Rail electrification scrapped / 'suspended'?

[urbophile]

the PTB will spin that these trains are the future backed by Big Oil.

That's what it's all about. Like climate change denial, it's about anything that enriches the Tories' friends, and to hell with the rest of us.

 

[3141]

That's what it's all about. Like climate change denial, it's about anything that enriches the Tories' friends, and to hell with the rest of us.

You mean that the Tories have no friends in the electricity industry....?

 

[YorkshireBear]

You mean that the Tories have no friends in the electricity industry....?

Not as much money to be made there though

 

[Ships]

I think it's down to the incompetence of Network Rail and the Government, and in particular, the original decision to design the OLE for 140 mph, rather than a more realistic 125 mph and the cost of the very expensive Hitachi trains (at twice the cost of Pendolinos), plus to some degree, the decision not to apply for a derogation regarding the "flashover gap" issue.

We had a derogation, said derogation was no longer allowed to stand

 

[snowball]

We had a derogation, said derogation was no longer allowed to stand

I gather from stuff I've read that they didn't try very hard to continue it, and had lost the details of the original experiments which had been used to set the UK clearances. Also that the ORR is currently being unnecessarily stiff in its interpretation of the rules.

 

[squizzler]

CAF must have been in the know when they decided to set up an assembly plant in South Wales. With the only DMU in production and Mk5 coaches likely to be an expedient fallback for routes that had been going to get wires, I imagine they will be quite busy now.

 

[edwin_m]

Regarding replacing 3rd rail with overhead wires. What would be the benefits and the drawbacks of that (apart from the cost)? Is is easy to buy new trains for 3rd rail electrification or do they cost a lot more? How about freight trains? I presume there are a few freight train going to and from Port of Southampton, are they diesel hauled today?

There was a study a few years ago that suggested that replacing third rail by overhead line could be cost-effective if the power supply equipment for the third rail needed replacing anyway. This took account of factors such as that the third rail wastes about 20% of the energy as resistance heating, and that 25kV allows more power at the train hence faster running times and shorter intervals between trains. However this was before the electrification cost increases referred to in this and other threads, so the costs in that study aren't credible today.

Most commuter-type EMUs built for the UK market since privatisation have been easily convertible between the 750V and 25kV systems, as with modern electronic traction packages this doesn't cost much extra and the leasing companies have more opportunity to hire them out on different routes. However intercity units are 25kV only (or diesel bi-mode) with the exception of the original Eurostar sets which used the third rail in the UK until 2008.

 

[HSTEd]

I am regularly surprised that there is little reference in these sort of discussions to the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. (Note that these pre-date rail privatisation, the existence of ORR and modern EU 'standards'.)

Basically Regulation 7 says that conductors must either be 'covered in insulating material' or 'out of reach'. A conductor rail at ground level is patently neither of these.

Regulation 7 is not only repeatedly couched in "as far as reasonably practicable", it even has seperate paragraphs:

116: Electric railway and tramway operators, in conjunction with the Office of Rail and Road, have developed standards and safety specifications for the construction of those parts of their systems which use bare conductors at overhead and at track level, together with safe systems of work

and

119: However, if the placing of the conductors cannot alone be relied upon to prevent danger, then additional precautions must be taken and rigorously applied.
For example, in the case of live railway conductor rails the precautions may include warning notices, barriers and special training for railway staff. Electrolytic and electrothermal processes are further examples and are covered in paragraphs 121–123

Which seems to imply that it is entirely in ORR's power to declare that such systems are safe and thus protect the railway from prosecution.
The fact that there has never been an attempted prosecution of the railway under these regulations [atleast for traction systems] tends to support the idea third rail installations don't breach them.

 

[edwin_m]

Which seems to imply that it is entirely in ORR's power to declare that such systems are safe and thus protect the railway from prosecution.

However that wording effectively say it's up to the ORR to agree the detailed arrangements. So if the ORR no longer agrees third rail then the regulations can't be used to justify continuing it.

It's a bit circular, given that IIRC the ORR used the same regulations as justification for not supporting third rail.

 

[RichmondCommu]

CAF must have been in the know when they decided to set up an assembly plant in South Wales. With the only DMU in production and Mk5 coaches likely to be an expedient fallback for routes that had been going to get wires, I imagine they will be quite busy now.

There is nothing to suggest that anything other than bi-modes will be ordered for the MML. I don't see how loco haulage fits into any of their plans.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd expect 80x or something from Stadler.

 

[Dr Hoo]

There are several aspects to the third rail issue.

Firstly, insofar as the ORR is a safety regulator (its largest but by no means only job) it has to interpret, apply and enforce safety law - Health & Safety at Work, Electricity at Work Regulations, etc., etc. ORR doesn't write or make up the law itself.

