Jump to content
 

Is new third rail totally banned in the UK?


melmerby
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

... should make it easier to serve more destinations from Windermere (has that been promised?) ...

Surely diesel traction serves far more destinations now than electric traction, doesn't it?

 

Regards, Ian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

I guess it depends on how long you want to pollute the atmosphere with diesel particle emissions for. 

We are being fed mixed messages by the politicians. We can't really burn any more coal becuase it is dirty and creates carbon gases and global warming. New Diesel engined cars are supposed to be banned in asround 20 years. Windmills and solar shooting up everywhere, but then on the railways we have to have brand new diesel engined trains because it is too expensive to use a more environmentally friendly power source. Soewe are actually putting a price on our environment.

 

It is wrong, so wrong. Get the engineers up there and hang some copper, and let the Lake District enjoy less diesel emissions because of it.   

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Surely diesel traction serves far more destinations now than electric traction, doesn't it?

Obviously a diesel train can physically get to more places, but if you're on part of a railway that's largely electric anyway electrifying a bit that isn't opens it up to the rest of the trains running on that railway, and no grumbles about diesel trains spending 99% of their time under wires. The generally higher acceleration probably makes it easier to find paths for the electrics too (just my guesses, I'm not a railwayman). Bi-modes give you both on paper but that still requires trains designed with the non-electric sections in mind, as well as the additional weight and complexity.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
It is wrong, so wrong. Get the engineers up there and hang some copper, and let the Lake District enjoy less diesel emissions because of it.   

I wasn't aware that the Lake District was suffering from diesel emissions. As I pointed earlier the diesel pollution concerns are largely centred on cities. Oversimplifying that to a simple "diesel is bad" message results in bad decisions. In the case of Windermere the argument for electrification should be operational IMO (and you should probably be more concerened about the Lakeside and Haverthwaite Railway!) Electric taxis, buses and vans in towns is where you need to concentrate your efforts for improving local air quality caused by diesel pollution.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

It is the indirect cost of track  maintenance that crucifies the economics of the third rail system,  a night time  engineering possession of duration 4 hrs 30 minutes is whittled down becomes 2 hours 30 minutes of track access time,    1 hour is lost isolating  and  (Strapping out ) ie earthing the juice rail  to protect track workers and allow machines such as tampers and road-railers to work on the line, and another hour lost removing the strapping and reinstating the juice supply.  Under 25kV  system, for P-Way work  the overheads  can often be left live, in which case 15 minutes to erect a possession and set out work sites, 15 minutes to reinstate.  Basically you lose half of the work period with 3rd rail, at considerable cost over the long-term of years,  and it only takes a few late running trains to eat into that 4hrs 30m,  and the possession becomes non-viable,  ie cancelled by  the PICOP and Control

As for electrfication of   the Windermere line ,  I doubt if it has the passenger  traffic to justify the fixed costs of an electrification project.

Edited by Pandora
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to get into this topic properly, there is a lot of heavy reading, and a fair bit of maths, involved, but a good start is this https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:cd7d3eb7-e57c-427d-9ec6-70da72389cce/datastreams/ATTACHMENT03

 

It is focused on carbon dioxide emissions, and barely touches upon particulate emissions, but it should be sufficient to convince anyone that simplistic approaches are best avoided. And, this is only the emissions perspective, it doesn't cover broader economics, operations, safety etc, and it doesn't attempt (IIRC) to differentiate between different electrification systems.

 

Kevin

Edited by Nearholmer
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Obviously a diesel train can physically get to more places, but if you're on part of a railway that's largely electric anyway electrifying a bit that isn't opens it up to the rest of the trains running on that railway, and no grumbles about diesel trains spending 99% of their time under wires. The generally higher acceleration probably makes it easier to find paths for the electrics too (just my guesses, I'm not a railwayman). Bi-modes give you both on paper but that still requires trains designed with the non-electric sections in mind, as well as the additional weight and complexity.

