3rd Rail Infill suggestions

[Tio Terry]

There’s a good reason at the Basingstoke end, and that is a desire to avoid earthing half the SW ‘division’ D.C. Network. It would be much cheaper to have a short stretch of third rail up the branch from Basingstoke, and OLE from there. Operationally difficult of course. I expect the engineers will have to be inventive to find a way to get the OLE into Basingstoke.

Haven't looked at it in detail but first thought is to pick up the now disused (?) kit from Fawkham Junction and install it just up the line towards Reading!

 

[swt_passenger]

FWIW, here's the current ORR position (from 2015) https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/10702

I think parts of it have been quoted before but not the actual document in full.

The same link to the document was posted in #14 on Monday.

 

[RobShipway]

Indeed, but the fact of the matter is that regardless of education, some people will still do it, and a trespasser is more likely to come to grief on a line with third rail than one without.

Being someone that has lived in places where the station is third rail served, whether it be in East Sussex, Dorset or Berkshire, I have to agree with Bald Rick's point.

But I do think that someone from what at the moment is Network Rail, should be going into Junior schools and be explaining to children why they should not trespass on the railways, whether there is third rail there or not.

I grew up through the 1970's/1980's and certainly remember seeing campaign's on keeping off the railway and we did have a senior engineer from British Rail come to my Junior School to show a video film as to why children should keep away from the tracks. Now the nearest station at this point was in Newhaven, which then as now, is 3rd rail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Being someone that has lived in places where the station is third rail served, whether it be in East Sussex, Dorset or Berkshire, I have to agree with Bald Rick's point.

But I do think that someone from what at the moment is Network Rail, should be going into Junior schools and be explaining to children why they should not trespass on the railways, whether there is third rail there or not.

I grew up through the 1970's/1980's and certainly remember seeing campaign's on keeping off the railway and we did have a senior engineer from British Rail come to my Junior School to show a video film as to why children should keep away from the tracks. Now the nearest station at this point was in Newhaven, which then as now, is 3rd rail.

That film was quite shocking (!) but it worked. You do genuinely want kids to be terrified of trespassing on the railway, as then they won't. It's not like other "bogeymen" or ghosts or whatever, it's fear of a specific thing, the nightmarish consequences of which can be avoided if you don't do it.

 

[zwk500]

But I do think that someone from what at the moment is Network Rail, should be going into Junior schools and be explaining to children why they should not trespass on the railways, whether there is third rail there or not.

They are. A lot.

The same link to the document was posted in #14 on Monday.

Thanks, I'd had a scan but must have missed it!

 

[Bald Rick]

But I do think that someone from what at the moment is Network Rail, should be going into Junior schools and be explaining to children why they should not trespass on the railways, whether there is third rail there or not.

They do, as do TOC staff. I’ve done it myself.

 

[AM9]

FWIW, here's the current ORR position (from 2015) https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/10702

I think parts of it have been quoted before but not the actual document in full.

Reading the ORR's position, it's reassuring that there is a presumption that any grandfather rights that enable the legacy 3rd rail installations to remain operational are effectively subject to ever tightening H&S requirements. As time goes on, a number of reasons for retaining/justifying the extension of the 100 year old 3rd rail infrastructure are chipping away the perceived advantages of retaining it, including:

much higher power losses, (an absolute waste in this environmentally sensitive age)​

increasing operational performance and reliability shortfalls, (limited maximum speed, limited maximum power draw, interrupted by winter icing conditions)​

bridge/tunnel clearance gradually removing unsuitability for OLE​

plus the higher and increasing H&S obligations mentioned here​

All of these will eventually not only bias BCRs on new instrallations, but start to reinforce the strategic decisions to convert the legacy network as the current 3rd rail hardware becomes life-expired.

 

[RobShipway]

That film was quite shocking (!) but it worked. You do genuinely want kids to be terrified of trespassing on the railway, as then they won't. It's not like other "bogeymen" or ghosts or whatever, it's fear of a specific thing, the nightmarish consequences of which can be avoided if you don't do it.

