Would electrifying the WEML, Marshlink, North Downs and Uckfield lines with third rail be possible under the ORR's current policy?

[yorksrob]

Assume they may mean the secondary route via Honiton but that’s hardly Main Line!

Some of us would beg to differ.

Pragmatically, I see that route as more suitable for a dual voltage solution.

 

[D7666]

I thought I had read that battery for Uckfield had been rejected because there was not sufficient time to recharge?

Has this now changed with advances in technology?

When that 379 was rigged up with battery that limit applied (a 379 being an electrostar of the same family as 377 so was relevant).

The conclusions about that trial were applied to other services, like Uckfield, which ruled it out. That 379 had one hour running time useful charge, but the recharge off 25 kV wires took 2 hours. Assuming the same recharge rate off third rails i.e. when your Uckfield train went into London, this is alleged to be insufficient.

But that was in 2015 - a decade ago - as was pointed out upthread - and yes batteries have leapt forward, in materials, size, everything, since then. Think battery buses - look how those have advanced in those past 10 years. As has charging technology; even a rapid charger at Uckfield for the current (pun intended) 11 min Uckfield turn round time would be of value.

One of the issues with Uckfield - and The Ponderosa - is they have always been looked at in terms of fitting batteries to an existing 377. A 4car 377 does not have /that/ much space for a battery - all 4 cars have a lot of gubbins under them - here are 3 motor coaches with their traction packs + the trailer has other kit that don't fit under the motors. 3cars even worse for space.

The 5cars will have more space - 4 motors + 1 trailer yes, but that is more space to spread out batteries; under a 5car 377 you could probably fit two batteries of the size the one the 379 had = > from 1:4 you go to 2:5 range increase. ((Not going into any issue about what the present 5cars work; just saying they would be possibly a better type to consider (by cascade) if they insist on conversions and not new build.))

If this were approached sensibly, long term (ha ha) there would be all new trains purpose built with batteries ex factory. This is where things like the Siemens Verve GB will score, and any/what/if Derby offering equivalent. (There was even a battery Siemens Desiro City (700 generic type) on offer but no GB customer took it up; but "think Thameslink" as they say and Bedford electric < > battery Uckfield /could/ have happened.)

Anyway the point is, yes the whole battery thing has much moved forwards in the past decade since Uckfield was evaluated; it would almost certainly work now, 10 years later.

 

[Trainbike46]

If, as stated in posts 10 & 13, the battery technology is proven and available, why is no-one demanding its implementation on one of these lines? Why don't we just experiment and judge the results? For example, how many train sets would need to be converted for the Marshlink line?

you'd probably order new BEMUs for southern for that purpose, rather than adapt existing units. In practice, it would make sense to bundle this with a new order for 3rd rail stock for the same operator, for training and maintenance ease (and to avoid microfleets). So next time Southern is in need of a new fleet of EMUs would make sense.

Good point. Incidentally, I was at West Ealing Station a few weeks ago and one of the experimental trains was in the bay platform. I asked a member of the team if the results so far were encouraging and he replied "very."

That is good to hear!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2024 ==

Some of us would beg to differ.

Pragmatically, I see that route as more suitable for a dual voltage solution.

If you're fully electrifying the West of England Line, you'd presumably pick a place suitable for changeover within the current third-rail section, and go OHLE from there. From what I understand, you want the dual-voltage section to be as short as possible, so ideally a station at which every service stops (and reversing and terminating services is possible)

 

[Stephen42]

If, as stated in posts 10 & 13, the battery technology is proven and available, why is no-one demanding its implementation on one of these lines? Why don't we just experiment and judge the results? For example, how many train sets would need to be converted for the Marshlink line?

Southern in total has 47 diesel vehicles across 17 units (from Wikipedia). It's a tiny proportion of both the Southern fleet and diesel fleet in general (around 2,800 vehicles from last ORR release). Marshlink is 3 diagrams so really you'd want to switch both Marshlink and Uckfield away at the same time. There are bigger wins for decarbonisation elsewhere including battery trials for branch lines and avoiding ordering new diesel only trains.

