North Downs line electrification

[ac6000cw]

Excuse me for being ignorant but what is that supposed to mean?

It's a reference to the 'Wizard of Oz' film, after Dorothy (and Toto the dog) are transported from Kansas to a whole new, different, magical, world. The Tin Man might not be very keen on 3rd rail electrification

(Bald Rick's post you referred to was ironic...)

 

[J-2739]

It's a reference to the 'Wizard of Oz' film, after Dorothy (and Toto the dog) are transported from Kansas to a whole new world.

(Bald Rick's post was ironic).

Oh, I know it came from that film , I'm just wondering in what context he is using it in.

 

[najaB]

It's a reference to the 'Wizard of Oz' film, after Dorothy (and Toto the dog) are transported from Kansas to a whole new world.

It's things like this that remind me that I'm getting old. I regularly have young(er) people in my classes who don't get what, to me, are common cultural references. Then again, I don't get references to Lady Beiber Direction or whatever they're called.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Oh, I know it came from that film , I'm just wondering in what context he is using it in.

I was using it because I thought you had missed the humour in Bald Rick's post.

And because I'm assuming in the whole new, different, magical, world we appear to have drifted into last night, the laws of physics have changed such that P = I²R has become P = (√I)R.

 

[J-2739]

Ok, I get it now, sorry

 

[NSEFAN]

And because I'm assuming in the whole new, different, magical, world we appear to have drifted into last night, the laws of physics have changed such that P = I²R has become P = (√I)R.

Well now we're following the Yellow Brick Road to Brexit, we'll now be free to write our own laws (of physics) according to British values (recorded on my British ammeter)

 

[QueensCurve]

Well now we're following the Yellow Brick Road to Brexit, we'll now be free to write our own laws (of physics) according to British values (recorded on my British ammeter)

And of course no nasty EU regulations will stop us using Brilliant British 3rd rail - which has to be better than horrid foreign 25kV OHLE.

 

[Tio Terry]

Agree likewise, I was trying to explain that the minor ELL/SLL link was perfectly logical in those specific circumstances, but the earlier poster was seemingly trying to big it up into something much longer and use it as more of a precedent.

NR had a kilometre of new third rail up slow line come into use between Southampton Parkway and Eastleigh last year, and that is another type of minor addition to the DC network that I'm sure we'll carry on seeing.

That's an additional track on an already electrified route. It didn't add to route miles of third rail electrification. What the DFT/ORR have said is that there will be no further expansion of the existing third rail electrified routes. So North Downs third rail electrification wont happen because it adds route miles.

 

[XDM]

What the DFT/ORR have said is that there will be no further expansion of the existing third rail electrified routes. So North Downs third rail electrification wont happen because it adds route miles.

This is a misquote. In fact they,not sure if ORR or DFT,said that a compelling case would have to be made for more third rail routes. Checked when the issue was brought up here the usual multiple times. UK Officialdom is a lot more flexible than the AC pair who denounce & ridicule anyone who dares suggest that DC has merits in a few limited situations.

 

[edwin_m]

And of course no nasty EU regulations will stop us using Brilliant British 3rd rail - which has to be better than horrid foreign 25kV OHLE.

The Americans were the first to use third rail to any great extent.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

This is a misquote. In fact they,not sure if ORR or DFT,said that a compelling case would have to be made for more third rail routes. Checked when the issue was brought up here the usual multiple times. UK Officialdom is a lot more flexible than the AC pair who denounce & ridicule anyone who dares suggest that DC has merits in a few limited situations.

Here we go again. I'm wrong as usual. (I'm assuming I'm part of the 'AC pair' judging by the tone of your comments, yet again).

I'd be interested to read the document that says they (ORR or DfT) will permit third rail 750V DC when a compelling case exists, and also what the date on the document is.

