Possible third rail electrifications

[najaB]

...if a distant Westminster government is putting needless costly barriers in the way...

A presumption against installing an inherently dangerous and grossly inefficient system doesn't sound like a 'needless costly barrier' to me. To me it sounds sensible.

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps someone will come along here with some statistics which disprove that point.

The answer is in a footnote to the ORR document linked further back.

This is borne out by data from RSSB’s safety risk model – despite the legacy network being only half the size of the AC network (4400km compared to 8200km), it contributes almost eight times more (in terms of fatalities and weighted injuries per year) to overall risks on the railway. See FWI comparative data for OLE / conductor rail / non-electrified: Network Rail Electrical Power Asset Policy December 2012 (Table 2.1, page 52).

I don't think the document it references is publically available.

To help understand the above statement:

The Safety Risk Model (SRM) is a quantitative representation of the potential accidents resulting from the operation and maintenance of the GB rail network. It comprises a total of 121 individual models, each representing a type of hazardous event. A hazardous event is defined as an event or an incident that has the potential to result in injuries or fatalities.

The SRM is, where possible, populated using data from the rail industry's safety related incident data taken from safety management information system (SMIS). The SRM also includes predictions of the risk contribution from low frequency but potentially high consequence accidents for which there is little or no relevant data available. Where little data exists the model makes significant use of structured expert judgement from technical specialists to populate the model.

From http://www.rssb.co.uk/risk-analysis-and-safety-reporting/risk-analysis/safety-risk-model-(srm)

Basically this model is the best evidence available of the amount of danger presented by various factors on the railway, and attempts to get round the problem that accidents are relatively rare so tend to skew the data when they do happen.

Other research has suggested that third rail to OLE conversion might have a positive financial case, particularly if the trains are dual voltage capable and money would have to be spent anyway to update the infrastructure supplying power to the third rail.

 

[notlob.divad]

IMHO, it's grossly disproportionate if building the new track necessitates buying new rolling stock that would not otherwise be needed. Meaning that only third rail extensions that can be served without expanding the existing rolling stock are feasible. Obviously all new rolling stock should be AC/DC.

Overhead DC light rail should be considered for Bidston-Wrexham. Manchester Metrolink compatible.

Merseyrail are getting new stock that is needed anyway within the very foreseeable future. As far as I am aware the tenders have been returned and are currently being evaluated. They have been specified to be able to accept both 3rd rail and OHLE equipment although whether they will look to get the the OHLE equipment installed at the start or potentially retrofitted down the line is still unknown.

And if this is the case then that is why it needs to be politicised. It's crucial for needed regional economic growth for the infrastructure to support that, and if a distant Westminster government is putting needless costly barriers in the way then that needs taking apart. On this subject, they will deserve to lose. From what I've seen I can imagine two of the three so far announced possible candidates for the Merseyside mayor taking the issue on, one more than the other.

I am fully in agreement with you. I am a Merseyside resident and want the whole of the network, Northern, Wirral and City Lines all expanded and joined up to form one City Region wide Metro System, however expansions via 3rd rail are not going to be the way it goes. As I and many others have pointed out any extensions will be OHLE it will probably all come in a decent chunk over a couple of years, CLC to Warrington, Skelmersdale Extension, maybe even Preston and down the Borderlands line. Then as the existing equipment reaches its end of life, slowly the OHLE will be extended and the 3rd rail shrink. All the Metro Mayor will be able to argue for is that the day it starts be brought forward as soon as possible. But as others have stated, given the ongoing North West Electrification projects, there are other areas of the country that will be screaming out for their share of investment.

 

[AM9]

A presumption against installing an inherently dangerous and grossly inefficient system doesn't sound like a 'needless costly barrier' to me. To me it sounds sensible.

It sounds more like a 'elf 'n safety is all stuff 'n nonsence' claim from somebody who thinks that ignoring unnecessary risk the way it was in the past is just 'common sense'.

 

[mr_jrt]

As for LU - personally I think given their attitude to the outer reaches of the Met there's a decent case for converting the fast lines north of HotH to OHLE when Marylebone to Neasden (and beyond) gets wired up (with infill to HotH), thence onwards to Chesham to Aylesbury. Mainly because it makes little difference to LU's DC-only rolling stock, and would in fact free up the units used for Ricky to Amersham & Chesham for use elsewhere (i.e. enhanced Watford service, etc)

It's a longish way off, but still.

 

[Camden]

All the Metro Mayor will be able to argue for is that the day it starts be brought forward as soon as possible.

I disagree with that. What they can argue for are for the rules to be changed, issues to be devolved down, reform of government bodies. You're underestimating how powerful these new positions are going to be both from the beginning as political apparatus and as they evolve as legitimate voices representing millions of people (speaking to a government widely perceived as being very out of touch).

