Should the third rail ban be lifted?

[zwk500]

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.

That's all very well, but good luck lobbying your local MP to introduce a 'it's your own fault' law.

 

[Dave W]

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.

It's all very well being bombastic and calling people "idiots" but society accepts - whilst you may not - that protecting children from Bad Things Happening To Them is a collective responsibility. And therefore - whether legally or morally - the railway and its constituent parts have an absolute requirement to ensure the highest standards of safety.

I wonder if your assessment of a "lawsuit-happy world" extends back to 1972 when BRB v Herrington ruled that British Rail did have a duty of care to a child trespasser. This isn't new.

 

[renegademaster]

whilst you may not - that protecting children from Bad Things Happening To Them is a collective responsibility.

The issue is when a regulator hyper focuses on one issue, they are pushing people onto an unsafer transport method.


What happened to that child was tragic , but it's also tragic when children die during asthma attacks, which sooty DMUs are going to contribute to. One tragic anecdote doesn't outweigh the bigger picture no matter how much it personally touched you

 

[Dr Hoo]

The issue is when a regulator hyper focuses on one issue, they are pushing people onto an unsafer transport method.


What happened to that child was tragic , but it's also tragic when children die during asthma attacks, which sooty DMUs are going to contribute to. One tragic anecdote doesn't outweigh the bigger picture no matter how much it personally touched you

The regulators (initially HSE and later ORR) have just applied the law.

I’m also confused about how battery-powered trains are likely to trigger asthma attacks. DMUs are a doomed species in 2026 if not 1989.

 

[Djgr]

The regulators (initially HSE and later ORR) have just applied the law.

Interpretation thereof

 

[Harpo]

Interpretation thereof

Which is open to challenge but I don’t see anyone doing so. But, knowing how NR ‘leadership’ works, they’ll be delegating it or waiting on someone else to do it.

 

[amahy]

I’m also confused about how battery-powered trains are likely to trigger asthma attacks. DMUs are a doomed species in 2026 if not 1989.

But there are currently no concrete plans to replace the 171s or 158/159s with battery-powered trains, leaving sooty, ageing DMUs to soldier on for years to come.

I also somewhat doubt that current battery technology would be suitable for the 121 miles of heavily graded line between Worting Junction and Exeter St Davids, and it could be years before battery trains are capable of operating such a service. Not to mention the installation of fast charge points that would be necessary.

 

[Mikey C]

The London Underground, other that installing platform edge doors on every platform, is as safe for the general public as a live rail system can be, as the tracks are very well fenced off from the public, and foot crossings are VERY well fenced

By contrast, there are times that I'm amazed that the 3rd rail railway "gets away" with how close the public can get to it, especially outside London where it's pretty easy to get on the tracks. Indeed public footpaths cross the railway.

I can't see new 3rd rail installations being allowed now (e.g. to Uckfield) with such crossings still in place.

 

[Autspectorder]

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

The lines that currently run on diesel in Southeast England aren't twelve cars long.

 

[N1]

I also somewhat doubt that current battery technology would be suitable for the 121 miles of heavily graded line between Worting Junction and Exeter St Davids, and it could be years before battery trains are capable of operating such a service. Not to mention the installation of fast charge points that would be necessary.

First series German ETA 150 battery railcars had a range of 250km when new, with lead acid batteries, and no regen braking. This was in 1954. Current battery technology could do 121 miles easily.

 

[renegademaster]

I’m also confused about how battery-powered trains are likely to trigger asthma attacks. DMUs are a doomed species in 2026 if not 1989.

Because they aren't ever actually going to be seen on the Oxted line until Turbostars are due for replacement in 15 years or so

 

[Recessio]

The London Underground, other that installing platform edge doors on every platform, is as safe for the general public as a live rail system can be, as the tracks are very well fenced off from the public, and foot crossings are VERY well fenced

I was going to ask, what mitigations have LU done to allow further extensions such as for Nine Elms - is the fact it is in tunnel a major mitigating factor?

What about the East London Line extension, is that all in tunnel or was some of the new third rail installation outside? If so, what does TfL do differently that allowed an extension of third rail?

 

[zwk500]

is the fact it is in tunnel a major mitigating factor?

Yes

What about the East London Line extension, is that all in tunnel or was some of the new third rail installation outside? If so, what does TfL do differently that allowed an extension of third rail?

In a combinations of brick-walled cuttings, tunnels and viaducts for pretty much the entirety of it's new length.

 

[Bald Rick]

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

Presumably if traction batteries were deemed unsafe in rail applications in the UK, they would be deemed unsafe in all similar applications worldwide, the laws of physics being universal. Which means that all those battery trains, buses, cars, bikes, and the similar batteries in modern aircraft would all be deemed unsafe.

(you can see my point, they are not unsafe).

Interpretation thereof

Not so. It’s the law, supported by case law.

I also somewhat doubt that current battery technology would be suitable for the 121 miles of heavily graded line between Worting Junction and Exeter St David

It is more than suitsable. Needs a big battery, grantex, but easily doable. Gradients are irrelevant by the way, in fact they help.

was going to ask, what mitigations have LU done to allow further extensions such as for Nine Elms - is the fact it is in tunnel a major mitigating factor?

What about the East London Line extension, is that all in tunnel or was some of the new third rail installation outside? If so, what does TfL do differently that allowed an extension of third rail?

