GWR to lease ‘tri-mode’ class 769 multiple units from Porterbrook

[phil-b259]

How far apart are the stops on the Reading-Gatport Airwick service?.

 

3rd Rail is present between

 

Reading & Wokingham (GWR do not cal, at intermediate stations)

Ash & Guildford (GWR do not call at intermediate stations)

Reigate & Redhill

Redhill & Gatwick (GWR do not call at intermediate stations)

 

However the bit between Guildford and Reigate does have some pretty steep gradients as it hugs the North Downs.

 

While a battery powered 379 was trialled by Anglia, this was on the flat Harwich branch which is far less taxing than the North Downs route. Longer term it may have promise but given the need for the bi-modes has come about due to the curtailment of / the late running electrification programme the focus has been very much on what can be done in the short term. With the 319 bodyshells being 30 years old already then the 769s will probably need replacing in 10 to 20 years time anyway, which gives more time to consider battery based options.

[jim.snowdon]

No its not! Can we stop pedalling this myth

 

The Official ORR policy quite clearly states:-

 

"There is a presumption against the reasonable practicability of new build or extended DC third rail in view of the safety requirements duty holders must satisfy in order to justify the use of third rail" (http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/17621/dc-electrification-policy-statement.pdf

 

Last time I looked the installation of 20 odd miles of conductor rail counts as both 'new' and 'extended'

 

True, it is not a 'ban' on substantive new conductor rail electrification - but you don't need to ban things outright if you put enough regulatory hurdles in the way to discourage any particular activity.

 

Thus the only effective exemptions the ORR will accept to their aforementioned policy today is where track remodelling requires the limited provision of new 3rd rail - for example the construction of the new Thameslink depot at Three Bridges or the construction of Platform zero at Redhill. Adding conductor rail to the Reigate - Guildford and Ash - Wokingham sections is not in the same league and will not be tolerated - particularly in an era where bi-modes are seen as the solution to everything by the DfT and where NR is seen as being incompetent in handling electrification.

Except that there has, as I have been given to understand by others in the electrification community who do know, that whilst it may not be ORR policy, projects such as filling in the gaps in what is an established DC conductor rail network are not deemed illegal. Extending an existing third rail network beyond its existing boundaries is a different ballgame, not impossible but requiring a very sound case demonstrating that all other options are not reasonably practicable.

 

Jim

[royaloak]

I would love to know how many of those on here who seem to think its not a problem actually have to WORK with it feet or inches away from you every day!

I used to until I moved TOCs, in fact at my first depot (Strawberry Hill) the con rail ran across the walkway which was at running rail height so the con rail stuck up a few inches presenting a wonderful trip hazard although I am not aware of anyone actually tripping on it, so I am fully aware of 3rd rail thank you!

[phil-b259]

Except that there has, as I have been given to understand by others in the electrification community who do know, that whilst it may not be ORR policy, projects such as filling in the gaps in what is an established DC conductor rail network are not deemed illegal. Extending an existing third rail network beyond its existing boundaries is a different ballgame, not impossible but requiring a very sound case demonstrating that all other options are not reasonably practicable.

 

Jim

 

Ah well if you want to bring legality into it....

 

Yes, you are correct in that there is no single piece of legislation that prohibits the installation of new exposed, conductor rail in the UK of any distance. As such the ORR have no powers to 'Ban' or 'prevent' any railway undertaking from proposing it - or even physically installing it along the track. Turning it on however is a different matter because...

 

....What the law does say, is that the ORR is the safety regulator for the industry and they have to 'sign off' any electrification scheme as complying with all the other bits of legislation such as the HSAW act and the EAW regulations to name just two. The ORR also have the power to shut down railway undertakings that they deem in breach of said regulations unless they have issued the appropriate derogations. As such no railway electrification scheme can go live unless the say so.

 

Thus while it is technically correct to say that new, extended or 'infill electrification (which is actually a combination of both the previous categories - not a genuine one in its own right) is legal to undertake, in practice the ORRs stated policy and the regulations it has a legal duty to enforce by virtue of its statutory role as the railway industrys safety regulator means that for all practical purposes 3rd rail electrification of routes like the North Downs WON'T HAPPEN.

 

Its not a new tactic - after all look at Smoking. There is no law specifically 'banning' the act of smoking  - if you encourage your 5 year old child to smoke regularly then they are not doing anything 'illegal' - unless they happen to be inside an enclosed space. However what you as a parent will be guilty of is child neglect, etc - which you can be prosecuted for. 

 

In other words you don't 'ban' the activity - you put other obstacles in the way which make it uneconomic or socially unacceptable for that activity to take place instead. The outcome is the same and makes very little difference in practical terms.

