Should the third rail ban be lifted?

[Djgr]

It is very possible that if BEMUs were not being procured for Merseyrail, the very similar section to Headbolt Lane would have also been electrified. (IMHO, it should have been anyway).

I think it was the other way around.

The procurement of some BEMUs (and therefore mixed fleet disadvantages) was because of the perceived and real difficulty in getting approval for (relatively trivial) 3rd rail extension.

 

[renegademaster]

With the danger of veering off topic, the risk level (which is a measure of both the impact of the danger, and the probability/likelihood/rate of occurrence of the danger) of living next to a nuclear plant is much smaller than the risk of someone being electrocuted on a conductor rail, for which statistics have been provided earlier in this thread

A third rail fault didn't give 16,000 people cancer.

The government changing the regulations where previously you could only build nuclear in really low population density areas doesn't mean they want people to die of cancer , it just means they think the regulator overreacted and different situations can be responded to differently, and sometimes regulators are faliable.

I'm not saying modern nuclear is anything like Chernobyl, but neither is Uckfield anything like the inner London third rail network.

 

[Mikey C]

I can advise from experience that trespass on the ELL from Dalston to Shoreditch is near non-existent. It is almost impsosible to access the tracks except from the platform, and the stations have protective measures including full CCTV, staffing first till last train, and security guards at certain times.

Of course, what has changed since the risk assessments for the ELL were done (back in the mid-2000s) is that the cost and practicality of alternatives - particularly battery trains - has changed significantly. It is reasonable to assume that if the ELL was in development now for construction in a few years’ time with a completely new fleet, then the assessment would most likely point towards a battery fleet with no con rail north of Whitechapel.

Besides there's a difference between crossing a track on the flat, or someone choosing to climb 50 feet to access the track on the viaduct

 

[zwk500]

I think it was the other way around.

The procurement of some BEMUs (and therefore mixed fleet disadvantages) was because of the perceived and real difficulty in getting approval for (relatively trivial) 3rd rail extension.

I'm very happy to be corrected, but my understanding was that the battery fleet were being procured anyway because of long-term goals to extend beyond Crewe Ellemsere Port and Chester.

 

[Djgr]

I'm very happy to be corrected, but my understanding was that the battery fleet were being procured anyway because of long-term goals to extend beyond Crewe and Chester.

That's an after the event attempt at justification I think. There are no spare battery operated trains for this. Only a small % of the new trains currently carry batteries.

There have been suggestions about how Merseyrail could expand its services using battery operated trains. Generally these are highly speculative because the other relevant party (e.g. Cheshire and Lancashire) won't put their hand in their pocket. The one idea which has most traction is down the Borderlands line to Wrexham because the Welsh government is taking it seriously.

However, there has to be benefit for the population of Liverpool City Region for these to progess. No free riders a la Essex and the Central line.

There are no suggestions of any extended services out of Chester and Merseyrail has nothing to do with Crewe.

 

[yorksrob]

I can advise from experience that trespass on the ELL from Dalston to Shoreditch is near non-existent. It is almost impsosible to access the tracks except from the platform, and the stations have protective measures including full CCTV, staffing first till last train, and security guards at certain times.

Of course, what has changed since the risk assessments for the ELL were done (back in the mid-2000s) is that the cost and practicality of alternatives - particularly battery trains - has changed significantly. It is reasonable to assume that if the ELL was in development now for construction in a few years’ time with a completely new fleet, then the assessment would most likely point towards a battery fleet with no con rail north of Whitechapel.

That is interesting. It must be like Fort Knox compared to everywhere else !

 

[zwk500]

There are no suggestions of any extended services out of Chester and Merseyrail has nothing to do with Crewe.

Apologies, that was a mis-type. I meant extending beyond Chester to Crewe, and beyond Ellesmere Port to Helsby. Both have definitely been suggested by Liverpool City region, although may have gone quiet recently

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Mar 2026 ==

That is interesting. It must be like Fort Knox compared to everywhere else !

When running at ground level, fairly typical palisade fencing (7ft high maybe?) is present: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Nda7hdsGPFmhHxLu8
Even where elevated, it's got vertical walls, fencing at the lines side: https://maps.app.goo.gl/qi3u3f2qBUp3JBHr5 and more fencing around bridge supports and so forth.

Slightly tougher to get past than, say, a typical scene on the Marshlink line: https://maps.app.goo.gl/JGuFLyD7ZZFM1qrm9, or https://maps.app.goo.gl/iRAoA5682KVsMXR4A

 

[yorksrob]

Slightly tougher to get past than, say, a typical scene on the Marshlink line: https://maps.app.goo.gl/JGuFLyD7ZZFM1qrm9, or https://maps.app.goo.gl/iRAoA5682KVsMXR4A

Or indeed, most of electrified Kent. That beautiful county really would be disfigured if we were required to put horrendous metal fencing along it all.

Yet somehow, the Invicta county seems to survive without it.