Yes, it was shocking to see the film at the age of 9, which possibly today may not be allowed and which maybe part of the issue?

They are. A lot.

They do, as do TOC staff. I’ve done it myself.

Good. I am glad that it is still done. Out of interest, is any feedback gained from children when doing the school visits?

One of the other things which was done was a site visit to Lovers Walk in Brighton, where the same engineer that visited the school showed how they kept the trains safe for running and staff safe maintaining the trains.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I feel compelled to repeat (a summary of) what I have posted before, several times in the past:

I worked happily with the third rail in North London, on Merseyside and on the South Eastern Division.

I later had a job on the South Western Division. This included giving safety talks to various classes of school children (although that wasn't a main element of my job as it was for some people).

I then had to deal with a case of a child trespasser, aged nine, who was electrocuted after getting onto the line through a hole in the fence that had been made by rail staff as a shortcut to a depot. This included attending a coroner's inquest. So much for the safety talks.

Very soon afterwards a local colleague who was working right next to me was electrocuted during what was supposed to be an isolation because of an appalling series of procedural lapses.

These last two incidents were simply appalling for me.

After them I realised that third rail was simply a bad idea (albeit that British Rail was too heavily into it to just get rid of it).

 

[RobShipway]

I feel compelled to repeat (a summary of) what I have posted before, several times in the past:

I worked happily with the third rail in North London, on Merseyside and on the South Eastern Division.

I later had a job on the South Western Division. This included giving safety talks to various classes of school children (although that wasn't a main element of my job as it was for some people).

I then had to deal with a case of a child trespasser, aged nine, who was electrocuted after getting onto the line through a hole in the fence that had been made by rail staff as a shortcut to a depot. This included attending a coroner's inquest. So much for the safety talks.

Very soon afterwards a local colleague who was working right next to me was electrocuted during what was supposed to be an isolation because of an appalling series of procedural lapses.

These last two incidents were simply appalling for me.

After them I realised that third rail was simply a bad idea (albeit that British Rail was too heavily into it to just get rid of it).

First may I say that I am sorry for what you had to go through both with the coroner's inquest and with your colleague that was electrocuted. Neither incident should ever have happened.

In an ideal world, all electrical lines would be done on the basis of overhead. But I don't believe that would stop children from trespassing. Yes, they may only obtain an injury rather than be killed. But I have known people whose children have trespassed on railway lines, where it has been overhead and still have been electrocuted or killed by touching cables used for the signals at the side of the tracks. For me, changing over from 3rd rail to OLE just means that you have changed where the danger lies. Even with tracks where there is no electrification, you will still have wires for the signals that certainly in the past have been a danger.

 

[Bald Rick]

For me, changing over from 3rd rail to OLE just means that you have changed where the danger lies. Even with tracks where there is no electrification, you will still have wires for the signals that certainly in the past have been a danger.

I’m sorry, but the detailed risk analysis done by various authorities, based on actual data, shows that third rail electrification has a higher system safety risk than OLE.

It’s pretty difficult to get an electric shock from signalling equipment unless you are actually working on it in an equipment case. I don’t doubt it happens, but I can’t remeber an incident where anyone (rail employee or member of the public) has had a shock from signalling kit with the exception of people who were trying to pinch cables. And they knew exactly the risks they were running.

 

[AM9]

First may I say that I am sorry for what you had to go through both with the coroner's inquest and with your colleague that was electrocuted. Neither incident should ever have happened.

In an ideal world, all electrical lines would be done on the basis of overhead. But I don't believe that would stop children from trespassing. Yes, they may only obtain an injury rather than be killed. But I have known people whose children have trespassed on railway lines, where it has been overhead and still have been electrocuted or killed by touching cables used for the signals at the side of the tracks. For me, changing over from 3rd rail to OLE just means that you have changed where the danger lies. Even with tracks where there is no electrification, you will still have wires for the signals that certainly in the past have been a danger.