I only ask because I've got, on my desk, a document entitled

"The UK National Implementation Plan for the Energy TSI" (dated November 2014 and updated in light of the Hendy Review and electrification delivery re-profiling earlier this year)

which specifically states (page 5 - paragraph 4.3)

The UK has published National Technical Rules for the AC and DC subsystems and these will be notified. There is no intention to increase the size of the UK’s DC third rail network.

and which goes on to specify in Section 5 (page 6 - paragraph 5.2) - UK choice of applicable system

For all future new electrification the UK plans to use the 25 kV 50Hz system.
The UK operates a number of different subsystem configurations (25 kV AC OCL, 1.5 kV DC OCL and 660/750 V DC Conductor Rail). There is no specific intent to migrate non-target system configurations to the 25 kV AC OCL configuration but this will be considered on a case by case basis when upgrade or system renewal is required

The document specifically excludes the 750V DC third rail system from the 'UK choice of applicable system' and in "Table 1 Projects for: new lines, work on existing electrification and new electrification on existing route" it specifically states.

There is no intention to increase the size of the UK’s DC third rail network

I don't know how much clearer that can be. I don't even know why we're arguing about this. XDM can post all he wants about what he thinks DfT/ORR have said, but Network Rail (in addition to DfT and ORR) are explicitly clear about what the documentation means and how it's being interpreted.

If XDM isn't happy, neither I nor this forum are the place for his complaints, he needs to take up the issue with the Department for Transport and the Office for Road and Rail (ORR). I can't change either what the document says or how it's being interpreted.

 

[najaB]

UK Officialdom is a lot more flexible than the AC pair who denounce & ridicule anyone who dares suggest that DC has merits in a few limited situations.

Show me where this has been started on this or any other thread, please. It has repeatedly been said that minor third-rail extensions and infill can be allowed when there is a compelling case that overrides the presumption against new installations.

 

[Tio Terry]

What the Energy TSI says about the UK Third (and fourth) rail network:-

7.4.2.9.1. Voltage and frequency (4.2.3)
P case
It is permissible to continue to upgrade, renew and extend networks equipped with the electrification system operating at 600/750 V DC and utilising conductor rails in a three and/or four rail configuration in accordance with the national technical rules notified for this purpose.

Specific case for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, applying only to the mainline network in Great Britain.

What the DfT Guidance says:-

4.3 The UK has published National Technical Rules for the AC and DC subsystems and these will be notified. There is no intention to increase the size of the UK’s DC third rail network.


I think that makes their position pretty clear.


Apologies to Phillip P, you got to it first as I was typing!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Show me where this has been started on this or any other thread, please. It has repeatedly been said that minor third-rail extensions and infill can be allowed when there is a compelling case that overrides the presumption against new installations.

I'll give you (and XDM) a link to his document, actually.

It's the "ORR’s Policy on Third Rail DC Electrification Systems" document.

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/17621/dc-electrification-policy-statement.pdf

It predates the Energy TSI implementation plan by a couple of years, so the policy has since been superseded.

It's also the same document which has the following reference concerning third rail safety and the risk assessment which XDM doesn't agree with, and which he spent much of yesterday trying to discredit.

This is borne out by data from RSSB’s safety risk model – despite the legacy network being only half the size of the AC network (4400km compared to 8200km), it contributes almost eight times more (in terms of fatalities and weighted injuries per year) to overall risks on the railway. See FWI comparative data for OLE / conductor rail / non-electrified: Network Rail Electrical Power Asset Policy December 2012 (Table 2.1, page 52).

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What the Energy TSI says about the UK Third (and fourth) rail network:-

7.4.2.9.1. Voltage and frequency (4.2.3)
P case
It is permissible to continue to upgrade, renew and extend networks equipped with the electrification system operating at 600/750 V DC and utilising conductor rails in a three and/or four rail configuration in accordance with the national technical rules notified for this purpose.

Specific case for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, applying only to the mainline network in Great Britain.

What the DfT Guidance says:-

4.3 The UK has published National Technical Rules for the AC and DC subsystems and these will be notified. There is no intention to increase the size of the UK’s DC third rail network.


I think that makes their position pretty clear.


Apologies to Phillip P, you got to it first as I was typing!

And from what I've been told, because 4.3 in the notification document specifically states the third rail network won't be increased in size, it means that the UK has restricted its right to use the extend clause of 7.4.2.9.1 in the Energy TSI.

