Should the third rail ban be lifted?

[Autspectorder]

The existing rolling stock runs on 750V.

 

[yorksrob]

Not a bad idea, as that's pretty much what all the trams run on. It would make re-engineering slightly easier for the new units, at least.

West of Salisbury is very stop-start, so you'd never really get the benefit of the higher speed available with OLE. Not to mention Salisbury is NIMBY central, full of narrow-minded, selfish busybodies with nothing better to do than complain about change and launch legal challenges against the winds of time. Not to mention they seem to always have money to spend on legal challenges, but never enough to pay their own rounds. You'd struggle to get OLE up in any reasonable time frame.

Maybe that's the battery ideal then

I do think that if they can get OLE acceptably over the Royal Border Bridge they can do it elsewhere.

Anyway, I'm loath to be bigging up OLE on a Southern Region third rail thread !

 

[35B]

The existing rolling stock runs on 750V.

Using 3rd rail and in many cases without provision for pantographs. If you are going to spend the money, then spend it to achieve something useful, rather than lock in the worst of both worlds.

 

[zwk500]

The existing rolling stock runs on 750V.

Of units that currently have OLE capability, they only run 25KV AC from the pantograph (377/7, 395, 700). @35B has hit the nail on the head:

If you are going to spend the money, then spend it to achieve something useful, rather than lock in the worst of both worlds.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

(Although personally, installing OLE on the southern region would only be worth it if you took the opportunity to harmonise on the 25KV AC standard).

Starting with "The Electric Spine" - Southampton -Reading

 

[zwk500]

Starting with "The Electric Spine" - Southampton -Reading

I'd personally start in East Kent, but how to convert from 3rd rail to OLE is another thread:

Converting 3rd Rail to Overhead

Following on from the Diesel vs Electric Thread was thinking - how would it go about converting current 3rd Rail region into overhead? Assuming there would be advantages? Would it be better for something like the Brighton Mainline? What about the current dead spots, such as Marshlink Line or...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[amahy]

Imo, the regulations surrounding 3rd rail warrant some easing. I do think there is a business case for electrifying Worting Jn-Salisbury-Exeter with 3rd rail, as well as doing Reading-Basingstoke or even Liverpool-Wigan-Manchester.

As it stands, the regulations seem a bit too stifling, compared to the benefits of electrifying with the cheaper 3rd rail option. I'd wager the deaths caused on the roads by people being priced out of rail or unable to make journeys due to itineraries not matching up, far outweighs the risks associated with trespassers frying themselves. On that note, as harsh as it sounds, I struggle to have sympathy for idiots who knowingly break through a fence panel, ignore the "Do not trespass on the Railway Penalty £1000" signs, and promptly turn themselves into a 1000-ohm resistor.

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.

 

[yorksrob]

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 agree 100% with this post.

The roads always get a free pass when it comes to safety.

 

[Technologist]

There is a common misconception that BEMUs will always be cheaper than token lengths of electrification. That's true if already have them lying around spare or getting new trains anyway.

But the economics are different when doing the infills mean can diagram an existing fleet more efficiently, rather than buy or lease a non-standard fleet just to cover a few miles of track (and most of those electrostars are likely to be around for another 15-20 years). Inevitably with the non standard fleet need more vehicles (because cannot use the main electric fleet as cover for maintenance and failures). Even a 3car BEMU unit is going to cost a few million pounds, and if need a few units to cover your non electrified gap, then there is a big cost of keeping a supplementary non-electric fleet

There is a pretty good argument for a BEMU being the standard for the entire network.

Batteries are very cheap, strip out the novelty and development costs and you are looking at about a 5% cost to add a battery pack even if you pay twice what automotive does. That’s for a pretty long ranged battery vehicle.

I suspect that even on fully electrified lines the flexibility of having a useful battery range will be worth it. It means that you can still operate even if large portions of your electrification are down due to a fault or maintenance, it means that you can potentially remove electrification where it is expensive to maintain, it means that your depots don’t need to be electrified.

Those factors alone are likely to dwarf the extra capital costs, which frankly should be more than covered by using more COTS technology from electric vehicles anyway.

The one network where BEMUs are a no brainer is the London Underground, the routes are short with modern LFPs you could get a whole line’s worth of charge while you turn the train around at the end of the line or at two stations near the end.

You could quite easily fit a battery that would do there and back on a line if a charger at one end had a problem.

