• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Possible third rail electrifications

Status
Not open for further replies.

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,608
Location
Nottingham
I can't see that happening, for the sake of what you're talking about it's a lot of expense for very little if any benefit.

The only way Merseyrail will reach Warrington is via an ambitious programme. I would hasten to add that of the ones I listed before, Warrington is absolutely at the end of the list in terms of likelihood (bearing in mind it has been like this since the 70s). I don't think OHLE into Manchester is much of an issue, given how the line has been very much left out of any improvements already, it's not on the radar (despite its inclusion in a northern priorities report).

I don't quite understand why you are saying this is a lot of expense for not much benefit, then proposing a scheme which would need to fill a train every 10min to even think about justifying its cost. I really can't see the CLC local stations justifying this - they aren't like the inner parts of Merseyrail and only justify frequencies similar to those on other extremities of the Merseyrail network.

The benefit from my proposal is getting approximately two paths per hour off the section between South Parkway and Lime Street, and contributing to the AC electrification of the route which will in turn lead to wider benefits. I agree it's not a huge benefit compared with other electrifications, and depends on getting dual-voltage trains for Merseyrail, which is probably why other schemes have had priority.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,897
Everyone can huff and puff as much as they like, but the fact is that, apart from the very smallest of infills, third rail electrification will not be extended within the UK.

It is far too dangerous for staff and trespassers and modern H & S will just not permit it.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
5,610
Location
Hope Valley

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
10,477
Location
Preston Lancs

Great document -bookmarked.

QUOTE " It will continue to question and challenge duty holders to drive excellence in the management of electrical safety risks – particularly those associated with third rail technology. " QUOTE

Also QUOTE Whenever renewal or upgrade of the electrification systems is being proposed a duty holder should carry out a thorough design risk analysis of the available electrification options and should develop a thorough and credible cost-benefit analysis to support any determination that alternatives to third rail electrification are grossly disproportionate . ]QUOTE
 
Last edited:

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,380
Location
Liverpool
I don't quite understand why you are saying this is a lot of expense for not much benefit, then proposing a scheme which would need to fill a train every 10min to even think about justifying its cost. I really can't see the CLC local stations justifying this - they aren't like the inner parts of Merseyrail and only justify frequencies similar to those on other extremities of the Merseyrail network.

The benefit from my proposal is getting approximately two paths per hour off the section between South Parkway and Lime Street, and contributing to the AC electrification of the route which will in turn lead to wider benefits. I agree it's not a huge benefit compared with other electrifications, and depends on getting dual-voltage trains for Merseyrail, which is probably why other schemes have had priority.

What are you going to do with the 2 paths per hour from Parkway to Lime Street. I quite like my stopping service at West Allerton thank you very much. :D
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,608
Location
Nottingham
What are you going to do with the 2 paths per hour from Parkway to Lime Street. I quite like my stopping service at West Allerton thank you very much. :D

More capacity for Halton Curve? Retain the link between South Parkway and Blackpool? One or both of these could pick up the intermediate stops.
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,609
What are you going to do with the 2 paths per hour from Parkway to Lime Street. I quite like my stopping service at West Allerton thank you very much. :D

By moving the services that serve West Allerton, Mossley Hill, (a Smithdown road station please) and Edge Hill, off the CLC line, it would mean they could use platform 3 & 4 at Lpool S Parkway rather than Platforms 1&2. Thus not impact upon the faster trains out of Lime Street. Therefore I would do as edwin_m suggests and run these to Chester via Runcorn and the re-instated Halton curve.

This would all in an ideal world be OHLE and (back to the original point of the thread) Not involve anymore 3rd Rail electrification. I repeat my original point. The only place I would like to see it extended is in any potential 'Edge Hill Spur' style project. Even the Kirkby line extension I would prefer to see OHLE as it would be useful for Freight to the Industrial Estate.
 

