Third rail is old fashioned and should be done away with

[HSTEd]

I agree that the cost estimates in the paper now appear hopelessly optimistic, but the HOPS train was only one of a number of factors - see below.

It was a lot more complicated than that, and in fact the spec seems to have been changed several times. And why NR decided to design a new system rather than adopt one of the proven designs that were available is hard to get a grip on. Anyone who wants to get better understanding of the problems with the OLE programme between 2012 and 2017 should read the RIA "Electrification Cost Challenge" - freely available in the public domain. To quote from the "what went wrong" section of the Exec Summary:


But please read the full report!

I believe I read the report at the time, and I am aware there is more than enough blame to go around. For example the silly requirement for 140mph operation (and multiple pantograph 140mph operation at that!), the desire to jettison all previous experience in favour of a first principle approach and spiralling design requirements.

For example designing a cantilever for the shortest achievable mast height.... and putting giant mast extensions on top for overhead bare ATF conductors!

The problem with the report is its conclusion is essentially that the taxpayer should pay billions more on a decade long programme of electrification in the hope that it will be cheaper at the end. Given the extreme timescales associated with the TPRU I am very doubtful much could really be achieved in a decade, and 10 years from now a non decarbonised railway will not be in a great political position.

There honestly does not seem to be any way to get a useful quantity of 25kV in time to matter for guaranteeing the place of the railway in the post-carbon age

EDIT:

Special mention to the ORR and its insane interpretation of the Electricity at Work Regulations and attempted imposition of onerous risk assessments that drove very expensive engineering solutions to avoid them

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Its disappointing that NR haven't followed LUL in utilising Aluminium conductor rail which would have reduced losses. However, it is also possible to improve the conductivity of con rail by changing the mix but this makes the rail more susceptible to breakages which is a problem when being handled through the LWRTs so wasn't pursued. You could raise the voltage further but that actually works against the receptivity of the system from regenerative trains which aim for 900V at the shoegear.

 

[HSTEd]

Its disappointing that NR haven't followed LUL in utilising Aluminium conductor rail which would have reduced losses. However, it is also possible to improve the conductivity of con rail by changing the mix but this makes the rail more susceptible to breakages which is a problem when being handled through the LWRTs so wasn't pursued. You could raise the voltage further but that actually works against the receptivity of the system from regenerative trains which aim for 900V at the shoegear.

I believe British Rail attempted use of aluminium conductor rails but had some issues with them that led to the trial being abandoned. London Underground's experience with them has been considerably more positive.

 

[Elecman]

Merseyrail certainly has Aluminium conductor rail

 

[DerekC]

I believe I read the report at the time, and I am aware there is more than enough blame to go around. For example the silly requirement for 140mph operation (and multiple pantograph 140mph operation at that!), the desire to jettison all previous experience in favour of a first principle approach and spiralling design requirements.

For example designing a cantilever for the shortest achievable mast height.... and putting giant mast extensions on top for overhead bare ATF conductors!

The problem with the report is its conclusion is essentially that the taxpayer should pay billions more on a decade long programme of electrification in the hope that it will be cheaper at the end. Given the extreme timescales associated with the TPRU I am very doubtful much could really be achieved in a decade, and 10 years from now a non decarbonised railway will not be in a great political position.

I don't think that's fair. What it says is that if you want to carry out electrification at a reasonable cost you need to have a rolling programme of fitting standardised and proven designs, you need to design the installation before you start to build it and you need to manage the project properly and avoid changing the specification once the project is committed. That's simply common sense.

There honestly does not seem to be any way to get a useful quantity of 25kV in time to matter for guaranteeing the place of the railway in the post-carbon age

Counsel of despair! So we shouldn't even try.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think that's fair. What it says is that if you want to carry out electrification at a reasonable cost you need to have a rolling programme of fitting standardised and proven designs, you need to design the installation before you start to build it and you need to manage the project properly and avoid changing the specification once the project is committed. That's simply common sense.

The problem is that a rolling problem will require years of very high costs before it can show benefits, and it would be politically impossible to cancel it because any failings will then be blamed on the politicians for pulling the plug. Attempting one commits the government to years of sinking billions on 25kV projects.

Nevermind that in the three years since that report it is now reported that electrification costs on the Midland have reached £4m/stkm!
Asking for hundreds of single track kilometres on that basis is a very big ask.

Counsel of despair! So we shouldn't even try.

The railway can't keep racking up disasters.

