Should third rail be considered again for future electrification projects?

[Wolfie]

I would imagine that within the timescales of any new (i.e. non-commited at this moment in time) electrification coming online that the last DC-only stock is life-expired, so it makes sense that if you are going to spend money doing design work, you do so for a new AC installation, so Ashford to Ore would be fine with the dual-voltage stock that will be in available. Converting beyond there, well. However you want to cut it, really. The equipment will become life-expired at some point, and before that, equipment in less-operationally-practical locations elsewhere will likely need replacing sooner so recovery from the extremities might be an option there.

Can we be clear that you are talking National Rail/GBR only? Out of curiosity what do you think that the last DC-only stick will be? The 458s?

 

[yorksrob]

We are taliking about whether to increase the mileage of railway electrified with an antiquated system that has a higher ksi rate than the dominant standard formally adopted in 1955.

And motor transport kills more people annually than the electrified third rail.

Unfortunately, your gold-plating of railway standards is what is making the railway unaffordable and that will kill the railway and push people into more danger.

 

[zwk500]

And motor transport kills more people annually than the electrified third rail.

Unfortunately, your gold-plating of railway standards is what is making the railway unaffordable and that will kill the railway and push people into more danger.

It's not gold plating to want no further installation of third rail. The gaps that exist could be covered by bi modes or batteries, and the third rail itself is a very dangerous obstacle at perfect trip height. OLE is at least suspended in the air.
Gold plating of the railways would be to insist on electrification regardless of available affordable alternatives

 

[yorksrob]

It's not gold plating to want no further installation of third rail. The gaps that exist could be covered by bi modes or batteries, and the third rail itself is a very dangerous obstacle at perfect trip height. OLE is at least suspended in the air.
Gold plating of the railways would be to insist on electrification regardless of available affordable alternatives

Bi-modes don't solve the carbon issue.

 

[A0]

Can we be clear that you are talking National Rail/GBR only? Out of curiosity what do you think that the last DC-only stick will be? The 458s?

More likely the recently delivered 484s on the Island Line. I reckon they'll still be around in the 2040s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2021 ==

Bi-modes don't solve the carbon issue.

Depends on the fuel type surely? It reduces it significantly if plant based and more so again if hydrogen.

 

[yorksrob]

More likely the recently delivered 484s on the Island Line. I reckon they'll still be around in the 2040s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2021 ==



Depends on the fuel type surely? It reduces it significantly if plant based and more so again if hydrogen.

At present, I think there's an issue with our hydrogen being mostly blue rather than green. I don't know the ins and outs of it, but blue is worse than green.

With regard to bio-fuel, you run up against where to grow it and the bio-diversity issues that result.

Basicall, we need to electrify as much as possible - and that includes the third rail islands (so that the far north etc don't have to be).

 

[A0]

At present, I think there's an issue with our hydrogen being mostly blue rather than green. I don't know the ins and outs of it, but blue is worse than green.

With regard to bio-fuel, you run up against where to grow it and the bio-diversity issues that result.

Basicall, we need to electrify as much as possible - and that includes the third rail islands (so that the far north etc don't have to be).

You still have to generate the electricity from somewhere and have the links to the grid as Bald Rick has pointed out on innumerous occasions. So unless those "islands" can be covered with extensions of existing systems, then it's far from clear cut that electrification and particularly 3rd rail electrification is the way forward. Whereas battery or hybrid may well be a better solution.

 

[WAO]

We are taliking about whether to increase the mileage of railway electrified with an antiquated system that has a higher ksi rate than the dominant standard formally adopted in 1955.

That's the danger of playing with statistics. The relative safety of even the third-rail railway for passengers and staff is still very high. Every movement has risk and road travellers' and workers' environments have significant risk, especially for highway maintenance, rescue and emergency services. No one insists roads are too unsafe to use or work on, even the appalling hard-shoulderless motorways! .

Taking this narrow statistical, office desk approach to rail safety means ultimately closing the lot.

WAO

ps I suggested decreasing the dc mileage.

 

[AM9]

And motor transport kills more people annually than the electrified third rail.

Irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about new 3rd rail. We're also talking about many more journey miles on roads than on rail - let alone just 3rd rail.

Unfortunately, your gold-plating of railway standards is what is making the railway unaffordable and that will kill the railway and push people into more danger.

I have no influence over any railway standards so can't be "gold-plating" them, they are what they are.
Until COVID came along, passenger traffic on the railway has steadily increased, so claims that safety rules that have been in place for a couple of decades don't seem to have any impact on the railway's success, - even through the recession after the credit crisis.

 

[yorksrob]

Irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about new 3rd rail. We're also talking about many more journey miles on roads than on rail - let alone just 3rd rail.