Requeststop

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2012
Messages
999
Location
Carbis Bay, St Ives, Cornwall
I was looking this evening at Google Earth at the Stanlow rail lines passing by the refinery and what caught my attention was the car park between the refinery and the rail lines. For the life of me I cannot understand what the problem is about a 3rd rail electrification line from Ellesmere Port to Helsby. If the oil company can put so many petrol driven vehicles in a car park between the refinery and the rail lies, with the batteries in the cars and possibilities of light end fumes entering the exhausts of the cars then causing a mixture of oxygen, fuel and heat from the exhaust of the petrol engine, then what is the problem with a 3rd rail electrified line? Diesel engine trains can pass by as there is no battery to create the heat from a spark! It's the compression of the fuel in the diesel engine that creates the heat to give ignition of the diesel fuel. As I've asked in other threads, what is the temperature generated by a flash of electricity from a third rail? To me an extension of 3rd rail electrification to Helsby is a possibility.

Another point to comment on. The Stanlow refinery may close soon. It's far cheaper to import Crude oil products from Third World export refineries than to refine the stuff in the UK right now. Tranmere Terminal can import what is needed for distribution of oil products and Stanlow will become a glorified Oil storage facility just like Buncefield. When that happens maybe some sense will prevail and 3rd rail will happen to Helsby and maybe beyond.
 

Attachments

  • Stanlow Rail Car Park.jpg
    Stanlow Rail Car Park.jpg
    332.3 KB · Views: 45

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
10,477
Location
Preston Lancs
Again to quote from the above cited document -- QUOTE ORR’s most significant concern in regard to legacy third rail systems is the running of bare, live conductors through publicly accessible areas. These conductors are not insulated or shrouded. The DC network does not allow quick, secure isolations, and exposes individuals to a range of risks whilst carrying out isolations. Due to the difficulty in obtaining isolations on the legacy network, a lot of work tends to be carried out on or near the live conductor, further undermining safety and weakening compliance with the applicable legislation. This is not an abstract or theoretical risk: the harm done to both workers and members of the public by the legacy network occurs significantly more frequently than on the overhead AC network. A duty holder proposing the laying of new bare third rail (as used across the legacy network) would therefore have to make a compelling case that it had considered all other possibilities and could satisfactorily demonstrate that all such possibilities would be grossly disproportionate in comparison to using third rail.

This is borne out by data from RSSB’s safety risk model – despite the legacy DC network being only half the size of the AC network, it contributes almost eight times more (in terms of fatalities and weighted injuries per year) to overall risks on the railway. END QUOTE

I just can not see it happening in this refinery area.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,992
Location
K
More likely to be third rail actually.
It is not possible to access the Hastings line from HS1 without 2 reversals. A through OHL connection would involve extensive rebuilding of the east end of Ashford station, which isn't going to happen.

Marshlink will become part of the London St Pancras to Eastbourne service using a follow on batch of 802 units that will be required to relieve overcrowding on HS1.
A single crossover will be needed from the end of Platform 3 to Platform 2. The through lines can be removed as they see little use.
All Marshland high speed services will use platform 2 which will get ac electrification. The 802s will run on diesel between Ashford and Eastbourne.
 

Wavertreelad

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2013
Messages
810
I was looking this evening at Google Earth at the Stanlow rail lines passing by the refinery and what caught my attention was the car park between the refinery and the rail lines. For the life of me I cannot understand what the problem is about a 3rd rail electrification line from Ellesmere Port to Helsby. If the oil company can put so many petrol driven vehicles in a car park between the refinery and the rail lies, with the batteries in the cars and possibilities of light end fumes entering the exhausts of the cars then causing a mixture of oxygen, fuel and heat from the exhaust of the petrol engine, then what is the problem with a 3rd rail electrified line? Diesel engine trains can pass by as there is no battery to create the heat from a spark! It's the compression of the fuel in the diesel engine that creates the heat to give ignition of the diesel fuel. As I've asked in other threads, what is the temperature generated by a flash of electricity from a third rail? To me an extension of 3rd rail electrification to Helsby is a possibility.

