And, IMHO, they are better trains to ride on. Less noise, and no smelly diesel fumes (laden with particulates) in stations.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Lines with a strong case for electrification that have no plans to be electrified
- Thread starter Halish Railway
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I'm sure I read last year a study was commissioned to actually look into this properly. So maybe that's half a plan? Seems to have gone all quiet now though.
Looks like a non starter. They wont consider 3rd rail and overhead is too complicated/expensive/project risk. Pity. its a no brainer to me
Again, there's no ban on 3rd rail, there just needs to be a really good case as to why OHLE isn't an option.
the business case benefits very definitely include the decarbonisation of the trains, and any decarbonisation from road traffic (ie car users) that diverts onto the railway if the electrification enables a more frequent and/or quicker service (as the MML has done, and TRU will do).
the business case benefits Also include time savings to passengers who have quicker services, and also time savings to road users who have slightly less congestion as a result.
alf
On Moderation
This is what the commercial manager at RSSB told a colleague of mine yesterday.
“The T1214 project is currently underway, please register via the RSSB website for access to the Research Catalogue where you can find information about R&D projects.”
Don’t hold you breath.
I suspect it’s being run to prove third rail is too dangerous.
The RSSB consultants ad for consultants to contract to do the project claimed in the ad headline that “third rail is 10 times more dangerous than overhead”.
In fact Network Rail have told my friend & I have seen the email that “third rail in less than 8 times more dangerous.”
However,
Walking is ten million times more dangerous than walking on a tightrope. As probably one person in the last 10 years died after walking a tightrope.
The third rail versus overhead figure has to be measured per mile of electric track, or per the population alongside the tracks, or
per electric train mile.
A bland “more dangerous” is meaningless, as the tightrope remark shows.
I understood there was a little easement on the dogma and consideration around third rail extensions - where it is the only pragmatic option (Uckfield, Rye, North Downs - likely it!) - and saw it as one of those forum legends like Audley End and Stockport Viaduct.
the ‘easement’ was such that a full risk assessment of the pros and cons of the Third Rail system would have to be produced for a specific application, and compared to alternatives, to demonstrate the risk is mitigated as far as is reasonably practical (AFARIP).
whether that has been done or not I don’t know.
But if I was in the ORR I would simply point to the Battery trains running in Germany….
whether that has been done or not I don’t know.
But if I was in the ORR I would simply point to the Battery trains running in Germany….
alf
On Moderation
I went to the RSSB site a few mins ago & this is the status of T1214... The consultant third rail study.
It is a bit like Crossrail. Promised by the end of 2021 & not yet finished. Here is the RSSB entry 10 mins ago.
Underway
Start Date2020Estimated End Date2021Objectives
Carbon
ProgrammeDECARBTypeResearch Project
Registered
Project Reference: T1214
If I was ORR I would nor regard the lithium iron battery as the magic bullet as suggested above in post 68.
It still has fire risks... & trains travel through long badly ventilated Victorian tunnels. Just one catastrophe will end lithium battery trains.
The batteries last only a few years with diminished capacity each time they are used.
The batteries will make trains heavier than pure third rail trains.
All that weight will have to be dragged up hills & add to rolling resistance all the way from Victoria to Oxted without delivering any benefit.
The same applies from Waterloo to Worting junction, 50 miles of deadweight before they have any value.
It is a bit like Crossrail. Promised by the end of 2021 & not yet finished. Here is the RSSB entry 10 mins ago.
Underway
Start Date2020Estimated End Date2021Objectives
Carbon
ProgrammeDECARBTypeResearch Project
Registered
DECARB: 21st Century DC electrification infill (T1214)
Third rail remains a cost-effective solution for electrification and decarbonising the railways when these are close or adjacent to existing 750V DC top contact third rail electrified lines. However, its further use is currently constrained by an unclear position on how to manage the system’s risks through scheme design.Project Reference: T1214
If I was ORR I would nor regard the lithium iron battery as the magic bullet as suggested above in post 68.
It still has fire risks... & trains travel through long badly ventilated Victorian tunnels. Just one catastrophe will end lithium battery trains.
The batteries last only a few years with diminished capacity each time they are used.
The batteries will make trains heavier than pure third rail trains.
All that weight will have to be dragged up hills & add to rolling resistance all the way from Victoria to Oxted without delivering any benefit.
The same applies from Waterloo to Worting junction, 50 miles of deadweight before they have any value.
The only third rail extension I can imagine as remotely likely to be allowed would be from Liverpool Central through the Wapping Tunnel to near Edge Hill: no serious risk of trespassers, easier to install in the tunnel than OLE, changeover would be above ground in the Crown street area. Whether such an extension of Merseyrail will ever go ahead is quite another question.
Er - what stops the batteries being used *as well as the third rail* for power supply? you can also regenerate under braking into the batteries rather than trying to rig the rather lossy 3rd rail system for it. I've said it before, batteries on third rail stock would be a boost.
Lithium supples on the other hand... there's vast amounts of lithium, but the vast majority is in sea water.
muddythefish
On Moderation
- Joined
- 13 May 2014
- Messages
- 1,583
Manchester - Blackburn - Clitheroe
Blackpool - Preston - Blackburn - Colne
Blackpool - Preston - Blackburn - Colne
Well Preston - Blackburn - Colne, seeing as Blackpool to Preston is already wired.
Killingworth
Established Member
Sheffield - Doncaster.
All sounds so easy with an unlimited budget and without detailed planning to link with other parts of the network. Once electrified any future changes to track configuration inevitably becomes more complex. The time these projects take can lead to them being out of date before they're fully delivered.
