Operation of EMUs in Preservation

[Dava]

 

“The MLVs are a resource yet to be tapped, rigged up with modern batteries they could provide power for a reasonable run off grid”

 

Thats a very good point about the MLV with new batteries,, there are a number preserved and inactive, they could power or propel older EMUs such as the 2-BIL. Did the LMS Wirral unit survive?
 

Dava

[37038]

There is no reason other than finance that a new 3rd rail heritage line has not been built.

 

No legislation exists (or did around 5yrs ago) that prevents new 3rd rail installations - having looked into it in relation to a preserved 3rd rail unit.

 

[Nearholmer]

Nobody seems to have thought of putting a power-electronic inverter and step-up transformer on the train, or a diesel-alternator and step-up transformer, or even (very retro this) a big motor-alternator set and step-up transformer. All would require jiggery-pokery to the return circuit too, because that, of course, is arranged to return a.c. to a remote source via the wheel-sets and running rails.

 

And, all are fairly silly ideas, but that seems to be the brief here.

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, Dava said:

Did the LMS Wirral unit survive?

 

There is a 2-car 502 and SERA has a 503, currently in Margate after Coventry closed. Is that what you meant though?

 

2 hours ago, 37038 said:

There is no reason other than finance that a new 3rd rail heritage line has not been built.

 

No legislation exists (or did around 5yrs ago) that prevents new 3rd rail installations - having looked into it in relation to a preserved 3rd rail unit.

 

I think it’s a Network Rail policy rather than an actual law, although presumably there is legislation in place about making it safe.

 

21 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Nobody seems to have thought of putting a power-electronic inverter and step-up transformer on the train, or a diesel-alternator and step-up transformer, or even (very retro this) a big motor-alternator set and step-up transformer.

 

In France there is a preserved Paris Metro train powered by an onboard diesel generator.

[Dagworth]

Not an EMU but wasn't there a scheme at one point to create a container generator vehicle to run behind and power the EM2?

 

Andi

[Nearholmer]

6 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

In France there is a preserved Paris Metro train powered by an onboard diesel generator.

 

In Britain there are a couple of designs of former EMU fitted with diesel generators that turn them into DEMUs, in service on the national network in trial mode. And, the re-vivified ex-NER autocar is an example of the same general approach in preservation.

 

But, doing that with a former DC EMU is a stack simpler than with a former 25kV EMU that has tap-changer control.

[rodent279]

16 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

In Britain there are a couple of designs of former EMU fitted with diesel generators that turn them into DEMUs, in service on the national network in trial mode. And, the re-vivified ex-NER autocar is an example of the same general approach in preservation.

 

But, doing that with a former DC EMU is a stack simpler than with a former 25kV EMU that has tap-changer control.

Plus, it turns it into something it wasn't-a DEMU. Bit like sticking a diesel engine into the tender of a Black 5 & pretending it's still a steam loco.

[Nearholmer]

Electricity is electricity, the transformer won’t know whether it came from a hamster turning a wheel in the next carriage or from a generating station in Timbuktu.

 

You could even string up a bit of wire on two poles fixed to the roof, so that the pantograph was in circuit of it made it feel ‘more realistic’.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by Nearholmer

[jcm@gwr]

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Electricity is electricity, the transformer won’t know whether it came from a hamster turning a wheel in the next carriage or from generating station in Timbuktu.

 

Agreed, but do you put the generator set-up in a GUV,

so that the preserved unit is more original,

or put it in the unit so it's self-contained,

and looks more original?

[Gwiwer]

12 hours ago, adb968008 said:

The MLVs are a resource yet to be tapped, rigged up with modern batteries they could provide power for a reasonable run off grid.

Not entirely untapped.  MLVs have been used as traction to move preserved EMU vehicles in passenger service on at least the East Kent Railway.  They do however need a full fresh charge of the batteries and speed is (by the nature of the heritage operation) very low.  It works but it is expensive in terms of the frequent charging and draining of the batteries.  As a matter of record the EMU vehicle in question was one of the 4COR motor coaches which resides there and which led the train in the other direction with a "driver" as lookout and activating the brake via the 4COR controls.  

 

MLVs were able to move more than one laden parcel van when "off the juice" as they were designed to do but again only at slow speed over short distances and it relied on having a good charge.  An electric run down from Victoria to Dover or Folkestone usually provided enough "kick" for the required shunting.

