Should third rail be considered again for future electrification projects?

[yorksrob]

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.

No, I've explained that the railway is the primary mode of public transport for medium to long distance journeys in this country. Not the coach, not the taxi, not the hot air balloon. The train

 

[A0]

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

BIB Not quite true - they are still built to minimum standards, which are not the same as the standards in use almost 100 years ago.

Yet the basic safety (or lack of) where 3rd rail installations are concerned in terms of an exposed HV conductor rail which is a risk to anyone close to the line hasn't changed in the ensuing 100 years since it was widely installed by the LSWR / Southern.

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

No, I've explained that the railway is the primary mode of public transport for medium to long distance journeys in this country. Not the coach, not the taxi, not the hot air balloon. The train

That doesn't justify special treatment.

Unless you're also prepared to accept the private car is the primary mode of transport for most medium to long distance journeys for the majority of people and should be afforded similar treatment - which I'm guessing you won't.

 

[yorksrob]

BIB Not quite true - they are still built to minimum standards, which are not the same as the standards in use almost 100 years ago.

Yet the basic safety (or lack of) where 3rd rail installations are concerned in terms of an exposed HV conductor rail which is a risk to anyone close to the line hasn't changed in the ensuing 100 years since it was widely installed by the LSWR / Southern.

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



That doesn't justify special treatment.

Unless you're also prepared to accept the private car is the primary mode of transport for most medium to long distance journeys for the majority of people and should be afforded similar treatment - which I'm guessing you won't.

Well, the private car is already allowed to operate in a much more dangerous way than the railway without signalling etc anyway, so I would never want the railway to operate to motor transports appallingly low safety standards.

 

[A0]

Well, the private car is already allowed to operate in a much more dangerous way than the railway without signalling etc anyway, so I would never want the railway to operate to motor transports appallingly low safety standards.

Odd, no shortage of traffic lights, prioritised junctions and roundabouts where I live all of which control how traffic moves. People ignoring them is no different to a train driver being involved in a SPAD - and both are subject to penalties for that.

Must be even grimmer up in your part of "the North" than I thought if such basic things haven't arrived there.

 

[yorksrob]

Odd, no shortage of traffic lights, prioritised junctions and roundabouts where I live all of which control how traffic moves. People ignoring them is no different to a train driver being involved in a SPAD - and both are subject to penalties for that.

Must be even grimmer up in your part of "the North" than I thought if such basic things haven't arrived there.

Oh traffic lights, yes those are the height of interlocking and vehicle protection technology

 

[Peterthegreat]

Odd, no shortage of traffic lights, prioritised junctions and roundabouts where I live all of which control how traffic moves. People ignoring them is no different to a train driver being involved in a SPAD - and both are subject to penalties for that.

Must be even grimmer up in your part of "the North" than I thought if such basic things haven't arrived there.

There is a VAST difference between people ignoring traffic lights and SPADs. The former is done deliberately and often not subject to detection. The latter is virtually all misjudgement or technical issues and virtually all detectable.

 

[WAO]

You don't argue with statistics, you interpret them.

WAO

 

[NoRoute]

There is a VAST difference between people ignoring traffic lights and SPADs. The former is done deliberately and often not subject to detection. The latter is virtually all misjudgement or technical issues and virtually all detectable.

Hang on, it's not that black and white, car drivers are susceptible to the same errors of misjudgement, distraction and technical issues with the poor design and visibility of some traffic lights, so it isn't all deliberate, a portion is unintentional.

 

[WAO]

Yet the basic safety (or lack of) where 3rd rail installations are concerned in terms of an exposed HV conductor rail which is a risk to anyone close to the line hasn't changed in the ensuing 100 years since it was widely installed by the LSWR / Southern.

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

Third rail was still being installed new in the 1980's with lots of changes since LSWR times.

If it was that unsafe, there'd be a program of removing it.

WAO

 

[A0]

Third rail was still being installed new in the 1980's with lots of changes since LSWR times.

If it was that unsafe, there'd be a program of removing it.

WAO

Sigh - re-read what I said.

"Yet the basic safety (or lack of) where 3rd rail installations are concerned in terms of an exposed HV conductor rail which is a risk to anyone close to the line hasn't changed in the ensuing 100 years since it was widely installed by the LSWR / Southern."

