Is new third rail totally banned in the UK?

[jjb1970]

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

Life cycle analysis of fuel and energy is an interesting topic and can give counter intuitive results. Everything tends to hang on system boundaries, this isn't as simple as just considering upstream emissions and in the case of biofuels land use factors can be significant. Certainly there is a growing awareness of the importance of looking at extraction to emissions and wider system impact which is very positive. That said the fact that the environmental credentials of electric trains is dependent on the means of generating electricity is entirely logical.

 

The paper doesn't really consider engine emissions and the conflict between GHG and local emissions. In a sense that is disappointing as engine emissions challenge many assumptions. On the other hand I feel thermal combustion processes using hydrocarbon fuel are rapidly nearing the end of their own life cycle and that we are in the process of a technological discontinuity as profound as the industrial revolution.

[Nearholmer]

I read the paper to be simply about CO2, and whether or not electrifying the rail network is a worthwhile way to meet targets. It’s a few years old, which is probably why it is focused on that narrow specific.

[Trog]

Do they routinely use RRVs under live OHLE?

 

Back in BR days when you could talk PW Engineer to OHL Engineer with not a sniff of a safety officer. I several times moved Road Rail plant under wires that were dead but not earthed out with the buckets on the machines chained down. As that way you could have a short isolation where you put the machines on and another one for the site. The benefit was that doing this avoided the need for the OHL to put up earths between, and that we did not have to stand around waiting while they did it.

 

Further back in time it used to be a regular practice to bring JCB's etc. across the open outside lines if you were working on the middle lines. Under live overheads and protected from traffic on the open lines by a margin (signal protection) granted by the signalmen.  Could be quite complicated to arrange if you were in the overlap between two power boxes and had to arrange simultaneous margins with two signalmen. 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Trog

[jjb1970]

There is a key concept in health and safety regulation, which is that risks which are reasonably foreseeable must be controlled, preferably eliminated but even HSE people recognise risk elimination isn't possible in all cases in which case the residual risk should be ALARP and tolerable. With that in mind I'd challenge anybody with an understanding of electrical hazards to feel comfortable with the idea of proposing a ground level exposed 750V DC conductor within a few feet of the general public and in the vicinity of normal track work and operations if we didn't have a legacy system. We are where we are with the legacy system, but it is entirely correct IMO that a high bar is set for approval for any extensions on health and safety grounds.

 

The argument that things are safe if treated with respect is overly simple as that could be an argument for not bothering with industrial health and safety. These days it is common for people to be negative about safety regulation and "elf n'safety" is a pejorative term yet it is an undeniable fact that we have an enviable industrial safety record in the UK, something which is too easy to take for granted. I entered the work force in 1989, if I compare risk management today with that in 1989 there has been a sea change for the better. That is something to celebrate, not be negative about.

 

Health and safety is often blamed for inflating costs, preventing work etc but again that is overly simplistic. Yes, it has inflated costs but not to anything like the degree sometimes claimed unless a H&S policy is extremely inept and badly implemented. What safe systems of work do is to force planning, sound control of work and risk analysis on industry in order to facilitate work speedily and efficiently and that is no bad thing. I worked under electricity generating safety rules which were still pretty much the old CEGB rules and which were extremely strict and regimented with respect to safety documents and isolations etc. The work was still done, and it didn't slow things down or make life difficult. What it did do was force maintenance to think ahead, and that is beneficial in terms of efficiency as well as promoting safety.

[Nearholmer]

You begin to touch on something that often gets somewhat missed in this discussion, JJB: conductor rails are only an electrical hazard to people, if people are near to them while they are live.

 

To make things fully safe, one can: take the CR away; or, take the people away, unless the CR is dead.

 

London Underground, and other metros go very heavily for the second of these options (the first option isn't an option!) which fits rather neatly with protecting workers from moving trains, too, on an all-electric railway.

 

So, I think that an open question must be: how much of the activity that presently causes people to be near CR that is live really, absolutely has to happen when it's live? Any of it?

 

And, if a proportion of that activity is response to faults/failures of signalling, p.way etc, what is it that is going wrong in the design/care regime for those assets that leads to such failures? Reduce those failures, perhaps by some solid PPM at night, with the juice off, and workers won't be called onto the track so often during the traffic day, and the customers won't get disrupted either.

