Is new third rail totally banned in the UK?

[iands]

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

As have I.

 

Regards, Ian.

[Nearholmer]

Speaking as a person who has worked in the area of railway electrification on and off for c40 years, and would claim to have a fair grasp of the issues technically, economically, operationally and safety-wise, I believe that there is a good deal of muddled thinking in the air around the question of 3rd rail systems right now, which will eventually come right when people think more clearly.

 

Kevin

Edited January 17, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Jim]

They are called class 800!

 

Keith

Ah ha..!

Indeed so, a Tri-modal unit us needed..!

[wombatofludham]

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

I was thinking something similar. There are trams running on battery between sections of overhead line, and Midland Metro are planning something similar for extensions which is potentially going to save money. In theory it ought to be possible to have an EMU with battery packs, with perhaps the kind of "recharging point" overhead section planned for electric buses and operational on the Continent installed at stations to boost the battery packs. In that way an all shacks service could probably run on electric for fairly long stretches. As I say, in theory, I'm not sure how the use of regular recharging might affect battery life, or for that matter the relative costs - but I would have thought putting up a recharging point/overhead rail would be less expensive than a full wiring job. On buses they achieve about 15-20 miles on a single 5 minute fast charge, whether it would be the same for a train is a moot point. However, it could be an option for short-ish branches off an electrified main line.

[iands]

I was thinking something similar. There are trams running on battery between sections of overhead line, and Midland Metro are planning something similar for extensions which is potentially going to save money. In theory it ought to be possible to have an EMU with battery packs, with perhaps the kind of "recharging point" overhead section planned for electric buses and operational on the Continent installed at stations to boost the battery packs. In that way an all shacks service could probably run on electric for fairly long stretches. As I say, in theory, I'm not sure how the use of regular recharging might affect battery life, or for that matter the relative costs - but I would have thought putting up a recharging point/overhead rail would be less expensive than a full wiring job. On buses they achieve about 15-20 miles on a single 5 minute fast charge, whether it would be the same for a train is a moot point. However, it could be an option for short-ish branches off an electrified main line.

It would be interesting, from an experimental viewpoint at least, to see how a battery powered unit would cope with the 8 and a bit kilometre rising gradient in the Oxenholme - Windermere direction (ignoring any weather related issues for the moment). Although I assume that a "traction battery" would be separate from other battery packs required for all the other on-board systems required to operate, the weight of such a unit, especially if full of passengers, might present a few performance issues especially if current line speeds are to be maintained or even bettered. Also the recharging times required at each end to fully recharge the battery/ies might negate a quick turn-around that other traction forms can offer.

 

Regards, Ian.

[phil-b259]

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.

 

Quite so.

 

3rd rail electrification also is a right pain with trackwork. The amount of times we S&T or the p-way find ourselves unable to undertake routine maintenance activities because a temporary isolation is needed so we can get our tools / hands up against the con rail are many - particularly around pointwork.

 

Electricity belongs up in the air out of our way - not on the ground where we are trying to work. Its telling that when questioned that virtually none of those so actively backing it have EVER had to work around it.

[Edwin_m]

A few years ago I tried to find an official reference on the Web to the "policy" of only allowing third rail as an extension to an existing third rail route, but couldn't.  The nearest I could find was someone from Crossrail quoting it to a Parliamentary committee as a reason not to use third rail on Maidenhead viaduct. 

 

However more recently ORR has published a policy statement (http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/17621/dc-electrification-policy-statement.pdf) which raises the bar for agreeing third rail schemes.  Someone promoting one, even as an extension, has to be able to demonstrate that all alternatives are "grossly disproportionate" in comparison.  This would not appear to apply to a system such as DLR with shrouded third rail and very limited access to the track.  There are however some difficulties with gauging if adopting this on the national network - the bottom contact rail would have to be outside the gauge

 

Rather like the increased clearances for OLE that has caused so much concern, this policy appears to be justified mainly by reference to standards.  There is a reference to some Network Rail work suggesting the risk is four times greater than with OLE, and to the RSSB risk model, but as far as I know the analysis that underlies these sources is not publically available. 

[Trog]

Have you ever worked on or in the vicinity of 3rd rail?

 

Yes for 36 years.

 

The trade off to my mind safety wise is between a rail underfoot where you are more likely to come into contact with it but at relatively low voltage so you will usually get away with it, and a wire that while out of the way is at such a high voltage that even going near it is virtually a death sentence.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Trog

[Dunsignalling]

It would be possible to negate any charging difficulties arising from battery traction, albeit at significant cost in terms of the number of units required to work the service. But it would be practical, especially on a self-contained route.

 

For the sake of demonstration, imagine the service is operated as a pure shuttle using a single train. 

 

If two were to be employed, each could be recharged in turn whilst the other ran a round trip, giving time for a substantial boost. 

 

If three were in use, each would only need to make a one-way trip, at the completion of which the other unit at that end of the line would take over for the run back.

