Rising electrification costs caused by increased overhead electrification clearances

[Elecman]

Indeed, but how many people are killed by 25kV electrocution a year? I don't think it is particularily common

A small number most ussually trespassers

 

[edwin_m]

Don't think there's a breakdown that shows how much rail-sourced diesel fumes contribute though.

This may be of some use, though on a quick skim I don't see an simple answer given.

http://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/impro...air-and-health-impacts-of-diesel-emission.pdf

This report is a brief summary of the current knowledge of the health effects of diesel exhaust emissions, the impact of the railway industry’s activities on diesel pollution, and some of the initiatives the industry has taken to mitigate these effects.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Indeed, but how many people are killed by 25kV electrocution a year? I don't think it is particularily common

I wonder how the figures for that compare to death/injury caused by being hit by a train. Also I wonder if third rail is more of a problem.

To me it seems like once it occurs to someone to propose higher safety standards no-one dares risk arguing against those standards.

 

[HSTEd]

I have an FOI request in for the table used to justify the 25kV is much safer argument from the ORR.

However they have extended the deadline beyond the normal 20 working days so they can ask NetworK Rail if they are fine with me having it.

 

[QueensCurve]

I have an FOI request in for the table used to justify the 25kV is much safer argument from the ORR.

However they have extended the deadline beyond the normal 20 working days so they can ask NetworK Rail if they are fine with me having it.

I don't know if they will have a lot of statistically valid numerical data. It is down to the Electricity at Work Regulations requirement for conductors to be either insulated or located such that people can't come into contact with them.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't know if they will have a lot of statistically valid numerical data. It is down to the Electricity at Work Regulations requirement for conductors to be either insulated or located such that people can't come into contact with them.

They have these stats because they used them to state that third rail is enormously more dangerous and must never be permitted. [You are not saying they would make that determination without valid data are you Perish the thought]

The Electricity at Work Regulations for conductors does not really apply here - since we can obviously make a defensible statement that as much has been done that can reasonably be done since we don't have hordes of people being electrocuted. The 2.75m distance has been shown to be safe thanks to fifty years of operation.
And whilst this in theory 'relaxes' the specification by allowing any clearance subject to risk assesment - the procedure specified would simply be impractical for any significant operation as it would cost enormous sums for pointless paperwork that achieves nothing. Avoiding this is why we have standards in the first place.

This gold plating will just destroy electrification. The ORR is simply drunk on its own power and desperately wants to build a "proper" railway - in the same style as the enormous loading gauge European 'big-boy' ones.

 

[simple simon]

I have an FOI request in for the table used to justify the 25kV is much safer argument from the ORR.

However they have extended the deadline beyond the normal 20 working days so they can ask NetworK Rail if they are fine with me having it.

My thoughts turn to a possible attempt to stifle freedom of speech and information that should be in the public domain. Hopefully however your question will be accepted.

Simon

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This gold plating will just destroy electrification.

Sadly true - IMHO :cry:

 

[QueensCurve]

The Electricity at Work Regulations for conductors does not really apply here

You can tell that to the judge. Whether he accepts it or not is another matter.

The regulators for the railway do believe that they apply and preclude further 3rd rail electrification.

The railway regulators do appear to have colluded in an unfortunate way to make 25kV unaffordable. That is unfortunate and is the real issue. 25kV is the current standard (if not the future).

 

[Class 170101]

I have an FOI request in for the table used to justify the 25kV is much safer argument from the ORR.

However they have extended the deadline beyond the normal 20 working days so they can ask NetworK Rail if they are fine with me having it.

Extended to when or is it open ended?

 

[HSTEd]

Extended to when or is it open ended?

3rd February. We shall see what happens

 

[snowball]

Chris125 has posted in the Scottish electrification thread this link and quote to an article in The Rail Engineer:

EGIP - Electrification Clearance Woes

RSSB advised Rail Engineer that, during the development of GL/RT1210, the energy standards committee, which includes representation from Network Rail, agreed that this standard should reflect the updated BS EN 50122 by specifying the European practice of a 3.5 metre minimum clearance unless an appropriate risk assessment was undertaken.

RSSB also mentioned the extensive consultation exercise for the standard that had attracted over 400 comments and that they understood there to be an industry consensus for this proposal. A senior source in Network Rail, however, commented that removing Annex G was a late change that they had not agreed to and that no one in the company had been consulted. Their view is consistent with the impact assessment for GL/RT1201 not mentioning standing surface clearance and stating that it will retain the use of Annex G.

Furthermore, there was also no assessment of the economic consequences of this decision as required by the TSI implementation strategy. In particular, there does not seem to have been any consideration of a minimum clearance of slightly less than 3.5 metres which, as will be seen, would have significantly reduced the impact of this standards change.

 

[hwl]

Chris125 has posted in the Scottish electrification thread this link and quote to an article in The Rail Engineer:

EGIP - Electrification Clearance Woes

Given the impact of the lack of economic impact assessment - a meeting without Tea or Biscuits at DfT for the RSSB?

[As a result of DfT cost saving several years ago all meetings must theoretically be shorter than the threshold for offering tea/biscuits so they don't have to offer them!]

 

[QueensCurve]

The quote which struck me was:-

ENE TSI in 2011 which “notes that GB railway is constrained by its small loading gauge which is difficult and expensive to alter” and that “there should be a working presumption that current GB practice should be preserved unless a conscious decision to adopt standard European practice is made by industry through its stakeholder groups, having understood the economic consequences of such a decision”.

