Should the North Downs, Marshlink and Uckfield lines be electrificed with third rail?

[Railwaysceptic]

Well, material mileages have been converted from third rail to some form of overhead in North London . . .

This argument can easily be overstated. The conversion of a short stretch of the North London Line (NLL) was done to enable through running of electrically hauled freight trains between the GEML and the WCML. It was not done for safety reasons. Other than another very short stretch of the West London Line to enable ECS moves from North Pole Depot, there has been no further conversion. The DC lines from Euston to Watford have not been converted and when the route between Surrey Quays and Queens Road was re-opened, third rail was used and very sensibly too in my opinion.

 

[Bald Rick]

This argument can easily be overstated. The conversion of a short stretch of the North London Line (NLL) was done to enable through running of electrically hauled freight trains between the GEML and the WCML. It was not done for safety reasons. Other than another very short stretch of the West London Line to enable ECS moves from North Pole Depot, there has been no further conversion. The DC lines from Euston to Watford have not been converted and when the route between Surrey Quays and Queens Road was re-opened, third rail was used and very sensibly too in my opinion.

Not so. None of the NLL was converted to enable electrically hauled freight.

The first stretch to be converted (ie D.C. removed) was Camden Road to South Acton via Gospel Oak. This was to enable Eurostars from the West London line to the ECML for the north of London services that never happened.

The stretch from Camden Road to Dalston was, effectively two separate railways, with a D.C. pair of lines and an AC pair (actually, mostly single track). The section from Dalston to Channelsea Junction (Stratford) was dual electrified, with some complicated signalling arrangements as a result. From Channelsea into Stratford low level was D.C. only. Nevertheless there was an AC electric freight route from Stratford (GE) to the WCML at Camden since the late 80s (?), but the D.C. kit remained in place.

All of the D.C. kit between Camden and Stratford was removed when the NLL was resignalled and upgraded for higher capacity in 2010. That conversion was for passenger services, not freight.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Not so. None of the NLL was converted to enable electrically hauled freight.

The first stretch to be converted (ie D.C. removed) was Camden Road to South Acton via Gospel Oak. This was to enable Eurostars from the West London line to the ECML for the north of London services that never happened.

The stretch from Camden Road to Dalston was, effectively two separate railways, with a D.C. pair of lines and an AC pair (actually, mostly single track). The section from Dalston to Channelsea Junction (Stratford) was dual electrified, with some complicated signalling arrangements as a result. From Channelsea into Stratford low level was D.C. only. Nevertheless there was an AC electric freight route from Stratford (GE) to the WCML at Camden since the late 80s (?), but the D.C. kit remained in place.

All of the D.C. kit between Camden and Stratford was removed when the NLL was resignalled and upgraded for higher capacity in 2010. That conversion was for passenger services, not freight.

I stand corrected except for the most relevant point: the change was not done for safety reasons.

 

[Journeyman]

The reality is that children get killed on roads all the time. A nine year old child probably doesn't intuitively know how to behave around a main road any more than he does around a railway.

You can't make the world safe unfortunately.

You can make it significantly less dangerous, though.

 

[yorksrob]

You can make it significantly less dangerous, though.

You certainly can and should:-

By maintaining fencing and teaching children of the dangers in schools.

We had the man from the railway visit my junior school (ages 7 - 11) on two occasions, and we were left in no doubt of the lethal nature of the live rail.

 

[Bald Rick]

You certainly can and should:-

By maintaining fencing and teaching children of the dangers in schools.

We had the man from the railway visit my junior school (ages 7 - 11) on two occasions, and we were left in no doubt of the lethal nature of the live rail.

Yep we did too. Didn’t stop my mate jumping over the fence to pick up a football, and coming into contact with the con rail. Fortunately he survived.

 

[yorksrob]

Yep we did too. Didn’t stop my mate jumping over the fence to pick up a football, and coming into contact with the con rail. Fortunately he survived.

He probably would have jumped in the road without looking to do the same thing in that case.

 

[Bald Rick]

He probably would have jumped in the road without looking to do the same thing in that case.

Maybe he would. But the danger of a road is intermittent, more obvious, and you can see / hear it coming. Not so with third rail 6 feet from your back fence.

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe he would. But the danger of a road is intermittent, more obvious, and you can see / hear it coming. Not so with third rail 6 feet from your back fence.

Which is why we warn them.

But if someone is inclined to take that sort of a risk in the full knowledge of the dangers, the world will be a dangerous place for them, third rail or no third rail. Afterall, even on a non-electrified railway, there is still the more obvious risk of large metal objects travelling at speed.

 

[Journeyman]

What we tend to forget here is that many people are extremely ignorant of how things work, and therefore what the dangers are. By the very nature of this forum, there's a lot of enthusiasts and professionals here who have a very good understanding of railway health and safety, and how things in the industry work, far more than about 99.9% of the population.

Many people are utterly clueless. I met someone recently who swore blind that London Underground trains are all diesel powered, on the strength of seeing some dirt above a tunnel portal. Most other people have no idea how their trains are powered, and are completely clueless of the dangers the railway presents to those who go where they shouldn't.

As such, I agree that we should think very, very carefully before expanding an electrification system that is demonstrably far easier to inadvertently come in contact with than another.

 

[yorksrob]

What we tend to forget here is that many people are extremely ignorant of how things work, and therefore what the dangers are. By the very nature of this forum, there's a lot of enthusiasts and professionals here who have a very good understanding of railway health and safety, and how things in the industry work, far more than about 99.9% of the population.

Many people are utterly clueless. I met someone recently who swore blind that London Underground trains are all diesel powered, on the strength of seeing some dirt above a tunnel portal. Most other people have no idea how their trains are powered, and are completely clueless of the dangers the railway presents to those who go where they shouldn't.

As such, I agree that we should think very, very carefully before expanding an electrification system that is demonstrably far easier to inadvertently come in contact with than another.

Think carefully, or blindly oppose it in all circumstances (which seems to be the current policy).

 

[Journeyman]

Think carefully, or blindly oppose it in all circumstances (which seems to be the current policy).

Maybe they have thought carefully about it.