Deviation from a Railway Group Standard

Deviation from a Railway Group Standard (In accordance with the Railway Group Standards Code, Issue Four, part 7 and the Standards Manual, part 16) Deviation number: 16-073-DEV 1. Problem statement There are eight platforms on the borders railway that have been installed with offset dimensions that do not comply with GIRT7016.Two of the eight platforms will be brought to within compliance this year. This deviation concerns the remaining six platforms that will be tackled at the first maintenance tamp. 2. Title of deviation certificate Borders Rail Project - ELR : SBO, Platform Coper offsets at 5 no. stations. 3. What is the requirement you can't comply with? Requirement Number: 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 Document Number: Issue Number: Issue Date: Title of document: GIRT7016 Five 01/03/2014 Interface between Station Platforms, Track and Trains 3.2.1 For new platforms and alterations (as defined) to existing platforms, the platform edge shall be the minimum distance from the adjacent track (within a tolerance of +15 mm, -0 mm) consistent with the lower sector structure gauge set out in GC/RT5212 Appendix 1. 3.2.2 For most platforms, curves with radii greater than or equal to 360 m require a platform offset of nominally 730 mm (within a tolerance of +15 mm, -0 mm). GC/RT5212 sets out exceptions where Class 373 trains or 2.6 m wide containers are required to pass the platform. GC/RT5212 also sets out requirements where the curve radius is less than 360 m. GC/RT5212 Appendix 1 (superseded by GIRT7073, values remain the same under Appendix B.1) 1.2 Values of 'X' for the standard case For straight track and curved track with a radius greater than or equal to 360 m: X = 730 For curved track with a radius less than 360 m but greater than or equal to 160 m: X = 658 + (26000 / R) Where R is the curve radius in metres and X is in mm - the formula quoted gives the following results for selected radii: Radius (m) X (mm): 360 730 300 745 250 762 200 788 Deviation number:16-073-dev 1 of 6

160 821. 4. Why can't you comply with the existing requirement? The original approved design considered the requirements of GCRT5161 (Stepping distances), GIRT7016 (platform height and offset) and GCRT5212 (clearances to structures), the Infrastructure TSI and the guidance offered by Network Rail's PAN0062 at the time of AIP design in December 2012 and detailed design in January 2014. This provided normal clearances, compliant stepping distances and based on PAN 62 guidance non compliant offsets. Subsequent to guidance in late 2014 from the Gauging Engineer that there was scope to reduce the clearances to the W9 to Reduced and Special Reduced, particularly at platform, a revised track design and updated gauging report to improve the offset with reduced clearances were produced in November 2014. At the time of the design update PAN/AM(T)/GM1/0062 was still live, in spite of the PAN guidance being relaxed and subsequently withdrawn in December 2015. The project had a foreseeable passenger rolling stock requirement of Class 158 and 170 only (even though the project remit was to include freight gauges up to and including W12); these are the only types of rolling stock that will be permitted to operate on the route without a specific operating instruction/publication. The project solution provided compliant structure clearances between all the required gauges and the platforms edges along with compliant stepping distances for passengers between platform and train for the specified rolling stock. Adopting a horizontal offset compliant with GIRT7016 would result in further reduced, special reduced and foul clearances as defined in GCRT5212. The updated clearance design (November 2014) was implemented and commissioned in 2015. After clarification that the status of the PAN did not negate a deviation to the Group Standard discussions with NCB, RSSB and Network Rail HQ, a deviation submission was made and reviewed by the Infrastructure Standards Committee on 09/09/2015; however, the Committee considered that further supporting information was required. A condition was placed on the Authority to Place into Service (APIS) to either comply with the requirements of GIRT7016, achieve a derogation or an alternative method agree with the Department for Transport (DfT). The platforms would retain the November 2014 design until first planned maintenance tamping estimated to be in 2020, at which time the following platform offsets are anticipated:. Stow Up (compliant), 733 mm - 741 mm Horz (at least 4 mm less than 745 mm allowed), 890 mm Vert Stow Dn (compliant), 736 mm - 740 mm Horz (at least 5 mm less than 745 mm allowed), 903 mm Vert Newtongrange, 732 mm - 753 mm Horz (max 8 mm greater than 745 mm allowed), 911 mm Vert Deviation number:16-073-dev 2 of 6

Gorebridge, 733 mm -769 mm Horz (max 25 mm greater than 745 mm allowed), 915 mm Vert Galashiels, 733 mm - 764 mm Horz (max 19 mm greater than 745 mm allowed), 912 mm Vert. Shawfair Down (compliant), 733 mm - 741 mm Horz (4 mm less than 745 mm allowed), 890 mm Vert Future maintenance tamping would achieve compliant offset at both platforms at Stow. Newtongrange, Gorebridge and Galashiels single platforms would achieve compliance over part of the platforms lengths, but sections within the required car stop positions would remain non-compliant. 5. Where can't you comply with the requirement? Shawfair Down Newtongrange Gorebridge Stow (Up and Down) Galashiels. 6. What are you proposing to do instead of the existing requirement? There are no plans to carry out any other works based on the results of the risk evaluation until the first routine maintenance tamping (estimated as 4-5 years from construction, i.e. 2020) is required through the stations at which time improved offsets would be achieved as described previously. In the interim, the remaining offsets as designed provide clearances and stepping which is nominally compliant and has been accepted by ScotRail. An increased maintenance regime will be implemented to monitor both reduced and special reduced clearances at some stations. The resulting foul clearances to W9 will require a change to the Funder Requirements in regards to provision of new infrastructure on the route; the route availability will however be maintained at W6A. Infrastructure Projects Scotland North East (IPSNE) operate a robust and mature 'Lessons Learned' process and the lessons captured from the Borders project will help to prevent reoccurrence of similar issues on future projects. IPSNE Track and Civils now have the risks associated with managing the Platform / Track Interface on their respective functional risk registers to draw further attention to this risk. Consideration of the 4 no stations subject to the variation included options to manage ongoing risk. The following hierarchy was considered. a) Compliance (notwithstanding risk evaluation); b) Track slues only; c) Mind the gap signage; d) Train announcements; Deviation number:16-073-dev 3 of 6