Point taken. But that argument could be applied to many places in the north (and probably other areas of the UK as well). Putting aside the environmental issues for a moment, these days it all comes down to the "Business Case" and whether or not the economics stack up. What would be the payback timescale for the level of investment required to electrify, say the branch to Windermere? Would that level of investment required be better spent electrifying somewhere else because the "payback" would be be higher/quicker/more beneficial?

 

I'm not saying the Windermere branch couldn't or shouldn't be electrified (I'm sure it will be one day), I just think there would other priorities elsewhere that would take precedent, given the investment required.

 

Back in the 90s I did travel to Windermere by train on a couple of occasions (attending training courses at Wray Castle) but the trains were far from full, may be they are these days, I don't know. Is there a large daily commute to/from Windermere? If not, the TOC will be depending on holiday/liesure patronage and their level of investment in a bi-mode fleet, taking into account all scenarios, probably makes sense 'today'. Hindsight in a few years time will tell us whether or not bi-mode gives us the "benefits" that are being sold to us today.

 

Just going back to the environmental issue for a moment, eliminating diesel traction from the Windermere branch would have negligible effect on the local environment in my view. The reason most visitors go to the Lakes in general is to explore the whole National Park area, and not just Windermere itself (not that Windermere hasn't got a fair bit to offer). Which is why most visitors to the Lakes go by car as they can get around to see lots of places that the railways just don't serve. And I don't think buses would provide a suitable alternative either, even electric ones.

 

I'll get off my soap-box now and go for a lie down in a darkened room.

 

Regards, Ian.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the indirect cost of track  maintenance that crucifies the economics of the third rail system,  a night time  engineering possession of duration 4 hrs 30 minutes is whittled down becomes 2 hours 30 minutes of track access time,    1 hour is lost isolating  and  (Strapping out ) ie earthing the juice rail  to protect track workers and allow machines such as tampers and road-railers to work on the line, and another hour lost removing the strapping and reinstating the juice supply.  Under 25kV  system, for P-Way work  the overheads  can often be left live, in which case 15 minutes to erect a possession and set out work sites, 15 minutes to reinstate.  Basically you lose half of the work period with 3rd rail, at considerable cost over the long-term of years,  and it only takes a few late running trains to eat into that 4hrs 30m,  and the possession becomes non-viable,  ie cancelled by  the PICOP and Control

As for electrfication of   the Windermere line ,  I doubt if it has the passenger  traffic to justify the fixed costs of an electrification project.

At 10 miles, and with only 11 overbridges, electrifying the Windermere branch really ought not to be a problem, so long as there is the will to do it as a part of a national electrification strategy (which I doubt exists).

 

As far as the effect that DC is having on track access times, a great deal of that is down to arcane processes, including sending strapmen out on foot to uncertain locations. Work is already in hand to improve that by the use of lineside switchgear in easily accessible places, and it has already been demonstrated on the Liverpool network that the time taken to get the conductor rail isolated and the necessary permits issued can be very considerably shortened.

 

Jim

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that the Lake District was suffering from diesel emissions. As I pointed earlier the diesel pollution concerns are largely centred on cities. Oversimplifying that to a simple "diesel is bad" message results in bad decisions.

And in this instance, the 369s will have a IIIB compliant generator set which is way cleaner than the currently available DMUs that service the line. It seemed to be received wisdom that IIIB compliance would render new DMUs unviable and now we seem to be getting a whole bunch of them...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I assume you wouldnt be working red zone doing that so pulling a couple of hook switches should do it.

