Man electrocuted and burned at Birmingham new street

[AM9]

Yeah, not just selfie sticks, but umbrellas too! (not my photo).

Thanks for finding the proof. I remember hearing about the warnings, but coulldn't put my finger on such notices. As a slight aside, in my OLE commuting days in the early '70s on the GEML, there were many rainy days when I could feel a low coupled ac through the ferrule of my umbrella whilst standing on the platform's edge. I surmised that it was a capacitive coupling between theOLE and the wet umbrella fabric which was in contact with the umbrella frame, passing through me and wet shoes to ground. It wasn't dangerous but nor was it particularly pleasant. Increasing the distance of the brolly from the OLE reduced the effect. Furthemore, it also reduced or disappeared when I let the brolly fold, there by reducing its area and the capacitance value.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also worth pointing out the cost of the WCML ‘electrification’ also included a whole route upgrade - resignalling, a couple of new flyovers, station rebuilds (including New Street and Euston), track upgrades, plus all the civils work to clear the route for the OLE etc.

The Bournemouth electrification had very little of this.

 

[Meerkat]

Haven’t some of the stations on the north western electrification got some kind of passenger gateway demonstrating max height for carrying things??

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Two totally different schemes with very different cost drivers.

The SWML is a two-track railway with a total running rail length of less than 170miles. It is power limited and just about manages to allow 450tonne 2400kW trains to to reach 100mph. No electric freight heavy freight could be carried.
The WCML scheme Euston to Birmingham is a mostly four track railway with a total running length approaching 400 miles. There are also extensive sidings and stabling points (especially at its southern end) fully wired. It's power distribution system and OLE is capable of running all required express passenger and heavy freight services of the day, - the express passenger services running much of the distance at 110mph. There was also some gauge enhancement to allow adequate clearance for OLE. Some bridges were rebuilt to modern standards.​

The two schemes are not comparable, hence the difference in costs. However, the structures on the SWML are the same ones that were built 100+ years ago so many of them will be due for replacement sometime soon so that cost (suitably de-escalated to the '60s ECs) would need to be considered in a valid comparison.

The points you're making might be valid if a choice had to made about electrifying a very busy mixed traffic route. If we're contemplating third rail in-fill of the North Downs Line or Ashford to Ore, those points will not be important.

Between Woking Junction and Worting Junction the SWML is not two-track so the Bournemouth scheme was slightly more than you've calculated..

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Also worth pointing out the cost of the WCML ‘electrification’ also included a whole route upgrade - resignalling, a couple of new flyovers, station rebuilds (including New Street and Euston), track upgrades, plus all the civils work to clear the route for the OLE etc.

The Bournemouth electrification had very little of this.

Agreed; in fact this was recognised at the time. Any third rail in-fill today will similarly be done with minimal ancillary work.

 

[AM9]

The points you're making might be valid if a choice had to made about electrifying a very busy mixed traffic route. If we're contemplating third rail in-fill of the North Downs Line or Ashford to Ore, those points will not be important.

Between Woking Junction and Worting Junction the SWML is not two-track so the Bournemouth scheme was slightly more than you've calculated..

OK point taken so the addition would be about 46 miles making the total about 216 miles. But as Bald Rick says, the level of civils (not all directly realted to OLE clearances) was far higher given the much more prominent role of the WCML as a spine railway of the UK. Preparing the route for mainline service on a completely different level for the demands to be made on it makes comparison largely irrelevant. 3rd rail would just not have met those demands.

 

[hwl]

Also worth pointing out the cost of the WCML ‘electrification’ also included a whole route upgrade - resignalling, a couple of new flyovers, station rebuilds (including New Street and Euston), track upgrades, plus all the civils work to clear the route for the OLE etc.

The Bournemouth electrification had very little of this.

Bournemouth was get it done quickly so we can remove steam engines before the national 1968 deadline.
AC OHLE was assessed but would have taken 2 years longer than 3rd rail.
I have the huge Bournemouth wrap up report form the time some where. Best summarised as quick and cheap. They knew how bad the power supply was then.

 

[AM9]

The points you're making might be valid if a choice had to made about electrifying a very busy mixed traffic route. If we're contemplating third rail in-fill of the North Downs Line or Ashford to Ore, those points will not be important. ...

The North Downs line or Ashford to Ore are too big to qualify as allowable infill schemes. Apart from energy efficiency or operational practicalities, new 3rd rail just doesn't meet modern health & safety standards. Dual voltage rolling stock is no barrier to mixed power supply operation so 3rd rail will only be reduced in the future. Gauge compatible overbridge structures and tunnels will be realised through the normal replacement process.

