• 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!

Third rail is old fashioned and should be done away with

Status
Not open for further replies.

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,350
400kV AC Grid Feeders cost considerably more but the newer 33-132Kv 3 phase Static Frequency Convertor versions are much cheaper than those
Some third rail installations on later projects like Weymouth and the last Merseyrail installations draw power from 11kV supplies! Those will remain much cheaper than even the comparatively cheap SFC type installations. Indeed, in the US some 750V traction substations are using low voltage supplies.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Lockwood

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2013
Messages
1,246
What happens when something goes wrong and pulls half the knitting down just outside Clapham Junction?
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,856
What happens when something goes wrong and pulls half the knitting down just outside Clapham Junction?
What happens now when a displaced conductor rail rips the shoes off a train?
 

CarrotPie

On Moderation
Joined
18 Mar 2021
Messages
1,128
Location
‎
What happens now when a displaced conductor rail rips the shoes off a train?
It doesn't bring down the juice rail on all the nearby lines. What happens if a driver puts up a pantograph at too high a speed? Paddington.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,623
Location
Northampton
It doesn't bring down the juice rail on all the nearby lines. What happens if a driver puts up a pantograph at too high a speed? Paddington.
Well you can mitigate that by using gantry portals not headspan wires.

In general answer to the thread - In a world of very different financial rules, you'd work out certain (mainly london) metro routes that justified retention of third rail, convert those to bottom contact and segregate the services as much as possible and then convert everything else to from third rail to OLE.
In a more practical world, the only conversion we are likely to see is West of Southampton, with possible dual systems Basingstoke to Worting (for OLE Reading-Salisbury-Redbridge). Limited extensions of 3rd rail should be permitted to give battery trains a certain amount of operation resilience (e.g. 1-2km beyond junctions) for any islands that remain.
More controversially, I also think certain lines with high risk footpaths and low traffic (Seaford mainly) should be considered for de electrification from a suitable point (Newhaven Harbour in this case), to go in tandem with a policy that every EMU has a battery capable of traction power in the event of an emergency cutoff.
 
Last edited:

Elecman

Established Member
Joined
31 Dec 2013
Messages
3,581
Location
Lancashire
Some third rail installations on later projects like Weymouth and the last Merseyrail installations draw power from 11kV supplies! Those will remain much cheaper than even the comparatively cheap SFC type installations. Indeed, in the US some 750V traction substations are using low voltage supplies.
The new Merseyrail feeders at Bromborough and Birkenhead West Float are supplied by Scottish Power Energy Networks at 33kV
 

CarrotPie

On Moderation
Joined
18 Mar 2021
Messages
1,128
Location
‎
Well you can mitigate that by using gantry portals not headspan wires.

In general answer to the thread - In a world of very different financial rules, you'd work out certain (mainly london) metro routes that justified retention of third rail, convert those to bottom contact and segregate the services as much as possible and then convert everything else to third rail.
In a more practical world, the only conversion we are likely to see is West of Southampton, with possible dual systems Basingstoke to Worting (for OLE Reading-Salisbury-Redbridge). Limited extensions of 3rd rail should be permitted to give battery trains a certain amount of operation resilience (e.g. 1-2km beyond junctions) for any islands that remain.
More controversially, I also think certain lines with high risk footpaths and low traffic (Seaford mainly) should be considered for de electrification from a suitable point (Newhaven Harbour in this case), to go in tandem with a policy that every EMU has a battery capable of traction power in the event of an emergency cutoff.
I agree with that, to an extent. Third rail extensions ought to be authorised for lines such as Uckfield, Hastings-Ashford and the North Downs Line, purely to remove the need for diesel units and displace valuable Turbostars. In the Land of Infinite Money, I still think the juice rail (bottom-contact) has its place in light rail and metro systems, due to their low speeds and how much smaller of an envelope third rail allows (especially in tunnels). Also, the commonality of PSDs on these systems nowadays helps the safety case somewhat. For mainline systems, however, knitting is definitively the answer.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,623
Location
Northampton
I agree with that, to an extent. Third rail extensions ought to be authorised for lines such as Uckfield, Hastings-Ashford and the North Downs Line, purely to remove the need for diesel units and displace valuable Turbostars.
id use battery units for these - third raik would only be extended beyond junctions or a nearby station for acceleration and to give a charging point not blocking other lines. None of the existing or potential islands need to be driven hard and fast in a way that justifies an external power supply.
In the Land of Infinite Money, I still think the juice rail (bottom-contact) has its place in light rail and metro systems, due to their low speeds and how much smaller of an envelope third rail allows (especially in tunnels). Also, the commonality of PSDs on these systems nowadays helps the safety case somewhat. For mainline systems, however, knitting is definitively the answer.
Agree with this
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,402
Location
Yorks
id use battery units for these - third raik would only be extended beyond junctions or a nearby station for acceleration and to give a charging point not blocking other lines. None of the existing or potential islands need to be driven hard and fast in a way that justifies an external power supply.

