3rd Rail Infill suggestions

[ChiefPlanner]

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!

Not so sure about that , but the Area Manager told me he had great confidence in Basingstoke - Reading being juiced up as far back as 1982 .....

 

[AM9]

Not so sure about that , but the Area Manager told me he had great confidence in Basingstoke - Reading being juiced up as far back as 1982 .....

Which presumably would be 3rd rail then?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Which presumably would be 3rd rail then?

Yes - freight was less so (well FLL really) , in those days.

 

[David Goddard]

It looks like between us we seem to agree on a list of routes, which are pretty much the usual suspects.
The Southern region routes along the North Downs, to Uckfield and Marshlink are worthy contenders, but I would not say the same for Romsey.

Extensions of the Merseyrail network to Preston and Wigan Wallgate would be justified and logical, removing the shuttles from Ormskirk and Kirkby respectively. Of course if some of the 777s were to become BEMUs then electrification would not be needed. Ellesmere Port to Helsby not really worth it unless the area was redeveloped while Bidston to Wrexham would be rather too far and is not really an infill.

 

[tomuk]

while Bidston to Wrexham would be rather too far and is not really an infill.

There was a proposal to do Bidston to Neston only which would mean the batteries on the 777 would only need to do 38 miles.

 

[David Goddard]

There was a proposal to do Bidston to Neston only which would mean the batteries on the 777 would only need to do 38 miles.

Makes sense in that case

 

[RobShipway]

It looks like between us we seem to agree on a list of routes, which are pretty much the usual suspects.
The Southern region routes along the North Downs, to Uckfield and Marshlink are worthy contenders, but I would not say the same for Romsey.

Extensions of the Merseyrail network to Preston and Wigan Wallgate would be justified and logical, removing the shuttles from Ormskirk and Kirkby respectively. Of course if some of the 777s were to become BEMUs then electrification would not be needed. Ellesmere Port to Helsby not really worth it unless the area was redeveloped while Bidston to Wrexham would be rather too far and is not really an infill.

I would also say it makes sense to electrify Basingstoke - Reading, but that would more likely be OLE electrification than 3rd rail I suspect. Whether the class 93 would be used on freight trains down the line, I am not sure but if there is then rather than having OLE, a diesel engine and lithium oxide batteries, I think that it would be better to replace the diesel with equipment to travel on 3rd rail lines or make a class 94 that has the same power nodes as the class 769.

 

[Mikey C]

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.

But unless there is a realistic plan to rip up the existing 3rd rails across the south of England and have a rolling programme of OHLE installation, it feel a bit excessive getting super strict to stop 3rd rails to Uckfield on safety grounds when all the other lines in the area have them, and will have them for the next 50 years

 

[zwk500]

But unless there is a realistic plan to rip up the existing 3rd rails across the south of England and have a rolling programme of OHLE installation, it feel a bit excessive getting super strict to stop 3rd rails to Uckfield on safety grounds when all the other lines in the area have them, and will have them for the next 50 years

I agree with you - it's a balance but one that can be made for certain lines like Uckfield. Unfortunately, I don't get to make the decision. Marshlink I feel Batteries will be more suitable. Basingstoke-Reading is almost certain to be OLE if it ever happens.

 

[XAM2175]

But unless there is a realistic plan to rip up the existing 3rd rails across the south of England and have a rolling programme of OHLE installation, it feel a bit excessive getting super strict to stop 3rd rails to Uckfield on safety grounds when all the other lines in the area have them, and will have them for the next 50 years

I don't think there's any argument that a blanket ban on third-rail extension would be excessive. Hence the ORR and RSSB trying to find a compromise position that respects the interests of both safety and decarbonisation.

 

[Bald Rick]

Marshlink I feel Batteries will be more suitable.

I see this opinion in a number of places.

Why would Ashford - Ore (25 miles) be a better bet for battery trains than Hurst Green - Uckfield (25 miles), assuming a charging point at Uckfield?

 

[zwk500]

I see this opinion in a number of places.

Why would Ashford - Ore (25 miles) be a better bet for battery trains than Hurst Green - Uckfield (25 miles), assuming a charging point at Uckfield?

From what I understand:
1. The 3rd rail's already present at Ashford. If you need to put a charging point in at Uckfield you're already a fair way down the costs of full 3rd rail.
2. Marshlink is pretty flat with relatively few stations. Uckfield is not massively steep but still has to climb the Weald, and has 9 stations, which is a drain on power.
3. Uckfield will require 8- or 12- car units, whereas Marshlink would be fine with a 4-car, so there's 2 or 3 times as many batteries to charge on the power system.
4. The demands on the power system between Ore and Eastbourne are far less intense than between Hurst Green and London Bridge to allow charging on-the-go and so reduce the need for fast charging during turnround.

