Operation of EMUs in Preservation

[rodent279]

2 questions:-

1-Could one install DLR style bottom contact conductor rail, insulated from the top and sides?

2-Could a 2BIL/4SUB/Brighton Belle take suitably modified shoe gear?

 

[Nearholmer]

56 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

1-Could one install DLR style bottom contact conductor rail, insulated from the top and sides?

 

It would certainly move you one step along the path from a flat "no" when it came to seeking approval.

 

57 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

2-Could a 2BIL/4SUB/Brighton Belle take suitably modified shoe gear?

 

Given enough time, money, and effort, almost certainly, although my first reaction would be to look at fitting a completely new/separate set of shoe-gear, rather than to modify the existing.

[2251]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

There is no such thing as the Electricity at Work Act. The relevant legislation is the Electricity Work Regulations 1989:

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/635/contents/made

 

As is clear from the HSE's guidance, para 116, there is no absolute prohibition on new exposed conductor rails:

 

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pUbns/priced/hsr25.pdf

 

The ORR's stance in relation to all of this is summarised in this document:

 

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/dc-electrification-policy-statement.pdf

 

The key bit is this:

 

"ORR considers that the weight of safety evidence creates a presumption against new-build or extended third rail being reasonably practicable. A duty holder will therefore need to demonstrate, to ORR’s satisfaction, that any proposed new-build or extended third rail proposal complies with the applicable legislation and be able to explain how and why it rebuts this presumption."

Edited February 3, 2021 by 2251

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

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.

 

But the VER in Brighton and Hythe Pier Railway already mentioned? They are lower voltage but Hythe is still 250V. Although isn’t the current more of a safety issue?

 

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

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.

 

I think this was mentioned in a similar, previous discussion and it was pointed out that it would also leave the electrical systems vulnerable to metal theft if they were known to be switched off when not operating. If they then turned out to be live after all it would then become a safety issue again. Could the system used for trams on the continent be used, whereby only the section under the tram is energised at any given time?

[Nearholmer]

Just now, 009 micro modeller said:

Could the system used for trams on the continent be used, whereby only the section under the tram is energised at any given time?

 

I understand that something along those lines (perhaps with rather longer than train-length sections) has been mooted for the Uckfield Line.

[Nearholmer]

7 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Although isn’t the current more of a safety issue?

 

Its the flow of current through/over the body that injures/kills, but that current is driven by a voltage. 

 

If you are into basic circuits, think of yourself as a resistor, but not a linear resistor (V/I=R), rather one that is highly non-linear, so that the current flowing through it will change in great disproportion to any change in the voltage across it.

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

But the VER in Brighton and Hythe Pier Railway already mentioned? They are lower voltage but Hythe is still 250V. Although isn’t the current more of a safety issue?

 

 

 

 

Volks Railway is owned by Brighton & Hove City Council - and if anything were to happen ultimately the ORR would come for them because they have a legal responsibility to ensure their asset is being operated and maintained as per the law. Given the nature of such bodies it is also assumed by the ORR they would have plenty of experience in managing contracts relating to electrical items in a public place - be it council buildings or street lighting.

 

Hythe Pier Tramway is owned by the commercial organisation running ferries across Southampton Water. Again its status as a 'proper company' if you will makes the ORR more happy that the oversight arrangements are robust and compliance with the EAW regulations is more easily done.

 

 

[caradoc]

2 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I think this was mentioned in a similar, previous discussion and it was pointed out that it would also leave the electrical systems vulnerable to metal theft if they were known to be switched off when not operating. If they then turned out to be live after all it would then become a safety issue again.

 

If a preserved railway's electrification was permanently live it would require a qualified person on duty 24/7/365 to deal with any emergency, eg circuit breaker tripping for whatever reason. If OTOH it was only switched on when required it would have to be fully examined every time to ensure no damage had occurred or foreign object come into contact with it; Plus, particularly for OLE, that it had not been stolen ! Sadly, I cannot see any preserved railway ever being able to electrify. 

 

[Johann Marsbar]

Just stick a trolley pole on the roof like they do at the various US Museums who operate former DC 3rd rail subway stock on their demonstraton lines.......

 

 

Any H&S Officials would have suffered heart failure when riding on this particular one back in 2004, given the open inspection hatches in the floor and the bright electrical flashes inside the coaches as the unit moved along the track. Don't think they would approve of the boarding arrangements either...........