I don't think that's true.

Uckfield needs quite long trains, Redhill -Reading justifies 2-3 trains an hour. Marshlink needs more capacity.

Batteries are quite expensive things in terms of resources, some of which have to come from abroad. We would be better off using these for deep rural services, rather than South Eastern infill.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,583
Just upping the voltage slightly on third rail would help. There were ideas to increase it to 850V somewhere between Basingstoke and Southampton, I believe, which never happened. Third rail will never be the ideal solution but it's so widespread around the southeast that replacing it really isn't an option.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,623
Location
Northampton
I don't think that's true.

Uckfield needs quite long trains, Redhill -Reading justifies 2-3 trains an hour. Marshlink needs more capacity.
Uckfield only really needs long trains in the peaks and is an hourly single line service, its not that busy and doesn't justify the expense of things like grid connections. If it were to get trains from Falmer or Eastbourne through to London again, then the case for external power is much much stronger, but alas.
North downs has discontinuous electrification with short trains, its perfect for batteries. Or indeed bi-modes, if the lease for the 769s had been renewed...
Marshlink rarely needs more than 4 cars, perfect for a battery EMU that can change between Eastbourne and Ore and at Ashford.
Batteries are quite expensive things in terms of resources, some of which have to come from abroad. We would be better off using these for deep rural services, rather than South Eastern infill.
Batteries are expensive but so is getting additional power from the grid to the railway. Given the small number of units providing external power is of questionable value, even if we were talking OLE extensions. But then I'm approaching it with a viewpoint that every EMU should have a 'get me safe' traction battery capable of moving passengers into a platform at moderate speed in the event of an emergency shutdown.
Just upping the voltage slightly on third rail would help. There were ideas to increase it to 850V somewhere between Basingstoke and Southampton, I believe, which never happened. Third rail will never be the ideal solution but it's so widespread around the southeast that replacing it really isn't an option.
How would upping the voltage help either safety or non electrified lines?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,350
How would upping the voltage help either safety or non electrified lines?
Increasing the voltage would reduce traction currents significantly, which would improve the discrimination between a traction demand and an actual fault. That would have significant safety implications in some cases, but obviously would reduce headroom available for regeneration.

Obviously, if there is a superconducting cable on trackside then the effective impedance of the system will be very low indeed and the line could operate at 880V nominal or something without being a non-compliant 750V supply (which allows voltages to be 900V max).
 

CarrotPie

On Moderation
Joined
18 Mar 2021
Messages
1,128
Location
‎
Uckfield only really needs long trains in the peaks and is an hourly single line service, its not that busy and doesn't justify the expense of things like grid connections. If it were to get trains from Falmer or Eastbourne through to London again, then the case for external power is much much stronger, but alas.
North downs has discontinuous electrification with short trains, its perfect for batteries. Or indeed bi-modes, if the lease for the 769s had been renewed...
Marshlink rarely needs more than 4 cars, perfect for a battery EMU that can change between Eastbourne and Ore and at Ashford.
The main reason I support these three infill electrification schemes is because it enables Southern to get rid of their 171 mini fleet and GWR to send their Turbos elsewhere. Southern could then have a(n all-electric) fleet made up entirely of Electrostars, instead of having to maintain a diesel fleet or a mini/microfleet of BEMUs.

Uckfield could be relegated to an hourly shuttle to Oxted using, say, 4-car BEMUs, but should it? It'd get better service if it was electrified and 377s could run half-hourly to London, without the need for extra complexity.

