Should third rail be considered again for future electrification projects?

[zwk500]

At Rye there are level crossings either end of the station, not between the platforms.

Good point, so there are. The proximity of the level crossings and current protection arrangements (sand drags) will need review though, especially if the signalling needs to be redone. They may be acceptable as an existing installation, it depends how much would be changed.

 

[A0]

Two things:

Many of the platforms on the Marshlink are short anyway, so this is hardly something new. The only real limiting factor is the passing loop at Rye, however as the platforms are staggered, the loop itself is double the platform length anyway.

Also, if you want to run eight carriages, without electrification, where are you going to get them from ? There clearly aren't any more diesel ones as we're already robbing the Uckfield Peter to pay the Marshlink Paul. You can perhaps wait for some whizzy battery or hydrogen trains, but there will be a more urgent call on these from lines where electrification is impractical. Far easier just to electrify and integrate with the existing DC fleet.

You're assuming there's sufficient capacity in the existing Coastway fleet to handle the Marshlink diagrams - bear in mind some of the Coastway daigrams are covered by 313s because there aren't enough 387s.

So you may end up waiting for a fleet - or are you suggesting dusting off the 4SUB and 2BIL from the NRM again ?

 

[yorksrob]

You're assuming there's sufficient capacity in the existing Coastway fleet to handle the Marshlink diagrams - bear in mind some of the Coastway daigrams are covered by 313s because there aren't enough 387s.

So you may end up waiting for a fleet - or are you suggesting dusting off the 4SUB and 2BIL from the NRM again ?

There's certainly more electric stock spare than diesel !

If course, were the 2BIL 4SUB combo were to put in an appearance, they'd be guaranteed some extra revenue from me !

 

[A0]

There's certainly more electric stock spare than diesel !

But it's got to be *suitable* stock and that includes driver training and maintenance considerations - so it's no good suggesting 442s, 365s or any of the other redundant EMUs which are redundant for a reason.

 

[yorksrob]

But it's got to be *suitable* stock and that includes driver training and maintenance considerations - so it's no good suggesting 442s, 365s or any of the other redundant EMUs which are redundant for a reason.

I daresay that there's various fleet shuffling that can be done. This is all easier with electric stock.

 

[A0]

I daresay that there's various fleet shuffling that can be done. This is all easier with electric stock.

The reality is it needs to be 3rd rail Electrostars to keep the fleet common - so where do you suggest those come from ? And the first priority is to displace the 19 remaining 313s with Southern - that's a higher priority than Marshlink.

 

[yorksrob]

The reality is it needs to be 3rd rail Electrostars to keep the fleet common - so where do you suggest those come from ? And the first priority is to displace the 19 remaining 313s with Southern - that's a higher priority than Marshlink.

Well, if you're displacing the 313's, you could displace them with a larger fleet that can supplement more courtesy services. Presumably the ex-Thameslink fleet might be an option.

 

[A0]

Well, if you're displacing the 313's, you could displace them with a larger fleet that can supplement more courtesy services. Presumably the ex-Thameslink fleet might be an option.

The ex TL 387s have already been reallocated - mainly to GN to allow the replacement of the 365s, so you're too late there.

 

[yorksrob]

The ex TL 387s have already been reallocated - mainly to GN to allow the replacement of the 365s, so you're too late there.

I'm sure the railway experts will find a way, just as NSE managed to shuffle surplus VEP's and CEP's around the place to support the 1980's electrifications.

 

[A0]

I'm sure the railway experts will find a way, just as NSE managed to shuffle surplus VEP's and CEP's around the place to support the 1980's electrifications.

So where did the "spare" stock come from?

From the mid 80s the Brighton line saw 319s arriving which doubtless freed up some stock.

Subsequent cascades would have been as other new units arrived OR by shortening some formations, which won't work here because the lines you'd be "robbing" units from are busier than Marshlink.

 

[yorksrob]

So where did the "spare" stock come from?

From the mid 80s the Brighton line saw 319s arriving which doubtless freed up some stock.

Subsequent cascades would have been as other new units arrived OR by shortening some formations, which won't work here because the lines you'd be "robbing" units from are busier than Marshlink.

Aren't we considering getting rid of a lot of networkers and having the new SWT units come in ? Also Thameslink might not get back to its full pre-covid glory, so some of their units might pick up some slack on the central division. It's things like that.

 

[mmh]

The reality is it needs to be 3rd rail Electrostars to keep the fleet common - so where do you suggest those come from ? And the first priority is to displace the 19 remaining 313s with Southern - that's a higher priority than Marshlink.

Why's that a priority? They seem to cope pretty well with a small non-standard fleet only used on one route.

Only ordinarily used on one route, that is. 313s have run Norwood Junction to Brighton in service!

