Should the third rail ban be lifted?

[WAO]

I don’t know how you reach that conclusion.

Workforce fatalties and injuries have reduced, largely because of the removal of red zone working and the improvements mentioned by the previous poster.

That is the point, that new working practices have dramatically improved safety for staff, reducing the dc objection.

Public fatalities and injuries continue at broadly the same level.

For the third time, these statistics do not include suicides, which are not reported in the numbers obtained through the FOI. Please stop saying, or implying, that they do.

I take the point - I did not notice an exclusion in these figures. However, whether a trespasser wishes death, cable theft, graffitti or a short cut home, they are entering a prohibited workspace. Many other places subject to determined trespass, have (necessary) lethal hazards.

Also the dc network is busy (why it was electrified),in populous areas and extensive in footprint, so casualties would be proportionately higher.

I still maintain that the dc workspace is now relatively safe for staff. For non-staff, other hazards also exist on the railway such as trip hazards on stairs, etc.

WAO

 

[NCT]

Safety considerations are relative between scenarios.

Between a third-rail scenario and a battery scenario, which one is safer, even if the less safe one might in isolation be deemed safe enough. Someone will have to stand up in court to defend choosing the less safe option.

Then comes the question of which is the cheaper option (net lifecycle cost).

 

[Bald Rick]

However, whether a trespasser wishes death, cable theft, graffitti or a short cut home, they are entering a prohibited workspace. Many other places subject to determined trespass, have (necessary) lethal hazards.

And those other places have a similar duty of care, and find themselves in trouble if they don’t.

Also the dc network is busy (why it was electrified),in populous areas and extensive in footprint, so casualties would be proportionately higher.

Indeed, which makes the need to exercise that duty of care all the more important.

 

[WAO]

Agreed but the duty of care in law applies to both parties.

WAO

 

[Bald Rick]

Agreed but the duty of care in law applies to both parties.

WAO

Bit diffuclt to argue that in court when you’re dead.

 

[brad465]

And those other places have a similar duty of care, and find themselves in trouble if they don’t.

Is there a thread somewhere that discusses (or has discussed) why TOCs and their staff are liable for incidents where a member of the public has done something that person should know is illegal/stupid?

 

[zwk500]

Is there a thread somewhere that discusses (or has discussed) why TOCs and their staff are liable for incidents where a member of the public has done something that person should know is illegal/stupid?

These two threads on deaths from people sticking their heads out of the window discuss the topic:

GWR Droplight Fatality Findings

Couldn't find this anywhere so if there is a thread already, could the moderators please merge? This is on the BBC news site today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20ej7rkj3ko GWR have been fined £1m in connection with the death of a woman who leaned out of a droplight and was killed...

www.railforums.co.uk

Incident at Wandsworth Common 07/08/16

An extremely sad day for the railway as an individual has been killed as a result of what is believed to have been window hanging from a Class 442 EMU, allegedly striking a piece of infrastructure. :( I don't wish to be disrespectful but bringing this to attention as a warning to others to...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[WAO]

My impression is that railway liability depends on how much care a casualty could be expected to take with a hazard and what mitigations are in place.

The droplight casualties were in part due IIRC to some tight clearances as well as an inviting open window, even if there was a small warning above. Slam doors were a wider modern safety problem; I had experience of a VEP door opening at speed and had to grab a fellow passenger beside it. I remember my father ( a ganger's son) teaching me as a child how closely other trains pass an open window and to lean on the door frame, not the door.

On the subject of dc safety, does anyone know whether there have been H&S prosecutions for any of the c4 public deaths/year on the dc network over the last 30 years (and 0.1 staff deaths/year over the last 10 years)? This would show the legal risk that NR/GBR would have if the dc network were to be extended slightly and where its present mitigations are legally sufficient.

WAO

 

[zwk500]

On the subject of dc safety, does anyone know whether there have been H&S prosecutions for any of the c4 public deaths/year on the dc network over the last 30 years (and 0.1 staff deaths/year over the last 10 years)? This would show the legal risk that NR/GBR would have if the dc network were to be extended slightly and where its present mitigations are legally sufficient.