 

[hwl]

The North Downs line or Ashford to Ore are too big to qualify as allowable infill schemes. Apart from energy efficiency or operational practicalities, new 3rd rail just doesn't meet modern health & safety standards. Dual voltage rolling stock is no barrier to mixed power supply operation so 3rd rail will only be reduced in the future. Gauge compatible overbridge structures and tunnels will be realised through the normal replacement process.

It all depends on exposure a closed system is viewed as safer e.g. eliminating foot crossings would be key

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The North Downs line or Ashford to Ore are too big to qualify as allowable infill schemes. Apart from energy efficiency or operational practicalities, new 3rd rail just doesn't meet modern health & safety standards. Dual voltage rolling stock is no barrier to mixed power supply operation so 3rd rail will only be reduced in the future. Gauge compatible overbridge structures and tunnels will be realised through the normal replacement process.

I disagree. Other than more urgent priorities, the only reason these in-fill schemes are not considered is the ORR's interpretation of the law. These schemes are not big: the distances are short and ancillary work will be minimal unless the intention is to raise speeds substantially.

You clearly believe that sooner or later the entire third rail network will be converted to OLE. I regard that as a total fantasy which will always be politically impossible. We have in this forum numerous embittered tribalists who believe London and the south-east receive favourable treatment, and some self-serving Northern politicians have already played the tribalist card and no doubt will find it expedient to do so in future. If railways in the north do not receive huge investment while lines in the Home Counties and the south already electrified are given a second electrification, there will be venomous uproar that no Westminster politician could contemplate.

 

[Meerkat]

Depends on whether you are at the stage of having to do large scale asset replacement to keep 3rd rail going.

 

[AM9]

I disagree. Other than more urgent priorities, the only reason these in-fill schemes are not considered is the ORR's interpretation of the law.

Which isn't going to revert anytime soon.

These schemes are not big: the distances are short and ancillary work will be minimal unless the intention is to raise speeds substantially.

In safety hazard terms, 26 miles of single track and 18 miles of double track is not short, especially;

a) where access to the public and animals is difficult to restrict
b) where the hazard is new and habits of the general public may be difficult to break, (the public's knowledge of the hazard and casual attitude to 3rd rail has been mentioned more than once ibn this thread alone.​

You clearly believe that sooner or later the entire third rail network will be converted to OLE. I regard that as a total fantasy which will always be politically impossible.

You clearly don't know what I believe. 3rd rail is already in some decline, both in terms of route miles (reduction on ther NLL), and traffic expansion (caused by the limitations of veery high current demands on a low voltage supply). And no I don't fantasize about anything on the railway, - it is there to do a job, reliably, environmentally sustainably and above all safely.

We have in this forum numerous embittered tribalists who believe London and the south-east receive favourable treatment, and some self-serving Northern politicians have already played the tribalist card and no doubt will find it expedient to do so in future. If railways in the north do not receive huge investment while lines in the Home Counties and the south already electrified are given a second electrification, there will be venomous uproar that no Westminster politician could contemplate.

As has been posted many times here before, much of the infrastructure on the third rail railway has been around for over 100 years, partly because the expedient of using a cheap electrification system was widely continued until theose responsible for safety virtually halted it. Replacing worn-out or obsolete equipment on an electric railway is not a 'second electrification'. OLE kit also wears out, (although nowhere near as fast as 3rd rail kit) so replacing it isn't considered as a second electrification. In the future parts of the '60s & '70s WCML of even the '70s & '80s cheapo MKIIIb OLE on the ECML will need replacing (which would probably include upgrading to modern hardware like Master Series), and I'm sure that the most 'embittered tribalists'* from the north would not see that as an 'improvement' to their railway, except in terms of fewer dewirements.
* except maybe for a few enthusiasts here.

 

[ijmad]

There are third rail systems where only the segment the train is currently occupying is energised. Such a system is used for the Bordeaux Tram and is called APS (Alimentation Par Le Sol). I wonder if it would scale to heavy rail, and if so whether this would be a safer solution than both existing third rail and OHLE systems.

 

[ArchieWoodbine]

Not so.

A county council employee was killed after misguidedly running a metal tape measure over the side of an overbridge on an electrified line and a young lad died of injuries caused by getting a 25kV jolt due to carrying his carbon fishing pole over his shoulder as he crossed the Lea Valley route at (I believe) Slipe Lane crossing. I also seem to recall that someone firing a steam special got an arc travel down the shovel he was wielding. I'm sure there are many more.