It sounds more like a 'elf 'n safety is all stuff 'n nonsence' claim from somebody who thinks that ignoring unnecessary risk the way it was in the past is just 'common sense'.

Or someone who frequently reads about trespassers getting burned by OHLE, but can't recall one single instance of it happening with the third rail.

The real issue is that some will make anything up to pursue what it is they want to see happen (or not happen, which is more like it), but you can't make up things like fatalities. Third rail is not a safety issue, and many British organisations definitely do go far too far in their implementation of Health & Safety regulations. Before anyone rushes to demonstrate how the country's educational standards have also gone down the pan, I would point out that this was a fact accepted by the last HM Government who set up a commission to try and deal with the issue. Presumably their findings were never read due to the risk of paper cuts or injury to egos.

 

[notlob.divad]

I disagree with that. What they can argue for are for the rules to be changed, issues to be devolved down, reform of government bodies. You're underestimating how powerful these new positions are going to be both from the beginning as political apparatus and as they evolve as legitimate voices representing millions of people (speaking to a government widely perceived as being very out of touch).

They won't get national rules changed. They may be able to lobby for a loophole in the rules for their specific area due to extenuating circumstances. Will it work, probably not as it would set a dangerous precedent, but they could try. Frankly I will be incredibly disappointed in any LCR Metro mayor who wastes the first 5 years of these devolved powers fighting their own little crusade, for the sake of a 3rd rail extension serving people outside of the Combined Authorities control.

In my opinion, 3rd rail is not the battle, and if they make it the battle they will loose the war. Better to focus on the wider picture, where they stand a better chance of achieving a positive outcome.

 

[Camden]

I think that's a rather narrow view. There are an awful lot of people in your area who happen to find themselves on the "wrong" side of that border, but who need to rely on Merseyside being successful. The issue isn't "third rail", it's expansion and local control. Whether third rail through the rules or OHLE conversion you're adding costs, and adding costs equals nothing happening. That's not acceptable.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Maybe it's time we had a heritage railway with 3rd rail (yes I'm aware of the Volks railway before anyone mentions it).

But I was thinking standard gauge..... Bluebell's Ardingly branch would be a possibility..... and there's always no shortage of enthusiasts who *have* to stand in just the right place to get a specific shot.... perhaps the introduction of a 3rd rail heritage line would thin a few of those out as well........

I think the Island Line isn't far off it.

 

[najaB]

Or someone who frequently reads about trespassers getting burned by OHLE, but can't recall one single instance of it happening with the third rail.

Your recollection is in direct contradiction of the industry statistics quoted above (see edwin_m's post).

Here's one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8380/Two-men-electrocuted-railway-line.html - like most cases of 3rd rail electrocution they were simply 'taking a shortcut', unlike OHLE where you have to go out of your way to come into contact with the wire.

 

[notlob.divad]

There are an awful lot of people in your area who happen to find themselves on the "wrong" side of that border, but who need to rely on Merseyside being successful.

I agree, and I feel they should be included in the Authority, but the situation as it stand is that they are not and thus they won't have a vote on who the Mayor is and thus will not represent them.

The issue isn't "third rail", it's expansion and local control. Whether third rail through the rules or OHLE conversion you're adding costs, and adding costs equals nothing happening. That's not acceptable.

But a local person saying that is going to cost us too much, I don't believe your statistics, etc etc etc, isn't going to get anything anywhere either. At some point all of the electrical equipment will need replacing anyway. Things do not have an infinite lifespan. The trains are at that point now, hence why they are taking the very reasonable and sensible step of ensuring they will have the ability to take power from both 3rd rail and OHLE. The local control of Merseytravel won out and brand new trains are being tendered for. I have no insider knowledge, but I am convinced the powers in London wanted Merseyrail to take on cascaded stock. The numbers available vs the number required are just too much of a co-incidence.

The current impasse cannot stand I agree, it is ridiculous, but sometimes you have to play by other peoples rules to get to where you want, and that is the game we are currently playing.

Push for Warrington, push for the Halton Curve, push for new stations on the existing lines and push for better national network connections. These are the arguments that can currently be won, where a local voice can hold some sway. Changing the rules to reduce costs for relatively short extensions is not.

 

[Camden]

Your recollection is in direct contradiction of the industry statistics quoted above (see edwin_m's post).

Here's one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8380/Two-men-electrocuted-railway-line.html - like most cases of 3rd rail electrocution they were simply 'taking a shortcut', unlike OHLE where you have to go out of your way to come into contact with the wire.

I gather someone was electrocuted on the New York subway after jumping on to the tracks, however just as with the regulations themselves this bears no relevance to Merseyrail, and neither does your article. I cannot think of a single place where one might unofficially try (or be able to) take a shortcut on the Merseyrail network, and any official locations are naturally third rail free.

