 and 2027. In June 2023,
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan
agreed to create a joint logistics
operator. Support and interest in
providing investment and technical
assistance has been confirmed by the
World Bank itself as well as the
European Union (EU), the European
Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD) and the Asian
Development Bank (ADB), together
with other multilateral development
banks and bilateral partners.
In January, EIB Global, the arm of the
European Investment Bank (EIB)
dedicated to financing projects outside
the EU, signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) to co-finance
sustainable transport projects with
Kazakhstan and the Development Bank
of Kazakhstan. In addition to other
MoUs signed with Kyrgyzstan and
Uzbekistan, which are building a new
railway to China, EIB Global is
providing a total of €1.47bn and this is
expected to attract further capital,
resulting in total support of €3bn.
According to an earlier EBRD study,
total investment of €18.5bn is required
if the Middle Corridor is to reach its full
potential. Meanwhile, ADB is finalising
its own study and says that it stands
ready to support the development of
the Middle Corridor in all forms.
“Now is an opportune moment to make
the Middle Corridor more competitive,
expand its capacity, address inefficiencies,
and reduce costs,” says Mr Charles
Cormier, the World Bank’s regional
infrastructure director for Europe and
Central Asia. “A combination of shortterm gains in efficiency through various
measures, along with medium-term
investment, will strengthen the
functioning of the Middle Corridor and
catalyse its potential.” IRJ
31
Infrastructure | resilience
Can satellite monitoring help to combat the risks of climate change?
Taking the Lossan corridor in southern California as an example, Reijo Pold* of Value Space explains how
satellite-based infrastructure monitoring can provide early warning of landslides and other disruptive events
caused by climate change.
M
AINTAINING infrastructure
to the required standard is the
basis for ensuring the safety
and continuity of rail services. Failure
of a section of track or an infrastructure
asset can result in potential fatalities,
large repair costs, loss of service and
reputational damage, leading to serious
economic consequences. Climate change
is already creating a surge in such
events for the rail industry worldwide.
Rising global temperatures create
new environmental conditions, such as
rising sea levels, prolonged periods of
drought and higher than usual
precipitation. These factors have a
direct impact on rail infrastructure.
Increased precipitation can create
flooding and lead to ground saturation,
which can weaken embankments and
slopes, creating the risk of landslides
that can move the track from its
alignment or block it with debris.
Periods of drought can cause drying,
sinkage or cracking of underlying soils,
leading to track misalignment or slope
failures. A rise in sea level can increase
the rate of coastal erosion, threatening
railways built along the shoreline.
Traditional methods of monitoring
infrastructure conditions under such
scenarios include using track condition
data to detect changes to the alignment,
which can then be addressed by
remedial work or further on-site
surveys to determine the underlying
causes of infrastructure deterioration.
But traditional methods might not
easily identify some of the wider
existing or developing spatial risks on
or near the railway, such as signs of
slope instability or ground movement.
And given the major size of some
networks, effective monitoring of
climate change-related infrastructure
risks can be a significant challenge.
Operating almost in real time,
satellite-based movement assessment
and monitoring provides an in-depth way
for infrastructure managers to understand
where the risks are actually located.
Analysis of data gathered by satellite
radar enables highly accurate detection
of movement that can point to existing
or developing risks. These assessments
can be delivered quickly and costeffectively, enabling the rail industry to
identify, monitor and quantify the risks
posed by climate change.
32
Both passenger and freight services on the Lossan corridor in southern California have been disrupted
as a result of extreme weather events caused by climate change. Photo: X/GoOCTA
Value Space has recently undertaken
satellite-based analysis of ground
conditions on sections of the 561.6km
Lossan corridor in southern California,
running from San Luis Obispo through
Los Angeles to San Diego. It is the
second-busiest inter-city passenger rail
corridor in the United States, and also
carries freight worth over $US 1bn
every year.
Both passenger and freight services
on sections of the corridor have been
disrupted as a result of the more extreme
weather patterns caused by climate
change, particularly those sections
where the railway was built along the
coast. They have experienced ground
movement caused by coastal erosion
that has affected track alignment, as
well as unexpected landslides blocking
traffic and damaging infrastructure.
In September 2021 and in September
2022, two consecutive ground shifts
took place on the shoreline at Cyprus
Shore in San Clemente, between Los
Angeles and San Diego, resulting in the
track moving by as much as 381mm.
After the September 2022 event,
passenger services remained suspended
for six months. Ground movement was
attributed to coastal erosion which had
worn away a counterbalance that allowed
an ancient landslide to reactivate.
