It's not that, it's a serious discussion about a complete (and alas ongoing) squandering of public assets and money; a real "Emperor Has No Clothes" situation that many competent observers can see.
It's not a real discussion, I've explained several times why third rail is not being considered, and why we're planning conversion of routes to 25kV AC, but it doesn't please you, you consider Network Rail to be incompetent, and resort to petty name calling.
Just to recap, once again for your benefit, why third rail is being condemned.
Efficiency: Third rail is inefficient, losses on the third rail system are in many cases simply enormous, upto 30% of the total energy put into the third rail system is converted to heat before it reaches the shoe gear of a third rail train, and regenerative braking performance (when and where available) results in some of the regenerative braking also being converted to heat before it can be used by another train in the same electrical section.
National Grid to train losses for AC units are, on average, 1/6th of those losses for DC units, and regenerative braking performance for AC units averages around 30% more than DC units.
The billable losses via the Electric Current for Traction (ET4C) is around 18% for DC (12% for MerseyRail) and 4% for AC during CP5, with the expectation that the ET4C billable loss will increase by around 1% for DC for CP6, as a result of increasing losses.
Track Maintenance: It's not cheap to maintain DC electrified track, this will hopefully improve with the new HOBC which is third rail compatible (someone count the broken insulator pots for me though, please) and by converting to absolutely normal plain line without third rail, colleagues estimate maintenance savings of around £6,000 per single track mile per year.
OLE maintenance does use some of those savings, approximately £1,500 per single track mile per year, which we're aiming to reduce with more OLE inspection equipped passenger trains, but that's future, and I'm being scrupulously fair here.
Electrical equipment renewal: 750V DC third rail is now relatively unique globally, Britain has as much third rail as the rest of the world combined. 25kV, 50Hz AC overhead electrification is the most widely used electrification system in the world. There are off the shelf components available from companies like ABB, Siemens, Furrer+Frey, Bombardier, Hitachi, Alstom and others.
Third rail equipment, particularly anything involved in the actual conductor rail is more bespoke and more expensive. 750V DC switchgear is widely used for trams, and less of an issue, though the current draw involved for National Rail use is of course much more substantial, and the number needed is simply preposterous (a good rule is 10 to 15 DC substations for one 25kV AT feeder site).
The third rail switchgear is getting older, and there's a significant quantity due for renewal in the next 10 to 20 years (less the new switchgear which was installed to enable slam door stock to be withdrawn).
The current estimates suggest that for the same money as like for like DC switchgear replacement, 25kV AC switchgear can be installed and a modest amount of overhead line can be installed. Not all the line needed by any stretch, but some of it, and that is without committing to additional expenditure. The remaining OLE needed would have to come from capital expenditure, but would be recouped from lower track maintenance costs and increased premium from train operators seeing lower EC4T costs.
Signalling: Return current on DC is the main cause of track circuit failures and one of the main causes for delays in third rail land. I know of many signalling engineers who are desperate to see the back of third rail. 25kV AC being a global semi-standard means reliability for AC compatible signalling systems is getting better and better, our DC specific requirements and the small market mean our reliability is improving more slowly.
Performance: Network Rail modelling plus real world data suggests converting from DC to AC would see performance gains of between 1 and 5 minutes for many services in the southeast, with the possibility of creating additional train paths, or to allow additional station calls and station re-openings to be considered.
Capacity: This is a bit of a rehash of the efficiency argument, additional capacity can be accommodated by providing additional substations and upgrading the supply capacity to the NR 33kV grid, at a cost. The additional supply provided needs to take into account the additional losses.
25kV conversion wipes the slate clean, and provided it's specified accordingly, could cope with the largest possible demands anybody can envisage within current and future signalling headways, train lengths, traction demands etc. It's slightly unfair on DC to include this, as upgrades to the DC grid have to be fitted in and around the current demands, so it doesn't get the chance for a slate wiped clean, but such is life.
Safety: DC to AC conversion will increase safety. The only railway member of staff to die on the railway during 2014/15 was a cleaner who fell onto the third rail. Statistically, we're four times more likely to see a serious injury or fatality due to third rail than we are due to AC electrification, all weighted for passenger miles using DC or AC.
Don't think I've missed anything.
Yes, the GWep project isn't perfect, but on the other hand, the Scotland electrification is, and as we get more engineers up to speed on electrification, I'm left in no doubt the engineers on the ground will manage to convert DC to AC routes on time and on budget (a budget which realises significant savings over like for like DC renewal).