There is nothing to show that the Merseyrail system is any more dangerous than OHL, and blanket generalisations are as bad as blanket regulations.

 

[najaB]

There is nothing to show that the Merseyrail system is any more dangerous than OHL, and blanket generalisations are as bad as blanket regulations.

It's 3rd rail 750VDC - the location doesn't make a difference. What makes it safer in Merseyside than anywhere else in the world?

Here's an example from Merseyside: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...seyside-railway-line-tried-retrieve-ball.html

And another: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/memorial-created-bootle-boy-who-3417615

 

[Camden]

I agree, and I feel they should be included in the Authority, but the situation as it stand is that they are not and thus they won't have a vote on who the Mayor is and thus will not represent them.

Not officially, but as the person in charge of the key economic driver for the region he (or she) will still bear that responsibility in terms of needing to see the bigger picture for growth.

It's 3rd rail 750VDC - the location doesn't make a difference. What makes it safer in Merseyside than anywhere else in the world?

As for your articles, I have also articles from the past few years where people were killed by OHLE in the area.

 

[najaB]

Please post the articles referring to the people who have been electrocuted on the Merseyrail third rail system, if you have them.

Cross posted above:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...seyside-railway-line-tried-retrieve-ball.html

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/memorial-created-bootle-boy-who-3417615

You still haven't said why 3rd-rail is safer in Merseyside than it is in the rest of the world. Is there something different about your electricity?

 

[Camden]

You still haven't said why 3rd-rail is safer in Merseyside than it is in the rest of the world. Is there something different about your electricity?

You still haven't said why, despite the regular occurrences of OHLE electrocutions, you believe the Merseyrail system is so much more mortal to people. A couple of articles, one going back over 7 years hardly proves your point. There have been plenty more people who have been run over on the system during this time, so perhaps we should stop the trains running entirely?

 

[najaB]

You still haven't said why, despite the regular occurrences of OHLE electrocutions, you believe the Merseyrail system is so much more mortal to people.

I don't think there is anything particularly dangerous about the Merseyrail network as compared to any other third-rail network. However you are conveniently ignoring the statistics quoted by edwin_m above:

"...despite the legacy [third-rail] network being only half the size of the AC network (4400km compared to 8200km), it contributes almost eight times more (in terms of fatalities and weighted injuries per year) to overall risks on the railway."

Half the size but eight times the contribution to overall risk.

 

[XDM]

I think,but am not sure,that the ORR quote is referring to a desktop exercise in which weighted statistics were used,so the adverse conclusions about DC safety appear to come from a subjective valuation of likely hazards,not real statistics. The only time a close friend of mine got reprimanded by his BBC bosses was when he wrote a national BBC1 TV 10pm bulletin which included the lines:
'2 Liverpool youngsters are fighting for their lives in a Merseyside hospital tonight after trespassing on railway sidings close to the city's Edge Hill station. The 14 year olds had walking on top of carriages & were electrocuted after coming into contact with railway high voltage cables.'
He was shown the dictionary where 'electrocuted' means killed by electricity. It happened in about 1995.
I just wonder if people don't have it in for third rail because it appears so dangerous. The ORR research justifying third rail containment seems selective.
I urge people to carefully read the ORR research quote that a poster put up. One needs to know how & why the stats were weighted. Third rail seems such a cheap & environmentally friendly way to electrify.
I know experienced posters have raised extra DC track side transformers,but they are offset by ac needing extra rail borne transformers.
They have also raised extra time preparing for track possessions,but that could be managed down & there are benefits,cranes don't have to dodge the overhead line. Power losses,well wet ballast is often piled up against the third rail,leaking vast currents to earth. Take a look next time you are held at a signal in third rail territory.
If NR had a regime for eliminating this sort of third rail earthing the only extra power loss would come from the low voltage of dc,& that could be partially mitigated by low resistance aluminium conductor rail.

 

[najaB]

I just wonder if people don't have it in for third rail because it appears so dangerous.

It doesn't just appear dangerous, it is. It is quite hard to accidentally come into contact with OHLE without doing something a little out of the ordinary - it's designed so that there is a safe distance between any structures and the average punter. In almost every case where someone is zapped by 25kV there's either been wires brought down, or they have been climbing structures. It isn't so hard to come into contact with third-rail. Here's a little thought exercise: imagine you were blindfolded and told to cross two different plain line double-track railways and back several times. One stretch is electrified with OHLE, the other is third-rail. Which one will you be at most risk crossing? (Let's assume they are both closed to traffic but the current is still on).

They have also raised extra time preparing for track possessions,but that could be managed down & there are benefits,cranes don't have to dodge the overhead line.

I'm sure Bald Rick and others who do this for a living would be interested in your ideas of how to manage this time down. They really would.

