Should the North Downs, Marshlink and Uckfield lines be electrificed with third rail?

[PTR 444]

These three lines are unique in being that they are the only remaining railways in the Southern region that remain unelectrified. Electrifying these would be greatly beneficial for the economy and reduce diesel emissions, but as we all know, conversion to third rail is being ditched in favour of OLE.

The quirk with these lines is that if they got electrified under current rules, they would be isolated OLE sections within a sea of third rail, requiring dual voltage trains unless exceptions were somehow made. I would therefore be interested to find out whether it would be better to electrify these three lines as third rail if it were allowed.

 

[30907]

You haven't given the option: No, because, like i or not, it wouldn't pass the risk assessment for new electrification.

 

[PTR 444]

You haven't given the option: No, because, like i or not, it wouldn't pass the risk assessment for new electrification.

I have. It’s just listed as Don’t Bother in the poll.

And why would they not pass a risk assessment???

 

[tbtc]

I don't claim any special knowledge about the relative risks of the two types of electrification, I hear strong argument from people I respect on the Forum, I know that "risk" is always a difficult thing to debate on here... but the two short bits of lines really ought to be electrified one way or another - if your metric for electrification is "DMU carriages freed up per mile of single track electrification required" then they must score very high.

I'm not sure about battery trains. As a bit of a bus enthusiast, I'm aware of the "Great Leap Forward" every couple of years, where new miracle solutions are found to power vehicles - then we find that they aren't reliable/economic after a couple of years (gas buses, "poo" buses... the Stagecoach "hybrid" vehicles running around Sheffield have been converted to pure diesel operation because the new technology wasn't working well enough) - so I'm apprehensive about batteries/ hydrogen/ whatever until we see more of it working - but then, I guess it needs to be given the chance to operate somewhere for us to see whether it works or not... chicken or egg... but, at the moment, I'm unconvinced

 

[AM9]

I have. It’s just listed as Don’t Bother in the poll.

And why would they not pass a risk assessment???

The poll is flawed bacause it phrases the option in emotive terms. 'No. OLE is the be all and end all' is just pathetic if you want a grown up discussion. Fortunately, decisions about electrification in the real world aren't made on the basis of such a ridiculous process.

 

[NSEFAN]

On the face of it, third rail is logical for consistency with surrounding areas.

On the other hand, others have mentioned the difficulty in getting national grid feeds to the right locations, and that 25kV overhead would make life easier from this perspective as fewer substations would be needed. Given that new/extra electric units would need to be found for such a service, it would be quite easy to stipulate that these are bi/tri-mode to work on both AC and DC, with battery/diesel to cover non-eleftrified sections.

Ultimately, whatever reduces the depency in diesel in the most economical way is the best option.

 

[yorksrob]

Wasn't the ORR who've banned third rail infill electrification, the same organisation who've allowed our derogation for OLE clearance to lapse ?

 

[RichardGore]

Banning new third-rail-only rolling stock by requiring a 25kV pantograph on electrified units would over one rolling stock lifetime remove any barrier to new electrification and open up the option of replacing third rail as it became convenient.

 

[Tio Terry]

As the DfT have ruled out any large scale extension of the third rail network isn’t this rather pointless?

 

[AM9]

As the DfT have ruled out any large scale extension of the third rail network isn’t this rather pointless?

If you mean the mandatory provision of pantographs on all new EMUs, then haven't we almost had that for about 20 years? Ever since Bombardier and Siemens introduced ranges of trains that included ac versions that had a common 750VDC bus, the dual voltage train has been common place. All it took was the DfT to stipulate that (almost without exception) there shall be at least passive provision for 25kV OLE operation in their construction. So now there are about 609 Electrostars in service, 262 of them fully equipped for ac and the remainder available for conversion. Similarly, there are 493 Desiro EMUs of which 291 are fullac equipped. Clearly it wouldn't take much shuffling around of fully ac/DC units to provide services on newly converted ex-DC lines.