Marshlink is the only line for which batteries would be realistic, perhaps using its own microfleet of 2-car BMUs that could be based out of St Leonards depot, instead of having to mix with the rest of the Southern fleet. Then again, electrifying it would allow Class 395s to reach Hastings.

I agree ideally we wouldn't have third rail on the mainline, but this is the world we've inherited, and it ain't gonna change any time soon.
 
Last edited:

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,623
Location
Northampton
Uckfield could be relegated to an hourly shuttle to Oxted using, say, 4-car BEMUs, but should it? It'd get better service if it was electrified and 377s could run half-hourly to London, without the need for extra complexity.
Nowhere did I say it should be a shuttle. Uckfield trains absolutely should continue to London. However electrification doesn't allow half-hourly unless you're also redoubling, and Uckfield doesn't need to go half hourly unless it opens through to the coast.
Marshlink is the only line for which batteries would be realistic, perhaps using its own microfleet of 2-car BMUs that could be based out of St Leonards depot, instead of having to mix with the rest of the Southern fleet. Then again, electrifying it would allow Class 395s to reach Hastings.
No, have 4 car BEMUs that are fundamentally the same as EMUs is far the better solution. And 395s to Hastings would be pointless as they can't get from Rye to HS1 at Ashford.
Iagree ideally we wouldn't have third rail on the mainline, but this is the world we've inherited, and it ain't gonna change any time soon.
Agree with this.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,583
How would upping the voltage help either safety or non electrified lines?
Won't do anything for safety then nor would dropping the voltage either, don't know why you're even making that point as wasn't making any reference to safety?
What it will do is improve efficiency slightly, that may help on non-electrified lines as may make case slightly better economically?
What I was intending was that existing third rail systems will be slightly more efficient, therefore cheaper to run.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,623
Location
Northampton
Won't do anything for safety then nor would dropping the voltage either, don't know why you're even making that point as wasn't making any reference to safety?
What it will do is improve efficiency slightly, that may help on non-electrified lines as may make case slightly better economically?
What I was intending was that existing third rail systems will be slightly more efficient, therefore cheaper to run.
Apologies getting various themes crossed, as safety and further electrification are the two main problems people try and solve by converting away from Third rail, with the running costs of it not being discussed as a major issue too often.
 

CarrotPie

On Moderation
Joined
18 Mar 2021
Messages
1,128
Location
‎
Nowhere did I say it should be a shuttle. Uckfield trains absolutely should continue to London. However electrification doesn't allow half-hourly unless you're also redoubling, and Uckfield doesn't need to go half hourly unless it opens through to the coast.
But if you have BEMUs, they can't interwork with other services (unless you buy lots of them, which is a waste of batteries), which decreases utilisation. A shuttle to Oxted would require 4x4-car units, maybe 5 to be on the safe side. A through London service (which could be provided by the shuttle connecting with 12-car East Grinstead trains) would require 10-12 units, increasing costs. Even without redoubling, the current layout would allow at least 2tph, if not half-hourly.
No, have 4 car BEMUs that are fundamentally the same as EMUs is far the better solution.
How does that help? Again, it comes down to operational practicality: 5x2-car units allow different loadings to be catered for, while not running them on other lines (same points as Uckfield).
And 395s to Hastings would be pointless as they can't get from Rye to HS1 at Ashford.
Fair's fair, but I think 395s to Hastings (maybe peaks+Sats only) would be of use to many.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,623
Location
Northampton
But if you have BEMUs, they can't interwork with other services (unless you buy lots of them, which is a waste of batteries), which decreases utilisation. A shuttle to Oxted would require 4x4-car units, maybe 5 to be on the safe side. A through London service (which could be provided by the shuttle connecting with 12-car East Grinstead trains) would require 10-12 units, increasing costs. Even without redoubling, the current layout would allow at least 2tph, if not half-hourly.
EMUs designed to accept a modular power pack that can be rotated through units as required would be my preferred solution.
How does that help? Again, it comes down to operational practicality: 5x2-car units allow different loadings to be catered for, while not running them on other lines (same points as Uckfield).
Having as much commonality between unit designs as possible reduces training and maintenance costs.
Fair's fair, but I think 395s to Hastings (maybe peaks+Sats only) would be of use to many.
Various ideas for fast services to Hastings have been pushed, none of them have been shown to give enough benefit for the disruption to others that they cause getting into the timetable.
 