Electrification schemes keep turning into expensive debacles, and if the railway is to guarantee any role in the post carbon world it can't doing this.
The political consensus that has protected the railway for the last three decades is more or less gone, and we are in an environment where Government subsidies to the rail industry (~£11.9bn in the last financial year, excluding HS2's £6.9bn on top of that) are approaching all Government road spending (~£12bn although good data is hard to come by).

Many more debacles like HS2, GWEP, WCRM or countless others and the railway will find itself in a very bad position indeed.

The many billions required for meaningfully expanding the 25kV system could buy hundreds of new battery multiple units (and supporting charging systems at non electrified termini etc).
That would end the "diesel anachronism" threat to the passenger railway and probably convert a large part of the rail network to level boarding with modern stock, which will have its own advantages.

 

[AzureOtsu]

How would this be achieved?

I'm not an engineer

 

[yorksrob]

The problem is that a rolling problem will require years of very high costs before it can show benefits, and it would be politically impossible to cancel it because any failings will then be blamed on the politicians for pulling the plug. Attempting one commits the government to years of sinking billions on 25kV projects.

Nevermind that in the three years since that report it is now reported that electrification costs on the Midland have reached £4m/stkm!
Asking for hundreds of single track kilometres on that basis is a very big ask.

The railway can't keep racking up disasters.

Electrification schemes keep turning into expensive debacles, and if the railway is to guarantee any role in the post carbon world it can't doing this.
The political consensus that has protected the railway for the last three decades is more or less gone, and we are in an environment where Government subsidies to the rail industry (~£11.9bn in the last financial year, excluding HS2's £6.9bn on top of that) are approaching all Government road spending (~£12bn although good data is hard to come by).

Many more debacles like HS2, GWEP, WCRM or countless others and the railway will find itself in a very bad position indeed.

The many billions required for meaningfully expanding the 25kV system could buy hundreds of new battery multiple units (and supporting charging systems at non electrified termini etc).
That would end the "diesel anachronism" threat to the passenger railway and probably convert a large part of the rail network to level boarding with modern stock, which will have its own advantages.

The rolling electrification programme needs to come with more efficient ways of working as well.

As examples, in the past on a double track railway, one line would be worked on with single line working on the other. It mist be possible to reinstate this sort of working one way or another.

Why have we increased height clearance requirements causing more bridges to need replacing when the same height bridges have been operating safely with OLE for years.

Why haven't we been doing some easy wins in the meantime such as the Windermere line.

Battery units will have their place, but the bulk of the system will require electrification.

 

[zwk500]

The rolling electrification programme needs to come with more efficient ways of working as well.

As examples, in the past on a double track railway, one line would be worked on with single line working on the other. It mist be possible to reinstate this sort of working one way or another.

As recent events have proved, working on the line while an adjacent track is open is not safe. People have died.

Why have we increased height clearance requirements causing more bridges to need replacing when the same height bridges have been operating safely with OLE for years.

This is an excellent question and I for one would love to see data on the clearances. It may be related to average heights getting taller for people, but I suspect its mostly related to legal liability and I would certainly like the railway's responsibilities to people misbehaving on its infrastructure to be revisited.

Why haven't we been doing some easy wins in the meantime such as the Windermere line.

A political decision not to commit to the Money.

Battery units will have their place, but the bulk of the system will require electrification

Indeed.

 

[yorksrob]

As recent events have proved, working on the line while an adjacent track is open is not safe. People have died.

Except to say that it should be relatively easy to design a vehicle with a retractable wall which could be used to provide a physical barrier between the running line and the line being worked on. This could surely be incorporated into the wiring platform/concrete pouring train etc.

 

[zwk500]

Except to say that it should be relatively easy to design a vehicle with a retractable wall which could be used to provide a physical barrier between the running line and the line being worked on. This could surely be incorporated into the wiring platform/concrete pouring train etc.

There's the Robel Mobile Maintenance train but there's not many of them and then you have to move said vehicle to and from the works item, as well as working within the confines of a carriage.
If you're doing work on the 4ft this technique is used but it doesn't help a lot with work on the outside of the rail, or noisy work, or work that needs Room to move around the area, or keep.clear of a thermite weld.
In addition, single line working is very low capacity so you will have a passenger management problem whatever you do.

Closing both lines, and getting as much work done with fewest constraints in least busy hours to offer a full service when the majority of passengers want it is the least worst option. Some lines do need review of when demand is greatest and lowest, for sure.