 

(..and it was available for the Public to ride on!)

 

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, 2251 said:

 

There is no such thing as the Electricity at Work Act. The relevant legislation is the Electricity Work Regulations 1989:

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/635/contents/made

 

 

 

OK so I used "Act" instead of "Regulations" - makes ZERO practical difference as compliance is still mandatory.

 

2 hours ago, 2251 said:

 

As is clear from the HSE's guidance, para 116, there is no absolute prohibition on new exposed conductor rails:

 

 

 

Neither does it say the are allowed!

 

What that paragraph 116 actually means is 'we have left such matters up to the ORR - go and ask them'.

Installing a railway electrical power supply and NOT getting the ORRs approval would still count as a breech of the EAW regulations by proxy.

 

2 hours ago, 2251 said:

 

The key bit is this:

 

"ORR considers that the weight of safety evidence creates a presumption against new-build or extended third rail being reasonably practicable. A duty holder will therefore need to demonstrate, to ORR’s satisfaction, that any proposed new-build or extended third rail proposal complies with the applicable legislation and be able to explain how and why it rebuts this presumption."

 

Or this (from the same document)

 

"Infrastructure managers have a range of duties under health and safety law to design and operate their undertaking so that risk to workers, passengers and members of the public is minimised. There are more specific duties in the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 (the “EAW Regulations”) which require precautions to be taken to avoid death or personal injury from electricity at work activities. The existing DC network predates the EAW Regulations and consequently was not designed to comply with them. Therefore, when developing options for the design and implementation of electrification schemes, and when approaching maintenance and renewal of the existing network, we expect the industry to appropriately and robustly address the serious safety concerns associated with third rail DC electrification"

[Nearholmer]

But, 2251 is spot-on: there is no absolute prohibition.

 

19 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Installing a railway electrical power supply and NOT getting the ORRs approval would still count as a breech of the EAW regulations by proxy.

 

Nope, because para 116 is guidance, not law, and to the best of my knowledge The E@WR don't include an "approval regime" at all. However, doing it without approval would almost certainly breach other laws governing railway safety that do include "approval regimes".

 

The upshot of all this, though, is that there is a huge burden of proof of safety on anyone setting out to do it, and the practical means to achieve an acceptable level of safety would be exceedingly time-consuming, costly, and troublesome to implement, so its not something that one is likely to see happening much, if at all.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Nearholmer

[009 micro modeller]

18 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Volks Railway is owned by Brighton & Hove City Council - and if anything were to happen ultimately the ORR would come for them because they have a legal responsibility to ensure their asset is being operated and maintained as per the law. Given the nature of such bodies it is also assumed by the ORR they would have plenty of experience in managing contracts relating to electrical items in a public place - be it council buildings or street lighting.

 

Hythe Pier Tramway is owned by the commercial organisation running ferries across Southampton Water. Again its status as a 'proper company' if you will makes the ORR more happy that the oversight arrangements are robust and compliance with the EAW regulations is more easily done.

 

But similarly some preserved lines are run more professionally than others (not that volunteers couldn’t be trained to the same standards as paid employees, they just tend not to be). Perhaps more relevant is that both of these lines are pre-existing installations, which a revived third rail line would not be. Certainly at Hythe there is a low platform and it does seem possible that either staff or passengers could get hurt by the live rail at the shore end, but the rest of the line is fenced with the live rail on the non-walkway side (and being a pier railway, trespass is somewhat difficult).

 

On the VER there are multiple pedestrian crossings where it seems people could quite easily stray onto the line and I’m not sure how these are managed. It may be that the whole thing is simply considered a much smaller risk due to the lower voltage.

 

15 minutes ago, Johann Marsbar said:

Just stick a trolley pole on the roof like they do at the various US Museums who operate former DC 3rd rail subway stock on their demonstraton lines.......

 

 

This may actually be a solution, and it sort of takes after the SR dual-equipped locos (which I think used overhead line in yards for safety reasons). But would people feel that it was not authentic enough? I actually find this preferable to the diesel generator idea and it could potentially be done fairly unobtrusively, as well as being more similar to existing lines at tramway museums.

[gelboy45]

Hi

 

Would it be possible to install a battery power raft? 

 

Gerry

[009 micro modeller]

What about loco haulage?

