Could Chiltern Electrify with third rail?

[Chiltern006]

Hi
As The CMLs bridge are too low for 25Kv AC OHLE, would the DfT allow Network Rail to electrify with Third Rail, even though its outdated, but it's better than a carbon-dioxide Mainline. Also the HOH-AMR section is Tube third rail, so it makes sense, surely?

Anyway I just wanted your thoughts

Thanks

 

[bengley]

No, they wouldn't.

 

[59CosG95]

Hi
As The CMLs bridge are too low for 25Kv AC OHLE, would the DfT allow Network Rail to electrify with Third Rail, even though its outdated, but it's better than a carbon-dioxide Mainline. Also the HOH-AMR section is Tube third rail, so it makes sense, surely?

Anyway I just wanted your thoughts

Thanks

The ORR have vetoed any large-scale extension of 750V DC Third Rail electrification, mainly due to the decreased efficiency of 3rd Rail in comparison to OLE. Even with a pro-electrification political party leading Westminster, the interfaces of the Chiltern Main Line with routes linking 25kV routes (WCML, GWML) would mean that 25kV would definitely be preferable.
Bridges, of course, can and would be rebuilt should electrification go ahead.

The point you raise about the Met is very interesting though; I recall that there was a plan to upgrade the subsurface lines to 750V on the 3rd rail, and 0V on the 4th (return) rail. Did that ever materialise? And, if not, how would the earthing & bonding work in what would be a VERY large dual-voltage area?

 

[DarloRich]

Hi
As The CMLs bridge are too low for 25Kv AC OHLE, would the DfT allow Network Rail to electrify with Third Rail, even though its outdated, but it's better than a carbon-dioxide Mainline. Also the HOH-AMR section is Tube third rail, so it makes sense, surely?

Anyway I just wanted your thoughts

Thanks

• No. Chiltern couldn't do that work.
• No. NR wouldn't do the work because the ORR have said no to large scale DC electrification schemes.
• I don't know where HOH-AMR are

 

[59CosG95]

• No. Chiltern couldn't do that work.
• No. NR wouldn't do the work because the ORR have said no to large scale DC electrification schemes.
• I don't know where HOH-AMR are

Re Point 3, the TLAs (Three-Letter Acronyms) are for Harrow-on-the-Hill (HOH) and Amersham (AMR). Not that we'd have known that unless we had a list of all the CRS codes to hand/learned by rote.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Amersham and Harrow on the Hill. On line it takes about 20s to find out though we shouldn't rely on this.
Over the next decades we have as a nation a choice to stop people travelling so much or to decarbonise it. For main lines like Chiltern only 25kV electrification is truly practical at the moment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I could see sense in taking the third and fourth rail to Aylesbury and removing the Chiltern service from that bit entirely - i.e. extending the Met. Vale Parkway could perhaps be served via Princes Risborough.

Otherwise, 25kV makes more sense.

 

[thecrofter]

The ORR have vetoed any large-scale extension of 750V DC Third Rail electrification, mainly due to the decreased efficiency of 3rd Rail in comparison to OLE.

Incorrect statement I'm afraid. The ORR's position on not installing more third rail is purely on Health & Safety grounds. The existing system does not confirm to the Electricty at Work Regulations (1989) in that the live conductor is exposed to touch. Systems that may have shrouded conductors with bottom or side contacts could be deemed compliant but to change part or whole systems would be cost prohibitive.

 

[hwl]

Or is a Thameslink type solution witha mix of 3rd rail and OHLE be the answer?

3rd rail adjacent to LU so effectively Marylebone - Neasden and Nesaden - Harrow-on-the-Hill, LU 750+0V 3/4th rail north of Harrow-on-the-Hill

West of Neasden and Amersham 25kV OHLE

Negligible cost difference as regards new rolling stock.

