Sydney Metro , Operational Control Centre

Control Centre - Electrical Control

On completion of what was an extremely interesting and informative visit , I couldn ’ t help reflecting on the number of synergies and challenges that Tyne & Wear Metro face , to those that are equally being witnessed and having to be managed on other networks in Australia , such as Sydney Metro , Melbourne Metro ( including their Suburban Rail Loop Project ), Sydney Trains and also Cross River Rail in Brisbane , with the latter two , having both technical and operational similarities .

Tyne and Wear Metro , having been made operational from 1984 , is now approaching the time where assets are reaching their ‘ whole of life ’ period , and thus is witnessing a significant level of commitment towards infrastructure and systems renewals .

This need for renewal equally applies to the signalling , train control and other rail systems . As is the case for all passenger carrying rail networks in Australia , the need for renewal isn ’ t driven purely to address ‘ equipment obsolescence ’, there is a more growing and urgent importance to improve system / rail network capacity , and at the same time consider the need to provision for future interoperability needs ( which for Tyne & Wear Metro relates to its interfacing operator , Network Rail ). This same challenge is being faced by Australian rail operators , an example being Cross River Rail , a new ‘ greenfield underground alignment ’, which ties into the existing network on either side . Due to the need to provide platform screen

doors in the tunnel stations , it posed a challenge with respect to the technology to be adopted for train control purposes , and how to meet Queensland Rail ’ s future operational aspirations , particularly that of ‘ interoperability ’.

A similar challenge faces the ‘ Australian Rail Track Corporation ’ ( ARTC ) and their subsidiary company Inland Rail , who are tasked with delivering a mix of upgrading brownfield works over a length of some 1,087 kilometres and adding sections of new greenfield track totalling an additional 628 kilometres . Were this to be a closed network , it would not be difficult , however along sections of the route there is a mix of passenger and freight trains , and moreover , there is the need to enable trains to enter and leave multiple operators ’ railways . Noting the various interfacing operator ’ s choice of train control systems , it again proves a challenge to ensure interoperability is achieved along the whole alignment .

Looking at other similarities , one challenge that faces rail operators in Australia , is their need to provision for open access to all members of the general public . I was interested to see that this challenge is being addressed on Tyne and Wear Metro by their new fleet of rollingstock , making public transport accessible for the disabled . Open access to all is a legislative requirement in Australia , under the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport ( DSAPT ) Act .

The new fleet of Stadler trains come equipped

with an extending step which actively detects the edge of the platform , efficiently and effectively presenting a consistent and compliant gap to customers , thus ensuring safe access and egress to all users . Similarly , Sydney Metro were also faced with the same access / egress challenge , however this was addressed is a different manner .

On the Northwest Section , which was the initial phase of Sydney Metro , this was easily resolved ( as it was in the main a ‘ greenfield build ’) through the provision of ‘ fixed gap fillers attached to the edge of the platform ( frangible rubber fingers ). Equally , where there was a small conversion to an existing brownfield section within the Northwest , the solution was the same , as the platforms were straight , and hence made the addition of fixed fillers simple .

Whilst the Northwest was in its final stages of completion , an extension was approved , thus adding the City & Southwest Sections . Initially it was hoped that the DSAPT requirements could be addressed in the same manner . Unfortunately , this was not the case on the Southwest Section , which is the conversion of a 100 years + existing railway . Heritage and other planning requirements meant that the existing stations with their ‘ curved platforms ( virtually all the stations ) had to be retained . There was no ability to do any changes to the rollingstock , and hence the Nexus solution was not feasible ). The problem was solved however , through the introduction of “ mechanical gap fillers and obstacle detectors ”, integrated

with platform screen doors , thus bringing the platform to the train and managing the safety and access / egress issues .

Both solutions ( Nexus ’ s and Sydney Metro ’ s ) will equally address the open access / egress requirements , and importantly together they offer to the industry two options ; one where existing rolling stock is required to be retained , the other where fleet replacement is planned .

I was fortunate to spend time talking with Nexus MD Martin Kearney and I cannot help but admire what he and his team have achieved since he took up the position in 2020 , and equally the vision Martin has for the future of Tyne and Wear Metro .

Concluding , though a half a planet apart , the challenges facing the differing railway legislations and their need to evolve are very similar , so too are their learnings and experiences . As an industry , the value of knowledge share cannot be overstated , and to that end ( as a less than partisan observer ), I would encourage identifying ways in which greater collaboration can be achieved ( operators and suppliers ), on a global level . In doing this , as an industry we ’ ll become more efficient , and more importantly we will drive out cost .

As a final word , having enjoyed the tour of Tyne & Wear Metro , which was arranged through CIRO , they are certainly playing their part in encouraging the necessary sharing of experience , knowledge and lessons to be learned – thank you .