 

Kearsley no. 1, 550V DC overhead

 

I understand the York Power Station loco (500V DC) also survives somewhere: https://www.flickriver.com/photos/127699427@N02/48534472562/

 

And then there’s Spondon no. 1, 200V DC overhead with battery capability for unelectrified lines: http://www.emus.co.uk/spondon.htm

 

I think there’s a few others in preservation from similar relatively low-voltage overhead wire lines. Probably much easier to get a safety case signed off than top-contact third rail or 25kV AC overhead but perhaps not quite what people are after here. (I quite like weird electrified industrial lines but maybe that’s just me.) But what about Woodhead-style 1500V DC or the 1200V side-contact third rail that used to work out of Manchester? Both systems that are no longer used and so can’t run on the mainline but have stock preserved - and yes, I’m (probably correctly) assuming that a Woodhead loco wouldn’t be able to go for a trip out on the Tyne and Wear Metro for a number of reasons...

 

19 minutes ago, gelboy45 said:

Would it be possible to install a battery power raft? 

 

 

Isn’t that what the EOR-based group buying an IoW tube train are planning to do?

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by 009 micro modeller

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

But similarly some preserved lines are run more professionally than others (not that volunteers couldn’t be trained to the same standards as paid employees, they just tend not to be). Perhaps more relevant is that both of these lines are pre-existing installations, which a revived third rail line would not be. Certainly at Hythe there is a low platform and it does seem possible that either staff or passengers could get hurt by the live rail at the shore end, but the rest of the line is fenced with the live rail on the non-walkway side (and being a pier railway, trespass is somewhat difficult).

 

On the VER there are multiple pedestrian crossings where it seems people could quite easily stray onto the line and I’m not sure how these are managed. It may be that the whole thing is simply considered a much smaller risk due to the lower voltage.

 

 

This may actually be a solution, and it sort of takes after the SR dual-equipped locos (which I think used overhead line in yards for safety reasons). But would people feel that it was not authentic enough? I actually find this preferable to the diesel generator idea and it could potentially be done fairly unobtrusively, as well as being more similar to existing lines at tramway museums.

 

The first thing to note is that voltage and current, and short circuit protection (circuit breakers, etc) are very relevant here. The Brighton for example system use 110V AC (a voltage often used on building sites for power tools) and the tram cars employed themselves are not that heavy so the currents flowing are relatively tiny by railway standards and in theory a much easier proposition to manage by volunteer staff backed up by Brighton & Hove's preferred electrical contractors if necessary.

 

Ultimately though the point is not about whether volunteers could be trained etc. it is more of a question of given the onerous H&S laws we rightly operate under whether the ORR would perceive such an operation to be permissible.

 

The easiest way to kill an idea is not to ban it - but put so many obstacles in the way people either run out of money or penitence or both! As the ORR have made crystal clear you need an extremely robust business case to install something known to be dangerous and not permitted to be installed in any other situation (e.g. a factory) than a railway.

 

Again I ask you to consider how things like the Severn Valley would have faired had they faced todays level safety / oversight / compliance requirements back in the 1960s?

 

Legislation has changed things enormously over the past 50 years, particularly that related to H&S.

 

The H&S at work act (which also applies to voluntary organisation) didn't come into being till 1974 for example.

 

Yes we have a large number of steam (and diesel) Heritage railways in the UK - but much of the groundwork for those was laid many decades ago and by the time H&S really started getting tough they were already thriving businesses. Thus Government regulatory bodies including latterly the ORR was more or less forced into accepting their existence while the railways themselves made changes to keep abreast of new H&S legislation.

Edited February 3, 2021 by phil-b259

[009 micro modeller]

10 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

The first thing to note is that voltage and current, and short circuit protection (circuit breakers, etc) are very relevant here. The Brighton for example system use 110V AC (a voltage often used on building sites for power tools) and the tram cars employed themselves are not that heavy so the currents flowing are relatively tiny by railway standards and in theory a much easier proposition to manage by volunteer staff backed up by Brighton & Hove's preferred electrical contractors if necessary.

 

But is it possible that the ORR would be more amenable to the idea of a fairly low-voltage DC overhead system (either the industrial locos mentioned above or a SR third rail unit adapted (but not electrically altered) to draw power from an overhead line)? This seems to be considered safe at Crich, Seaton and other heritage tramways, assuming that it would be fairly similar.