In addition to the increased level of physical segregation that @zwk500 mentions, plus much stricter controls on staff access, the primary reason is the reasonable practicality of alternatives.

Whilst I don’t know the details, I would take an educated guess that the alternatives in each of these cases at the time their construction was being developed would have been very much more expensive than what was proposed. This extra cost was therefore grossly disproportionate to the level of safety improvement, and therefore determined to be not reasonably practical.

 

[eldomtom2]

It is more than suitsable. Needs a big battery, grantex, but easily doable. Gradients are irrelevant by the way, in fact they help.

Are there any lines worldwide with similar conditions that use battery units?

 

[mmh]

The London Underground, other that installing platform edge doors on every platform, is as safe for the general public as a live rail system can be, as the tracks are very well fenced off from the public, and foot crossings are VERY well fenced

It really isn't "as safe as can be" - there's no way the Clapham island platforms would be allowed now. They rebuilt Angel to get rid of its decades ago. There's absolutely no way those stations (and similar on the Glasgow Subway) would be allowed now.

 

[WAO]

Presumably if traction batteries were deemed unsafe in rail applications in the UK, they would be deemed unsafe in all similar applications worldwide, the laws of physics being universal. Which means that all those battery trains, buses, cars, bikes, and the similar batteries in modern aircraft would all be deemed unsafe.

(you can see my point, they are not unsafe).
l

Good.

Experience is still developing (as are mitigations). The hazard is the high energy density, independent of the combustion triangle. The risk is it going solo, as examples are showing.

WAO

 

[Bald Rick]

The risk is it going solo, as examples are showing.

Very few examples, though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2026 ==

Are there any lines worldwide with similar conditions that use battery units?

Not yet. But there will be in time. It’s just physics and economics.

 

[eldomtom2]

Not yet. But there will be in time. It’s just physics and economics.

Hmmm. The UK being an innovator tends to mean a very high price tag attached.

 

[Mikey C]

It really isn't "as safe as can be" - there's no way the Clapham island platforms would be allowed now. They rebuilt Angel to get rid of its decades ago. There's absolutely no way those stations (and similar on the Glasgow Subway) would be allowed now.

That's not a live rail issue though, as that platform would still be awful if the trains were powered by OHLE.

 

[yorksrob]

It really isn't "as safe as can be" - there's no way the Clapham island platforms would be allowed now. They rebuilt Angel to get rid of its decades ago. There's absolutely no way those stations (and similar on the Glasgow Subway) would be allowed now.

Sorry, but that's a very poor comparison. The island platform at Angel was far narrower than the islands at Clapham Junction, so much so that the issue was people not being able to fit on it.

 

[JonathanH]

Sorry, but that's a very poor comparison. The island platform at Angel was far narrower than the islands at Clapham Junction, so much so that the issue was people not being able to fit on it.

The reference is to the island platforms on the Northern Line at Clapham Common and Clapham North, which in my experience, both give the user a sense of having nowhere safe to stand.

 

[yorksrob]

The reference is to the island platforms on the Northern Line at Clapham Common and Clapham North, which in my experience, both give the user a sense of having nowhere safe to stand.

In which case is completely off topic - what have the island platforms at Clapham South/North got to do with banning third rail on the rail network ?

 

[JonathanH]

In which case is completely off topic - what have the island platforms at Clapham South/North got to do with banning third rail on the rail network ?

I think the idea is that railways of all kinds have unsafe things that wouldn't be permitted now, which benefit from 'grandfather rights'. Third rail on the national network being potentially an example.

 

[norbitonflyer]

In which case is completely off topic - what have the island platforms at Clapham South/North got to do with banning third rail on the rail network ?

They too have live rails, as does the Glasgow Subway. If ORR sees live rails as unsafe, there is no difference from NR.

 

[Harpo]

I think the idea is that railways of all kinds have unsafe things that wouldn't be permitted now, which benefit from 'grandfather rights'. Third rail on the national network being potentially an example.

No such thing as ‘grandfather rights’ in any safety legislation.

 

[norbitonflyer]

No such thing as ‘grandfather rights’ in any safety legislation.

No - there is "as far as reasonably practicable" - converting live rail lines to OHLE is not seen as meeting that criterion, but not building any more does.

 

[yorksrob]

They too have live rails, as does the Glasgow Subway. If ORR sees live rails as unsafe, there is no difference from NR.

That's a fair point, however the primary issue with those platforms is their narrowness.

 

[amahy]

That's a fair point, however the primary issue with those platforms is their narrowness.

Yes. In some scenarios, narrow platforms could be just as dangerous as a 3rd rail, if the station is very crowded, and people are jostling for position as the train arrives.

 

[bramling]

The lines that currently run on diesel in Southeast England aren't twelve cars long.

This isn’t quite true now.

If all the remaining Southern Region diesel routes were electrified, it would be likely that as a minimum Basingstoke-Salisbury and Oxted-Uckfield would need to be specified to be able to support some 12-car running. Salisbury-Exeter would also need to be able to support 8-car running probably on a 30-minute frequency.

Both Salisbury and Uckfield have seen 10-car DMU working, though there may be less call for it since Covid. In the case of Uckfield the capacity is needed further in, so you either don’t make full use of a path into London, or have to find a way of attaching carriages during the journey, which on the Uckfield route isn’t viable with the current infrastructure.