WAO

ORR has certainly fined Operators for Third Rail deaths.

£3.6m fine after train cleaner electrocuted near Hastings

A train operator and a cleaning company are fined after a worker was electrocuted on the railway.

www.bbc.co.uk

A train operator and a cleaning company have been fined £3.6m after a worker was electrocuted on the railway.
Roger Lower, 46, had been washing down trains at a depot in East Sussex, but was found lying on a 750-volt live rail and pronounced dead at the scene.
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) investigated Southeastern and Wetton Cleaning Services Limited and exposed a "culture of cutting corners".
Southeastern has conceded it could have "done more" to meet safety standards.

 

[WAO]

That must have been the one and only death in the last decade.

Was that where they broke their own rules rather than the system and working practice being excessively unsafe?

WAO

 

[Bald Rick]

ORR has certainly fined Operators for Third Rail deaths.

£3.6m fine after train cleaner electrocuted near Hastings

A train operator and a cleaning company are fined after a worker was electrocuted on the railway.

www.bbc.co.uk

Strictly speaking the Crown Court fined the companies, (having been found guilty for offences under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.). ORR brought the prosecution.

At the bottom of that report on the BBC website is a link to a rather moving story about a teenager who lost her life when coming into contact with the third rail.

I challenge anyone to say that they would be prepared to go and speak to the parents of any future teenager who lost their life in similar circumstances on a newly electrified third rail section, to describe why it was decided to put down third rail when there was an alternative that was reasonably practical, or that alternatives had not been considered or assessed at all.

 

[Stephen42]

On the subject of dc safety, does anyone know whether there have been H&S prosecutions for any of the c4 public deaths/year on the dc network over the last 30 years (and 0.1 staff deaths/year over the last 10 years)? This would show the legal risk that NR/GBR would have if the dc network were to be extended slightly and where its present mitigations are legally sufficient.

There have been prosecutions of Network Rail over staff injury as well. The legal test is about what is reasonable and that is context specific. Whether it is reasonable to not spend £25bn+ replacing third rail with overhead electrification is very different to what is reasonable for new installations. If adding a platform to a 3rd rail electrified station the practicality of alternative options is low and safety benefit is minimal so a legally compliant process may still recommend third rail electrification.

However, the extensions discussed here the alternatives are far more viable. Skipping to a solution is a clear violation of legislation regardless of it being used elsewhere. Improvements in safety would be much slower if anyone could point to an existing system with lower safety and say that should be the only standard anything new must comply with.

 

[WAO]

I challenge anyone to say that they would be prepared to go and speak to the parents of any future teenager who lost their life in similar circumstances on a newly electrified third rail section, to describe why it was decided to put down third rail when there was an alternative that was reasonably practical, or that alternatives had not been considered or assessed.

The police (and clergy) have to do this every day, where there have been much bigger risks (than the one you exaggerate) but deemed acceptable (and extendable). Would you ban new motor bike purchases?

Let batteries win their case on practicality and economics not on thin safety arguments.

Life.

WAO

 

[eldomtom2]

However, the extensions discussed here the alternatives are far more viable. Skipping to a solution is a clear violation of legislation regardless of it being used elsewhere. Improvements in safety would be much slower if anyone could point to an existing system with lower safety and say that should be the only standard anything new must comply with.

I should note that the Fingleton review was very critical of the idea that ALARP demands a safety "ratchet". The government takes the opinion that "as low as reasonably practical" does not mean "the absolute safest system physically possible".

 

[Bald Rick]

The police (and clergy) have to do this every day, where there have been much bigger risks (than the one you exaggerate) but deemed acceptable (and extendable). Would you ban new motor bike purchases?

Let batteries win their case on practicality and economics not on thin safety arguments.

Life.