 

I do appreciate that track workers would prefer it overhead and out the way though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the indirect cost of track  maintenance that crucifies the economics of the third rail system,  a night time  engineering possession of duration 4 hrs 30 minutes is whittled down becomes 2 hours 30 minutes of track access time,    1 hour is lost isolating  and  (Strapping out ) ie earthing the juice rail  to protect track workers and allow machines such as tampers and road-railers to work on the line, and another hour lost removing the strapping and reinstating the juice supply.  Under 25kV  system, for P-Way work  the overheads  can often be left live, in which case 15 minutes to erect a possession and set out work sites, 15 minutes to reinstate.  Basically you lose half of the work period with 3rd rail, at considerable cost over the long-term of years,  and it only takes a few late running trains to eat into that 4hrs 30m,  and the possession becomes non-viable,  ie cancelled by  the PICOP and Control

As for electrfication of   the Windermere line ,  I doubt if it has the passenger  traffic to justify the fixed costs of an electrification project.

Do they routinely use RRVs under live OHLE?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Work is already in hand to improve that by the use of lineside switchgear in easily accessible places, and it has already been demonstrated on the Liverpool network that the time taken to get the conductor rail isolated and the necessary permits issued can be very considerably shortened.

 

Jim

 

Which is actually fairly simple - pretty much all double or single track, self contained with only one operator to consider. Moreover when you do need to turn the power off you can turn off ALL lines and not worry about keeping bits live.

 

Very different on the likes of the BML which has very complex junction  layouts, quadruple track AND have CONTINUOUS overnight services and making 'total switch offs' virtually impossible and causing lots of odd bits of con rail needing to be left on.

Edited by phil-b259
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I assume you wouldnt be working red zone doing that so pulling a couple of hook switches should do it.

 

I do appreciate that track workers would prefer it overhead and out the way though.

 

Changing a lock blade in a point machine is not a particularly challenging task though - it can be completed in as little as 20 minutes (and with the points successfully gauged up in that time) if all goes well, and as such is the sort of activity that can easily be done during the day between trains (obviously with signallers permission etc) in certain locations (I have done several times over the past 15 years when the con rail was not in the way). In the worst case scenario you can always clip the points up and as long as the detection blades are still in giving the normal or reverse indication the signaller can run a train over the points.

 

Once you need hook switches pulled or isolations taken then not only do you lose that ability to give up the line blockage quickly, you also invariably affect far more than one line - plus need to involve other departments - who may not have staff available etc....

Edited by phil-b259
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is actually fairly simple - pretty much all double or single track, self contained with only one operator to consider. Moreover when you do need to turn the power off you can turn off ALL lines and not worry about keeping bits live.

 

Very different on the likes of the BML which has very complex junction  layouts, quadruple track AND have CONTINUOUS overnight services and making 'total switch offs' virtually impossible and causing lots of odd bits of con rail needing to be left on.

But not so complicated as to be beyond achieving, and nowhere near the "it's too difficult, let's not bother about even thinking about it" level that parts of a certain railway organisation are too good at.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

As for electrfication of   the Windermere line ,  I doubt if it has the passenger  traffic to justify the fixed costs of an electrification project.

It doesn't per se but the economies of filling in an isolated section in a sea of OHLE was the justification.

Diesel trains were running most of their time under the wires to serve a 10 mile branch, electrify it and you don't need those diesel trains anymore which could be better used where there is no electrification.

Now we have to retrofit a relatively old EMU with diesels just so the branch can be served.

 

Don't get me going on Voyagers from Brum to Glasgow either! Madness.

 

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't per se but the economies of filling in an isolated section in a sea of OHLE was the justification.

Diesel trains were running most of their time under the wires to serve a 10 mile branch, electrify it and you don't need those diesel trains anymore which could be better used where there is no electrification.

Now we have to retrofit a relatively old EMU with diesels just so the branch can be served.

 

Don't get me going on Voyagers from Brum to Glasgow either! Madness.

 

Keith

 

Agree, electrifying to Windermere would allow through services with EMUs to major locations such as Manchester Victoria or Piccadilly, and Airport), Liverpool and maybe even Crewe.

