Should the third rail ban be lifted?

[Bald Rick]

Please don't do that. You've attributed words to me which I didn't say. If you wish to say something you can quite easily do that without misquoting someone else.

Can you please amend your post so it no longer misquotes me? Thank you.

Fair enough.

 

[LLivery]

It's not like the US, where '3rd rail' has become a political phrase which everyone knows the meaning of. Lot of the UK general public seem to have zero idea what a 3rd rail is. General education around the railway isn't great and despite it being invented here and it's easier than ever to learn anything you can think of. We're seeing people do increasingly stupid things and taking no personal responsibility for it. While I guess because power lines are seen all over the place, everyone knows full well that OHLE is not something to go near unless you're a moron of epic scale. Saying that, I've warned my kids that not only is it dangerous to mess around on tracks but down 'ere, if you fall onto the 3rd, you might be alive, stuck to it, waiting like a sitting duck for a train to finish you off - I got the impression they got the message.

Now, while I'd ideally like to see electrification completed in the Southern Region, we are in a country which likes to blame the railway rather than idiots who mess around on the railway. But as already said, p-way workers or just customer accidents need to be thought about, and their safety needs to be paramount. If someone is electrocuted on a newly infilled route, who's taking the blame for signing off expansion of a system which isn't exactly considered 'safe' to modern standards and, what would be inevitable legal costs be? Not only is a life lost, but I can imagine significant millions paid out and people losing jobs in this modern world. The Underground is different because there's no other choice on the Northern Line, while on the railway, it would be a choice, a choice of money.

So while it might be ok for a mile extension to connect up a chord up or something, something like the entire Uckfield branch is not something I'd risk.

Batteries are improving all the time, on these pretty quiet passenger only routes, use batteries. If there's lots of freight or it's a main line or heavy use suburban, put up OHLE. Throw knitting up over the West of England too - if it can be justified for the Borders Railway, I can't see why it can't be there.

 

[Harpo]

The Underground is different because there's no other choice on the Northern Line,

The underground is only different because it’s environment allows different (and sufficient) safety controls to make it ALARP on extensions.

 

[WAO]

The underground is less safe. IMHO, than NR because the stations have centre live (well above touch voltage) rails running along the middle of the suicide pit. It would be difficult to miss if you fell off. The platform heights are also lower so customers are nearer...

WAO

 

[eldomtom2]

‘Health & Safety at Work’ is misunderstood.

The legislation is the ‘Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974’

The word “etc.” is crucial.

The act places a duty of care on an organisation not only on a employees, but also on members of the public. The relevant risk assessments must take that into account.

Nevertheless, there are still incidents caused to rail workers by coming into contact with the con rail. Most recently last week. Simple maths will show that if there is more con rail, there will be more incidents. Again, any proposal to introduce more conductor rail will need to have a detailed risk assessment that identifies that increased level of incidents, value it, and explain why the risk remains tolerable as far as is reasonably practical compared to alternatives. And that risk assessment will have to be of sufficient quality to stand up to detailed examination in a criminal court.

Well, since large amounts of third rail electrification was done after 1974, the act itself is not the blocker here. I remember hearing a lot about new regulations about electricity introduced in the 1990s that were pointed to as the main blocker.
The other key question is why OHLE seems to have no problems, seeing as it's unambiguously introducing a new risk that isn't present on unelectrified lines.

 

[zwk500]

Well, since large amounts of third rail electrification was done after 1974, the act itself is not the blocker here. I remember hearing a lot about new regulations about electricity introduced in the 1990s that were pointed to as the main blocker.

Those would be the Electricity at Work Regulations [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/635/contents], made under the 1974 legislation.

The other key question is why OHLE seems to have no problems, seeing as it's unambiguously introducing a new risk that isn't present on unelectrified lines.

OHLE does have it's problems, hence the rebuilding of every parapet for bridges over new schemes to 1.8m height, and the quite extensive standards around clearance from the electrified parts (or ways to gain access to them).