WAO

You are completely missing the point. To the extent that I think you are now being deliberately obtuse. And you havent answered the question.


And I don’t see what I am exaggerating. Several people lose their lives on the third rail every year. Most recently a couple of weks ago.

 

[Recessio]

Let batteries win their case on practicality and economics not on thin safety arguments.

The safety arguments are not "thin", as has been demonstrated multiple times in this thread, most notably the accidental injuries and death statistics - AC OHLE, battery, and diesel are all safer than conductor rail.

I also guess it's a good thing that batteries increasingly do win over conductor rail on both practicality and economics grounds then, as well as on safety grounds.

 

[bramling]

You are completely missing the point. To the extent that I think you are now being deliberately obtuse. And you havent answered the question.


And I don’t see what I am exaggerating. Several people lose their lives on the third rail every year. Most recently a couple of weks ago.

To what extent would it be practically possible to implement a new third rail scheme on the basis of

* no staff accessing track without an isolation in place (LU aren’t far from this position nowadays)

* secure fencing throughout

* no footpath crossings

This would essentially leave the only points of access being at road/occupation crossings, and station platforms, the latter could be mitigated with fencing and gates on the ends leaving the only practical means of trespass being jumping off a platform edge.

*Could* a scheme be made to work in this way from an operational point of view? I’m not asking whether it *should* be or whether it would be the best option, just whether it’s conceptually possible.

One other question, are we at the point where battery trains can match the performance of current DC fleets? Or to put it another way, is there a battery fleet currently available that could match the performance/timings of Electrostars were Uckfield to be electrified and operated by something like a 375/377/387?

 

[35B]

The safety arguments are not "thin", as has been demonstrated multiple times in this thread, most notably the accidental injuries and death statistics - AC OHLE, battery, and diesel are all safer than conductor rail.

I also guess it's a good thing that batteries increasingly do win over conductor rail on both practicality and economics grounds then, as well as on safety grounds.

I'm not convinced that they do look so good on practicality grounds, or as a result that the economics properly stack up.

In the cases we're discussing, there's an assumption that the batteries can be recharged in normal operation on the existing 3rd rail sections. The Uckfield line, when the class 379 battery trial was being undertaken, was not far off the theoretical limit of battery life, meaning that there was very little contingency for the impact of any delay. As the line to Oxted is a sustained climb, with trains working at full current draw on the ascent, that raises the possibility that the battery charging will need to be earlier in the journey.

I raise this not to comment on whether or not battery operation is doable, but because it highlights where there may be consequential impacts that aren't immediately obvious. The obvious historical example is that of tech changes associated with the move away from Mk1 units to Electrostars and Desiros, where overall more efficient units necessitated power upgrades because the pattern of power consumption was very different.

To what extent would it be practically possible to implement a new third rail scheme on the basis of

* no staff accessing track without an isolation in place (LU aren’t far from this position nowadays)

* secure fencing throughout

* no footpath crossings

This would essentially leave the only points of access being at road/occupation crossings, and station platforms, the latter could be mitigated with fencing and gates on the ends leaving the only practical means of trespass being jumping off a platform edge.

*Could* a scheme be made to work in this way from an operational point of view? I’m not asking whether it *should* be or whether it would be the best option, just whether it’s conceptually possible.

One other question, are we at the point where battery trains can match the performance of current DC fleets? Or to put it another way, is there a battery fleet currently available that could match the performance/timings of Electrostars were Uckfield to be electrified and operated by something like a 375/377/387?

In the examples we're discussing, I suggest that footpaths might be an issue - my copy of Quail shows that Marshlink has loads, while I'd be very surprised if there were no foot crossings on the Uckfield or North Downs lines.

 

[Dr Hoo]

To what extent would it be practically possible to implement a new third rail scheme on the basis of

* no staff accessing track without an isolation in place (LU aren’t far from this position nowadays)

* secure fencing throughout

* no footpath crossings

This would essentially leave the only points of access being at road/occupation crossings, and station platforms, the latter could be mitigated with fencing and gates on the ends leaving the only practical means of trespass being jumping off a platform edge.

