• 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!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,610
Location
Taunton or Kent
Yes, true - I meant electrics :lol:
Could be worse, Patrick Stewart accidentally said "electrical fraud" instead of electoral fraud regarding investigations into the latter for a few MPs in 2015.

Are Southern in any known discussions around some form of battery stock for the Uckfield and Marshlink lines? We know SWR are looking at them for the WoE, and GWR could have them as part of the Churchward order, but I haven't heard much from the Southern side of things.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Farnborough

Member
Joined
2 Mar 2025
Messages
322
Location
Farnborough
Out of idle curiosity, has anyone any figures of the number of incidents of human/conductor contact on third-rail, compared to OHLE?

The ORR figures (link) does not give the answers...

---

Total fatalities (excluding suicides) for 2023/24 are as follows:
  • 0 Workforce
  • 10 Passenger or Public
    • 7 Mainline
    • 1 Non-mainline
    • 2 London Underground
  • 12 Trespassers
And yes, I appreciate that there are a lot of injuries (in various categories):
  • 5,596 Workforce
  • 10,360 Passenger or Public
    • 6,253 Mainline (no breakdown)
    • 4,067 London Underground (of which 2,477 are slips, trips & falls, and 1,013 are "other"!)
    • 40 Non-mainline
  • 108 Trespassers
Note: ORR sub-groups "shock and trauma" and I suspect that "shock", in this case, refers to the medical type, not electrical.
 

Tetragon213

Member
Joined
14 Oct 2024
Messages
717
Location
West Midlands
I'm not sure if those numbers ever get published.

A discussion elsewhere on the forums here discussed the third rail. It seems that, while third rail accidents can sometimes go unreported, accidents involving the OLE tend to be more... "final".
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,068
Location
St Albans
I'm not sure if those numbers ever get published.

A discussion elsewhere on the forums here discussed the third rail. It seems that, while third rail accidents can sometimes go unreported, accidents involving the OLE tend to be more... "final".
The less reporting is more that accidental injury/death from OLE is much less likey, vandalism or illegal interference with the railway being the main reason for getting near to a conductor that is for most of its length 4+ metres above the ground. With 3rd rail, the lethal voltage is within contact of anybody trespassing on the track plus inadequate care taken on station platforms. Authorised staff access is for that reason far more hazardous near 3rd rail than under OLE.
 

Farnborough

Member
Joined
2 Mar 2025
Messages
322
Location
Farnborough
I'm not sure if those numbers ever get published.

A discussion elsewhere on the forums here discussed the third rail. It seems that, while third rail accidents can sometimes go unreported, accidents involving the OLE tend to be more... "final".
So, in effect, we have a de facto ban on new third-rail, but no reported evidence to support it?

IMHO, the ORR position is unsustainable - either third-rail is unsafe (and all existing installations should be switched off, and ripped-out) or it isn't...
 

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
4,383
Location
belfast
So, in effect, we have a de facto ban on new third-rail, but no reported evidence to support it?
You could do an FOI request to the ORR for the evidence on which the third rail restrictions are based, if you actually want to know.
IMHO, the ORR position is unsustainable - either third-rail is unsafe (and all existing installations should be switched off, and ripped-out) or it isn't...
People keep making this argument, but it is simply not in line with reality. It is also a weird position to take that something is either safe or unsafe, given that there is a scale of things that have different levels of safety and risk. This is not a binary position, but a continuum.

It is entirely normal for a regulator to have stricter rules for new installations than for existing ones. This happens all the time, across sectors. New cars have to meet modern safety standards, but existing cars, which do not meet the modern standards, can continue to be used. The same applies in home electrical installations, certain asbestos regulations (!), and many other things.

Also, there is no de-facto complete ban on 3rd and 4th rail installations. TfL has made the case to the ORR that it was acceptable for a few of their extension.

For mainline rail, to use 3rd rail, you'd have to take steps to reduce the risks*, and give a good enough answer to the question: "Why can't this service use OHLE or BEMUs to gain the benefits of electrification instead?"

*e.g. working practices that reduce risk for staff, removal of level crossings and other points of access, improved fencing, etc.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
5,727
Location
Hope Valley
It’s probably worth another reminder that the Electricity at Work Act 1989 made it a legal requirement that all conductors with a lethal voltage have to be either (a) out of reach, or (b) insulated. Clearly a third rail on open line is neither of these although an Underground tunnel can be effectively (a).

