Third rail is old fashioned and should be done away with

[A0]

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).

It's not that simple though us it ?

If you take the MML between Kettering and Leicester as an example - it's a 2 track 100mph railway which has 4 TPH each way (at least, more with freight), which means you have to funnel 8 trains, at reduced speed, as well as ensuring those working trackside are clear and potentially pause what they are doing roughly every 7 minutes - that's hugely inefficient.

Whereas on a total block, those working trackside can focus on the job without being disrupted every few minutes.

 

[D365]

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".

Your sentence is rather contradictory. The best-case option for "what can we change to make it safe" is to remove the hazard entirely. And as others have alluded to, there's a lot less 'hand' working nowadays. This means that tasks can be completed more efficiently, but the method of working has to change accordingly.

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?

Potentially yes - but the options could also include a combination of 'slow' overnight charging, with rapid 'top-ups' when the train changes direction. This is also the better option for maximising battery lifespan.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I must admit, that sounds quite alarming !

It was done with lookouts which was an acceptable method working till recently.

 

[yorksrob]

Your sentence is rather contradictory. The best-case option for "what can we change to make it safe" is to remove the hazard entirely. And as others have alluded to, there's a lot less 'hand' working nowadays. This means that tasks can be completed more efficiently, but the method of working has to change accordingly.

What you're suggesting is akin to saying "having these big metal objects flying around at high speed is rather dangerous so lets remove the hazard of trains entirely".

There is no way to remove all risk entirely, otherwise no one would leave their home.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Dec 2023 ==

It was done with lookouts which was an acceptable method working till recently.

The lookout system has been found wanting in recent years to an extent.

 

[D365]

What you're suggesting is akin to saying "having these big metal objects flying around at high speed is rather dangerous so lets remove the hazard of trains entirely".

There is no way to remove all risk entirely, otherwise no one would leave their home.

Yes, exactly that. Remove the hazard when putting people and machinery on the ground.

The lookout system has been found wanting in recent years to an extent.

And this is another reason why single line working is now so limited in its application.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, exactly that. Remove the hazard when putting people and machinery on the ground.

But if you take that to its conclusion, there is always the potential for people to be in the wrong place, be it on platforms, crossings etc.

In the case of single line working, a portable physical barrier would be a far better way to ensure safety while enabling works to be done than not allowing it at all.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

But if you take that to its conclusion, there is always the potential for people to be in the wrong place, be it on platforms, crossings etc.

In the case of single line working, a portable physical barrier would be a far better way to ensure safety while enabling works to be done than not allowing it at all.

There is already the Vortok fencing available for working in the cess

 

[yorksrob]

There is already the Vortok fencing available for working in the cess

Indeed, though you'd need something higher for wiring.

 

[Tester]

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?

If the Ashford trains start at Eastbourne, as is well established, they will have a good charging opportunity.

 

[HSTEd]

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?

Traction upgrades are comparatively cheap compared to new 25kV installations.
Rectifiers for 750V (and increasingly static frequency converters for 25kV) are standard commodity items for industry and elsewhere now.

There is, after all, little need for extensive line closures or structural work for such upgrades.

 

[AM9]

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.

Maybe - by not getting approval for new equipment able to work in restricted spaces, and new working practices safety cleared, those costs might be around the same as money potentially saved by running less than 25% of normal services on a single line. I doubt that all that palaver is worth all the overall hassle. Your opinion presumably is different.

 

[zwk500]

In the case of single line working, a portable physical barrier would be a far better way to ensure safety while enabling works to be done than not allowing it at all.

Only if you must run SLW, which is not the case. Although you don't like it, a complete possession is a valid option. Especially as you yourself note:

The lookout system has been found wanting in recent years to an extent.

separately,

Indeed, though you'd need something higher for wiring.

You'd need something 5m or higher for wiring, yet capable of not being as high at Bridges, and also strong enough to be placed within a few cm of running trains yet not impede the loading gauge (even with speed restrictions on the open line). Then such a barrier must be stored, maintained, inspected, transported, erected, controlled, dissembled, stowed, returned to the depot etc. That's a lot of overheads to go on your fares.

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe - by not getting approval for new equipment able to work in restricted spaces, and new working practices safety cleared, those costs might be around the same as money potentially saved by running less than 25% of normal services on a single line. I doubt that all that palaver is worth all the overall hassle. Your opinion presumably is different.

Well, you only have to go through the palaver once, then you can use those techniques for the rest of the network.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Dec 2023 ==

Only if you must run SLW, which is not the case. Although you don't like it, a complete possession is a valid option. Especially as you yourself note:

separately,

You'd need something 5m or higher for wiring, yet capable of not being as high at Bridges, and also strong enough to be placed within a few cm of running trains yet not impede the loading gauge (even with speed restrictions on the open line). Then such a barrier must be stored, maintained, inspected, transported, erected, controlled, dissembled, stowed, returned to the depot etc. That's a lot of overheads to go on your fares.