*Could* a scheme be made to work in this way from an operational point of view? I’m not asking whether it *should* be or whether it would be the best option, just whether it’s conceptually possible.

[Snip]

I’m not sure about ‘no access when trains are running’.

I realise that it’s over 40 years ago now when on a blazing hot summer Saturday afternoon I had to repeatedly wind and secure the switch diamonds at Redbridge as queues of trains stretched back to Brockenhurst, St Denys and Romsey. But repeated isolations and re-energisations with trains left dead hardly sounds achievable. Ironically so even more now when sealed trains rely on continuous power for air conditioning and toilets.

I suppose that it might be possible if every train had large batteries capable of powering movement and hotel requirements for a sustained period.

Oh, hang on a minute…

 

[MarkyT]

I'm not convinced that they do look so good on practicality grounds, or as a result that the economics properly stack up.

In the cases we're discussing, there's an assumption that the batteries can be recharged in normal operation on the existing 3rd rail sections. The Uckfield line, when the class 379 battery trial was being undertaken, was not far off the theoretical limit of battery life, meaning that there was very little contingency for the impact of any delay. As the line to Oxted is a sustained climb, with trains working at full current draw on the ascent, that raises the possibility that the battery charging will need to be earlier in the journey.

Battery tech has moved on a lot since then, and is being adopted more widely in commercial heavy road vehicles and mobile plant. That kind of knowledge is readily transferable to rail. Battery trains can also capture energy from regen braking which may be lost in resistor banks even on electrified track if the conductor rail is not receptive to the braking current (i.e. no other trains are drawing power nearby and the substation can't export to grid).

I raise this not to comment on whether or not battery operation is doable, but because it highlights where there may be consequential impacts that aren't immediately obvious. The obvious historical example is that of tech changes associated with the move away from Mk1 units to Electrostars and Desiros, where overall more efficient units necessitated power upgrades because the pattern of power consumption was very different.

There will be unenvisioned challenges I'm sure.

 

[martin butler]

The sheer cost of rerouting or protecting crossings on the few lines effected would be astronomical, to make it non-viable, and of course then you have the substations etc, I can't see GBR forking out more than what the lowest safe option would be, I think we can safely write off further 3rd rail schemes.

So realistically what are the options?
1 do nothing, stick with small numbers of DMU,s

2 convert some existing non dual collection of 377/378 emus to 3rd rail/battery and cascade these onto Uckfield and Ashford services, with recharging stations on each route, based on the fast charge arrangement, most likely at Rye, where the line has a loop, and Uckfield.

3 electrify on the 25KV overhead , but that in its self will still need suitable duel voltage stock which is already in use, and available.

 

[zwk500]

So realistically what are the options?
2 convert some existing non dual collection of 377/378 emus to 3rd rail/battery and cascade these onto Uckfield and Ashford services, with recharging stations on each route, based on the fast charge arrangement, most likely at Rye, where the line has a loop, and Uckfield.

Why convert old stock and fit charging stations?

You can procure new BEMUs with the required range for Uckfield, Ashford and the North Downs already. They would be able to charge from the third rail on the sections they already run on. Stadler have Third Rail BEMUs running in the UK at this very moment (Class 777), as well as international experience with the FLIRT Akku.
If there are concerns about a "microfleet", then order a more substantial number and cascade some displaced Electrostars from Sussex to Kent so you have a more evenly split EMU/BEMU fleet.

 

[35B]

Battery tech has moved on a lot since then, and is being adopted more widely in commercial heavy road vehicles and mobile plant. That kind of knowledge is readily transferable to rail. Battery trains can also capture energy from regen braking which may be lost in resistor banks even on electrified track if the conductor rail is not receptive to the braking current (i.e. no other trains are drawing power nearby and the substation can't export to grid).

There will be unenvisioned challenges I'm sure.

