Could third rail electrification avoid the requirement for GWR 769s?

[Bikeman78]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-class-769-information-discussion.174866/

As "Clarence Yard" has previously stated (and he knows) the DfT have passed the 769 baby to GWR to nurture and feed. GWR may well hate the mortal sight of the baby but they have to persevere with bringing it up. It remains to be seen how long DfT continue with the project.

Knowing the DfT they'll carry on for a few more years. They seem to be determined to avoid the obvious solution and just electrify more lines. Does anyone know how much this project has cost? How much would it have cost to put some third rail down?

 

[DelW]

Knowing the DfT they'll carry on for a few more years. They seem to be determined to avoid the obvious solution and just electrify more lines. Does anyone know how much this project has cost? How much would it have cost to put some third rail down?

It has in the past been assumed that ORR would not allow such a lengthy extension of third rail electrification on safety grounds. However more recently there have been suggestions that they might be considering allowing some stretches of new third-rail where this connects existing installations (as on the North Downs). Those who really know the situation are probably not revealing it publicly though, so as usual we're left speculating.

 

[Bikeman78]

It has in the past been assumed that ORR would not allow such a lengthy extension of third rail electrification on safety grounds. However more recently there have been suggestions that they might be considering allowing some stretches of new third-rail where this connects existing installations (as on the North Downs). Those who really know the situation are probably not revealing it publicly though, so as usual we're left speculating.

I'm trying to think what was the last project. Redhill to Tonbridge in 1994? Whatever the arguments for or against third rail, I cannot understand how anyone thinks a train that fails every 1000 miles is a viable solution.

 

[73128]

E

It has in the past been assumed that ORR would not allow such a lengthy extension of third rail electrification on safety grounds. However more recently there have been suggestions that they might be considering allowing some stretches of new third-rail where this connects existing installations (as on the North Downs). Those who really know the situation are probably not revealing it publicly though, so as usual we're left speculating.

Third rail electrification of all the three SR infills would be very sensible and not before time. The DfT seems to be on the case!!

 

[zwk500]

Third rail electrification of all the three SR infills would be very sensible and not before time. The DfT seems to be on the case!!

3rd rail is an outdated technology that poses a much higher risk to people around it than OLE. It's also costly to install as it requires regular substations and lots of insulation of electrical equipment against DC trying to return to earth. We shouldn't be installing any more of it unless we really, really have to.
A comprehensive strategy to convert the 3rd rail network to OLE would also be nice, but costs would prevent anything being carried out.

 

[AM9]

3rd rail is an outdated technology that poses a much higher risk to people around it than OLE. It's also costly to install as it requires regular substations and lots of insulation of electrical equipment against DC trying to return to earth. We shouldn't be installing any more of it unless we really, really have to.
A comprehensive strategy to convert the 3rd rail network to OLE would also be nice, but costs would prevent anything being carried out.

There seem to be so many experts on electrification safety here that the ORR should really employ them and sack their existing teams. That would be fun to watch, except for those unfortunate enough to become KSI statistics.

 

[zwk500]

There seem to be so many experts on electrification safety here that the ORR should really employ them and sack their existing teams. That would be fun to watch, except for those unfortunate enough to become KSI statistics.

To be fair to the ORR, it's the RSSB who do the safety aspect Your smiley is slightly at odds with the tone of your second point, because of course the people on here demanding more 3rd rail aren't the ones who would be going out and working on/around it putting themselves at risk.

 

[Wyrleybart]

3rd rail is an outdated technology that poses a much higher risk to people around it than OLE. It's also costly to install as it requires regular substations and lots of insulation of electrical equipment against DC trying to return to earth. We shouldn't be installing any more of it unless we really, really have to.
A comprehensive strategy to convert the 3rd rail network to OLE would also be nice, but costs would prevent anything being carried out.

Whether it is or not, 3rd rail provides millions of seats a week and shifts man awful lot of passengers. Given the DfT's inability to complete OLE schemes in England and Wales (Oxford Bristol and Swansea) I would prefer infill 3rd rail for the next 30 years using existing rolling stock instead of lumbering the taxpayer with the kind of rubbish from Porterbrook and Vivarail. Maybe then, there will be an economical way of converting 3rd rail route to OLE, but I am likely to have shuffled off this mortal coil before then.