Edited February 3, 2021 by 009 micro modeller

[Johann Marsbar]

25 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

What about loco haulage?

I understand the York Power Station loco (500V DC) also survives somewhere: https://www.flickriver.com/photos/127699427@N02/48534472562/

 

 

 

The York loco was mentioned in this thread...

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Johann Marsbar

[rodent279]

You have to say, if we were inventing railway electrification systems now, I doubt we'd come up with 3rd rail. Not as we know it at least.

The idea of an exposed conductor energised at several hundred volts, just a few cm from the ground, and easily accessible from anyone on the track, is pretty obviously a safety hazard.

If we were talking about pipes carrying superheated steam at several hundred degrees C, we'd make sure they were as inaccessible as possible.

If we were talking about deep trenches, deep enough to kill someone who fell in them, we'd fence them off.

So given the obvious hazards, it's not really surprising that the regulatory powers make it difficult to extend 3rd rail, or install new schemes. And it's the right decision really.

Edited February 3, 2021 by rodent279

[Nearholmer]

Batteries are definitely an option here, ideally on a vehicle, because anything at the line-side involves the challenge of getting ‘juice’ onto the vehicle while it’s moving.

 

Entertaining as discussion of infrastructure is, personally I think the best option discussed here so far is an MLV, fitted with new, modern batteries, and altered so as to be fully control/brake compatible with retro-units - haven’t we discussed all that in another thread? If one wanted to remain fully retro, perhaps an old LU battery loco, which would look pretty odd towing a BIL! Or, a Bat-Car, containing only batteries, plus driving and braking facilities, styled to look like a 1930s EMU, would be rather fun.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

The Electricity at Work Regulations are easy to circumvent: Don't employ anybody. Obligations are only placed on employers.

 

However, it is hard to see anyone wanting to operate a preserved electric train but not wanting to do it under ORR auspices. I'm not entirely sure of their remit, but they seem to cover anything that looks like a railway to me, including things like Seaton Tramway. I suppose if you owned your own land and didn't admit members of the public, you might be able to avoid their watchful gaze (and their prohibition notices), but who's going to do that? You'd still come under the Occupier's Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984, but I think these only kick in after someone gets hurt.

 

Incidentally, the Electricity at Work Regulations apply equally to overhead installations. There's nothing special about third rail.

[rodent279]

2 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Batteries are definitely an option here, ideally on a vehicle, because anything at the line-side involves the challenge of getting ‘juice’ onto the vehicle while it’s moving.

 

Entertaining as discussion of infrastructure is, personally I think the best option discussed here so far is an MLV, fitted with new, modern batteries, and altered so as to be fully control/brake compatible with retro-units - haven’t we discussed all that in another thread? If one wanted to remain fully retro, perhaps an old LU battery loco, which would look pretty odd towing a BIL! Or, a Bat-Car, containing only batteries, plus driving and braking facilities, styled to look like a 1930s EMU, would be rather fun.

Can we call it the Bat-Mobile? Please? And can it be next to a Pullman car called Robin?

[Nearholmer]

10 minutes ago, Jeremy C said:

The Electricity at Work Regulations are easy to circumvent: Don't employ anybody. Obligations are only placed on employers.

Incorrect. You need to read HSR25 more closely, notably paragraphs 52-56.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Nearholmer

[rodent279]

4 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Incorrect. You need to read HSR25 more closely, notably paragraphs 52-56.

My understanding is that you don't need to have staff in paid employment. Even if they are all volunteers, the body concerned, be it a preserved railway, the local Scout group, or a vicarage tea party, still has a duty of care towards them and the general public.

I'm part of a running club. We are all volunteers, but the club has had to go through quite a few hoops to get itself declared a Covid secure environment, so that we can continue coaching runners. Not the same as an electric railway, but the same duty of care applies on the part of the Club towards us volunteers, the runners and the general public.

Edited February 3, 2021 by rodent279

[Nearholmer]

HSR25 sets out really clearly who can be a dutyholder under the E@WR, but even if a person/body isn't a dutyholder under these Regs, they may have multiple other duties, for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care_in_English_law#:~:text=In English tort law%2C an individual may owe,compensate the victim for any losses they incur.

[Bucoops]

How about cable car style?

 

http://www.cablecarmuseum.org/below-the-streets.html

 

All sorts of reasons not to but who knows, might be viable for a new line?