3rd Rail Infill suggestions

[RobShipway]

No - they are running to/from Eastleigh but via Havant and Fareham, which has been going on for many years.

Thanks. That is what I thought might be the case.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

IN a moment of fancy - some while ago , I considered a Victoria - Redhill or Reigate extended (electrification permissible) to Reading. Gives quite a few interesting options , as well as Tonbridge - Reading ......!

 

[BrianW]

Does the government run the country? Does it 'inform'/ influence/ direct eg HSE, ORR, ...? or is it vice-versa? I am still hearing of 'elfinsafetygonmad', red tape, goldplating ...
Where are the 'outlier' DMUs (esp small stocks) ready to scrap?
Where are the shortest 'gaps' between existing provision that are used, eg for freight or frequent passenger services.
I don't see government enthusiasm for more services; if anything fewer.
I can see a case for eg what is currently Chiltern to go electric to make London all-electric; similarly Birmingham, re 'emissions'- places there are powerful Mayors.
(Ah yes, COP26 coming soon so maybe Glasgow? Can't see Wick or Mallaig going electric any time soon though.)
I seem to remember an 'official' list was to be produced?
How much train is needed for tri-mode? That must be expensive to lug around a battery, a diesel engine and fuel ...
I sense 3rd rail gaps will be a 'quick win' for government to be seen to be 'getting a grip'.

 

[Bald Rick]

So this 'active considering' is mentioned in the Williams report. Who will give the authority to ignore the safety considerations that have led to the current ban on new 3rd rail?

ORR. Will involve much paperwork.

 

[paul1609]

So this 'active considering' is mentioned in the Williams report. Who will give the authority to ignore the safety considerations that have led to the current ban on new 3rd rail?

A large part of the risk has been removed by the ban on red zone working and by the ease of isolation that modern electronics allow. In the south east the missing links are largely in rural or less populated areas. Its impossible to eliminate risk entirely but whos to say that dc electrification of the renaining sections is less than ac electrification of the mml through major cities like Leicester?

 

[Bald Rick]

A large part of the risk has been removed by the ban on red zone working

It’s not banned.... yet.

 

[Tio Terry]

A large part of the risk has been removed by the ban on red zone working and by the ease of isolation that modern electronics allow. In the south east the missing links are largely in rural or less populated areas. Its impossible to eliminate risk entirely but whos to say that dc electrification of the renaining sections is less than ac electrification of the mml through major cities like Leicester?

There is no point in trying to compare different areas of electrification at different systems with each other. Each scheme will need to comply with the CSM-RA requirements for risk evaluation which will be applicable to each scheme. Banning red zone working is a minor part of the risk evaluation process. Staff have been working beside third rail electrification for years and the safety requirements are well established, some additional training may be required but not much. The biggest risk is not staff but the public - especially trespassers!

 

[2192]

Several posters have suggested extending DC to Uckfield. Chris Green's report to Government (22nd June 2017) recommended this be done as AC largely as the major cost either way would be the connection to the National Grid, and DC needed far more substations, and land was not available. See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/southern-rail-network-gibb-report. Is this suggestion still being actively considered?

 

[RobShipway]

Several posters have suggested extending DC to Uckfield. Chris Green's report to Government (22nd June 2017) recommended this be done as AC largely as the major cost either way would be the connection to the National Grid, and DC needed far more substations, and land was not available. See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/southern-rail-network-gibb-report. Is this suggestion still being actively considered?

You mean Chris Gibb, rather than Chris Green?

I think most are going on the basis that it would be easier to put in 3rd rail, rather than have OLE in the gap between Oxted to Uckfield. In putting in OLE you have the extra cost of making sure that your dual-voltage units have a pantograph installed on top, as well as the 3rd rail pickup shoe installed. You also have the issue of making sure that say the class 377 units once installed with the pantograph on top can fit in any tunnels etc... on the route.

 

[AM9]

You mean Chris Gibb, rather than Chris Green?

I think most are going on the basis that it would be easier to put in 3rd rail, rather than have OLE in the gap between Oxted to Uckfield. In putting in OLE you have the extra cost of making sure that your dual-voltage units have a pantograph installed on top, as well as the 3rd rail pickup shoe installed. You also have the issue of making sure that say the class 377 units once installed with the pantograph on top can fit in any tunnels etc... on the route.