All sounds so easy with an unlimited budget and without detailed planning to link with other parts of the network. Once electrified any future changes to track configuration inevitably becomes more complex. The time these projects take can lead to them being out of date before they're fully delivered.
danielnez1
Member
IMHO the cost of electrification needs to come down to make it more attractive, even if that means contracting Balfour Beatty for more Mk3 OHLE installations.
alf
On Moderation
Er..I believe most modern third rail stock regenerates into the third rail so having tons of battery aboard BEMU does nothing extra special on third rail on that score.
The solution is third rail to Uckfield, Salisbury etc rather than gimmicky battery technology which is OK for the demands of a car
but not for trains which travel through tight fit Victorian tunnels.
London Underground have banned e bikes & scooters with the very same lithium batteries on their trains because of the proven fire risk.
Some airlines have done the same.
The first lithium battery explosive fire on a train in Oxted tunnel could also be the last battery train on uk rails...& the same for the unfortunates forced to sit atop of 3 tons of unstable battery.
This is something I seem to have heard a lot in recent times, i.e. electric trains are so much cheaper to run than diesel.
I remember when trolleybuses fell from favour in the UK (and they did so heavily in the 1960s) it was said that trolleybuses were much more expensive to run than motorbuses, it was sometimes said twice as expensive.
What's changed?
(Figure showing price of diesel and petrol from 1989 to 2019. Source: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04712/SN04712.pdf)
This^^^^
I wish all of these urban but underused routes could be wired. Same with Calder, which is the same network via both Hebden Bridge and Victoria services.
The issue is so many variants of services. Blackpool South requires Colne - both are just 2 cars of 1tph. Bolton-Blackburn would cover more if Clitheroe was done - but then also over to Hebden/Tod - if that stretch was done, Colne might make more sense. etc etc... and the Calder routes need to be more simple. 5-6tph between Victoria and Leeds of varying patterns - but minimal extensions to ensure a more metro, regular service. But they go on to other diesel places like Wigan. The answer is that the whole lot is done and the routes are tightened up and uniform.
The above chart (which actually covers the period 1989 to 2022) shows diesel and petrol prices having risen by about 400% over the said period, compared to general inflation of about 300%. I haven't found any equivalent figures for electricity.
I’m sorry, but this is rubbish. Again.
In no particular order:
1) we have battery vehicles in passenger service in this country (Birmingham), plenty more about to enter service (Cardiff & Liverpool), and trials on Intercity stock (802s) later in the year. If they were in any way less safe than carrying around 4 tonnes of diesel, or a few tonnes of oil filled transformer, they wouldn’t be allowed on the network.
2) Lithium battery stability is much better than it was a decade ago. In particular, the type most likely in rail traction applications is Lithium Titanate. Very stable.
3) the number of cycles such a battery can accommodate before degrading sufficiently to require replacement is over 5,000. it’s not a big issue.
4) most DC only units (including the 377s) are ballasted with several tonnes of concrete to compensate for the missing transformer that their AC cousins have. Replace concrete with battery. No difference.
5) an extra few tonnes of battery on a 174tonne train is largely irrelevant when discussing weight being moved, and hills. And of course you get some of the energy back when going the other way.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think you are perhaps misunderstanding the reason for the ban you mention. The ban is not because lithium batteries are dangerous in and of themselves - if they were, you would see lots of laptop bags and pockets on fire daily. It is because e-scooters and e-bikes are often cheap Chinese imports with cheap batteries not conforming to appropriate regulations and with poor thermal management, which do pose some level of fire risk.
The railway is not going to fit cheap Chinese e-scooter batteries to a multi million pound EMU, so your fears are unfounded.
Yes, sorry. It is through to 2021/2.
I could be reading this wrong, but it looks like in real terms the price per kWh has actually fallen steadily throughout the 20th century: https://assets.publishing.service.g..._data/file/1005772/Electricity_since_1920.xls
Grimsby town
Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2011
- Messages
- 867
The Calder Valley's service are just too dispersed to easily and cheaply electrify in one go even with some splitting of services which in my opinion puts it pretty far down the electrification list. Northern should get some sort of bimode in the next couple of years in which case electrifying from Manchester to Rochdale and Leeds to Bradford. That removes the air pollution from the major stations and allows the electrification to gradually be extended. Until bimodes are on the cards the electrification is pretty pointless.
That's how I read it too, from 24.74p/unit in 1921 to 5.37p/unit in 1990 (the 1921 figure adjusted to 1990 values). After 1990 it loses me, I'm afraid.
If there's nothing to use that power then it goes nowhere as there's no storage - you can have batteries on the train, or ( and, I guess ) at a feeder station, but third rail already has a perfornamce penalty by it's nature. Batteries on the train would let a train draw more power than is possible via 3rd rail for acceleration & hill climbing, and regen into the batteries would result in much less waste. You might even be able to *downspec* the 3rd rail supply given it now has to provide a constant feed rather than spikes.
At least part of the line will eventually (surely!) need 25kv wires, so wire both properly and use tram-trains if they really must be converted to Metrolink.
The Rose Hill and New Mills lines seem really obvious wiring projects - short, urban metro, free up diesels, complete services electrified so no new bi-modes needed, no scope for mission creep (poss exception for Hyde single lead junction) and with enough diversion routes that they could surely be done in blockades??
Main unknowns (to me) for timescale would be power supply and whether the signalling needed replacing/immunising.
- Status