Once the current fleet is needing to be replaced or moved elsewhere, then demands to replace with electric traction would grow. With Marshlink electrification alone being upwards of £150m it's hard to see third rail electrification being the cost effective option compared to battery trains.

 

[Bikeman78]

There’s no need to electrify these with third rail. Batteries are the answer.

Just as long as those batteries aren't attached to a 777. To be fair, the non battery ones are dire as well.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2024 ==

Hopefully as said above the new government will change there mind, surely the bakerloo extension will face the same challenge. I just can't understand how the ORR is so incapable of anything, if I was standing in a position to electrify myself on a 3rd rail, I'd also be standing in a position where I could get hit buy a train, no matter what power it uses, but unfortunately the people that were in power didn't seem to get that

Considering the amount of graffiti around London, there must be a lot of trespass. Yet electrocution incidents are quite rare. The most recent incident I can think of is the people that got hit by a train near Brixton. But that could have happened anywhere. Not sure how accurate this list is but the majority of railway incidents involving graffiti artists have been collision with a train.

List of graffiti and street art injuries and deaths - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[yorksrob]

you'd probably order new BEMUs for southern for that purpose, rather than adapt existing units. In practice, it would make sense to bundle this with a new order for 3rd rail stock for the same operator, for training and maintenance ease (and to avoid microfleets). So next time Southern is in need of a new fleet of EMUs would make sense.

That is good to hear!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2024 ==


If you're fully electrifying the West of England Line, you'd presumably pick a place suitable for changeover within the current third-rail section, and go OHLE from there. From what I understand, you want the dual-voltage section to be as short as possible, so ideally a station at which every service stops (and reversing and terminating services is possible)

I'd third rail to the west of the junction at Basingstoke and changeover there.

 

[Bikeman78]

I'd third rail to the west of the junction at Basingstoke and changeover there.

There is already a section of third rail on the down Salisbury line. Unfortunately, it is outwith the braking distance of a wrongly routed train travelling at line speed.

 

[yorksrob]

There is already a section of third rail on the down Salisbury line. Unfortunately, it is outwith the braking distance of a wrongly routed train travelling at line speed.

With a proper changeover that would be sorted.

 

[Bald Rick]

Considering the amount of graffiti around London, there must be a lot of trespass. Yet electrocution incidents are quite rare. The most recent incident I can think of is the people that got hit by a train near Brixton.

There are several incidents of trespassers being electrocuted each year, this year being no exception. Network Rail is likely to find itself in court about at least one of the recent incidents.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

There are several incidents of trespassers being electrocuted each year, this year being no exception. Network Rail is likely to find itself in court about at least one of the recent incidents.

Oh i hope its not another Strood scenario.

 

[Bikeman78]

There are several incidents of trespassers being electrocuted each year, this year being no exception. Network Rail is likely to find itself in court about at least one of the recent incidents.

Surprised that there aren't news items about them. I typed a few likely phrases into Google and every result was at least a year old.

 

[Recessio]

Hopefully as said above the new government will change there mind, surely the bakerloo extension will face the same challenge. I just can't understand how the ORR is so incapable of anything, if I was standing in a position to electrify myself on a 3rd rail, I'd also be standing in a position where I could get hit buy a train, no matter what power it uses, but unfortunately the people that were in power didn't seem to get that

Bakerloo Extension is either entirely within tunnels (planned extension to Lewisham), or taking over an existing 3rd rail route (proposed extension from Lewisham to Hayes) where conversion to a 4th rail system doesn't add any new risk compared to the existing 3rd rail system.

 

[weeklycommuter]

There’s no need to electrify these with third rail. Batteries are the answer.

The technology was there a decade ago. It’s cheaper now.
No need to wait for that. Battery trains are in service in this country, and in many other countries around the world. Range isnt an issue - fit a bigger battery!

