North Downs line electrification

[Mordac]

Indeed, but those schemes were 'then' - the 'now' precludes significant new route mileage.

Yes, the signalling can handle 3 tph, which is what is to be provided next year, but I still can't get my head round a signalling block section of over six miles from Blackwater!! Is there, I wonder, any longer in the country with conventional signalling?

Carnforth to Settle.

 

[najaB]

There seem to be a lot of unnecessary measures outlined in this thread to protect people from perfectly safe third rail electrification.

 

[edwin_m]

Who says they are unnecessary? A cleaner was killed recently falling onto the third rail.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Bi-mode 319s?

Andrew

 

[Muzer]

Who says they are unnecessary? A cleaner was killed recently falling onto the third rail.

I assume he was being facetious based on the fact that many people in this thread have asserted that there is no safety issue with third rail.

 

[najaB]

Who says they are unnecessary? A cleaner was killed recently falling onto the third rail.

You must've imagined that. Third rail is, allegedly, perfectly safe.

 

[The Ham]

Bi-mode 319s?

Andrew

When that was just a rumour, I'd suggested that it would be useful on this route. Although it would only add a handful of seats over the existing units, there would be an extra coach with a pair of doors that would aid with loading/unloading times and standing capacity on the very busy services.

The other advantage is that GWR could still have a combined fleet as the 319's could be useful for the other unelectrified branches/services (including Bedwyn), much as it does with the 166's.

 

[JamesRowden]

You must've imagined that. Third rail is, allegedly, perfectly safe.

You are the only person that I can find in this thread referring to third rail as `perfectly safe'. The closest other use of the word `safe' that I can see regarding third rail is with the word being used as a relative term, not an absolute. The statement of yours which people disagreed with was when you referred to third rail as `incredibly dangerous'. There is a huge gulf between `incredibly dangerous' and `perfectly safe'.

 

[najaB]

You are the only person that I can find in this thread referring to third rail as `perfectly safe'.

Perhaps you're not familiar with satire...

 

[JamesRowden]

Perhaps you're not familiar with satire...

I am. I just like to expose people who (perhaps unintentionally) exaggerate in order to satisfy their agenda.

 

[XDM]

Who says they are unnecessary? A cleaner was killed recently falling onto the third rail.

Chapter & verse please,not gossip. A schoolboy was recently electrocuted in the Liverpool area thanks to 25kv. If you prove your sad dc case,I'll source the 25kv case. Third rail seems very unsafe. But In fact the stats show it as safe as 25kv which can kill someone taking a selfie a foot away from the wire allegedly.

 

[Elecman]

25 KV can't jump a foot so t hat puts that falsitude to bed.

 

[edwin_m]

Chapter & verse please,not gossip. A schoolboy was recently electrocuted in the Liverpool area thanks to 25kv. If you prove your sad dc case,I'll source the 25kv case. Third rail seems very unsafe. But In fact the stats show it as safe as 25kv which can kill someone taking a selfie a foot away from the wire allegedly.

Details seem to be scarce on the WWW but it is mentioned here:

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf...rformance-on-britains-railways-in-2014-15.pdf (page 4).

While the death of someone from 25kV is unfortunate, the fact remains that in nearly all such cases the person has trespassed on the railway and chosen to take a risk by climbing onto a train. In my view this isn't comparable to a staff member going about their normal duties.

But we've been round this particular argument numerous times on this forum. I can find no relative statistics online, and some people refuse to believe the view of the experts who have access to this information and conclude that overhead line is safer.

 

[edwin_m]

Chapter & verse please,not gossip. A schoolboy was recently electrocuted in the Liverpool area thanks to 25kv. If you prove your sad dc case,I'll source the 25kv case. Third rail seems very unsafe. But In fact the stats show it as safe as 25kv which can kill someone taking a selfie a foot away from the wire allegedly.

Details seem to be scarce on the WWW but it is mentioned here:

http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf...rformance-on-britains-railways-in-2014-15.pdf (page 4).

www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/news/cleaner-was-electrocuted-at-train-depot-1-6681124c

While the death of someone from 25kV is unfortunate, the fact remains that in nearly all such cases the person has trespassed on the railway and chosen to take a risk by climbing onto a train. In my view this isn't comparable to a staff member going about their normal duties.

But we've been round this particular argument numerous times on this forum. I can find no relative statistics online, and some people refuse to believe the view of the experts who have access to this information and conclude that overhead line is safer.

 

[HSTEd]

But we've been round this particular argument numerous times on this forum. I can find no relative statistics online, and some people refuse to believe the view of the experts who have access to this information and conclude that overhead line is safer.

The information we have available shows that third rail is not significantly more dangerous than 25kV based on the data available.