The Uckfield line terminates there so it is not really a gap (inplying between 3rd rail sections. There would be no issues with transitioning back to DC beyond Uckfield.
The TOCs in 3rd rail land have 31 class 377 units in service that are not committed to diagrams that need OLE. That's 132 cars of capacity. So given that all Southern's DMU operations are covered with just 56 cars, moving stock around to ensure the few dual voltage units needed for the Uckfield services are available is hardly an insurmountable task, (and that's ignoring the fact that Southern's 171s are all due to be replaced anyway), so that's an even better opportunity move over to a more energy efficient electrifcation system if and when the line is decorabonised.
If the tunnel is wired with 25kV OLE then the pantograph will fit.

 

[zwk500]

The Uckfield line terminates there so it is not really a gap (inplying between 3rd rail sections. There would be no issues with transitioning back to DC beyond Uckfield.
The TOCs in 3rd rail land have 31 class 377 units in service that are not committed to diagrams that need OLE. That's 132 cars of capacity. So given that all Southern's DMU operations are covered with just 56 cars, moving stock around to ensure the few dual voltage units needed for the Uckfield services are available is hardly an insurmountable task, (and that's ignoring the fact that Southern's 171s are all due to be replaced anyway), so that's an even better opportunity move over to a more energy efficient electrifcation system if and when the line is decorabonised.

An extension of the existing system is the option being most prominently looked at.

If the tunnel is wired with 25kV OLE then the pantograph will fit.

Ah, but the question is what do you have to do to the tunnels to get the wire to fit?

 

[RobShipway]

An extension of the existing system is the option being most prominently looked at.

Ah, but the question is what do you have to do to the tunnels to get the wire to fit?

Exactly my point.

The Uckfield line terminates there so it is not really a gap (inplying between 3rd rail sections. There would be no issues with transitioning back to DC beyond Uckfield.
The TOCs in 3rd rail land have 31 class 377 units in service that are not committed to diagrams that need OLE. That's 132 cars of capacity. So given that all Southern's DMU operations are covered with just 56 cars, moving stock around to ensure the few dual voltage units needed for the Uckfield services are available is hardly an insurmountable task, (and that's ignoring the fact that Southern's 171s are all due to be replaced anyway), so that's an even better opportunity move over to a more energy efficient electrifcation system if and when the line is decorabonised.
If the tunnel is wired with 25kV OLE then the pantograph will fit.

Okay, for those 31 you will have to install a pantograph to them where one does not exist already. I don't believe either Southern or Bombardier/Alstom the train maker have 31 pantographs in stock waiting so that they can be used. You will also have to remember that the class 377 will have to stop to change over to OLE, so this would have to be done in Oxted station.

 

[AM9]

An extension of the existing system is the option being most prominently looked at.

Subject to acceptance of a H&S assessment.

Ah, but the question is what do you have to do to the tunnels to get the wire to fit?

The comment was in response to a statement:

You also have the issue of making sure that say the class 377 units once installed with the pantograph on top can fit in any tunnels etc... on the route.

The determination of any gauge clearance is completed well before checking to see if a pantograph fitted to some existing trains is a problem. As I said, if the wire is fitted there, the pantograph would clearly be OK.

 

[zwk500]

Okay, for those 31 you will have to install a pantograph to them where one does not exist already. I don't believe either Southern or Bombardier/Alstom the train maker have 31 pantographs in stock waiting so that they can be used.

In the time it'll take to install the infrastructure, you'll have time to order the equipment

You will also have to remember that the class 377 will have to stop to change over to OLE, so this would have to be done in Oxted station.

First off, no it doesn't. The units are capable of changing on the move, but Southern currently choose not to as driver policy. Secondly, Both Oxted and Hurst Green have 1 minute dwells already, which is the standard time for a traction changeover. If you were to install the OLE system, you'd wire the length of Hurst Green platforms and changeover there.

Subject to acceptance of a H&S assessment.

Absolutely.

 

[AM9]

Exactly my point.


Okay, for those 31 you will have to install a pantograph to them where one does not exist already. I don't believe either Southern or Bombardier/Alstom the train maker have 31 pantographs in stock waiting so that they can be used. You will also have to remember that the class 377 will have to stop to change over to OLE, so this would have to be done in Oxted station.

Both the class 377/5s and 377/7s have been used extensivdely under OLE, the former for several years on Thameslink services, and the latter on WLL/MK services. Pantographs are removed and stored when they are removed for extended periods when they are not required.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2021 ==

Absolutely.

There seems to be a sort of 'post Brexit style' jubilation about a suggestion that H&S assumptions might be waivered on the hazards of live conductors at ground level.

 

[RobShipway]

Both the class 377/5s and 377/7s have been used extensivdely under OLE, the former for several years on Thameslink services, and the latter on WLL/MK services. Pantographs are removed and stored when they are removed for extended periods when they are not required.

