Should the third rail ban be lifted?

[Bald Rick]

This isn’t quite true now.

If all the remaining Southern Region diesel routes were electrified, it would be likely that as a minimum Basingstoke-Salisbury and Oxted-Uckfield would need to be specified to be able to support some 12-car running. Salisbury-Exeter would also need to be able to support 8-car running probably on a 30-minute frequency.

Both Salisbury and Uckfield have seen 10-car DMU working, though there may be less call for it since Covid. In the case of Uckfield the capacity is needed further in, so you either don’t make full use of a path into London, or have to find a way of attaching carriages during the journey, which on the Uckfield route isn’t viable with the current infrastructure.

Not forgetting that both the WoE servcies to Salisbury / Exeter and the Uckfield servcie are formed of 23 metre vehicles. So a 10 car servcie is broadly the same as a 12 car EMU of 20 metre vehicles

 

[ainsworth74]

I wonder if this perhaps the moment to mention this FOI I did a few years ago regarding fatalities and injuries in relation to third rail? Whilst I never did get around to making a similar FOI for OHLE I can't help but suspect the figures are very much higher than what you'd find for OHLE areas.

But just to provide some context around the safety aspects and why the ORR might not be very keen to authorise even infill schemes of third rail. I think suggestions that they're being extreme in their interpretaion of the law are perhaps unfair when confronted with these numbers of injuries and fatalities on the existing network...

Having seen this discussion some time I go I thought some precise figures might actually make for interesting reading rather than just guesses and gut feelings! And so, with many thanks to the always helpful (and no doubt long suffering) FOI team at Network Rail, we do actually have some sort of quantification of how many people, staff and members of the public, are killed or injured by third-rail on the railway network. I feel that I should probably lead with the explanation of their methodology first and then I'll put the figures below:

We also thought it might be useful if we explained the methodology behind gathering this data – we don’t normally go into this much depth but in this case we think it relevant because the search process is complex and, while we’re satisfied that this is the most comprehensive means by which we can gather information, we recognise the methodology is by necessity imperfect and that, while we think it unlikely, there may be instances which fall outside the scope of our searches for the reasons explained below:

• We have two SMIS databases – the first one runs from 1994 to 2017, while the more recent one runs from 2017 to the present.
• Our expert’s searches for data in the old SMIS database started with finding entries that were entered as “electricity related injury”, which would provide details of both injuries and fatalities, and were then filtered further to any references of “conductor rail contact”, “conductor rail arc eye” and “other electric incident”. From the results found under “other electric incident”, a further search was conducted for the phrases “third rail”, “3 rd rail”, “con rail” and “conductor rail”. Any events that did not contain these references were then removed from the dataset. Finally, our expert used the “injury degree column” to identify fatalities – any other incidents that were not fatal were then labelled as injuries.
• Our expert’s searches in the current SMIS database were collated using the “electric shock” domain, which contains incidents of electrocution. A filter was applied to the “electric shock source” category to locate results which included “conductor rail system (3rd or 4th)”, “lineside power”, “lineside power distribution equipment”, “traction power” and “traction power distribution equipment”. For “lineside power”, “lineside power distribution equipment”, “traction power” and “traction power distribution equipment” events, our expert reviewed each result to see whether they referenced the third rail and removed any events that did not. Fatalities were then identified using the “injuries summary” column.
• Once our expert carried out these searches in the two SMIS databases, they combined the result and standardised the person type to either be “workforce” or “member of public” and then was able to sort the results accordingly.
• One thing to be aware of is that if any events were entered using terminology our experts wouldn’t expect, used the incorrect form, or were just generally recorded incorrectly then it’s possible we wouldn’t have found it in these searches.

So with those necessary (but I think perfectly reasonable!) caveats in mind the data itself is below:



*2024 is included in the figures for 2019 - 2023 as it's only a part year through to 9 May 2024.

(Table contains data from 1994 through to 9 May 2024. It shows, five year chunks that, on average, staff fatalities were approx one or two every five years (though, no fatalities have been recorded for 2019 - 2024) whilst for members of the public the average is twenty fatalities every five years. In total 124 member of the public have been killed and eight members of staff in the data range. In terms of injuries the data is presented on an annual basis and shows that, on average, six members of the public are injured and seven members of staff. In total 195 members of the public were injured and 221 member of staff in the date range).

