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

[Doomotron]

It isn’t the same - a walker crossing the tracks is far less likely to contact OLE. Obviously in an ideal world you would get rid of the foot crossings

Of course, but as I pointed out, the video showed a death (well, life changing injury, but it could have been much worse if he wasn't lucky) caused by overhead wires. While at a level crossing you can walk down the line to get electrocuted, OHE electrification can jump which can be more dangerous than walking down a line (which is hard anyway with those strange diagonal planks of wood they have) - that's why trains have cant lines. Obviously electricity is less likely to jump than people getting electrocuted by a third rail, but the latter is preventable: just don't walk on the lines, and if you have to, be careful.

Anyway, as I said earlier, if the third rail only came on when a train is on that section, it would be much safer, and probably cheaper than switching to OHE entirely.

 

[AM9]

Last time I checked, Ashford is more powerful (or whatever the right word is) than needed, so could probably run the Marshlink line, or at least some of it. ...

It's not only the total power required, if there is to be any through running onto HS1, 1) something like class 390s will be required and 2) if they are to do anything more than amble along the entire Marshland line, there would need to be frequent LV feeds to counter excessive voltage drop.

For tourists, there's nothing you can do other than signage (but this is the same for a
ll types of electrification). Locals, however, are much easier to educate. Last year in school we had a 2-hour assembly on safety on the railway lines, which included both third rail and overhead wires. It was probably a good thing; some of my friends had previously thought the third rail was on only when a train goes by,* which is not the best thing to believe. Before anybody says about the assembly only being about the third rail because of its nature, the video they showed us was of a child being electrocuted by OHE electricity jumping to him (the video is probably on YouTube somewhere).

*This was done on tramways and long time ago. This could be a safety feature for third rail.

"For tourists, there's nothing you can do other than signage", apart from not using such a hazardous method of electrification.
The signage for OLE warnings is a bit more effective, such as "take care not to jump higher than 5 metres", or "don't carry anything higher than 5 metres from rail height". No ground level hazards (which is why OLE lines have far fewer deaths and serious injuries than 3rd rail). Of course, as a deterrent, a video of a 25kV flashover is much more effective than a relatively unspectacular 750V electrocution, which is why it would be featured.

 

[Mk81]

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

Personally I think there is little point. The existing network will become outdated at some point & the industry seems reluctant to replace something that is generally seen as defunct. With the advanced stage of AC technology & the growing improvement in battery tech I can't see DC regaining any popularity any time soon.

 

[DerekC]

Anyway, as I said earlier, if the third rail only came on when a train is on that section, it would be much safer, and probably cheaper than switching to OHE entirely.

All very good in theory, but think about how to get it to work in practice. You need a power feeder cable plus the third rail divided into sections about the length of a train (otherwise it's not worth doing), a circuit breaker for each section and a system which closes a circuit breaker on on the section ahead of the train and opens the one behind the train as it goes along. Plus a control system. Sounds pretty expensive to me.

 

[Meerkat]

All very good in theory, but think about how to get it to work in practice. You need a power feeder cable plus the third rail divided into sections about the length of a train (otherwise it's not worth doing), a circuit breaker for each section and a system which closes a circuit breaker on on the section ahead of the train and opens the one behind the train as it goes along. Plus a control system. Sounds pretty expensive to me.

i am thinking that would create even more of a blue Lightshow than the current system does!

 

[Bald Rick]

Can 3rd rail power a train and charge the batteries enough to get it over the hills?
Even if there is long enough to do it in the turnaround can the power system cope?

Yes x 2. Easily.

 

[AM9]

i am thinking that would create even more of a blue Lightshow than the current system does!

No, circuit breakers are boxed units, but it would be accoustically quite noisy nearby and reliability could be a major issue. The Thameslink Farringdon to City Thameslink dual voltage section has been quoted here as being very expensive and requires dedicated support to minimise breakdowns.

 

[DerekC]

No, circuit breakers are boxed units, but it would be accoustically quite noisy nearby and reliability could be a major issue. The Thameslink Farringdon to City Thameslink dual voltage section has been quoted here as being very expensive and requires dedicated support to minimise breakdowns.

The Thameslink dual voltage/changeover section has some horrendous complications associated with earth currents and proximity to the Met/Circle lines - I used to know I guy who understood it! That wouldn't apply to the theoretical "power up as you go" third rail but the reliability point is absolutely right. It might be possible to reduce the size of the circuit breakers by ensuring that they never switch current, but the complexity and expense and unreliability of the system would, I think, rule it out. Whereas the battery/DC EMU option makes lots of sense.