 

Furthermore you need to remember that NR is not some independent private business - it is a official government body under direct control of the DfT - who have close links to the ORR and the HSE, plus those drafting H&S law. There is therefore zero chance of NR 'taking on' the ORR over its stance on 3rd rail electrification.

 

Of course within NR there may well be individuals who believe they can succeed in getting ORR approval and cab present an excellent argument for further extensions to 'complete' the network  - but given the nature of NRs existence I cannot believe that the legal bods and finance persons would support such a move which flies in the face ogf the 'good practice' any Government body is expected to follow.

Edited April 21, 2018 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

I used to until I moved TOCs, in fact at my first depot (Strawberry Hill) the con rail ran across the walkway which was at running rail height so the con rail stuck up a few inches presenting a wonderful trip hazard although I am not aware of anyone actually tripping on it, so I am fully aware of 3rd rail thank you!

 

I was thinking for more than trip hazards - hence the use of the word 'work'

 

As Ncarter2 said this means things like attending to duff block joints, making adjustments to point fittings etc. not merely walking alongside it.

 

For traincrew I would say their 'work' is driving / guarding trains not wandering round the tracks

 

While traincrew obviously do have some exposure to it when climbing into or out of their cabs away from official walking routes (where the con rail should be shrouded / cut back to mitigate the risks if at all possible) in general they do not face the same level of risk as track workers.

[royaloak]

I will ignore the snide comment about traincrew 'wandering round the tracks'!

While traincrew obviously do have some exposure to it when climbing into or out of their cabs away from official walking routes (where the con rail should be shrouded / cut back to mitigate the risks if at all possible) in general they do not face the same level of risk as track workers.

Of course track workers will have more exposure to the con rail than traincrew (I have never said any different), I was merely pointing out that I do did have exposure to it on a daily basis.

Edited April 21, 2018 by royaloak

[phil-b259]

I will ignore the snide comment about traincrew 'wandering round the tracks'!

Of course track workers will have more exposure to the con rail than traincrew (I have never said any different), I was merely pointing out that I do did have exposure to it on a daily basis.

 

It was not meant as a snide remark - rather a statement of fact. As you yourself acknowledge you spend most of your time driving and naturally your exposure to con rail related hazards will be different, and I would venture to say less significant compared to the risks of trackworkers

 

It thus follows that the best people to comment on the issues of working with conrail on a daily basis are trackworkers. If anything my response was more of a dig at folk who seem to think that because people are not dieing every day working on it that is good enough justification to install more of the stuff.

 

No different to matters relating to driving trains really. Ultimately while we all naturally have opinions in matters relating to things like DOO or the light output of LED signals, you and your driving colleagues are the ones we look to provide the relevant first had experience in such matters. As with DOO technology and daily incident statistics don't tell the full story as regards 3rd rail electrification.

Edited April 21, 2018 by phil-b259

[Coryton]

It’s not as simple as people may think.

As a manager who sends 50 odd staff out to work next to live 3rd rail every day I have to satisfy myself and my team that things are safe. There are lots of constraints to consider, more than I think most would think of. 3rd rail is obsolete, there are no plans to continue installing, it’s dangerous and a nightmare for planning and maintenance.

You’d be very surprised as to how many track workers per year get injured, be it a flash up or worse, contact. It’s a separate set of competencies to keep up on also. We on P-Way regularly need to be in close proximity, be it broken fish plates, bolts, geometry faults etc. We have the conductor rail shields but they are not 100% fool proof.

There are always lessons learnt, but still incidents happen.

 

Consider it this way,

 

Members of the public, we would like to put a 750v live and exposed electrical conductor on the pavement. If you touch it, it’s likly you will be killed but be careful and all will be ok.

The pavement is an area you need to use as it’s part of your day to day life.

 

This is what it is for us on the railway, not only that we have other safety critical tasks to do.

 

What is here will be around for a long time as it is cost prohibitive to replace but I for one am thankful that ORR and NR have decided 3rd expansion and Infilling is done.

 

 

Well said.

 

I would love to know how many of those on here who seem to think its not a problem actually have to WORK with it feet or inches away from you every day!

 

One of the big problems the workforce continues to face is when managers, or politicians, or enthusiasts refuse to listen to the concerns of front line workers - who simply get told "stop fussing its perfectly safe" Just as the concerns of Guards and Drivers should not be ignored with respect to DOO, the same holds true for track workers when it comes to conductor rail.

 

Interesting responses.

 

Personally I would be horrified at the thought of having to work next to a live rail (hence my comment that it sounded ludicrously dangerous) and am impressed that people are prepared to do so.