 

To be fair to Virgin, most of the Scotland/Birmingham services are now Pendolinos, although some have to be Voyagers due to insufficient Pendos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Which isn't in all that many places. The majority of HW point machines are either on the opposite side to the conductor rail, or the conductor rail is gapped to provide a safe space. There is also room for a bit of lateral thinking between both the S&T and E&P departments, such as using four-foot point machines, or putting a permanent cover over the bottom of the conductor rail, or modifying the gauging procedures so that there isn't the same need to disconnect rodding under the conductor rail all the time.

 

As for impedance bonds, apart from wondering just how often they are the actual cause of track circuit faults, given that the technology is (a) simple and (b) been around for a very long time, they are steadily disappearing in favour of axle counters, not that they aren't without their own problems.

 

The answer, as with many issues, is for the different disciples to work together, not sit in their own bunkers muttering at the other side.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

But then who would be blamed when things go wrong?

Unfortunately that is so true, it is also the reason drivers are no longer allowed to fault find when the train breaks down, if we do something wrong (or miss something) the resultant delay will go to the drivers Manager instead of going to fleet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Which isn't in all that many places. The majority of HW point machines are either on the opposite side to the conductor rail, or the conductor rail is gapped to provide a safe space. There is also room for a bit of lateral thinking between both the S&T and E&P departments, such as using four-foot point machines, or putting a permanent cover over the bottom of the conductor rail, or modifying the gauging procedures so that there isn't the same need to disconnect rodding under the conductor rail all the time.

 

As for impedance bonds, apart from wondering just how often they are the actual cause of track circuit faults, given that the technology is (a) simple and (b) been around for a very long time, they are steadily disappearing in favour of axle counters, not that they aren't without their own problems.

 

The answer, as with many issues, is for the different disciples to work together, not sit in their own bunkers muttering at the other side.

 

Jim

 

You obviously haven't looked out the window much on the BML then because HW1000 and HW200 are widely used with adjacent con rail - the south end of Redhill for starters and virtually every one has con rail over the rods due to fears of 'gapping' due to slow speeds in the area. Axle counters are also rare - only fitted to Balcombe tunnel and co-exsist with track circuits (as part of a 'dual detection setup) with EBI 400 tracks now the preferred ones that DO require impedance bonds.

 

As regards bonds causing track circuit failures - they definitely do. The coils inside can go on short to the case thus destroying the 'impedance' creating ability of the bond when trying to deal with hundreds of amps of traction current. (Hint - to have any idea how they actually work requires some knowledge of A.C. Electrical Theory which is confusing to most). Those leeds connecting the bonds to the rails can be crushed by dumped rail, nicked by tampers and also end up going high resistance resulting in traction return imbalances that can even affect supposedly 'immune' track circuits.

 

As for 'joined up thinking' - lovely in theory, but totally unachievable in practice as many prototype threads on here show. Rather than deluding ourselves that some sort of cosy inter departmental harmony can be created (at vast expense) just to try and maintain an outdated and inefficient form of delivering electrical power (JUST like the DfT seem to think their new fanged 'partnership' process can can save their botched ECML franchising process or cover for NRs failings on the GWML),  lets keep it simple.

 

Keep S&T, P-way and ETE assets as separate as is possible, try and ensure that each department can deal with their own responsibilities with as little need for outside intervention as possible and you make real cost savings. Make it easy for me to do my job then I fee up time and resources for more difficult jobs. Adding more layers, initiatives or smashing existing organisational structures rarely results in more efficient working.

 

At the end of the day we are only having this debate because the Southern Railway Company decided to expand the LSWR system for cost reasons rather than the technically superior AC overhead system used reliably and safely by the LSBCR over 100 years ago! While there is not much that can be done about the existing installations there is no justification whatsoever for inflicting a 'cheep and nasty system' anywhere else in the country.

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

And in this instance, the 369s will have a IIIB compliant generator set which is way cleaner than the currently available DMUs that service the line. It seemed to be received wisdom that IIIB compliance would render new DMUs unviable and now we seem to be getting a whole bunch of them...

The scare stories about 3b killing off new build diesels for the UK were always nonsense, it amazed me certain rail magazines printed some of the stories on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...