A complete possession is indeed an option, but it doesn't do anything for the costs which are strangling OL electrification.

The barrier just has to be an extendable wall on a departmental vehicle, nothing fancy.

 

[zwk500]

A complete possession is indeed an option, but it doesn't do anything for the costs which are strangling OL electrification.

And you can demonstrate SLW would lower these costs? Given that I every project I have worked on, taking the most access compressed into 1 time has been the cheapest option, I doubt it.

The barrier just has to be an extendable wall on a departmental vehicle, nothing fancy.

Remember this barrier must not impinge on the loading gauge and can only be braced from one side. It must also have a place in the depot and be transported around by a vehicle and driver. Its still extra costs.

 

[Falcon1200]

I must admit, that sounds quite alarming !

I suspect it was an unofficial means of getting the job done more quickly!

 

[yorksrob]

And you can demonstrate SLW would lower these costs? Given that I every project I have worked on, taking the most access compressed into 1 time has been the cheapest option, I doubt it.

Remember this barrier must not impinge on the loading gauge and can only be braced from one side. It must also have a place in the depot and be transported around by a vehicle and driver. Its still extra costs.

If the barrier is retractable, it can be retracted to get under bridges. That's the point.

There are times when a full possession is necessary, however given the way the railway works in terms of attributing costs, if you can wire one line whilst keeping the other open, of course its going to lead to fewer attribution costs (as well as being less inconvenient for passengers).

There will also be less cost in terms of paying passengers being put off of rail travel by long blockades.

 

[AM9]

If the barrier is retractable, it can be retracted to get under bridges. That's the point.

There are times when a full possession is necessary, however given the way the railway works in terms of attributing costs, if you can wire one line whilst keeping the other open, of course its going to lead to fewer attribution costs (as well as being less inconvenient for passengers).

There will also be less cost in terms of paying passengers being put off of rail travel by long blockades.

Electrification of a line is a once in 100+ years event, so the most efficient, safest way should be used and given the dearth of practicing electrification teams in the UK, allowing them to work in the most efficent and safest way, is the way most likely to actually get the job done on time and in budget. Dancing on the head of a pin about contrived methods using as yet non-existing contraptions is more likely to delay what little progress the doubters already cause.

 

[yorksrob]

Electrification of a line is a once in 100+ years event, so the most efficient, safest way should be used and given the dearth of practicing electrification teams in the UK, allowing them to work in the most efficent and safest way, is the way most likely to actually get the job done on time and in budget. Dancing on the head of a pin about contrived methods using as yet non-existing contraptions is more likely to delay what little progress the doubters already cause.

We've been doing that for the past decade, so where's this efficient, cost effective, rolling electrification programme got to then ?

 

[AM9]

We've been doing that for the past decade, so where's this efficient, cost effective, rolling electrification programme got to then ?

Rail electrification in the UK is primarily progressed/constrained by funding from government which in turn is at the mercy of political expediency. Tinkering with the work prqctices and infrastructure posession methods used won't affect the commitment from the political sponsors, but safety issues arising from novel working methods certainly will.

 

[Meerkat]

If the Ashford trains start at Eastbourne, as is well established, they will have a good charging opportunity.

I thought modelling had established that Eastbourne wasn’t far enough, and BEMUs would need to go to Brighton to be charged enough to get to Ashford?

 

[PGAT]

Could a small bit of third rail be put at Rye where trains pass each other, so that they could charge?

 

[yorksrob]

Rail electrification in the UK is primarily progressed/constrained by funding from government which in turn is at the mercy of political expediency. Tinkering with the work prqctices and infrastructure posession methods used won't affect the commitment from the political sponsors, but safety issues arising from novel working methods certainly will.

Everything's a "novel" working practice until it becomes routine.

 

[Taunton]

Third rail is old fashioned and should be done away with. This is not 1927.

I will inform the majority of Metro systems around the world, including many new ones.

If OHLE was such a straightforward conversion from 3rd rail, there would have been plenty of such examples by now. In fact there are hardly any. Even the North London Line issues that caused its conversion there were not 3rd rail ones, which had worked fine along there for the previous 60 years, but the installation of 25kV alongside by those who didn't understand electrical engineering fundamentals.

 

[Killingworth]

I will inform the majority of Metro systems around the world, including many new ones.

If OHLE was such a straightforward conversion from 3rd rail, there would have been plenty of such examples by now. In fact there are hardly any. Even the North London Line issues that caused its conversion there were not 3rd rail ones, which had worked fine along there for the previous 60 years, but the installation of 25kV alongside by those who didn't understand electrical engineering fundamentals.