 

[A0]

Why's that a priority? They seem to cope pretty well with a small non-standard fleet only used on one route.

Only ordinarily used on one route, that is. 313s have run Norwood Junction to Brighton in service!

They are 45 years old, relatively slow and nearing their end of life.

 

[Bald Rick]

So where did the "spare" stock come from?

Reducing services elsewhere.

The answer for Marshlink is batteries, possibly with short extensions of 3R at either end (so no substations needed, but closing the gap and raising the time for charging), and also possibly with a short charging section at Rye. Technically it’s all quite straightforward.

 

[MarkyT]

Reducing services elsewhere.

The answer for Marshlink is batteries, possibly with short extensions of 3R at either end (so no substations needed, but closing the gap and raising the time for charging), and also possibly with a short charging section at Rye. Technically it’s all quite straightforward.

If the trains run through to at least Eastbourne they should have plenty of in motion charging opportunity on the existing 3rd rail, so there's probably little need for extended charging layovers at termini. Some additional fill in as described could help to limit the size and weight of the battery required. I assume an intermediate charging facility at Rye could be fed by a standalone DNO supply.

 

[zwk500]

If the trains run through to at least Eastbourne they should have plenty of in motion charging opportunity on the existing 3rd rail, so there's probably little need for extended charging layovers at termini. Some additional fill in as described could help to limit the size and weight of the battery required. I assume an intermediate charging facility at Rye could be fed by a standalone DNO supply.

I seem to remember from previous discussions the power supply between Hampden Park and Hastings isn't great. 3rd rail from Ore to Three oaks, and from Ashford to Ham Street, with a trickle-charged battery that has fast transfer capabilities at Rye would seem to be a workable solution. If they really wanted to do anything on Marshlink. As far as I am aware, nobody with a big enough wallet to finance batteries or electrification has asked serious questions about Marshlink.
Has the business case for electrification of Uckfield that was announced as beginning in March been published yet? That seemed to be a genuine effort to get a proper answer.

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately our question is - what is cheaper?

Very expensive 25kV electrification, or fencing that looks rather like this, possibly with an added top cover birdcage.

To be honest I think it is likely to be the fencing.

And that would have the happy coincidence of making the line suitable for driverless operation!

 

[ScotGG]

Third rail plans cut for proposed new Kent passenger services on Grain Line. Been freight only since the 60s but now area of major new town and tens of thousands of residents

Third rail was there in January 2021 consultation.

Explicitly ruled out in December 2021 consultation.

Kent's new passenger railway to Hoo: Electrification axed and service levels cut - Murky Depths

A look at new plans for a rail line on the Grain branch line on the Isle of Hoo with 12,000 homes planned.

www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk

 

[The Ham]

Until we reach that shang-ri-la of cheap, powerful and suitable batteries and clean hydrogen, electrification is the most effective way for the railway.

And we're currently a long way away from clean Hydrogen, currently the production of green hydrogen makes up 0.03% of the total hydrogen that we produce.

Source:

Only ~0.03% of Hydrogen is Really "Green Hydrogen"

When people talk about the future of hydrogen, they never talk about how only Only ~0.03% of Hydrogen is Really "Green Hydrogen" ...

cleantechnica.com

Until that figure gets significantly better we certainly shouldn't be looking to increase the amount of hydrogen that we are using by any meaningful amount. As whilst blue hydrogen is better, we still need to improve the emissions from overall hydrogen production.

 

[Fincra5]

Ultimately our question is - what is cheaper?

Very expensive 25kV electrification, or fencing that looks rather like this, possibly with an added top cover birdcage.

To be honest I think it is likely to be the fencing.

And that would have the happy coincidence of making the line suitable for driverless operation!

OK.....

 

[AM9]

Ultimately our question is - what is cheaper?

Very expensive 25kV electrification, or fencing that looks rather like this, possibly with an added top cover birdcage.

To be honest I think it is likely to be the fencing.

And that would have the happy coincidence of making the line suitable for driverless operation!

The term "very expensive" isn't just a transitory thing as in capital investment, it includes the ongoing cost throughout the life of the electrification. Typically, rail infrastructure is expected to have an operating life of 120 years. So costs would include the power delivery efficiency, the maintenance of the power equipment and an allowance for the notional cost of operating a hazardous installation.
Conversely, there may be consequential costs where aged infrastructure needs to be replaced to electrify a line. Typically that impacts on OLE installation with overbridges to provide the necessary clearance. It appears as a capital cost but over the operating life of the investment, it pre-empts the inevitable replacement so there is a case for removing the absolute cost from a meaningful cost comparison.

 

[HSTEd]

Conversely, there may be consequential costs where aged infrastructure needs to be replaced to electrify a line. Typically that impacts on OLE installation with overbridges to provide the necessary clearance. It appears as a capital cost but over the operating life of the investment, it pre-empts the inevitable replacement so there is a case for removing the absolute cost from a meaningful cost comparison.