Stripping the 4th rail out would save you a vast amount of maintenance, remove a great deal of hazard and give you a bunch of underground to fit new kit. It would also mean that you don’t need to de energise the tracks let people out which now means that you don’t need drivers which will save you about £500m a year.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2026 ==

I agree 100% with this post.

The roads always get a free pass when it comes to safety.

Roads are incredibly safe compared to 1: what they used to be like and 2: their economic effect which is not far off enabling the whole economy.

As a gross approximation we have one road death per £2bn of economic activity.

Start lobbying for a Fingleton review of rail safety much as there has recently been a review of nuclear safety that concluded that uk regulators had gone over the top.

 

[yorksrob]

Roads are incredibly safe compared to 1: what they used to be like and 2: their economic effect which is not far off enabling the whole economy.

As a gross approximation we have one road death per £2bn of economic activity.

Start lobbying for a Fingleton review of rail safety much as there has recently been a review of nuclear safety that concluded that uk regulators had gone over the top.

Indeed - worth doing.

We need a good robust nuclear industry to support low carbon energy as well as the deterrent.

We need a dynamic railway industry that can improve as required as well.

 

[Bald Rick]

for those saying that such and such a line has a “strong case” for third rail electrification, please can you show us how you have reached that conclusion, by comparing to relaistic alternatives with approximate costs and benefits?

I would be very surprised if any future units for use on the DC network come without traction batteries. They come with many more benefits than just runnign on non-electrified sections.

 

[Snow1964]

for those saying that such and such a line has a “strong case” for third rail electrification, please can you show us how you have reached that conclusion, by comparing to relaistic alternatives with approximate costs and benefits?

I would be very surprised if any future units for use on the DC network come without traction batteries. They come with many more benefits than just runnign on non-electrified sections.

Reading through the thread there are 2 views :
1) where units are likely to be replaced in next 4-6 years eg North Downs line then adding batteries to the new units makes sense
2) where electric units will probably be around another 15-20 years (375, 377, 450 etc) and they could be diagrammed better than retaining a separate extra fleet of diesel trains, then completing remaining diesel gap looks better, as there are hidden costs of not considering using the diesel units elsewhere..

It is a difficult calculation if trying to and value how much something like the 171s are worth to an operator of aging 156s that need replacing, but also has 170s in their fleet that have got 15-20 years left. The net cost of the alternatives for the displaced diesel trains is a part that should be in the calculatiosn.
As another example suppose fit batteries to 387s (which have about 30 years life left), use those instead, and backfill with spare 350/2s or 458/4s, how does that compare to the cost of electrifying to Uckfield and Marshlink.

You can't look at the raw capital cost of electrifying in isolation vs cost of a battery pack.

its not just cost of some third rail, and some modular substations (or even secondhand substations because a busy mainline needs a substation upgrade and the old smaller one will be fine for these lighter used lines). Its things like this, and fact approaching having the 350/2 and 458/4 spare, but at same time a desperate need for the diesel units which should all be factored in to overall value costing.

 

[Bald Rick]

You can't look at the raw capital cost of electrifying in isolation vs cost of a battery pack.

Correct.

It is a difficult calculation if trying to and value how much something like the 171s are worth to an operator of aging 156s that need replacing

It’s not difficult at all for those that are doing it for their job….

As another example suppose fit batteries to 387s (which have about 30 years life left), use those instead, and backfill with spare 350/2s or 458/4s, how does that compare to the cost of electrifying to Uckfield and Marshlink.

Exactly.

 

[anthony263]

Imo, the regulations surrounding 3rd rail warrant some easing. I do think there is a business case for electrifying Worting Jn-Salisbury-Exeter with 3rd rail, as well as doing Reading-Basingstoke or even Liverpool-Wigan-Manchester.

As it stands, the regulations seem a bit too stifling, compared to the benefits of electrifying with the cheaper 3rd rail option. I'd wager the deaths caused on the roads by people being priced out of rail or unable to make journeys due to itineraries not matching up, far outweighs the risks associated with trespassers frying themselves. On that note, as harsh as it sounds, I struggle to have sympathy for idiots who knowingly break through a fence panel, ignore the "Do not trespass on the Railway Penalty £1000" signs, and promptly turn themselves into a 1000-ohm resistor.

I agree especially as SWR are sending stock off lease so 3rd rail could mean swr could make use of the existing fleet rather than purchasing brand new BEMUs

 

[bramling]

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.

The 3rd rail is potentially quite hazardous for staff. If you look at LU, things have got to the point where staff are barely permitted on the track nowadays with the traction current live, which is operationally pretty debilitating (one can legitimately argue whether that policy is too restrictive, but that’s a separate discussion).

