Is new third rail totally banned in the UK?

[Reorte]

But all your other signal structures would have saved the electrification project a worthwhile sum and probably a measurable amount of time.

I'd say that the lesson from that is that future proofing is worth the effort, even if a small amount of it turns out to be abortive.

Sure, but that's future proofing as much as reasonably possible when you're doing some work anyway, rather than doing the work just for the sake of future-proofing.

[Zomboid]

Well yes. I don't think you can electrify a line solely for future proofing, it has to make sense in the here & now.

And I'd say that Windermere does make sense in the here & now, since you've could eliminate a lot of diesel under the wires miles by electrifying a few miles of branch line. Given traffic types there, a relatively cheap Paisley Canal style job would be entirely suitable. There's only 2 bridges on the entire branch which carry a road over the railway; the remainder are occupation or pedestrian, which ought to be a lot simpler to modify if needed (some might carry buried services, admittedly, but without a public highway that would become easier to solve too).

Dragging a diesel engine around and putting trains which otherwise could be EMUs onto a DMU maintenance schedule for the sake of a few miles of OLE seems daft.

[Grovenor]

Dragging a diesel engine around and putting trains which otherwise could be EMUs onto a DMU maintenance schedule for the sake of a few miles of OLE seems daft.

Daft is the new normal.

regards

[Edwin_m]

Sure, but that's future proofing as much as reasonably possible when you're doing some work anyway, rather than doing the work just for the sake of future-proofing.

A hard and fast rule on future-proofing isn't really possible.  It depends on (a) how much extra it will cost to do the extra work now, (b) how much extra it will cost to do the extra work later, and © how likely it is that the situation you are trying to provide for will actually arise.  "Cost" in this case should be taken in the broadest sense to include the costs of installation and of any resulting disruption to the railway. 

 

So for the Stationmaster's signal gantries, the material cost for an OLE-compatible model was probably just a bit more steel to make it higher, and no extra design or installation cost, so the extra would be small compared to the basic cost of the gantry.  Making it OLE-compatible later would have involved replacing the gantry, including re-making lots of safety-critical connections, and it was a reasonable punt to say that OLE might appear within the life of the gantry (say 30 years). 

 

Network Rail talks about "passive provision", which effectively means doing what you can to future-proof as long as it doesn't cost any extra now. 

 

There is a snag when the standards change in the meantime so what you thought was future-proofed turns out to need more spending on it later.  So for example the railway has been building bridges on non-electrified lines with 1.6m parapets only to find the standard suddenly becomes 1.8m.  Bridges on already electrified lines have grandfather rights* but any that were built in anticipation of possible future electrification will need changing when that happens. 

 

*where something that complied with the standards at the time it came into existence is allowed to continue despite not complying with the standards that would apply if it came into existence today.  Third rail for example. 

Edited January 22, 2018 by Edwin_m

[The Stationmaster]

A hard and fast rule on future-proofing isn't really possible.  It depends on (a) how much extra it will cost to do the extra work now, (b) how much extra it will cost to do the extra work later, and © how likely it is that the situation you are trying to provide for will actually arise.  "Cost" in this case should be taken in the broadest sense to include the costs of installation and of any resulting disruption to the railway. 

 

So for the Stationmaster's signal gantries, the material cost for an OLE-compatible model was probably just a bit more steel to make it higher, and no extra design or installation cost, so the extra would be small compared to the basic cost of the gantry.  Making it OLE-compatible later would have involved replacing the gantry, including re-making lots of safety-critical connections, and it was a reasonable punt to say that OLE might appear within the life of the gantry (say 30 years). 

 

Network Rail talks about "passive provision", which effectively means doing what you can to future-proof as long as it doesn't cost any extra now. 

 

There is a snag when the standards change in the meantime so what you thought was future-proofed turns out to need more spending on it later.  So for example the railway has been building bridges on non-electrified lines with 1.6m parapets only to find the standard suddenly becomes 1.8m.  Bridges on already electrified lines have grandfather rights* but any that were built in anticipation of possible future electrification will need changing when that happens. 

 

*where something that complied with the standards at the time it came into existence is allowed to continue despite not complying with the standards that would apply if it came into existence today.  Third rail for example. 