 

[Bald Rick]

From what I understand:
1. The 3rd rail's already present at Ashford. If you need to put a charging point in at Uckfield you're already a fair way down the costs of full 3rd rail.
2. Marshlink is pretty flat with relatively few stations. Uckfield is not massively steep but still has to climb the Weald, and has 9 stations, which is a drain on power.
3. Uckfield will require 8- or 12- car units, whereas Marshlink would be fine with a 4-car, so there's 2 or 3 times as many batteries to charge on the power system.
4. The demands on the power system between Ore and Eastbourne are far less intense than between Hurst Green and London Bridge to allow charging on-the-go and so reduce the need for fast charging during turnround.

In response:

1) a charging point at Uckfield could be very cheap - trickle charged lineside battery, and 250m of con rail.
2) Hills don’t matter for batteries - what goes up must come down! Stations are actually helpful - regular stop start is more energy efficient for batteries than a long run at medium - high speed.
3) accepted, but...
4) that’s not my understanding. AIUI the power in the system between Ore - Eastbourne is commensurate with the level of service, ie 2 electric trains an hour in the standard hour, more in the peak. Adding in the Ashford train is, proportionally, a significant increase. To be fair it’s a similar position between Hurst Green and Riddlesdown, but north of there one or two Uckfield trains an hour is barely noise in the system.

 

[zwk500]

In response:

1) a charging point at Uckfield could be very cheap - trickle charged lineside battery, and 250m of con rail.
2) Hills don’t matter for batteries - what goes up must come down! Stations are actually helpful - regular stop start is more energy efficient for batteries than a long run at medium - high speed.
3) accepted, but...
4) that’s not my understanding. AIUI the power in the system between Ore - Eastbourne is commensurate with the level of service, ie 2 electric trains an hour in the standard hour, more in the peak. Adding in the Ashford train is, proportionally, a significant increase. To be fair it’s a similar position between Hurst Green and Riddlesdown, but north of there one or two Uckfield trains an hour is barely noise in the system.

All good points and I don't claim to be a technical expert. I'm surprised by stations being more efficient as I thought the most energy intensive part was getting the train going.

 

[Bald Rick]

All good points and I don't claim to be a technical expert. I'm surprised by stations being more efficient as I thought the most energy intensive part was getting the train going.

It is, but that is significantly offset by braking. Electric cars often do much more mileage than their quoted range if driven only in city traffic (and they don’t have heating /aircon on).

 

[swt_passenger]

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

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

 

[Domh245]

Electric cars often do much more mileage than their quoted range if driven only in city traffic (and they don’t have heating /aircon on).

I think more accurately they do far less than their quoted range if driven on motorways (especially with heating/aircon on!) - WLTP still skews fairly heavily towards low speed, stop/start type traffic. Average speed without any stops for the test is 53.5 km/h, and about 13.4% of the test is spent stationary!

 

[Bald Rick]

I think more accurately they do far less than their quoted range if driven on motorways (especially with heating/aircon on!) - WLTP still skews fairly heavily towards low speed, stop/start type traffic. Average speed without any stops for the test is 53.5 km/h, and about 13.4% of the test is spent stationary!

Fair point - the point being that stop start duties are better for electricity consumption over a given distance than longer non stop runs. Hence electric milk floats!

 

[alf]

Electric cars often do much more mileage than their quoted range if driven only in city traffic (and they don’t have heating /aircon on).

If this is true it’s because average city speed is far lower than on the open road, & the driver has sacrificed a reasonable temperature by turning off heating/ cooling in Bald Rick’s perverse example.

Energy consumption due to air resistance increases at the square of speed & heating/air con can gulp kW on very hot or cold days. Look at your car meter if you have one.

It is plain wrong to say stop start is more efficient than steady running. And not all the kwh energy lost in braking goes back into the battery. At slow speeds & intense braking it may only be 15%.

 

[Snow1964]

I don't think there's any argument that a blanket ban on third-rail extension would be excessive. Hence the ORR and RSSB trying to find a compromise position that respects the interests of both safety and decarbonisation.

The reality is even with all the extensions suggested above, only adding about 1-2% to route miles (and likely not all would be done).

Adding 1% to an existing very low risk is not a lot.
And if alternative is adding batteries which increases risk of a chemical fire (again risk increase by tiny amount), or carrying diesel fuel (added about 5 years ago to hazardous substances list), then might actually be reducing risk overall.

