Abolish Overhead Cabling

[HSTEd]

I am amongst the most prolific defenders of third rail on this forum.

And even I would not argue for the dismantling of 25kV systems

 

[Jozhua]

I don't really see the point in all this. The only benefit I can see of this is a more visually appealing look, which is subjective and effects what is a relatively small amount of infrastructure in comparison to say the road network. OHLE is barely even noticeable when you factor in the signalling, ballast, rails, overgrowth and the fact many trains run through cuttings. Personally, I think it is visually appealing as it gives the impression of modern infrastructure.

Battery technology is expensive, heavy, creates losses and is already near it's limit of capacity. Perhaps on more rural and less well travelled routes, short sections of charging for battery powered trains could work as a great stop-gap for full electrification. There is no benefit, beyond potentially bringing electric traction to non-electrified routes or branches, to using battery powered trains where existing OHLE has existed.

3rd rail has already been proven outdated and until we supposedly leave the EU, we are unable to build new or replace existing OHLE with 3rd rail technology. The risk of electric shock means voltages higher than 1500v cannot be used, leading to higher transmission losses, and the need for more frequent feed points. (Which will negatively impact the appearance.) Due to these lower voltages, less power can be transmitted through the lines and therefore there is a limit to how many trains can be run. In fact, there has been talk of replacing the existing 3rd rail systems with OHLE. Due to the power issues and physical limitations of the shoes this makes it unsuitable for high speed running.

In regards to hydrogen trains, they suffer from many of the pitfalls of battery technology. Increased weight, cost and losses.

When it comes to reliability issues, these are already being solved by some newer trains. I stand to be corrected, but I believe the new LNER Azumas are fitted with one diesel engine per train, allowing a crawl capability in the case there is a loss of power. I think this is the best solution to the reliability issue, as it allows trains to move out or even through a broken section of OHLE, allowing services to keep running.

I think that infrastructure spending could be spent in a much more constructive way than ridding ourselves of the best traction method for trains to date. Our roads are full of potholes, large concrete road bridges cut through cities and traffic jams clog up streets. (Traffic could be improved by an increase in rail users There are many concrete hangovers of the 60's covered in flammable cladding which is yet to be removed and parks/government buildings falling apart after years of neglect. I'm sure there are also many stations and buildings on the network which would benefit from some TLC and would bring a visual and service improvement to many more people than those who spend their time staring at sections of OHLE...

 

[NSEFAN]

3rd rail has already been proven outdated and until we supposedly leave the EU, we are unable to build new or replace existing OHLE with 3rd rail technology. The risk of electric shock means voltages higher than 1500v cannot be used, leading to higher transmission losses, and the need for more frequent feed points. (Which will negatively impact the appearance.) Due to these lower voltages, less power can be transmitted through the lines and therefore there is a limit to how many trains can be run. In fact, there has been talk of replacing the existing 3rd rail systems with OHLE. Due to the power issues and physical limitations of the shoes this makes it unsuitable for high speed running.

There are definitely good reasons to use 25kV overheads compared to 750V 3rd rail, but I don't believe that the EU has much to do with it. I thought it was the ORR who are behind the 3rd rail 'ban'?

 

[Bald Rick]

There are definitely good reasons to use 25kV overheads compared to 750V 3rd rail, but I don't believe that the EU has much to do with it. I thought it was the ORR who are behind the 3rd rail 'ban'?

Correct, it has nothing to do with the EU, and everything to do Electricity at Work regulations 1989, specifically part II, para 7:

Insulation, protection and placing of conductors
7. All conductors in a system which may give rise to danger shall either–

(a)be suitably covered with insulating material and as necessary protected so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger; or

(b)have such precautions taken in respect of them (including, where appropriate, their being suitably placed) as will prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger.

 

[PartyOperator]

If you don't like the look of overhead lines, surely the places to start are the telecommunication and electricity distribution networks? They have hundreds of thousands of miles of cables across the countryside, alongside roads and near houses (half a million miles for power distribution alone), and they can relatively easily be buried without any effect on functionality. Obviously there would be an enormous financial cost with no major benefit other than aesthetics, but there's a lot more opportunity to remove unsightly cables in these networks without making transport worse. The HV transmission network is even more visually obtrusive (and about five times the length of electrified railway) - again, expensive but effective solutions exist to bury sections or use shorter towers like the T-pylon if reducing the visual impact is desirable. This kind of thing does happen, especially in AONBs, and it does have a positive impact. I'd also love to see more old copper telephone lines taken down in towns and cities and replaced with buried fibre to the premises. Maybe we can get rid of ugly TV aerials and satellite dishes too...

You'd many decades of work before OHLE ever reached the top of the list, even if removing overhead cables somehow was a major priority compared to solving all the other problems our transport, communications and electricity systems face.

 

[Tio Terry]

The EU does have something to say about further 3rd and 4th rail systems, it's in the Technical Standard for Interoperability, Energy, in section 7.4.2.9 and basically says that National Rules apply for mainlines. It gives no guidance for other than mainlines.

Bald Rick, you may be interested in what 7.4.2.9.4 says about protection from electric shock.

But in the end it comes down to National Technical Rules and that means what the ORR say's.

 

[NSEFAN]

To add to the thread concept, I narrowly avoided getting stuck at Reading due to a 387 losing its pantograph head on the curve to Reading West. I'm not sure how long it took the train to be rescued, but there could be an argument for emergency battery or diesel generator power for low speed rescue movements, so that the train might limp away in such situations. On the other hand, sufficiently well maintained infrastructure and rolling stock might mean its cheaper to not bother with such an arrangement.

 

[RogerB]

Been away for a while.

One place where a 3rd rail system could be implemented would be on lines which are not yet electrified, especially where bridges would have to be raised.

Just found this video - pretty much the same as what I was thinking.

 

[RogerB]

If you don't like the look of overhead lines, surely the places to start are the telecommunication and electricity distribution networks? They have hundreds of thousands of miles of cables across the countryside, alongside roads and near houses (half a million miles for power distribution alone), and they can relatively easily be buried without any effect on functionality. Obviously there would be an enormous financial cost with no major benefit other than aesthetics, but there's a lot more opportunity to remove unsightly cables in these networks without making transport worse. The HV transmission network is even more visually obtrusive (and about five times the length of electrified railway) - again, expensive but effective solutions exist to bury sections or use shorter towers like the T-pylon if reducing the visual impact is desirable. This kind of thing does happen, especially in AONBs, and it does have a positive impact. I'd also love to see more old copper telephone lines taken down in towns and cities and replaced with buried fibre to the premises. Maybe we can get rid of ugly TV aerials and satellite dishes too...

You'd many decades of work before OHLE ever reached the top of the list, even if removing overhead cables somehow was a major priority compared to solving all the other problems our transport, communications and electricity systems face.

Valid points, add cell phone masts to the list. I certainly agree with replacing copper overhead phone lines with buried fibre, the latter wouldn't need to be a radial system, it would hop from house to house like a ring main, so wouldn't be that expensive. Another pet hate of mine is external cabling on houses, in my street most houses have TV, satellite dish and internet cables running down and along their walls, one house even has a copper pipe on the outside, carrying gas!

Regarding power transmission, some while ago a professor pointed out that it was more efficient to transmit power over long distances using gas in pipes rather than electricity in cables, but that's going off topic.

 

[RogerB]

Another one using contactless power transfer.