 

[Towers]

3rd rail is an outdated technology that poses a much higher risk to people around it than OLE. It's also costly to install as it requires regular substations and lots of insulation of electrical equipment against DC trying to return to earth. We shouldn't be installing any more of it unless we really, really have to.
A comprehensive strategy to convert the 3rd rail network to OLE would also be nice, but costs would prevent anything being carried out.

Conversely, DC is far less of an eyesore and a lot quicker to put in place. Whilst it does indeed require substations, which are indeed costly, current-spec OHLE as seen on the GWML involves astonishing amounts of heavy metalwork and is hardly cheap to erect!

I really think the industry bodies need to get away from this newfound fear of third rail. It has provided and continues to provide sterling service across the most intensely used areas of railway that we have, and there really is no good reason not to undertake simple, common sense infill and extension projects. It's also worth considering that with the increasing modernisation of maintenance and inspection methods, there is less and less reason for staff to be in close proximity to energised third rail.

 

[zwk500]

Conversely, DC is far less of an eyesore and a lot quicker to put in place.

visual impact is a poor argument. We should keep killing people to avoid changing the view of a viaduct?

Whilst it does indeed require substations, which are indeed costly, current-spec OHLE as seen on the GWML involves astonishing amounts of heavy metalwork and is hardly cheap to erect!

There are many designs of OLE. The GW was specced to minimise risk of dewirements. Go to Europe and you'll see lots if much less intrusive designs.

I really think the industry bodies need to get away from this newfound fear of third rail.

its not newfound, its well developed over many decades.

It has provided and continues to provide sterling service across the most intensely used areas of railway that we have,

it falls over every winter!

and there really is no good reason not to undertake simple, common sense infill and extension projects.

Apart from the cost and risk of harm to people.

It's also worth considering that with the increasing modernisation of maintenance and inspection methods, there is less and less reason for staff to be in close proximity to energised third rail.

'The risk of death is reduced because we're sacking all the maintenance staff' is a poor logic. Even though there's less staff, there still be the same number of people on a worksite. And 'modernisation' will not change working methods, because to invest in kit and research requires cash that NR simply doesn't have and there's not going to be any more forthcoming from Whitehall.

 

[Towers]

The "DEAAAAATH" argument isn't a brilliant one either, frankly. What's the figure for railwayman fatalities as a result of touching the juice rail over, say, the last 10 years or so? In recent years we've had multiple P-way deaths due to being struck by trains, and a driver who was incredibly lucky not to be killed after coming into contact with fallen OHLE. Given the unpalatable choice of either of those or the DC, I'd prefer my chances with the DC.

The operational railway is dangerous, it always has been and it always will be. The appropriate response to this is to introduce safe methods of working which reduce exposure to that environment, whether that be the removal of 'red zone' working for P-way, or bringing in instructions that traction current be isolated before traincrew go lineside if they need to. Spending billions on ripping up the juice isn't the way forward in these frugal times!

 

[DelW]

I'd suggest that it's possible that third-rail electrifying limited areas like the North Downs could even improve trackside safety. Local track gangs would *always* be working alongside the third rail, and would *always* be taking the necessary precautions. That might well be better than alternating between electrified and non-electrified tracks, with the attendant risk that someone will momentarily forget which they're working on.

Obviously training and experience mean that workers should always be aware which they're on, and 99.99% of the time they will be. But accidents happen on that 0.01% of times when someone is concentrating on something else and carries out an action that would have been safe yesterday (in a non-electrified area) but might be fatal today.

 

[zwk500]

The "DEAAAAATH" argument isn't a brilliant one either, frankly.

It's not "DEATH" in a great battle cry, it's a mature appreciation of the risk.

What's the figure for railwayman fatalities as a result of touching the juice rail over, say, the last 10 years or so?

I don't have the figures to hand, but it's appreciable. Others more experienced than I have commented on other threads about the comparative dangers, and DC is a system that it only takes a momentary lapse in concentration to be badly hurt by.

The operational railway is dangerous, it always has been and it always will be. The appropriate response to this is to introduce safe methods of working which reduce exposure to that environment, whether that be the removal of 'red zone' working for P-way, or bringing in instructions that traction current be isolated before traincrew go lineside if they need to.

I agree. Another appropriate response is to not increase the risk any further than it needs to be, for instance by not installing a system proved to be less efficient and less safe. There's a reason nowhere else in the world installs 750V DC on their mainlines from new.

Spending billions on ripping up the juice isn't the way forward in these frugal times!

I didn't suggest that. I explicitly acknowledge that it wasn't ever going to be cost effective.