Possibly on some short sections of railway with just an hourly service to limit the requirement for rolling stock with batteries including Uckfield and a reopened Totton-Hythe line for an hourly Southampton Central to Hythe train service but in that case the hourly London Bridge to Uckfield service should be switched to battery trains now. Diesel trains currently run hourly between Uckfield and London Bridge and clearly must be adding to air pollution in South London. It does require special trains with batteries so the abundant standard third rail electric rolling stock cannot be used. The Reading to Gatwick Airport half hourly service really needs a lot of high capacity trains and is currently stuck with hopelessly inadequate diesel trains so the two unelectrified sections of the North Downs Line should have infill third rail electrification so the Reading to Gatwick Airport service can be run half hourly with high capacity third rail electric rolling stock. Looking at the following record of rail electrification dates

Electrification dates

A list of all known UK railway electrification dates

www.railwaycodes.org.uk

some third rail electrification including the lines Poole to Weymouth and Eastleigh and Southampton to Portsmouth was installed as recently as around 1990 so if the effective ban on extending third rail electrification had been in place then the current very important London Waterloo to Weymouth, London Waterloo to Portsmouth via Eastleigh and Portsmouth to Southampton electric train services would have been impossible.
Whatever the legal issues there is no logic to this effective ban on third rail electrification infill. It is impossible to close down the very extensive third rail network South of London and it is financially impossible to convert it all to 25 kV AC overhead so risks need to be managed and if necessary the law should be changed to make third rail infill possible in places where it is needed. Third rail infill of the two unelectrified sections of the North Downs Line would be a very small percentage increase in the total length of third rail electrified railway line.

 

[yorksrob]

There are several incidents of trespassers being electrocuted each year, this year being no exception. Network Rail is likely to find itself in court about at least one of the recent incidents.

One can only hope that the courts resist the temptation to engage in judicial activism.

 

[Belperpete]

I wouldn't say 1990 is exactly recent in UK railway terms - a LOT has changed in the way the railway is controlled since then! Privatisation and the entire way the railway is regulated, for example.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2024 ==

I could see an argument for electrifying to Uckfield with 25kV, as there would only be one interface to the third rail. Also the signalling there is SSI, which should already be AC immune, or easily made so. And it could use bimode AC/DC trains, as already used on Thameslink (perhaps even make Uckfield a Thameslink route?)

Agreed that short infills on the North Downs with 25kV would not make sense (and could have some technical challenges too!). However, the line currently runs with diesel stock that would need replacing if the gaps were electrified, as AFAIAA there aren't sufficient spare electric stock standing around idle that could be drafted in. So if the diesel stock would need replacing, why not replace it with battery/3rd rail bimodes? This would save having to do any electrification work. Okay, the stock wouldn't be interchangeable with stock running on the other lines, but then the existing stock isn't.

 

[A0]

One can only hope that the courts resist the temptation to engage in judicial activism.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean? The courts assess a case on the basis of the legislation in front of them and what has taken place. Presumably if they find insufficient mitigations have been put in place they'll then find against Network Rail.

It seems that you're OK with the rail network operating to lower safety standards than other industries. Not sure why that's acceptable though.

I'd third rail to the west of the junction at Basingstoke and changeover there.

If the objective to electrify is to remove diesel trains, then it would make more sense to end the 3rd rail at Basingstoke and switch to OHL to Southampton plus any towards Salisbury. At the moment virtually all the freight movements out of Southampton Docks are diesel hauled. Wire to Basingtoke and then Reading, Oxford and onto the West Mids and you can switch that to electrically hauled, with battery for the "final mile" inside the docks.

Basingstoke towards London remains as 3rd rail for passenger use, similarly you could leave Soutampton - Bournemouth - Weymouth as 3rd rail for passenger.