Another point to comment on. The Stanlow refinery may close soon. It's far cheaper to import Crude oil products from Third World export refineries than to refine the stuff in the UK right now. Tranmere Terminal can import what is needed for distribution of oil products and Stanlow will become a glorified Oil storage facility just like Buncefield. When that happens maybe some sense will prevail and 3rd rail will happen to Helsby and maybe beyond.

I doubt the refinery will close in the foreseeable future as it is part of the national network and also supplies Manchester Airport by pipeline. I would also point out that Oil Sites Road runs between the refinery and the railway and if you have the suitable authorisation you can drive your petrol drive vehicle within the refinery site as far as the car park on the side of the Manchester Ship Canal. I have seen it done in the 1960's when the refinery was a lot bigger, and more recently I have done it myself within the last ten years.
 

Kentish Paul

Member
Joined
25 Apr 2012
Messages
454
Location
Ashford Kent
Marshlink will become part of the London St Pancras to Eastbourne service using a follow on batch of 802 units that will be required to relieve overcrowding on HS1.
A single crossover will be needed from the end of Platform 3 to Platform 2. The through lines can be removed as they see little use.
All Marshland high speed services will use platform 2 which will get ac electrification. The 802s will run on diesel between Ashford and Eastbourne.

Is this fact or fantasy? I note you use the word "will". A crossover from the end of platform 3 will only get you halfway down platform 2.
 
Joined
13 Apr 2013
Messages
14
The Stanlow oil refinery was developed from 1924 onwards. Stanlow and Thornton railway station opened in 1940 to serve workers at the plant. In those days trains would be steam hauled. Would not sparks from a steam locomotive be more likely to blow up the plant than an EMU of today? The place seemed to be still standing at the end of steam in the Sixties.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,992
Location
K
Is this fact or fantasy? I note you use the word "will". A crossover from the end of platform 3 will only get you halfway down platform 2.
Have a look on Google Earth, a crossover from the line from CTRL to platform 3 over to Platform 2 could easily utilise the whole length of platform 2.
There has been no use whatsoever of the turnout from the Down Tonbridge line to Platform 3 since Eurostars ceased running to Waterloo.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,551
Location
Torbay
Marshlink will become part of the London St Pancras to Eastbourne service using a follow on batch of 802 units that will be required to relieve overcrowding on HS1.
A single crossover will be needed from the end of Platform 3 to Platform 2. The through lines can be removed as they see little use.
All Marshland high speed services will use platform 2 which will get ac electrification. The 802s will run on diesel between Ashford and Eastbourne.

The service concept could work clearly if there was a suitable track connection at Ashford, and would be compatible with future incremental OHLE electrification along the Marsh Link. I wonder if Hitachi could be persuaded to offer 3rd rail pick up for a reasonable cost as well on such cl.802 variants. As they have AT300 experience with DC on the 395s it seems technically low risk.

Is this fact or fantasy? I note you use the word "will". A crossover from the end of platform 3 will only get you halfway down platform 2.

Here are some options I thought about:
http://www.townend.me/files/ashford.pdf
#3 is the simplest. I would not get rid of the through roads. They can be surprisingly useful for ad hoc moves of empty stock, engineering trains etc, and their use would be essential if continental freight ever recovered and all those reserved paths for intermodals etc were suddenly needed again. Removing them would not even make enough space for another platform. Note in all options I've simplified the layout of left hand turnouts at the west end of the station to make room for the new right hand connections. This is possible because Eurostar trains no longer need to get between the Tonbridge line and platforms 3 and 4.
 

Gareth

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2011
Messages
1,505
I think with regards to Merseyrail the default to any extension will be 3rd rail. OHLE will be used if it's the line shared with mainline services. In this scenario it can be looked at as not an extension of the Merseyrail network but Merseyrail services running on the wider 'national' rail nework.