 

An interesting contrast is provided by the relatively recent Newport resignalling (which was needed for modernisation and renewal purpose) where with electrification coming ever closer the decision was seemingly taken no to provide for it in signal structures.  hence modern, almost new, structures with years of life in them will have to go or be very substantially altered.

[frobisher]

Dragging a diesel engine around and putting trains which otherwise could be EMUs onto a DMU maintenance schedule for the sake of a few miles of OLE seems daft.

Different pots of money is the problem. The TOC has to lease something to run the service and pay the access charges, but short of digging very deeply into the TOC's own pockets, OLE needs Network Rail to get funding for the project.

[melmerby]

There is a snag when the standards change in the meantime so what you thought was future-proofed turns out to need more spending on it later.  So for example the railway has been building bridges on non-electrified lines with 1.6m parapets only to find the standard suddenly becomes 1.8m.  Bridges on already electrified lines have grandfather rights* but any that were built in anticipation of possible future electrification will need changing when that happens. 

 

*where something that complied with the standards at the time it came into existence is allowed to continue despite not complying with the standards that would apply if it came into existence today.  Third rail for example. 

Or in the case of the footbridge at Bromsgrove Station where after the new station build and electrification had been signed off and construction started, had to be redesigned because the standard changed mid-construction?

 

Keith

[Reorte]

Or in the case of the footbridge at Bromsgrove Station where after the new station build and electrification had been signed off and construction started, had to be redesigned because the standard changed mid-construction?

Surely if something meets the standards at the time it's signed off and started it gets to complete with those standards, otherwise it's a huge risk starting any big project? You're constantly in danger of having the rug pulled out of your feet then, may as well say everything has to be rebuilt every time standards change.

[phil-b259]

Surely if something meets the standards at the time it's signed off and started it gets to complete with those standards, otherwise it's a huge risk starting any big project? You're constantly in danger of having the rug pulled out of your feet then, may as well say everything has to be rebuilt every time standards change.

Doesn't seem to matter to the DfT or the ORR - they had every opportunity get a derogation from recent changes to EU inspired electrification clearance requirements, but instead they deliberately did nothing meaning several bridges had to be redone at significant expense.

 

Not for the first time it seems that the DfT cause more problems than they solve....

[Zomboid]

The rules changed during the construction stage on EGIP. Some bridges have therefore been rebuilt twice, apparently.

 

Utter madness, of course...

[rodent279]

Car crashworthiness and safety systems have improved massively over the last 20 years, both active and passive technologies. And I think there have been some significant changes in societal attitudes to road safety in that time, generally for the better.

On pedestrians and cyclists, I think that returns us to the argument that we all have a responsibility for our own safety regardless of the responsibilities of others. I see some pedestrians crossing roads and cyclists that clearly assume it is the job of drivers to avoid them and seemingly make no effort to take responsibility for their own safety (and I say that as a cyclist and somebody that does a lot of walking around London).

You only have to spend 10 minutes on a bicycle to realise how rare a commodity "common sense" is.

 

It's easy to lose sight of it, but we all have a duty of care, and responsibility for the safety of others in everything we do. That applies to cutting the grass or cleaning the windows as much as it does to driving a car, riding a bike or electrifying a railway. Nothing is foolproof, but when safety and lives are at stake, it makes sense to stack the odds in your favour.

Edited February 1, 2018 by rodent279

[iands]

Surely if something meets the standards at the time it's signed off and started it gets to complete with those standards, otherwise it's a huge risk starting any big project? You're constantly in danger of having the rug pulled out of your feet then, may as well say everything has to be rebuilt every time standards change.

There is a caveat in the "standards/design" process which effectively states that if a design has been signed off at GRIP Stage 4 (Detailed Design Stage) and a standard changes introducing a required change in compliance, then an assessment can be done to see if that change can, or needs, to be included in said particular design. Sometimes the change is judged to have negligible effect on the design so the build goes ahead unaltered. On the other hand, sometimes the changes in standards have to be adopted into the design, delaying the project and increasing the cost, timescales, etc. At the end of the day, whatever is being "built" has to be compliant with standards (TSIs, Railway Group, Network Rail etc., etc.) and if standards aren't complied with, then that section of railway can be shut down (or not allowed to reopen) until it is made compliant. Although it may seem at times to be a bit of a " muddle" when this happens, in the long run it does save a lot of rework, expense, possessions, disruption etc. than having to go back in later to change something again, especially if that something is a bridge.