377/5's are with South Eastern and I doubt that the 377/7's would be used on the Uckfield line. It is more likely to be the class 377/3's or 377/2 units. The 377/2's should already have pantograph's fitted from doing Milton keynes - East Croydon services. 377/3's would need pantographs to be fitted.

 

[zwk500]

There seems to be a sort of 'post Brexit style' jubilation about a suggestion that H&S assumptions might be waivered on the hazards of live conductors at ground level.

Yes, seems rather strange to me to celebrate putting people in greater danger! The ORR, RSSB and HSE aren't going to be bullied into doing it by people 'huzzahing' at them, so further DC electrification is still very much theoretical at this point.

377/5's are with South Eastern and I doubt that the 377/7's would be used on the Uckfield line. It is more likely to be the class 377/3's or 377/2 units. The 377/2's should already have pantograph's fitted from doing Milton keynes - East Croydon services. 377/3's would need pantographs to be fitted.

Which is not difficult to do. And beside the point, because it won't be AC to Uckfield until the wires have reached from Blackfriars to Hurst Green, which is very, very, very, very far in the future.

 

[davetheguard]

IN a moment of fancy - some while ago , I considered a Victoria - Redhill or Reigate extended (electrification permissible) to Reading. Gives quite a few interesting options , as well as Tonbridge - Reading ......!

Didn't Reading - Redhill infill electrification almost happen in Network SouthEast days? I'm sure I remember a public timetable being issued at one timetable change date that made allowance for electrification work; but then recession happened and that was the end of that!

 

[Bald Rick]

Secondly, Both Oxted and Hurst Green have 1 minute dwells already, which is the standard time for a traction changeover

Albeit a 377 changing over at a station stop rarely manages 60sec (as various surveys for Thameslink demonstrated).

AC is effectively off the table.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2021 ==

Didn't Reading - Redhill infill electrification almost happen in Network SouthEast days? I'm sure I remember a public timetable being issued at one timetable change date that made allowance for electrification work; but then recession happened and that was the end of that!

NSE planned to electrify everything i ntheir remit that wasn’t electric (except, perhaps, down to Exeter) in the mid to late 90s.

Reading - Redhill is more complex though, as there’s lots of steel sleepers to get out first.

 

[Aictos]

Both the class 377/5s and 377/7s have been used extensivdely under OLE, the former for several years on Thameslink services, and the latter on WLL/MK services. Pantographs are removed and stored when they are removed for extended periods when they are not required.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2021 ==

Actually I think you find that the Class 377/6s, 377/7s, 375/6s despite being mainly used on 3rd Rail routes still have their OHL equipment eg their pantographs still fitted to the all members of all three fleets so they're not actually removed and stored.

I've worked with two of the fleets above during all lockdown periods so I do know they still have their pantographs.

The Class 313 fleet that Southern operates is the exception to the rule.

 

[2192]

.....because it won't be AC to Uckfield until the wires have reached from Blackfriars to Hurst Green, which is very, very, very, very far in the future.

Chris Gibb's proposal wasn't wires from central London to Uckfield. It was wires from Oxted/Hurst Green to Uckfield, and use dual voltage stock.

See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/southern-rail-network-gibb-report

 

[zwk500]

Chris Gibb's proposal wasn't wires from central London to Uckfield. It was wires from Oxted/Hurst Green to Uckfield, and use dual voltage stock.

See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/southern-rail-network-gibb-report

I didn't say he'd proposed continuous wires, but that regardless of anybody's proposals islands of OLE surrounded by 3rd rail are very, very unlikely.

 

[DJ_K666]

These aren’t particularly good examples, Thameslink itself didn’t really change the third rail network extent, and the extended ELL was authorised, built and completed (in 2010), significantly before the ORR’s changed views were publicised (2015).

I do wonder if the ORR might be publicly saying 'No Third Rail' but behind closed doors saying that they might need to reduce their opposition or risk being forcibly disbanded.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2021 ==

ORR. Will involve much paperwork.

Certainly more paperwork then writing your name, which is my current threshold for 'too much'

 

[paul1609]

377/5's are with South Eastern and I doubt that the 377/7's would be used on the Uckfield line. It is more likely to be the class 377/3's or 377/2 units. The 377/2's should already have pantograph's fitted from doing Milton keynes - East Croydon services. 377/3's would need pantographs to be fitted.

377/3s are dc only they dont have the transformers or switchgear fitted for ac operation. The TMS is not compatible with dual voltage. At the time of construction they were designed to be convertible to ac but all of the components have since gone out of production which means that any conversion of 20 year old units would cost more than new trains and is very unlikely.
Assuming precovid traffic levels are catered for a peak Uckfield train would require 4 x 377/3 units whilst they can operate this way on dc I dont think 4 pantographs on 1 train would be accepted without specialist overhead line equipment.