The third rail extension ban is rather silly if it just results in other riskier solutions to get around it.

 

[zwk500]

The reality is even with all the extensions suggested above, only adding about 1-2% to route miles (and likely not all would be done).

Adding 1% to an existing very low risk is not a lot.

It's not adding 1% to an existing very low risk, it's adding a risk where there wasn't one before. Each location is unique, and therefore the risks at the location and mitigation of those risks differ from place to place.

And if alternative is adding batteries which increases risk of a chemical fire (again risk increase by tiny amount), or carrying diesel fuel (added about 5 years ago to hazardous substances list), then might actually be reducing risk overall.

The third rail extension ban is rather silly if it just results in other riskier solutions to get around it.

Again, different risks have different mitigations/preventions. A more serious risk that occurs much less often is sometimes better than a less serious risk that is ever-present. And let's not play down the dangers of the 3rd Rail. It is a lethal object, located just above the ground, at perfect tripping height.

 

[Bald Rick]

And let's not play down the dangers of the 3rd Rail. It is a lethal object, located just above the ground, at perfect tripping height.

Indeed, and there are regular injuries and fatalities caused by it to prove the point. Another one a couple of weeks ago.

 

[David Goddard]

I would also say it makes sense to electrify Basingstoke - Reading, but that would more likely be OLE electrification than 3rd rail I suspect. Whether the class 93 would be used on freight trains down the line, I am not sure but if there is then rather than having OLE, a diesel engine and lithium oxide batteries, I think that it would be better to replace the diesel with equipment to travel on 3rd rail lines or make a class 94 that has the same power nodes as the class 769.

I agree fully with OLE for the Basingstoke to Reading route, there is no reason why any electrification on this route would be third rail.
Would expect that this would then continue into the through platforms at BSK to enable power changeover for dual voltage stock working beyond there.

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree fully with OLE for the Basingstoke to Reading route, there is no reason why any electrification on this route would be third rail.

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.

 

[Fincra5]

Indeed, and there are regular injuries and fatalities caused by it to prove the point. Another one a couple of weeks ago.

By a trespasser no? Someone who shouldn't be on the railway in the first place. Perhaps it's more educating the masses than the fault of 3rd Rail. Sure its not the safest by far, but neither is a fishing rod near OHLE ..

To be infills make sense when basically 99% of the SE network is 3rd Rail. Perhaps they'd have to add kick boards the entire length of the extension, at least in platforms or near level crossing.

 

[zwk500]

By a trespasser no? Someone who shouldn't be on the railway in the first place. Perhaps it's more educating the masses than the fault of 3rd Rail. Sure its not the safest by far, but neither is a fishing rod near OHLE ..

To be infills make sense when basically 99% of the SE network is 3rd Rail. Perhaps they'd have to add kick boards the entire length of the extension, at least in platforms or near level crossing.

Many track workers get injured or killed by 3rd rail every year (I don't have access to the precise numbers). It's not just trespassers. Also plenty of dogs, badgers and foxes etc who often end up across the line and have to be removed by staff, delaying trains. There's plenty of threads on this forum where staff have discussed the very real dangers posed to well trained and experienced track workers.

Infills make sense from an operational point of view, and it'll be down to the ORR, HSE and RSSB to decide if the safety risks can be mitigated enough to permit it's installation. Kick boards are one possible solution, education is another. It will be location specific.

 

[Bald Rick]

By a trespasser no? Someone who shouldn't be on the railway in the first place.

Yes. But someone still died, and they wouldn’t have done if the third rail wasn’t there.

 

[Fincra5]

Many track workers get injured or killed by 3rd rail every year (I don't have access to the precise numbers). It's not just trespassers. Also plenty of dogs, badgers and foxes etc who often end up across the line and have to be removed by staff, delaying trains. There's plenty of threads on this forum where staff have discussed the very real dangers posed to well trained and experienced track workers.

Infills make sense from an operational point of view, and it'll be down to the ORR, HSE and RSSB to decide if the safety risks can be mitigated enough to permit it's installation. Kick boards are one possible solution, education is another. It will be location specific.

Don't worry, as a Driver I've seen lots of animals on the line, its not just the 3rd Rail that causes issues though, the train too!

Yes. But someone still died, and they wouldn’t have done if the third rail wasn’t there.

Not that it isn't a tragic waste of life but they shouldn't have been on the railway at all, thats where education comes in.. They could have well just been hit by a passing train. I do think kickboards should be at all stations and near foot crossings however.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not that it isn't a tragic waste of life but they shouldn't have been on the railway at all, thats where education comes in.

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.

 

[zwk500]

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.