 

[yorksrob]

There's the Robel Mobile Maintenance train but there's not many of them and then you have to move said vehicle to and from the works item, as well as working within the confines of a carriage.
If you're doing work on the 4ft this technique is used but it doesn't help a lot with work on the outside of the rail, or noisy work, or work that needs Room to move around the area, or keep.clear of a thermite weld.
In addition, single line working is very low capacity so you will have a passenger management problem whatever you do.

Closing both lines, and getting as much work done with fewest constraints in least busy hours to offer a full service when the majority of passengers want it is the least worst option. Some lines do need review of when demand is greatest and lowest, for sure.

There's a lot of digging holes, pouring concrete and wiring that goes on with overhead line electrification. These strike me as the sorts of things that would lend themselves to single line working.

Does it cost more to implement a full blockade, rather than a limited service.

I suspect that a lot of these costs will come down to how blockades are accounted for. Do we really still need the privatisation money-go-round ?

 

[zwk500]

There's a lot of digging holes, pouring concrete and wiring that goes on with overhead line electrification. These strike me as the sorts of things that would lend themselves to single line working.

But they're also things that need big bits of equipment that cannot always be guaranteed to keep clear of an adjacent line although the High Output trains were meant to be able to streamline a lot of this. Even if you kept the line open, you'd almost certainly be reducing speed.

Does it cost more to implement a full blockade, rather than a limited service.

Depends on the work. But generally the cheapest option is chosen.

I suspect that a lot of these costs will come down to how blockades are accounted for. Do we really still need the privatisation money-go-round ?

There is zero guarantee that nationalisation would not have an equivalent or identical system of accounting for blockades. There is also no reason the current industry setup could not amount for upgrade work differently.

However the primary driving force behind removing working with open adjacent lines is the actual deaths suffered by actual workers.

 

[yorksrob]

Wrong post !

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Electrification schemes keep turning into expensive debacles, and if the railway is to guarantee any role in the post carbon world it can't doing this.
The political consensus that has protected the railway for the last three decades is more or less gone, and we are in an environment where Government subsidies to the rail industry (~£11.9bn in the last financial year, excluding HS2's £6.9bn on top of that) are approaching all Government road spending (~£12bn although good data is hard to come by).

DafT data has capex for NR at 6B, HS2 6B and RIS 4B for this year and next. However funding for roads comes from county councils/unitary authorities as well. Then its further complicated by the areas run by Mayors along with all the large funds/grants that Dept of Levelling Up & Housing control so you've done well if you've found all 12B!!

Many more debacles like HS2, GWEP, WCRM or countless others and the railway will find itself in a very bad position indeed.

The problem here is the criticism, rightly so mind you, of these projects has engendered an even more cautious approach on new projects which now have quite extraordinary sums of money being required on ever elongated timelines to cover not worse case but doomsday scenarios probably including a pandemic now as well. ie 12B for TRU which may finish in 2030 or 152m for Portishead if not more by now. Im frankly quite astonished how the DafT lot are now aiding and abetting NR and HS2 as they run scared from the Treasury as well. Thatcher had no time for the railways but she couldn't do away with them politically so she challenged them hard and BR responded well with the second half of the 80's and into the 90's delivering a huge cost effective investment in infrastructure and rolling stock that was far more economic than the 55 modernisation plan. Yes some will say we got half baked solutions and it was short sighted but there's no getting away from the political environment and what BR did was read it well.

The many billions required for meaningfully expanding the 25kV system could buy hundreds of new battery multiple units (and supporting charging systems at non electrified termini etc).
That would end the "diesel anachronism" threat to the passenger railway and probably convert a large part of the rail network to level boarding with modern stock, which will have its own advantages.

Given the support for electric cars through incentives and grants for battery buses being provided as well its disappointing the various industry initiatives on retrofitting various classes for battery trials haven't progressed for reasons which aren't clear. I sense though the rail industry feels this is the wrong solution and isn't driving it but its not reading the environment that electrification isn't going to happen outside of Scotland (even there timelines are slipping) anytime soon. So BEMUs offer a solution for many services now and a joined up approach to bulk purchase BEMUs across all operators funded through a ROSCO would surely command a good business case vs outright electrification. The beauty of course is modern train platforms are very adaptable to being dual mode or easily convertible to 25kV should the wires suddenly appear!!

 

[yorksrob]

However the primary driving force behind removing working with open adjacent lines is the actual deaths suffered by actual workers.