However the live parts of OHLE are normally 5m in the air, and therefore are much harder for a person to accidentally come into contact with than a rail at ankle height. The rebuilding of parapets and station canopies mitigates the risk where it is more present, as seen in theNR guide to overhead electrification when it addresses access from an overbridge:

Network Rail a Guide to Overhead Electrification Pages 1-50 - Flip PDF Download | FlipHTML5

Check Pages 1-50 of Network Rail a Guide to Overhead Electrification in the flip PDF version. Network Rail a Guide to Overhead Electrification was published by PERPUSTAKAAN KKMT on 2021-03-04. Find more similar flip PDFs like Network Rail a Guide to Overhead Electrification. Download Network...

fliphtml5.com

Where Third Rail can manage the risk appropriately, it is permitted - see the East London Line. The RSSB have published risk mitigation approaches to new third rail systems. The problem for third rail is that because it is so much more accessible, it is very difficult to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. Especially as the regulations require:

4.—(1) All systems shall at all times be of such construction as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger.

 

[eldomtom2]

OHLE does have it's problems, hence the rebuilding of every parapet for bridges over new schemes to 1.8m height, and the quite extensive standards around clearance from the electrified parts (or ways to gain access to them).

However the live parts of OHLE are normally 5m in the air, and therefore are much harder for a person to accidentally come into contact with than a rail at ankle height. The rebuilding of parapets and station canopies mitigates the risk where it is more present, as seen in theNR guide to overhead electrification when it addresses access from an overbridge:

My question was more that since OHLE introduces new risks, mitigated though they might be, what method is there for the railway to justify itself regarding the installation of OHLE? What prevents someone from saying "you haven't made the risks as low as reasonably practical, because it's perfectly possible to have an unelectrified railway"?

 

[frankmoh]

Where Third Rail can manage the risk appropriately, it is permitted - see the East London Line. The RSSB have published risk mitigation approaches to new third rail systems. The problem for third rail is that because it is so much more accessible, it is very difficult to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. Especially as the regulations require:

I know it would be difficult to implement on curves, but would wooden protection panelling not mitigate the risk somewhat? Common to see it at places like Waterloo and London Bridge.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well, since large amounts of third rail electrification was done after 1974, the act itself is not the blocker here.

The issue is, as per my post #7 above, compared to alternatives.

Back in the 1980s if you wanted to consider electrification on the national network in this country there were three alternatives:

1) con rail
2) OLE
3) neither.

For electrification in existing third rail land, it was, then, relatively straightforward to produce a risk assessment that showed that further third rail installation was safe as far as reasonably practical compared to alternatives, taking into account the costs and benefits of each alternative. Of course risk assessment methodology back then was rather coarser than it is now, and there has been 30-40 years of improvements to risk assessment techniques, and 30-40 years of case law in courts, since the last major Southern Region DC electrification projects.

Now there is a fourth alternative, namely batteries, which changes the equation. Very considerably.


So you are right, the legislation hasn’t changed (well not much), but the broader environment in which the legislation applies in this area has changed a lot.

The other key question is why OHLE seems to have no problems, seeing as it's unambiguously introducing a new risk that isn't present on unelectrified lines.

It’s largely out of the way of people, standing water, snow, and other items that are left or put on / near the track.

 

[Dstock7080]

Examples on the underground too - Northern extension, Jubilee extension, T5 extension etc.

also
6 additional sidings at South Harrow
2 additional sidings west of Northfields station

 

[yorksrob]

The underground is less safe. IMHO, than NR because the stations have centre live (well above touch voltage) rails running along the middle of the suicide pit. It would be difficult to miss if you fell off. The platform heights are also lower so customers are nearer...

WAO

And being in tight tunnels, less room to escape/avoid.

 

[Tetragon213]

Wonder if you could at least convert from top contact to side contact a la the old Bury Line? That way you'd be able to put shrouding around the conductor rail on all but one side, and at that point if you manage to come into contact with that, not only were you stupid enough to trespass onto a railway, you were then stupid enough to be standing in the four-foot, before managing to get electrocuted, at which point (callous as it sounds) Darwin has a thing or two to say at this point.

 

[zwk500]

Wonder if you could at least convert from top contact to side contact a la the old Bury Line? That way you'd be able to put shrouding around the conductor rail on all but one side, and at that point if you manage to come into contact with that, not only were you stupid enough to trespass onto a railway, you were then stupid enough to be standing in the four-foot, before managing to get electrocuted, at which point (callous as it sounds) Darwin has a thing or two to say at this point.

Not without completely redesigning the third rail shoes on every current unit.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not without completely redesigning the third rail shoes on every current unit.

and the third rail!

 

[zwk500]

and the third rail!

Well I sort of took that as read in the suggestion!