Secondly, concepts of 'reasonable practicability' and 'as low as reasonably practicable' are quite stiff 'tests'. They certainly don't mean that just because something was accepted as safe in 1917 it still is now. Given that no other 'main line' railway in the world is finding it necessary to use third rails on new electrification schemes it is far from clear that they are the 'only solution' in Britain.

Thirdly, the fact that in recent years there has been a rapid increase in the number of train (and tram) designs with dual voltage, bi-mode or now battery capability means that even extensions of third rail areas, such as Uckfield, no longer 'have to' be third rail.

In my rail career I was quite relaxed about working with third rails in North London, on Merseyside and then south of the Thames. However, there was then a sad coincidence of events. I had to deal with a 9-year-old who was killed after getting onto the line through a hole in the fence made by rail staff to create a shortcut to a depot. Then I was standing right next to a member of track staff who was electrocuted after a section was livened up in error. (Fortunately they survived.) The lesson I learnt was that you can have all the signs and rules you want but having socking great high-current dc conductors on the ground in easy reach of people will eventually catch you out.

 

[swt_passenger]

How about freight trains? I presume there are a few freight train going to and from Port of Southampton, are they diesel hauled today?

Many, rather than a few, freight trains use Southampton, none are electric.

 

[Muzer]

Many, rather than a few, freight trains use Southampton, none are electric.

Indeed - the only electric "freight" in the area would be trains for engineering works hauled by Class 73s; the only third rail electric locomotives still running on the mainline.

 

[randyrippley]

Indeed - the only electric "freight" in the area would be trains for engineering works hauled by Class 73s; the only third rail electric locomotives still running on the mainline.

Do class 92 no longer get used on third rail?

 

[HSTEd]

There are several aspects to the third rail issue.

Firstly, insofar as the ORR is a safety regulator (its largest but by no means only job) it has to interpret, apply and enforce safety law - Health & Safety at Work, Electricity at Work Regulations, etc., etc. ORR doesn't write or make up the law itself.

However the regulations do seem to imply that the ORR is given significant latitude in determining the "safe methods of working" that the regulation calls for.

Secondly, concepts of 'reasonable practicability' and 'as low as reasonably practicable' are quite stiff 'tests'. They certainly don't mean that just because something was accepted as safe in 1917 it still is now.

Indeed, much of my educational background is in nuclear power reactors, and I am well acquainted by the problems caused by such language in that field.

Given that no other 'main line' railway in the world is finding it necessary to use third rails on new electrification schemes it is far from clear that they are the 'only solution' in Britain.

However, using nuclear reactors as an example, it has been demonstrated that a light water reactor is designable with no primary circulation pumps [ESBWR] at all, so it cannot rapidly suffer massive core damage from a plant blackout.

However the ONR continues to approve designs for which the loss of primary circulation pumps would be a safety-critical failure. It does so on the basis that such designs have demonstrated that the risk of such failure is small - even though it is demonstratably nonzero.

The existance of 25kV does not render all "more dangerous" schemes unacceptable.
And given the difficulty in defining "main line" railway - I am not sure that is a reasonable comparison, especially given that a typical UK loading gauge is something that would typically be found on an S-Bahn or Metro in mainland Europe.

Thirdly, the fact that in recent years there has been a rapid increase in the number of train (and tram) designs with dual voltage, bi-mode or now battery capability means that even extensions of third rail areas, such as Uckfield, no longer 'have to' be third rail.

However standalone single line 25kV schemes would be so expensive per track-km that they are unlikely to ever generate a positive BCR. (Likely to require multiple GSPs even if the scheme only a fraction of the output of a standard one, for example.)

In a significant number of schemes the only two realistic options are third rail and nothing.

 

[JonasB]

Many, rather than a few, freight trains use Southampton, none are electric.

I suspected that. That sounds like a good reason to electrify to Southampton with 25 kV, has it been discussed?

 

[coppercapped]

I suspected that. That sounds like a good reason to electrify to Southampton with 25 kV, has it been discussed?

Assuming you are not being ironic, search for 'Electric Spine' and HLOS. The DfT's 2012 HLOS included the following text:

The strategy is built around four priorities. The first of these is the creation of the “Electric Spine”, a high capacity passenger and freight electric corridor running from the South Coast through Oxford, Bedford and via the Midland Main Line to the East Midlands and South Yorkshire, with a link from Oxford to the West Midlands and the North- West. The Electric Spine investment is expected to deliver cost savings to the railway in the medium term, because electric rolling stock has lower purchase, maintenance and fuel costs. It also leads to choices for further efficient route electrification in Control Period 6 (CP6).