Power losses,well wet ballast is often piled up against the third rail,leaking vast currents to earth. Take a look next time you are held at a signal in third rail territory.

I don't believe this to be true. At least not to the extent that you are implying it is.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm sure Bald Rick and others who do this for a living would be interested in your ideas of how to manage this time down. They really would.

I'm all ears!

Not to put too fine a point in it, the productivity benefit runs into tens of millions a year.

Someone I know very well - a well respected electrical engineer - has been trying to resolve this for half a decade. But at the end of the day there is no way that you can be working close to a live (or potentially live) non-insulated conductor and still comply with the electricity at work regulations.

 

[edwin_m]

I think,but am not sure,that the ORR quote is referring to a desktop exercise in which weighted statistics were used,so the adverse conclusions about DC safety appear to come from a subjective valuation of likely hazards,not real statistics.

Unfortunately the publication is it based on doesn't appear to be in the public domain, and I don't believe there's anything on relative safety of the systems in the RSSB research project library either. However I think I'd trust the RSSB Risk Model over the sort of anecdotal "evidence" that you and others are posting.

 

[AM9]

... Third rail seems such a cheap & environmentally friendly way to electrify...

I could understand such a daft argument coming from the Goring Gap NIMBYs but we are talking about a working railway in the 21st century where energy consumption, longevity of capital infrastructure and its ongoing maintenance and reliability are critical to the overall cost. 3rd rail falls down on each of those.

How can a system that wastes up to 20% energy, requires ac to DC converting substations every few miles, which for anything more than a few short trains, fails to sustain the nominal line voltage, has problems with icing and very heavy rain, puts leakage current into adjacent ground causing electolytic issues, kills wild animals crossing it etc.. possibly be called "a cheap and environmentally friendly way to electrify"?

 

[XDM]

I was responding to post 108 where it was said it takes 60 mins to ensure the third rail is off. I was not advocating possessions take place with the third rail live. I suggested it could be possible to manage this 1 hour down. Why one hour to turn off the third rail & confirm it's off? Bridging between sections could be eliminated with short circuit bars,or that is how I am told it used to be done.
One can think of a thousand ways of building up the costs of third rail. What are needed are real accident statistics of death & injury from third rail versus 25kv. Desktop weighted exercises from ORR or one off horrors of soldiers killed at Poole or teenagers burnt on carriage roofs are not evidence. Real facts are evidence. A recent poster's thought experiment of people crossing DC tracks blindfold can be traded for blindfolded men carrying long ladders close to 25,000 volt lines. I would prefer the DC rather than AC in that case.
Most of all I would like comparable DC/AC death & injury stats,which ORR from the earlier quote do not seem to have,despite the ease of getting them by setting a junior to go through the accident reports.

 

[najaB]

A recent poster's thought experiment of people crossing DC tracks blindfold can be traded for blindfolded men carrying long ladders close to 25,000 volt lines.

How many people carry ladders across railway lines at night, as opposed to people taking short-cuts?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would prefer the DC rather than AC in that case.

You'd still be at risk of tripping and falling on the third-rail, by the way.

 

[AM9]

It seems that some of the defenders of 3rd rail posting in this thread are driven by a nostalgic liking for an electrification system that is not fit for use in these cost-sensitive yet safety-enlightened times. This is despite 3rd rail's higher through-life cost in most surface situations and the higher risks associated by the proximity of live rails.
Any expert explanation of health and safety risk and the cost of legally mitigating their effects, seem to be routinely dismissed as just ways of increasing the perceived cost of 3rd rail and promoting OLE as the only solution. Moreover, it seems that hazards are only accepted as real when they see real dead body reports.
I hope that none of them are employed in safety responsible roles on the railway or anywhere else.

 

[najaB]

Moreover, it seems that hazards are only accepted as real when they see real dead body reports.

Which have to be in their local area as third-rail deaths outside their county don't matter.

 

[AM9]

Which have to be in their local area as third-rail deaths outside their county don't matter.

I thought such insularity with respect to 'foreign' problems was something that London got all the blame for.

 

[frodshamfella]

If Merseyrail took over the Wrexham to Bidston line would that not need to be 3rd rail ?

 

[AM9]

If Merseyrail took over the Wrexham to Bidston line would that not need to be 3rd rail ?

Not if Merseyrail are told to procure dual power EMUs like every other operator on NR track.

Edit: I've just checked and find that Bidston to Wrexham is about 50Km so 3rd rail wouldn't even stand up to a fairly equivocal comparison with OLE. Add in the safety issues and it would be turned around at the door. Looking at the local geography, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the line south from Wrexham to be electrified at some point in the future so the case for electrifying from scratch a long 50Km stretch with an obsolete system when the rest of the network south as far as the Thames would be OLE only would just be rejected outright.

 

[XDM]

Wires down at Retford today. Haven't heard of any third rail being displaced recently.