Electrostars and Desiros are no longer built by Bombardier (now Alstom...) or Siemens. Not sure anyone would want to order more Aventras, and Alstom already have a platform for BEMUs (although not without its problems).
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should the third rail ban be lifted?
- Thread starter Class450/4DES
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Falcon1200
Established Member
But presumably all of those people were somewhere they were not authorised to be, and their tragic end could also have resulted from being struck by a train, as indeed occurs regularly on non-electrified lines? Overhead wires (OLE), while safer of course than the third rail, are not totally risk-free; I was on duty for several serious OLE incidents, one of which involved a member of staff, due to an isolation error. Which is not to say that I am in favour of extending the third rail, far from it, and battery operation looks to be the best alternative; With, perhaps, a reduction in third rail provision when the technology has developed sufficiently.
Yes, although in some cases the fact they were on the track was not at all their fault, or to a certain extent they couldn’t be blamed for not knowing about the danger (too young / not advised / can’t read english / etc.).
And in sll the csses in the numbers, it is the third rail which caused the incident. Yes it is conceivable that without third rail they might have been in the way of a train, but sadly we will never know.
We had it drummed into us from infant school by the BR man.
Don't wander on the railway points/third rail/OLE
Other people messaged:
Just like "Say no to strangers"
And " look before you cross the road"
It's a dangerous world, and if you misadventure you face danger..
The electrified railway was one of many dangers we were taught about.
No doubt. But not every school is covered, some students will miss that assembly, and some will forget very quickly. Most students will be crossing roads every day, yet very few will go near the railway. Plenty of people move to DC land from other parts of the country (and world!) and have no idea what third rail is. And so on.
Of course it is not reasonable to expect that every member of the public understands the danger of third rail, and therefore the railway needs to do what is reasonably practical to prevent injuries and worse.
martin butler
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 871
At what point though do you have to accept than the railway is a dangerous place, and whilst you can educate, put up warnings, at every public crossing place, there will always be someone for whatever reason who ignores it, and puts their life in danger, be it trespassing, or someone who is mentally in a bad place? the rail network can never be 100 per cent safe.
In the depths of Kent, we were taught about OLE, even though we were miles from it. I'd be surprised if the guy from BR didn't cover the third rail up north.
If schools aren't covered, what is the headmaster doing ? All schools in the country should have railway safety lessons, not to do so is unacceptable.
No one is suggesting the railway should be 100% safe, nor can it be.
What is being suggested is that when changes are made, they are made in a manner that is safe so far as is reasonably practical. As I have stated above, there is a clear definition of what that means, and the word ‘reasonably’ can be (and has been) tested in courts of law.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Or headteacher
Or headteacher
Ooh very modern. Next they'll be having girls in (as opposed to in a separate school on the opposite side of town)
As I have pointed out, the government's current position by accepting the Fingleton Review is that ALARP has an insufficiently clear definition and too often is interpreted in too restrictive a manner. Of course as I have said, this may not change the situation with regards to third rail.
It’s AFARIP, and it is very clear. Interpretation is the issue.
Interpretation by who?
people who don’t understand it!
So do you disagree with the Fingleton Review when it says that different judges have had different opinions on what "reasonably practicable" means?
I’m not an expert in nuclear safety, so I will defer to the review.
However I do have a qualification in railway safety, and can say that there are some very clear differences between how the nuclear and rail industries assess what is deemed ‘Reasonably Practical’. Perhaps the most significant is how the relevant safety benefit is assessed and calculated using cost benefit analysis, which the railway does a lot of, and evidently the nuclear industry does not (much).