Indeed. During electrical safety training remember seeing footage of two railway employees at Kings Cross, during a possession/line block at night (but not an isolation), trying to throw a cord or cable of some description from one platform to another, over the tracks. They’d completely failed to take the OLE into account, as headspans under a station roof can be desceptively tricky to see. Naturally, the OLE arced onto it and if it wasn’t for the fact the thrower had let go a moment before, it would have ended very differently.

 

[yorksrob]

OK point taken so the addition would be about 46 miles making the total about 216 miles. But as Bald Rick says, the level of civils (not all directly realted to OLE clearances) was far higher given the much more prominent role of the WCML as a spine railway of the UK. Preparing the route for mainline service on a completely different level for the demands to be made on it makes comparison largely irrelevant. 3rd rail would just not have met those demands.

Except the Kent electrification scheme included a large number of civils, including station rebuilds, quadroupling, resignalling etc. The cost for both phases was about 46m in early 1960's money.

 

[Mikey C]

Which isn't going to revert anytime soon.


In safety hazard terms, 26 miles of single track and 18 miles of double track is not short, especially;

a) where access to the public and animals is difficult to restrict
b) where the hazard is new and habits of the general public may be difficult to break, (the public's knowledge of the hazard and casual attitude to 3rd rail has been mentioned more than once ibn this thread alone.​

You clearly don't know what I believe. 3rd rail is already in some decline, both in terms of route miles (reduction on ther NLL), and traffic expansion (caused by the limitations of veery high current demands on a low voltage supply). And no I don't fantasize about anything on the railway, - it is there to do a job, reliably, environmentally sustainably and above all safely.

As has been posted many times here before, much of the infrastructure on the third rail railway has been around for over 100 years, partly because the expedient of using a cheap electrification system was widely continued until theose responsible for safety virtually halted it. Replacing worn-out or obsolete equipment on an electric railway is not a 'second electrification'. OLE kit also wears out, (although nowhere near as fast as 3rd rail kit) so replacing it isn't considered as a second electrification. In the future parts of the '60s & '70s WCML of even the '70s & '80s cheapo MKIIIb OLE on the ECML will need replacing (which would probably include upgrading to modern hardware like Master Series), and I'm sure that the most 'embittered tribalists'* from the north would not see that as an 'improvement' to their railway, except in terms of fewer dewirements.
* except maybe for a few enthusiasts here.

But replacing existing 3rd rail kit with new OLE kit IS effectively a second electrification though, as hardly anything will be carried over. There's a massive difference in cost and complexity between modernising an existing system (whether 3rd rail or OLE) with newer equipment/wires etc and changing it completely.

Imagine the expense and complexity of wiring the approaches to Victoria and Waterloo AND Clapham Junction when compared to replacing the current substations etc, never mind all the low bridges and tunnels in the 3rd rail network, especially in South London that will need sorting.

 

[Belperpete]

Gauge compatible overbridge structures and tunnels will be realised through the normal replacement process.

Replacing tunnels - really?!

I can see the logic of removing the third rail north of London, where there is already extensive OLE. But removing it south of the Thames would be another matter altogether. There would need to be a need for extensive renewal of the trackside equipment, at about the same time as the trains were being replaced. Whilst it is nice to think it could all be accommodated in routine renewals, in practice it would be as wasteful as the switch to steam. Lots of fairly modern lineside kit and trains would inevitably end up being scrapped. I will believe it is going to happen when all new rolling stock for use south of the Thames is ordered as dual-supply. While we are still procuring third-rail-only stock, it is only a pipe-dream.

 

[edwin_m]

Lots of fairly modern lineside kit and trains would inevitably end up being scrapped. I will believe it is going to happen when all new rolling stock for use south of the Thames is ordered as dual-supply. While we are still procuring third-rail-only stock, it is only a pipe-dream.

Almost everything procured since privatization for the third rail network is at least dual voltage capable, so could run off OLE with the relevant items bolted on in places they are designed to fit. The newer signaling is also less difficult to convert to a different voltage.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

But replacing existing 3rd rail kit with new OLE kit IS effectively a second electrification though, as hardly anything will be carried over. There's a massive difference in cost and complexity between modernising an existing system (whether 3rd rail or OLE) with newer equipment/wires etc and changing it completely.