I'd suggest that it's possible that third-rail electrifying limited areas like the North Downs could even improve trackside safety.

You would be wrong.

Local track gangs would *always* be working alongside the third rail, and would *always* be taking the necessary precautions. That might well be better than alternating between electrified and non-electrified tracks, with the attendant risk that someone will momentarily forget which they're working on.

Track gangs can count to 3, they're well aware which railway they're working on.

Obviously training and experience mean that workers should always be aware which they're on, and 99.99% of the time they will be. But accidents happen on that 0.01% of times when someone is concentrating on something else and carries out an action that would have been safe yesterday (in a non-electrified area) but might be fatal today.

The risks of doing things like this are minimised by having proper safe operating procedures that are used 100% of the time even where no Juice rail exists. It also saves on equipment and training costs, because you train to the worst case (and in this instance, most common) situation. E.g. Always use insulated tools, approach from a safe angle.
By your argument we should have somebody on every site flailing a chainsaw around purely to keep staff on their toes.

 

[DelW]

Track gangs can count to 3, they're well aware which railway they're working on.

The risks of doing things like this are minimised by having proper safe operating procedures that are used 100% of the time even where no Juice rail exists. It also saves on equipment and training costs, because you train to the worst case (and in this instance, most common) situation. E.g. Always use insulated tools, approach from a safe angle.
By your argument we should have somebody on every site flailing a chainsaw around purely to keep staff on their toes.

I am well aware of those points. But in the real world (where I have been involved in analysing accidents in the workplace, though not on railways), I know that accidents are by definition situations where something has gone wrong and procedures have *not* been followed.

Your last sentence: "By your argument we should have somebody on every site flailing a chainsaw around purely to keep staff on their toes." is ludicrous and downright insulting. I did not suggest anything remotely like that, and I would ask you to withdraw the suggestion that I did immediately.

 

[zwk500]

I am well aware of those points. But in the real world (where I have been involved in analysing accidents in the workplace, though not on railways), I know that accidents are by definition situations where something has gone wrong and procedures have *not* been followed.

That is a matter of training and supervision. Increasing the opportunity for those occasions to happen does not increase safety, as by definition they can happen at any time.

Your last sentence: "By your argument we should have somebody on every site flailing a chainsaw around purely to keep staff on their toes." is ludicrous and downright insulting. I did not suggest anything remotely like that, and I would ask you to withdraw the suggestion that I did immediately.

Your suggestion was that staff safety would be improved by placing them permanently at risk so that they did not take risks they might otherwise get away with. My reduction to the absurd is extreme but still valid. If you don't like it you're welcome to withdraw your suggestion, and I will happily delete my reduction as it would no longer be valid.

 

[AM9]

To be fair to the ORR, it's the RSSB who do the safety aspect Your smiley is slightly at odds with the tone of your second point, because of course the people on here demanding more 3rd rail aren't the ones who would be going out and working on/around it putting themselves at risk.

I must apologise for the inappropriate emoticon. I wrote that reply on my phone and for some reason, I couldn't get the 'roll eyes' one to work, - or indeed any other one. So in the end I put the only one that I know the character entry for.
My commment was really aimed at the armchair 3rd rail electrification protagonists, who seem to put convenience (theoretically cheaper costs), aesthetics (including impact of railway photographs), utility Victorian civil engineering (each one of hundreds of brick overbridges is a unique architectural heritage item), uniqueness of 3rd rail (hardly any other mainline railway would dream of it) and other spurious reasons way above the safety of those who have to work near the live conductors and the unintended proximity of the general public.

 

[Mikey C]

I must apologise for the inappropriate emoticon. I wrote that reply on my phone and for some reason, I couldn't get the 'roll eyes' one to work, - or indeed any other one. So in the end I put the only one that I know the character entry for. My commment was really aimed at the armchair 3rd rail electrification protagonists, who seem to put convenience (theoretically cheaper costs), aesthetics (including impact of railway photographs), utility Victorian civil engineering (each one of hundreds of brick overbridges is a unique architectural heritage item), uniqueness of 3rd rail (hardly any other mainline railway would dream of it) and other spurious reasons way above the safety of those who have to work near the live conductors and the unintended proximity of the general public.

There has to be a balance though, especially when there's zero chance of all the existing live rails being ripped up and replaced by OHLE within the next 30 years, if not longer. Especially when you're talking about genuine infill projects like Uckfield or the Hastings to Ashford line.