 

Regards, Ian.

[Reorte]

There is a caveat in the "standards/design" process which effectively states that if a design has been signed off at GRIP Stage 4 (Detailed Design Stage) and a standard changes introducing a required change in compliance, then an assessment can be done to see if that change can, or needs, to be included in said particular design. Sometimes the change is judged to have negligible effect on the design so the build goes ahead unaltered. On the other hand, sometimes the changes in standards have to be adopted into the design, delaying the project and increasing the cost, timescales, etc. At the end of the day, whatever is being "built" has to be compliant with standards (TSIs, Railway Group, Network Rail etc., etc.) and if standards aren't complied with, then that section of railway can be shut down (or not allowed to reopen) until it is made compliant. Although it may seem at times to be a bit of a "###### muddle" when this happens, in the long run it does save a lot of rework, expense, possessions, disruption etc. than having to go back in later to change something again, especially if that something is a bridge.

Sure, but obviously the railway is full of things that don't comply to current standards and expecting them to change, other than when some work needs doing anyway, is completely impractical, so the question is where the cutoff should lie with compliance. It sounds like the set of standards that need complying with are whatever they happen to be when it opens, but when the design is signed off strikes me as rather more pragmatic (unless there are some very significant changes that simply can't be put off and are getting retrofitted to as much as possible ASAP). In a few years neither will probably comply with what the then current standards will be anyway.

 

Anyway presumably changes to standards don't come out of the blue (so having to design and build to standards you know are coming but aren't yet current is reasonable), although considering how long things take to get built I can see why the advance notice of changes may not be enough.

[Christopher125]

The rules changed during the construction stage on EGIP. Some bridges have therefore been rebuilt twice, apparently.

 

Utter madness, of course...

Can't think of one that's been rebuilt twice, but they have had to come back and increase parapet heights.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Christopher125

[royaloak]

Sure, but that's future proofing as much as reasonably possible when you're doing some work anyway, rather than doing the work just for the sake of future-proofing.

What happens when you future proof (to the current rules) and somebody changes the rules so your future proofed structures are no longer compliant, you have paid extra to future proof but it still has to be rebuilt.

 

I have a feeling that is going to come home to roost big time when the GWR electrification is restarted, assuming of course there are the firms with the equipment and sufficient qualified staff ready and willing to take on the contracts, bearing in mind how they have been mucked about this time round.

[wombatofludham]

Anyway presumably changes to standards don't come out of the blue (so having to design and build to standards you know are coming but aren't yet current is reasonable), although considering how long things take to get built I can see why the advance notice of changes may not be enough.

Does sometimes happen. When I was involved with the Midland Metro project we were designing in compatibility with the emerging DDA inspired regulations for visual displays and announcements, and had been provided with a draft of the new regulations. I'd even been involved in some of the preliminary consultation meetings. We duly told our Italian friends at Ansaldo the minimum dimensions for the displays based on the DfT's disability unit saying the drafts were pretty much what was going to be signed off. So, imagine our surprise when the actual regs emerged with a larger display specified which had come from seemingly no-where, meaning Midland Metro, instead of being the first to comply with the new DDA compliant regulations, became one of the first to have to have a Ministerial derogation to allow the installed internal destination displays to be used until they were due to be replaced.

 

I'm sure similar events have occurred in other areas.

[Reorte]

Does sometimes happen. When I was involved with the Midland Metro project we were designing in compatibility with the emerging DDA inspired regulations for visual displays and announcements, and had been provided with a draft of the new regulations. I'd even been involved in some of the preliminary consultation meetings. We duly told our Italian friends at Ansaldo the minimum dimensions for the displays based on the DfT's disability unit saying the drafts were pretty much what was going to be signed off. So, imagine our surprise when the actual regs emerged with a larger display specified which had come from seemingly no-where, meaning Midland Metro, instead of being the first to comply with the new DDA compliant regulations, became one of the first to have to have a Ministerial derogation to allow the installed internal destination displays to be used until they were due to be replaced.