For the Northern Line, I forsee three extensions: to Skelmersdale, Burscough Bridge and to Warrington Central.

For Skelmersdale, I don't see anything but Merseyrail services using the section between Kirkby and the delta junction; calling at the new Headbolt Lane station and Rainhill on the way. The diesel service from Wigan will also be diverted to run into Skelmersdale instead of Kirkby. I'm not sure whether the line into Skelmersdale will be dual or single. I've read that the proposed services will be 2tph Merseyrail and 1tph, Northern from Wigan/Manchester with aspiration for this to increase to 2tph. A single line with such frequencies would be tricky, considering it'll be quite a good length of line. Although Merseyrail and non-Merseyrail services will share this track, I still think it'll be 3rd rail. It may be dual 3rd rail and OHLE if/when Skelmersdale-Wigan is electrified, similar to Allerton Junction-Hunts Cross. If it is dual, they may make the two tracks bidirectional, rather than just Up-Down with one being Merseyrail and other being Northern; although even then, it'll probably still be made possible for either service to use either track for the sake of flexibility.

The extension to Burscough Bridge from Ormskirk using the south curve would also only be used by Merseyrail and so would surely also be 3rd rail. This would probably be 2tph. If it couldn't justify 2tph then it probably wouldn't be worth the bother. These services might run into the Southport-bound platform and reverse, assuming it could be done without compromising the existing services on the Southport-Wigan line. Ideally, you'd have a new terminating platform. Preston trains would use the northern curve. This would terminate in the Wigan bound platform. With an hourly frequency at best and with it being a mostly self-contained line, this probably could be done without building a new terminating platform. It would also open up the possibility of Southport-Preston direct services. The connecting section between the curves that is currently in use could be mothballed, or if that's politically undesirable, maybe run one Preston train per day into Bruscough Junction (instead of Bridge) as a sort of parliamentary service. In both cases, interaction with Merseyrail is minimal. Neither Southport-Wigan nor the Preston line are electrified anyway and the latter probably will never be.

Extending to Warrington Central would probably be OHLE unless the line was given over to Merseyrail entirely. Even then, they'd probably want to keep the route as an option for diversions. I can see at least 2tph being extended from Hunts Cross, essentially replacing the Lime Street-Oxford Road services. The fact Hunts Cross has 5tph into Liverpool and Halewood only 1tph is not an accurate reflection of the difference in demand. They're very similar-sized suburbs of Liverpool and the latter has a much reduced service because of the lack of Merseyrail and the relative constraints of the CLC line with its mixed traffic; plus the flat junction at Allerton. The traffic will be slightly less mixed in the future when TPE becomes Chat Moss-only; the CLC will then be primarily a commuter and regional express line. So fewer fast trains to have to timetable the slower services around. With the stopper services going into South Parkway low level, only two trains per hour each way (EMT Liverpool-Norwich & Northern Connect Liverpool-Manchester Airport) will use Allerton Junction, so fewer conflicts with the WCML. Mossley Hill and West Allerton services could head towards Runcorn and Chester via the Halton curve, as others have mentioned.

For the Wirral Line: extension to Helsby would surely be third rail. The parliamentary service would disappear leaving only Merseyrail services (plus some freight from Shell perhaps) and Helsby has 2 platforms dedicated to this branch, allowing Merseyrail to be totally separate from the mainline. The Borderlands Line is much more complicated. It's totally self-contained so 3rd rail would work; certainly if Merseyrail only extended to Woodchurch or Helsby. If it's electrified in full, OHLE may be more beneficial considering the distance involved; although I feel it would be a poor fit for Merseyrail.

Merseyrail extensions onto the City Line are difficult to talk about for certain as we don't know exactly what they'd look like, as there are currently no official proposals. Presumably this would include connecting Liverpool Central to Edge Hill via a new tunnel and diverting some or all the Chat Moss services into it. As the underground section would be Merseyrail only, this would surely be 3rd rail. The overground section is already OHLE and so the trains would switch power at Edge Hill.