In which case, the emphasis should perhaps be on making it safe, rather than banning (and I would argue that developing a movable, physical barrier could go a long way to achieving this for some electrification tasks).

 

[zwk500]

In which case, the emphasis should perhaps be on making it safe, rather than banning (and I would argue that developing a movable, physical barrier could go a long way to achieving this for some electrification tasks).

As I've mentioned, barrier systems have been developed and deployed when appropriate. However barriers restrict the ability to carry out work safely behind them as well. It's not the 1950s, it's not all pitchforks and shovels. Mechanical equipment is bigger and requires space around it to operate safely.
And there's still the issue of massively overloading the token service you can run. I know for some members on here running just 1 train in the day would be sufficient but for the majority of passengers it is better to redirect or replace than to offer reduce services as people cram into the only train running.

 

[yorksrob]

As I've mentioned, barrier systems have been developed and deployed when appropriate. However barriers restrict the ability to carry out work safely behind them as well. It's not the 1950s, it's not all pitchforks and shovels. Mechanical equipment is bigger and requires space around it to operate safely.
And there's still the issue of massively overloading the token service you can run. I know for some members on here running just 1 train in the day would be sufficient but for the majority of passengers it is better to redirect or replace than to offer reduce services as people cram into the only train running.

In a lot of cases, a combination of redirection and limited service would be optimal.

What would help would be if the industry allowed for full ticket acceptance on the alternative route rather than fleecing passengers for exorbitant fares, but that's probably for another thread !

 

[DerekC]

Many more debacles like HS2, GWEP, WCRM or countless others and the railway will find itself in a very bad position indeed.

It already is - certainly vis a vis this government. If they do manage to scrape a win at the next election we can expect line closures to start pretty quickly.

The many billions required for meaningfully expanding the 25kV system could buy hundreds of new battery multiple units (and supporting charging systems at non electrified termini etc).
That would end the "diesel anachronism" threat to the passenger railway and probably convert a large part of the rail network to level boarding with modern stock, which will have its own advantages.

BMUs will be OK for rural and secondary routes, but can't replace the need to complete electrification of the core of the network. I agree that the plan set out in the NR decarbonisation strategy needs updating, and the scope of electrification should be reconsidered given improvements in battery technology, but electrification is the only realistic solution for freight, for long distance, fast passenger and for intensive urban services.

 

[HSTEd]

BMUs will be OK for rural and secondary routes, but can't replace the need to complete electrification of the core of the network. I agree that the plan set out in the NR decarbonisation strategy needs updating, and the scope of electrification should be reconsidered given improvements in battery technology, but electrification is the only realistic solution for freight, for long distance, fast passenger and for intensive urban services.

The bulk of the 'core network ' is already electrified. I can't really think of many intensively operated high speed rail lines in the UK that aren't already electrified.

The same is true for most intensively operated urban routes in many major cities.

Given the runaway price increases I doubt much more 25kV electrification can be justified full stop.
As for freight, given it managed £11m total in access charges last year, it will never be able to justify electrification.

If it can't make do with batteries and existing electrification, it will just have to buy elecreodiesels and hope people forget about it

 

[Falcon1200]

As examples, in the past on a double track railway, one line would be worked on with single line working on the other. It mist be possible to reinstate this sort of working one way or another.

A colleague was a former OLE engineer who recounted, when the WCML in Scotland was being electrified in the early 1970s, working at height on the wires; When a train approached the ladders were removed, the train passed underneath him and as soon as it was gone work restarted!

 

[zwk500]

The bulk of the 'core network ' is already electrified. I can't really think of many intensively operated high speed rail lines in the UK that aren't already electrified.

Doncaster/Moorthorpe to Birmingham, Bromsgrove to Bristol Parkway, Birmingham to Didcot Parkway, GW/B&H to Exeter, Transpennine and MML (both being done), would all count as the 'core network' to me that should be priority electrification.

The same is true for most intensively operated urban routes in many major cities.

Much of Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol and Leeds suburban routes are diesel. These are all obvious candidates for OLE.

If it can't make do with batteries and existing electrification, it will just have to buy elecreodiesels and hope people forget about it

There will be a lot of making do but also some more wires going up, I suspect.

 

[yorksrob]

A colleague was a former OLE engineer who recounted, when the WCML in Scotland was being electrified in the early 1970s, working at height on the wires; When a train approached the ladders were removed, the train passed underneath him and as soon as it was gone work restarted!