 

MLVs have also been used on the national network at least twice as railtour traction.  The "Flying Fourgon" and "Vulcan Van Train" were so powered (including the use of ex-2HAP GLV vans) 

 

The use of third-rail electrification is now officially frowned upon but infill schemes are no longer completely out of the question.  Hurst Green - Uckfield and Ore - Ashford are again under discussion and with the perfectly reasonable intention of maximising inter-operability of existing rolling stock rather than requiring another generation of dedicated diesels.  Aldershot South Junction - Wokingham is another possibility although that - if it were electrified - would still leave a "gap" between Guildford and Reigate which no-one seems interested in electrifying.

 

Don't write off third-rail heritage schemes.  The Bluebell Railway's medium-term aspirations to operate towards Haywards Heath might yet include an application under Grandfather Rights or similar powers to use electric traction over this formerly-electrified route.  That is quite some years into the future however.   Other options might include the use of powered tracks within depot sites (:which may or may not be open to the general public) no longer required by the national rail operators and potentially handed over to heritage operation.  

[Dava]

 “  4 hours ago,  Dava said: 

Did the LMS Wirral unit survive?

 

There is a 2-car 502 and SERA has a 503, currently in Margate after Coventry closed. Is that what you meant though?”

 

Yes, one 502 set was restored by the NRM http://www.class502.org.uk/ and the 503 set by Merseyrail https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_503

 

Dava

[Nearholmer]

29 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

Don't write off third-rail heritage schemes.  

I agree, and actually, by extension of the logic, the same might be said of 25kV OLE.

 

If a team of people with the right competences could be could be put together, it is conceivable that both construction and safe operation could be undertaken.

 

After all, a steam locomotive incompetently managed from an engineering and operational viewpoint would be an exceedingly dangerous thing, yet the heritage world has assembled the competent people to make it acceptably safe.

 

Whether enough people with the right skills feel the emotional attachment to electric traction, and particularly the infrastructure of electric traction, to make that possible is another question. I can only really speak for ‘southern dc’, and there I think there probably are enough people with the right skills still around who would relish the thought of helping with, say, re-electrifying a stub from Horsted Keynes. I know fewer ‘25kV people’ so can’t be so sure about that. 

[zarniwhoop]

1 hour ago, Gwiwer said:

Not entirely untapped.  MLVs have been used as traction to move preserved EMU vehicles in passenger service on at least the East Kent Railway.  They do however need a full fresh charge of the batteries and speed is (by the nature of the heritage operation) very low.  It works but it is expensive in terms of the frequent charging and draining of the batteries.  As a matter of record the EMU vehicle in question was one of the 4COR motor coaches which resides there and which led the train in the other direction with a "driver" as lookout and activating the brake via the 4COR controls. 

When I was there in 2013, ISTR the MLV with batteries was first used for the BEP (not sure about that, it left as I arrived, might have had diesel shunters top and tailing) and then used for the 2-EPB with through control cables in use. The pair of COR motorcoaches seem to have had the MLV and an 08. My pics: East Kent 2013

 

An MLV was also in use to power a 4-CEP on the Eden Valley when I visited that in 2009, although it didn't exactly go very far. Pics:  Eden Valley 2009

 

[zarniwhoop]

2 minutes ago, zarniwhoop said:

When I was there in 2013, ISTR the MLV with batteries was first used for the BEP (not sure about that, it left as I arrived, might have had diesel shunters top and tailing) and then used for the 2-EPB with through control cables in use. The pair of COR motorcoaches seem to have had the MLV and an 08. My pics: East Kent 2013

 

An MLV was also in use to power a 4-CEP on the Eden Valley when I visited that in 2009, although it didn't exactly go very far. Pics:  Eden Valley 2009

 

Turns out those links go to my albums and I apparently cannot edit the post.

Sorry about all the O/T narrow gauge, the relevant albums are East Kent Railway 2013 and Eden Valley, 2009. Flickr seems to get increasingly hard every time I access it.

[Johann Marsbar]

9 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Plus, it turns it into something it wasn't-a DEMU. Bit like sticking a diesel engine into the tender of a Black 5 & pretending it's still a steam loco.

 

Not a Black Five, but the (other) NRM in Green Bay, Wisconsin have done that with this 2-8-2.......

 

 

 

The connecting rods on the "tender" bogies tended to give it away a bit - A dummy tender body on a diesel switcher chassis!

 

It was doing some shunting when I visited the museum in 2011 and looked quite convincing from a distance.....

[rodent279]

Don't give our own NRM ideas.......

[009 micro modeller]

11 hours ago, Dava said:

one 502 set was restored by the NRM http://www.class502.org.uk/ 

 

Although as mentioned on that website it’s condition has since deteriorated again.