 

[Stephen42]

Possibly on some short sections of railway with just an hourly service to limit the requirement for rolling stock with batteries including Uckfield and a reopened Totton-Hythe line for an hourly Southampton Central to Hythe train service but in that case the hourly London Bridge to Uckfield service should be switched to battery trains now. Diesel trains currently run hourly between Uckfield and London Bridge and clearly must be adding to air pollution in South London. It does require special trains with batteries so the abundant standard third rail electric rolling stock cannot be used. The Reading to Gatwick Airport half hourly service really needs a lot of high capacity trains and is currently stuck with hopelessly inadequate diesel trains so the two unelectrified sections of the North Downs Line should have infill third rail electrification so the Reading to Gatwick Airport service can be run half hourly with high capacity third rail electric rolling stock. Looking at the following record of rail electrification dates

some third rail electrification including the lines Poole to Weymouth and Eastleigh and Southampton to Portsmouth was installed as recently as around 1990 so if the effective ban on extending third rail electrification had been in place then the current very important London Waterloo to Weymouth, London Waterloo to Portsmouth via Eastleigh and Portsmouth to Southampton electric train services would have been impossible.
Whatever the legal issues there is no logic to this effective ban on third rail electrification infill. It is impossible to close down the very extensive third rail network South of London and it is financially impossible to convert it all to 25 kV AC overhead so risks need to be managed and if necessary the law should be changed to make third rail infill possible in places where it is needed. Third rail infill of the two unelectrified sections of the North Downs Line would be a very small percentage increase in the total length of third rail electrified railway line.

There isn't an effective ban, various health and safety legislation requires the minimisation of risk. Proposers of new third rail electrification need to show they have considered alternatives and that those alternatives are grossly disproportionate. For new electrification there are often other options including battery technology, where new tracks are added to existing routes or short chords between them the lack of viable alternatives makes the case easier to justify.

The legislation does not refer to third rail electrification directly. Adding a carve out for it opens the door to other organisations using similar logic about the additional cost of reducing risk to push to weaken safety protection for workers. The legislation is about what's reasonable and turning off the existing third rail network is clearly not reasonable. This is fairly common in other areas, asbestos legislation prohibits new materials, it does not require demolition of any buildings that contain it. If new third rail electrification was truly needed, it would pass the existing legislation thresholds and it's that other solutions exist which make that not the case.

 

[Turtle]

One can only hope that the courts resist the temptation to engage in judicial activism.

If you trespass, you trespass at your own risk. If you trespass near an exposed electric rail you increase that risk. On your head be it.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Assume they may mean the secondary route via Honiton but that’s hardly Main Line!

The West of England Line Basingstoke-Salisbury-Exeter is a very important route to the West Country especially for rail passengers in the South of England with an hourly SWR service London Waterloo to Salisbury and an hourly SWR service London Waterloo to Exeter with a connection at Salisbury to the hourly GWR service Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour. Too much of the line between Salisbury and Exeter is single track and some restoration of single track sections to double track is needed to improve train services. The Basingstoke to Salisbury line is also part of the Basingstoke to Southampton via Laverstock Junction freight route so is a candidate for 25kV AC overhead electrification for freight trains. The West of England Line has an important role to play in growing the railway and running more train services so longer term it would be useful have 25 kV AC overhead electrification on the whole of the route from Basingstoke to Exeter and run services from London Waterloo to Salisbury and Exeter with dual voltage electric trains.

 

[Trainbike46]

If you trespass, you trespass at your own risk. If you trespass near an exposed electric rail you increase that risk. On your head be it.

That's not how the legal framework in the UK works

On top of that, injuries and fatalities aren't just from tresspassers, unfortunately railway staff get hurt (and die) too. And then there are rare incidents of people ending up in a place where they shouldn't be unintentionally (e.g. falling of a platform).

3rd rail is much more dangerous than OHLE or batteries, so it is entirely reasonable to ban new 3rd rail, and use battery or OHLE to electrify the remaining routes instead.