 

[coppercapped]

I didn't realise it was enabled, but the fact remains that it would only be used on a small minority of GWR services whereas Southern could potentially have several routes needing a third rail IPEMU. Assuming of course that such a thing is possible within the current limits of the third rail. If batteries are also required then they would be a non-standard sub-fleet and from what is said about the economics it wouldn't be cost-effective to fit more of them to get to places like Oxford.

This is a link to one of several video clips on YouTube showing the Class 387s destined for GWR being run-in on the Brighton line:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS2CJFspG8E&spfreload=10

Various RUS documents from NR have posited the extension of the Reading - Gatwick services to start back from Oxford. In the past this would have entailed crossing the Up and Down Main Lines at Reading New Junction to reach the Wokingham route. Since the Reading re-build the re-activation of the old flyunder from the Relief Lines to the Wokingham route just east of Reading station has removed this constraint. If the Reading - Gatwick service is to be served by IPEMUs then, as there are 6 diagrams at the moment and the additional proposed hourly Gatwick train would add another 2 at a minimum (but most likely 3), there will have to be enough IPEMUs to service 9 diagrams. In view of the longer run to Oxford it would necessary to add another one or two diagrams.

Assuming the service is run using 4 coach units - which increases the capacity per train by only about 15 per cent (the 387s being 20 metre stock with 2 plus 2 seating and the Class 166s being 23 metre stock with 3 plus 2 seating) - there would be a need for some 12 IPEMUs with another 2 needed if the service were to be extended to Oxford.

GWR is expecting to receive, IIRC, some 45 Class 387s which will be maintained at Reading, so an additional dozen IPEMUs based on the same model of train would fit the GWR's fleet plans quite well.

Whether using IPEMUs on the Gatwick trains, or indeed extending these trains to start back from Oxford, is worth doing depends on many factors - leasing costs of the IPEMUs, maintenance costs, additional traffic generated by a through service, and so on.

An IPEMU would be no more a non-standard sub-fleet for GWR than it would be for SR.

 

[Harbornite]

It's hard to argue in favour of DC third rail, compared to 25KV overhead. For starters, the linespeeds are lower and trackworkers and passengers are at more risk of being electrocuted on third rail lines than on lines with OHLE.

As for the metro networks that use DC, it's probably not worth converting them, but I don't think it's right to significantly extend the size of the third rail network.

 

[greaterwest]

It's hard to argue in favour of DC third rail, compared to 25KV overhead. For starters, the linespeeds are lower and trackworkers and passengers are at more risk of being electrocuted on third rail lines than on lines with OHLE.

As for the metro networks that use DC, it's probably not worth converting them, but I don't think it's right to significantly extend the size of the third rail network.

As has been pointed out in this thread already, the North Downs line is not going to be a "significant" extension, and trains are not going to run at over 100mph (what's the max linespeed on any part of the NDL currently, it can't be more than 90 as per Networker Turbo maximum speed?)

30 miles or so in an area absolutely surrounded by third rail (Wokingham - Reading, Frimley/Camberley line, Alton line, SWML, Portsmouth Direct line, London - Dorking - Horsham, Reigate onwards).

Basingstoke - Salisbury/Exeter would be an unnecessary extension of 3rd rail because there is none West of Basingstoke anyway! The argument for 3rd rail infill is the fact that it would be just that - infill.

I am not justifying any NEW third rail lines anywhere, that would be silly in this day and age, but infills do make sense, especially a on a key line like this where capacity and timekeeping are big problems.

 

[Deepgreen]

As has been pointed out in this thread already, the North Downs line is not going to be a "significant" extension, and trains are not going to run at over 100mph (what's the max linespeed on any part of the NDL currently, it can't be more than 90 as per Networker Turbo maximum speed?)

30 miles or so in an area absolutely surrounded by third rail (Wokingham - Reading, Frimley/Camberley line, Alton line, SWML, Portsmouth Direct line, London - Dorking - Horsham, Reigate onwards).