 

So in one sense I wouldn't be surprised at the number of injuries per year. On the other hand I would because the impression I'd got (from Rmweb and elsewhere) is that with the precautions that are necessarily taken, incidents are very rare.

 

And no, I certainly wouldn't fancy a live rail along the pavement, but on the other hand I accept the risk of walking on narrow pavements alongside fast moving traffic and having to cross busy roads without thinking too much about the fact that one mistake on my part (or indeed someone elses) could cost me my life. 

 

Both third rails and permitting pedestrians anywhere near road traffic strike me as things that would be stopped now if we applied the same health and safety principles as we do to just about anything else in the UK.

 

Is the idea of replacing existing third rail any more than an aspiration at present? It strikes me that if it's so dangerous that adding a few more miles is inconceivable, perhaps a bit more progress could have been made in thinking about what to do with the existing system. (Is conversion to a shrouded or at the least under-running rail out of the question?)

[locoholic]

Does a ban on new 3rd rail electrification mean that there is a problem with 3rd rail, or a problem with the ORR?

 

If 3rd rail is such a hazard, where is the plan to eradicate it from the network, and why aren't the unions kicking up a fuss about it, like they have with that other "safety" issue, DOO trains?

 

I do think Porterbrook have missed a trick with these Tri-Mode trains, too. If they fitted them with pneumatic tyres, they could be Quadruple-Mode, so they could avoid these death-trap rail routes and go on the road instead. Because whilst railways are hidebound by ever-increasing safety concerns, the roads are allowed to become riddled with potholes and worn-out road markings without any come back on anyone.

[phil-b259]

Interesting responses.

 

Personally I would be horrified at the thought of having to work next to a live rail (hence my comment that it sounded ludicrously dangerous) and am impressed that people are prepared to do so.

 

So in one sense I wouldn't be surprised at the number of injuries per year. On the other hand I would because the impression I'd got (from Rmweb and elsewhere) is that with the precautions that are necessarily taken, incidents are very rare.

 

And no, I certainly wouldn't fancy a live rail along the pavement, but on the other hand I accept the risk of walking on narrow pavements alongside fast moving traffic and having to cross busy roads without thinking too much about the fact that one mistake on my part (or indeed someone elses) could cost me my life. 

 

Both third rails and permitting pedestrians anywhere near road traffic strike me as things that would be stopped now if we applied the same health and safety principles as we do to just about anything else in the UK.

 

Is the idea of replacing existing third rail any more than an aspiration at present? It strikes me that if it's so dangerous that adding a few more miles is inconceivable, perhaps a bit more progress could have been made in thinking about what to do with the existing system. (Is conversion to a shrouded or at the least under-running rail out of the question?)

 

The problem is compatibility (or lack of) between the two designs making duel system trains impractical.

 

Systems which employ bottom contact like the DLR and Berlin S-Bahn have the 3rd rail mounted higher up to compensate for this form of current collection - as bottom contact on our current 3rd rail would see the shoegear being ripped away every time the train runs over a set of points.

 

Overheads and conductor rail are less of an issue and can easily co-exist thus allowing for conversion a little bit at a time.

 

Hence the idea of doing say Poole - Basingstoke or Reigate - Guildford and switching to 3rd rail either end.

 

Of course there is no reason why you couldn't develop a 750V overhead conductor system to replace / instead of con rail (apart from it being horrendously inefficient from an electrical perspective and all railway vehicles being built for 25KV overheads these days)

[phil-b259]

Does a ban on new 3rd rail electrification mean that there is a problem with 3rd rail, or a problem with the ORR?

 

 

 

If you actually read what I and other track workers are saying, the problem is 3rd rail itself. For once the ORR are doing the right thing here by preventing any more of the awful stuff being installed.

 

Also far too many people are obsessing about the H&S angle. They forget / ignore / don't want to know just how much it gets in the way of those striving to maintain / fix / renew the railway with vast numbers of potentially productive man hours being lost due to it getting in the way.

 

Yes faster isolations may help, etc but removing the need for isolations by doing away with it - or not getting into that situation ion the foist place by not installing anyone ore of the stuff gives grater benefits still.

 

Finally far too many folk are trying to draw comparisons with roads. DON'T!

 

One of the biggest ways of improving road safety would be to demand motorists retake their driving test every 2 years - just like rail staff have to have retests every 2 years for most compliances. How many con rail supporters would be happy with that?

 

Saying that because we put up with XX pedestrian, motorist and road worker fatalities every day, that we can ignore the needs of rail workers is flawed logic. Bad / inefficient practices should not go unchallenged simply because another industry is doing worse.