The number of fatalities from electrocution are just too small.
And non tresspass electrocutions are negligible are overall.

And given the enormous capital cost overruns in 25kV schemes we have to consider the cost of these extra fatalities in the economic appraisal of the scheme.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Spotted this story in the local news:

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne..._track__severely_damaged__by_child_s_scooter/

TRAINS were unable to run between Poole and Wareham on Thursday after the railway line was 'severely damaged' by a child's scooter.

South West Trains said the track had been badly damaged near Hamworthy station.

The line in the Weymouth-bound direction was closed between Poole and Wareham as a result.

A spokesman for Network Rail said engineers were currently on site carrying out repairs.

"A train struck a child's scooter, and the scooter came into contact with the third rail, which is the one which provides electric power to the train," the spokesperson said.

The scooter caused a short circuit between the third rail and the running rail, upon which trains run.

Engineers have found damage to the rail and are investigating the problem and carrying out repairs.

The line in the Weymouth-bound direction was blocked between Poole and Weymouth.

Rail replacement transport was organised, and coaches running until around 9pm according to South West Trains.

The line has been reopened today.

3rd rail is probably more vulnerable to metal objects being dumped on it bridging the 3rd rail and a running rail.

Would the scooter involved in the story have ended up welded to the track?

 

[edwin_m]

The information we have available shows that third rail is not significantly more dangerous than 25kV based on the data available.

The number of fatalities from electrocution are just too small.
And non tresspass electrocutions are negligible are overall.

And given the enormous capital cost overruns in 25kV schemes we have to consider the cost of these extra fatalities in the economic appraisal of the scheme.

As far as I can tell there is no useful information available. If you have some then please share.

I think most people agree that the cost inflation on 25kV schemes is at least partly due to the loss of expertise on doing this sort of work, and relates to the electrification itself not to the associated civil works.

The UK rail industry hasn't done a significant third rail scheme for even longer than it hadn't done a significant OLE scheme before the recent ones. The only comparable third rail installations in other countries are probably in the USA rather than Europe, and none anywhere is being significant expanded, so not much chance of bringing in overseas expertise. Because of the lack of civil works a higher proportion of the cost of a third rail scheme relates to electrical equipment. For all these reasons I think if Network Rail went ahead with any third rail scheme now, the risks of cost overrun would be very high. Any figures should be treated with extreme caution.

 

[HSTEd]

As far as I can tell there is no useful information available. If you have some then please share.

On one of these threads somewhere I did an analysis based upon number of fatalities by cause of death using some figures from a report from a couple of years ago.

Came to the conclusion that the number of non tresspass electrocutions was a handful a year and we have no way of telling what system caused them, or if they were caused by traction supplies at all.

The UK rail industry hasn't done a significant third rail scheme for even longer than it hadn't done a significant OLE scheme before the recent ones.

Until the recent ones surely they occured only a couple of years apart?
If we exclude things like ELL extension which doesn't really count anyway the last one would be the North Downs partial electrification in 1993 wouldn't it?
And the last significant OLE electrification would be the 90s BR projects on the Cross-City or the GWML Suburbans.

Whilst I agree that the risk of cost-overrun is rather high due to lack of experience I believe that a smallish low-cost, low-complexity scheme should be carried forward to find out just what the cost base is in the modern railway.

For example a Bidston-Neeston electrification sized appropriately for the probable service or a scheme between Ashford and Ore.
Such a scheme provides a useful connection if completed but at the same time is unlikely to break the bank even if it overruns enormously.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The UK rail industry hasn't done a significant third rail scheme for even longer than it hadn't done a significant OLE scheme before the recent ones.

Would the Bournemouth-Weymouth electrification be the last major 3rd rail electrification project done in the UK?

 

[HSTEd]

Would the Bournemouth-Weymouth electrification be the last major 3rd rail electrification project done in the UK?

That depends upon your definition of 'major'.
The Eurostar-related NDL electrification has to be approaching 25 miles.
And if 25 miles is not major then the last significant OLE installation project will be the ECML which was finished in about 1991 anyway so its still only a handful of years apart.

 

[najaB]

And if 25 miles is not major then the last significant OLE installation project will be the ECML which was finished in about 1991 anyway so its still only a handful of years apart.

One thing to keep in mind when speaking about experience is that NR is currently undertaking several large OHLE schemes and is building experience (in many cases the hard way) where there aren't any ongoing third-rail schemes and none on the drawing boards.

 

[JamesRowden]

On one of these threads somewhere I did an analysis based upon number of fatalities by cause of death using some figures from a report from a couple of years ago.