martin butler
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 871
The main argument about any further 3rd rail use, should be about safety, and practicality, for example, electrifying some stretches of lines to join them up with existing stretches, does make sense, as it simplifies traction requirements,
but the offset is can it be made safe for those who have a legitimate reason for being trackside, and provide secure places of access that also discourages those who do not have a lawful reason , trespassers,
Then, what are the alternatives? diesel units need fuel, and fueling locations, electrics do not,
Battery gives advantages, especially if the type of unit can use the 3rd rail, but battery units need charging locations, and add weight, then theres the use of diagrams, an unelectrified route, will have to have units that are self-powered
once the 3rd rail is not availible,so the units will have to be diagramed so that the right unit is availible, for example try taking a 377 beyond the Ore head shunt, and you soon realise your not going very far.
but the offset is can it be made safe for those who have a legitimate reason for being trackside, and provide secure places of access that also discourages those who do not have a lawful reason , trespassers,
Then, what are the alternatives? diesel units need fuel, and fueling locations, electrics do not,
Battery gives advantages, especially if the type of unit can use the 3rd rail, but battery units need charging locations, and add weight, then theres the use of diagrams, an unelectrified route, will have to have units that are self-powered
once the 3rd rail is not availible,so the units will have to be diagramed so that the right unit is availible, for example try taking a 377 beyond the Ore head shunt, and you soon realise your not going very far.
Ian Walmsley’s engineering dissection of both discontinuous electrification and the ‘battery good’ mantra (‘Pan Up’ - Modern Railways April 26) adds far more value to the ‘battery’ discussion than any if us on here will do. Spoiler alert - It’s not a good conclusion.
If after that there’s any pangs of support for the DfT, Roger Ford’s excoriating analysis of the IET saga should dispel them.
Can you provide a summary of his arguments for those who don't have the April 2026 issue, which doesn't appear to yet be on sale digitally?
Ian is a great guy. However he does, understandably, tend to look at things through the lens of his own expertise, which is Rolling Stock Engineering. That doesn’t make him wrong*, but you do have to bear in mind that it is one view.
*Although he has got things wrong before and happily admits it. We’ve spoken about a few things in the past!
Last edited:
Snow1964
Established Member
The article seems to be available on its own (although if it allows free read indefinitely I cannot tell)
I am afraid it is behind a paywall for me.
The review on this specific point was not talking about nuclear safety in specific but about how the courts interpret the meaning of "reasonably practical" with regards to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 - it cites the 2011 case Baker v Quantum Clothing Group, which was about noise protection, where different judges had different and contradictory views about whether a defence to claims of failing to implement a safety measure required the employer to show that the expense of the measure was in disproportion to the risk.
Technologist
Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2018
- Messages
- 467
Have read some of his work, he's a Dinosaur talking about battery EMU's operating at reduced performance. I always used to notice how my Tesla was getting out dragged by trains on OHLE!
Regarding track maintenance costs for battery vehicles it looks like the annual track access charge difference between a 801 and a 800 (bi mode representing a battery EMU) for a given mile of track is about £2k per year for a 4TPH service using 5 car trains. Thus his arguments around increased track wear for battery trains vs the cost of electrification don't make any sense, particularly as a real BEMU could actually distribute its batteries so that axle weight was equalised on a vehicle, something that a bi mode cannot do.
Walmsleys article is over several pages and his central theme is of (my words now) the bean counting that ultimately leaves the future railway with more costly (whole life) and sub-optimal solutions driven by flawed arguments.
Ford’s very separate IET article has historical evidence of repeated misinformation by Stuart Baker* and team that was allowed to propel IET decisions in what Ford calls ‘DfT gaslighting’.
* A man ironically called Stupid Baker by his peers on the BR management training scheme.
But what about battery trains makes him think that they will cost the railway more overall?
Snow1964
Established Member
The article splits it, there is not a question over battery trains continuing along a branch. But article is about the bad idea of discontinuous electric on main lines and through routes.
In summary, if leave gaps, then forced to add complexity and weight to the trains for decades, so add to ongoing running costs and energy to haul the mass of extra equipment, and lose flexibility to run the pure electric trains and electric freight locos (or have to add much more powerful alternative systems to freight locos because not just moving them to depot reception off the mains).