There is a case for removing a portion of the cost yes, but not all of it!

Bridges have a very long service life and few of them will be replaced any time soon.

The amount of service life discarded by these works is thus substantial.
You can't replace a one year old bridge (as an example) and claim that the entire cost should be written off because it preempts replacement!

In addition cash flow is a non negligible problem here

 

[AM9]

There is a case for removing a portion of the cost yes, but not all of it!

Bridges have a very long service life and few of them will be replaced any time soon.

The amount of service life discarded by these works is thus substantial.
You can't replace a one year old bridge (as an example) and claim that the entire cost should be written off because it preempts replacement!

In addition cash flow is a non negligible problem here

Just where is this bridge (where the concrete is only just dry) that has been built without complying with current standards? A one-year old bridge is exceptional on a line to be considered for electrification (and it would have been built to current clearance standards anyway) and hardly relevant in the total cost of any electrification.

 

[HSTEd]

Just where is this bridge (where the concrete is only just dry) that has been built without complying with current standards? A one-year old bridge is exceptional on a line to be considered for electrification (and it would have been built to current clearance standards anyway) and hardly relevant in the total cost of any electrification.

I was doing a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate why you can't just write off the entire cost of bridge replacement.

Also the recent EGIP debacle does come to mind

 

[Meerkat]

If you are trying to improve the numbers by ignoring the cost of the future need to replace a bridge anyway then wouldn't you need to add the 'unused' depreciation on the old bridge to the cost?

 

[AM9]

I was doing a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate why you can't just write off the entire cost of bridge replacement.

Also the recent EGIP debacle does come to mind

More like a strawman argument and equally irrelevant. I don't know exactly how long it has been a requirement to ensure the minimum clearance under new bridges, but it's certainly been long enough to make my point, i.e. there shouldn't be many that are that new and non-compliant.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Dec 2021 ==

If you are trying to improve the numbers by ignoring the cost of the future need to replace a bridge anyway then wouldn't you need to add the 'unused' depreciation on the old bridge to the cost?

Thanks for the more measured response to my point. Yes if doing the cost comparison properly the cost of replacing the bridge would have some assessed value of its continued usability, which in many cases might not be that much where local roads have been improved when asked to carry far greater traffic loads than their original construction allowed, only to be stifled by a narrow width rail bridge half way along. The Uckfield line has that sort of problem in what has become an affluent dormitory town and surrounding rural settlements.

 

[zwk500]

If you are trying to improve the numbers by ignoring the cost of the future need to replace a bridge anyway then wouldn't you need to add the 'unused' depreciation on the old bridge to the cost?

Moving money around different pots does absolutely nothing to help get money for capital investment or make the costs of doing the work cheaper.
If a project costs £100m, does it really matter that £30m rather than £10m has been allocated to the civil engineers so that the electrification team can claim their project was £70m rather than £90m?

Third rail has value on a small set of lines, and battery trains will shortly be making a very good case that when some existing Third rail lines are up for renewal, they should have the condutor rail removed and go over to mixed operation. Seaford Branch, Paddock Wood to Strood and Pirbright Jn to Alton would be on my list for this kind of treatment.
New Third rail is only really justified where the service is intense enough that charging off the common section would be problematic, and only then on infill schemes like Uckfield or Redhill-Guildford.

 

[Bald Rick]

You’ll be hard pushed to find a completely new bridge over the railway anytime in the last half century that doesn’t have full electrification clearances. (No doubt there are one or two somewhere, but I don’t know where).

The railway has been less foresighted for those that it has completely reconstructed itself (as opposed to brand new), but generally they will also provide clearance. Not always though.

 

[Fincra5]

Moving money around different pots does absolutely nothing to help get money for capital investment or make the costs of doing the work cheaper.
If a project costs £100m, does it really matter that £30m rather than £10m has been allocated to the civil engineers so that the electrification team can claim their project was £70m rather than £90m?

Third rail has value on a small set of lines, and battery trains will shortly be making a very good case that when some existing Third rail lines are up for renewal, they should have the condutor rail removed and go over to mixed operation. Seaford Branch, Paddock Wood to Strood and Pirbright Jn to Alton would be on my list for this kind of treatment.
New Third rail is only really justified where the service is intense enough that charging off the common section would be problematic, and only then on infill schemes like Uckfield or Redhill-Guildford.

Why remove 3rd Rail from where it already is, to have to have a Microfleet of BEMUs... when the Operators can send basically any EMU down there... Odd choice.

 

[ScotGG]

Class 377s on loan to SE back to Southern, Class 465s now in storage back to mid distance routes after heavy refurb? Removes Coastway 313s?