I think that this trying to say that there are other dangers from physical injury or signal/other cables is a red herring. This thread is about infills using 3rd rail to deliver traction power to trains. Discussion in the thread has gone down a (perfectly reasonable) path discussing the H&S issues that the ORR, HSE & RSSB has with the undoubted risks from the very nature of 3rd rail systems. As others have said, the risks from signalling circuits are real but generally involving attempted theft of those cables whilst live, something that may be there even on an unelectrified track.
3rd rail presents an additional risk that doesn't exist on any other track, (wait for smartass comment about 4-rail track ). What's more, death from 3rd rail electrocution is killing people who are just walking alongside or across it, which although expressley prohibited, continues to be practiced by some for their personal convenience. The prohibition is entirely from a safety angle, because it is likely that some tresspassers do that for short cuts. The have no intention of damaging or stealing from the railway infrastructure, but the danger is ever present and cannot be removed. The comparison with those who go near OLE with fishing rods etc., is specious, as it is a potentially lethal activity, with no benefit like a time saving short cut, and perpetrators must be regarded as prime candidates for Darwin awards.

 

[MarkyT]

It’s pretty difficult to get an electric shock from signalling equipment unless you are actually working on it in an equipment case. I don’t doubt it happens, but I can’t remeber an incident where anyone (rail employee or member of the public) has had a shock from signalling kit with the exception of people who were trying to pinch cables. And they knew exactly the risks they were running.

As a new trainee, I was being shown around the lower equipment rooms of the new PSB at Exeter by one of the senior testers commissioning the installation. "These are the 110 VAC busbars" he explained, extending both hands towards the unprotected conductors, but unintentionally touching them to give himself an almighty shock! It certainly graphically demonstrated the risk.

 

[RobShipway]

I’m sorry, but the detailed risk analysis done by various authorities, based on actual data, shows that third rail electrification has a higher system safety risk than OLE.

It’s pretty difficult to get an electric shock from signalling equipment unless you are actually working on it in an equipment case. I don’t doubt it happens, but I can’t remeber an incident where anyone (rail employee or member of the public) has had a shock from signalling kit with the exception of people who were trying to pinch cables. And they knew exactly the risks they were running.

In the case that I mentioned, the cable was left over the side of the track and was due later to be implemented as part of a new signal system. My friends son in touching it, should have been safe. But someone in Network Rail decided that it should go live before the new signalling system was in place. No theft of the cable was taking place, as my friends son was moving it out of the way to clear a safe path not only for him to walk, but for trains to go along the track.

The parents of the individual are still grieving 5 years after the event!

I think that this trying to say that there are other dangers from physical injury or signal/other cables is a red herring. This thread is about infills using 3rd rail to deliver traction power to trains. Discussion in the thread has gone down a (perfectly reasonable) path discussing the H&S issues that the ORR, HSE & RSSB has with the undoubted risks from the very nature of 3rd rail systems. As others have said, the risks from signalling circuits are real but generally involving attempted theft of those cables whilst live, something that may be there even on an unelectrified track.
3rd rail presents an additional risk that doesn't exist on any other track, (wait for smartass comment about 4-rail track ). What's more, death from 3rd rail electrocution is killing people who are just walking alongside or across it, which although expressley prohibited, continues to be practiced by some for their personal convenience. The prohibition is entirely from a safety angle, because it is likely that some tresspassers do that for short cuts. The have no intention of damaging or stealing from the railway infrastructure, but the danger is ever present and cannot be removed. The comparison with those who go near OLE with fishing rods etc., is specious, as it is a potentially lethal activity, with no benefit like a time saving short cut, and perpetrators must be regarded as prime candidates for Darwin awards.

Tell that to my friends who lost a son 5 years. Yes he was not suppose to be alongside the track. But was trying to clear to one side a cable which should not have been live away from being across track and should not have been left dangling such that it could have caused problems with passing trains.