I have to say the number of fatalities for members of the public took me by surprise. I would not have anticipated it being quite so high! 132 fatalities in twenty years feels like quite a high number of fatalities. It's perhaps also interesting that it was, seemingly, trending down from the early 00s before spiking over the last five years, which includes the pandemic years of course.

Personally, I do think that these figures give some explanation why the ORR are seemingly so leery of allowing new or extended third rail systems.

Anyway, hopefully others find these figures interesting and also provide useful context to discussions around the safety (or otherwise) of third rail!

I would also like to again thank Network Rail's FOI staff. It was a very impressive response and I think must have taken them quite a lot of effort to put it together.

 

[Bald Rick]

I wonder if this perhaps the moment to mention this FOI I did a few years ago regarding fatalities and injuries in relation to third rail? Whilst I never did get around to making a similar FOI for OHLE I can't help but suspect the figures are very much higher than what you'd find for OHLE areas.

Thank you again, Sir, for publishing this rather sobering evidence.

 

[Tetragon213]

That's a fair point, however the primary issue with those platforms is their narrowness.

Which is perhaps impetus to install Platform Edge Doors.

The lines that currently run on diesel in Southeast England aren't twelve cars long.

We have 9 and 10 coach workings in the morning on WoE services. I'm fairly certain 12 coach workings are possible as well.

 

[yorksrob]

I wonder if this perhaps the moment to mention this FOI I did a few years ago regarding fatalities and injuries in relation to third rail? Whilst I never did get around to making a similar FOI for OHLE I can't help but suspect the figures are very much higher than what you'd find for OHLE areas.

But just to provide some context around the safety aspects and why the ORR might not be very keen to authorise even infill schemes of third rail. I think suggestions that they're being extreme in their interpretaion of the law are perhaps unfair when confronted with these numbers of injuries and fatalities on the existing network...



I would also like to again thank Network Rail's FOI staff. It was a very impressive response and I think must have taken them quite a lot of effort to put it together.

Which is, of course over a network of many hundreds of miles. The very short infill schemes being suggested would likely entail a vanishingly small proportion of any ongoing injuries.

 

[renegademaster]

Which is, of course over a network of many hundreds of miles. The very short infill schemes being suggested would likely entail a vanishingly small proportion of any ongoing injuries.

And I'd honestly expect, but it might not be the way regulators take it, that risk is actually a lot less in more rural areas despite less supervision and more level crossings. People tend to be more sensible, theirs simply less of them , and children, especially unsupervised ones , are much rarer. Theirs many quite obvious signs in London that trespass is something that happens main times daily (mainly how much graffiti trains have nowadays)

 

[Wolfie]

I wonder if this perhaps the moment to mention this FOI I did a few years ago regarding fatalities and injuries in relation to third rail? Whilst I never did get around to making a similar FOI for OHLE I can't help but suspect the figures are very much higher than what you'd find for OHLE areas.

But just to provide some context around the safety aspects and why the ORR might not be very keen to authorise even infill schemes of third rail. I think suggestions that they're being extreme in their interpretaion of the law are perhaps unfair when confronted with these numbers of injuries and fatalities on the existing network...



I would also like to again thank Network Rail's FOI staff. It was a very impressive response and I think must have taken them quite a lot of effort to put it together.

Very impressive data, TY. One minor thing though, the data is for a 30, not a 20, year period. My analyst OCD was triggered, lol.

 

[yorksrob]

And I'd honestly expect, but it might not be the way regulators take it, that risk is actually a lot less in more rural areas despite less supervision and more level crossings. People tend to be more sensible, theirs simply less of them , and children, especially unsupervised ones , are much rarer. Theirs many quite obvious signs in London that trespass is something that happens main times daily (mainly how much graffiti trains have nowadays)

Indeed, and (purely intuitively) I'd have thought that the comparatively simple track layouts involved would entail less risk of people stumbling, becoming disorientated etc, compared to major junctions as an example.

 

[Electrostar387]

And I'd honestly expect, but it might not be the way regulators take it, that risk is actually a lot less in more rural areas despite less supervision and more level crossings. People tend to be more sensible, theirs simply less of them , and children, especially unsupervised ones , are much rarer. Theirs many quite obvious signs in London that trespass is something that happens main times daily (mainly how much graffiti trains have nowadays)

Worth remembering as well, which I'm happy to be corrected on if it's been missed thus far in this thread, is that there are gaps in the third rail around both level crossings and foot crossings; in all my time of driving in third rail areas I've never seen a foot crossing or level crossing whereby anyone is expected to step over a third rail. Indeed, at such places there's even a few metres gap either side of the crossing so someone would have to deliberately walk/drive away from the level crossing area to come into contact with the third rail.