 

[Tio Terry]

If you mean the mandatory provision of pantographs on all new EMUs, then haven't we almost had that for about 20 years? Ever since Bombardier and Siemens introduced ranges of trains that included ac versions that had a common 750VDC bus, the dual voltage train has been common place. All it took was the DfT to stipulate that (almost without exception) there shall be at least passive provision for 25kV OLE operation in their construction. So now there are about 609 Electrostars in service, 262 of them fully equipped for ac and the remainder available for conversion. Similarly, there are 493 Desiro EMUs of which 291 are fullac equipped. Clearly it wouldn't take much shuffling around of fully ac/DC units to provide services on newly converted ex-DC lines.

No, that’s not what I meant.

The DfT have ruled out any significant expansion of the 3rd rail network on the grounds of safety. It would be worth reading the Appendix to the Energy TSI which includes a UK specific section on 3rd rail within the UK.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm not sure about battery trains. As a bit of a bus enthusiast, I'm aware of the "Great Leap Forward" every couple of years, where new miracle solutions are found to power vehicles - then we find that they aren't reliable/economic after a couple of years (gas buses, "poo" buses... the Stagecoach "hybrid" vehicles running around Sheffield have been converted to pure diesel operation because the new technology wasn't working well enough) - so I'm apprehensive about batteries/ hydrogen/ whatever until we see more of it working - but then, I guess it needs to be given the chance to operate somewhere for us to see whether it works or not... chicken or egg... but, at the moment, I'm unconvinced

Battery bus technology has moved on considerably, with a typical “e-bus” having a range of 150miles and a 3 hour charge time. Operators around the world are queuing up to buy them, sometimes 100s at a time. London has the largest fleet in Europe with over 200 in service, with another 100 or so on the way. Today has also seen the first use of battery trams ‘off the wire’ in this country.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the technology is easily transferable to rail. If a 12 metre long / 18 tonne bus with half a tonne of battery pack can shift 30 seated + 40 standing passengers 150 miles on rubber tyres, then very simplistically there’s no reason that a 24 metre / 36 tonne vehicle with a tonne of battery pack can’t shift 60 seated + 80 standing passengers the same distance on steel rails. Couple a few of those together and you have a train. Even if it can only manage half that range, that will easily cover every gap in the third rail network, and some potentially big gaps in the AC network.

For the third rail network it then comes down to simple economics. Is the whole life incremental cost of providing and maintaining a smallish fleet of battery EMU hybrids, over a conventional EMU fleet, more expensive than electrifying and maintaining the lines concerned with third rail? I’m reasonably certain that electrification would be more expensive.

 

[Bald Rick]

As the DfT have ruled out any large scale extension of the third rail network isn’t this rather pointless?

They haven’t. However there is significant work to demonstrate that the risk of new third rail installations can be sufficiently mitigated, and that any additional risk compared to other traction solutions is more than offset by other benefits.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Wasn't the ORR who've banned third rail infill electrification, the same organisation who've allowed our derogation for OLE clearance to lapse ?

I thought that the latter responsibility lay with RSSB (which is the ‘standards’ body anyway). I’m sure it has been covered on other threads.

 

[yorksrob]

I thought that the latter responsibility lay with RSSB (which is the ‘standards’ body anyway). I’m sure it has been covered on other threads.

Whoever it was, there seems to be a history of unfortunate decisions that are hampering the improvement of the railway.

 

[Taunton]

The poll is flawed bacause it phrases the option in emotive terms. 'No. OLE is the be all and end all' is just pathetic .

Unfortunately, it aligns with a recurring view read on here.

 

[AM9]

Unfortunately, it aligns with a recurring view read on here.

View maybe, but if there's any intention of making the poll mean anything, then those who don't share the 'recurring view' will just ignore the poll making its result irrelevant. It's not as if an enthusiast's poll on social media actually changes anything on the real railway anyway.

 

[Tio Terry]

They haven’t. However there is significant work to demonstrate that the risk of new third rail installations can be sufficiently mitigated, and that any additional risk compared to other traction solutions is more than offset by other benefits.