 

Obviously, where the normal service involves more than one train, expanding this principle becomes very capital-intensive in terms of both rolling stock numbers and the infrastructure (pointwork, platforms and signalling) required to stable and exchange units between trips. There would, however, be no requirement for additional traincrew.   

 

John

Edited January 17, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[Michael Delamar]

Kirkby to Wigan Wallgate would have been ideal. But I dont think itll happen now with 3rd rail.

[ColinK]

When considering the Windermere branch, don’t forget that the trains don’t just shuttle between Oxenholme and Windermere, they go to places like Preston and Manchester too. So if you went for battery or 3rd rail, you would need lots of sets fitted with the equipment. While if you go for bi-mode ie diesel generators under the floor on 319s, the trains will do many miles on electric power while lugging heavy diesel gen sets, so more weight, more power needed.

 

What has got lots of us annoyed, is that scrapping north west electrification schemes was justified as new technologies were now available - those new technologies being the above mentioned diesel generators retro fitted to 30 year old cast off southern England emus. So electrification is replaced by diesel power instead.

 

This was said by DafT at the same time as they were announcing the end of diesel powered road vehicles because of nasty emissions.

 

Or in simple terms, instead of introducing electric trains to Windermere etc, your getting diesel trains, but we are banning road diesels because of their emissions. This nonsense was pointed out to Chris Grayling who either didn’t understand the nonsense put out by his Department, or chose to ignore it.

[jim.snowdon]

The construction of new top-contact DC electrification is not permitted by ORR unless it is an infill or minor extension to the existing system, and even then, only with a robust assessment as to why doing anything else, ie AC electrification, is not practicable. Schemes like the Uckfield line or infills to allow through electric operation between Reading and Redhill might be considered, but extending to Salisbury or beyond, for example, would almost certainly not be entertained. A critical element in this is that an exposed conductor rail such as that required for the current generations of DC main line rolling stock is contrary to the Electricity at Work Regulations, and its continuing existence is entirely down to acceptance that achieving compliance other than over a very extended period is beyond being reasonably practicable.

 

The bottom contact system as used by DLR is tolerated only because the contact surface of the rail, although exposed, is not open to accidental contact and the rest ofthe rail is protected by an insulating covering. Even then, protective measures were still applied to deal with the risk created by exposed collector shoes between the platform edge and the train. Although bottom contact has been generally confined to metro systems, some of them quite sizeable, it is as viable a system for main line as top contact third rail. Top contact side-entry, where the conductor rail is enclosed except for a slot through which the paddle type shoe passes is relatively common in the US, where an early main line example was the New York Central's electrification into Grand Central Station.

 

Low voltage DC electrification, especially as low as 750V, is expensive to install in terms of the number of substations with transformer:rectifier sets and the need for a high voltage distribution network to feed them, especially in rural areas, but cheap in terms of what is on the track. High voltage AC may not need the substations, but is expensive in terms of the track infrastructure, as well as the added costs for getting clearances through structures, to the extent that there is not much difference in the overall costs. AC traction, being single phase, can prove difficult to integrate into the three phase electrical supply network, such that it really needs to be plugged into the National Grid at voltage >132kV in order not to cause significant imbalance; connecting to the more local distribution networks at lower voltages can be problematic, yet there are significant areas of the country where getting access to the Grid is not easy, or cheap. That might change with the advent of converter:inverter AC substations, which can present a balanced three-phase load, but these are not yet off the shelf items.

 

Jim

[roythebus]

The German railways had battery electric railcars for many years.

 

as for the suggestion that BR units could be converted or adapted for bottom contact 3rd rail, I doubt it as they then couldn't be used for top contact 3rd rail. Think about it, th collectors would have to be sprung the other way to start with.

[stovepipe]

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

 

Well we did it the other way round and put boilers in the SR electric locos......

[pete_mcfarlane]

In theory it ought to be possible to have an EMU with battery packs, with perhaps the kind of "recharging point" overhead section planned for electric buses and operational on the Continent installed at stations to boost the battery packs.  

 

There's nothing theoretical about it - the Great Southern had such a set up in the 1930s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drumm_Battery_Train

[jim.snowdon]

Yes for 36 years.

 

The trade off to my mind safety wise is between a rail underfoot where you are more likely to come into contact with it but at relatively low voltage so you will usually get away with it, and a wire that while out of the way is at such a high voltage that even going near it is virtually a death sentence.

Agreed. Whilst anything at traction voltage has to be respected, at least the conductor rail will not reach out and grab you, unlike the OLE. You need to be doing something deliberately risky to end up either in contact or causing a short circuit, but, it has to be acknowledged that there are a significant number of track based maintenance tasks where the proximity of the live conductor rail is a real risk.

It's not the way you would electrify a railway if you were starting now, but it is a product of the technology of its generation.

 

Jim

[royaloak]

Quite so.