 

My logic is that asset failures on a busy railway should be so rare that making the CR dead to fix the fault doesn't become an issue. And if the railway is un-busy enough to permit maintenance of those assets during the traffic day, it is un-busy enough to allow the CR to be made dead to permit it.

 

K

Edited January 18, 2018 by Nearholmer

[jim.snowdon]

Do they routinely use RRVs under live OHLE?

Using RRVs under live - No. On railing and travelling under de-energised (not earthed) OLE is, I believe, permissible subject to the RRV concerned being certificated for it. There are also other jobs that can be done with rail mounted plant with the OLE de-energised only, with special arrangements for localised earthing if anyone needs to get onto the upper parts of vehicle, ie the high output ballast cleaner to sort out a problem. The whole issue of what and how much earthing there needs to be in relation to OLE isolation is being looked at currently, with recognition that the blind approach of earthing every 400m for miles is not always appropriate to the job being done.

Similarly, the door is beginning to open to bringing back precautionary de-energisation of the conductor rail for certain types of task where the work does not involve either intentional contact or a high risk of contact but is safer done with the power off.

 

The Germans, who use a lot more rail mounted plant that we do, do more work under live OLE, but their machines are fitted with restrictors for both height and slew (so that they can work alongside open lines).

 

Jim

 

Jim

[ColinK]

Electrifying the Windermere branch does make sense as,

a) it means emus can run from Winderemere to places like Preston and Manchester, perhaps Liverpool in time. This is important as the line brings thousands of visitors to the Lake District each year and through trains mean the service is more attractive as people do not have to change trains.

b) otherwise you have a isolated branch line worked by emu's, which is operationally inefficient and inconvenient,

[melmerby]

 On the other hand I feel thermal combustion processes using hydrocarbon fuel are rapidly nearing the end of their own life cycle and that we are in the process of a technological discontinuity as profound as the industrial revolution.

They are only nearing the end of their life cycle for ground based transport so as to leave sufficient for the future of the airline industry and the politicians who constantly promote it.

 

Keith

[jjb1970]

And, if a proportion of that activity is response to faults/failures of signalling, p.way etc, what is it that is going wrong in the design/care regime for those assets that leads to such failures? Reduce those failures, perhaps by some solid PPM at night, with the juice off, and workers won't be called onto the track so often during the traffic day, and the customers won't get disrupted either.

 

My logic is that asset failures on a busy railway should be so rare that making the CR dead to fix the fault doesn't become an issue. And if the railway is un-busy enough to permit maintenance of those assets during the traffic day, it is un-busy enough to allow the CR to be made dead to permit it.

 

K

These ideas should be embedded in any asset management and maintenance scheme. One of the advantages of a strict work control regime is that it highlights failures and gives an added incentive to doing proper root cause analysis and improving reliability.

[jim.snowdon]

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.

I know, and that's just the sort of attitude that prevails, until you actually get people to understand each other, when it is surprising what can happen. But so long as everyone goes around blaming other departments, it only leads to a "not my problem" attitude. We do all work for the same railway, and too many people are too reeady to say no to anything without thinking about it.

 

Jim

[melmerby]

Electrifying the Windermere branch does make sense as,

a) it means emus can run from Winderemere to places like Preston and Manchester, perhaps Liverpool in time. This is important as the line brings thousands of visitors to the Lake District each year and through trains mean the service is more attractive as people do not have to change trains.

b) otherwise you have a isolated branch line worked by emu's, which is operationally inefficient and inconvenient,

The current service is to Preston or onto Manchester Airport, which is about 66 miles from Oxenholme

The DMU does some shuttles once arrived at Oxenholme before returning south.

 

Keith

[phil-b259]

My logic is that asset failures on a busy railway should be so rare that making the CR dead to fix the fault doesn't become an issue. And if the railway is un-busy enough to permit maintenance of those assets during the traffic day, it is un-busy enough to allow the CR to be made dead to permit it.

 

 

This is far too much of a generalisation and I'm afraid to say displays a sense of arrogance that has no place in engineering disciplines. Anyone who says an engineering task is 'easy' to do another way had better have actually worked 'on the tools' before coming out with such sentiments.