CarrotPie

On Moderation
Joined
18 Mar 2021
Messages
1,128
Location
‎
EMUs designed to accept a modular power pack that can be rotated through units as required would be my preferred solution.
Why? Rotating it through units would require a ton of extra units, which Southern don't need.

When it was pushed by the MP, the economic analysis demonstrated it wouldn't be.
That's interesting, but I suppose SE to CHX/CST is fast enough for most.
Having as much commonality between unit designs as possible reduces training and maintenance costs.
You won't get anything simililiar to their current fleet than battery Aventras, but if St Leonards are the only depot, with a microfleet of BMUs...Vivarail!
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,194
in a ideal world where all third rail national rail lines were suddenly abolished and became OHLE, what would happen to situations like the northern city line then? third rail becoming a proprietary system?
Yes - routes such as Northern City Line, East London Line already operate with isolated third rail systems.
Imo I think redesigning the third rail system to be more energy efficient and safer would be better long term for the third rail network.
How would this be achieved?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,402
Location
Yorks
Uckfield only really needs long trains in the peaks and is an hourly single line service, its not that busy and doesn't justify the expense of things like grid connections. If it were to get trains from Falmer or Eastbourne through to London again, then the case for external power is much much stronger, but alas.
North downs has discontinuous electrification with short trains, its perfect for batteries. Or indeed bi-modes, if the lease for the 769s had been renewed...
Marshlink rarely needs more than 4 cars, perfect for a battery EMU that can change between Eastbourne and Ore and at Ashford.

I'm not convinced that Southern EMU's are going to carry motive power batteries as a matter of course. I think the greater benefit is that the normal fleet of EMU's can integrate these routes with the rest.

In terms of the Uckfield line extending further, this should be the strategic aim.
 

PGAT

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2022
Messages
2,132
Location
Selhurst
But if you have BEMUs, they can't interwork with other services (unless you buy lots of them, which is a waste of batteries), which decreases utilisation.
Does that really matter if the 171s are already tied to their routes anyways?
 

thomalex

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2021
Messages
532
Location
Leeds
Long live the third rail. Seems much more reliable than overhead power lines that seem to be in trouble every time we get a storm.
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,442
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
There must be a study somewhere of energy losses vs an equivalent 25kV installation ( I'm sure there's some at the RSSB, but I'm apparently particularily bad at searching the research archive these days ) - does anyone have one or the results of one handy?
Yes - it's included in research project T950. The Research Brief is available to anyone with a free RSSB account - see the link and text below. The full report is behind RSSB's "premium" paywall (which I do find annoying since RSSB's research is paid for by DfT - i.e. the taxpayer). Remember it was written in 2011 and that the work was initially prompted by widespread disruption of the 3rd rail network by snow in the preceding winter.

https://www.rssb.co.uk/-/media/Proj...h-Projects/2020/07/06/17/53/T950_rb_final.pdf

Introduction - This research was sponsored by the Future Electrification Group (FEG), and its parent body, the Vehicle/Train Energy System Interface Committee (V/TE SIC). Electrification of the main line network was started in the early 20th Century and employed a wide range of distribution systems. The need for common standards has been the subject of government and industry study in the UK since at least 1920. The most recent comprehensive report was published in 1955. It recommended that 25kV AC be adopted as the standard for all future main line electrification on the grounds of its higher energy efficiency, ability to support higher speeds and higher capacity. Nevertheless, the UK still uses nearly as much 3rd rail system as the rest of the world put together. This research supports the evidence base for short- to medium term decisions about the renewal of electrification infrastructure, and contributes to the goals of improving business performance and reducing unnecessary costs. It also contributes to the Energy Strategy 'game changer' identified under the auspices of Technical Strategy Leadership Group (TSLG) and supports the rail industry's Sustainable Development Principles. The issue addressed is the long-term future of the 750V DC 3rd rail electrification system used on a majority of routes south of London. An opportunity is presented by the need for renewal of the DC distribution equipment in substantial areas of the network within the next ten years. The high energy losses associated with this system, the need for upgrades driven by minor changes in timetabling, and its susceptibility to disruption in ice and snow suggest that alternatives to the DC electrification system should be considered. This represents a once in 40 years opportunity. This research, though started independently, and before the House of Commons Transport Select Committee raised the issue of 3rd rail winter performance during its review of the impact of winter weather on the UK transport network, is likely to form the basis of the industry's response in relation to the 3rd rail issue