I have no influence over any railway standards so can't be "gold-plating" them, they are what they are.
Until COVID came along, passenger traffic on the railway has steadily increased, so claims that safety rules that have been in place for a couple of decades don't seem to have any impact on the railway's success, - even through the recession after the credit crisis.

Any additional third rail would be tiny compared to the existing railway.

The effect of gold plated safety standards on ridership is irrelevant to this discussion. It is the effect on costs that is the issue.

 

[AM9]

Any additional third rail would be tiny compared to the existing railway.

The effect of gold plated safety standards on ridership is irrelevant to this discussion. It is the effect on costs that is the issue.

Calling the safety rules for exposed conductors "gold-plated" is just an emotive response to something that some here disagree with. It adds nothing to rational discussion about the dangers of various methods of railway electrification. Unless somebody has a valid argument on their relevance to put to the ORR et al, the existing rules will stay.

 

[yorksrob]

Calling the safety rules for exposed conductors "gold-plated" is just an emotive response to something that some here disagree with. It adds nothing to rational discussion about the dangers of various methods of railway electrification. Unless somebody has a valid argument on their relevance to put to the ORR et al, the existing rules will stay.

I'm sure many people will have put the disproportionate nature of these regulations and their detrimental effect on the running of the railway and the wider decarbonisation agenda to them in their recent consultation.

 

[AM9]

I'm sure many people will have put the disproportionate nature of these regulations and their detrimental effect on the running of the railway and the wider decarbonisation agenda to them in their recent consultation.

Then whatever the response, problem solved.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Apologies if this is mentioned upthread, I've just caught up but may have missed it...

The dangers of third rail are fairly easy to understand, and I can see how those responsible for safety are averse to it. That said, I don't get the impression that scores of people are actually electrocuted by third rail each year. It either happens very rarely, or it is so common that like RTA casualties it isn't worth reporting each individual incident. I suspect the former is the case. On a personal level, I'm more concerned with the danger it presents to railway staff who have no choice to be there, than the danger it presents to trespassers who have chosen to break the law. Technology that allows the rail to only become live when a train is present, would minimise the risk to both groups, and if you're on the track and a train is coming, electrocution is the least of your worries. However as others have pointed out, such technology would be complex and therefore expensive.

Batteries are a solution in some places, but battery technology hasn't significantly improved in terms of range or energy-density for the best part of a century, up until the latest EV "boom". There's still no answer to the rare-earth metals question, and the weight of large batteries required to move a train at any sort of speed is significant. On lines with anything other than the lightest use, there's no substitute for electrification. For somewhere like the Marshlink, ideally you'd go for 25kvAC but with lightweight "Paisley Canal" style catenary... or you go for 750vDC catenary which removes the need for dual voltage stock- you just need dual pick-up. That said, pretty much all modern DC stock is dual-voltage capable anyway.

The idea of replacing existing third rail with batteries is utter madness though- unless someone invents a lightweight battery with the capability of the current market leaders.

 

[Wolfie]

More likely the recently delivered 484s on the Island Line. I reckon they'll still be around in the 2040s.

Good call, l completely forgot about them.

 

[mr_jrt]

Can we be clear that you are talking National Rail/GBR only? Out of curiosity what do you think that the last DC-only stick will be? The 458s?

NR, yes. I was under the impression that 458s could be converted to dual voltage if required, but I suspect there will still be ample 3rd rail routes for them within their lifespans if not. If I wanted to be facetious I might suggest the refurbished Brighton Belle might be the last But I suspect it will be a networker of some variety. I would have thought the 466s due to the difficulties of finding 2-car EMUs these days, but they apparently seem to be being replaced with 707s, so what do I know, eh?

EDIT: Just saw the posts about the 484s. Given their modular nature, I would regard those as convertable to dual-voltage (hell, maybe even tri or even quad!) voltage, if so desired. My original statement was regarding units that are DC-only with no scope for anything else whatsoever.

 

[zwk500]

Batteries are a solution in some places, but battery technology hasn't significantly improved in terms of range or energy-density for the best part of a century, up until the latest EV "boom". There's still no answer to the rare-earth metals question, and the weight of large batteries required to move a train at any sort of speed is significant. On lines with anything other than the lightest use, there's no substitute for electrification. For somewhere like the Marshlink, ideally you'd go for 25kvAC but with lightweight "Paisley Canal" style catenary... or you go for 750vDC catenary which removes the need for dual voltage stock- you just need dual pick-up. That said, pretty much all modern DC stock is dual-voltage capable anyway.

Batteries are a better solution for Marshlink with it's 1tph 2- or 4-car service over a single line than 25KV AC. And it's not just the operational requirements - OLE is likely to need careful thought and substantial foundations because the railway runs through, well, a marsh!

The idea of replacing existing third rail with batteries is utter madness though- unless someone invents a lightweight battery with the capability of the current market leaders.