Edited February 3, 2021 by 009 micro modeller

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, Johann Marsbar said:

Not a Black Five, but the (other) NRM in Green Bay, Wisconsin have done that with this 2-8-2.......

 

 

What is actually the point of this?

 

11 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

Don't write off third-rail heritage schemes.  The Bluebell Railway's medium-term aspirations to operate towards Haywards Heath might yet include an application under Grandfather Rights or similar powers to use electric traction over this formerly-electrified route.

 

Would grandfather rights apply though, if it’s not an extant installation? Although I do tend to think that the Ardingly line is the most realistic option for other reasons; it’s a reasonable length but without being too long and it could be fairly self-contained yet is part of a larger, well-established line. Is the fact that they aren’t currently able to use the original Ardingly station site likely to cause problems though?

[KeithHC]

Let’s hope Hayward’s Heath to Ardingly has the third rail put back so the Bluebell can run there 4Vep and the Brighton Belle. But both of those can be connected to either a 33/1 or a 73 for a mainline run as well. Mind you it would be good to see the Belle rattle through Salfords again.......

 

Keith

[Nearholmer]

57 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Would grandfather rights apply though, if it’s not an extant installation?

 

My expectation would be that ORR would regard it as a new installation, because Grandfather left so long ago, and would be looking for a merit-based demonstration of safety, which might be pretty difficult to arrive at without spending vast sums of money.

 

The territory is very similar to the Oxted-Uckfield section, in the sense that it is largely very rural, which helps because there aren't many people who could become exposed to the risk, but Network Rail have the resources, and the benefits-stream to justify, very high-security fencing (hasn't most of the Uckfield branch now got that anyway?) to deal with the few. On the Bluebell, spending on super-secure fencing  might compete for resources with things like restoring Maunsell carriages. A heritage operation would also bring a couple of special risks, I think:

 

- the behaviour of DAA railway enthusiasts, some of whom are foreseeably stupid; and,

 

- the question of whether to leave the CR de-energised most of the time, which seems safe, but might create a false sense of security among those who are in the know.

 

At an electrical level, the Horsted Keynes electrification was a very "wet string" operation, with no substation at the outer end, and the best place for a new substation would be in the middle of whatever length was to be electrified, all of which brings-up questions of where a strong-enough supply from the grid can be found in that area - even a 2-BIL going slowly is a tidy load in comparison with most things in a rural area, and there are technical reasons beyond simple loading as to why connecting a traction rectifier deep-down in a rural distribution network could be challenging.

 

Interesting stuff!

[phil-b259]

17 hours ago, 37038 said:

There is no reason other than finance that a new 3rd rail heritage line has not been built.

 

No legislation exists (or did around 5yrs ago) that prevents new 3rd rail installations

 

 

 

Yes it does! Its called the Electricity at Work Act which BANS the use of bare conductors being installed within touching distance of staff, customers and casual trespassers.

 

Network Rail and London Underground have a specific exemption from complying with this legislation in so far as the already existing network* - everybody else hasn't and that includes Heritage Railways.

 

Remember that every Heritage Railway needs the permission of the ORR to operate and that an exemption is not the same thing as the law not applying! Indeed the exemption NR / LU have requires to be backed up by a through risk assessment and a whole raft of mitigating measures as if it ends up in court that exemption will be rigorously examined to see if it is still acceptable.

 

The upshot of all this basically being a conductor rail operated railway using much above 110V is NOT going to get approval. End of. As things stand if you want to see BR Conductor Rail EMUs operating as designed then it has to either be on Network Rail / London underground Infrastructure.

 

 

* Even then the ORR have made it Crystal clear there must be a presumption against any more of it being installed outside of specific situations (e.g. Northern line extension to Battersea all being in an Underground tunnel which is impossible for the public to access or the new electrified stabling sidings being built at Feltham) - which is why the often talked about 'infill' schemes on the ex Southern region won't happen in the traditional sense.

 

There is talk of a NR scheme for the Uckfield line whereby the conductor rail will be divided into very short lengths and only energised when a train is detected as being in that section - possibly aided by using battery power so the conductor rail equipped sections are also kept small in number. If this approach is proven to work then it may be able to be adapted to a Heritage Railway situation too.

Edited February 3, 2021 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I agree, and actually, by extension of the logic, the same might be said of 25kV OLE.

 

If a team of people with the right competences could be could be put together, it is conceivable that both construction and safe operation could be undertaken.