Unenvisioned challenges go with the territory!

More generally, I was careful to qualify my comments about Uckfield because I know that the technology is continuously developing. If the capacity to run with realistic contingency is now available, that softens my views.

However, the basic laws of physics remain in place. The charge used off the juice will have to be replaced, and the fundamental energy equations haven't changed. Regeneration will of course help, but can only do so much.

 

[WAO]

You are completely missing the point. To the extent that I think you are now being deliberately obtuse. And you havent answered the question.


And I don’t see what I am exaggerating. Several people lose their lives on the third rail every year. Most recently a couple of weks ago.

I have made my point on the basis of one depot death and no running line deaths for staff in 10 years and 4 (public) fatalities/year, both divided by 20 for the maximum extension proposed, probably downgraded for the rural nature of the routes. I share your horror of meeting a bereaved family but to me (not to you) I think the cause, electrical or kinetic, is irrelevant. As an Engineer, I reduce, not eliminate, risk.

I am sorry to seem obtuse to you, so I shall withdraw from this debate, out of respect for you.

WAO

 

[Bald Rick]

To what extent would it be practically possible to implement a new third rail scheme on the basis of

* no staff accessing track without an isolation in place (LU aren’t far from this position nowadays)

* secure fencing throughout

* no footpath crossings

This would essentially leave the only points of access being at road/occupation crossings, and station platforms, the latter could be mitigated with fencing and gates on the ends leaving the only practical means of trespass being jumping off a platform edge.

*Could* a scheme be made to work in this way from an operational point of view? I’m not asking whether it *should* be or whether it would be the best option, just whether it’s conceptually possible.

One other question, are we at the point where battery trains can match the performance of current DC fleets? Or to put it another way, is there a battery fleet currently available that could match the performance/timings of Electrostars were Uckfield to be electrified and operated by something like a 375/377/387?

It depends what you mean by “could”. Yes, physically it could as you propose. But it would be expensive, and certainly more expensive than an alternative that involved BEMUs and no third rail. I have no doubt it would not pass the AFAIRP test compared to BEMUs.

In the cases we're discussing, there's an assumption that the batteries can be recharged in normal operation on the existing 3rd rail sections.

Correct.

The Uckfield line, when the class 379 battery trial was being undertaken, was not far off the theoretical limit of battery life, meaning that there was very little contingency for the impact of any delay.

That was 12 years ago. Anyway, as always, if battery capacity is a problem, the answer is a bigger battery.

As the line to Oxted is a sustained climb, with trains working at full current draw on the ascent, that raises the possibility that the battery charging will need to be earlier in the journey.

Trains up to Oxted do not draw full current all the way, far from it. And, of course, it’s downhill from Oxted tunnel for nearly 9 miles.

However, the basic laws of physics remain in place. The charge used off the juice will have to be replaced, and the fundamental energy equations haven't changed. Regeneration will of course help, but can only do so much.

Indeed so, but regeneration direct into the battery is much more effective than out to the con rail and to substations. Besides, I saw the modelling for a battery train on the Uckfield line 14 years ago, and again about 8 years ago, and it is very straightforward to do with existing tech.

I have made my point on the basis of one depot death and no running line deaths for staff in 10 years and 4 fatalities/year, both divided by 20 for the maximum extension proposed, probably downgraded for the rural nature of the routes.

Yes, but not public deaths, of which there are many, none intentional, not all of which were trespass, and many were ‘unknowing trespass’ (including for example, the student who put his ear to the rail to listen for a train coming as he did in his native India - he knew no different), and none would have happened if the third rail wasn’t there. That is the point.

EDIT:

I’ll lay it out in simple terms, with made up numbers.

Let’s say to electrify the Uckfield line with con rail - all costs (infrastructure, trains, operation, maintenance, renewal) on a whole life cost basis - costs £100m. But the statistical modelling of safety risk shows there would be one additional fatality every 20 years due to the electrification.

Now we compare to alternatives.