So whilst you save in short term, having gaps on the mainline means either stuck with bimodes which as experience has shown need lots of diesel maintenance (which is so costly and time consuming the railway regularly puts trains out with dead engine) this in term loses revenue because then slow down timetables (or never speed them up) to allow the regular weaker performance. Slower timetables less attractive than trains running quickly using all their power.
Yes wires need maintenance, but costs of doing so are small compared to the costs of using diesels with their extended downtime, extra repairs and servicing and fueling, or extra energy hauling around engines and batteries which are only used part time.
I think my issue with this is that there isn't real evidence that discontinuous electrification results in higher running costs or energy. The costs of OLE maintenance vs battery maintenance costs are not mature enough to conclude either way. Same with energy, reduced energy consumption from better utilisation of regen braking, vs extra energy in moving batteries around isn't concluded either. For 3rd rail, losses in third rail for large spacings between substations also need to be considered.
Freight is a real concern from discontinuous electrification, but to benefit from full electrification, terminals also need to be wired.
And then there are possible benefits of reduced disruption during OLE faults or isolations.
Acceleration performance is negligible for passenger trains on battery.
It is right to highlight current unknowns and risks, but wrong to just conclude that full electrification is always best, even for 'mainlines'.
zwk500
Veteran Member
What proportion of the train's mass would be additional, and how much energy would this require to move?
On third rail systems it's likely fleet procurers will increasingly look to have traction capable backup systems. That's purely on the whole life cost and benefits across the entire system. Batteries have fewer moving parts, require less maintenance and don't need separate fuel logistics compared to diesel so the cost equation will be rather different.
Those traction backups will increase revenue from fewer cancellations, better performance with third rail contamination etc. Bigger batteries can support EMU level acceleration if the revenue gain from faster timetable stacks up.
The third rail electrification access charge is well over 10% the track access charge base rate for third rail vehicles. I'd guess that fixed cost may not even fully recover the non-usage related third rail costs. If it does it's likely an average and lines with 2tph (or 1tph for many of these examples) wouldn't be contributing their fair share. I agree someone should work out the numbers before proceeding, it isn't apparent that the costs of electrification maintenance are comparatively small compared to battery maintenance and extra energy. In parts of the network batteries could make better use of regen and save some energy.
Back of an envelope: Comparing a 800 with 801, each diesel engine and associated equipment adds a little under 5 tonnes. The 802 battery trial used the same space and weight to fit a battery that achieved a range of 43 miles. A 4-car BEMU might want two of those for 100 mile range (3 would give the trial train a 100 mile range but that's a 130m train). That would be 10 tonnes of additional weight for battery and associated equipment. This is probably an over estimate as technology will evolve and the trial didn't use latest tech either.
Using wikipedia train weights, a 4-car class 377 comes in in at 173 tonnes. A ten-car class 701 Aventra or a ten-car Desiro City 700 (from averaging 8 and 12 car variants) come in at 345 to 350 tonnes, a pair of five-car Desiro City 707s are 330 tonnes. An 8-car 700 is 278 tonnes and a pair of 377s would be 346 tonnes. The upshot is the 10 tonnes of battery for a 4-car on one of those platforms would be lighter than the existing electrostars. The weight is also not substantially higher than the variations between EMUs for the same length of train.
It does feel somewhat ideological than a numerical analysis with the concern about weight being dependent on what the weight is used by. I'd be concerned that other statements are saying X will be lower than Y from a "surely" perspective than with reliable information of the relative costs. In any case for the examples here they are effectively branch lines, very little freight and relatively low passenger movements which he appears to believe as justified use of batteries anyway.
diesels, possibly, because of maintenance costs and of course fuel.
But there is absolutely no way that the extra operation and maintenance costs of a traction battery on board a fleet of battery trains are more than the extra operation and maintenance costs of a decent stretch of OLE. Unless of course it’s 1km of OLE and hundreds of trains.
- Status