Aim - The objective of the research was to consider long-term options for modification or replacement of the 750V DC 3rd rail electrification system, to determine their technical and economic feasibility and to present a preliminary economic case for the preferred option, with an indication of timescales for conversion. The alternative electrification options agreed at an initial stakeholder workshop and considered during the course of the research were: • Modification of the 750V DC system to use a bottom contact or side contact third rail. • Conversion of the DC system to overhead distribution at 1.5kV or 3kV. • Replacement of the DC system with overhead distribution at 25kV AC

Findings and Benefits - Modification of the 3rd rail system to bottom or side contact would be very expensive because of the need to clear lineside structures, including bridge girders and platforms, to provide more space for the conductor rail and shoegear. This option would offer only winterisation benefits. Conversion to any form of overhead electrification would offer significant additional benefits in the form of reduced track maintenance and renewal costs, some improvement in energy efficiency and a reduction in the risk of electrocution. However the energy efficiency improvement delivered by 25kV overhead electrification is very much higher than the other options. It is in the order of 20% at the supply point. This represents a very large potential gain to the industry. Of equal importance to the energy efficiency gain is the potential for the 25kV AC system to sustain the substantial increases in electrical demand which are likely to be needed to deliver additional passenger and freight capacity in the future, compared with the 3rd rail DC system which is approaching its limits in terms of ability to deliver power to high-frequency services over lengthy routes. The estimated capital costs of replacement of the 3rd rail system with 25kV AC overhead are less per track kilometre than full renewal of the 3rd rail system, even taking into account the need to provide additional clearance through bridges and tunnels. However, for operational reasons the replacement would have to be carried out on a 'line of route' basis, which may mean some DC equipment being replaced before it is life expired, so there will be some increase in costs in the short-term. Costs of signalling immunisation are relatively small. About 25% of all DC rolling stock is already dual voltage (750V/ 25kV) and a further 40% is designed for easy conversion, requiring only the addition of pantograph, transformer and controlled rectifier, set in space already provided. The balance of rolling stock will require special provision and may not be worth conversion, considering its remaining life. In most cases the older rolling stock is likely to be replaced during the envisaged conversion timescales. An outline implementation strategy and insertion plan have been developed which suggest an 'outside in' approach consistent with the patterns of use of dual voltage and readily convertible rolling stock, starting at the extremities of routes away from London and working inwards. Complete conversion of the network would take a minimum of 15 years and would need agreement of a common strategy with Transport for London, allowing for the areas of overlap with London Underground. In summary, the findings of the research project are: • Reduced cost - The costs of running a DC electrified railway are well in excess of an equivalent AC electrified railway, taking into account energy usage (including losses), maintenance and renewals. Research by Network Rail and train operators has quantified the high electrical losses associated with the 3rd rail system, particularly on relatively long distance routes. • Increased performance - 25kV AC allows the train to accelerate faster, giving an average time saved for a stopping service in the region of 3-5%. The improved performance could also be used to relieve congestion or provide better perturbation recovery. • Increased capacity - the 25kV AC system would support expected future increases in passenger demand, allowing for increased energy consumption by as much as 50%, whilst an equivalent upgrade to the current DC system would not be economic. • Technical - The DC system poses more challenges as it gets upgraded because of the thermal capacity limitations of the current equipment. These challenges can only be addressed by providing more paths for the current flow; however terminating those paths is very challenging. For main line purposes 3rd rail is a technically obsolete system. • Improved safety - Overhead distribution reduces the risk of electrocution compared with third rail. The benefits arising from replacement of the 750V DC 3rd rail system with 25kV AC overhead may also be considered from the perspective of the various stakeholders: • All parties will benefit from the reduction in sensitivity to ice and snow. • Passengers will benefit from increased system performance, which can support reduced journey times and higher route capacity. • Train operators will benefit from the reduction in energy consumption. • Network Rail will benefit from reduction in the capital costs of renewal of the electrification infrastructure, from a reduction in the cost of track maintenance and renewal, and from reduced electrical distribution charges and costs of control. • Taxpayers and passengers will benefit from reduced whole life system costs. • Society in general will benefit from the reduction in carbon emissions associated with reduced energy consumption and from the reduction in risk of electrocution of members of the public who accidentally or deliberately stray onto the track. • Additional benefits, considered too remote for evaluation in this study, include energy and operational cost savings from electric operation of freight and cross-country passenger services, and greater flexibility in cascading rolling stock