Alternative 1: OLE
This costs £200m, but reduces the additional fatalities to one every hundred years, and serious injury to one every ten years. Essentially £100m extra to save 4 lives in a hundred years. That is grossly disproportionate.

Alternative 2: BEMUs
This costs £50m. Fatalities nil. Obviously, cheaper, safer, you do it.

But what if the cost is £100m? Same price, safer, you still do it.

But what if the cost is £200m? As with Alternative 1 OLE, that is grossly disproportionate, you don’t do it, and put down third rail.


Therefore somewhere between £100m and £200m there is a line between being a reasonable additional cost to avoid those fatalities, and it being grossly disproportionate.

That is what the assesment has to determine, using the value of fatalities (and injuries) avoided.


It is my contention, based on my experience of project and rolling stock costs, seeing previous studies for use of BEMUs on the Uckfield line (and applying the principles elsewhere), and the curent state of battery train development… that it is extraordinarily unlikely that a case can be made that extensions to the third rail for Uckfield, North Downs or Ashford - Ore would be the lowest reasonably practical level of safety risk when compared to the alternative of deploying BEMUs.

 

[alf]

For the second time, the DC casualties do not include suicides.

A colleague had his FOI request for a twelve year period answered.
The fatalities included only ONE death on third rail in England due to suicide (for relatives’ sake coroners bend over backwards not to find unless the evidence is incontrovertible)

Since then due to lobbying from the Samaritans concerned about copy cat deaths Network Rail have declined to give FOI questioners location & whether death is a legally determined suicide on understandable grounds that it may encourage copycats.
So very detailed research to scrutinise the argument that 3rd rail is significantly more dangerous than diesel or 25kv is no longer possible.

I am uneasy about the enthusiasm for traction batteries, other then small back ups to keep the lights on or bridge the gap over pointwork.

Remember the two class 159s trains that collided in the tunnel east of Salisbury. There was huge damage.
Imagine instead two Lithium battery powered trains with extensive ranks of 100kwh batteries jolted, pushed & scraped into each other in the tunnel with straps & electric connections breaking & arcing. An uncontrollable fire in Fisherton tunnel would have been world news & would put an end to trains relying entirely on batteries for traction.
Extended third rail with the safety measures recently suggested by Network Rail’s third rail Southern team is a safer & more economic solution.
Glasgow demonstrated the power of a tiny lithium battery fire. 12 coaches of smashed racks of Lithium batteries in an enclosed unventilated space would be horrific, worse than Standedge tunnel

 

[Bald Rick]

Extended third rail with the safety measures recently suggested by Network Rail’s third rail Southern team is a safer & more economic solution.

Can you show your workings at a simple level as to how you reach that conclusion?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Mar 2026 ==

Remember the two class 159s trains that collided in the tunnel east of Salisbury.

Yes I remember it very well. Imagine if the diesel tanks had ruptured…

 

[renegademaster]

This costs £50m

Is this under the assumption that you don't need to do any power infrastructure strengthening and that new stock isn't included in the price?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is this under the assumption that you don't need to do any power infrastructure strengthening and that new stock isn't included in the price?

I made the numbers up for illustration of how the assessment needs to be conducted.

 

[martin butler]

Most of the Southeast, already have new stock, the last old stock being the 455's so it's very unlikely that there would be new orders just for that, as most still has a good 30 years of life left, and the replacements for the older stock, is already being delivered,

As we are discussing the 3rd rail area, the bulk of the EMUS are either Siemens, or Bombardier designs, so it would make sense if any Battery units were one of these designs, I can't see there being any extension of 3rd rail, to close the gaps, so Battery is the only option, if Diesel options become non-viable, either economically, or politically,

That why i think that it makes sense to convert some electrostars, to 3rd rail/ battery configuration, for use on Hastings to Ashford, and Uckfield, because the vast majority of units used by Southern, are of this type, Same case with GWR, but theirs should retain Overhead also so they can also be used on the other branches in london.