The two events required emergency
track stabilisation work costing a total
of $US 21.7m. After the first shift, over
20,000 tonnes of large rocks and boulders
were placed on the coastal side of the
railway to counteract erosion and
ground movement. More substantial
works were carried out after the second
ground movement event, with large
metal anchors driven into the slope
adjacent to the track to prevent the line
from moving.
Satellite-based analysis for the period
between January 2021 and September
2022 revealed two notable movement
clusters with different directions on the
section at Cyprus Shore. The larger
cluster moved up to 20mm per year,
and the smaller one up to 14mm per
year. Analysis of detailed movement
data showed that this section of the
coast and the slope were moving
throughout the period of analysis.
IRJ May 2024
In August 2021, just before the first ground
shift, there was developing movement
instability. Movement stabilised after the
first ground shift and initial emergency
stabilisation work, but movement
continued up until the second ground
shift in September 2022. The differently
moving clusters on the shore and slope
beneath the railway point to the
accumulation of stress that is typical of
a developing ground slide or movement
event. Further satellite-based analysis
between January 2021 and January 2024
revealed that movement is still present in
the area, with buildings above a slope
next to the railway experiencing
movement of up to 19mm a year.
Landslides at San Clemente
Unusually high precipitation during
the winters of 2022 and 2023 have
caused an increase in landslide
incidents in California. Railways have
not been left untouched and several
landslides have disrupted rail services
in San Clemente, including a major event
on April 27 2023 on the coastal slope
below Casa Romantica cultural centre.
Debris blocked the railway just below
the slope and again after a second
landslide in June that year. It cost $US 6m
to clear the track and build a wall to
protect the railway from further damage.
Value Space’s analysis of the landslide
area for the period from October 9 2021
to April 26 2023 identified ground
movement on the slope of up to 46mm
per year that was distinctly different
from adjacent areas. Analysis revealed
that the area of the landslide started
showing warning signs in November
2022. The sides of the marked area in
Figure 1 are moving in opposite
directions and the mid-section of the
marked area stands out for the lack of
stable satellite-measured readings. These
signs indicate possible strong stress on
the slope that are typical of a developing
landslide. These findings would have
led to a warning being issued well ahead
of the landslide, had the area been
under satellite-based monitoring.
The Lossan corridor has several longer
sections along the coast that are already
known or identified as being at risk from
future weather and climate change-related
incidents. The 2.72km section built on the
Del Mar Bluffs north of San Diego has
been of particular concern for a number
of years, as the high sea cliffs here
experience natural erosion resulting from
earthquakes, rain, groundwater flows,
breaking waves, and wind. The bluffs
retreat naturally at an average rate of
up to 152.4mm a year.
IRJ May 2024
Eight surface slides on the bluffs have
been reported in the area since summer
2018. Each time one takes place, rail traffic
is stopped until inspection confirms that
it is safe for operations to resume. Since
2003, the San Diego Association of
Governments (Sandag) has completed
several projects to stabilise the bluffs,
with a new project due to begin this
year at a cost of $US 78m.
Value Space has analysed movements
in the Del Mar Bluffs area for the period
from January 24 2021 to January 15 2024
(Figure 2). Satellite-based assessment of
the area identified 17 different movement
clusters on the track section, among them
were six areas of significant movement.
Threats to service continuity on the
Lossan corridor are not limited to the
southern coastal sections at San
Clemente and Del Mar Bluffs, however.
Similar conditions exist on the northern
part of the corridor. At a hearing of
California Senate Transportation
Subcommittee on Lossan Rail Corridor
Resiliency last year, experts estimated
the cost of stabilising these northern
sections at $US 85m.
For the period from January 2021 to
January 2024, Value Space analysed the
85km section between Santa Barbara
and Vanderberg and the 45km section
between Santa Barbara and Ventura
with different areas of detected
movement marked. These examples
demonstrate that satellite-based
movement assessments can be
conducted on longer sections of railway
to identify, monitor and quantify
climate change risks on a network level.
With its highly accurate and up-todate deformation detection capabilities,
satellite-based monitoring and risk
assessment is set to help the rail
industry as it has already benefitted the
insurance sector in understanding the
risks to critical infrastructure posed by
climate change. As infrastructure
managers face increasing disruption
and losses caused by more extreme
weather patterns, they should seek to
implement new tools to stay ahead of
the curve and proactively manage the
risks associated with climate change.
Expect satellite-based technology to
become standard practice. IRJ
* Reijo Pold is the Estonian-born, London-based
founder of Value Space, a technology company
that uses satellites to conduct assessments for
commercial properties and infrastructure.
Figure 1: Analysis showing discrepancies in movement at the site of the landslip on the Lossan corridor.
Figure 2: Analysis of slope movements on the wider Del Mar Bluffs area.
33