Is new third rail totally banned in the UK?

[melmerby]

Hi all

 

Whilst reading about bi-modes for Oxenholme - Windermere I was struck by the fact that the units to be used are a newly created bi-mode version of the class 319, designated class 769.

 

One of the reasons (apart from cash!) for not electrifying to Windermere was so that there would be no despoiling of the Lake District by OHLE (not to mention the rebuilding of several road bridges for clearance purposes)

 

So, why not third rail?

The units are already 750v ready and wouldn't need any mods at all and third rail wouldn't "despoil" the countryside or require raising any bridges.

Or is third rail totally banned now even for a short fill-in?

 

Cheers

 

keith

 

 

[Fat Controller]

Hi all

 

Whilst reading about bi-modes for Oxenholme - Windermere I was struck by the fact that the units to be used are a newly created bi-mode version of the class 319, designated class 769.

 

One of the reasons (apart from cash!) for not electrifying to Windermere was so that there would be no despoiling of the Lake District by OHLE (not to mention the rebuilding of several road bridges for clearance purposes)

 

So, why not third rail?

The units are already 750v ready and wouldn't need any mods at all and third rail wouldn't "despoil" the countryside or require raising any bridges.

Or is third rail totally banned now even for a short fill-in?

 

Cheers

 

keith

This may be of interest:- http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/17621/dc-electrification-policy-statement.pdf

Not an outright ban, but certainly 'we'd rather you didn't'; the suggestion is that you'd have to have some form of screening, rather than the current exposed rail.

[iands]

Hi all

 

Whilst reading about bi-modes for Oxenholme - Windermere I was struck by the fact that the units to be used are a newly created bi-mode version of the class 319, designated class 769.

 

One of the reasons (apart from cash!) for not electrifying to Windermere was so that there would be no despoiling of the Lake District by OHLE (not to mention the rebuilding of several road bridges for clearance purposes)

 

So, why not third rail?

The units are already 750v ready and wouldn't need any mods at all and third rail wouldn't "despoil" the countryside or require raising any bridges.

Or is third rail totally banned now even for a short fill-in?

 

Cheers

 

keith

I don't think 3rd rail is banned, it just comes down to economics and logistics. Plus a bi-mode fleet wouldn't be restricted to operation over just one isolated route.

 

Regards, Ian.

[melmerby]

This may be of interest:- http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/17621/dc-electrification-policy-statement.pdf

Not an outright ban, but certainly 'we'd rather you didn't'; the suggestion is that you'd have to have some form of screening, rather than the current exposed rail.

Bottom contact as on DLR?

Just a modified shoe beam required to convert the trains

 

Keith

[ColinK]

The reason for not electifying the Windermere line is purely money. Electrification was promised by one MP without the scheme having bring costed or planned. No wonder its not happening.

[Reorte]

Thought I'd read somewhere that it would only be considered (which perhaps isn't the same as being banned) for extensions to existing third rail networks.

[rodent279]

Thought I'd read somewhere that it would only be considered (which perhaps isn't the same as being banned) for extensions to existing third rail networks.

That's what I thought, though that does mean that if something like DLR were being planned now, it would have to be OHL.

I can't see what's wrong with the DLR bottom contact shrouded system though. Together with maintenance procedures designed around doing work when the timetable permits, I can't see how there is much more risk to track workers.

[TravisM]

I think it's now DfT policy to go for OHLE rather than 3rd rail and I seem to remember reading that existing 3rd rail on the Southern Region will be replaced by OHLE when it's due for replacement.  Regardless of whether you go for 3rd rail or overhead on the Windermere branch, you still need sub stations and other ancillary equipment, so if you went for bi-mode, you need none of that.

[Jim]

I wonder how they're going to "plug the gap" between Ashford and Hastings?

[Dunsignalling]

AIUI new 3rd rail electrification is only likely to be approved where it will be "filling-in" i.e. joining up existing areas that already have it.

 

I presume the traffic over Ashford-Hastings route doesn't justify the cost of doing so, otherwise it should, logically, have been done long ago. 

 

ISTR reading somewhere that the bottom contact pick-up as used on the DLR is only suited to relatively low speeds. However, according to Wikipedia, the top speed on the DLR is 100kph/62mph and I don't imagine anything more would be necessary on the Windermere branch. 

 

John

Edited January 17, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[iands]

That's what I thought, though that does mean that if something like DLR were being planned now, it would have to be OHL.

I can't see what's wrong with the DLR bottom contact shrouded system though. Together with maintenance procedures designed around doing work when the timetable permits, I can't see how there is much more risk to track workers.

The DLR is essentially a Metro system, I don't think the Windermere branch would be classed, or operated, the same. The bi-mode option for a "rural branch line" makes perfect sense.

 

Regards, Ian.

[rodent279]

I think it's now DfT policy to go for OHLE rather than 3rd rail and I seem to remember reading that existing 3rd rail on the Southern Region will be replaced by OHLE when it's due for replacement. Regardless of whether you go for 3rd rail or overhead on the Windermere branch, you still need sub stations and other ancillary equipment, so if you went for bi-mode, you need none of that.

There has been talk of gradual replacement of ex-SR 3rd rail system with 25kV OLE, as it comes up for renewal. The example I was told of was the coastal route between Portsmouth & Brighton. Something like 20 DC substations & feeder stations could be replaced by about 4 25kV feeder stations.

I don't know how much work would be required to get the necessary clearances under bridges & in tunnels, but I would think there is a point where the cost of new feeder stations, OLE & clearance work will be less than the cost of renewing a couple of dozen feeder stations etc, and the 3rd rail.

Plus of course there is a benefit in terms of safer working conditions for staff working trackside. It's a sensible way forward.