 

[Meerkat]

No, circuit breakers are boxed units, but it would be accoustically quite noisy nearby and reliability could be a major issue. The Thameslink Farringdon to City Thameslink dual voltage section has been quoted here as being very expensive and requires dedicated support to minimise breakdowns.

If there are more breaks in the conductor rail there will be more sparks won’t there??

 

[yorksrob]

Yes x 2. Easily.

If it works and can facilitate a 4 carriage Marshlink - Brighton service, it's probably worth a try.

 

[trainmania100]

Trains on the uckfield and marshlink branches are so Infrequent it's hardly worth bothering unless making it double track as well , in my opinion

 

[yorksrob]

I have less experience of Uckfield, but the Marshlink line is very busy and can get quite crowded at times. Probably more so if the service still continued to Brighton. It needs longer trains.

 

[AM9]

If OLE throughout the Marshlink line is not to be done, it would be a candidate for OLE from Ashford to Appledore or even Rye as that part of the line is across open and flat countryside with the potential for a much higher linespeed. The feed could be entirely from the Ashford end with minimal sectioning. On that section most of the overbridges are relatively modern (those associated with the A2070) or with sufficient space either side to allow raising if necessary. Probably the only one which might have issues would be Rye Road on the northern side of Rye. All the other crossings (both A roads and minor/accommodation roads) are at-grade crossings.
Given the chraging opportunity from the northern end, (11 milles to Appledore and 17 miles to Rye), The remaining 11 miles could easily be covered by battery power.

 

[Bald Rick]

If OLE throughout the Marshlink line is not to be done, it would be a candidate for OLE from Ashford to Appledore or even Rye as that part of the line is across open and flat countryside with the potential for a much higher linespeed. The feed could be entirely from the Ashford end with minimal sectioning. On that section most of the overbridges are relatively modern (those associated with the A2070) or with sufficient space either side to allow raising if necessary. Probably the only one which might have issues would be Rye Road on the northern side of Rye. All the other crossings (both A roads and minor/accommodation roads) are at-grade crossings.
Given the chraging opportunity from the northern end, (11 milles to Appledore and 17 miles to Rye), The remaining 11 miles could easily be covered by battery power.

The whole lot can be easily achieved by battery power. It may be useful for a short stretch at Rye or Appledore to do a quick charge at a station stop and enable acceleration away on the juice. I would expect ORR to accept a risk assessment of such a short stretch based on an ‘only live when the train is there’ principle. The issue with such a small section is getting the 2MW or so necessary to it without dimmin the lights in the town. So it might need localised energy storage. All entirely feasible, and much cheaper than whole scale electrification.

 

[PTR 444]

Trains on the uckfield and marshlink branches are so Infrequent it's hardly worth bothering unless making it double track as well , in my opinion

Both are currently served by 1tph but could do with additional services to keep up with rising passenger levels. Uckfield could do with an extra 1tph to London which could attach to the back of an East Grinstead service at Oxted, while Ashford - Hastings could be served by a new high speed service originating from St Pancras.

As for double tracking, that’s an even bigger priority than electrification, although it would make most sense to do both at the same time.

 

[Bald Rick]

Both are currently served by 1tph but could do with additional services to keep up with rising passenger levels. Uckfield could do with an extra 1tph to London which could attach to the back of an East Grinstead service at Oxted, while Ashford - Hastings could be served by a new high speed service originating from St Pancras.

As for double tracking, that’s an even bigger priority than electrification, although it would make most sense to do both at the same time.

This may seem a stupid question, but why is double tracking a priority?

 

[PTR 444]

This may seem a stupid question, but why is double tracking a priority?

Allows for a more intensive service and saves having to electrify the second track if the first one is done before the line is dualled.

 

[Bald Rick]

Allows for a more intensive service and saves having to electrify the second track if the first one is done before the line is dualled.

But the need is for more seats rather than more services specifically, no?

And taking the Uckfield Line - where do you run a more intensive service too?

 

[yorksrob]

A certain amount of double tracking on the Marshlink would be beneficial - for example, extending the loop from Rye might avoid trains waiting around.

 

[PTR 444]

But the need is for more seats rather than more services specifically, no?

And taking the Uckfield Line - where do you run a more intensive service too?

Simple answer, London. You’d do this by attaching the Uckfield service(s) to the East Grinsteads at Oxted and vice versa in the other direction. If you don’t believe me, just look at how the Bognor and Southampton/Portsmouth services currently attach/divide at Horsham.