============================
The Abridged Version

Skelmersdale - 3rd Rail
Burscough Bridge - 3rd Rail
Warrington Central - OHLE
Helsby - 3rd Rail
Borderlands - depends
City Line - 3rd rail underground, extant OHLE overground


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
AThis is borne out by data from RSSB’s safety risk model – despite the legacy DC network being only half the size of the AC network, it contributes almost eight times more (in terms of fatalities and weighted injuries per year) to overall risks on the railway. END QUOTE

I'm not convinced this tells the whole story. For a start, if we look at the AC/OHLE network as one and compare it with the 3rd rail lines then we can see they're very different in profile. OHLE is mostly used on long distance lines and relatively few commuter lines are electrified - the northern half of Thameslink perhaps being the main exception. The 3rd rail lines are mostly found in the urban South East and the Liverpool area; and so to begin with, they're within close approximation to large populations of people, increasing the chance of death by misadventure, suicides etc.

Secondly, deaths from electrocution from Merseyrail's third rail don't seem to happen very often. Whilst there may have been some recently, I'm not aware of them. The last I remember was a dog that was sited by drivers running around the underground section of the Wirral Line. Having switched off the power, they found it melted onto the power rail. The stench was unspeakable, apparently. Even that was a few years ago now. Most deaths I hear about with regards to Merseyrail involve the trains themselves; usually suicides, plus the Georgia Varley incident. Therefore, you could argue that the trains themselves are more dangerous than the power rail.
 
Last edited:

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,020
Location
St Albans
I'm not convinced this tells the whole story. For a start, if we look at the AC/OHLE network as one and compare it with the 3rd rail lines then we can see they're very different in profile. OHLE is mostly used on long distance lines and relatively few commuter lines are electrified - the northern half of Thameslink perhaps being the main exception. The 3rd rail lines are mostly found in the urban South East and the Liverpool area; and so to begin with, they're within close approximation to large populations of people, increasing the chance of death by misadventure, suicides etc.

There are a lot of commuter lines around London electrified, the LT&S lines, the GEML, the West Anglian, the Enfield Town line, the ECML, the WCML and the NLL. All of those routes pass through inner city urban areas and except the NLL, outer suburbs. The suicides are more often impact related than (on 3rd rail lines) electrocution. Tresspass causes some electrocutions but I imagine that the major risk is to lineworkers.

Secondly, deaths from electrocution from Merseyrail's third rail don't seem to happen very often. Whilst there may have been some recently, I'm not aware of them. The last I remember was a dog that was sited by drivers running around the underground section of the Wirral Line. Having switched off the power, they found it melted onto the power rail. The stench was unspeakable, apparently. Even that was a few years ago now. Most deaths I hear about with regards to Merseyrail involve the trains themselves; usually suicides, plus the Georgia Varley incident. Therefore, you could argue that the trains themselves are more dangerous than the power rail.

Except to the unfortunate lineworkers. I assume that track in Merseyside tunnels is maintained during possessions with power shutdown. With Merseyrail's star geography of the lines, planned closure of the Loop would probably mean severe limitations on surface running. This may mean little additional disruption in switching off surface 3rd rail power to give safe engineering possession throughout.
 
Last edited:

Gareth

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2011
Messages
1,505
There will of course be more risk to lineworkers, although I think they try to work with the power off unless it's unavoidable for whatever reason. The 8 times as deadly statistic still doesn't seem credible though, unless a hell of a lot of lineworkers are meeting their maker. It'd be intresting to see the methodology behind the statistic.
 

Pj93lfc

New Member
Joined
22 Mar 2016
Messages
4
For Skelmersdale, I don't see anything but Merseyrail services using the section between Kirkby and the delta junction; calling at the new Headbolt Lane station and Rainhill on the way.

