3rd rail systems outside of the uk?

[778]

Are there any railways outside of the UK (Merseyrail and the ex Southern Region), that are electrified by 3rd rail?

I am not including Metros/Trams in this, just heavy rail. I cannot think of any off the top of my head, but I am sure there must be some.

 

[Peterthegreat]

The Berlin and Hamburg S-Bahn systems are 750 and 1200 v d.c. 3rd rail.

 

[507020]

Are there any railways outside of the UK (Merseyrail and the ex Southern Region), that are electrified by 3rd rail?

I am not including Metros/Trams in this, just heavy rail. I cannot think of any off the top of my head, but I am sure there must be some.

I don’t know if there’s much now. Most electrified conventional lines in France use a 1500V DC overhead system. An AC system was being considered, but the French army insisted on DC so it could quickly relay the 3rd rail in the event of world war 3. It has never been done and all existing 3rd rail was ripped up and converted to overhead years ago. We just never spent the money doing it, which is the legacy of the Southern, as well as the L&Y, Mersey and Wirral Railways don’t forget.

 

[tomuk]

Metro North Railroad and Long Island Railroad in New York are third rail and are proper railways as apposed to the New York Subway.

 

[edwin_m]

Metro North Railroad and Long Island Railroad in New York are third rail and are proper railways as apposed to the New York Subway.

LIRR is similar to the Southern with a top-contact third rail. Metro North is bottom contact, and in fact their predecessors at the New York Central invented that system.

 

[ac6000cw]

The Saint-Gervais–Vallorcine and 'Le Petit Train Jaune' railways in France are 3rd rail electrified.

There is a list of electrification systems by type and country here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_railway_electrification_systems

 

[43096]

I don’t know if there’s much now. Most electrified conventional lines in France use a 1500V DC overhead system. An AC system was being considered, but the French army insisted on DC so it could quickly relay the 3rd rail in the event of world war 3. It has never been done and all existing 3rd rail was ripped up and converted to overhead years ago. We just never spent the money doing it, which is the legacy of the Southern, as well as the L&Y, Mersey and Wirral Railways don’t forget.

Most? There’s a large proportion of French railways electrified at 25kV AC.

 

[Falcon1200]

The Chambery/Modane line of SNCF was originally 3rd rail, and some of the CC6500 class were fitted for working it. The route was later converted to 1500v DC OLE.

 

[AM9]

Surely, virtually all 3rd rail on French mainlines has been removed now. For 1500VDC vs 25Kv ac, I would say that although actual 1500VDC track miles might exceed that on ac, the volume of traffic is far higher under ac OLE.

 

[dlj83]

The Stockholm Metro is third rail as are Metro systems in Helsinki and Copenhagen which are also both bottom contact third rail.

 

[ac6000cw]

The Stockholm Metro is third rail as are Metro systems in Helsinki and Copenhagen which are also both bottom contact third rail.

Many Metro systems are 3rd rail (I suspect it might be the most common electrification system in the world for those) but the OP specifically excluded Metro and tram systems from consideration:

I am not including Metros/Trams in this, just heavy rail.

 

[A0wen]

What the list in post #6 shows is that virtually nowhere has used 3rd rail as extensively on mainline electrification as the UK - you do have to wonder why, if it's such a great solution (as its supporters claim), it hasn't been more widely used........

I would argue that we're paying the price (and will be for many years) of Herbert Walker's decision to ditch the LBSC 6.6kv Overhead system in favour of widespread 3rd rail electrification - a system which really isn't suitable for mainline use.

 

[dlj83]

Many Metro systems are 3rd rail (I suspect it might be the most common electrification system in the world for those) but the OP specifically excluded Metro and tram systems from consideration:

Apologies, I didn't read that part

 

[DanielB]

What the list in post #6 shows is that virtually nowhere has used 3rd rail as extensively on mainline electrification as the UK - you do have to wonder why, if it's such a great solution (as its supporters claim), it hasn't been more widely used........

It seems mostly complicated to combine with level crossings to me, which are a common occurrence at many continental European main lines.
Even the third rail metro systems we've got in the Netherlands switch to overhead lines as soon as their elevated (or tunnel) tracks end.

 

[A0wen]

It seems mostly complicated to combine with level crossings to me, which are a common occurrence at many continental European main lines.
Even the third rail metro systems we've got in the Netherlands switch to overhead lines as soon as their elevated (or tunnel) tracks end.

Arguably it's easier to combine 3rd rail with level crossings than OHLE is, because OHLE needs its level raised to allow tall vehicles to pass underneath. Take a look at Foxton (Cambs) where the railway crosses the A10 as an example - if you look at this video, you'll see the pantographs are at full stretch.

Whereas 3rd rail is just terminated a few feet short of the crossing.

 

[Falcon1200]

Many Metro systems are 3rd rail (I suspect it might be the most common electrification system in the world for those)

Indeed, were the original Southern Region suburban routes not just a glorified metro system ? At least until the Brighton and Portsmouth lines were electrified, and the system subsequently extended, eg to the Kent Coast and Bournemouth, then Weymouth, by BR. There must come a point where a 3rd rail system has become so extensive that converting it to OLE becomes impossible, because the benefits are outweighed by the cost and disruption during changeover. Having said that, IMHO it is a pity that the Bournemouth line did not receive 25kV OLE instead of 3rd rail, from Woking outwards, but no doubt there were good reasons.