Basingstoke - Salisbury/Exeter would be an unnecessary extension of 3rd rail because there is none West of Basingstoke anyway! The argument for 3rd rail infill is the fact that it would be just that - infill.

I am not justifying any NEW third rail lines anywhere, that would be silly in this day and age, but infills do make sense, especially a on a key line like this where capacity and timekeeping are big problems.

According to many people on this thread, it simply won't be permitted to provide any more third rail whatsoever - even 100 metres or so. Status quo to be maintained.

 

[J-2739]

It's hard to argue in favour of DC third rail, compared to 25KV overhead. For starters, the linespeeds are lower and trackworkers and passengers are at more risk of being electrocuted on third rail lines than on lines with OHLE.

As for the metro networks that use DC, it's probably not worth converting them, but I don't think it's right to significantly extend the size of the third rail network.

I think networks that use DC third rail, like metro systems, should just continue with third rail should extensions come to existing lines. Some tunnels are too small to accommodate larger trains so space is compromised. With pantograph equipment above will just severe passenger space more. Boring larger tunnels is disruptive and expensive. Other than that, I also prefer 25kv.

(Any corrections are welcome)

 

[Deepgreen]

I think networks that use DC third rail, like metro systems, should just continue with third rail should extensions come to existing lines. Some tunnels are too small to accommodate larger trains so space is compromised. With pantograph equipment above will just severe passenger space more. Boring larger tunnels is disruptive and expensive. Other than that, I also prefer 25kv.

(Any corrections are welcome)

However, there will be no more third rail, ever, anywhere.

 

[najaB]

According to many people on this thread, it simply won't be permitted to provide any more third rail whatsoever - even 100 metres or so. Status quo to be maintained.

Who would those 'many people' be?

 

[Deepgreen]

Who would those 'many people' be?

Sorry - should have said "many posts" - Philip Phlopp. There may be other people, but his repeated affirmation that no more third rail will be laid was what I was thinking of.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

We're going round in circles because people are not reading the previous pages and posts.

The implementation of the Energy TSI (4.3 in the UK implementation document) rules out third rail being extended at all in any scenario, which in turn rules out the ability to use the extension sub-clause in 7.4.2.9.1 of the Energy TSI document itself.

The only thing which ORR might allow is exceptionally modest extensions to enable effective and efficient changeover from DC to AC, whether they would allow a similar extension to enable more efficient IPEMU operation is untested and currently unclear and unknown.

I know I'm Mr Unpopular for the reality check, but those unhappy need to take it up with ORR and ultimately DfT. I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, we would need to re-issue the Energy TSI implementation document and I don't even know if that's possible.

A crumb of comfort (though it's like a crumb you find in your bed after a late night cookie binge) is that Brexit may change the way the UK interacts with the Energy TSI.

 

[QueensCurve]

A brief anecdote to remind 3rd rail huggers that DC systems have their major electrical disruption too.

The Tyne and Weir Metro is in the 2nd day of massive disruption at the moment following an electrical fault. Passenger descriptions describe a "firework display".

In the absence of more information it sounds very similar to the event previously reported on by RAIB which was a danger to passengers.

Conductor Rails probably don't "part" in the way contact wires do, but it illustrates the disruption and dangers that follow from the fact that lower voltage systems can't discriminate between fault conditions and the current drawn by trains in normal operation.

[Youtube]q4SNOQjZ1oU[/Youtube]

[If the above doesn't work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4SNOQjZ1oU]

 

[coppercapped]

As has been pointed out in this thread already, the North Downs line is not going to be a "significant" extension, and trains are not going to run at over 100mph (what's the max linespeed on any part of the NDL currently, it can't be more than 90 as per Networker Turbo maximum speed?)

30 miles or so in an area absolutely surrounded by third rail (Wokingham - Reading, Frimley/Camberley line, Alton line, SWML, Portsmouth Direct line, London - Dorking - Horsham, Reigate onwards).

Basingstoke - Salisbury/Exeter would be an unnecessary extension of 3rd rail because there is none West of Basingstoke anyway! The argument for 3rd rail infill is the fact that it would be just that - infill.