From the UK National Implementation Plan for Energy TSI

5.2. For all future new electrification the UK plans to use the 25KV 50Hz A/C system.

Seems to me that that means no more 3rd rail?

 

[PTR 444]

View maybe, but if there's any intention of making the poll mean anything, then those who don't share the 'recurring view' will just ignore the poll making its result irrelevant. It's not as if an enthusiast's poll on social media actually changes anything on the real railway anyway.

Assuming that 76% of total votes are for the “Yes to third rail” option, I presume the majority really are in favour of this rather than Overhead Line electrification (OLE). This is totally understandable considering the fact that other lines in the area are also third rail. At the end of the day, this thread is only meant to be speculative and shouldn’t necessarily dictate real-world decisions.

I personally voted “some OLE, some third rail” because I am undecided at this stage which of these would be better in the long run.

Uckfield Line: Definitely ought to be third rail as there are no surrounding OLE lines and it is unlikely that the existing ones will get converted anytime soon.

North Downs Line: I can see a case for this being OLE as it would allow through electric trains to run beyond Reading (XC Guildford - the North for example), although the fact that some sections are already third rail makes it more logical for the remaining sections to be such as well.

Marshlink Line: Again, undecided on this one. The domestic lines at either end are third rail, but the east end also links up with HS1 at Ashford which is overhead electrified. Doing this as OLE would allow direct St Pancras - Hastings trains via HS1 which is already quicker than going via Tonbridge, even if it means the existing local service would have to be operated using dual voltage units.

 

[Bald Rick]

From the UK National Implementation Plan for Energy TSI

5.2. For all future new electrification the UK plans to use the 25KV 50Hz A/C system.

Seems to me that that means no more 3rd rail?

Things can change!

 

[Railwaysceptic]

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the technology is easily transferable to rail. If a 12 metre long / 18 tonne bus with half a tonne of battery pack can shift 30 seated + 40 standing passengers 150 miles on rubber tyres, then very simplistically there’s no reason that a 24 metre / 36 tonne vehicle with a tonne of battery pack can’t shift 60 seated + 80 standing passengers the same distance on steel rails. Couple a few of those together and you have a train. Even if it can only manage half that range, that will easily cover every gap in the third rail network, and some potentially big gaps in the AC network.

For the third rail network it then comes down to simple economics. Is the whole life incremental cost of providing and maintaining a smallish fleet of battery EMU hybrids, over a conventional EMU fleet, more expensive than electrifying and maintaining the lines concerned with third rail? I’m reasonably certain that electrification would be more expensive.

That's the first sensible argument I've heard against filling in the gaps in third rail electrification.

 

[tbtc]

Battery bus technology has moved on considerably, with a typical “e-bus” having a range of 150miles and a 3 hour charge time. Operators around the world are queuing up to buy them, sometimes 100s at a time. London has the largest fleet in Europe with over 200 in service, with another 100 or so on the way. Today has also seen the first use of battery trams ‘off the wire’ in this country.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the technology is easily transferable to rail. If a 12 metre long / 18 tonne bus with half a tonne of battery pack can shift 30 seated + 40 standing passengers 150 miles on rubber tyres, then very simplistically there’s no reason that a 24 metre / 36 tonne vehicle with a tonne of battery pack can’t shift 60 seated + 80 standing passengers the same distance on steel rails. Couple a few of those together and you have a train. Even if it can only manage half that range, that will easily cover every gap in the third rail network, and some potentially big gaps in the AC network.

For the third rail network it then comes down to simple economics. Is the whole life incremental cost of providing and maintaining a smallish fleet of battery EMU hybrids, over a conventional EMU fleet, more expensive than electrifying and maintaining the lines concerned with third rail? I’m reasonably certain that electrification would be more expensive.

Very interesting, as ever - thanks for explaining.

 

[Doomotron]

The ORR ban on third rail is completely pointless. Like with OHE, it is very dangerous (but probably less than OHE considering the voltages but that's for another thread), but with the right training is perfectly safe for normal use. Of course, third rail is antiquated and isn't very good for high-power trains, but having to fit pantographs to the 377s would be a waste of time and money. I think the lines need to be electrified (they're very inconvenient currently) and using third rail is the most sensible option.