As I stated previously in an ideal world and if I had a magic wand I would be using it to change all third rail installation to be Overhead, as yes there is a greater safety. But if there is a passage that people think that they could use as a short cut by going over the tracks, then it is likely that they will use whatever age.

In the meantime, whether we are people travelling on trains or people doing the engineering work on the tracks. For the time being we will all have to live with third rail, until the price of putting in OLE drops lower enough that it does not matter what amount of profit any lines are making. I know that there is going to be those that say we should be putting lives before money, I don't disagree with that point either. But you have to be realistic. Lines such as Oxted to Uckfield, yes could be done with OLE. But you would then needing to change to 3rd rail at Oxted. You would also need to be converting class 377 units that we built as dc only to be ac/dc units the same as class 377/5, how much is that going to cost? The only other alternative, would be to convert class 379 units to be ac/dc units, but most people seem to think that those units are going to Great Northern.

The only other option is to not make a change and just leave the class 171 units doing the route to Uckfield.

 

[Bald Rick]

In the case that I mentioned, the cable was left over the side of the track and was due later to be implemented as part of a new signal system. My friends son in touching it, should have been safe. But someone in Network Rail decided that it should go live before the new signalling system was in place. No theft of the cable was taking place, as my friends son was moving it out of the way to clear a safe path not only for him to walk, but for trains to go along the track.

The parents of the individual are still grieving 5 years after the event!


Tell that to my friends who lost a son 5 years. Yes he was not suppose to be alongside the track. But was trying to clear to one side a cable which should not have been live away from being across track and should not have been left dangling such that it could have caused problems with passing trains.

As I stated previously in an ideal world and if I had a magic wand I would be using it to change all third rail installation to be Overhead, as yes there is a greater safety. But if there is a passage that people think that they could use as a short cut by going over the tracks, then it is likely that they will use whatever age.

In the meantime, whether we are people travelling on trains or people doing the engineering work on the tracks. For the time being we will all have to live with third rail, until the price of putting in OLE drops lower enough that it does not matter what amount of profit any lines are making. I know that there is going to be those that say we should be putting lives before money, I don't disagree with that point either. But you have to be realistic. Lines such as Oxted to Uckfield, yes could be done with OLE. But you would then needing to change to 3rd rail at Oxted. You would also need to be converting class 377 units that we built as dc only to be ac/dc units the same as class 377/5, how much is that going to cost? The only other alternative, would be to convert class 379 units to be ac/dc units, but most people seem to think that those units are going to Great Northern.

The only other option is to not make a change and just leave the class 171 units doing the route to Uckfield.

Firstly, sorry to hear about your friend’s son, that sounds awful. I’ll PM you.

Secondly, it would be quite simple to provide Dual Voltage stock; 377/5s back from Southeastern or 387s from GN or GatEx, and some reallocation of stock now that we need less.

 

[Fincra5]

Sadly it does all come down to cost and simplicity. I've heard there has has been put forward for 3rd Rail to Uckfield, not AC.
In an ideal world all 3rd Rail would be replaced by OHLE but that's not going to happen anytime soon, there are far more places that need wires for remove diesel stock.
There are dangers and its tragic when someone loses their life to it, whether they should be there or not, but the railway IS Dangerous and needs to be respected.

Pretty clear on my opinion on it but for operation, rolling stock and diagraming it is far simpler for Uckfield to have 3rd Rail - Its not the best solution to remove DMUs sure. I know there are technical constraints to deal with as there would be with OHLE.

You wouldn't get "New" routes built with 3rd Rail for sure! But we're talking about Infilling. I believe when Amber Rudd has MP for Hastings, she was pushing for AC to Hastings, from Ashford, to allow HS1 trains to Hastings and make it more attractive to live for a commuter.

 

[RobShipway]

Sadly it does all come down to cost and simplicity. I've heard there has has been put forward for 3rd Rail to Uckfield, not AC.
In an ideal world all 3rd Rail would be replaced by OHLE but that's not going to happen anytime soon, there are far more places that need wires for remove diesel stock.
There are dangers and its tragic when someone loses their life to it, whether they should be there or not, but the railway IS Dangerous and needs to be respected.