 

[Bald Rick]

Which is, of course over a network of many hundreds of miles. The very short infill schemes being suggested would likely entail a vanishingly small proportion of any ongoing injuries.

There are 4,456 single track kilometres of electrification with conductor rail on Network Rail infrastructure, which includes various sidings and loops.

To electrify the infill areas commonly proposed on these pages - North Downs, Uckfield, and Ore to Ashford - would be a further c215km. Thats as near as makes no difference an extra 5%. On a route mileage basis it will be higher (I guess 7%) but I don’t have those numbers to hand, so will stick with 5%.

Extrapolating the numbers provided by @ainsworth74 above, that implies an additional 6-7 fatalities, and 20-21 injuries over the next three decades were those routes to be electrified with conductor rail. That’s just about 1 incident per year on these new sections. I note the suggestion that rural routes are less likely to see incidents, I suspect the numbers don’t bear that out, but I don’t know. However it is likely that the addition of third rail in areas where there currently is none will potentially lead to a higher rate of incidents than the average, at least for an initial period. I don’t have evidence of that so will exclude it. And, also, I suspect that incidents are correlated more to route mileage than track mileage, but again will exclude that and stick with the lower, 5% number, on track mileage whcih leads to the extrapolation above. (For example, one could use different yet reasonable assumptions that would broadly double the anticipated extra incident numbers).

Now, it might be that the benefits to society of electric trains on these lines is worth the fact that there would be, on average, an incident every year on them, but you will need to demonstrate that through risk assessment compared to alternatives, one of which is ‘do nothing.’ If, say, you are the MD of the Southern Region, and that assessment is not done, and you electrify with conductor rail anyway*, you will find yourself in the dock in court in short order following the first incident.

In the current world where battery trains are in service in the UK and worldwide and therefore clearly a possible alternative, you would need to demonstrate that the cost of buying and maintaining battery trains for these lines is grossly disproportionate compared to the cost of buying and maintaining straight EMUs plus 215km of third rail electrification (including all the necessary distribution equipment, power supplies, changes to signalling, changes to track, level crossings, signage, etc), plus not having the other benefits (safety, performance, and financial) that battery trains have. Grossly disproportionate has a defintion in these circumstances, which I shan’t go into detail of here, as it gets complex. The short version is that the value of each life saved / injury avoided is multiplied by at least 2.5 times the norm used in socio-economic business cases.

Therefore, imagine again you are the MD of Southern Region. You have done the relevant risk assessments, and all the paperwork, and found that the whole life cost of battery trains is lower than or the same as electrifying with conductor rail. Nevertheless you sign the paperwork to deliver third rail*. Someone, at some point, has a fatal incident. You will be charged with Manslaughter by gross negligence, be found guilty, and sent to prison.

Therefore the only circumstance where it makes sense to electrify these sections with third rail is if it can be demonstrated, unequivocally, that the cost of the alternative(s) on a whole life basis is grossly disproportionate compared to the cost of third rail electrification, taking into account the expected lives lost and injuries occurring.


It is my contention, based on my knowledge and experience of how much these things cost, that battery trains in this example would be much, much cheaper, as well as safer, than new third rail.

Perhaps this thread could be bookmarked somehow, as this keeps cropping up.

* It is hypothetical of course, but if the MD of Southern Region did sign off on a new conductor rail installation with no risk assessment, or an assessment which showed that alternatives were better, then the ORR would not approve the entry into service of the equipment when it was built, and the MD would be sacked (if they hadn’t been sacked already).


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Mar 2026 ==

Indeed, at such places there's even a few metres gap either side of the crossing so someone would have to deliberately walk/drive away from the level crossing area to come into contact with the third rail.

And guess what happens?

 

[35B]

There are 4,456 single track kilometres of electrification with conductor rail on Network Rail infrastructure.

To electrify the infill areas commonly proposed on these pages - North Downs, Uckfield, and Ore to Ashford - would be a further c215km. Thats as near as makes no difference an extra 5%. On a route mileage basis, it is higher (I guess 7%) but I don’t have those numbers to hand, so will stick with 5%.