 

[zwk500]

Yet somehow, the Invicta county seems to survive without it.

Well you've had stats saying quite a few people don't...

 

[yorksrob]

Well you've had stats saying quite a few people don't...

As they don't on the roads, the OLE network, everywhere else.

To be alive is to be at risk.

 

[35B]

As they don't on the roads, the OLE network, everywhere else.

To be alive is to be at risk.

The question is about what constitutes "reasonably possible" in the sense of "As Low As Reasonably Possible". I think we would both agree that the line is being drawn at a disproportionately expensive level, especially when considering the comparison between rail and road, for what might be marginal cases.

 

[yorksrob]

The question is about what constitutes "reasonably possible" in the sense of "As Low As Reasonably Possible". I think we would both agree that the line is being drawn at a disproportionately expensive level, especially when considering the comparison between rail and road, for what might be marginal cases.

Indeed, we do.

 

[Djgr]

Apologies, that was a mis-type. I meant extending beyond Chester to Crewe, and beyond Ellesmere Port to Helsby. Both have definitely been suggested by Liverpool City region, although may have gone quiet recently

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Mar 2026 ==

Can't say I have heard of the Chester to Crewe one. Seems unlikely as this is primarily a long distance line with no intermediate stations, rather than a metro type one.

Ellesmere Port to Helsby is a classic example. Regardless of whether there is actually any potential traffic, none of the line is in Liverpool City Region. Nothing will ever happen unless the good folks of Cheshire contribute a fair share, unless it can be demonstrated that there are material benefits for people who live in Liverpool City Region.

As far as I am aware the current strategic to do list for "Merseytravel" is a) Liverpool Baltic followed by b) the three new stations "Woodchurch", Carr Mill and Daresbury.

 

[Technologist]

A third rail fault didn't give 16,000 people cancer.

The government changing the regulations where previously you could only build nuclear in really low population density areas doesn't mean they want people to die of cancer , it just means they think the regulator overreacted and different situations can be responded to differently, and sometimes regulators are faliable.

I'm not saying modern nuclear is anything like Chernobyl, but neither is Uckfield anything like the inner London third rail network.

There is negligible evidence that Chernobyl has killed 16,000 people by cancer. That is position is essentially a statistical aberration which requires you to believe that doses of radiation much less than the background give you microscopically increased chances of cancer which then multiplied by a massive number of people equals a large number of deaths.

In practice we don't see variations in cancer rate in populations with higher or lower levels of background ration suggesting that there is threshold of either total dose or rate of dose than living organisms can deal with.

 

[eldomtom2]

Miliband reveals plans that could mean nuclear power plants built near homes

Changes to regulation to speed up development could also make it easier to build on sensitive nature sites

www.theguardian.com

The current government in other areas can sometimes recognizes the existing regulations as not an unquestionable good and can accept raising risk slightly is ok if it's for the greater good

This is the government responding to the Fingleton review. The government said it accepted all of the Fingleton review's recommendations. Chapter 6 of the Fingleton review deals with the concept of As Low As Reasonably Practical, and at least with regards to nuclear power Fingleton considers it has been applied too stringently and considers that in some cases large amounts have been spent on measures that only increase safety by an infinitesimal amount. Of course the focus is on nuclear power, but some of the recommendations would effect everything covered under the Health and Safety at Work Act, including Recommendation 8:

Recommendation 8: Define the meaning of proportionality in the Health and Safety at Work Act
Government should propose secondary legislation under section 50 of HSWA which clarifies the law. The test should not be whether a measure is grossly disproportionate, but instead what is proportionate taking into account a multi-faceted consideration of the level of risk. This secondary legislation should confirm that whether an action is proportionate to that risk shall be established by reference to:
a) the nature of the hazard concerned;
b) the likelihood of that hazard occurring;
c) the scale of the potential impact in terms of the degree of harm and the numbers of individuals who might reasonably foreseeably be affected;
d) the cost, time and difficulty involved;
e) any relevant policy guidance established by the Secretary of State or the relevant regulator; and
f) whether undertaking the measure might prevent a desirable activity from taking place (either at all, to a particular extent, or in a particular way).
R2P2 should be updated to reflect this secondary legislation and err on the side of proportionality, taking into account the nature of the risk.

Obviously this may not lead to any changes regarding third rail, but I thought it was worth noting that the government is taking a more critical eye of ALARP since ALARP with regards to electricity has been brought up a lot in this thread.

 

[WAO]

One hopes that it will take a more critical view of ALARP interpretation, particularly of rear-end covering, vague regulations, by bodies not directly service providers.

I would respect limits on dc and the economic advantage of batteries, if there were agreed, defensible, precise physical dc specifications laid down for design and which would apply generally equally to existing and new systems, rather than just principles not derived from railway practice. The goal posts should be fixed before the penalty is taken.

WAO

 

[zwk500]

Obviously this may not lead to any changes regarding third rail, but I thought it was worth noting that the government is taking a more critical eye of ALARP since ALARP with regards to electricity has been brought up a lot in this thread.