I've helpfully put in bold the key part.

Would you care to explain how the safety issue of an exposed HV conductor rail at floor level has changed in 100 years?

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

So why are German train operators busy buying battery units (with 50mile+ off juice range), in quantity, for their part electrified lines? Are the laws of physics different over there?

In November there were nearly 22,000 Battery EVs bought in this country. Between them they have enough batteries on board to give every diesel unit in the country around 100 miles range off the juice. That’s one month’s EV production for one country. There really is no issue regarding battery technology -it’s coming to the railways so be ready!

 

[LowLevel]

So why are German train operators busy buying battery units (with 50mile+ off juice range), in quantity, for their part electrified lines? Are the laws of physics different over there?

In November there were nearly 22,000 Battery EVs bought in this country. Between them they have enough batteries on board to give every diesel unit in the country around 100 miles range off the juice. That’s one month’s EV production for one country. There really is no issue regarding battery technology -it’s coming to the railways so be ready!

No bad thing either. Sling some batteries under the Turbostar 168-172 series and you've got a modern train fit for many years to come.

 

[WAO]

Would you care to explain how the safety issue of an exposed HV conductor rail at floor level has changed in 100 years?

Like it or not, the specific risk is deemed acceptable for its continued indefinite use.

I actually strongly agree with you and would like to see it phased out in favour of the modern system, as I've said several times. I wish it were deemed unsafe and replacement required. But it isn't.

Greetings,

WAO

 

[AM9]

Like it or not, the specific risk is deemed acceptable for its continued indefinite use.

I actually strongly agree with you and would like to see it phased out in favour of the modern system, as I've said several times. I wish it were deemed unsafe and replacement required. But it isn't.

Greetings,

WAO

I think that the next stop on the route to removing 3rd rail will be a ruling that end of life replacement with like equipment will not be automatically allowed, requiring a new safety case to be made as for new works. That will gradually remove the750VDC network as both track and non-track infrastructure becomes unfit for purpose. This would be an extension of the requirement for new overbridges/tunnels to have clearance adequate for OLE whether there is an intention to wire the track uunderneath or not.

 

[daodao]

So why are German train operators busy buying battery units (with 50mile+ off juice range), in quantity, for their part electrified lines? Are the laws of physics different over there?

In November there were nearly 22,000 Battery EVs bought in this country. Between them they have enough batteries on board to give every diesel unit in the country around 100 miles range off the juice. That’s one month’s EV production for one country. There really is no issue regarding battery technology -it’s coming to the railways so be ready!

I agree. Electric trains with batteries that enable the train to run 50-100 miles without a direct electric supply would avoid the need for many infill electrification schemes (e.g. Ashford-Ore) and would facilitate some sensible urban/semi-urban extensions, e.g. of Merseyrail to Skelmersdale and from Hunt's Cross to Gateacre (one would need to remove/resite Hunt's Cross signal box to do the latter).

 

[Bald Rick]

I think that the next stop on the route to removing 3rd rail will be a ruling that end of life replacement with like equipment will not be automatically allowed, requiring a new safety case to be made as for new works. That will gradually remove the750VDC network as both track and non-track infrastructure becomes unfit for purpose.

I can’t see that happening anytime in the next 50 years.

 

[paul1609]

We're talking about electrifying the Marshlink, not sending future generations to the trenches.

the Marshlink is a 25 mile gap with oddles of existing spare 25kV capacity at one end and no shortage of electricity connection points throughout. Both possible Tocs have a surplus of dual voltage rolling stock.
Whilst regarded as somewhat of a backwater in Southern Region terms the main station on the unelectrified section has a headcount of 3.5 times that of Corby on the expensively electrified branch from the Midland Mainline and loads more through traffic than that branch.
Electrification has been approved three times in the last 80 years only to be cancelled after work or precurement had started.
Just get on with ac electrification!

 

[yorksrob]

the Marshlink is a 25 mile gap with oddles of existing spare 25kV capacity at one end and no shortage of electricity connection points throughout. Both possible Tocs have a surplus of dual voltage rolling stock.
Whilst regarded as somewhat of a backwater in Southern Region terms the main station on the unelectrified section has a headcount of 3.5 times that of Corby on the expensively electrified branch from the Midland Mainline and loads more through traffic than that branch.
Electrification has been approved three times in the last 80 years only to be cancelled after work or precurement had started
Just get on with ac electrification!

