Population density might suggest otherwise. Anyway, using small children to mind unguarded machinery is no more dangerous than it was 150 years ago. Sailing a ferry with its bow doors open is no more dangerous than it was 50 years ago. That doesn't mean that the level of risk is considered acceptable today.
By doing those things you can reduce the risk. It is demonstrably true that risk can be minimised by not using that system in the first place.
It has often been said that there should be a recharge point at Uckfield station and any trains down the line should be on battery power where it can be recharged at Uckfield station and whilst going along using third rail from Hurst Green onwards. I believe that this is going to be the only way that DMU trains will get replaced by BEMU trains.
Disagree. Third Rail should be carefully assessed for where it makes the most sense to electrify targeted areas and no other viable solution is present. IMHO this would limit it to small extensions of a handful of KM to get it the 'right side' of junctions or battery capacity gaps.
This idea was looked at no longer ago than 2020-21 (plenty of news articles about covering the start of another study then). It is a very sensible proposition, and the Greenford trial of the Vivarail fast-charge system is (was?) eagerly awaited by many people interested in getting rid of this diesel island. It is also the proposition I support - an small extension of third rail to provide a 'launch' for down trains or a holding pad for up trains at Hurst Green Jn and then a fast charge at Uckfield.
I am broadly in agreement with this point.
Although there is a slight difference in the Asbestos is generally harmless if not damaged, and can be left in if not being touched. Although I will anticipate the counter-argument and note that the third rail is also generally not dangerous unless touched!
Batteries may well offer opportunities for removal or conversion of the riskiest existing areas of the third rail system.
Actually asbestos was suspected to be a hazard with confimed cases of asbestosis was in 1900. The delay in banning the substance was largely due to the industry denying and covering up the issue. Under continuing pressure, in 1960, the industry eventually cited blue asbestos to be the the 'only' hazardous material, (which by coincidence happened to be a very minor part of the industry's products). They repeated that ploy a few years later by accepting the banning of brown asbestos, which was an even smaller part of the trade. Eventually a combined effort from multiple administrations effected totalconrol of all asbestos in 2006, meaning that most contamination now is from material embedded many years ago.
Indeed and recent safety data from ORR and RSSB bear that out. Actually in terms of improvement notices against NR the last two for electrification matters were in 2021 in relation to OLE. The last recorded trespasser fatality due to electrocution was Bescot yard in 2017. Near misses aren't broken down to know how many potential events there could have been unfortunately in the myriad of CCTV from stations showing idiots crossing the railway in DC electrified areas certainly shows the potential for harm. However, on a safety statistics assessment the facts are that 1300 route miles of exposed live conductor rail is no more unsafe than a 25kV route however counter intuitive that seems.
Apologies for being "that person" but do you have a link to the document providing this conclusion? I'd be very interested to see it. I'll try a quick internet search on both websites in the meantime.
When I said "all lines" I meant to solely refer to the North Downs/Uckfield/Marshlink lines. What do you think the future of such routes in terms of motive power should be?
Without the concept of grandfather rights you would be constrained to two options. You allow a hazard considered unacceptable to be perpetuated in new works, even though a reasonable opportunity to reduce risk exists; alternatively, to reduce risk presented by new installations you outlaw many existing installations. The former option enshrines Victorian standards in law. The latter option is, for certain very serious risks that emerge, perhaps the correct answer. However, for most cases this is the very definition of 'grossly disproportionate'.
Given the network size, its about 16 times. You would need to give a cogent argument why something that is slightly safer is not reasonably practicable. At 16 times safer it would need to be pretty good.
If you accept the logic of the Fatality Weighted Injuries model, it is is not relevant
If they aren't , hopefully the government would be reasonable and not stupidly dogmatic, admit the targets where overambitious and keep the diesels going rather than shutting that half the railway network
And hundreds die from automotive accidents a year that the authorities overly narrow risk assessments over many rail related things helps contribute to. We can throw personal anecdotes around as much as we want. I know multiple people who've died in car crashes, which makes me a bit more minded to enabling alternatives even if it means tolerating a bit more risk in the alternative (however still much less that cars)
Theres no specific data source but i reviewed the ORR and RSSB annual safety reports from 2017. Some have references to electric shock but not whether it was AC or DC but they do reference specific incidents when related to fatalities which were AC. Electrocution isn't a specific category in the dataset so im presuming they are categorised under "other".
Given that Rye the principle station on Marshlink has 400k entry's and exits with St Pancras the primary destination at premium hs1 fares (£90/50 peak/offpeak return) for 70 miles despite no through services, it kind of suggests that no secondary line will ever make a business case.
Thanks @zwk500
Would that even include extension of existing third rail as mentioned by @zwk500 , when you say new installations?
Yes the 34 miles is correct. It's not cited in the Wikipedia article, but I have checked against a Class 777 brochure from Stadler.
The 20 miles figure comes from the added weight to a train with having at least one disabled toilet and one normal toilet cubicle in the train, that I personally suspect you would get out of a class 777 unit if such toilets where added. The weight of said toilets would mean that a train like the class 777 would do less in the way of battery mileage with more weight. In the same manner that you would not have a car engine of say 1.0 litres pulling a weight of 40 plus tonnes of goods.
The business case for Marshlink and Uckfield lines are very week as they are. If they are to told to have the turbostars gone at any cost they are just going to shut the routes down
Maintaining a microfleet of diesel units can't be cheap either, and a BEMU would be more similar to EMUs than to DMUs for maintenance purposes. On top of that, various people in the know have stated that BEMUs are more likely than full electrification
Agreed. Implementation of 3rd rail would never be a panic buy given the planning and cost required. For those south east regions it does sound like BEMU would be a better fit, cheaper and quicker to implement.
I would love a middle ground where safety was improved on the existing dc network with small percentage extensions where indicated and elimination of dc where batteries or OLE could work.
Safety isn't a trade-off between one area vs another. You can't increase the risk in one area and buy it off in another by improving (slightly) a different area. The existing hazards from 3rd rail have a marginally less risk factor than those through which a new electrification has been opened. That is all new risk. The ethics of safety is to reduce risks in thei own right, - not claim that a new hazard is OK because somewhere else has been fixed.
It is , accepting any new rail even with the best protections is a trade off . A fully underground fully platform screen with high tech obstacle detection would still be new risk