Pretty clear on my opinion on it but for operation, rolling stock and diagraming it is far simpler for Uckfield to have 3rd Rail - Its not the best solution to remove DMUs sure. I know there are technical constraints to deal with as there would be with OHLE.

You wouldn't get "New" routes built with 3rd Rail for sure! But we're talking about Infilling. I believe when Amber Rudd has MP for Hastings, she was pushing for AC to Hastings, from Ashford, to allow HS1 trains to Hastings and make it more attractive to live for a commuter.

The only other options, but I think for the railways they are too much in their enfant life would be either battery or hydropower. It would mean that you may have to build a recharge station at Uckfield that allows the trains be recharged if you are using batteries, that comes from local mains. But depending on how it is done, it could cost you just as much possibly as adding in OHLE. For the Eastbourne - Ashford route, you would have to build similar battery recharge points at these stations.

In another forum I did suggest that Southern was given the class 379's and that some where converted to have battery packs, as had been done with them experimentally a few years ago. These could then be used both on the Uckfield line and between Eastbourne and Ashford. That went down like a lead balloon!

The only way that I can see that certainly you would get OHLE to Uckfield, would be to put in OHLE on the East Grinstead line as well to replace 3rd rail. Not sure how you can make a case for OHLE to replace 3rd rail on the East Grinstead line, other than on better safety though. Would it be better for passengers doing that?

But in making East Grinstead OHLE, would that cause issues with any Steam engines being delivered to the Bluebell Railway with the smoke?

 

[AM9]

In the case that I mentioned, the cable was left over the side of the track and was due later to be implemented as part of a new signal system. My friends son in touching it, should have been safe. But someone in Network Rail decided that it should go live before the new signalling system was in place. No theft of the cable was taking place, as my friends son was moving it out of the way to clear a safe path not only for him to walk, but for trains to go along the track.

The parents of the individual are still grieving 5 years after the event!


Tell that to my friends who lost a son 5 years. Yes he was not suppose to be alongside the track. But was trying to clear to one side a cable which should not have been live away from being across track and should not have been left dangling such that it could have caused problems with passing trains.

As I stated previously in an ideal world and if I had a magic wand I would be using it to change all third rail installation to be Overhead, as yes there is a greater safety. But if there is a passage that people think that they could use as a short cut by going over the tracks, then it is likely that they will use whatever age.

In the meantime, whether we are people travelling on trains or people doing the engineering work on the tracks. For the time being we will all have to live with third rail, until the price of putting in OLE drops lower enough that it does not matter what amount of profit any lines are making. I know that there is going to be those that say we should be putting lives before money, I don't disagree with that point either. But you have to be realistic. Lines such as Oxted to Uckfield, yes could be done with OLE. But you would then needing to change to 3rd rail at Oxted. You would also need to be converting class 377 units that we built as dc only to be ac/dc units the same as class 377/5, how much is that going to cost? The only other alternative, would be to convert class 379 units to be ac/dc units, but most people seem to think that those units are going to Great Northern.

The only other option is to not make a change and just leave the class 171 units doing the route to Uckfield.