The safety regulator - in recent years the ORR for railways - has to authorise/‘permission’ new works into service. It’s quite an as to expect an inspector to personally sign that something is ‘safe’ and compliant when the next day a random member of the public can go into the line chasing a stray dog, etc..
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
4,000
Location
Newport
IMHO, the ORR position is unsustainable - either third-rail is unsafe (and all existing installations should be switched off, and ripped-out) or it isn't...
ORR’s position is consistent with Health and Safety law. If it wasn’t, there’d have been legal challenges to it.

It hinges on ‘ALARP’ in law. It would not be reasonably practical to replace all existing conductor rails as the conversion costs would massively outstrip the cost of avoided fatalities or their equivalents.
 

Zomboid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2025
Messages
2,310
Location
Oxford
Third rail is not inherently unsafe, but because the conductor is easily accessible at ground level that comes with risks which are not easy to satisfactorily mitigate.

I think the time has passed for routes like Uckfield to get (continuous) new electrification - BEMUs are it's likely future, with possibly a battery charger at Uckfield.

A long route like Basingstoke to Exeter is different. If it were up to my crayons I'd put 25kV in from Reading - Salisbury - Southampton (and send as much of the freight that way as possible), and then beyond Salisbury I'd either just wire the lot (clearly the neatest solution), or wire as far as Yeovil and use dual voltage BEMUs. Exeter Central - St Davids would need wires for battery charging and getting up the hill, and that might be useful for a future Bristol - Exeter electrification scene. If my crayons were really off their faces the Exeter end would include the Exmouth branch to allow (B)EMUs to be used in the area, but that might really have to wait for the wider area to be useful.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,068
Location
St Albans
So, in effect, we have a de facto ban on new third-rail, but no reported evidence to support it?

IMHO, the ORR position is unsustainable - either third-rail is unsafe (and all existing installations should be switched off, and ripped-out) or it isn't...
Would you support all domestic wiring installations only complying with pre 2018 edition of bS7671 being "ripped-out", because they likely have a non-metal consumer unit, or even lack surge protection? There have been several reported cases of deaths from fires caused by wiring that complies with earlier standards.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,365
Location
Bolton
I believe ORR's position is quite consistent - they do support removal of third rail, and may even require it in future, where it's reasonably practical. For example Merseyrail are having it cut back quite a bit around their depots. It's also being progressively cut back from busier level crossings countrywide where the gap can be lengthened, and insulating caps fitted over the edges. This is practical, as rolling stock today can generally cope with these slightly longer lengths of gap. These measures are extremely unlikely to show up on the fatality statistics. However they are relatively inexpensive and help to physically separate the general public, track workers and depot staff from accidentally coming into contact with the third rail.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Would you support all domestic wiring installations only complying with pre 2018 edition of bS7671 being "ripped-out", because they likely have a non-metal consumer unit, or even lack surge protection? There have been several reported cases of deaths from fires caused by wiring that complies with earlier standards.
Indeed. Thank goodness the law has moved on significantly since electricity supply first became widespread for private homes.

As you say there are installations out there which really ought to go soon, even ones that were new just a couple of decades ago. Obviously refitting residential property is much less expensive than refitting a railway which has never had overhead wires.
 
Last edited:

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,068
Location
St Albans
Indeed. Thank goodness the law has moved on significantly since electricity supply first became widespread for private homes.

As you say there are installations out there which really ought to go soon, even ones that were new just a couple of decades ago. Obviously refitting residential property is much less expensive than refitting a railway which has never had overhead wires.
As with all improvements in safety requirements, stopping a bad practice from being extended is absolutely necessary, but this is backed up removal or upgrading existing inadequate safety installations 'ALARP'. I would imagine that the argument for renewing equipment and conductor rails on a long-established may one day be subject to a safety review, rather than a straight 'is it financially worth it' assessment, thereby forcing some 3rd rail routes to be upgraded to OLE or switch to BEMU operation.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,991
Bumping this because of a development near Uckfield. A new Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) has been given planning consent just south east of the town. This will have 600MW of power, and either 600MWh or 2.4GWh of capacity (the application is not quite clear on that !). When Battery EMUs are eventually bought for the Uckfield line, if a charging station is needed at Uckfield then plugging into that will simply be noise in the local electricity network.

To put it in context, the average power draw of traction electricity for the whole of Network Rail is around 450MW (with some peaks and troughs through the day / week for obvious reasons).
 

Chrisgr31

Established Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
1,704
i havent checked, maybe I should, but I assume that is at the same site where they have been installing some huge great new transformers to boost the electricity supply to Uckfield - presumably to serve the significant residential development in the area.