Extrapolating the numbers provided by @ainsworth74 above, that implies an additional 6-7 fatalities, and 20-21 injuries over the next three decades were those routes to be electrified with conductor rail. That’s just about 1 incident per year on these new sections. I note the suggestion that rural routes are less likely to see incidents, I suspect the numbers don’t bear that out, but I don’t know. However it is likely that the addition of third rail in areas where there currently is none will potentially lead to a higher rate of incidents than the average, at least for an initial period. I don’t have evidence of that so will exclude it. And, also, I suspect that incidents are correlated more to route mileage than track mileage, but again will exclude that and use the lower number on track mileage.

Now, it might be that the benefits to society of electric trains on these lines is worth the fact that there would be, on average, an incident every year on them, but you will need to demonstrate that through risk assessment compared to alternatives, one of which is ‘do nothing.’ If, say, you are the MD of the Southern Region, and that assessment is not done, and you electrify with conductor rail anyway*, you will find yourself in the dock in court in short order following the first incident.

In the current world where battery trains are in service in the UK and worldwide) and clearly a possible alternative, you would need to demonstrate that the cost of buying and maintaining battery trains for these lines is grossly disproportionate compared to the cost of buying and maintaining straight EMUs plus 215km of third rail electrification (including all the necessary distribution equipment, power supplies, changes to signalling, changes to track, level crossings, signage, etc), plus not having the other benefits (safety, performance, and financial) that battery trains have. Grossly disproportionate has a defintion in these circumstances, which I shan’t go into detail of here, as it gets complex. The short version is that the value of each life saved / injury avoided is multiplied by at least 2.5 times the norm in socio-economic business cases.

Therefore, imagine again you are the MD of Southern Region. You have done the relevant risk assessments, and all the paperwork, and found that the whole life cost of battery trains is lower than or the same as electrifying with conductor rail. Nevertheless you sign the paperwork to deliver third rail*. Someone, at some point, has a fatal incident. You will be charged with Manslaughter by gross negligence, be found guilty, and sent to prison.

Therefore the only circumstance where it makes sense to electrify these sections with third rail is if it can be demonstrated, unequivocally, that the cost of the alternative(s) on a whole life basis is grossly disproportionate compared to the cost of third rail electrification, taking into account the expected lives lost and injuries occurring.


It is my contention, based on my knowledge and experience of how much these things cost, that battery trains in this example would be much, much cheaper, as well as safer, than new third rail.

Perhaps this thread could be bookmarked somehow, as this keeps cropping up.

* It is hypothetical of course, but if the MD of Southern Region did sign off on a new conductor rail installation with no risk assessment, or an assessment which showed that alternatives were better, then the ORR would not approve the entry into service of the equipment when it was built, and the MD would be sacked (if they hadn’t been sacked already).

If the data is correct, and the attribution is solely to 3rd rail, I would agree. The numbers however feel out of kilter for whats reported on 3rd rail incidents, and I notice the data has significant caveats about how it’s sourced and categorised.

In particular, I’d be very interested to see the breakdown of deaths and injuries to cause, so that the risk comparison is robust. The number of members of the public is apparent, but any comparison must address a direct comparison of lines considering accessibility, trespass levels, etc. That comparison might either favour or disfavour the predominately rural nature of the routes being discussed

 

[Bald Rick]

If the data is correct, and the attribution is solely to 3rd rail, I would agree. The numbers however feel out of kilter for whats reported on 3rd rail incidents, and I notice the data has significant caveats about how it’s sourced and categorised.

In particular, I’d be very interested to see the breakdown of deaths and injuries to cause, so that the risk comparison is robust. The number of members of the public is apparent, but any comparison must address a direct comparison of lines considering accessibility, trespass levels, etc. That comparison might either favour or disfavour the predominately rural nature of the routes being discussed

That’s all fair. I will say that incidents on the third rail are not often publicised, as the details are rather upsetting, particularly for those who know the individuals concerned.

For example we had a fatality in the last couple of weeks that would not have happened without third rail being present, and you won’t have see anything about the details of that, nor that third rail was involved.

 

[Electrostar387]

And guess what happens?

Nothing to say that the yellow shrouding boards found in depots couldn't be put in either side of the third rail for a few metres beyond the level crossings (already past the gaps of the third rail in existence around crossings).

 

[Mgameing123]

I think there is a case for allowing 3rd rail where it extends existing installations. It would certainly make sense to me to do that from Basingstoke to Exeter.