I feel sympathy for the friends and relatives of anybody who is killed, even whilst trespassing, and no doubt the railway was censured for having live cables where trained staff wouldn't expect to find them, as it represented a hazard to anybody. As a general comment, there is no safe path for people to walk along the railway if there are warnings not to.
The point that I was making was that whatever else is on the trackbed the existance of a solid steel rail a few inches away from another with 750VDC between them all a few inches above ground make the hazards a whole lot worse, so unless there is a very sound reason (rather than it being a cheaper option) as to why it could not possibly be a safer method of traction supply delivery, it should not be there. Clearly all 3rd rail cannot be ripped up overnight and replaced with OLE, (even if there weren't any HV clearance issues), and nobody here is suggesting otherwise. Similarly, small modifications to track at junctions, stations and sidings can't really be the trigger to change maybe miles of lines that they serve otherwise that would be at the expense of any new electrification and result in yet more years of CO2 and particulates generation. They should be regarded as a new safety case though in terms of public access (see below).
The discussion here is about electrifying track that is currently completely unelectrified over distances in the range of 20-30 miles long. I don't really know the Uckfield or Marshlink lines in any detail but I can see that they traverse some pretty open countryside, and expect that there are numerous foot crossing places (both official and unofficial) so random trespassing along the line is probably occuring all the time. If a decision was made to allow a lethal shock hazard to be installed and permanently energised, there would be some trespassers who either through ignorance or even sheer arrogance continue to ignore any warning signs located along the line.
The only way that I can see more 3rd rail being allowed would be on condition that serious prevention measures were installed along the entire length of the track to prevent access, i.e. as LU tracks have. So such measures (including the possible removal of some offical foot crossings) would add considerably to the electrification's capital and maintenance cost. As we have found with OLE, the days of a quick and dirty extension in 3rd rail are gone .

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 May 2021 ==

The only other options, but I think for the railways they are too much in their enfant life would be either battery or hydropower. It would mean that you may have to build a recharge station at Uckfield that allows the trains be recharged if you are using batteries, that comes from local mains. But depending on how it is done, it could cost you just as much possibly as adding in OHLE. For the Eastbourne - Ashford route, you would have to build similar battery recharge points at these stations.

In another forum I did suggest that Southern was given the class 379's and that some where converted to have battery packs, as had been done with them experimentally a few years ago. These could then be used both on the Uckfield line and between Eastbourne and Ashford. That went down like a lead balloon!

The only way that I can see that certainly you would get OHLE to Uckfield, would be to put in OHLE on the East Grinstead line as well to replace 3rd rail. Not sure how you can make a case for OHLE to replace 3rd rail on the East Grinstead line, other than on better safety though. Would it be better for passengers doing that?

But in making East Grinstead OHLE, would that cause issues with any Steam engines being delivered to the Bluebell Railway with the smoke?

Steam engines ran under 25kV for 10 years on the WCML, GEML and on some lines in Glasgow. There isn't a problem and even when there was an experiment to find the minimum distance necessary to prevent flashover, it was way less than other structure gauge matters would allow.

 

[Tio Terry]

Steam engines ran under 25kV for 10 years on the WCML, GEML and on some lines in Glasgow. There isn't a problem and even when there was an experiment to find the minimum distance necessary to prevent flashover, it was way less than other structure gauge matters would allow.

Quote Reply
Whilst I agree with you, you are not considering today's H&S requirements.

Any future electrification, OHEL or 3rd rail, will need to satisfy CSM-RA and ORR/HSE requirements.

 

[AGH]

Are the 777s for merseyrail wired for pantographs if needed? If so then perhaps a slow change over to OHLE on merseyrail above ground is possible leaving sub surface as third rail only. If so Burscough curves and Kirkby into Victoria would create good connections / options. Also Hunt's Cross along the CLC could open other routes with dual supplies. If pure 3rd rail extensions were allowed (speculation) then Preston and Wallgate would be first choices. Ormskirk to Southport and Ellesmere port to Helsby would be good as well. I don't see the Bidston to Wrexham as a priority either way now Halton Curve is back in use.

 

[DJ_K666]

I believe the concrete ballast is in the form of a dummy transformer box. It should be as straightforward to remove as a transformer…

Break it up for hardcore afterwards

 

[D365]

In another forum I did suggest that Southern was given the class 379's and that some where converted to have battery packs, as had been done with them experimentally a few years ago. These could then be used both on the Uckfield line and between Eastbourne and Ashford. That went down like a lead balloon!

Not sure what you mean by ”lead balloon”. And there’s no reason to use the Class 379s specifically, the prototype is obsolete; you’d need a new design anyway.