I had been wondering whether it would enable electrification of the Uckfield but I guess if it gives the ability to charge batteries that’s good.

Problem is post pandemic all the good work that had been done pre pandemic to improve patronage on the Uckfield line seems to be being undone. Rolling stock has been taken away so peak hour trains are shorter and standing room only between Hurst Green and London. If the peak hour trains are short they no longer announce it as not stopping at East Croydon so reducing over crowding etc.

The171 fleet is now 22 years old. Bearing in mind how long it takes to introduce a new fleet they need to start thinking about it now. I am sure I saw something about the DfT working with some TOCs to replace diesel trains, shame Southern wasn’t included.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,365
Location
Bolton
The171 fleet is now 22 years old. Bearing in mind how long it takes to introduce a new fleet they need to start thinking about it now. I am sure I saw something about the DfT working with some TOCs to replace diesel trains, shame Southern wasn’t included.
There are several hundred 150/156 units knocking around at nearly double that age...
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,686
Location
Northampton
Bumping this because of a development near Uckfield. A new Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) has been given planning consent just south east of the town. This will have 600MW of power, and either 600MWh or 2.4GWh of capacity (the application is not quite clear on that !). When Battery EMUs are eventually bought for the Uckfield line, if a charging station is needed at Uckfield then plugging into that will simply be noise in the local electricity network.

To put it in context, the average power draw of traction electricity for the whole of Network Rail is around 450MW (with some peaks and troughs through the day / week for obvious reasons).
Given the scale of housing development planned for Uckfield, that capacity may not be available to the railway by the time it ever got built! Although good to know they are doing something about the power supply, because the area is going to need it.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,991
Given the scale of housing development planned for Uckfield, that capacity may not be available to the railway by the time it ever got built! Although good to know they are doing something about the power supply, because the area is going to need it.

600MW could supply every house in East Sussex 3 times over!
 

PGAT

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2022
Messages
2,137
Location
Selhurst
i havent checked, maybe I should, but I assume that is at the same site where they have been installing some huge great new transformers to boost the electricity supply to Uckfield - presumably to serve the significant residential development in the area.

I had been wondering whether it would enable electrification of the Uckfield but I guess if it gives the ability to charge batteries that’s good.

Problem is post pandemic all the good work that had been done pre pandemic to improve patronage on the Uckfield line seems to be being undone. Rolling stock has been taken away so peak hour trains are shorter and standing room only between Hurst Green and London. If the peak hour trains are short they no longer announce it as not stopping at East Croydon so reducing over crowding etc.

The171 fleet is now 22 years old. Bearing in mind how long it takes to introduce a new fleet they need to start thinking about it now. I am sure I saw something about the DfT working with some TOCs to replace diesel trains, shame Southern wasn’t included.
Southern’s fleet are very much capable of making it to the 2050s so it will be a long time before a new fleet is even worth considering. And of course we are already seeing newer rolling stock 387s cascading out the oldest electrostars so you could imagine the DfT kicking the can down the road with the turbos as well.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,991
i havent checked, maybe I should, but I assume that is at the same site where they have been installing some huge great new transformers to boost the electricity supply to Uckfield - presumably to serve the significant residential development in the area.

It’s close to the new National Grid substation, yes. The new substation is partly to boost the network aorund there, but slso partly to allow connections to the various Solar farms that will spring up in that neck of the woods - it’s perfect solar territory (apart from the landscape effects).
 

BerkshireRails

On Moderation
Joined
4 Apr 2021
Messages
889
Location
United Kingdom
If 750DC 3rd rail is old and dangerous, then, logically we should consider shutting down the current network and replace it with AC. Obviously this will not happen so why not go ahead with the infill. No need then for diesels, batteries, hydrogen(that one seems to have gone off the boil) bionic duckweed etc. Seriously though, how many unavoidable injuries are caused by DC and what could be the proportionate increase by DC infilling?
The RSSB (Rail Standards and Safety Board) finds conversion to 25kV AC attractive. RSSB "Replacement of the 750V DC system with 25kV AC appears to be both feasible and economically desirable. The economic case is likely to improve as energy costs increase over time. The affordability of the change has yet to be determined. To make such a change is a very significant decision to be taken by industry and government (as funder), and would require a large amount of further work to develop a whole industry business and implementation plan to take account of the impact on train operators and the industry's customers."
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,991
so you could imagine the DfT kicking the can down the road.