I think you mean Rainford not Rainhill
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,992
Location
K
The service concept could work clearly if there was a suitable track connection at Ashford, and would be compatible with future incremental OHLE electrification along the Marsh Link. I wonder if Hitachi could be persuaded to offer 3rd rail pick up for a reasonable cost as well on such cl.802 variants. As they have AT300 experience with DC on the 395s it seems technically low risk.



Here are some options I thought about:
http://www.townend.me/files/ashford.pdf
#3 is the simplest. I would not get rid of the through roads. They can be surprisingly useful for ad hoc moves of empty stock, engineering trains etc, and their use would be essential if continental freight ever recovered and all those reserved paths for intermodals etc were suddenly needed again. Removing them would not even make enough space for another platform. Note in all options I've simplified the layout of left hand turnouts at the west end of the station to make room for the new right hand connections. This is possible because Eurostar trains no longer need to get between the Tonbridge line and platforms 3 and 4.

I don't think your plan allows trains from the Tonbridge lines to reach platforms 5 and 6 which is essential.
any freight etc can run through platforms 3 and 4 which are hardly intensively used.
Continental freight through daytime ashford will never increase by enough to justify the through lines because all the capacity on the double track main line sections from Tonbridge has been used up by extra passenger services to Tunbridge Wells, that is why all freight services now run via Maidstone East.
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,609
For Skelmersdale, I don't see anything but Merseyrail services using the section between Kirkby and the delta junction; calling at the new Headbolt Lane station and Rainhill on the way.

I think that is Rainford. Also don't forget the Freight Railhead at Kirkby.

The extension to Burscough Bridge from Ormskirk using the south curve would also only be used by Merseyrail and so would surely also be 3rd rail. This would probably be 2tph. If it couldn't justify 2tph then it probably wouldn't be worth the bother. These services might run into the Southport-bound platform and reverse, assuming it could be done without compromising the existing services on the Southport-Wigan line.
If Wigan - Southport does ever see wires, why would you do a 3rd rail - OHLE changeover in Burscough Bridge where any issue with it would impact all services, rather than at Ormskirk where it could be done without impacting anything else. If they are going to Electrify this area, I could see them doing it all. and running 2 of the 4tph at Ormskirk to Southport and 2 to Preston. Southport - Wigan and Southport - Preston trains wouldn't stop between Southport and Burscough. However this is all a bit irrelevent to 3rd rail

Extending to Warrington Central would probably be OHLE unless the line was given over to Merseyrail entirely. Even then, they'd probably want to keep the route as an option for diversions.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was in the next round of Electrification projects as OHLE. Whether Merseytravel get permission to replace the stopping services to Warrington is another matter.

I can see at least 2tph being extended from Hunts Cross, essentially replacing the Lime Street-Oxford Road services. ... With the stopper services going into South Parkway low level, only two trains per hour each way (EMT Liverpool-Norwich & Northern Connect Liverpool-Manchester Airport) will use Allerton Junction, so fewer conflicts with the WCML. Mossley Hill and West Allerton services could head towards Runcorn and Chester via the Halton curve, as others have mentioned.
This is exactly how I see it running assuming Merseyrail sticks to a clock face timetable and doesn't start running express services. Get the stopping trains out of the way of the express services as soon as possible.

Merseyrail extensions onto the City Line are difficult to talk about for certain as we don't know exactly what they'd look like, as there are currently no official proposals. Presumably this would include connecting Liverpool Central to Edge Hill via a new tunnel and diverting some or all the Chat Moss services into it. As the underground section would be Merseyrail only, this would surely be 3rd rail. The overground section is already OHLE and so the trains would switch power at Edge Hill.

Whatever does happen if at some point someone decides it is worthwhile spending the money to finish Liverpool's railway system, you are right, the tunnels will be 3rd rail. as well as the clearance issues, you wouldn't want to do your changeover at the busiest station on the network in case you had a problem. This is the only place I could see a sensible 3rd Rail extension as it is the only place I think you could truly argue Gralistair's Point above.