 

[HSTEd]

What the list in post #6 shows is that virtually nowhere has used 3rd rail as extensively on mainline electrification as the UK - you do have to wonder why, if it's such a great solution (as its supporters claim), it hasn't been more widely used........

A lot of that might be the first mover advantage that low frequency AC systems had.

Many of the railways keen on electrification went for 25/16.7Hz systems because practical rectifiers hadn't been invented yet.

(LFAC doesn't need rectifiers at all).

There is only a relatively narrow window when third rail systems would be favoured in an environment with small safety and labour costs for higher voltage DC electrification.

After all this was an environment when you could have workers sitting on the wiring as service trains ran underneath them. Just hold your breath when the steam and smoke hits you

 

[AM9]

Arguably it's easier to combine 3rd rail with level crossings than OHLE is, because OHLE needs its level raised to allow tall vehicles to pass underneath. Take a look at Foxton (Cambs) where the railway crosses the A10 as an example - if you look at this video, you'll see the pantographs are at full stretch.

Whereas 3rd rail is just terminated a few feet short of the crossing.

The height that the pantographs are required to extend to is perfectly within the range of their design. They can actually go higher but to give the earliest triggering of the overheight sensing when there is no OLE (damaged or wrong routing), they are set to the highest level needed. The sensors on the two class 319s that went through the Channel Tunnel before it opened for service were set above their normal UK level, so there is adequate leeway to raise the contact wire high enough to accommodate the double deck Euroshuttle wagons.

 

[507020]

I don’t know if there’s much now. Most electrified conventional lines in France use a 1500V DC overhead system. An AC system was being considered, but the French army insisted on DC so it could quickly relay the 3rd rail in the event of world war 3. It has never been done and all existing 3rd rail was ripped up and converted to overhead years ago. We just never spent the money doing it, which is the legacy of the Southern, as well as the L&Y, Mersey and Wirral Railways don’t forget.

Most? There’s a large proportion of French railways electrified at 25kV AC.

Yes, but a large proportion of the 25kV AC network is comprised by new build high speed lines, the LGV Sud-Est was the first AC line in France. Before 1981, the SNCF was entirely DC and conventional lines remain mostly DC, but I believe there have been a few conversions.

Surely, virtually all 3rd rail on French mainlines has been removed now. For 1500VDC vs 25Kv ac, I would say that although actual 1500VDC track miles might exceed that on ac, the volume of traffic is far higher under ac OLE.

Isn’t this by the nature of DC that it can’t carry as much traffic as AC, hence conversions and much passenger traffic being moved onto LGVs?

 

[Taunton]

If 3rd rail is so unsatisfactory, why do most Metros, including new ones, use it?

Such comparison discussions never seem to feature any sensible cost anaylsis of the two approaches. At installation, the 3rd rail goes down notably quickly, without the extended time, cost, and heavy civils work that overhead does. I actually watched in the mid-1980s the laying of 3rd rail on the Stratford to North Woolwich line. It virtually seemed to go in over one weekend - works train propelled by an 08 shunter, rails offloaded directly to location, bolted down, team ahead screwing in insulators, move forward one rail length to the next one. No civils, no bridge lifting, done. Cost maybe 5% per mile of what it took on the Goblin with overhead.

All the stuff about more lineside substations, but on a conventional 12-car 25kV emu there are 3 substations, transformer and everything, under each train, one per motor coach. This one is sometimes rebutted by stating that things have got more efficient with power electronics. Well, so have lineside structures benefited equally.

We may contrast two similar "intermediate" systems in Britain, developed at broadly similar times, the Tyne & Wear and the DLR. One went for overhead, the other for 3rd rail. Which in retrospect was the better solution?

 

[507020]

If 3rd rail is so unsatisfactory, why do most Metros, including new ones, use it?

Such comparison discussions never seem to feature any sensible cost anaylsis of the two approaches. At installation, the 3rd rail goes down notably quickly, without the extended time, cost, and heavy civils work that overhead does. I actually watched in the mid-1980s the laying of 3rd rail on the Stratford to North Woolwich line. It virtually seemed to go in over one weekend - works train propelled by an 08 shunter, rails offloaded directly to location, bolted down, team ahead screwing in insulators, move forward one rail length to the next one. No civils, no bridge lifting, done. Cost maybe 5% per mile of what it took on the Goblin with overhead.

All the stuff about more lineside substations, but on a conventional 12-car 25kV emu there are 3 substations, transformer and everything, under each train, one per motor coach. This one is sometimes rebutted by stating that things have got more efficient with power electronics. Well, so have lineside structures benefited equally.

We may contrast two similar "intermediate" systems in Britain, developed at broadly similar times, the Tyne & Wear and the DLR. One went for overhead, the other for 3rd rail. Which in retrospect was the better solution?