Spoiler: Safety

If anything needs to be done for the safety of third rail, switching to an AC supply might stop people getting 'stuck' to the electrified rail, if that even happens.

 

[Meerkat]

Would third rail require complete palisade fencing, which IMO would be more obtrusive than overheads? Anyone have an idea about power requirements? Could Marshlink run off Ashford or need a new feeder? Can Wokingham-Ash get an extension lead from Reading?
Can’t speak for the other two but Guildford-Redhill gets pretty chilly but keeps running on diesel when the 3rd rail lines have given up, so OLE might be better.

 

[Meerkat]

but with the right training is perfectly safe for normal use.

How do you train all the locals and tourists that amble about these lines?

 

[Bald Rick]

Would third rail require complete palisade fencing, which IMO would be more obtrusive than overheads? Anyone have an idea about power requirements? Could Marshlink run off Ashford or need a new feeder? Can Wokingham-Ash get an extension lead from Reading?
Can’t speak for the other two but Guildford-Redhill gets pretty chilly but keeps running on diesel when the 3rd rail lines have given up, so OLE might be better.

Battery trains would be even better on this line. Some might even say perfect. No troubles with ice on the con rail or wires if there aren’t any.

It’s likely that both Marshlink and Uckfield would need a new grid feeder, albeit not very large.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The ORR ban on third rail is completely pointless. Like with OHE, it is very dangerous (but probably less than OHE considering the voltages but that's for another thread), but with the right training is perfectly safe for normal use. Of course, third rail is antiquated and isn't very good for high-power trains, but having to fit pantographs to the 377s would be a waste of time and money. I think the lines need to be electrified (they're very inconvenient currently) and using third rail is the most sensible option.

As I have posted several times before, third rail seemed ‘perfectly safe’ to me and I ‘knew what I was doing’. I then had to deal with a 9-year old electrocuted trespasser (via hole in fence made by rail staff wanting a short cut) and having a very experienced electrified track maintainer electrocuted whilst working right next to me after a series of procedural omissions.
Changed my view entirely. There is no way that it is consistent with the intention of modern safety legislation, either general Health & Safety or more specific Electricity at Work. Very simply, lethal conductors must be completely out of reach or adequately insulated. Conventional third rail is neither of these.

 

[Meerkat]

Battery trains would be even better on this line. Some might even say perfect. No troubles with ice on the con rail or wires if there aren’t any.

It’s likely that both Marshlink and Uckfield would need a new grid feeder, albeit not very large.

Can 3rd rail power a train and charge the batteries enough to get it over the hills?
Even if there is long enough to do it in the turnaround can the power system cope?

 

[Doomotron]

Would third rail require complete palisade fencing, which IMO would be more obtrusive than overheads? Anyone have an idea about power requirements? Could Marshlink run off Ashford or need a new feeder?

Last time I checked, Ashford is more powerful (or whatever the right word is) than needed, so could probably run the Marshlink line, or at least some of it.

How do you train all the locals and tourists that amble about these lines?

For tourists, there's nothing you can do other than signage (but this is the same for all types of electrification). Locals, however, are much easier to educate. Last year in school we had a 2-hour assembly on safety on the railway lines, which included both third rail and overhead wires. It was probably a good thing; some of my friends had previously thought the third rail was on only when a train goes by,* which is not the best thing to believe. Before anybody says about the assembly only being about the third rail because of its nature, the video they showed us was of a child being electrocuted by OHE electricity jumping to him (the video is probably on YouTube somewhere).

*This was done on tramways and long time ago. This could be a safety feature for third rail.

 

[Meerkat]

For tourists, there's nothing you can do other than signage (but this is the same for all types of electrification)

It isn’t the same - a walker crossing the tracks is far less likely to contact OLE. Obviously in an ideal world you would get rid of the foot crossings