There’s not really a can to kick yet.

The RSSB (Rail Standards and Safety Board) finds conversion to 25kV AC attractive. RSSB "Replacement of the 750V DC system with 25kV AC appears to be both feasible and economically desirable. The economic case is likely to improve as energy costs increase over time. The affordability of the change has yet to be determined. To make such a change is a very significant decision to be taken by industry and government (as funder), and would require a large amount of further work to develop a whole industry business and implementation plan to take account of the impact on train operators and the industry's customers."

That report is 15 years old. A lot has changed in that 15 years.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,686
Location
Northampton
The RSSB (Rail Standards and Safety Board) finds conversion to 25kV AC attractive. RSSB "Replacement of the 750V DC system with 25kV AC appears to be both feasible and economically desirable. The economic case is likely to improve as energy costs increase over time. The affordability of the change has yet to be determined. To make such a change is a very significant decision to be taken by industry and government (as funder), and would require a large amount of further work to develop a whole industry business and implementation plan to take account of the impact on train operators and the industry's customers."
While it is economically desirable, it is not financially viable while costs are still starting at £2.5m/stkm for a fitment, let alone conversion, and there's a vast amount of the country that isn't electrified at all.

I would love to see a progressive conversion of the Southern region, but it cannot possibly be justified when the GWML to Oxford, Bristol and Exeter, Chiltern routes, XC route from Bristol to Doncaster/Leeds, MML from Wigston to Sheffield, suburban services in Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester, West Yorks, and Tyneside all remain unelectrified.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,686
Location
Northampton
Just because it is old doesn't change the facts of the report.
It will fundamentally alter the economics of it, even if the electrical and structural elements haven't changed. Unless you are going to try and claim that nothing since 2010 has happened in economics?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,444
Location
Yorks
If they ever manage to break the link between wholesale electricity prices and the price of gas (which is seen as a bit of an obstacle to decarbonisation using renewable electricity) that could further dent any case for conversion to OLE.
 

BerkshireRails

On Moderation
Joined
4 Apr 2021
Messages
889
Location
United Kingdom
It will fundamentally alter the economics of it, even if the electrical and structural elements haven't changed. Unless you are going to try and claim that nothing since 2010 has happened in economics?
However electricity has also gone up in cost so there would be increased savings to counteract the increased cost to install as well as you could also reduce number of units you need to run a service as it will take less time to cover the same service with an AC unit than a DC unit due to the better acceleration rate and higher line speeds possible.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,686
Location
Northampton
However electricity has also gone up in cost so there would be increased savings to counteract the increased cost to install as well as you could also reduce number of units you need to run a service as it will take less time to cover the same service with an AC unit than a DC unit due to the better acceleration rate and higher line speeds possible.
On the southern region the benefits of an AC unit against a DC unit will be marginal if anything. Uplifting of a handful of miles by 10mph is going to make no difference to the number of units required to run the services. I'm sorry but the benefits of converting a DC service to AC are almost exclusively hypothetical. The benefits of converting a DC route to AC would be to allow Diesel to AC traction conversion, but this is of questionable value when proper Bi-Mode units are rapidly coming into squadron service.

I'd far rather focus energy and effort on electrifying lines that currently don't have any electrification, and bring BEMUs in to run the entire Southern region as a single interworked fleet. The only sub-fleet then would be the BEMU's fitted for dual-voltage working, if needed.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,610
Location
Taunton or Kent
Bumping this because of a development near Uckfield. A new Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) has been given planning consent just south east of the town. This will have 600MW of power, and either 600MWh or 2.4GWh of capacity (the application is not quite clear on that !). When Battery EMUs are eventually bought for the Uckfield line, if a charging station is needed at Uckfield then plugging into that will simply be noise in the local electricity network.

To put it in context, the average power draw of traction electricity for the whole of Network Rail is around 450MW (with some peaks and troughs through the day / week for obvious reasons).
Could units be charged at Uckfield off of a short third rail section (as opposed to a charge device like at West Ealing), that is only live when a train makes contact with it? While such an arrangement would be difficult on a long route like the WEML, I think it would work very well at a terminus like Uckfield.
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
4,000
Location
Newport
the benefits of an AC unit against a DC unit will be marginal if anything. Uplifting of a handful of miles by 10mph is going to make no difference to the number of units required to run the services.
Even then I’d expect any reduced running times to get banked as yet more padding and yet more dwell time. The whole industry is shot-scared of trying to accelerate anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top