 

3rd rail electrification also is a right pain with trackwork. The amount of times we S&T or the p-way find ourselves unable to undertake routine maintenance activities because a temporary isolation is needed so we can get our tools / hands up against the con rail are many - particularly around pointwork.

 

Electricity belongs up in the air out of our way - not on the ground where we are trying to work. Its telling that when questioned that virtually none of those so actively backing it have EVER had to work around it.

Why cant you use those plastic shrouds to cover the CRE and carry out the work, I have seen it done quite often, although not lately because I dont visit stabiliser rail land anymore.

[caradoc]

Given that the Windermere branch is a 10 mile single line with no pointwork or sidings, at all, the failure to wire it really is pathetic. The issue of clearance at overbridges could be solved by installing short dead sections, as on the Paisley Canal line, rather than rebuilding such bridges at great expense. And would any additional feeding arrangements even be required, given that the line can only possibly accommodate one train at a time ?

[ColinK]

Given that the Windermere branch is a 10 mile single line with no pointwork or sidings, at all, the failure to wire it really is pathetic. The issue of clearance at overbridges could be solved by installing short dead sections, as on the Paisley Canal line, rather than rebuilding such bridges at great expense. And would any additional feeding arrangements even be required, given that the line can only possibly accommodate one train at a time ?

Agree. In addition to the above much of the prelimary work required at Oxenholme was done a couple of years ago during other work at the station.

 

It would be interesting to compare the costs of fitting diesel generators to 319s (with a short lifespan) and all the training of fitters, drivers etc that goes with it, to the costs of installing overhead on what is simply a long siding.

[melmerby]

When considering the Windermere branch, don’t forget that the trains don’t just shuttle between Oxenholme and Windermere, they go to places like Preston and Manchester too. So if you went for battery or 3rd rail, you would need lots of sets fitted with the equipment.

I think you will find the service is maintained by a limited number of units, possibily just 3 or 4

Preston/Manchester - Windermere - Oxenholme - Windermere (several times) then a swap as a new unit arrives from Preston/Manchester after the first departs to Preston or Manchester whence it came.

 

The fleet of (30 year old) 319s, some of which Northern were going to use for the branch are already 3rd Rail fitted but they are having diesels fitted instead of electrifying the branch.

 

Keith

[Sandpiper]

The units for Windermere services currently interwork with the Barrow services. As far as I know the intention is still to use 195s on all the Cumbria services once they become available. At the moment the 769 Flex project has run into technical problems. I do not know what exactly. I believe it is related to the changeover from electric to diesel traction, or vice versa, or both. Class 769 driver training for the Cumbria services has been scrapped as there is no unit available to work with and there doesn't seem to be any information as to when they might be ready. Instead, driver training on class 158 units has commenced ready for the May timetable change. I do not know if this means class 158s for both the Barrow and Windermere services or not but I would expect so if there are enough available. The units are apparently coming from Scotrail. Nor do I know what the long term situation is regarding the 769s. 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Sandpiper

[Reorte]

Or in simple terms, instead of introducing electric trains to Windermere etc, your getting diesel trains, but we are banning road diesels because of their emissions. This nonsense was pointed out to Chris Grayling who either didn’t understand the nonsense put out by his Department, or chose to ignore it.

Is it nonsense? The problem with road diesels is almost entirely within cities (maybe near a few busy parts of the motorway network too), which hardly applies between Oxenholme and Windermere. When they continue running further south then you've possibly got an issue, but the diesel issue really isn't a black and white one size fits everywhere problem. The issue appear to be entirely around fitting the trains in to the rest of the network (which isn't a small issue), I really see little point in electrifying Windermere at all for its own sake.

[Nearholmer]

Leaving aside the third rail vs OLE debate, why is there such a passion locally to electrify the branch?

 

I can't imagine that the emissions from one diesel train, which is a pretty low-emissions beast per passenger when compared with cars, and no worse than busses, are a serious issue, so what is the issue?

 

Is it something around the perception of 'southern cast offs', or is there some fundamental objection to diesel trains for another reason?

 

Kevin

Edited January 18, 2018 by Nearholmer

[phil-b259]

Why cant you use those plastic shrouds to cover the CRE and carry out the work, I have seen it done quite often, although not lately because I dont visit stabiliser rail land anymore.

Con rail shields are not very usefull if replacing lock blades or drive rods when the con rail goes over them.

 

It also requires those big impedance bonds in the track with chunky side leads etc introducing lots more potential failure modes with track circuits.

[Reorte]

Leaving aside the third rail vs OLE debate, why is there such a passion locally to electrify the branch?

Cynical hat on (do I ever take it off?) - it's simply "we want money spent on us", what the practical situation is doesn't get considered. Less cynical hat on - maybe more reliability, and should make it easier to serve more destinations from Windermere (has that been promised?) Sometimes more trains if it speeds things up a bit although I can't see them gaining enough time to make a difference there.