 

After all, a steam locomotive incompetently managed from an engineering and operational viewpoint would be an exceedingly dangerous thing, yet the heritage world has assembled the competent people to make it acceptably safe.

 

Whether enough people with the right skills feel the emotional attachment to electric traction, and particularly the infrastructure of electric traction, to make that possible is another question. I can only really speak for ‘southern dc’, and there I think there probably are enough people with the right skills still around who would relish the thought of helping with, say, re-electrifying a stub from Horsted Keynes. I know fewer ‘25kV people’ so can’t be so sure about that. 

 

In some respects we are fortunate that Steam operated Heritage Railways were well established by the time H&S law began to tighten the screws on what could be done by whom.

 

Just consider all the hoops a new starter has to jump through to get approval to operate from the ORR - From drawing up a comprehensive Safety Management System, putting in place contracts to deal with contaminated wastes the task is far more daunting than was the case in the 1960s, 1970s or even 1980s!

 

I get the feeling that much like DC conductor rail, the ORR 'tolerate' what some in the organisation still think of as 'Amateurs playing with steam trains' because it already existed when the organisation was created. They certainly have been VERY critical over the past decade of railways who are not up to scratch as regards their SMS, state of the track or rolling stock.

 

Electric railways remain a relative rarity and as far as volunteer based operations are exclusively tramway setups with overheads or under road conduit. (note that Volks Railway might be Volunteer operated but its owned by Brighton and Hove City Council who are ultimately liable for what goes on). Yes the ramifications if someone gets things wrong on a technical level might well have some similarities with steam operation - but due to the volume of steam heritage operations there is so much more knowledge out there the risks are much easier to address and mitigate.

 

As such I would imagine that the ORR will make it very difficult for a 25KV Overhead Heritage Railway to be provided and as i said above the Electricity at Work Regulations veto any traditional DC conductor rail scheme.

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Would grandfather rights apply though, if it’s not an extant installation? Although I do tend to think that the Ardingly line is the most realistic option for other reasons; it’s a reasonable length but without being too long and it could be fairly self-contained yet is part of a larger, well-established line. Is the fact that they aren’t currently able to use the original Ardingly station site likely to cause problems though?

 

The ORR does not recognise the term 'Grandfather rights' - we are now 25 years on from Privatisation and anyone who thinks the risks, mitigation, etc have staid the same for that length of time has NO place on any railway.

 

What Network Rail and some other organisations have is a 'derogation from the standard' - and you should note that the ORR have given notice that they expect these derogations to be reduced over time - operators should be investing to eliminate them not continually expect derogations to always be granted as part of their business strategy.

 

It has been made abundantly clear for example that derogations that exempt charter train operators from having central door locking, retention tank toilets and permit them to have droplights in coach doors which a person may fit their head out of WILL CEASE in 2023.

 

As regards the Ardingly branch, the only way it could possibly receive a 'derogation' from the need to comply with the Electricity at Work Act (and thus have conductor rail installed) is if it were done (and maintained by Network Rail) as part of a reopened line from Haywards Heath.

 

 

 

 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, KeithHC said:

Let’s hope Hayward’s Heath to Ardingly has the third rail put back so the Bluebell can run there 4Vep and the Brighton Belle. But both of those can be connected to either a 33/1 or a 73 for a mainline run as well. Mind you it would be good to see the Belle rattle through Salfords again.......

 

Keith

 

Putting a conductor rail back physically is not a problem - Energising it however means the owning organisation will be prosecuted under the Electricity at work Regulations unless the ORR have given a derogation for it to be livened up.

 

For reasons explained up thread they are NOT going to give such a derogation to the Bluebell.

 

The best chance of DC EMU operation away from Network Rail / LU infrastructure remains batteries in the guards Van. Given how the battery technology behind electric cars is progressing, a modern installation (not the 1950s setup in a MLV) combined with some form of shore supply at stations during layovers is the way to go.

[Nearholmer]

The relevant Reg reads:

 

Insulation, protection and placing of conductors

 

7.  All conductors in a system which may give rise to danger shall either–

(a)be suitably covered with insulating material and as necessary protected so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger; or

(b)have such precautions taken in respect of them (including, where appropriate, their being suitably placed) as will prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger.

 

The have such precautions taken in respect of them does admit of approaches that wouldn't have been considered in the 1930s, but a "full heritage" approach certainly wouldn't be legal.

 

I don't think it would necessarily need a derogation, if the "precautions taken" were sufficient to control risk ALARP, but I'd start the whole thing by having a good chat with the approving authority.