 

Yes, upgrading the DC supply system with motorised hookswitches, etc will make possessions more productive etc, but expecting to have ECR merrily going switching bits off every time we or the p-way come across something that needs a quick bit of attention (and which we would have no problem doing during daylight hours without disrupting the service

 

Please note what I said in the lock blade example - if necessary I can clip the points up, let the signaller run a train then resume my work again. All very simple, only requires my team of 3 and the signaller - nobody else, nice and easy. If I have to arrange electrical isolations then (1) the electrical control system must be configured to allow the turning off of tiny sections of conductor rail at a time (2) You are now involving a 3rd party who also has to communicate with the signaller and myself (3) remote switch offs take time to activate - plus I have to test its dead afterwards, finally (4) The whole process must be reversed before trains can run again.

 

People moan about the railway costing too much - well things like con rail massively increase maintenance costs due to the restrictions they pose. Overheads of course also present a maintenance cost but I'm willing to bet its a lot lower mile, for mile.

 

London Underground (and other Metro systems) generally have the advantage that their tracks are not in use 24/7 (by freight for example or overnight passenger services). As such many metro systems deliberately turn their power supply systems off every night so there can be no possability of 'live working' - a stance helped by situations where long tunnelled sections and limited amounts of tipple / quadruple track naturally restrict staff access anyway.

[jim.snowdon]

People moan about the railway costing too much - well things like con rail massively increase maintenance costs due to the restrictions they pose. Overheads of course also present a maintenance cost but I'm willing to bet its a lot lower mile, for mile.

 

 

The restrictions are as much those imposed by people as they are by the system itself. But, to some degree, the situation is not helped by the fact that the architecture and section of the Southern's conductor rail system is still configured for the working practices of the 1950s and earlier, when it was accepted practice to do a lot more with the rail live, including locally de-energising sections using hookswitches and the simple precaution of checking that there were no electric trains in the section. The way some parts ofthe conductor rail are fed does need updating, as does the provision of more locally operated switching to permit safe access to equipment in times of failure. That might just mean, for example, S&T staff being trained to operate hookswitches, which is probably regarded as heresy, but with the right training, I see no reason why not.

 

Jim

[phil-b259]

I know, and that's just the sort of attitude that prevails, until you actually get people to understand each other, when it is surprising what can happen. But so long as everyone goes around blaming other departments, it only leads to a "not my problem" attitude. We do all work for the same railway, and too many people are too reeady to say no to anything without thinking about it.

 

Jim

 

Its not about blaming anyone but is based on what actually happens.

 

I have heard an awful lot of talk about 'motorised hook switches' for over the past 5 to 10 years now but nothing has happened. At a recent presentation I was told there is a 'plan' to have them installed over the next 2 years - and in any case all they do is replicate the exsisting layout - they do nothing to break the con rail down into smaller chunks than already exsists.

 

If Axle counters are so great and will remove all our problems then why haven't NR insisted they be used at Redhill for example, or Gatwick, or when the Balcombe - Copyhold Junction sections had all its signalling renewed to increase the Bi-di capacity?

 

Where are these fancy new 4ft mounted point machines - again why are they not being installed instead of HW200s in schemes all across the Southern network, including places where con rails must pass between them and the running rails?

 

When am I going to be able to ring up Electrical Control and request the isolation of a piece of conductor rail between signals - (not between stations 5 miles apart) and get that within 2 minutes?

 

Why does the Electricity at Work Act effectively prohibit conductor rail if its so wonderfully safe for staff to have at their feet?

 

WHEN I get convincing answers to questions like these, I might have more time for con rail fans. Until then  no amount of management speak about 'people working together' will make the slightest amount of difference - and nor should it. You want peoples attitude to change? well lets see some action, not yet more paperwork ideas / small talk.

Edited January 18, 2018 by phil-b259

[jim.snowdon]

Its not about blaming anyone but is based on what actually happens.

 

I have heard an awful lot of talk about 'motorised hook switches' for over the past 5 to 10 years now but nothing has happened. At a recent presentation I was told there is a 'plan' to have them installed over the next 2 years - and in any case all they do is replicate the exsisting layout - they do nothing to break the con rail down into smaller chunks than already exsists.

 

If Axle counters are so great and will remove all our problems then why haven't NR insisted they be used at Redhill for example, or Gatwick, or when the Balcombe - Copyhold Junction sections had all its signalling renewed to increase the Bi-di capacity?