 

[hwl]

Incorrect statement I'm afraid. The ORR's position on not installing more third rail is purely on Health & Safety grounds. The existing system does not confirm to the Electricty at Work Regulations (1989) in that the live conductor (the top of the rail) is exposed to touch. Systems that may have shrouded conductors with bottom or side contacts could be deemed compliant but to change part or whole systems would be cost prohibitive.

Agreed it, they reckoned 3rd rail is about 7-8x more problematic than OHLE for electrocutions.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Otherwise, 25kV makes more sense.

Tracks are shared with TfL between Harrow and Amersham, so dual voltage trains would likely be needed.

Over thirty years ago when the possible closure of Marylebone was under discussion, Baker Street didn't have the capacity to accommodate diverted Aylesbury trains.

If as a part of a major scheme, the wires went all the way to Birmingham and also from Didcot to Banbury, Cross Country could be electrified as well.

 

[hwl]

If as a part of a major scheme, the wires went all the way to Birmingham and also from Didcot to Banbury, Cross Country could be electrified as well.

Just 18 extra route miles (relatively easy) from Oxford to Aynho as infill.

 

[Snow1964]

The ORR have vetoed any large-scale extension of 750V DC Third Rail electrification, mainly due to the decreased efficiency of 3rd Rail in comparison to OLE. Even with a pro-electrification political party leading Westminster, the interfaces of the Chiltern Main Line with routes linking 25kV routes (WCML, GWML) would mean that 25kV would definitely be preferable.
Bridges, of course, can and would be rebuilt should electrification go ahead.

The point you raise about the Met is very interesting though; I recall that there was a plan to upgrade the subsurface lines to 750V on the 3rd rail, and 0V on the 4th (return) rail. Did that ever materialise? And, if not, how would the earthing & bonding work in what would be a VERY large dual-voltage area?

I think the S stock trains are wired for higher voltages than the old A stock. Pretty sure the Richmond branch was changed to 750v nominal (from memory the new substations supply at nearer 820v, but voltage falls with distance). On the shared sections with Overground centre rail is 0v (not on shared sections with tube gauge stock)

You are correct that the plan is to increase the voltage as substations get renewed, but how many have been done (if any) I have no idea

Currently regulator is against small extensions of third rail, but it is a rather misguided idea as they could have simply said no more than 0.5% (or some other very low figure) extra routes with virtually same risk

 

[HSTEd]

Incorrect statement I'm afraid. The ORR's position on not installing more third rail is purely on Health & Safety grounds. The existing system does not confirm to the Electricty at Work Regulations (1989) in that the live conductor is exposed to touch. Systems that may have shrouded conductors with bottom or side contacts could be deemed compliant but to change part or whole systems would be cost prohibitive.

And yet the Electricity at Work Regulations declare traction supplies to be out of scope.
The ORR has decreed that there will be no third rail simply because they decree it.

Just like they tore up the 25kV standard because they decreed it should be so.
They are not interested in running an economic railway, they want a "proper" one.

(Paragraph 116 of the Regulations states that tramway and railway operators have developed techniques and safe systems of work which meet the requirements here, and Paragraph 119 describes that such warnings can include signs and the like where physical isolation is impossible)

Also, give the state of the 25kV programme, a shrouded third rail system would still be cheaper than desperately trying to resuscitate it.

Agreed it, they reckoned 3rd rail is about 7-8x more problematic than OHLE for electrocutions.

A third rail installation of the current type is.
However there are numerous ways to reduce the risk substantially without abandoning backwards compatibility.

And even with those risk levels, given the ludicrous costs of 25kV...... the risk may still be ALARP.
EDIT:

Every day that electrification does not occur, people die from air pollution, and more carbon dioxide is emitted that we cannot afford to be emitting.

The ORR has conducted no work on ways to improve the safety of third rail installations and has simply decreed that there is to be no further installation.

 

[DarloRich]

And yet the Electricity at Work Regulations declare traction supplies to be out of scope.
The ORR has decreed that there will be no third rail simply because they decree it.