Whenever renewal or upgrade of the electrification systems is being proposed a duty holder should carry out a thorough design risk analysis of the available electrification options and should develop a thorough and credible cost-benefit analysis to support any determination that alternatives to third rail electrification are grossly disproportionate.

And if you read that quote to the letter of what it says, I could even see some of the none core electrification being turned to OHLE when it comes to renewing life expired equipment. Country side of Green Lane, Birkenhead Park, Brunswick, Walton and Bank Hall.
Boring new tunnels for clearance would class as Grossly Disproportionate, but I'm not sure replacing 3rd rail for OHLE on the rest of the network could be. Not only are the Safety Implications for everyone line-side workers and passengers emergency services / third parties who for whatever reason find themselves track side paramount, the efficiency and maintenance costs of 3rd rail are very poor when compared to the alternative.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,383
change of location................but what's the current thinking on expanding 3rd rail on the LSWR to Exeter?
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,992
Location
K
I suspect that if you re-examined the business case for all the current electrifications with an updated forecast of oil prices you likely find that the business case for most of the current schemes were absolute basket cases even before the massive cost overruns were factored in. Someday soon the penny will drop.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,020
Location
St Albans
There will of course be more risk to lineworkers, although I think they try to work with the power off unless it's unavoidable for whatever reason. The 8 times as deadly statistic still doesn't seem credible though, unless a hell of a lot of lineworkers are meeting their maker. It'd be intresting to see the methodology behind the statistic.

Consider the risk of live OLE hazard to lineworkers as virtually zero. It would take a failure of grounding or wiring actually failing down whilst lineworkers were on the PW. It is normal for ground-level maintenance, i.e. track/points/signalling to be undertaken whilst the OLE is live. Even gantry signal installations have mesh safety shields to enable live operation maintenance yet prevent inadvertent contact with HV.
 

Gareth

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2011
Messages
1,505
Yes, I take your point. 8 times (actually 16 times, considering that they clain the 3rd rail is near enough half the size of the OHLE) of virtually zero is still not a lot. I initially misread Grailstar's quote (apologies to him) in that what he was referencing was in respects to workers and not fatalities as a whole; in which case, electrocution is surely only a small percentage. That can, however, easily be taken out of context and it should not be implied that 3rd rail systems are eight or more times deadly than OHLE lines.

I know there will be some with the line of thought that even if we are talking such small numbers, virtually zero deaths is still better than not quite virtually zero. I ask those people to consider the non-electified lines which cause absolute zero deaths by electrocution. You could get rid of all the OHLE and 3rd rail and make the railways just that tiny bit safer but the benefit nowhere near outweighs the disadvantages there would be in both the cost and disruption of removing it plus the 'downgrade' or reverse sparks effect there would surely be.

In short, it's got be a case of cost:benefit analysis. Converting the standalone Merseyrail network to OHLE would be a huge task with marginal benefits. It will never happen, in my opinion. It also doesn't make sense to insist upon short extensions of the standalone network to be OHLE, meaning having to switch power at a station quite far along the line. I only see Merseyrail trains ever running on 25kv OHLE if they ever get extended to run on sections of mainline and in such a scenario, they will surely change at the penultimate station before the junction where they join.

The South East is a bit different as there is a lot more interworking between the 3rd rail area and elsewhere. In many instances, I reckon it probably will make sense to change over to OHLE, such as the plans for the South Western Main Line. However, it may not make sense to change over the likes of the East London Line so long as it remains a largely standalone operation.
 
Last edited:

jamesst

Established Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,369
Location
Merseyside
I'd be very surprised if any future Merseyrail Hunts Cross services run beyond Liverpool South Parkway,let alone any extensions towards Warrington.
The future of the CLC line is with Lime St originating services.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top