 

Where are these fancy new 4ft mounted point machines - again why are they not being installed instead of HW200s in schemes all across the Southern network, including places where con rails must pass between them and the running rails?

 

When am I going to be able to ring up Electrical Control and request the isolation of a piece of conductor rail between signals - (not between stations 5 miles apart) and get that within 2 minutes?

 

Why does the Electricity at Work Act effectively prohibit conductor rail if its so wonderfully safe for staff to have at their feet?

 

WHEN I get convincing answers to questions like these, I might have more time for con rail fans. Until then  no amount of management speak about 'people working together' will make the slightest amount of difference - and nor should it. You want peoples attitude to change? well lets see some action, not yet more paperwork ideas / small talk.

Since you and I probably work for the same company, there is more to this than should be aired in the public forum. But, what I would say is that four foot point machines do exist (LUL use them, for example) and there is nothing that I am aware of that would prevent the localised use of axle counter technology being used in difficult areas, or doing things like designing conductor rail layouts to avoid the gapping of 2-car units when we no longer run them. If you want to discuss further, I suspect you can find me in the company directory.

 

Jim

[Reorte]

The current service is to Preston or onto Manchester Airport, which is about 66 miles from Oxenholme

The DMU does some shuttles once arrived at Oxenholme before returning south.

One Manchester trip then a few Windermere shuttles at least means the train isn't spending quite as high a proportion of its time on diesel under wires.

[rodent279]

If/when most of the North West is electrified, either on CR or OLE, then the economics of electrifying a small branch line change considerably.

 

Regarding the contentious issue of H&S (elf 'n softee), I think jjb1970 has pretty much nailed it. The reason we have such procedures, instead of relying on "common sense", is a) we killed people, and b) you'd be surprised how rare a quality "common sense" is.

 

I saw a builder working on a house recently. He was cutting what looked like a paving slabs, with what appeared to be an angle grinder. No hard hat, no eye protection, no gloves, jeans & t-shirt, with a hoodie on top (it was mild for December).

Ok he's probably done that a thousand times and got away with it. He's been lucky. He's only got to be unlucky once, and he could be seriously injured or even killed.

Edited January 20, 2018 by rodent279

[Nearholmer]

Phil

 

It is as deliberately a generalisation, because sometimes it’s only by getting right back to generalisations (principles?) that things can be seen for what they are.

 

It’s 30+ years since I worked on the Brighton line, but if it isn’t now treated like a metro from a design, maintenance and fault-fix viewpoint, to be blunt, it should be, given the intensity of service that it is supposed to deliver.

 

Kevin

[melmerby]

I saw a builder working on a house recently. He was cutting what looked like a paving slabs, with what appeared to be an angle grinder. No hard hat, no eye protection, no gloves, jeans & t-shirt, with a hoodie on top (it was mild for December).

Ok he's probably done that a thousand times and got away with it. He's been lucky. He's only got to be unlucky once, and he could be seriously injured or even killed.

I would think that is pretty well the norm apart from with large companies with proper H&S procedures laid out.

 

Keith

[jim.snowdon]

I would think that is pretty well the norm apart from with large companies with proper H&S procedures laid out.

 

Keith

One reason why I prefer the European approach, where the employee is ultimately responsible for his own safety if he chooses to ignore what provisions his employer has made for him. Over here, we are getting to the point where too many people expect someone else to look after their actions.

 

Jim

[Reorte]

I saw a builder working on a house recently. He was cutting what looked like a paving slabs, with what appeared to be an angle grinder. No hard hat, no eye protection, no gloves, jeans & t-shirt, with a hoodie on top (it was mild for December).

Ok he's probably done that a thousand times and got away with it. He's been lucky. He's only got to be unlucky once, and he could be seriously injured or even killed.

And if he'd been wearing all that gear he'd still only need to get unlucky once, it's a matter of how much less likely being unlucky is.

 

You don't want people who think that they're bulletproof if they've ticked all the correct boxes, are wearing all the correct gear, that attitude (probably the same one that makes random people think trains bounce off high vis jackets) isn't much better than the person who's completely blase. "Common sense" gets denigrated but it's still required in any potentially dangerous situation. A list of rules to follow, no matter how well thought out, will get you so far but without that sense you can have all the rules and precautions in the world and I still wouldn't want that person anywhere near. It's all a backup to common sense, not a substitute for it.