Just like they tore up the 25kV standard because they decreed it should be so.
They are not interested in running an economic railway, they want a "proper" one.

No: the ORR want a safe railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No: the ORR want a safe railway.

To a de-minimis level while the roads are allowed to continue to be very unsafe.

It is a waste of money and it does not make sense.

 

[HSTEd]

No: the ORR want a safe railway.

Every day the railway remains diesel powered, people die because of the air pollution ancient diesel engines spew into the sky.
Every day the railway remains expensive to operate, people die because they take the car instead and are killed in a car accident.

Those deaths still occur, even though the ORR ignores them because they don't occur on railway property.
The ORR has not, in any way, engaged with improving the safety of third rail systems - why should it when it can simply ban them with no negative consequences?

 

[hwl]

A third rail installation of the current type is.
However there are numerous ways to reduce the risk substantially without abandoning backwards compatibility.

And given the ludicrous costs of 25kV...... the risk may still be ALARP.

A lot of the risk is situation so keeping people of the track in general is good (e.g. reduce foot crossings, end of platform ramps).

I still suspect that a solution based on proper replacement/update of the wooden plank protection in high risk area such as depots but made from extruded/pultruded(depending on ) fibreglass section in yellow and extending slightly above the top of the 3rd rail as the plank do would probably allay most fears as well as reducing the risk in practice

 

[Ianno87]

No: the ORR want a safe railway.

As low a safety risk as reasonably practicable.

To a de-minimis level while the roads are allowed to continue to be very unsafe.

It is a waste of money and it does not make sense.

But skimping on not paying for AC electrification, and installing DC instead, would be introducing extra safety risk for no other reason than cost cutting.

Certainly far more risk than the marginal effect on road safety from the present non-electrified route.

 

[Geezertronic]

How many level crossings are there on the Chiltern Mainline that would be affected if a 3rd rail solution went in?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But skimping on not paying for AC electrification, and installing DC instead, would be introducing extra safety risk for no other reason than cost cutting.

Which may be justified but may not. The money is in my view better spent elsewhere.

TBH I'd go 25kV for the main Chiltern stretch for reasons of standardisation, but 25kV from Amersham to Aylesbury seems silly.

 

[hwl]

How many level crossings are there on the Chiltern Mainline that would be affected if a 3rd rail solution went in?

If you 3rd rail'd just the bits I suggested above then 0.

 

[mr_jrt]

Probably makes more sense to extend the slow lines to Rickmansworth from Watford south Junction, cut the Met back to there, then hand over the fast lines to NR. NR can then install OHLE from Neasden Junction to Aylesbury, lengthen the platforms, increase the track speed, etc.

 

[DarloRich]

As low a safety risk as reasonably practicable.

that goes without saying ( or it should!)

To a de-minimis level while the roads are allowed to continue to be very unsafe.

It is a waste of money and it does not make sense.

They are the Office of Road and Rail now so the road lobby might be in for a shock

Every day the railway remains diesel powered, people die because of the air pollution ancient diesel engines spew into the sky.
Every day the railway remains expensive to operate, people die because they take the car instead and are killed in a car accident.

Those deaths still occur, even though the ORR ignores them because they don't occur on railway property.
The ORR has not, in any way, engaged with improving the safety of third rail systems - why should it when it can simply ban them with no negative consequences?

lines 1 -3 are silly and not worthy of comment.
Line 4 - I disagree.

 

[HSTEd]

But skimping on not paying for AC electrification, and installing DC instead, would be introducing extra safety risk for no other reason than cost cutting.

I know it's political unpopular, but lives do have a cash equivalent value.
Chasing ultimate safety at any cost is no way to run a successful society.
We only have a limited amount of industrial capacity to expend.

Certainly far more risk than the marginal effect on road safety from the present non-electrified route.

I very much doubt it.
Even on the entire third rail system the FWI is on order of about 8 per annum.

Any reasonably sized extension is likely to produce far less than one additional fatality per annum, especially if sensible measures are taken to mitigate risks.