 

[Harpo]

Wonder if you could at least convert from top contact to side contact a la the old Bury Line?

Or adopt a different 3rd rail type as the new build standard and the required sub-fleet becomes a dual pickup EMU instead of a BEMU?

 

[stuu]

Here is an example of how 750V DC electrification can look like.

That's an example which uses very short trains going very slowly. And due to be upgraded to 1.5kV too. That sort of wiring will not power a 12 car train doing 100mph

 

[N1]

Lots of discussion. For reference and good reading on ORRs current position: Strategic Risk Chapters Electrical Safety

Also link to the RSSB research on 3rd rail infill (an RSSB account is needed to view - too many documents to upload): DECARB: 21st Century DC electrification infill (T1214)

 

[renegademaster]

The underground is less safe. IMHO, than NR because the stations have centre live (well above touch voltage) rails running along the middle of the suicide pit. It would be difficult to miss if you fell off. The platform heights are also lower so customers are nearer...

WAO

My understanding is that the underground isn't referenced to physical earth (outside of where it shares with SWR) so that you need to touch both live rails to get a shock

 

[Bald Rick]

My understanding is that the underground isn't referenced to physical earth (outside of where it shares with SWR) so that you need to touch both live rails to get a shock

This is not correct. If you touch one rail, and assuming you are touching something else, you are providing the earth and will get a shock, probably fatally.

 

[Pigeon]

My understanding is that the underground isn't referenced to physical earth (outside of where it shares with SWR) so that you need to touch both live rails to get a shock

The word is "referred". The Underground supply is referred to earth via a potential divider between the rails with the tap connected to earth, to sit one rail at +240V and the other at -480V relative to earth (this is from memory, so exact voltages may be different and the polarities might be the wrong way round, but that is the principle). But the potential divider has a fairly high impedance (10k or thereabouts I think?) so the possible current via earth is limited. An effect of this - though not, I think, the intention - is that if you do bridge one rail to earth through your body you will probably get away with it. However this may not be the case under fault conditions (including wet insulators) so it's not something you want to rely on, and staff are instructed simply to avoid contact with any rail (including the running rails).

 

[WAO]

Have we discovered a "safe" dc system?

If one can personally bridge the -250V to earth without passing lethal milliamps, then one can likely do the same trick with the outer, +500V rail!

However, the point of the -250V is that current flows to the system, not from it.

Won't be the first to test it, even with the back of my right hand.

WAO

 

[JohnElliott]

Wonder if you could at least convert from top contact to side contact a la the old Bury Line? That way you'd be able to put shrouding around the conductor rail on all but one side, and at that point if you manage to come into contact with that, not only were you stupid enough to trespass onto a railway, you were then stupid enough to be standing in the four-foot, before managing to get electrocuted, at which point (callous as it sounds) Darwin has a thing or two to say at this point.

I remember seeing that suggested in a railway magazine around 2013, not for safety reasons but to lessen the impact of snow and ice.

 

[Bald Rick]

I remember seeing that suggested in a railway magazine around 2013, not for safety reasons but to lessen the impact of snow and ice.

NR spent a lot of money on conductor rail heating… but it was very much less than redesigning the whole system!

However, having traction batteries on board have a useful by product of making the need for (expensive) con rail heating disappear.

 

[Djgr]

Absolutely 100 percent agree with this.

If the DfT and ORR actually cared about safety on transport, there would be a blanket ban on road building until significant road safety reforms took place, surrounding the highway code, driving tests, etc. Thousands more deaths take place on the roads than on the railways, yet nobody seems to care about the former. It's always the media proclaiming the railways to be unsafe, when a much less preventable rail accident takes place.

Specifically on 3rd rail, as you said, most fatalities are caused by idiots ignoring all the warning signs. Yet, somehow, it's often railway organisations, such as Network Rail, who are blamed for such incidents of pure stupidity, despite all the warning signs on clear display. Compare this to the roads, where several innocent pedestrians minding their own business are knocked over every year.

In my opinion, the 3rd rail "ban" is a perfect example of government officials making it up as they go along.

Absolutely agree with this.

It's frustrating how a small group of people can force a narrative that doesn't consider the whole picture.

 

[WAO]

Would the third rail option look better if traction batteries in the UK were not deemed safe?

It seems that the Glasgow fire may have been uncontrollable because of Lithium batteries going up in the small vape shop.