I agree. An outright ban seems silly when it’s so widespread down in the south east. We haven’t reached the point where it would make sense to convert it to overhead wires since there are too many diesel lines that need electrification first.

 

[urbophile]

If it is officially or unofficially a ban, yes either way.

The Marshlink, North Downs, Uckfield and Merseyrail extensions (Ormskirk to Preston, Headbolt Lane to Wigan, Bidston to Wrexham and Hunts Cross to Warrington) should be electrified in combination with the introduction of battery EMUs on these lines so that the whole lines are not required to be electrified and so that any areas at higher risk of trespass also do not need third rails installing.

As far as Merseyrail is concerned, the 777 units allow for battery power to supplement the third rail system, or AC transformers and pantographs to pick up from the overhead. But not all three systems on one train. Hence there is a lack of flexibility if, as is desirable, routes that are currently operated with AC overhead are incorporated into the Merseyrail system. It won't be possible for those trains to run on sections of line with neither form of electrification.

 

[Technologist]

Just did a quick scaling exercise with AI, this suggests that device about the same size as two shoeboxes would be enough to allow a 6000A switch on a 3rd rail system. Said device would cost less than £10,000 per unit.

So for £100k/km equipment cost plus the cost of an additional insulated conductor rail we could just energise the rail that was directly under the train. Obviously this would likely be tied in with a BEMU so a given switch failure would not mean that a train gets stuck.

The next argument would be if we are only energising a 3rd rails under trains why not run them at higher voltages and get rid of all fragile, ugly, draggy wires?

 

[Falcon1200]

I have no experience of third rail, but worked for many years (as a Controller) in overhead line areas. In my time the number of overhead line (OLE) injuries/fatalities to members of the public was very small and invariably involved deliberate, as opposed to accidental, actions, although without of course being aware of the danger and almost inevitable result. The most tragic case I recall was two teenage boys who climbed onto a stationary coal train at Rutherglen and were electrocuted; One died, one survived but with awful injuries, that boy bravely went on media to publicise the incident and hopefully prevent repeats.

 

[35B]

Just did a quick scaling exercise with AI, this suggests that device about the same size as two shoeboxes would be enough to allow a 6000A switch on a 3rd rail system. Said device would cost less than £10,000 per unit.

So for £100k/km equipment cost plus the cost of an additional insulated conductor rail we could just energise the rail that was directly under the train. Obviously this would likely be tied in with a BEMU so a given switch failure would not mean that a train gets stuck.

The next argument would be if we are only energising a 3rd rails under trains why not run them at higher voltages and get rid of all fragile, ugly, draggy wires?

Because those draggy wires save a not so small fortune in other lineside kit, and are a much more efficient way of transmitting power.

I'm also not convinced about how you'd manage the safety implications of not knowing whether the 3rd rail was live, as trains connect the pieces of metal together.

 

[Bald Rick]

Just did a quick scaling exercise with AI, this suggests that device about the same size as two shoeboxes would be enough to allow a 6000A switch on a 3rd rail system. Said device would cost less than £10,000 per unit.

So for £100k/km equipment cost plus the cost of an additional insulated conductor rail we could just energise the rail that was directly under the train. Obviously this would likely be tied in with a BEMU so a given switch failure would not mean that a train gets stuck.

The next argument would be if we are only energising a 3rd rails under trains why not run them at higher voltages and get rid of all fragile, ugly, draggy wires?

How do you get the power to the only part of the con rail that is energised, if the rest is off?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Mar 2026 ==

Nothing to say that the yellow shrouding boards found in depots couldn't be put in either side of the third rail for a few metres beyond the level crossings (already past the gaps of the third rail in existence around crossings).

Of course, but then that is extra up front costs, and regular inspection and maintenance. And it doesn’t prevent all incidents by any means.

 

[WAO]

A death every 5 years (incl suicides?), an incident every year, sounds far better than the road alternative.

Also, are the new battery trains to be full length, 10/12 car sets like the emu's they compete with, or just more tadpoles?

Is partial dc also to be considered to allow a more modest battery set?

Very good summary, nevertheless.

WAO

 

[Bald Rick]

A death every 5 years (incl suicides?)

It does not include suicides

Also, are the new battery trains to be full length, 10/12 car sets like the emu's they compete with, or just more tadpoles?

Whatever is appropriate. I’d expect the Southeastern fleet to be operable in 12 car (or equivalent length) formation.

Is partial dc also to be considered to allow a more modest battery set?