 

[Bald Rick]

London, by attaching the Uckfield service(s) to the East Grinsteads at Oxted. If you don’t believe me, just look at how the Bognor and Southampton/Portsmouth services currently attach/detach at Horsham.

But those East Grinstead services are already full from Croydon. As are the Uckfield trains. So where are the punters of riddlesdown and Sanderstead going to sit?

 

[PTR 444]

But those East Grinstead services are already full from Croydon. As are the Uckfield trains. So where are the punters of riddlesdown and Sanderstead going to sit?

Well, the two attached trains would consist of at least 8 cars, which is more capacity than what is present now. If that’s not enough, how about running 1tph between London and Oxted only so punters from Riddlesdown/Sanderstead are guaranteed a seat on the inbound journey.

 

[Meerkat]

Is high speed to Hastings being seriously considered? I thought it was just a noisy local pressure group and an MP with a wafer thin majority?
It’s not that big a place and already has direct trains to London. How much time would it save, particularly as it would go to the other side of London?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is high speed to Hastings being seriously considered? I thought it was just a noisy local pressure group and an MP with a wafer thin majority?
It’s not that big a place and already has direct trains to London. How much time would it save, particularly as it would go to the other side of London?

Former MP.

I suspect it will quietly disappear.

 

[Meerkat]

Former MP.

I suspect it will quietly disappear.

I think some northern towns would be less than impressed if it was seriously suggested!

 

[Bald Rick]

I think some northern towns would be less than impressed if it was seriously suggested!

Hastings is a northern town in all but location

 

[JamesRowden]

Allows for a more intensive service and saves having to electrify the second track if the first one is done before the line is dualled.

The Marshlink can have substantially faster journeys, and subsequently could have an every 30 minute service, if the very slow line speed of the single track between Ore and Rye was upgraded. No electrification or double tracking required.

 

[geoffk]

As I have posted several times before, third rail seemed ‘perfectly safe’ to me and I ‘knew what I was doing’. I then had to deal with a 9-year old electrocuted trespasser (via hole in fence made by rail staff wanting a short cut) and having a very experienced electrified track maintainer electrocuted whilst working right next to me after a series of procedural omissions.
Changed my view entirely. There is no way that it is consistent with the intention of modern safety legislation, either general Health & Safety or more specific Electricity at Work. Very simply, lethal conductors must be completely out of reach or adequately insulated. Conventional third rail is neither of these.

So we should convert the entire Southern Region, Merseyrail and London Underground/Overground networks, but that's never going to happen. It's not as though what is being suggested is third rail in areas which have never been used to it.

 

[Dr Hoo]

So we should convert the entire Southern Region, Merseyrail and London Underground/Overground networks, but that's never going to happen. It's not as though what is being suggested is third rail in areas which have never been used to it.

Well, material mileages have been converted from third rail to some form of overhead in North London, on Tyneside (and Manchester-Bury - yes I know it was a distinct system). And the tube operates far more in a 'secured' and 'personless' fashion - with staff rarely on the track (outside depots) during traffic hours and rapid intervention when trespass is detected.
It pains me to think about it even now, but I would dispute that the average 9-year old child on an un-staffed station such as Hever or Winchelsea is "used to" the third rail and intuitively knows how to behave sensibly. I had done quite a few safety talks to station-visiting school classes around where the incident that I referred to happened, with pupils even witnessing the sparking from 4-REP collector shoes as they flashed past at 90mph, accompanied by explanations that this was over 100 times more powerful than the electricity in their home and that DC was far more dangerous than AC. Sadly not enough...

 

[yorksrob]

Well, material mileages have been converted from third rail to some form of overhead in North London, on Tyneside (and Manchester-Bury - yes I know it was a distinct system). And the tube operates far more in a 'secured' and 'personless' fashion - with staff rarely on the track (outside depots) during traffic hours and rapid intervention when trespass is detected.
It pains me to think about it even now, but I would dispute that the average 9-year old child on an un-staffed station such as Hever or Winchelsea is "used to" the third rail and intuitively knows how to behave sensibly. I had done quite a few safety talks to station-visiting school classes around where the incident that I referred to happened, with pupils even witnessing the sparking from 4-REP collector shoes as they flashed past at 90mph, accompanied by explanations that this was over 100 times more powerful than the electricity in their home and that DC was far more dangerous than AC. Sadly not enough...

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.