 

I'm sure similar events have occurred in other areas.

At least in that case there was a bit of reasonableness that gave a derogation instead of expecting them to all be changed, so it can more or less work where there's some room for pragmatism.

[melmerby]

Drifting a little:

What defines the need to raise parapets over OHLE?

Is it the distance to the contact wire or the ability of nerds to hang themselves or bits and pieces over the edge?

 

There are some places where the bridge is over a deep cutting so the contact wires are 3, 4 or even 5 metres below

 

Keith

[brushman47544]

And modern Metro systems are provided with screens and doors to separate the public from the track except for when they board and alight for that very reason. We are where we are with a legacy system but if you invented trains today you'd probably have an arrangement similar to modern Metro railways.

 

Not on Crossrail, sorry, Elizabeth Line, well the central section at least.

 

Regards, Ian.

 

Whilst I certainly support the use of screens and doors on modern metro systems, I do wonder if the design will come back to haunt us. Unless we are prepared to pay large sums of money for them to be altered, trains will in future have to have the same number of doors, door width etc. as the current trains. What if you want faster loading/unloading through more bodyside doors? What if you want to run different types of train with different bodyshells on the same lines and call at the same stations? When train renewal time comes round we could find the current specs for rolling stock are no longer valid (group standards or whatever they're called now) or just not what the manufacturers production lines support, so bespoke trains are needed at vastly higher price.

[jjb1970]

That's a fair observation, the current arrangement of doors for suburban and regional stock has been pretty standard for many years and I can't see that altering any time soon as it is one of those arrangements which just works. However if vehicles are made longer or shorter it could be problematic. However that is a bridge we'll have to cross if we ever get to it.

[jim.snowdon]

Drifting a little:

What defines the need to raise parapets over OHLE?

Is it the distance to the contact wire or the ability of nerds to hang themselves or bits and pieces over the edge?

 

There are some places where the bridge is over a deep cutting so the contact wires are 3, 4 or even 5 metres below

 

Keith

The former. Because someone defined a "duty of care" (I think, in the Health & Safety at Work Act, which includes duties to people not in one's employment), we have ended up with a situation where the principles of Darwinism have to be frustrated. Anyone can be an idiot, but they have to be prevented from behaving like one.

 

Jim

[Fat Controller]

The former. Because someone defined a "duty of care" (I think, in the Health & Safety at Work Act, which includes duties to people not in one's employment), we have ended up with a situation where the principles of Darwinism have to be frustrated. Anyone can be an idiot, but they have to be prevented from behaving like one.

 

Jim

I notice on other European systems that often, the parapet remains at its original height but a framework of steel, covered with heavy mesh, is cantilevered out over the tracks for a distance of a couple of metres. This seems to be intended to stop people draping things over the catenary. Things like plastic sheet are a major problem with overhead systems; they get snagged up in the pans, and can cause de-wirements. Worst, being non-conductive, there is no indication they're there. I've notice three such incidents in the past week.

Determined vandals won't let things like fences stop them. A friend used to be a MOM on HS1; she told me of an incident in North Kent where some of the local pond-life had tried, and failed, to drive a car through a fence. Undeterred, they stole a JCB, and tried lifting the vehicle over.

[Edwin_m]

At least in that case there was a bit of reasonableness that gave a derogation instead of expecting them to all be changed, so it can more or less work where there's some room for pragmatism.

However as it involved a statutory instrument the derogation process was fairly cumbersome and the cut-off date for the regulations was based on introduction into service of first in class not signing of contract, and not enough notice was given to ensure that new builds were fully compliant.  Result: such idiocies as:

- Midland Main Line sneaking a Turbostar into service a couple of days before the cut-off; 

- the full list of stopping patterns displayable by the Central Trains Turbostar fleet being appended to a statutory instrument (to get derogation not to display any other stopping patterns); and

- "passenger" door close buttons on the same fleet having stickers say for staff use only (sloppy wording implying that the warning bleeps should only sound when the door was closed by staff).