Edited January 17, 2018 by rodent279

[Jim]

AIUI new 3rd rail electrification is only likely to be approved where it will be "filling-in" i.e. joining up existing areas that already have it.

 

I presume the traffic over Ashford-Hastings route doesn't justify the cost of doing it, otherwise it should, logically, have been done long ago. 

 

ISTR reading somewhere that the bottom contact pick-up as used on the DLR is only suited to relatively low speeds.

 

John

There has been talk of running 395s down to Hastings.

That would mean a huge junction rebuild at Ashford.

What about the mode of electrification? 395s have both..

Or even a new batch of bi-modal 395 type units?

 

It'll be interesting to see what decisions are made....if any..!

[Dunsignalling]

There has been talk of gradual replacement of ex-SR 3rd rail system with 25kV OLE, as it comes up for renewal. The example I was told of was the coastal route between Portsmouth & Brighton. Something like 20 DC substations & feeder stations could be replaced by about 4 25kV feeder stations.

I don't know how much work would be required to get the necessary clearances under bridges & in tunnels, but I would think there is a point where the cost of new feeder stations, OLE & clearance work will be less than the cost of renewing a couple of dozen feeder stations etc, and the 3rd rail.

Plus of course there is a benefit in terms of safer working conditions for staff working trackside. It's a sensible way forward.

"Gradual" is the word that worries me.

 

Given the traffic density on most 3rd rail routes, unless all trains were bi-voltage, the juice rail would have to remain in place until the OHLE was complete throughout. Installing OHLE on intensively worked lines with live conductor rails isn't going to be easy, quick or cheap.

 

John  

[lapford34102]

 

There has been talk of running 395s down to Hastings.

That would mean a huge junction rebuild at Ashford.

Instead of what would be a very big change to the track layout they could evidently use the Eurostar platforms though quite what the inplications would be I'm not sure, ceasing E* stopping at Ashford ?

Electrifying the Marshlink line might be financially viable with a bit of creative thinking as part of an improvement scheme for the wider area

 

For those with a bit of spare time https://www.railfuture.org.uk/Marshlink

 

More 395's (or equivalent) would be essential.

 

Stu

[melmerby]

Or even a new batch of bi-modal 395 type units?

 

 

They are called class 800!

 

Keith

[black and decker boy]

TBH, converting 3rd rail to OLE was an uncosted aspiration in the giddy heyday if DfT promoting OLE. Now that OLE is a dirty word again, the clearance issue is now in play and money is no longer on a free & open ended cheque, it will never happen.

 

As for Windermere, 3rd rail would need substantially more electrical substation feeders than the OLE which makes it even more cost prohibitive, even if you could do a risk assessment and get it signed off.

 

All post privatisation EMU builds are dual voltage DC and AC by design & hold dual appeals but mainly only fitted for one or the other. The ROSCOs made them that way so they have more options at the end of a lease. The 387s for example are running on both sides of the Thames in AC or DC only form.

Edited January 17, 2018 by black and decker boy

[298]

One of the reasons (apart from cash!) for not electrifying to Windermere was so that there would be no despoiling of the Lake District by OHLE.

 

Try telling that to the Swiss- they've even put pantographs on Steam engines....

[Trog]

Is third rail really all that dangerous anyway.

 

More expensive due to substations, and limited in speed and power maybe, but dangerous I am not so sure.

[black and decker boy]

Is third rail really all that dangerous anyway.

 

More expensive due to substations, and limited in speed and power maybe, but dangerous I am not so sure.

An exposed live electrical conductor at ground level has to be inherently more dangerous than on 5m in the air. Whether that increase in danger should make such systems redundant is a different matter

[Reorte]

Is third rail really all that dangerous anyway.

 

More expensive due to substations, and limited in speed and power maybe, but dangerous I am not so sure.

Are they more expensive? Substations aren't cheap things so I'm not saying that they're not, but not having to fit masts in, alter bridges etc. should be quite a saving compared to installing overhead. Just a pity that a battery that can power a train at a reasonable speed all day is firmly in science fiction territory really, electric without the infrastructure expense.

[royaloak]

Is third rail really all that dangerous anyway.

 

More expensive due to substations, and limited in speed and power maybe, but dangerous I am not so sure.

It is only dangerous to those who shouldnt be anywhere near it in the first place, but unfortunately some desk based warrior has decided having such 'dangerous' things where trespassers could hurt themselves is no longer acceptable.

An exposed live electrical conductor at ground level has to be inherently more dangerous than on 5m in the air. Whether that increase in danger should make such systems redundant is a different matter

Dangerous to who exactly?

 

The only people it is dangerous to are people who shouldnt be anywhere near it in the first place!

[iands]

Is third rail really all that dangerous anyway.

 

More expensive due to substations, and limited in speed and power maybe, but dangerous I am not so sure.

Have you ever worked on or in the vicinity of 3rd rail? As with most things it shouldn't be dangerous if treated "with respect", much the same as OLE, or the railway in general. But the fact is a live rail approximately 6 inches off the ground is very much a danger to the workforce. Regardless off all the required training, proficiencies and safeguards, accidents can and do happen, often with catastrophic results for those involved.

[royaloak]

I do believe TROG has walked a mile or two of our rail network and attacked it with a shovel or three!

Edited January 17, 2018 by royaloak

[melmerby]

Just a pity that a battery that can power a train at a reasonable speed all day is firmly in science fiction territory really, electric without the infrastructure expense.

I thought that could have been a good substitute for somewhere like Windermere but it doesn't meet the currently blinkered DaFT bi-mode (meaning diesel) everything.

 

According to one of the professional railway websites current battery performance is good for maybe 80km at a similar performance to the OHLE.

I would think that would be ideal for short branches away from a main electrified route with plenty of opportunity to re-charge.

 

Keith