If say just get on with electrification.

I must admit, I never knew that Rye had a headcount three times that of Corby. I'm sure NSE would have done it decades ago had it been around.

 

[A0]

the Marshlink is a 25 mile gap with oddles of existing spare 25kV capacity at one end and no shortage of electricity connection points throughout. Both possible Tocs have a surplus of dual voltage rolling stock.
Whilst regarded as somewhat of a backwater in Southern Region terms the main station on the unelectrified section has a headcount of 3.5 times that of Corby on the expensively electrified branch from the Midland Mainline and loads more through traffic than that branch.
Electrification has been approved three times in the last 80 years only to be cancelled after work or precurement had started.
Just get on with ac electrification!

BIB - Think you need to get a calculator.

Looking at 19/20 figures (because 20/21 isn't representative)

Corby 0.30m
Rye 0.47m

If Rye had 3.5 the usage of Corby it would be 1.05m.

I'd also point out where Rye despatched 2tph, until electrification Corby was 1 tph with a very limited number of northbound services. It's also worth noting both Wellingborough and Kettering (which also benefitted from.the electrification) each have about 1.0m passengers in a normal year.

 

[yorksrob]

BIB - Think you need to get a calculator.

Looking at 19/20 figures (because 20/21 isn't representative)

Corby 0.30m
Rye 0.47m

If Rye had 3.5 the usage of Corby it would be 1.05m.

I'd also point out where Rye despatched 2tph, until electrification Corby was 1 tph with a very limited number of northbound services. It's also worth noting both Wellingborough and Kettering (which also benefitted from.the electrification) each have about 1.0m passengers in a normal year.

That's still over 1.5 times as many passengers. The Marshlink's time has clearly come !

 

[A0]

That's still over 1.5 times as many passengers. The Marshlink's time has clearly come !

Only if you look at one station in isolation.

As I pointed out, 3 stations benefitted from the MML electrification and the other two each had more than double Rye's usage.

 

[yorksrob]

Only if you look at one station in isolation.

As I pointed out, 3 stations benefitted from the MML electrification and the other two each had more than double Rye's usage.

But there will also be through passengers between Kent and the Sussex coast who will also benefit from Marshlink electrification (not to mention the other less busy intermediate stations).

 

[paul1609]

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!

It's a Marsh in name only, basically because it was reclaimed from the sea in the 1300 to 1600s its pretty much standard agricultural ground these days. The supergrid (on standard pylons) parallels the line along with the branch to Dungeness Power Station and the old French Interconnector. Cheyne Court Wind Farm with its 21x2.5 MW turbines is only about a mile from Star level crossing. Im not saying the sub structure wouldn't need to be considered but I don't think its an insurmountable or particularly expensive problem.
Re batteries the problem isn't the range or existing technology its the ability (or lack of it) to charge at a rate fast enough from the existing Coastway dc system or in a 10 min turnaround at Ashford Int. to cover the 50 miles round trip gap.
I don't think you will see 2 cars returning to Marshlink anytime soon. The stay cation bonus has seen conductors having to close doors of the 4 cars at Ashford 5 mins before departure because the trains are dangerously overcrowded leaving the passengers from the connecting HS train on the platform.

 

[A0]

But there will also be through passengers between Kent and the Sussex coast who will also benefit from Marshlink electrification (not to mention the other less busy intermediate stations).

You're going to have to explain that statement since in the case of Marshlink electrification won't increase service frequencies and have a negligible effect on journey times owing to the single track sections and linespeed (it's a 60mph line).

 

[yorksrob]

You're going to have to explain that statement since in the case of Marshlink electrification won't increase service frequencies and have a negligible effect on journey times owing to the single track sections and linespeed (it's a 60mph line).

In the same way that electrification has replaced IC services to Kettering and Wellinborough rather than added to them ?

Actually, extending 8 carriage coastway services to Ashford would represent a substantial capacity increase.