It does not seem unreasonable that a cheaper, more intensive service could avoid less than 1 FWI per annum in road traffic incidents and reduction in rail and road air pollution.

 

[Bald Rick]

And yet the Electricity at Work Regulations declare traction supplies to be out of scope

Does it? I don’t think so, indeed the guidance to Regulation 7 uses railway electrification as an example, and Para 119 uses railway conductor rails as a specific example of how special precautions are necessary.

The issue is that the ORRs view is that new conductor rail installations, and their special precautions, do not reduce the risk to ALARP when other, safer, electrification systems are available. It is therefore up to the proposers of any scheme for additional conductor rail to demonstrate how such an installation is ALARP. For small scale installations, very local to areas that already have conductor rail, I think this is likely. For large scale installations, it is not. Chiltern is the latter.

The answer to Chiltern will be OLE, with dual electrification on the section shared with LU*. Possibly battery bimodes if clearances are a particular issue on the final stretches into Marylebone (although I wonder if that is actually the case).

*being a four rail system, the issues with return currents etc are nowhere near as problematic as on dual electrified systems with AC OLE / third rail.

 

[59CosG95]

Probably makes more sense to extend the slow lines to Rickmansworth from Watford south Junction, cut the Met back to there, then hand over the fast lines to NR. NR can then install OHLE from Neasden Junction to Aylesbury, lengthen the platforms, increase the track speed, etc.

Chesham does still remain an enigma...not sure how many commuters from the 3rd biggest town in Bucks would react to losing their direct link to the Square Mile in the peaks...

That being said, there does seem to be enough room along most of the route to have a 4-track formation, with the Fast lines self-contained (based off a quick sweep with Google Maps), similar to the situation with c2c and the District line east of Bow Road. The only problems seem to be a few spots near Rickmansworth (the bridge over Rectory Road), and each station itself. If a self-contained route were to be made for Chiltern, electrification at 25kV could become viable.

 

[Bald Rick]

If a self-contained route were to be made for Chiltern, electrification at 25kV could become viable.

It’s very viable to install 25kV above sections already electrified with the fourth risk system.

 

[HSTEd]

Does it? I don’t think so, indeed the guidance to Regulation 7 uses railway electrification as an example, and Para 119 uses railway conductor rails as a specific example of how special precautions are necessary.

I will correct myself.
The regulations state that the normal rules about placement of conductors or their insulation should not be taken as exclusionary to the idea of ground supplies. Indeed, the regulations give a specific example of how precautions like those used in traction supplies can be used to achieve ALARP - in other words implying that they can be used to achieve ALARP.

Given that there was a decade of major third rail projects between the promulgation of these regulations and the cessation of major third rail electrification work in the late 90s. I have to ask why it was ALARP then and isn't now?

Or is the ORR, as seems more likely, favouring its desired technology at any cost.

This madness all started when Network Rail produced the fantasy costings for their magical High Output Plant method of electrification, which gave hilariously stupid results like 25kV on the BML being cheaper than renewals.
Now that that lie has been exposed, they fall back on this argument.

The answer to Chiltern will be OLE, with dual electrification on the section shared with LU*. Possibly battery bimodes if clearances are a particular issue on the final stretches into Marylebone (although I wonder if that is actually the case).

Given the costs of the ORR approved 25kV system and the low traffic density on the Chiltern, the actual answer is more likely to be continuing with diesel until HS2 cuts the long distance traffic density and the remainder can be run with whatever units are available.

 

[59CosG95]

It’s very viable to install 25kV above sections already electrified with the fourth risk system.

Ahh, I didn't actually know that! I knew OLE/3rd rail was difficult to mix, but OLE/4th Rail being easier to undertake does improve the business case a little bit for wiring the Chiltern.
If I'm placing bets on track extension and electrification done together, I'd guess that extending the Aylesbury line to meet EWR at Calvert and thence to Bletchley/MK could be dovetailed with wiring both lines.