Metros tend to use it because they usually include tunnelled sections and costs increase exponentially if you attempt to increase the tunnel diameter to accommodate overhead wires. A new overhead AC powered railway has just opened in a tunnel and how late was it?

 

[SHD]

The suburban lines out of Paris Saint-Lazare and Invalides were electrified with 750 V DC (*) third rail in the early 1900s, but were gradually converted to 25 kV (Saint-Lazare) and 1.5 kV (Invalides) in the 1960s-1970s for the most part (**). At its peak in the 1930s, this network was probably the 2nd largest third rail system in the world behind the Southern railway. Trivia: the first ever electric mainline train ran in France a few weeks before the first train of the Paris Metro.

The (Paris-Quai d’Orsay -) Paris Austerlitz - Juvisy line was also electrified with third rail in the early 1900s but was converted to 1.5 kV DC OHL in the 1920s when the whole Paris-Bordeaux mainline was electrified.

(*) Different tensions may have been used at the beginning of operations
(**) The last 3rd rail train ran in 1993 on the Issy-Puteaux line which by then had became a derelict relic of the past, a 3rd rail antique island. The line has been converted into a very successful tram in 1997.

 

[507020]

At its peak in the 1930s, this network was probably the 2nd largest third rail system in the world behind the Southern railway.

I think this sums up that there are no third rail systems on this scale anywhere else.

 

[ac6000cw]

the LGV Sud-Est was the first AC line in France. Before 1981, the SNCF was entirely DC and conventional lines remain mostly DC, but I believe there have been a few conversions.

Sorry but that's just not true. The French were pioneers of using 25kV 50Hz, the Valenciennes – Thionville line was electrified in the mid-1950's to prove the viability of 25kV 50Hz electrification. The success of that resulted in the adoption of 25kV AC as a standard for new projects, other than where they were extensions of existing 1500V electrification.

 

[AM9]

If 3rd rail is so unsatisfactory, why do most Metros, including new ones, use it?

Such comparison discussions never seem to feature any sensible cost anaylsis of the two approaches. At installation, the 3rd rail goes down notably quickly, without the extended time, cost, and heavy civils work that overhead does. I actually watched in the mid-1980s the laying of 3rd rail on the Stratford to North Woolwich line. It virtually seemed to go in over one weekend - works train propelled by an 08 shunter, rails offloaded directly to location, bolted down, team ahead screwing in insulators, move forward one rail length to the next one. No civils, no bridge lifting, done. Cost maybe 5% per mile of what it took on the Goblin with overhead.

All the stuff about more lineside substations, but on a conventional 12-car 25kV emu there are 3 substations, transformer and everything, under each train, one per motor coach. This one is sometimes rebutted by stating that things have got more efficient with power electronics. Well, so have lineside structures benefited equally.

We may contrast two similar "intermediate" systems in Britain, developed at broadly similar times, the Tyne & Wear and the DLR. One went for overhead, the other for 3rd rail. Which in retrospect was the better solution?

On a main line, the 3rd rail would result in a 15-20% power loss (forever), the need to isolate the track from earth, enhanced health and safety risks for staff and the public, poorer performance in icy conditions and significant performance hits on train peerformance resulting in extended journey times.
Most of those issues can be weighed against the once-off benefits that you have mentioned on a metro style operation, but their impact on safety and a serious main line service is distinctly unacceptable in the 21st century.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The Saint-Gervais–Vallorcine and 'Le Petit Train Jaune' railways in France are 3rd rail electrified.

There is a list of electrification systems by type and country here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_railway_electrification_systems

Le Petit Train Jaune aka Tren Groc (in Catalan) is an odd little system- a metre-gauge island opened in 1908 and electrified with DC 3rd rail from the start. Electricity being provided by a handful of hydroelectric schemes funded by the railway. Still uses some of the original rolling stock alongside more modern units based on the Stadler GTW.

 

[43096]

Yes, but a large proportion of the 25kV AC network is comprised by new build high speed lines, the LGV Sud-Est was the first AC line in France. Before 1981, the SNCF was entirely DC and conventional lines remain mostly DC, but I believe there have been a few conversions.

Utter nonsense. If there was no AC electrification before 1981, why were SNCF taking delivery of new 25kV AC electric locos from 1954? You really need to go and check your facts.

 

[stuu]

If 3rd rail is so unsatisfactory, why do most Metros, including new ones, use it?

Because of tunnel dimensions, as already mentioned, and in some places aesthetic considerations - Singapore has laws banning overhead cables anywhere. Also because in urban areas there are generally power supply networks capable of supplying trains. That isn't the case in the countryside, where SR/BR had to build their own distribution network to supply the substations

 

[507020]

Because of tunnel dimensions, as already mentioned, and in some places aesthetic considerations - Singapore has laws banning overhead cables anywhere. Also because in urban areas there are generally power supply networks capable of supplying trains. That isn't the case in the countryside, where SR/BR had to build their own distribution network to supply the substations

The city state Singapore is a perfect example of somewhere DC would be perfectly adequate, but does this mean the trains on a Bangkok - Kuala Lumpur - Singapore high speed line would have to switch to 3rd rail as soon as they cross the Johor Strait?

 

[b0b]

The Chicago, USA "L" transit system is another example