It's not complete madness. Somewhere like the Seaford Branch, either beyond Newhaven or even all the way from Southerham Junction, would probably be a sensible option. 2tph 3-car units, so not much power draw, but several level crossings frequently misused and some parts of the alignment with very limited clearances through Newhaven. There exist trains in other countries that run 80km or so on batteries. It's perfectly possible with a bit of political will to get companies interested in developing battery technology.

 

[A0]

That's the danger of playing with statistics. The relative safety of even the third-rail railway for passengers and staff is still very high. Every movement has risk and road travellers' and workers' environments have significant risk, especially for highway maintenance, rescue and emergency services. No one insists roads are too unsafe to use or work on, even the appalling hard-shoulderless motorways! .

Taking this narrow statistical, office desk approach to rail safety means ultimately closing the lot.

WAO

ps I suggested decreasing the dc mileage.

BIB - but road standards have changed significantly in the last 40 or so years, driven by safety. Roads aren't built using the same dangerous standards which were acceptable in the 1920s, so why shouldn't the same apply to railway electrification ?

Same goes for factory / industry standards - it wouldn't be acceptable to have a High Voltage supply exposed in the way the 3rd rail is in most factory or industry settings.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2021 ==

A For somewhere like the Marshlink, ideally you'd go for 25kvAC but with lightweight "Paisley Canal" style catenary... or you go for 750vDC catenary which removes the need for dual voltage stock- you just need dual pick-up. That said, pretty much all modern DC stock is dual-voltage capable anyway.

The question with Marshlink is more likely whether a 750v DC supply (immaterial of whether it's 3rd rail or some form of OHL) can be accommodated from each end of the line. The bigger issue will be if it needs a new connection to the National Grid - as has been explained on here before, that's usually one of the biggest costs and has a lead time as well.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

BIB - but road standards have changed significantly in the last 40 or so years, driven by safety. Roads aren't built using the same dangerous standards which were acceptable in the 1920s, so why shouldn't the same apply to railway electrification ?

Same goes for factory / industry standards - it wouldn't be acceptable to have a High Voltage supply exposed in the way the 3rd rail is in most factory or industry settings.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2021 ==



The question with Marshlink is more likely whether a 750v DC supply (immaterial of whether it's 3rd rail or some form of OHL) can be accommodated from each end of the line. The bigger issue will be if it needs a new connection to the National Grid - as has been explained on here before, that's usually one of the biggest costs and has a lead time as well.

So-called "Smart Motorways" as cited by WAO, are an example of safety standards being reduced in the name of "progress".

In terms of grid supply points, I'd always thought that was more of an issue for Uckfield than Marshlink... after all, there's a handy power source just a short distance from the Marshlink line, it even has a branch line leading to it.

Now there's a thought- wire the Dungeness branch with Paisley-style 25kvAC, do the Marshlink too, and then the flask trains could use 88s... [/crayon]

 

[yorksrob]

BIB - but road standards have changed significantly in the last 40 or so years, driven by safety. Roads aren't built using the same dangerous standards which were acceptable in the 1920s, so why shouldn't the same apply to railway electrification ?

Same goes for factory / industry standards - it wouldn't be acceptable to have a High Voltage supply exposed in the way the 3rd rail is in most factory or industry settings.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2021 ==



The question with Marshlink is more likely whether a 750v DC supply (immaterial of whether it's 3rd rail or some form of OHL) can be accommodated from each end of the line. The bigger issue will be if it needs a new connection to the National Grid - as has been explained on here before, that's usually one of the biggest costs and has a lead time as well.

Isn't the main grid connection for Kent in Tunbridge Wells though ? So it should hardly be more of an issue for the Marshlink

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2021 ==

So-called "Smart Motorways" as cited by WAO, are an example of safety standards being reduced in the name of "progress".

In terms of grid supply points, I'd always thought that was more of an issue for Uckfield than Marshlink... after all, there's a handy power source just a short distance from the Marshlink line, it even has a branch line leading to it.

Now there's a thought- wire the Dungeness branch with Paisley-style 25kvAC, do the Marshlink too, and then the flask trains could use 88s... [/crayon]

"Smart Motorways" were a novel innovation though. The ban on third rail extension would be more comparable to if we had had smart motorways across most of the motorway network for the last fifty years and accepted that they would continue like that - but then decided that it would be too dangerous to extend it along the M20 !

 

[A0]

So-called "Smart Motorways" as cited by WAO, are an example of safety standards being reduced in the name of "progress".

I'm no fan of "Smart Motorways" - but statistically they are safer than non-smart motorways.

Smart motorways - RoSPA

Road Safety Advice, Information and Resources

www.rospa.com

 

[Ken H]

I'm no fan of "Smart Motorways" - but statistically they are safer than non-smart motorways.

Smart motorways - RoSPA

Road Safety Advice, Information and Resources

www.rospa.com

but would a smart motorway with a hard shoulder be safer. Even one with some gaps at structures.