[Coryton]

Also far too many people are obsessing about the H&S angle. They forget / ignore / don't want to know just how much it gets in the way of those striving to maintain / fix / renew the railway with vast numbers of potentially productive man hours being lost due to it getting in the way.

 

Surely that's an operational decision by the railways though, not a justification for the ORR to ban third rail on safety grounds?

 

Systems which employ bottom contact like the DLR and Berlin S-Bahn have the 3rd rail mounted higher up to compensate for this form of current collection - as bottom contact on our current 3rd rail would see the shoegear being ripped away every time the train runs over a set of points.

 

Clearly you would need to be able to switch between shoes.

 

Possibly it would be cost-prohibitive/near impossible to retro-fit existing trains.

 

But could new trains have had two sets of retractable shoe gear? Yes it would need the correct infrastructure to ensure switching between the two etc. at the right time but that could presumably be done...at a cost. Is this such a stupid idea that it wasn't even thinking about? Or was it considered but rejected?

 

Clearly this would be a long range plan as you could only change over a section of line once all trains using it were fitted with the correct shoe gear.

 

Was the expectation that over that sort of timescale the southern region would have moved to overhead power? (Doesn't look likely now...)

[phil-b259]

Surely that's an operational decision by the railways though, not a justification for the ORR to ban third rail on safety grounds?

 

 

Agreed, it is an operational rather than a safety issue.

 

So what you have is a combination is H&S arguments AND operational arguments against the installation of yet more exposed conductor rail. Each builds on the other to create a convincing case overall for any infrastructure provider.

 

Also please re-read what I put in post 29 because technically there is no such thing as a 'ban' on conductor rail as such. Nor is there a requirement to rip out what already exsists (although the ORR do expect continual improvements to be made to existing installations to reduce staff exposure to it over time)

Edited April 21, 2018 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

 

Clearly you would need to be able to switch between shoes.

 

Possibly it would be cost-prohibitive/near impossible to retro-fit existing trains.

 

But could new trains have had two sets of retractable shoe gear? Yes it would need the correct infrastructure to ensure switching between the two etc. at the right time but that could presumably be done...at a cost. Is this such a stupid idea that it wasn't even thinking about? Or was it considered but rejected?

 

Clearly this would be a long range plan as you could only change over a section of line once all trains using it were fitted with the correct shoe gear.

 

Was the expectation that over that sort of timescale the southern region would have moved to overhead power? (Doesn't look likely now...)

 

Technically there are indeed solutions to mixing shrouded and traditional conductor rail - but they are tricky and expensive to implement.

 

Hence thus far when replacing con rail has been talked about its been with OLE as it minimises the complications (for example on the Basingstoke - Poole route all the EMUs used already have passive provision for a pantograph to be installed).

 

However with budgets under pressure and NRs rather shambolic attempts at electrification so far conversion is firmly on the back burner and if key DC equipment needs replacing it will be done as a like for like basis for many years to come.

Edited April 21, 2018 by phil-b259

[woodenhead]

How long does anybody think it will be before there is a tri mode bombardier unit in the catalog? After all, there is a market for one now. Up north can have the 30 year old conversions to save the costs of putting wires up, but a commuter into London? Bet the franchise renewal includes a electro diesel version of the 387 for use on these lines.

The North says thanks

[Zomboid]

Shrouded top contact would be entirely possible, if the will was there. It would need a different way of attaching the shoes to the train (ie from the side poking into a slot in the shrouding, rather than from above), but that's how the shoes appear to be attached on the BART trains in San Francisco/ Oakland to cite one example. There would be no need to switch between shoes for shrouded/ unshrouded sections.

 

I don't see it ever happening as the will just isn't there to develop 3rd rail technology in the UK (and we don't go for anything that wasn't invented here), but given that we have so much of the stuff it would seem like we should be trying something to enhance the existing system at least.

[phil-b259]

It is a pity that 3rd rail units were not designed with bogies similar to class 73 locomotives.

 

The reason for this is because when running away from 3rd rail territory the locos could raise their collector shoes and start the diesel engine and the opposite when returning to 3rd rail territory by shutting down the engine and lowering the shoes to collect from the rail.

 

Now my point is that with units like the 750dv/25Kv class 313 & 319 or 750dc with possibilities for fitting 25kv pantograph to the trailer cars, if the shoes could be raised up like on the 73s there would be little or no risk of the shoes catching ground based obstructions and flying off the unit.

 

The problem with this could be the costs of fitting a shoe retracting system to lift them up to prevent damaging or losing them when running on 25Kv.

 

Modern units such as the Electrostars and Desiros have retractable shoegear I believe  - precisely to avoid damage when running away from the 3rd rail system.