After all if you just wanted to remove the risk for the public and workers from the railway, you'd close it down completely and thus eliminate all the risk caused by the railway.

 

[AM9]

There has to be a balance though, especially when there's zero chance of all the existing live rails being ripped up and replaced by OHLE within the next 30 years, if not longer. Especially when you're talking about genuine infill projects like Uckfield or the Hastings to Ashford line.

After all if you just wanted to remove the risk for the public and workers from the railway, you'd close it down completely and thus eliminate all the risk caused by the railway.

One person's balance if different to another's. Currently the ORR's balanced view is that only minor extensions will be allowed.

 

[DelW]

That is a matter of training and supervision. Increasing the opportunity for those occasions to happen does not increase safety, as by definition they can happen at any time.

Your suggestion was that staff safety would be improved by placing them permanently at risk so that they did not take risks they might otherwise get away with. My reduction to the absurd is extreme but still valid. If you don't like it you're welcome to withdraw your suggestion, and I will happily delete my reduction as it would no longer be valid.

I suggested that it was possible that safety might be improved by working to a consistent set of risk mitigation measures rather than ones that changed from day to day. I didn't suggest that anyone was "tak[ing] risks they might otherwise get away with" - again you are putting your words forward as if I had written them, when I did not.

I posed a hypothesis and you disagreed with it, as is your right. You do not have the right to repeatedly ascribe to me emotive phrases like "By your argument we should have somebody on every site flailing a chainsaw around purely to keep staff on their toes" or "Your suggestion was that staff safety would be improved by placing them permanently at risk so that they did not take risks they might otherwise get away with" neither of which I said or anywhere near implied.

It's evident that we are not going to agree on this, which is fine. But please don't repeatedly put contentious words into my (metaphorical) mouth.

 

[JonathanH]

Now this is in a separate thread, I guess the question is whether third rail electrification would allow slack in an existing fleet, thinking particularly of whether SWR has 10 spare 450s, to operate the service following electrification?

The other option is GWR's own 387s displaced from Paddington services by 379s. Presumably this would circumvent the driver acceptance issues with the 769s. Is electrifying the North Downs Line quicker or slower than developing a battery solution for the 387s?

 

[cle]

There is never going to be enough money to wire up the South West, Southern and Southeastern networks. It is huge. And we have diesel all over the country to get to first in terms of journey/experience and decarbonisation goals. I don't see it happening - not to mention the pitiful delivery of late (GWML), and a very finite talent pool.

Third rail is with us for now. And yes it's maybe less safe than other methods, but it's not illegal and it delivers a reasonable rail service for millions every day. A little infill should not be controversial where it has very positive network benefits - or aligns with decrepit stock renewals. It's not like people are dropping dead on a daily basis, nor is AC incredibly safe to work or play around - we have to mitigate that risk better without tearing it up or banning it.

So yes, North Downs should definitely be completed - as a route which actually spans the SW, S and SE networks - it could not be more Third Rail territory! It could ultimately do a lot more for the network as a while, with better stock and faster running. Redhill to Ashford has tons of capacity too.

Add Ore-Ashford and Uckfield in, and get rid of these silly anomalies. Overhead would make no sense for these tiny stretches.

The one place I waver is Reading to Basingstoke, and what that should be, as there is genuinely an argument for both - which both feature at Reading:
If the shuttle is more important, with a chance of Paddington services - wire it.
If Reading has a future of being a secondary SWT terminus, well, third rail makes more sense but doesn't do much for the Exeter or Warminster lines, only the Winchester routes.

 

[A0]

There has to be a balance though, especially when there's zero chance of all the existing live rails being ripped up and replaced by OHLE within the next 30 years, if not longer. Especially when you're talking about genuine infill projects like Uckfield or the Hastings to Ashford line.

After all if you just wanted to remove the risk for the public and workers from the railway, you'd close it down completely and thus eliminate all the risk caused by the railway.

(In bold) Both of those could be covered by Battery rolling stock though - which will be cheaper and easier than installing 3rd rail, particularly if the 3rd rail needs a new connection to the National Grid.

 

[Mikey C]

(In bold) Both of those could be covered by Battery rolling stock though - which will be cheaper and easier than installing 3rd rail, particularly if the 3rd rail needs a new connection to the National Grid.

But could they though? If there enough power in the existing network to charge the batteries sufficiently between London Bridge and Hurst Green to get all the way to Uckfield?