TfL has an exemption, apparently because they came up with a set of working practices that significantly reduced risk to their staff, and reduced the likelihood of tresspass, and that's why TfL can still extend their 4th rail system where it makes sense to do so

 

[ac6000cw]

I wouldn't say 1990 is exactly recent in UK railway terms - a LOT has changed in the way the railway is controlled since then! Privatisation and the entire way the railway is regulated, for example.

I could see an argument for electrifying to Uckfield with 25kV, as there would only be one interface to the third rail. Also the signalling there is SSI, which should already be AC immune, or easily made so. And it could use bimode AC/DC trains, as already used on Thameslink (perhaps even make Uckfield a Thameslink route?)

Agreed that short infills on the North Downs with 25kV would not make sense (and could have some technical challenges too!). However, the line currently runs with diesel stock that would need replacing if the gaps were electrified, as AFAIAA there aren't sufficient spare electric stock standing around idle that could be drafted in. So if the diesel stock would need replacing, why not replace it with battery/3rd rail bimodes? This would save having to do any electrification work. Okay, the stock wouldn't be interchangeable with stock running on the other lines, but then the existing stock isn't.

IMHO:

Being realistic, anything beyond the odd short distance connecting curve/spur isn't going to be electrified using the technically antiquated, largely unprotected top-contact third-rail system.

Extensions beyond '3rd rail land' are going to have to be done by some combination of 25kV OHLE and/or on-train batteries, with the OHLE maybe being fed from an SFC-based feeder station including batteries to reduce/smooth out the peak loads on the supply to it (if a high-power supply isn't readily available/too expensive).

If the overriding priority is to retire diesel-powered trains, then you could take a view that only providing sufficient electrical power to match the diesel performance is OK - after all, existing 3rd rail trains are power-limited below what is possible on 25kV overhead, so no particular reason why you couldn't have a lower 'diesel performance equivalent' power limit if you wanted (and if it reduced the electrification cost).

 

[SynthD]

If the overriding priority is to retire diesel-powered trains, then you could take a view that only providing sufficient electrical power to match the diesel performance is OK - after all, existing 3rd rail trains are power-limited below what is possible on 25kV overhead, so no particular reason why you couldn't have a lower 'diesel performance equivalent' power limit if you wanted (and if it reduced the electrification cost).

Are you suggesting a lower voltage AC standard? I don’t think the voltage is a major cost element, the pylons are.

 

[yorksrob]

That's not how the legal framework in the UK works

On top of that, injuries and fatalities aren't just from tresspassers, unfortunately railway staff get hurt (and die) too. And then there are rare incidents of people ending up in a place where they shouldn't be unintentionally (e.g. falling of a platform).

3rd rail is much more dangerous than OHLE or batteries, so it is entirely reasonable to ban new 3rd rail, and use battery or OHLE to electrify the remaining routes instead.

TfL has an exemption, apparently because they came up with a set of working practices that significantly reduced risk to their staff, and reduced the likelihood of tresspass, and that's why TfL can still extend their 4th rail system where it makes sense to do so

Couldn't NR come up with similar working practices ?

 

[weeklycommuter]

That's not how the legal framework in the UK works

On top of that, injuries and fatalities aren't just from tresspassers, unfortunately railway staff get hurt (and die) too. And then there are rare incidents of people ending up in a place where they shouldn't be unintentionally (e.g. falling of a platform).

3rd rail is much more dangerous than OHLE or batteries, so it is entirely reasonable to ban new 3rd rail, and use battery or OHLE to electrify the remaining routes instead.

TfL has an exemption, apparently because they came up with a set of working practices that significantly reduced risk to their staff, and reduced the likelihood of tresspass, and that's why TfL can still extend their 4th rail system where it makes sense to do so

25kV AC overhead electrification is also dangerous. Diesel engine exhaust emissions are also toxic. As a rail passenger I have never been at risk from 750V DC third rail or 25kV AC overhead electrification but I have been forced to breath in diesel engine exhaust emissions from trains waiting at the platform.