Those recommendations are potentially very significant for the presumption against third rail, although the rise of batteries for the gaps in the third rail network that exist means that it still may not lead to the last few schemes being pushed out.

 

[Bald Rick]

I’ll put a simple question:

If it costs less to electrify a service with battery trains than it does by installing third rail, why would anyone want to install third rail?

 

[35B]

I’ll put a simple question:

If it costs less to electrify a service with battery trains than it does by installing third rail, why would anyone want to install third rail?

Because the cost advantage may not be enough to offset the inconvenience of managing sub-fleets.

 

[Bald Rick]

Because the cost advantage may not be enough to offset the inconvenience of managing sub-fleets.

Almost every TOC manages subfleets. It’s not an issue, and the cost of doing so would be included in the calculation.

 

[martin butler]

Reading, Basingstoke and onwards to Exeter should be 25kv overhead wired, and linked into an extension of any GW scheme, to extend from Bristol to Exeter,

On Southern routes, BEMU fleets should become the norm, and should be able to operate not just as battery powered but also as convectional EMU, off 3rd rail, where some route has to operate over non electrified sections of line, the 171 fleet can then be cascaded to where more modern DMU's are needed,

Possible operation of the Marsh line, could be an extension of Charing cross to Hastings, but extended to Ashford, and London via Tonbridge, either by combining services, or a redrawing up of services between Ashford and London, to include services that would normally terminate at Ashford, extended operation on 3rd rail should enable the battery packs to recharge, Similar duel traction could be used on Reading to Gatwick possibly using tri mode EMU's to make them a common route type emu,

 

[35B]

Almost every TOC manages subfleets. It’s not an issue, and the cost of doing so would be included in the calculation.

And my point is that it is possible that the cost may be lower (I'm fully aware of total cost of ownership calculations), but non-financial considerations may be sufficient to outweigh the extra cost.

 

[MarkyT]

I’ll put a simple question:

If it costs less to electrify a service with battery trains than it does by installing third rail, why would anyone want to install third rail?

Also 3rd rail is lossy, often burning off over 25% of the supply energy due to the loop resistance in the supply conductor and running rail return, and the very high current compared to the same power delivered at 25kV.

For already electrified lines, intelligent battery-assisted running could help to reduce this by attempting to only draw the highest current for traction or charge when near substations, and blending in stored energy as required to maintain performance when at supply extremities, or when voltage is sensed to have dropped significantly due to peak load from other trains in the same substation area (often quite short-term spikes).

For newly electrified regional lines the choice must be batteries, with some minimal fill-in or entirely new islands to support range requirements with a good resilience margin. Longer distance 3rd rail extensions make little sense from an energy perspective, let alone considering the safety implications. On very busy urban railways such as metros/inner suburban, the economics may be different, but they're largely electrified already.

 

[Bald Rick]

And my point is that it is possible that the cost may be lower (I'm fully aware of total cost of ownership calculations), but non-financial considerations may be sufficient to outweigh the extra cost.

What sort of non-financial considerations?

 

[mmh]

What sort of non-financial considerations?

Mine would include where and how the batteries are produced, what their expected lifetime is, and how they will be disposed of at the end of it.

 

[35B]

What sort of non-financial considerations?

Practicality, reputation, reliability. Things that can be difficult to quantify reliably and, especially where a case is finely balanced may swing the balance

 

[WAO]

I’ll put a simple question:

If it costs less to electrify a service with battery trains than it does by installing third rail, why would anyone want to install third rail?

How do you calculate a cost if you don't have a clear acceptable, state-of-the art technical standard to design to?

This vagueness actually hinders the application of battery trains as it will not be clear where the break point (as there certainly will be) between battery (mobile) and fixed supply lies.

Common user stock was always a strong point with the SR.

Micro-fleets are a figment of the privatised, leased rolling stock nightmare, which consumes 1/3 of farebox revenue, often for fully amortised stock. Give GBR time.....

WAO

 

[35B]

How do you calculate a cost if you don't have a clear acceptable, state-of-the art technical standard to design to?

You make assumptions based on what little you do know. Which, in the current state of play, magnifies all costs.

 

[Bald Rick]

Practicality, reputation, reliability. Things that can be difficult to quantify reliably and, especially where a case is finely balanced may swing the balance

Of those three, all but reputation can be estimated.

Reputation - not sure how that comes into it, except when a 12 year old trespasser is killed by the conrail when a battery solution would have been cheaper…

 

[35B]

Of those three, all but reputation can be estimated.

Reputation - not sure how that comes into it, except when a 12 year old trespasser is killed by the conrail when a battery solution would have been cheaper…

I understand that all can be estimated. My point is that a decision may be taken despite not being the cheapest because the alternative, difficult to quantify, factors weigh heavy enough to outweigh a pure cost calculation.

While we tend to associate public sector decision making with aiming to be cheapest, value for money is actually the test - something different.