 

[A0]

But could they though? If there enough power in the existing network to charge the batteries sufficiently between London Bridge and Hurst Green to get all the way to Uckfield?

Uckfield - London Bridge is 45 miles.

Ordered for use in Germany are these CAF units with a 220km range - which is about 130 miles. https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/g...tery range will be,for 10 minutes after 110km.

 

[WAO]

A strategic approach to improving third rail safety would be to aim at reducing the overall track mileage covered by it, without necessarily preventing marginal infills.

I would suggest that the 1967 Bournemouth electrification (West of Pirbright Jn) and its 1980's extension to Weymouth would be an appropriate candidate for conversion to the 25kV overhead system. This requires higher power for its faster, longer trains and also needs 25kV for the extensive freight from the Port of Southampton. Allied with the small dc infill/s there would be a significant reduction in overall risk.

I would also suggest converting Merseyrail to overhead, even perhaps in the tunnels if the new ROCS and insulations would suffice. This is only 121 route km but presents a barrier to wider operation and access that Liverpool City Region's economy could do without.

The fact that the above ideas would never get beyond speculation in the UK shows that there is no sincere value placed on safety, only money.

WAO

 

[GRALISTAIR]

3rd rail is an outdated technology that poses a much higher risk to people around it than OLE. It's also costly to install as it requires regular substations and lots of insulation of electrical equipment against DC trying to return to earth. We shouldn't be installing any more of it unless we really, really have to.
A comprehensive strategy to convert the 3rd rail network to OLE would also be nice, but costs would prevent anything being carried out.

IMHO this post says it all and is balanced.

Efficiency is not as good either as I^2R losses will always be higher.

 

[RobShipway]

I hate to say this, but I do believe that the plans that GWR had for the class 769 was not just for them to be used on the North Downs line, but also on the shuttle service between Didcot Parkway to Oxford. So if you got rid of the class 769's how would you provide stopping London - Paddington services to Oxford and provide the shuttle service between Didcot Parkway to Oxford?

When it comes to installing more 3rd Rail, I have to agree with Zwk500 post below:

3rd rail is an outdated technology that poses a much higher risk to people around it than OLE. It's also costly to install as it requires regular substations and lots of insulation of electrical equipment against DC trying to return to earth. We shouldn't be installing any more of it unless we really, really have to.
A comprehensive strategy to convert the 3rd rail network to OLE would also be nice, but costs would prevent anything being carried out.

I say this tongue very much in cheek, but maybe convert the class 379 fleet to be third rail compatible, but also be able to power themselves with Hydro power as well as still having AC Overhead power capability! This would be a great replacement for class 769. But Oops...... I forgot the time it will take to trial and make sure all systems work, by which time the class 769's would be all sorted out and taking passengers.

 

[paul1609]

visual impact is a poor argument. We should keep killing people to avoid changing the view of a viaduct?

There are many designs of OLE. The GW was specced to minimise risk of dewirements. Go to Europe and you'll see lots if much less intrusive designs.

its not newfound, its well developed over many decades.

it falls over every winter!

Apart from the cost and risk of harm to people.

'The risk of death is reduced because we're sacking all the maintenance staff' is a poor logic. Even though there's less staff, there still be the same number of people on a worksite. And 'modernisation' will not change working methods, because to invest in kit and research requires cash that NR simply doesn't have and there's not going to be any more forthcoming from Whitehall.

My issue with the apparent refusal to get on with the 3 obvious infill schemes in largely rural areas is that with a ban on red Zone working and the easy implication of remote isolation that modern power electronics enable the infill schemes must have much lower risks than the existing electrification. If having risk assessed the new schemes the risk is found to be unacceptable surely network rail need to be given a date when third rail needs to be phased out. Health and Safety shouldn't really have open ended grandfather rights and the ban has been in place for what 25 years now?

 

[zwk500]

If having risk assessed the new schemes the risk is found to be unacceptable surely network rail need to be given a date when third rail needs to be phased out. Health and Safety shouldn't really have open ended grandfather rights and the ban has been in place for what 25 years now?

That is a policy/politics question for which I have no answer!

 

[paul1609]

It's not really its simply risk assessment that falls on Network Rail as the risk holder. If new third rail is deemed too risky not to have a replacement timetable for existing systems 25 years after the risks were identified is criminal. If network rail had identified the risk and Govt had declined funding that would be politics.