I must admit, that sounds quite alarming !

 

[AM9]

I must admit, that sounds quite alarming !

That's what happened before the 'Nanny State' started taking the safety of people seriously. - in those days, lives depended on the 'common sense' of others.

 

[yorksrob]

That's what happened before the 'Nanny State' started taking the safety of people seriously. - in those days, lives depended on the 'common sense' of others.

I just think we need to go from the mindset of "this practice is unsafe, so we need to stop it altogether" to "this practice is unsafe, so what can we change to make it safe".

Clearly in the example quoted above, a physical barrier between the line being worked upon and the running line would have been a far safer way of working than hanging around on the wires as the ladders are withdrawn.

 

[AM9]

I just think we need to go from the mindset of "this practice is unsafe, so we need to stop it altogether" to "this practice is unsafe, so what can we change to make it safe".

Clearly in the example quoted above, a physical barrier between the line being worked upon and the running line would have been a far safer way of working than hanging around on the wires as the ladders are withdrawn.

The quote above by @zwk500 to which you refer says;

As I've mentioned, barrier systems have been developed and deployed when appropriate. However barriers restrict the ability to carry out work safely behind them as well. It's not the 1950s, it's not all pitchforks and shovels. Mechanical equipment is bigger and requires space around it to operate safely. ​

And there's still the issue of massively overloading the token service you can run. I know for some members on here running just 1 train in the day would be sufficient but for the majority of passengers it is better to redirect or replace than to offer reduce services as people cram into the only train running.​

Which in my mind reads like such a scheme is far from universally beneficial, - and even if there was enough clearance in the six foot, progress would clearly be much slower than with a full possesion. Meanwhile, the single line working would also be further constrained probably to walking pace when passing temporary barriers just to add to the dire consequences of queueing before entry. So it is unlikely that such a way of working would produce any overall benefit on a route that was considered busy enough to warrant electrification in the first place.

 

[yorksrob]

The quote above by @zwk500 to which you refer says;

Which in my mind reads like such a scheme is far from universally beneficial, - and even if there was enough clearance in the six foot, progress would clearly be much slower than with a full possesion. Meanwhile, the single line working would also be further constrained probably to walking pace when passing temporary barriers just to add to the dire consequences of queueing before entry. So it is unlikely that such a way of working would produce any overall benefit on a route that was considered busy enough to warrant electrification in the first place.

And yet somehow, single line working managed to be much less expensive than closing off with blockades.

 

[AM9]

And yet somehow, single line working managed to be much less expensive than closing off with blockades.

On the face of it maybe, but that would depend on the services being single lined, the linespeeds allowed, the length of the single line working, and of course any diversion facilities. On a branch line where the volume of passengers can easily be squeezed onto about 1/4 of the trains it might be do-able if the time to erect such temporary barriers was negligible compares to the duration of the singling. There are so many variables that a broad statement that it was 'managed to be much less expensive' would need to be considered alongside the blockages that were considered to be the only way to do it safely. Bear in mind that 'wrong line' working to provide a single line service isn't the same as a service on a bi-directional line as stations and sightlines will not necessarily be up to normal requirements from both a staff and a passenger PoV.

 

[yorksrob]

On the face of it maybe, but that would depend on the services being single lined, the linespeeds allowed, the length of the single line working, and of course any diversion facilities. On a branch line where the volume of passengers can easily be squeezed onto about 1/4 of the trains it might be do-able if the time to erect such temporary barriers was negligible compares to the duration of the singling. There are so many variables that a broad statement that it was 'managed to be much less expensive' would need to be considered alongside the blockages that were considered to be the only way to do it safely. Bear in mind that 'wrong line' working to provide a single line service isn't the same as a service on a bi-directional line as stations and sightlines will not necessarily be up to normal requirements from both a staff and a passenger PoV.

As you say, there are lots of variables at play, however if you remove the option of single line working altogether, You're in a worse position if the variables favour single line working.

 

[Jolly47roger]

Reading this, I am puzzled by the logistics of BEMUs. I can see they work well at Headstart Lane where they are used for a short part of a long journey and recharging is a small addition to the traction current. But to suck up enough juice between Hastings and Ore to reach Ashford will mean the lights in Hastings going dim for ten minutes every hour. Configuring power supplies to cope with these spikes will not be easy nor economic. Or will a BEMU charge overnight and carry enough power for a whole day?