[Pandora]

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

With 3rd rail DC system  there are so many  electrical cable - rail connections and butt-jointed rail to rail welds for double track circuitry.  Each electrical  connection  requiring a drilled hole in the web of the rail with  a potential for a  rail breakage , and every butt weld also a candidate for structural failure.  Hence the modern thinking, axle counters and Tuned Zone track circuits in juiceland

Edited January 19, 2018 by Pandora

[jjb1970]

And if he'd been wearing all that gear he'd still only need to get unlucky once, it's a matter of how much less likely being unlucky is.

 

You don't want people who think that they're bulletproof if they've ticked all the correct boxes, are wearing all the correct gear, that attitude (probably the same one that makes random people think trains bounce off high vis jackets) isn't much better than the person who's completely blase. "Common sense" gets denigrated but it's still required in any potentially dangerous situation. A list of rules to follow, no matter how well thought out, will get you so far but without that sense you can have all the rules and precautions in the world and I still wouldn't want that person anywhere near. It's all a backup to common sense, not a substitute for it.

Yes and no. PPE doesn't eliminate risk and it is pretty much universally agreed that it should be the final layer of protection and not a primary means of risk control (i.e. risks should already be controlled before you get to thinking about PPE). However, there are some activities where use of appropriate PPE is essential, and the example of using a disc cutter is one of them. Obviously wearing appropriate eye and face protection, coveralls etc will not eliminate the risks associated with the activity but it should reduce them hugely and mean that normal debris or fragments should not be fired into a persons eyes and depriving them of sight. You only get one set of eyes, shred them because you didn't bother wearing eye protection and there is no way back.

 

Workers are already responsible for their own actions and using PPE and safety equipment provided. If a company has a suitable safe system of work, issues appropriate safety equipment and safety training and takes reasonable steps to ensure their systems are implemented then if a worker ignores it all when nobody is looking and blinds themselves then they would be responsible for their own actions. If a company made no effort (or inadequate efforts) to audit their safe system of work and monitor safety, or failed to issue appropriate PPE and training then in the same incident they would carry some legal liability and I think that is entirely correct.

 

I think something which often gets lost in these arguments is that few people are really stupid and far fewer still suicidal. They may do something stupid which results in them losing a limb, dying or being blinded, but that is not the same as saying they are stupid. Whenever somebody fries themselves or gets flattened under a big lift gone wrong it is far too easy to dismiss them as idiots or Darwin award candidates. In my experience the overwhelming majority of those who get involved in incidents are not thick or suicidal, would be considered perfectly competent to perform their duties under normal cicumstances and for the most part have received appropriate safety equipment and training. Yet incidents still happen. The standard response is that we need more procedures, people need more training etc etc yet in the great majority of cases the safety systems already provided would have been perfectly good if properly implemented and people have already received suitable training. Talking about common sense doesn't account for the fact that trained, competent people do stupid things at times and sometimes pay a heavy price for these lapses.

 

We can either take a view that if you do something stupid it's your problem, or we can take a view that we have a responsibility at work to keep people safe regardless of whether people do stupid things sometimes. I'd ask a question and ask for an honest answer, can anybody on this board who has worked in industry for any length of time honestly say that they have never done something a bit silly and got away with it? I certainly can't and I don't think anybody I've ever worked with could say it. Therefore the difference between the overwhelming majority who have these lapses and get away with it and those who lose the lottery is just luck. The old adage about glass houses and stones is very apt to industrial health and safety I think.

Edited January 19, 2018 by jjb1970

[Reorte]

 Whenever somebody fries themselves or gets flattened under a big lift gone wrong it is far too easy to dismiss them as idiots or Darwin award candidates. In my experience the overwhelming majority of those who get involved in incidents are not thick or suicidal, would be considered perfectly competent to perform their duties under normal cicumstances and for the most part have received appropriate safety equipment and training.

Not that I really disagree with what you're saying, but on this point, you only have to look at the roads to see what some people will do. They've presumably had training (they've had to pass a driving test anyway). That said judging by your various postings you've far more experience of how people having to work in potentially dangerous situations behave than I do.

[rodent279]

It is scary how little "common sense" people exhibit out there.

On a building site around the mid 90's,I was given a brief H&S induction, during which I was told that the most effective piece of PPE there is lies between your ears.