I am not justifying any NEW third rail lines anywhere, that would be silly in this day and age, but infills do make sense, especially a on a key line like this where capacity and timekeeping are big problems.

In post no. 491 Philip Phlopp quoted from "The UK National Implementation Plan for the Energy TSI" in which it is written

There is no intention to increase the size of the UK’s DC third rail network

Which bit of this are people having difficulty in understanding? However one cuts it, adding trackmiles of conductor rail is an increase in size of the network, even if it is only an "infill".

The whole discussion about electrifying the North Downs Line is pointless. The line is not 'key' in any sense of the word - it might be useful, but it is not 'key'. It carries a couple of short trains per hour in each direction between Guildford and Redhill and no freight. Admittedly it connects places which lie off its ends - but the train frequency remains low. Timekeeping can be adversely affected by the junction configurations and competition for platform space at Guildford and Redhill as well as by the length of the intermediate signal sections. Immediate improvements in performance would be seen if these issues were solved first.

On its own electrification will not solve anything and ploughing a lot of capital into fixed electrical supply equipment to service, at best, three 4 coach long trains in each direction per hour would be a criminal waste of money. Far better to spend the money somewhere where frequent 8 or 10 coach trains operate.

 

[Deepgreen]

A brief anecdote to remind 3rd rail huggers that DC systems have their major electrical disruption too.

The Tyne and Weir Metro is in the 2nd day of massive disruption at the moment following an electrical fault. Passenger descriptions describe a "firework display".

In the absence of more information it sounds very similar to the event previously reported on by RAIB which was a danger to passengers.

Conductor Rails probably don't "part" in the way contact wires do, but it illustrates the disruption and dangers that follow from the fact that lower voltage systems can't discriminate between fault conditions and the current drawn by trains in normal operation.

Please don't try this!

 

[J-2739]

On its own electrification will not solve anything and ploughing a lot of capital into fixed electrical supply equipment to service, at best, three 4 coach long trains in each direction per hour would be a criminal waste of money. Far better to spend the money somewhere where frequent 8 or 10 coach trains operate.

Are you having a laugh?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We're going round in circles because people are not reading the previous pages and posts.

The implementation of the Energy TSI (4.3 in the UK implementation document) rules out third rail being extended at all in any scenario, which in turn rules out the ability to use the extension sub-clause in 7.4.2.9.1 of the Energy TSI document itself.

The only thing which ORR might allow is exceptionally modest extensions to enable effective and efficient changeover from DC to AC, whether they would allow a similar extension to enable more efficient IPEMU operation is untested and currently unclear and unknown.

I know I'm Mr Unpopular for the reality check, but those unhappy need to take it up with ORR and ultimately DfT. I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, we would need to re-issue the Energy TSI implementation document and I don't even know if that's possible.

A crumb of comfort (though it's like a crumb you find in your bed after a late night cookie binge) is that Brexit may change the way the UK interacts with the Energy TSI.

I've just been through this thread and I find your posts informative. I've heard you work with electricity? I can see why you get frustrated with some of the other people here.

 

[Lurpi]

Can I thank contributors to this thread (particularly the aforementioned 3rd rail huggers) for providing what is unquestionably the comic relief to what is otherwise a depressingly serious and reality-based forum. I look forward to further threads advocating the reinstatement of steam traction (but only for modest extensions and infill).

 

[J-2739]

Can I thank contributors to this thread (particularly the aforementioned 3rd rail huggers) for providing what is unquestionably the comic relief to what is otherwise a depressingly serious and reality-based forum. I look forward to further threads advocating the reinstatement of steam traction (but only for modest extensions and infill).

I'm not a 3rd rail hugger. I actually support 25kv 50hz so most of the above was a petty attempt to target me. I don't know if you're joking or not but why is this forum 'depressingly serious'?

Or are you being sarcastic?

 

[swt_passenger]

Perhaps you could have about a 12 car length of run off third rail in case an ordinary DC train is mis-signalled. That could be considered a safety precaution...