And, no, it didn't happen.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Assuming you are not being ironic, search for 'Electric Spine' and HLOS. The DfT's 2012 HLOS included the following text:



And, no, it didn't happen.

Never believed in this "fantasy" - coming south from Crewe - London recently - mid afternoon , passed about 9 loaded container trains , only one was electrically hauled.

Question to the DfT , why are there such high levels of diesels under the wires (or on 3d rail routes) ? - answers on the back of a postage stamp please.

 

[HSTEd]

If DfT wants electric freight they should provide port shunters and pay for all relevant power supply upgrades. Class 92s could handle the trains in that case

 

[ChiefPlanner]

If DfT wants electric freight they should provide port shunters and pay for all relevant power supply upgrades. Class 92s could handle the trains in that case

Oh dear - try attending European railfreight corridor meetings as I used to - the issues over "the last mile" into ports etc (and who paid) , are enough to make you despair.

This whole , "let us wire the South Western Division" , (having paid a fortune for 3d rail power upgrades -sorted by the SRA by the way) for negligent Railtrack "actions" is almost a a case study in incompetence of the highest order.

A brief look at Freightliner operations in say 1985 ,was diesel throughout to Barking ( a key destination for a long time), or Crewe for longer distance hauls , with electric onwards to Manchester / Liverpool / Glasgpw etc.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed - the only electric "freight" in the area would be trains for engineering works hauled by Class 73s; the only third rail electric locomotives still running on the mainline.

Don't 92s still haul freight to and from the Channel Tunnel on the third rail system? These go nowhere near Southampton though.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Don't 92s still haul freight to and from the Channel Tunnel on the third rail system? These go nowhere near Southampton though.

A few trains perhaps - certainly nothing like the "Great Expectations" pre 1996.

Yes -Dollands Moor is knowhere near Southampton - and I doubt a 92 has gone anywhere near it (Soton that is)

 

[najaB]

And given the difficulty in defining "main line" railway - I am not sure that is a reasonable comparison, especially given that a typical UK loading gauge is something that would typically be found on an S-Bahn or Metro in mainland Europe.

Loading gauge is an extremely poor criterion to base mainline status on. That suggestion has all the hallmarks of a straw being clutched in order to make a point.

 

[Mugby]

Apologies if this has already been asked but are bi-mode trains able to change mode at high speed?

To the best of my knowledge, everything we have at present which requires the pantograph to be lowered stops to accomplish this.

 

[najaB]

Apologies if this has already been asked but are bi-mode trains able to change mode at high speed?

That depends entirely on the train model in question. Some can, some can't.

 

[HSTEd]

Loading gauge is an extremely poor criterion to base mainline status on. That suggestion has all the hallmarks of a straw being clutched in order to make a point.

It is a demonstration that the conditions on the British Isles are so different from the Continent that it is almost pointless attempting to compare them.

 

[snowball]

Apologies if this has already been asked but are bi-mode trains able to change mode at high speed?

That depends entirely on the train model in question. Some can, some can't.

At the front of the current issue of Rail magazine is a description of a Hitachi 80x doing it smoothly at 100mph, electric to diesel, seen from the cab.

 

[jayah]

There was a study a few years ago that suggested that replacing third rail by overhead line could be cost-effective if the power supply equipment for the third rail needed replacing anyway. This took account of factors such as that the third rail wastes about 20% of the energy as resistance heating, and that 25kV allows more power at the train hence faster running times and shorter intervals between trains. However this was before the electrification cost increases referred to in this and other threads, so the costs in that study aren't credible today.

Most commuter-type EMUs built for the UK market since privatisation have been easily convertible between the 750V and 25kV systems, as with modern electronic traction packages this doesn't cost much extra and the leasing companies have more opportunity to hire them out on different routes. However intercity units are 25kV only (or diesel bi-mode) with the exception of the original Eurostar sets which used the third rail in the UK until 2008.

The costs of raising bridges for 25kv would be fantastic. And what would be the benefit? A trivial saving in elecrricity and a minor performance gain.

It would only be worth doing if you were going after increasing the loading gauge for double deck trains. But the cost would still be fantastic. At Queenstown Rd Battersea all of the Victoria lines cross over the SWML on a metal Viaduct. Imagine the disruption involved tackling that!

 

[jayah]

Where does this leave the Chiltern lines? Fast growing, and an obvious candidate to be the next electrification project.

And unlike the MML, with NO electrified lines into London, so the bi-mode option can't be used either. With the crackdown on diesel road transport in London, a 100% diesel terminus surely can't be considered to be a long term solution>

It will be 10 years before diesel motor transport starts dying out in London. By then you will have trains, trucks buses and trams using zero emission batteries or super capacitors.