No need. The cost of a larger battery is lost in the rounding of a cost of a new BEMU. Assuming the most expensive battery chemistry (LTO), which happens to be best for rail applications (high rates of charge / discharge, very long life, robust in all expected temperatures), a 1MWh battery will cost about £100k more than a 0.5MWh battery. This in a 4 car unit that would cost, say, £6m.

But there would need to be some minor changes to the con rail for running off/on.

 

[DerekC]

Just did a quick scaling exercise with AI, this suggests that device about the same size as two shoeboxes would be enough to allow a 6000A switch on a 3rd rail system. Said device would cost less than £10,000 per unit.

So for £100k/km equipment cost plus the cost of an additional insulated conductor rail we could just energise the rail that was directly under the train. Obviously this would likely be tied in with a BEMU so a given switch failure would not mean that a train gets stuck.

The next argument would be if we are only energising a 3rd rails under trains why not run them at higher voltages and get rid of all fragile, ugly, draggy wires?

Doesn't make much sense as described. What would your shoebox device actually do? How would it be actuated when a train passed over it? How would the current get to it? (That would need extra draggy wires, presumably). If you run the system at a higher voltage you still need "wires". Oh, and of course higher voltage would need new trains and new substations -or at least very expensive conversion of old ones. It sounds more like about £10M/km to me. And if you are going to use a BEMU in case the switches fail, why bother with the third rail at all?

 

[yorksrob]

There are 4,456 single track kilometres of electrification with conductor rail on Network Rail infrastructure, which includes various sidings and loops.

To electrify the infill areas commonly proposed on these pages - North Downs, Uckfield, and Ore to Ashford - would be a further c215km. Thats as near as makes no difference an extra 5%. On a route mileage basis it will be higher (I guess 7%) but I don’t have those numbers to hand, so will stick with 5%.

Extrapolating the numbers provided by @ainsworth74 above, that implies an additional 6-7 fatalities, and 20-21 injuries over the next three decades were those routes to be electrified with conductor rail. That’s just about 1 incident per year on these new sections. I note the suggestion that rural routes are less likely to see incidents, I suspect the numbers don’t bear that out, but I don’t know. However it is likely that the addition of third rail in areas where there currently is none will potentially lead to a higher rate of incidents than the average, at least for an initial period. I don’t have evidence of that so will exclude it. And, also, I suspect that incidents are correlated more to route mileage than track mileage, but again will exclude that and stick with the lower, 5% number, on track mileage whcih leads to the extrapolation above. (For example, one could use different yet reasonable assumptions that would broadly double the anticipated extra incident numbers).

Now, it might be that the benefits to society of electric trains on these lines is worth the fact that there would be, on average, an incident every year on them, but you will need to demonstrate that through risk assessment compared to alternatives, one of which is ‘do nothing.’ If, say, you are the MD of the Southern Region, and that assessment is not done, and you electrify with conductor rail anyway*, you will find yourself in the dock in court in short order following the first incident.

In the current world where battery trains are in service in the UK and worldwide and therefore clearly a possible alternative, you would need to demonstrate that the cost of buying and maintaining battery trains for these lines is grossly disproportionate compared to the cost of buying and maintaining straight EMUs plus 215km of third rail electrification (including all the necessary distribution equipment, power supplies, changes to signalling, changes to track, level crossings, signage, etc), plus not having the other benefits (safety, performance, and financial) that battery trains have. Grossly disproportionate has a defintion in these circumstances, which I shan’t go into detail of here, as it gets complex. The short version is that the value of each life saved / injury avoided is multiplied by at least 2.5 times the norm used in socio-economic business cases.

Therefore, imagine again you are the MD of Southern Region. You have done the relevant risk assessments, and all the paperwork, and found that the whole life cost of battery trains is lower than or the same as electrifying with conductor rail. Nevertheless you sign the paperwork to deliver third rail*. Someone, at some point, has a fatal incident. You will be charged with Manslaughter by gross negligence, be found guilty, and sent to prison.

Therefore the only circumstance where it makes sense to electrify these sections with third rail is if it can be demonstrated, unequivocally, that the cost of the alternative(s) on a whole life basis is grossly disproportionate compared to the cost of third rail electrification, taking into account the expected lives lost and injuries occurring.


It is my contention, based on my knowledge and experience of how much these things cost, that battery trains in this example would be much, much cheaper, as well as safer, than new third rail.

Perhaps this thread could be bookmarked somehow, as this keeps cropping up.