 

[AM9]

Not sure what you mean by ”lead balloon”. And there’s no reason to use the Class 379s specifically, the prototype is obsolete; you’d need a new design anyway.

Well there is the problem that the 379s are ac only.

 

[RobShipway]

Not sure what you mean by ”lead balloon”. And there’s no reason to use the Class 379s specifically, the prototype is obsolete; you’d need a new design anyway.

By Lead Balloon, that the idea did not go down well.

Well there is the problem that the 379s are ac only.

Yes, but one of the class 379 units was tested with batteries. Okay, the testing found that it took two hours to recharge the batteries from taking the power from the pantograph. But that testing was a few years ago now and things have improved when it comes to recharging.

Also, as the class 387 was based on the class 379, you already have the plans on how to be converting the class 379 to be able to be used both AC and also DC.

 

[AM9]

By Lead Balloon, that the idea did not go down well.

Yes, but one of the class 379 units was tested with batteries. Okay, the testing found that it took two hours to recharge the batteries from taking the power from the pantograph. But that testing was a few years ago now and things have improved when it comes to recharging.

Also, as the class 387 was based on the class 379, you already have the plans on how to be converting the class 379 to be able to be used both AC and also DC.

That would be a lot of conversion work to create a small fleet of different 15 year old units that reportedly have very high leasing costs.
Their similarities with the 387s is more that they were manufactured a few years later than the bulk of the early Electrostars, i.e. the 375/377 tranches. Their software is different, possibly because the hardware on which it ran became obsolescent. Apart from their number of cars per unit, they are functionally more like the 377/6s & /7s.

 

[D365]

Yes, but one of the class 379 units was tested with batteries. Okay, the testing found that it took two hours to recharge the batteries from taking the power from the pantograph. But that testing was a few years ago now and things have improved when it comes to recharging.

Also, as the class 387 was based on the class 379, you already have the plans on how to be converting the class 379 to be able to be used both AC and also DC.

Again, the 379 design is obsolete! You even acknowledge it yourself when you mention about ”things have improved”.

 

[Snow1964]

Having grown up in SW Hampshire, there are a few foot crossings on third rail lines. But the third rail isn there, there is a gap, and the path has big signs, and you would physically have to try and cross the strips of triangular deterrent wood to reach it.

And anyway there is good chance these days that a modular footbridge would be installed instead of flat crossing, with the old crossing route blocked by stout fences.

Third rail electrified lines are better fenced, at least chain link fencing, whereas much easier to trespass on a diesel line where fence might be nothing more than couple of strands of wire to Mark edge of a field

No one want to see anyone electrocuted, but it’s no longer 1930s when some people lived in houses without electricity so weren’t aware of concept of electric shock

 

[AM9]

No one want to see anyone electrocuted, but it’s no longer 1930s when some people lived in houses without electricity so weren’t aware of concept of electric shock

True, but the schemes being proposed here are on unelectrified lines that locals have been used to no shock hazards all their lives. So no matter how much education is dealt out, there will be some that either don't understand, or decide that the hazard doesn't apply to them. That needs to be assessed and also costed as part of the BCR as the railway will inevitably get fined for introducing the risk where it could have been avoided. A court is unlikely to recognise cost saving or operational convenience as justification for choices that ultimately cause loss of life or life-changing injury.

 

[Bald Rick]

No one want to see anyone electrocuted, but it’s no longer 1930s when some people lived in houses without electricity so weren’t aware of concept of electric shock

But there are some (many?) people out there who don’t know about electrified rails, and others who know about them and are willing to take the risk. Rightly or wrongly we now live in a world where the owner of the hazard has a duty of care to protect people from the hazard- as the courts have found repeatedly.

Hypothetically, would you be willing to sign the paperwork that says you are introducing a risk of death that could be reasonably mitigated? Because if that death does occur, you’re going to prison.

Of course it comes down to what is ‘reasonable’.

 

[randyrippley]

How difficult would it be to arrange for a section of third rail to only become live as a train approached and passed over it?