 

[zwk500]

377/3s are dc only they dont have the transformers or switchgear fitted for ac operation. The TMS is not compatible with dual voltage. At the time of construction they were designed to be convertible to ac but all of the components have since gone out of production which means that any conversion of 20 year old units would cost more than new trains and is very unlikely.
Assuming precovid traffic levels are catered for a peak Uckfield train would require 4 x 377/3 units whilst they can operate this way on dc I dont think 4 pantographs on 1 train would be accepted without specialist overhead line equipment.

As this thread is about DC infill is discussion of AC operation not more for the Uckfield-specific thread?

 

[DJ_K666]

Exactly my point.


Okay, for those 31 you will have to install a pantograph to them where one does not exist already. I don't believe either Southern or Bombardier/Alstom the train maker have 31 pantographs in stock waiting so that they can be used. You will also have to remember that the class 377 will have to stop to change over to OLE, so this would have to be done in Oxted station.

Unless the ones nicked off the flying coffins 313s were just stashed somewhere at Lovers Walk. It's not the pan that matters but all the other gubbins that goes with it, rectifiers, wiring and various other bits and pieces.
Incideltally, I do think they get bought in for each unit built so it'd be whoever the rolling stock builders buy them from that would probably supply them..

 

[paul1609]

Unless the ones nicked off the flying coffins 313s were just stashed somewhere at Lovers Walk. It's not the pan that matters but all the other gubbins that goes with it, rectifiers, wiring and various other bits and pieces.
Incideltally, I do think they get bought in for each unit built so it'd be whoever the rolling stock builders buy them from that would probably supply them..

I think its a worse case than that. The early 375s and 377s were dc only units that were designed to be capable of conversion to ac only so they could be transfered to other franchises. The 377/2, 375/6, 377/5 etc were like a deluxe version that was designed to be dual voltage. Converting the early designs to dual voltage has been considered but was considered to be uneconomic.

 

[DJ_K666]

I think its a worse case than that. The early 375s and 377s were dc only units that were designed to be capable of conversion to ac only so they could be transfered to other franchises. The 377/2, 375/6, 377/5 etc were like a deluxe version that was designed to be dual voltage. Converting the early designs to dual voltage has been considered but was considered to be uneconomic.

I read somewhere (maybe on here actually) that there's a lot of concrete ballast that would need removing so yes you're probably right about it being uneconomic.Much better to get new units, preferably actual new ones and not knackered cast offs from Worst group

 

[BrianW]

I sense government enthusiasm for 'quick wins'- yes they must be kowtowed to as holders of purse strings now and for a long time ahead.
So, fewer 'design-types', culling those which are old, inflexible, hard and pricey to maintain and/or 'do up' and small in number (noting Williams-Shapps re too many types, route and driver knowledge, ...) and focused into fewer depots.
Maybe a few 'new' trains for press releases and to get rid of more of these 'outliers'; no more Pacer-type 'hangings on'.
Some 'breaking eggs' and 'cracking heads' in pursuit of omelettes- 'a price worth paying'- so not a good time for 'union obstruction' as it will be seen.
Some more hydrogen and or battery trials on some of these candidates. Innovative, so private sector- like EE Deltic!
All diesel to be gone by some optimistic date promise- to be announced at COP26 in Glasgow- 'plan' to follow, with another announcement 'in due course'.

 

[AM9]

As this thread is about DC infill is discussion of AC operation not more for the Uckfield-specific thread?

Basically the same arguments aplly to the Ashford-Ore line as well, - the same assets would likely be used for local services and if the acces to HS1 at the Ashford end wasn't practical, I doubt there would be new trains provided.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2021 ==

I read somewhere (maybe on here actually) that there's a lot of concrete ballast that would need removing so yes you're probably right about it being uneconomic.Much better to get new units, preferably actual new ones and not knackered cast offs from Worst group

But the posts in this thread aren't talking about converting units that hitherto have been in DC-only service and are thus without the switchgear, pantograph mountings, and actual transformer. The three sub-classes (377/2, /5 & /7 have all done considerable service on mixed supply services (mostly Thameslink) so other than sticking the pantograph back on (if necessary) and a quick retest of the ac and changeover fuctions, they would be good to go. As for whether new units are necessary, we're talking about EMUs which in the case of Electrostars are perfectly good enough for BML, West Sussex, Coastline services, so what's so special about the existing unelectrified lines that 12 year old trains aren't good enough and they need new trains?