e) Maintenance of existing offsets. 1. Compliance (notwithstanding risk evaluation): The first level of control was to disregard the fact that works to achieve compliance would be grossly disproportionate to the safety benefit gained. However, in the case of Newtongrange, Gorebridge and Galashiels stations, the works would include making adjustments to the copes, relaying tactiles and re-surfacing, all of which require temporary works during a series of possessions. Therefore, the combination of grossly disproportionate, practicality and disruption caused this level of control to be disregarded. 2. Track slues only: Track slues alone would not provide full compliance without coper alterations at 3no. Stations (Newtongrange, Gorebridge and Galashiels); however, slues would only improve the offsets. At Stow, no coper alterations would be required, only track slues. If these works were deferred until the first maintenance tamp, the grossly disproportionate costs would be significantly reduced to an acceptable level and, therefore, the risk evaluation would be favourable at that time. 3. Mind the gap signage: While such signage could easily be provided, it does not represent the risk associated with offset, as compliant stepping is provided at the doors and public perception may be that similar stepping exists at other stations on the route but without such warnings. Therefore, this is not considered appropriate. 4. Train announcements: Similar to 'Mind the gap' signage, train announcements could easily be provided but, again, are not representative of the risk. Standard announcements to 'take care when boarding/alighting the train' are in place and represent an appropriate means of warning. 5. Maintenance of existing offsets: Normal control measures such as regular checking of stepping distances will be applied to the maintenance regime under NR_L2_TRK_3201, as the gauge clearances are nominally compliant to GIRT7073 and the stepping distances are compliant with the Infrastructure TSI. 7. How long would you like the deviation to last and is there anything that would affect the length of the deviation? Start date End date 01/08/2016 31/10/2020 8. Demonstrate that what you are proposing to do instead is reasonable. The proposed deferral of full compliance at Stow and Shawfair down until first maintenance tamp and deferral of improved offsets at Newtongrange, Gorebridge and Deviation number:16-073-dev 4 of 6

Galashiels stations until first maintenance tamp with a permanent variation to remain for part of the platform lengths is justified on the following basis: a) Current additional control measures will remain in place until tamping delivers the improved offsets Borders Railway Platform Offset Clearance Risk Evaluation rev 1.3 has shown that the costs to provide immediate platform remediation are grossly disproportionate to the safety benefit that can be achieved.. b) The risk to passengers from the increased offset values is controlled by the stepping distances being compliant with the limits established in the Infrastructure TSI. c) Improve offsets result in reduced and special reduced kinematic clearances below the normal requirements of GIRT7073 which are managed under and NR/L2/TRK/3201. d) Transport Scotland have agreed to delete W9 from the funders' requirement for the route which would otherwise be foul to kinematic clearances to met compliant offsets. A separate deviation will be sought for Newtongrange, Galashiels and Gorebridge once the long term platform positions are determined. 9. Demonstrate consultation with all affected parties has been carried out and their agreed support. The only external stakeholder who could potentially be impacted is ScotRail. However, the platform edges as designed provide compliant stepping distances to NR/L2/TRK/2049 within the maximum permitted values within GMRT2173, and therefore have been reviewed and accepted by ScotRail during the numerous interface meetings held as the project has developed. Site measurements with actual rolling stock have confirmed the stepping distances to be acceptable. 10. What alternative options have been rejected and the rationale? N/A 11. What supporting documents/information are you providing? Attachments: ScotRail's letters of support dated 06/04/2016; Transport Scotland's letter of support dated 06/05/2016; Border Offset Technical Note dated 12/10/2015; Technical Note dated 12/10/2015; Table of platform clearances; Borders Railway Platform Offset Derogation Summary; Table of gap factors; Application for Variations Revision 4 - Tracker, dated 20/06/2016; Borders Railway Platform Offset Risk Evaluation. 12. Is the application for a project requiring authorisation for placing in service under the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011? No Deviation number:16-073-dev 5 of 6

13. Applicant details and status Applicant job title Applicant company Applicant company address Investment Projects Network Rail The Quadrant: MK Asset Management and Railway Systems Desk MIK-FUR-03- B-1503, Elder Gate, Milton Keynes, MK9 1EN Applying as: Infrastructure Manager The party who must currently comply, or may reasonably be expected to have to comply in the future, with the RGS. Your reference number Tracker No. 25278 Applicant's signature Head of Civil Engineering Date 29/06/2016 Name of Committee Date of meeting Minute reference Infrastructure 06/07/2016 16/INS/05/103 Authorised by Acting Director of Standards: Date of Authorisation: Approval No. 559 01/08/2016 Deviation number:16-073-dev 6 of 6