 

[WAO]

I think that the next stop on the route to removing 3rd rail will be a ruling that end of life replacement with like equipment will not be automatically allowed, requiring a new safety case to be made as for new works. That will gradually remove the750VDC network as both track and non-track infrastructure becomes unfit for purpose. This would be an extension of the requirement for new overbridges/tunnels to have clearance adequate for OLE whether there is an intention to wire the track underneath or not.

I would be very happy if your sound advice were followed.

Greetings,
WAO

 

[A0]

In the same way that electrification has replaced IC services to Kettering and Wellinborough rather than added to them ?

Actually, extending 8 carriage coastway services to Ashford would represent a substantial capacity increase.

Wellingborough still only has 2tph, it's just that they originate from Corby instead of Nottingham. Kettering has only ended up with 4tph to maintain connectivity towards Leicester - Marshlink has no such considerations.

And on Marshlink - I doubt the platform lengths will accomodat 8 car. Equally you don't need electrification to run 8 car trains.

So try again - you haven't explained how "through passengers" will benefit from electrification of Marshlink.

 

[yorksrob]

Wellingborough still only has 2tph, it's just that they originate from Corby instead of Nottingham. Kettering has only ended up with 4tph to maintain connectivity towards Leicester - Marshlink has no such considerations.

And on Marshlink - I doubt the platform lengths will accomodat 8 car. Equally you don't need electrification to run 8 car trains.

So try again - you haven't explained how "through passengers" will benefit from electrification of Marshlink.

Two things:

Many of the platforms on the Marshlink are short anyway, so this is hardly something new. The only real limiting factor is the passing loop at Rye, however as the platforms are staggered, the loop itself is double the platform length anyway.

Also, if you want to run eight carriages, without electrification, where are you going to get them from ? There clearly aren't any more diesel ones as we're already robbing the Uckfield Peter to pay the Marshlink Paul. You can perhaps wait for some whizzy battery or hydrogen trains, but there will be a more urgent call on these from lines where electrification is impractical. Far easier just to electrify and integrate with the existing DC fleet.

 

[zwk500]

Many of the platforms on the Marshlink are short anyway, so this is hardly something new. The only real limiting factor is the passing loop at Rye, however as the platforms are staggered, the loop itself is double the platform length anyway.

Extending platforms is still expensive, especially if you need land to extend the railway boundary. Also, Rye platforms are staggered either side of a level crossing, so standing trains longer than the platforms will cut the town in half. That's likely to need modification to the crossing (or closure)

It's a Marsh in name only, basically because it was reclaimed from the sea in the 1300 to 1600s its pretty much standard agricultural ground these days. The supergrid (on standard pylons) parallels the line along with the branch to Dungeness Power Station and the old French Interconnector. Cheyne Court Wind Farm with its 21x2.5 MW turbines is only about a mile from Star level crossing. Im not saying the sub structure wouldn't need to be considered but I don't think its an insurmountable or particularly expensive problem.

It's agricultural but almost entirely for grazing, because of the problems anything has growing in the waterlogged, salty ground. Saltmarsh Sheep from Dungeness is excellent btw. Underestimate ground conditions at your peril.

Re batteries the problem isn't the range or existing technology its the ability (or lack of it) to charge at a rate fast enough from the existing Coastway dc system or in a 10 min turnaround at Ashford Int. to cover the 50 miles round trip gap.
I don't think you will see 2 cars returning to Marshlink anytime soon. The stay cation bonus has seen conductors having to close doors of the 4 cars at Ashford 5 mins before departure because the trains are dangerously overcrowded leaving the passengers from the connecting HS train on the platform.

Charging off the 3rd rail is a problem, but not an insurmountable one and a fast charge supply at Ashford is a solution currently being developed for the Greenford branch.

 

[yorksrob]

Extending platforms is still expensive, especially if you need land to extend the railway boundary. Also, Rye platforms are staggered either side of a level crossing, so standing trains longer than the platforms will cut the town in half. That's likely to need modification to the crossing (or closure)

It's agricultural but almost entirely for grazing, because of the problems anything has growing in the waterlogged, salty ground. Saltmarsh Sheep from Dungeness is excellent btw. Underestimate ground conditions at your peril.

Charging off the 3rd rail is a problem, but not an insurmountable one and a fast charge supply at Ashford is a solution currently being developed for the Greenford branch.

At Rye there are level crossings either end of the station, not between the platforms.