-
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!
3rd rail infills and extensions may have a future after all…
- Thread starter Deepgreen
- 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
reddragon
Established Member
Not correct, the ORR, RSSB and Network Rail has agreed to reverse this ruling to enable 3rd rail extensions - ref RAIL issue 956 - 4th May 2022
RPI
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 3,346
Horray! Basingstoke to Exeter....
Deepgreen
Established Member
Excellent - will that, I wonder, bear fruit for the stretch in question. I was only one day out of date, though!
reddragon
Established Member
I think the idea of 3rd rail extensions has been brewing for a while due to the need to decarbonise the railway.
I actually got my copy of RAIL on 30th, so you were 5 days out of date!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Funny enough, the article mentions Uckfield, Rye, North Downs, and Exeter! Also Merseyside extensions too.
Deepgreen
Established Member
Well, who would have thought - it's taken them long enough to realise this!
coppercapped
Established Member
The article itself isn't quite so definite as this interpretation. It states (p68):
No more and no less.
Anything else is supposition. This is not to say that the standards which are apparently being worked on will not emerge but writing and approving standards takes time. Also any electrification schemes have to be planned, costed and the money found before any capital works can start so basically what I am saying is — don't hold your breath.
Last edited:
supervc-10
Member
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 763
Agreed- don't hold your breath- but this is still definitely welcome news. Infill for the Basingstoke-Salisbury-Exeter, Uckfield, Marshlink, and North Downs would eliminate a lot of diesel over 3rd rail running and be a huge step for decarbonisation, and likewise expansion of the MerseyRail network out to places like Preston. Simply the news that NR and ORR are even *talking* about setting standards for expansion of 3rd rail is a big leap forwards!
This does also continue the advantage of bi-modes - you can use the existing electrification more efficiently, and progressively get cleaner over time as more electrification is built.
If- and this is a big if - the 769s eventually settle down into being actually reliable trains, they could be sent elsewhere on the network to operate as bi-modes and the North Downs go over to 387s.
This does also continue the advantage of bi-modes - you can use the existing electrification more efficiently, and progressively get cleaner over time as more electrification is built.
If- and this is a big if - the 769s eventually settle down into being actually reliable trains, they could be sent elsewhere on the network to operate as bi-modes and the North Downs go over to 387s.
Snow1964
Established Member
Short third rail extensions can be relatively cheap and quick. In many cases the feeder cables had provision made for, or were partly installed years ago. Generally all the concrete sleeper already have holes with plugs ready to have the third rail pots installed.
There is also some secondhand equipment, or more specifically equipment where a mainline had its power upgraded. Some of this would be ok for some lightly used lines where not going to get thousands of amps drawn multiple times an hour which risks substations getting hot.
I would not be surprised if at least one like could be done for a capital cost of zero (excluding the third rail), using parts already paid for laying around in storage.
By any stretch of the imagination, Basingstoke to Exeter is not an 'infill', (primarily because there are no electrified routes within 75 miles of the western end of that route). Secondly, at 123 miles, it's stretching credibility saying that increasing a 3rd rail route by over 2.5 times it's existing length is an 'extension', especially if justifying it to reduce diesel running, - just 1 train per hour each way beyond yeovil and only two per hour each way as far as Salisbury, hardly a convincing case for building and running miles of lossy 3rd rail and substations. I doubt that NR and ORR would see that as relevant to their discussions.
That's certainly about time !
Very welcoming news.
While Marshlink, Uckfield and the North Downs lines are the most obvious candidates for conversion, I wonder if the Wessex area would still be better off with OHLE. While Basingstoke - Exeter (with a possible switchover at Pinhoe unless you want to make the Exmouth branch 3rd rail too) makes sense as an extension of the southern third rail system, the Bristol to Weymouth and Portsmouth routes have equal amounts of route in both 3rd rail and OHLE territory. Maybe these could become bi-modal with switchovers at Yeovil and Salisbury respectively.
While Marshlink, Uckfield and the North Downs lines are the most obvious candidates for conversion, I wonder if the Wessex area would still be better off with OHLE. While Basingstoke - Exeter (with a possible switchover at Pinhoe unless you want to make the Exmouth branch 3rd rail too) makes sense as an extension of the southern third rail system, the Bristol to Weymouth and Portsmouth routes have equal amounts of route in both 3rd rail and OHLE territory. Maybe these could become bi-modal with switchovers at Yeovil and Salisbury respectively.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,270
I’m sure the 2009 electrification route strategy suggested it would likely AC for that route. The Romsey area and towards Salisbury was shown as either way, but not the main route.