 

The issue is more about having two different styles of Conrail but fitting appropriate shoegar that allows a seamless changeover - recognising that unlike adding OLE, the options for instating both variants at the same time is not always feasible.

[Oldddudders]

It is my belief that Phil and others have concerns about areas of complex track formations where the existence of third rail makes working and fettling difficult and slow. Wokingham to Ash Junction, and Shalford Junction to Reigate, the missing links in the third rail network, are all, or virtually all, plain line. 

[Ncarter2]

It is my belief that Phil and others have concerns about areas of complex track formations where the existence of third rail makes working and fettling difficult and slow. Wokingham to Ash Junction, and Shalford Junction to Reigate, the missing links in the third rail network, are all, or virtually all, plain line.

For me, no it’s not just about that. Plain line is just as difficult to carry out maintenance on, in Fact on my section there are more plain line faults with the track than those in S&C.

It is a massive inhibitor, statics also show we get more rail defects con rail side as apposed to non con rail side.

There is also the bigger picture, ballast regulator, currently need the con rail removed. The new HOBC is designed for 3rd rail but that’s one unit. In traffic rail grinder cannot work with con rail on. These are just a couple of issues. It’s a lot bigger than most realise.

[Coryton]

Also please re-read what I put in post 29 because technically there is no such thing as a 'ban' on conductor rail as such. Nor is there a requirement to rip out what already exsists (although the ORR do expect continual improvements to be made to existing installations to reduce staff exposure to it over time)

 

OK I could have phrased that better (I did take in what you said first time). Though it does seem to pretty much amount to a ban even if not formally one.

 

It does seem a rather odd situation.

 

Third rail is so dangerous and inconvenient that it doesn't make sense to put in any more, but it's so hard to change from it that we have to live with it where it is. 

 

I am a bit curious as to how we ended up with so much of it in the first place. I appreciate that views on acceptable safety have changed dramatically over the years, but have the operational issues also become more of a problem?

[caradoc]

So with bi-mode Class 800s for the expresses and tri-mode Class 769s for the locals, any prospect of electrifying the Didcot/Oxford section recedes even further into the future. And given Network Rail's miserable failure to complete the GW routes, the logical extension from Oxford to Coventry/Birmingham, and re-electrifying 3rd rail areas with OLE, are now nothing more than pipe-dreams.

[Coryton]

The issue is more about having two different styles of Conrail but fitting appropriate shoegar that allows a seamless changeover - recognising that unlike adding OLE, the options for instating both variants at the same time is not always feasible.

 

I would imagine that in many stations you could have one type on each side...I know they normally keep the third rail on the opposite side to the platform, but presumably that would be less important with a bottom-contact one.

[009 micro modeller]

If the Southern Railway had gone with the LBSCR overhead AC system (6600V but probably would have got upgraded later) we might not be having this conversation. In other areas it has been used on city railways where there are presumably advantages with low tunnels and structures (is this why the East London line Overground upgrade was third rail?).

[ess1uk]

The east London line was 4th rail LUL to begin with

[phil-b259]

 

 

I am a bit curious as to how we ended up with so much of it in the first place. I appreciate that views on acceptable safety have changed dramatically over the years, but have the operational issues also become more of a problem?

 

Because it was cheap.

 

If you compare the ex LSWR 3rd rail electrification and the LBSCR in cost terms the later was significantly more expensive - with things like signals needing moving due to them being obscured by overhead wires, bridges altered,  etc.

 

Of course with the LSWR sharing track with the District Railway - who ad settled upon the 4th rail system, going for a 3rd rail system was also advantageous.

 

After grouping in 1923 the newly formed Southern Railway came down on the side of 3rd rail for cost and speed of installation reasons. Even then they recognised that overheads were a better system technically - but the need to do something quickly to combat the falling suburban traffic was more of a priority

 

In the 1930s having completed the suburban areas, the Southern started looking at longer distance routes - and again money (plus advances in electrical technology that facilitated unmanned substations) made the difference as they could electrify more route miles for each £ spent using the conductor rail system even though it was recognised that an overhead system was a better technical choice.

 

Following nationalisation BR was faced with an extensive 3rd rail network that already went as far as Gillingham and Maidstone - so it made economic and practical sense to expand it to the rest of Kent rather than go for a new system.

 

Finally when it came to finding a solution to the Bournemouth line, BR did think long and hard about going with overheads - but cost increases on the LMR scheme and the lack of experience with dual voltage traction (plus the decision to curtail the scheme at Bournemouth) all swung the decision in favour of sticking with 3rd rail.

Edited April 21, 2018 by phil-b259