Conclusion: The conclusion of this research is that replacement of the 750V DC system with 25kV AC appears to be both feasible and economically desirable. The economic case is likely to improve as energy costs increase over time. The affordability of the change has yet to be determined, but an opportunity exists to start the replacement process within the next industry Control Period so that the advantage can be taken of the relatively large quantity of DC equipment becoming life expired at that time. To make such a change is a very significant decision to be taken by industry and government (as funder), and would require a large amount of further work to develop a whole industry business and RSSB 5 implementation plan to take account of the impact on train operators and the industry's customers.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,350
Yes - it's included in research project T950. The Research Brief is available to anyone with a free RSSB account - see the link and text below. The full report is behind RSSB's "premium" paywall (which I do find annoying since RSSB's research is paid for by DfT - i.e. the taxpayer). Remember it was written in 2011 and that the work was initially prompted by widespread disruption of the 3rd rail network by snow in the preceding winter.

https://www.rssb.co.uk/-/media/Proj...h-Projects/2020/07/06/17/53/T950_rb_final.pdf
This report was part of the delusional period for Network Rail when the HOPS train was going to make 25kV electrification cheap and easy.
It then turned out to be useless and the price of 25kV started to spiral.

I very much doubt the business case for 25kV conversion would be anything other than appalling today. Even Network Rail now admits third rail electrification is cheaper than 25kV
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,334
Location
Reading
This report was part of the delusional period for Network Rail when the HOPS train was going to make 25kV electrification cheap and easy.
It then turned out to be useless and the price of 25kV started to spiral.

I very much doubt the business case for 25kV conversion would be anything other than appalling today. Even Network Rail now admits third rail electrification is cheaper than 25kV
The HOPS train was 'useless' because it was designed to install the size and depth of foundations at the positions which were common in Europe and, until the GW electrification, also the UK.

In order to meet the changed DfT requirements for 140mph operation and wiring support Network Rail changed the OHLE specifications but nobody changed the HOPS specification...

It was not the HOPS train which was 'useless', but Network Rail's and the DfT's project management.
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,442
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
This report was part of the delusional period for Network Rail when the HOPS train was going to make 25kV electrification cheap and easy.
It then turned out to be useless and the price of 25kV started to spiral.
I agree that the cost estimates in the paper now appear hopelessly optimistic, but the HOPS train was only one of a number of factors - see below.
The HOPS train was 'useless' because it was designed to install the size and depth of foundations at the positions which were common in Europe and, until the GW electrification, also the UK.

In order to meet the changed DfT requirements for 140mph operation and wiring support Network Rail changed the OHLE specifications but nobody changed the HOPS specification...

It was not the HOPS train which was 'useless', but Network Rail's and the DfT's project management.
It was a lot more complicated than that, and in fact the spec seems to have been changed several times. And why NR decided to design a new system rather than adopt one of the proven designs that were available is hard to get a grip on. Anyone who wants to get better understanding of the problems with the OLE programme between 2012 and 2017 should read the RIA "Electrification Cost Challenge" - freely available in the public domain. To quote from the "what went wrong" section of the Exec Summary:

The (Great Western Electrification Programme) was over-ambitious in trying to introduce internationally novel technology – Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) and Plant – on a live project resulting in the design and development of the equipment being incomplete before construction started. Additionally, there was a non-negotiable date for the introduction of new electric trains over which industry had no control, announced before the infrastructure project had been fully scoped and costed, and which added a further major level of risk to timely and cost-efficient delivery. All this against the background of an industry that had not undertaken an electrification project the scale of GWEP for 20 years and so skills and experience needed to be rebuilt. To further compound the challenge, an unprecedented number of other new electrification projects were commenced at the same time, all requiring and competing for similar resources.
But please read the full report!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top