Came to the conclusion that the number of non tresspass electrocutions was a handful a year and we have no way of telling what system caused them, or if they were caused by traction supplies at all.


Until the recent ones surely they occured only a couple of years apart?
If we exclude things like ELL extension which doesn't really count anyway the last one would be the North Downs partial electrification in 1993 wouldn't it?
And the last significant OLE electrification would be the 90s BR projects on the Cross-City or the GWML Suburbans.

Whilst I agree that the risk of cost-overrun is rather high due to lack of experience I believe that a smallish low-cost, low-complexity scheme should be carried forward to find out just what the cost base is in the modern railway.

For example a Bidston-Neeston electrification sized appropriately for the probable service or a scheme between Ashford and Ore.
Such a scheme provides a useful connection if completed but at the same time is unlikely to break the bank even if it overruns enormously.

I think that OHLE would make more sense between Ashford and Ore/Hastings since there is already OHLE at Ashford (although platforms 1 and 2 would need to be given OHLE), the rural nature of the line means that relatively little bridge clearence work would need to be carried out, and the only other interface with the third rail network would be at Hastings/Ore.

 

[HSTEd]

I think that OHLE would make more sense between Ashford and Ore/Hastings since there is already OHLE at Ashford (although platforms 1 and 2 would need to be given OHLE), the rural nature of the line means that relatively little bridge clearence work would need to be carried out, and the only other interface with the third rail network would be at Hastings/Ore.

Installing OHLE at Ashford would likely require a complete reconstruction of the station, which would likely cost some enormous sum of money with all the disruption etc etc.

I am proposing a minimum cost scheme sized to the traffic likely to be using the route, which is relatively small numbers of relatively short trains.

 

[HSTEd]

One thing to keep in mind when speaking about experience is that NR is currently undertaking several large OHLE schemes and is building experience (in many cases the hard way) where there aren't any ongoing third-rail schemes and none on the drawing boards.

And has demonstrated the cost estimates for these schemes aren't worth the paper they are written on.
Which means the analyses that purport to show that 25kV is more economic than third rail are also not worth the paper they are written on.

I am not proposing a total stop of 25kV electrification (although it looks like the Government is moving in that direction) but third rail needs to be rexamined and a pilot project carried forward.

DC electrical equipment has come an awful long way in the last 20-25 years after all. A development project with a relatively small scheme attached for real world testing seems like a reasonable idea.

 

[JamesRowden]

Installing OHLE at Ashford would likely require a complete reconstruction of the station, which would likely cost some enormous sum of money with all the disruption etc etc.

I am proposing a minimum cost scheme sized to the traffic likely to be using the route, which is relatively small numbers of relatively short trains.

Installing OHLE to the line would not require the line to be connected to HS1.

 

[HSTEd]

Installing OHLE to the line would not require the line to be connected to HS1.

Then what's the point - you create a bi-mode fleet where none was necessary to provide the service and create an additional switching point at Ore with all the problems that entails?

 

[JamesRowden]

Then what's the point - you create a bi-mode fleet where none was necessary to provide the service and create an additional switching point at Ore with all the problems that entails?

OHLE has better performance. All of the EMUs at Hastings are dual voltage capable. No need for substations every 3 miles.

 

[HSTEd]

OHLE has better performance. All of the units at Hastings are dual voltage capable. No need for substations every 3 miles.

I don't recall seeing many of the trains on Southern Region actually having anything in their pan well at my last visit. All that equipment would have to be paid for since it doesn't actually exist yet. And a large sub-fleet would have to be equipped with pantographs to ensure service reliability and such.
And maintenance as transformers and HV electrical gear tends to need more than a concrete block does.

And you don't need a third rail substation every 3 miles. Especially not on a relatively low traffic density routel ike that one.
And even relatively simple OHLE projects with little bridge clearance work are turning out much more expensive than anticipated. For example the Bromsgrove project.

 

[JamesRowden]

I don't recall seeing many of the trains on Southern Region actually having anything in their pan well at my last visit. All that equipment would have to be paid for since it doesn't actually exist yet. And a large sub-fleet would have to be equipped with pantographs to ensure service reliability and such.
And maintenance as transformers and HV electrical gear tends to need more than a concrete block does.

And you don't need a third rail substation every 3 miles. Especially not on a relatively low traffic density routel ike that one.
And even relatively simple OHLE projects with little bridge clearance work are turning out much more expensive than anticipated. For example the Bromsgrove project.

Many Southeastern 375s have pans and Southeastern are presently receiving dual voltage 377/5s from Thameslink. More electric stock for Southern would be required whichever electrification method is used.

 

[najaB]

And has demonstrated the cost estimates for these schemes aren't worth the paper they are written on.

GWML, yes. EGIP, not so much.