So we have a new standard that explicitly says it should not be applied to the GB railway without economic assessment gets applied to the GB railway without economic assessment. You couldn't make it up. :cry::cry::cry:

http://www.railengineer.uk/2017/02/24/egip-electrification-clearance-woes/

 

[najaB]

So we have a new standard that explicitly says it should not be applied to the GB railway without economic assessment gets applied to the GB railway without economic assessment. You couldn't make it up. :cry::cry::cry:

Would the above correction be closer to what you meant to write?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So, paraphrasing, ORR doesn't seem to be relaxing its stance at all.
That means onerous risk assessments at individual non-compliant points on all the routes currently being electrified, with possible restrictions of use at high-risk points.
There is a mention of an evaluation being done on the GW project about the insulation of pantograph horns, which might reduce the risks at stations.
With sections of at least 4 electrification schemes due to go live before the end of the year, we will soon find out what the impact of this policy is.

 

[QueensCurve]

Would the above correction be closer to what you meant to write?

It was.

 

[hwl]

So, paraphrasing, ORR doesn't seem to be relaxing its stance at all.
That means onerous risk assessments at individual non-compliant points on all the routes currently being electrified, with possible restrictions of use at high-risk points.
There is a mention of an evaluation being done on the GW project about the insulation of pantograph horns, which might reduce the risks at stations.
With sections of at least 4 electrification schemes due to go live before the end of the year, we will soon find out what the impact of this policy is.

The best route to go down probably avoids the ORR and instead focusing on the RSSB not following due process by failing to carry out the economic impact assessment so the RSSB should therefore carry out the assessment and consult properly amending the standard as appropriate. As due process hadn't been followed parts of standard should be set aside till the process has been followed.

The consultancy firms may have all responded that this was good idea because they saw lots of extra work for them as a result???

 

[fflint]

My assessment of the whole mess, Lions lead by Donkeys. When the engineers and workers of Network Rail and their contractors are given an emergency task e.g. Dawlish and Dover they do a super job. When there is input from the Pen Pushers of DAFT (including ministers), ORR and Network Rail top Brass the schemes become a bureaucratic nightmare. Why oh why is Britain unable to progress rail electrification like HS1 or the rest of Europe.:roll::roll:

 

[quantinghome]

My assessment of the whole mess, Lions lead by Donkeys. When the engineers and workers of Network Rail and their contractors are given an emergency task e.g. Dawlish and Dover they do a super job. When there is input from the Pen Pushers of DAFT (including ministers), ORR and Network Rail top Brass the schemes become a bureaucratic nightmare. Why oh why is Britain unable to progress rail electrification like HS1 or the rest of Europe.:roll::roll:

Simple, because it is difficult to work with old infrastructure. And you only hear about the stuff that goes wrong. Applying modern standards to old infrastructure is a problem that's been around for a long time. When the issue is properly understand and managed by Network Rail, it's OK. However, as we see, strict enforcement of inappropriate standards causes significant problems.

I'm sure the rest of Europe has its own nightmare projects. Compare HS1 to HSL-Zuid in the Netherlands, for example.

 

[coppercapped]

I'm sure the rest of Europe has its own nightmare projects. Compare HS1 to HSL-Zuid in the Netherlands, for example.

See also, for example, Berlin-Brandenburg Airport and, reverting to rail, Stuttgart 21.

 

[HowardGWR]

I don't suppose the OP could get around to correcting the thread title - pain in my eyes. .

Edit noted (following post). Many thanks.

 

[ac6000cw]

I don't suppose the OP could get around to correcting the thread title - pain in my eyes. .

Spelling corrected

 

[Tio Terry]

My assessment of the whole mess, Lions lead by Donkeys. When the engineers and workers of Network Rail and their contractors are given an emergency task e.g. Dawlish and Dover they do a super job. When there is input from the Pen Pushers of DAFT (including ministers), ORR and Network Rail top Brass the schemes become a bureaucratic nightmare. Why oh why is Britain unable to progress rail electrification like HS1 or the rest of Europe.:roll::roll:

HS1 was a new railway and built to the standards applicable at that time, I know, I was part of the Engineering team. That's very, very different to electrifying an existing railway where the infrastructure is around 100 years old!

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

HS1 was a new railway and built to the standards applicable at that time, I know, I was part of the Engineering team. That's very, very different to electrifying an existing railway where the infrastructure is around 100 years old!

It's also a "beacon of hope" for the possibility of HS2 not breaking the bank in the way its detractors insist will happen.

 

[Master29]

Seems like another overlooked excuse for companies to profit from electrifications schemes successive governments spent billions looking into and still end up exceeding costs by. GWR springs to mind. Typical of Britain.

 

[QueensCurve]

A Tweet by Captain Deltic in reply to John Dalton implies the nightmare will get worse.:roll:

https://twitter.com/Captain_Deltic/status/835495927485980672

 

[QueensCurve]

It's also a "beacon of hope" for the possibility of HS2 not breaking the bank in the way its detractors insist will happen.

I am sceptical "HS2" will happen at all.

 

[najaB]

I am sceptical "HS2" will happen at all.

In case you missed it, the act has received royal assent - its just a matter of weeks until the earthmovers start rolling.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A Tweet by Captain Deltic in reply to John Dalton implies the nightmare will get worse.:roll:

https://twitter.com/Captain_Deltic/status/835495927485980672

In case you missed it, the act has received royal assent - its just a matter of weeks until the earthmovers start rolling.

Please tell me HS2 is going to be 25kV AC OHLE