Northamptonshire pupils taught about new overhead electric wires

Network Rail says 25,000 volts would soon be running through 22 miles of newly-installed wiring.

www.bbc.co.uk

Harrison Ballantyne: Mum of electrocuted boy in railway danger plea

Harrison Ballantyne died six years ago after he went into a freight terminal to get a football.

www.bbc.co.uk

https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/22055/download

 

[Stephen42]

Couldn't NR come up with similar working practices ?

Not easily, there isn't a blanket exemption for TfL and each case needs to be assessed individually on its own merits. The lack of live working potentially could be replicated by NR. The separation from members of the public is much harder, even after closing the numerous footpath/level crossings access is much easier than underground tunnels.

 

[yorksrob]

Not easily, there isn't a blanket exemption for TfL and each case needs to be assessed individually on its own merits. The lack of live working potentially could be replicated by NR. The separation from members of the public is much harder, even after closing the numerous footpath/level crossings access is much easier than underground tunnels.

It should work in electrifications favour that the remaining diesel islands are relatively straight forward track.

 

[Bikeman78]

I could see an argument for electrifying to Uckfield with 25kV, as there would only be one interface to the third rail. Also the signalling there is SSI, which should already be AC immune, or easily made so. And it could use bimode AC/DC trains, as already used on Thameslink (perhaps even make Uckfield a Thameslink route?)

Agreed that short infills on the North Downs with 25kV would not make sense (and could have some technical challenges too!). However, the line currently runs with diesel stock that would need replacing if the gaps were electrified, as AFAIAA there aren't sufficient spare electric stock standing around idle that could be drafted in.

There was a period when the 313s switched voltage at least twice between Richmond and North Woolwich. Didn't seem to cause a problem. Admittedly Reading to Redhill would be four switches. Regarding EMUs, there will soon be lots of spare 350s. Not sure if they are dual voltage already but a cascade involving 350/1 or 387s might be an option.

 

[ac6000cw]

Are you suggesting a lower voltage AC standard? I don’t think the voltage is a major cost element, the pylons are.

No, just the train's traction control system limiting the maximum current/power drawn from the OHLE, as already happens in 3rd rail land with modern dual-voltage trains e.g. see this thread - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/current-limit-index.238610/

Taking the 4000A 'country' limit from post #8 in that thread, 4000A x 750V = 3 MW per train for a 12-car cl. 700 (250 kW per car). On 25kV OHLE the same train is rated at 5 MW (417 kW per car).

In reality for new electrification you would normally specify the power supply capacity to match (plus a growth allowance) the planned train service needs anyway, but those service 'needs' (in terms of train performance) could get scaled back to arrive at better balance between electrification costs and needs. Batteries can then add peak power capacity (for acceleration/hill climbing) and provide somewhere for regenerated power to be stored.

 

[Energy]

Couldn't NR come up with similar working practices ?

Sure, I'd imagine no level crossings and the network being fully fenced to a good standard would be the main ones. London Underground is lower voltage (420V and -210V on the return) though it can be argued that 420V vs 750V doesn't matter as both would kill you.

 

[ac6000cw]

London Underground is lower voltage (420V and -210V on the return) though it can be argued that 420V vs 750V doesn't matter as both would kill you.

Quite - even 'domestic' 230V AC mains (that's a peak voltage of 325V - 230V is the 'RMS' voltage) is quite capable of killing people.

I've personally experienced a serious electric shock from 230V mains, due to broken insulation on a piece of equipment, unbeknown to me, which meant I accidentally touched an exposed live terminal with one hand and an earthed piece of metalwork with the other (so the current probably flowed across my chest). I can still clearly recall (over 40 years later) my body shaking uncontrollably until I somehow realized what was happening and managed to pull my hand away. It's not an experience I would wish on anyone else (and I'm very glad to be here to tell the tale).

High voltage electricity is a phenomenally useful servant, but can be a lethally bad master and is definitely not to be trifled with if there's a safer way to use it.

The rules and legislation around electrical safety exist for very good, written in blood, reasons (as is the case with most safety related legislation).