* It is hypothetical of course, but if the MD of Southern Region did sign off on a new conductor rail installation with no risk assessment, or an assessment which showed that alternatives were better, then the ORR would not approve the entry into service of the equipment when it was built, and the MD would be sacked (if they hadn’t been sacked already).

Interesting points, and I'm sure you're correct - batteries do move the dial somewhat.

I note that there will also be costs of lugging around a lot of extra, heavy equipment over the lifetime of the trains, having non-standard fleets, operational limitations of not being able to use the third rail fleets to strengthen trains etc.

These will all add up over time.

 

[Bald Rick]

I note that there will also be costs of lugging around a lot of extra, heavy equipment over the lifetime of the trains,

It’s negligible, and certainly not “a lot”. A few tonnes of battery on, say 150 tonnes of train (for a 4 car). Besides, the energy required to move the extra weight is mostly recoverable during braking - it goes back into the battery.

having non-standard fleets

We do that very well now! Its no different to the current position.

operational limitations of not being able to use the third rail fleets to strengthen trains etc.

Well the answer there is to buy more battery trains. Again no different to the current position.

 

[zwk500]

Interesting points, and I'm sure you're correct - batteries do move the dial somewhat.

By quite a significant margin.

I note that there will also be costs of lugging around a lot of extra, heavy equipment over the lifetime of the trains,

377s currently lug a big block of concrete around, so at least the Batteries would be doing something.

having non-standard fleets, operational limitations of not being able to use the third rail fleets to strengthen trains etc.

BEMUs can operate as standard EMUs when needed so would be more interworkable than the current situation. Especially if you went for an all-battery fleet for commonality.

These will all add up over time.

Yes, but by more than the costs of dealing with 3rd rail? That is the critical question. I believe not.

 

[Harpo]

377s currently lug a big block of concrete around

I'll bet there's a VMOI* for it too.


(*VMOI Vehicle maintenance and operating instruction)

 

[ainsworth74]

I'll bet there's a VMOI* for it too.

Step 1: Is large lump of concrete present?
Step 2: Maintenance Complete.

 

[JohnRegular]

Tangential question - is it likely to be acceptable, or indeed possible, to have a short section of third rail at terminal stations (e..g Uckfield) for charging BEMUs?
I would presume yes as clearly a similar arrangement (with the charging rail only energised when the train is platformed) is allowed at West Ealing, only with the charging rail in the centre of the running rails rathen than to one side.

 

[Mikey C]

Worth remembering as well, which I'm happy to be corrected on if it's been missed thus far in this thread, is that there are gaps in the third rail around both level crossings and foot crossings; in all my time of driving in third rail areas I've never seen a foot crossing or level crossing whereby anyone is expected to step over a third rail. Indeed, at such places there's even a few metres gap either side of the crossing so someone would have to deliberately walk/drive away from the level crossing area to come into contact with the third rail.

Obviously there are gaps either side of the crossing, but while this arrangement might be "acceptable" for existing pedestrian crossings of electrified lines, I can't see any existing pedestrian crossings over non electrified lines being allowed to continue if a 3rd rail was installed.

Indeed the line itself would need to be completely fenced off, and to a higher standard than existing 3rd rail lines in the countryside are fenced off.

 

[Stephen42]

Tangential question - is it likely to be acceptable, or indeed possible, to have a short section of third rail at terminal stations (e..g Uckfield) for charging BEMUs?
I would presume yes as clearly a similar arrangement (with the charging rail only energised when the train is platformed) is allowed at West Ealing, only with the charging rail in the centre of the running rails rathen than to one side.

Splitting into technically and legally as the two key areas. Technically it should be feasible, it may involve a line side battery trickle charging to lower grid demand for speed of installation.

Legally the West Ealing solution has good compliance, it is only live when a train is over it which prevents it being exposed. Standard third rail it would be exposed on the non-platform side and would need to fully assess the safety risks. If it was only live when a train was present and required the train to stop normally then will be easier to demonstrate low risk. One of the challenges at Uckfield will be the varying length of train with shorter trains leaving a length exposed without more complex switching. Either way would need to start by assessing all options including do nothing or overhead line.

That assessment would need to be done for each individual station and the results could vary. Uckfield feels the most likely for third rail to pass out of the few relevant non-electrified terminals. Somewhere like Salisbury or Exeter there will be a greater risk of people going onto the tracks and variety of rolling stock/train movements complicating switching.