Imagine the expense and complexity of wiring the approaches to Victoria and Waterloo AND Clapham Junction when compared to replacing the current substations etc, never mind all the low bridges and tunnels in the 3rd rail network, especially in South London that will need sorting.

Imagine the problems of continuing providing a service into Waterloo and Victoria and London Bridge while totally changing the electrification system!

 

[Meerkat]

I assumed that the southern lines would get OLE from the country end, probably stopping at the inner suburban boundaries eg Woking or Surbiton.
The outer bits gain most from reducing the number of substations and/or getting more power (and possibly increasing speeds). The inner bits have more height restrictions, less of an icing problem, and better access control. Re wasting assets - aren’t the more modern ones relocatable so could replace/reinforce the inner bits?

 

[Edders23]

Thanks for finding the proof. I remember hearing about the warnings, but coulldn't put my finger on such notices. As a slight aside, in my OLE commuting days in the early '70s on the GEML, there were many rainy days when I could feel a low coupled ac through the ferrule of my umbrella whilst standing on the platform's edge. I surmised that it was a capacitive coupling between theOLE and the wet umbrella fabric which was in contact with the umbrella frame, passing through me and wet shoes to ground. It wasn't dangerous but nor was it particularly pleasant. Increasing the distance of the brolly from the OLE reduced the effect. Furthemore, it also reduced or disappeared when I let the brolly fold, there by reducing its area and the capacitance value.

I thought brollys were Nylon which is an insulator but I suppose the metal framework might interact with the electrical field

 

[AM9]

I thought brollys were Nylon which is an insulator but I suppose the metal framework might interact with the electrical field

In the '70s I had an automatic umbrella, - the type with a large spring in between the two sets of ribs. The stem and ribs were steel, and the skin was nylon, albeit wet and in close contact with the ribs. So the area of the ground 'plate' that I was connected in series with was about 0.7 m2. Given that an ac of about 0.1 ma is detectable, clearly the area was big enough.

 

[M84]

This thread is making me rethink my OLE apprenticeship in March.

 

[ArchieWoodbine]

This thread is making me rethink my OLE apprenticeship in March.

Just in case that isn’t said in jest, don’t let it put you off! Working on OLE is probably one of the most tightly controlled processes on the railway. Generally when a night-time possession of the railway is granted by the signaller, it still takes one to two hours to subsequently issue the workmen a permit confirming that the OLE is isolated - there’s a very rigid system of checks and forms that massively reduce the risk of contact with live OLE.

 

[TheEdge]

This thread is making me rethink my OLE apprenticeship in March.

Don't. Electrocutions from the OHL are almost always members of the public doing something stupid. I've got a good friend who is an OHL Team Leader and the rigours he goes through to get isolations is mad!

 

[Elecman]

This thread is making me rethink my OLE apprenticeship in March.

You will be fine, just follow the instructions given at the work briefing, if your unsure ask the team leader to show and explain the Isolation Permit to Work and its limitations.
A staff electrical accident is a very very very rare occurrence when working on the OLE

 

[Bald Rick]

You will be fine, just follow the instructions given at the work briefing, if your unsure ask the team leader to show and explain the Isolation Permit to Work and its limitations.
A staff electrical accident is a very very very rare occurrence when working on the OLE

Agreed, I can’t remember the last time a member of Maintenance staff was injured in an accident with live OLE. Injuries with the D.C. are, however, rather more common.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Haven’t some of the stations on the north western electrification got some kind of passenger gateway demonstrating max height for carrying things??

Yes, at least one - similar portals at the bottoms of the FB stairs / ramps

 

[Joseph_Locke]

You will be fine, just follow the instructions given at the work briefing, if your unsure ask the team leader to show and explain the Isolation Permit to Work and its limitations.
A staff electrical accident is a very very very rare occurrence when working on the OLE

Completely agree - only two I can remember, and one of those was before I even joined 30+ years ago.

And remember - sitting on the OLE only is fine (birds do it all the time) - just don't get close to anything else at the same time ... <old-school DC line dares>

 

[A0wen]

Completely agree - only two I can remember, and one of those was before I even joined 30+ years ago.

And remember - sitting on the OLE only is fine (birds do it all the time) - just don't get close to anything else at the same time ... <old-school DC line dares>

Birds need to be careful though - a couple of years back I was at an MML station to head into London and as I walked through the ticket office there was an almighty flash and loud bang from outside. Cue lots of station staff appearing from nowhere to investigate - what was found, smoldering in the gap between the rails was the smoking corpse of a pigeon which had evidently gone full wing-span and managed to be the conductor for 25kv to earth.