Thinking about it, Yeovil to Exeter is often used by GWR IET diverts, therefore that stretch would need to be OHLE unless you wanted to add a shoegear to the 800s and 802s.
I thought that as well, but I didn't want to inflame the 3rd rail acolytes any more than saying that 3rd rail wasn't a clever idea for that line. The key thing is that OLE, - even as far as Salisbury might help to restart the the electric spine project.
reddragon
Established Member
It's in RAIL 956 under the Industry Insider on page 68.
Luckily not everything is online
This is the top of the page, I will not share the whole copyrighted page as you should buy the mag
Your claim in post #2 is gross exaggeration of what the RAIL article says.
I had already read the article and thought it didn't say anything much that was new. In fact I had torn out the page, put it in the paper recycling, and forgotten about it! It's mainly a history of the growth of third rail in the UK.
I had already read the article and thought it didn't say anything much that was new. In fact I had torn out the page, put it in the paper recycling, and forgotten about it! It's mainly a history of the growth of third rail in the UK.
Last edited:
supervc-10
Member
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 763
I agree- infill is not the best word for Basingstoke to Exeter, but I was more thinking about how to remove the remaining diesel services around the SE and in particular, into central London. Currently Uckfield and the WoE line are the only non-open access diesel services into London that don't depart from Marylebone. The Chiltern line would not be ideal to electrify with 3rd rail (although dual voltage units which can make use of the underground's electrification on the Amersham line would make sense, if the line was electrified, just like the Watford DC lines), and Grand Central would be better off getting 802s or something like that to replace their 180s (money notwithstanding).
I think Uckfield and Marshlink are probably the priority for 3rd rail electrification, being relatively short and eliminating not only some diesel running right into central London, but also removing a fleet type from Southern and allowing for the modern 171s to be converted to 170s and used elsewhere displacing older Sprinter stock. 25kV though might well be better for the WoE line, and could also link up with electrifying Basingstoke-Reading.
As so many have said- a rolling program of electrification would be a huge benefit to the network and decarbonisation, and likely be cheaper per km of track than the piecemeal approach that has always been taken.
Sir Felix Pole
Established Member
The 'RAIL' article rather implausibly advocates third-rail for Barnstaple, Exmouth and Okehampton as well! Something is afoot, however, for 'Modern Railways' carried a story regarding third-rail electrification for Uckfield in the April edition - the unelectrified section is too long apparently for battery operation. Mitigation would include switching the power off in stations when trains are not present. Marshlink, however, is suitable for battery operation.
reddragon
Established Member
I have used the Daily Mail as fire lighting paper without reading it but cannot say that I have ever been angry enough to rip pages out of RAIL!!
With the exclusion of perhaps the now departed 365s, there is little else from the 3rd Rail EMU Staple really worth saving in all honesty - it's either old and tired, or hardly going to live long enough (either in service or in storage) until the time comes when they could be used on any of the proposed infill schemes.
Perhaps potentially, with the exception of the GW 769s, which if they can prove themselves for a few years in service in Diesel mode, could simply drop the diesels and return back to being 319s. I don't hold much hope!
I wasn't angry. I have a lot of half-read old magazines lying around, and when I'm sure I won't need a page any more, I tear it out and throw it away, so I won't waste time reading it again in six months' time.I have used the Daily Mail as fire lighting paper without reading it but cannot say that I have ever been angry enough to rip pages out of RAIL!!
bramling
Veteran Member
Highly likely
There isn’t really that much surplus DC.
319s - can’t really see these doing much more now they’ve gained rather a reputation for poor reliability
365 - gone, and unlikely to have ever worked on DC again without significant work
442 - gone
458 - mainly spoken for (for time being, at least)
465/2 - only a handful, and could yet return to SE
379 (by way of releasing 387) - probably required to maintain capacity on GN and/or SN
350/2 - well possibly.
313/507/508 - well over book life now, can’t reasonably expect further use from these now.
455/456 - okay these could probably do a bit more, especially the retractioned ones.
Have I missed anything?
I admit, I do find it difficult to keep up with the rate at which stuff goes to the torch these days !
The 350/2s have never run on 3rd rail either and were never delivered with 3 rd rail shoes - it's not even clear whether they are dual voltage enabled.
bramling
Veteran Member
Yes we never seem to have had a definitive answer on that one. It probably is do-able from a technical point of view, but at what cost.
Lower cost than procuring another new fleet of DC EMUs, with the advantage of compatibility with existing Class 450 and 444 EMUs.
- Status