Closing Glasgow Central for days may be the first railway triumph for the Lithium battery?

WAO

 

[zwk500]

Would the third rail option look better if traction batteries in the UK were not deemed safe?

A bit, but probably not by enough given how little third rail was introduced after the early 90s when traction batteries weren't a viable option.

 

[N1]

Would the third rail option look better if traction batteries in the UK were not deemed safe?

It seems that the Glasgow fire may have been uncontrollable because of Lithium batteries going up in the small vape shop.

Closing Glasgow Central for days may be the first railway triumph for the Lithium battery?

WAO

Cheap vape batteries are not the same as traction batteries.

A quote from Energy Sabing Trust: Are electric vehicles a fire risk?

Fire risk from electric vehicles (EVs) has been a persistent concern since the early days of modern EVs, fueled by online and mainstream media misinformation.

However, current research indicates that the chance of an electric vehicle catching fire is considerably lower than for an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle which uses petrol or diesel.

• There is only a 0.0012% chance of an EV catching fire, compared to a 0.1% chance of a petrol or diesel vehicle catching fire.
• Between 2010 and 2024, there were 511 fires involving high voltage batteries worldwide.
• The most effective way to put out an EV battery fire is water.

 

[Harpo]

Would the third rail option look better if traction batteries in the UK were not deemed safe?

It seems that the Glasgow fire may have been uncontrollable because of Lithium batteries going up in the small vape shop

I’d not draw any linkage at all between vape batteries of highly dubious quality and highly engineered products that are rigorously tested for safety.

 

[Tetragon213]

Absolutely 100 percent agree with this.

If the DfT and ORR actually cared about safety on transport, there would be a blanket ban on road building until significant road safety reforms took place, surrounding the highway code, driving tests, etc. Thousands more deaths take place on the roads than on the railways, yet nobody seems to care about the former. It's always the media proclaiming the railways to be unsafe, when a much less preventable rail accident takes place.

Specifically on 3rd rail, as you said, most fatalities are caused by idiots ignoring all the warning signs. Yet, somehow, it's often railway organisations, such as Network Rail, who are blamed for such incidents of pure stupidity, despite all the warning signs on clear display. Compare this to the roads, where several innocent pedestrians minding their own business are knocked over every year.

In my opinion, the 3rd rail "ban" is a perfect example of government officials making it up as they go along.

I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, in a lawsuit-happy world where everyone wants to blame anyone except for the idiot responsible, I doubt we'll get any extensions of third rail ever again, and yet the roads get a free pass despite the disproportionately higher number of casualties and fatalities per year on the road, and that's before you even bring up gridlock, environmental concerns, road rage, etc.

There wasn’t that much time between that incident and a curious nine-year old boy being instantly electrocuted after exploring a hole in fence made by rail staff as a shortcut. I attended the inquest. Unfortunately of course there were no signs for the ‘idiot’ to ‘ignore’.

As tragic as his injury/death may be, I'm sorry but even at 6 years old (and about 8-9 years before I developed any interest in railways outside of Thomas and Friends), I knew full well that going onto a railway track was a bad idea. Heck, even Roald Dahl was writing about this as far back as '91. At some point, a parent must take responsibility for their own failings to supervise their gremlin and/or instilling of an understanding that trespass is bad, instead of just "passing the buck" on to Network Rail/GBR.

Roald Dahl's Guide to Railway Safety, 1991

That's an example which uses very short trains going very slowly. And due to be upgraded to 1.5kV too. That sort of wiring will not power a 12 car train doing 100mph

Tbf even with existing 3rd rail, 100mph is about the top speed they'll achieve iirc. A Class 444 on 750V DC has a top speed of 100mph, and the record is currently just shy of 110 atm.

I remember seeing that suggested in a railway magazine around 2013, not for safety reasons but to lessen the impact of snow and ice.

The foresight in that comment against the backdrop of Lewisham only 5 years later is... interesting to say the least.

Would the third rail option look better if traction batteries in the UK were not deemed safe?

It seems that the Glasgow fire may have been uncontrollable because of Lithium batteries going up in the small vape shop.

Closing Glasgow Central for days may be the first railway triumph for the Lithium battery?

WAO

I'd wager that the batteries involved in vapes are, shall we say, rather poor quality compared to what goes into trains; this probably impacts how likely they are to "go up" in the first place.