The 3rd rail Tyneside electric lines went to diesel in the 60s due to the potentially high cost of replacing the power supply. When made into the Metro OH was the obvious answer as all the old 3rd rail infrastructure had gone.

 

[mr_jrt]

TBF, I think the argument that you can't possibly consider conversion until all the unelectrified lines have been upgraded is a fallacy. Each project should have to be considered on its own merits, and yes, the benefits of converting a third rail line to overhead AC will be likely lower than wiring an unelectrified line, but not always. The DC equipment needs replacing, the running costs are higher, there's a cost to having a smaller fleet of less universal trains, etc. On certain routes, the sheer volume of traffic may produce sufficient savings that see them float to the front of the queue.

 

[yorksrob]

TBF, I think the argument that you can't possibly consider conversion until all the unelectrified lines have been upgraded is a fallacy. Each project should have to be considered on its own merits, and yes, the benefits of converting a third rail line to overhead AC will be likely lower than wiring an unelectrified line, but not always. The DC equipment needs replacing, the running costs are higher, there's a cost to having a smaller fleet of less universal trains, etc. On certain routes, the sheer volume of traffic may produce sufficient savings that see them float to the front of the queue.

The problem is, if you start whittling away the third rail system, the remainder becomes an even smaller fleet of less universal trains. The priority ought to be increasing the proportion of electrified route.

 

[CarrotPie]

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?

One technique suggested, I believe for Vivarail, was to have a shipping container with a huge battery inside that would trickle charge all day. When a unit arrived, it would suck its energy from the container-battery contraption, thus drawing a consistent amount the main grid, rather than a lot in 10 minutes.

 

[HSTEd]

TBF, I think the argument that you can't possibly consider conversion until all the unelectrified lines have been upgraded is a fallacy. Each project should have to be considered on its own merits, and yes, the benefits of converting a third rail line to overhead AC will be likely lower than wiring an unelectrified line, but not always. The DC equipment needs replacing, the running costs are higher, there's a cost to having a smaller fleet of less universal trains, etc. On certain routes, the sheer volume of traffic may produce sufficient savings that see them float to the front of the queue.

Whilst this might be technically true, I very much doubt it will be true in practice given the huge bloating of 25kV installation costs.

And as previously mentioned, technologies now appearing in installations elsewhere in the world will likely result in significant reduction in third rail installation operating costs and losses.

 

[AM9]

I will inform the majority of Metro systems around the world, including many new ones.

If OHLE was such a straightforward conversion from 3rd rail, there would have been plenty of such examples by now. In fact there are hardly any. Even the North London Line issues that caused its conversion there were not 3rd rail ones, which had worked fine along there for the previous 60 years, but the installation of 25kV alongside by those who didn't understand electrical engineering fundamentals.

The majority of Metro systems around the world are in general, limited to the urban areas that they serve. The case for 3rd rail DC electrification within cities is generally OK, where the metro tracks are either in tunnels or otherwise well protected from unauthorised access, thus the safety issues are just with staff. The issue in England is that the main lines south fom London are 3rd rail DC way beyond the urbal limits of the capital. There's no way that these lines can be described as 'metro' lines. Instead they are:

100mph railways running through rural areas where it is impossible to actually prevent unauthorised access​

subject to hundreds of level crossings, many of them ungated and in remote locations​

long stretches of line fed by high power DC at currents with no or very little margin of discrimination between actual running current demans and serious overloads​

compared to normal electrified lines (OLE), far higher resistive energy losses​

likelihood of ground leakage currents causing havoc with both railway systems and adjacent non-railway infrastructure​

poor performance at low temperatures​

Most of the above has been known since the 1930s, but the sheer inertia of successive administrations misses the opportunities to do something about them.

 

[yorksrob]

The majority of Metro systems around the world are in general, limited to the urban areas that they serve. The case for 3rd rail DC electrification within cities is generally OK, where the metro tracks are either in tunnels or otherwise well protected from unauthorised access, thus the safety issues are just with staff. The issue in England is that the main lines south fom London are 3rd rail DC way beyond the urbal limits of the capital. There's no way that these lines can be described as 'metro' lines. Instead they are:

100mph railways running through rural areas where it is impossible to actually prevent unauthorised access​

subject to hundreds of level crossings, many of them ungated and in remote locations​

long stretches of line fed by high power DC at currents with no or very little margin of discrimination between actual running current demans and serious overloads​

compared to normal electrified lines (OLE), far higher resistive energy losses​

likelihood of ground leakage currents causing havoc with both railway systems and adjacent non-railway infrastructure​

poor performance at low temperatures​

Most of the above has been known since the 1930s, but the sheer inertia of successive administrations misses the opportunities to do something about them.

Oh please, the "unauthorised access" argument outside of urban areas is meaningless worry-gutzing.

The M6 runs through open countryside and is forbidden to trespassing. Doubtless people do trespass there, why is the railway any different.