 

[Wolfie]

Calling the safety rules for exposed conductors "gold-plated" is just an emotive response to something that some here disagree with. It adds nothing to rational discussion about the dangers of various methods of railway electrification. Unless somebody has a valid argument on their relevance to put to the ORR et al, the existing rules will stay.

Probably.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2021 ==

Any additional third rail would be tiny compared to the existing railway.

The effect of gold plated safety standards on ridership is irrelevant to this discussion. It is the effect on costs that is the issue.

Someone worried that their pet "operate third rail heritage on the mainline" aspiration will finally bite the dust completely?


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2021 ==

I'm sure many people will have put the disproportionate nature of these regulations and their detrimental effect on the running of the railway and the wider decarbonisation agenda to them in their recent consultation.

Who decides what is disproportionate? Has it occurred to you that they have and doubtless will continue to apply sound legal principles in their decision making? You saying something is so won't convince a future Court case or Public Inquiry!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2021 ==

I was under the impression that 458s could be converted to dual voltage if required, but I suspect there will still be ample 3rd rail routes for them within their lifespans if not.

There has been lots of past discussion on here which concluded that was emphatically not the case.

 

[yorksrob]

Probably.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2021 ==


Someone worried that their pet "operate third rail heritage on the mainline" aspiration will finally bite the dust completely?


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2021 ==


Who decides what is disproportionate? Has it occurred to you that they have and doubtless will continue to apply sound legal principles in their decision making? You saying something is so won't convince a future Court case or Public Inquiry!

Admittedly, it would be a downside personally if there were too be no possibility of this rail heritage operation.

But primarily this is about the future of the railway in a decarbonising world. We need to be electrifying everything practicable.

In terms of what is disproportionate, whatever the legal principles they've applied, they haven't been strong enough to to up the existing third rail

 

[Wolfie]

Admittedly, it would be a downside personally if there were too be no possibility of this rail heritage operation.

But primarily this is about the future of the railway in a decarbonising world. We need to be electrifying everything practicable.

In terms of what is disproportionate, whatever the legal principles they've applied, they haven't been strong enough to to up the existing third rail

The big problem with arguing with you is that you fundamentally think that the railway is a special case where the normal rules (e.g. economics, the law) don't apply. Until you get over that discussion is futile.

 

[yorksrob]

The big problem with arguing with you is that you fundamentally think that the railway is a special case where the normal rules (e.g. economics, the law) don't apply. Until you get over that discussion is futile.

The railway is a special case.

You'll forgive me for repeating myself, however it is the primary mode of medium-long distance public transport in the country.

That's why it is special.

 

[A0]

But primarily this is about the future of the railway in a decarbonising world. We need to be electrifying everything practicable.

The first sentence does not justify the second.

It's about reducing carbon use - and there are a multitude of different ways of achieving that. The fact some aren't your preferred pets is an agreeable irrelevance.

 

[yorksrob]

The first sentence does not justify the second.

It's about reducing carbon use - and there are a multitude of different ways of achieving that. The fact some aren't your preferred pets is an agreeable irrelevance.

Until we reach that shang-ri-la of cheap, powerful and suitable batteries and clean hydrogen, electrification is the most effective way for the railway.

 

[WAO]

I'm no fan of "Smart Motorways" - but statistically they are safer than non-smart motorways.

Smart motorways - RoSPA

Road Safety Advice, Information and Resources

www.rospa.com

I think we need to look at this more closely.

They are safer immediately because the traffic density is 1/3 less and therefore better spaced. This effect will diminish as traffic increases.

They are less safe in respect to broken down vehicles as the police and motoring organisations protest. A lot of this was because of the Treasury - the original plan was reasonable, more of a discontinuous hard shoulder not distant, short lay-bys.

Modern roads are still altered/built to lower standards where it is not deemed cost effective to implement full current standards. Perhaps ORR should draft in Highway Engineers to its railway section.

As far as heritage electrics are concerned, I've heard something about the Brighton Belle - can anyone elaborate?

An interesting debate with excellent posts from all sides!

WAO

 

[A0]

The railway is a special case.

In YOUR opinion.

The problem with that is you're *not* prepared for others to argue that their preferences are a special case and should be eligible for the same preferential treatment that you expect for the railways.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2021 ==

I think we need to look at this more closely.

They are safer immediately because the traffic density is 1/3 less and therefore better spaced. This effect will diminish as traffic increases.

They are less safe in respect to broken down vehicles as the police and motoring organisations protest. A lot of this was because of the Treasury - the original plan was reasonable, more of a discontinuous hard shoulder not distant, short lay-bys.

The statistics are the statistics - you can't argue with them. So whilst you are correct it better spaces traffic, whether you like it or not the overall result is a safer road with fewer accidents than a comparable road with a hard shoulder.