The other issue with DC is that the cost of substation plant is very high, and all the more so as trains tend to draw more current nowadays (longer trains, more of them, more powerful, loads like air conditioning). So what previously might have been viable as a low-cost scheme with fairly low-rated feeding, a substation every 6 miles, and operational restrictions if any piece of plant is out of commission, for example something like Weymouth, is no longer suitable.

That said, my own view is that as the DC system is very unlikely to be replaced at any time in any of our lifetimes, it’s reasonable for it to be “completed” if desired. So I’d suggest Uckfield, Ashford-Hastings and North Downs, and if ever down for re-opening Hoo-Grain, and of course Headbolt Lane and potentially Skelmersdale or even Wigan. I wouldn’t go further than that. Specifically Basingstoke/Redbridge to Exeter absolutely not.

 

[Class450/4DES]

Starting with "The Electric Spine" - Southampton -Reading

Are they still going ahead with this?

 

[JonathanH]

Are they still going ahead with this?

No - the 'Electric Spine' was quietly cancelled eight years ago - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/west-coast-franchise-speculation.147486/page-18#post-3410136

 

[MarkyT]

If you are going to the effort of installing OLE, you would up the voltage. I can see the logic in staying DC and going to 3KV DC rather than the full-fat 25KV AC, but I cannot see any justification for the cost of installing overhead lines at the same voltage as the current system.

(Although personally, installing OLE on the southern region would only be worth it if you took the opportunity to harmonise on the 25KV AC standard).

Lower-voltage options, with much higher current, need larger and heavier conductors, which in turn need stronger and more expensive support stanchions and structures. While 25kV needs greater clearance and larger insulators, it can be a lighter and less obtrusive system overall. Lower voltage also means more substations. EMUs all having some batteries onboard could allow some difficult structures for clearance to be gapped, often with earthed conductor, to avoid lowering the pan for a short distance. This technique is being pioneered for many gaps on the Cardiff Metro.

 

[Recessio]

In the late 1980s Solent Link, East Grinstead and other electrification projects were all authorised on the basis that no new rolling stock was needed.

My understanding was that the East Grinstead being electrified had two major contributing factors: BR had to remove asbestos from the Class 205 and 207 units anyway, and the recent closure of some nearby lines (maybe the Woodside branch?) meant there was some spare DC electrification equipment that could be reused on the stretch from South Croydon down to East Grinstead, helping cut the costs of electrification. So it was decided that the money was better spent on electrifying the line, redeploying some EMUs and scrapping the old asbestos-ridden 205s and 207s, instead of removing asbestos and then probably still needing to get some new diesel units soon anyway.

 

[Bald Rick]

That said, my own view is that as the DC system is very unlikely to be replaced at any time in any of our lifetimes, it’s reasonable for it to be “completed” if desired.

There is a very clear definition of ‘reasonable’ in safety terms, and I doubt if any of those smaller projects would meet it.

Hoo-Grain

That’s defintiely going to be batteries, if it happens.

 

[yorksrob]

Ultimately, if this is a health and safety at work issue, any rail workers around the Ashford/Hastings/Hurst Green/Reigate/Guildford/Wokingham areas will already be working mainly with the third rail anyway.

It seems excessive to ban these infill schemes on that basis

 

[Recessio]

Ultimately, if this is a health and safety at work issue, any rail workers around the Ashford/Hastings/Hurst Green/Reigate/Guildford/Wokingham areas will already be working mainly with the third rail anyway.

It seems excessive to ban these infill schemes on that basis

Something can be safe enough to be allowed under grandfather rights, but not safe enough to warrant new ones. Like how you can drive an old vintage car that didn't come with seatbelts or airbags or ABS without having to retrofit any of those systems, but modern cars require them.

 

[yorksrob]

Something can be safe enough to be allowed under grandfather rights, but not safe enough to warrant new ones. Like how you can drive an old vintage car that didn't come with seatbelts or airbags or ABS without having to retrofit any of those systems, but modern cars require them.

Yeah, we all know about grandfather rights, but given that rail employees will spend the majority of their time working around the third rail, is there any real justification for not doing these infills on this basis ?

To take forward your analogy, this seems more like banning anyone from ever buying a vintage car.

 

[Class450/4DES]

No - the 'Electric Spine' was quietly cancelled eight years ago - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/west-coast-franchise-speculation.147486/page-18#post-3410136

That's really unfortunate.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Yeah, we all know about grandfather rights, but given that rail employees will spend the majority of their time working around the third rail, is there any real justification for not doing these infills on this basis ?

As I have painfully recalled before, a very experienced Electrified Track Maintenance (ETM) worker was electrocuted whilst right next to me. Sadly familiarity can breed a casual attitude towards safety procedures.

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’.

Out in the real world risks that can easily dismissed by keyboard warriors become very real.

 

[mmh]

How will we source the materials for all these batteries, what will their expected lifetime be, and how will we dispose of them when life expired?

I'm always bemused at the excitement on here for batteries. I'd love to be persuaded it's a sensible option at the current time.

 

[yorksrob]

As I have painfully recalled before, a very experienced Electrified Track Maintenance (ETM) worker was electrocuted whilst right next to me. Sadly familiarity can breed a casual attitude towards safety procedures.

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 there had been
of course there were no signs for the ‘idiot’ to ‘ignore’.

Out in the real world risks that can easily dismissed by keyboard warriors become very real.

I do see your point (and acknowledge those tragic accidents), and I agree that electrification across the country ought to be OLE by and large.

But I believe that the correct balance of risk and benefit should allow the infills in the Southern Region to be completed for the reasons I've mentioned above.

There's always a compromise between risk and effective operations - this is why we tolerate such high casualty rates on our roads.

 

[Stephen42]

Reading through the thread there are 2 views :
1) where units are likely to be replaced in next 4-6 years eg North Downs line then adding batteries to the new units makes sense
2) where electric units will probably be around another 15-20 years (375, 377, 450 etc) and they could be diagrammed better than retaining a separate extra fleet of diesel trains, then completing remaining diesel gap looks better, as there are hidden costs of not considering using the diesel units elsewhere..

The diagramming point might be shuffling costs around though. None of the main fleets have enough sitting idle to cover the diesel units on the lines being talked about here. If taking 377s from Southeastern say with them taking 350/2s those costs of less efficient diagramming/training etc just fall on another operator.

You can't look at the raw capital cost of electrifying in isolation vs cost of a battery pack.

its not just cost of some third rail, and some modular substations (or even secondhand substations because a busy mainline needs a substation upgrade and the old smaller one will be fine for these lighter used lines). Its things like this, and fact approaching having the 350/2 and 458/4 spare, but at same time a desperate need for the diesel units which should all be factored in to overall value costing.

It's also not just the upfront cost. Those substations and third rail will require ongoing maintenance and repair, even if most of the activity is inspection. Plus there may be impact on track/permanent way maintenance cost on those lines. With mostly 1 train per hour each direction these lines currently have some of the best day time maintenance opportunities in the region. Energised third rail could easily lower efficiency for some of those activities.

Battery trains will have some additional maintenance as well of course. If the economic case is sufficient for backup batteries then its the incremental cost of 100 mile range with more intensive use that would need to be considered. I don't know the relative costs of those factors, but it doesn't feel like a slam dunk for electrification.

How will we source the materials for all these batteries, what will their expected lifetime be, and how will we dispose of them when life expired?

I'm always bemused at the excitement on here for batteries. I'd love to be persuaded it's a sensible option at the current time.

In a single year there have been 430 thousand newly licensed road battery cars (ignoring plug in hybrids or other vehicle types). There are 15 thousand passenger rail vehicles according to the ORR. 2 electric car equivalent batteries in every rail vehicle in a single year would be a rounding error compared to road cars. Rail vehicles would use more batteries but fitted over a much longer period. Two thirds of the rail fleet is electric already and wouldn't need batteries for long range. It would remain a small fraction of road vehicle battery capacity.

 

[Bald Rick]

Ultimately, if this is a health and safety at work issue, any rail workers around the Ashford/Hastings/Hurst Green/Reigate/Guildford/Wokingham areas will already be working mainly with the third rail anyway.

‘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.

How will we source the materials for all these batteries, what will their expected lifetime be, and how will we dispose of them when life expired?

Amended by request. My original reply struck through the words ‘these batteries’ and added ‘the DC switchgear’.

My question still stands though (not specifically for you, but for anyone). Which do you think will cost more - batteries or DC switchgear? And another question, what difference is there is sourcing material for batteries compared to sourcing material for DC switchgear, control equipment, transformers, rectifiers, cabling, bonding, conductor rail, the sleepers to hold the conductor rail, the con rail pots, and so on?

 

[mmh]

‘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.




Amended for you. Which do you think will cost more?

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.