Should the ORR be friendlier to third rail?

[renegademaster]

My gut feeling is that pollution related deaths must exceed the the people who'd get zapped if the gaps in the south was 3rd railed, plus it could open up electrification to busy lines where the cost of redeveloping bridges stops anything happens (thinking about the Chiltern mainline mainly)

 

[Kite159]

If anything, any extensions will be limited to plugging in the gaps (North Downs Line, Uckfield, Ore - Ashford) rather than being for brand-new areas like the Chiltern mainline.

 

[Mzzzs]

I mean it would be useful if the gaps were filled in and the services which were partly electrified already such as Exter to London via Salisbury and Salisbury to Southampton both ways.
But other than that anything north of Thames should be overhead to fit in.

 

[zwk500]

My gut feeling is that pollution related deaths must exceed the the people who'd get zapped if the gaps in the south was 3rd railed, plus it could open up electrification to busy lines where the cost of redeveloping bridges stops anything happens (thinking about the Chiltern mainline mainly)

Given how much of the third rail network has been done, pollution related deaths that would have been avoided if the infill had been done will be a very low number. I'd be astonished if it was anywhere near the deaths attributable to 3rd rail directly above other electrification systems. It will certainly be negligible as a proportion of all pollution related deaths.
3rd rail would be a poor choice for the Chiltern network as it has sustained periods of 100mph running which has always been approaching the technical limit of the system, and it will (hopefully) interface with the 25KV network at Oxford, while not touching the 3rd rail network, and dual-voltage trains (or even battery, but DV would be better) are a simpler option for the 4-rail section on the Met line rails. 3rd rail would only be for infill on the existing network (the RSSB recently published a safety assessment of how to mitigate the risks), and would not be used to electrify another major line, especially one that had better strategic reasons to use OLE.

 

[AlastairFraser]

As others have said, the NDL, Marshlink and Uckfield lines would be good starters.
You could use the dual voltage 350/1s (30 4 car units) coming off lease at West Mids Trains soon to cascade both Class 165s at GWR and Class 171s to Northern. There are 30 4 cars, and on Marshlink the improved acceleration would help increase stops at the smaller stations, without having to change the path.

Ellesmere Port to Helsby, Wrexham (inc. Central), Preston, Southport via Burscough and Wigan Wallgate integrated into Merseyrail would also be much easier.
Just under 70 miles of new third rail together and would massively increase ridership on these lines (you could electrify in stages - stage 1 EP to Helsby and Headbolt Lane to Wigan, stage 2 Preston and Southport via Burscough, stage 3 Wrexham).

I can't think of anywhere else I'd electrify using third rail - Basingstoke/Southampton to Salisbury/Exeter is too far to deliver a decent cost benefit ratio and should be 25kv electrified in future.

 

[DPWH2]

Is there anywhere around Liverpool where the 3rd rail could be extended?

 

[yorksrob]

Given how much of the third rail network has been done, pollution related deaths that would have been avoided if the infill had been done will be a very low number. I'd be astonished if it was anywhere near the deaths attributable to 3rd rail directly above other electrification systems. It will certainly be negligible as a proportion of all pollution related deaths.
3rd rail would be a poor choice for the Chiltern network as it has sustained periods of 100mph running which has always been approaching the technical limit of the system, and it will (hopefully) interface with the 25KV network at Oxford, while not touching the 3rd rail network, and dual-voltage trains (or even battery, but DV would be better) are a simpler option for the 4-rail section on the Met line rails. 3rd rail would only be for infill on the existing network (the RSSB recently published a safety assessment of how to mitigate the risks), and would not be used to electrify another major line, especially one that had better strategic reasons to use OLE.

Wouldn't it be more accurate and meaningful to compare mortality due to air quality with mortality due to the new bits of third rail being proposed (rather than the whole third rail network).

There are of course, various other benefits to filling in those gaps.

So in conclusion, yes ORR needs to get with the programme.

 

[zwk500]

Wouldn't it be more accurate and meaningful to compare mortality due to air quality with mortality due to the new bits of third rail being proposed (rather than the whole third rail network).

No. The comparison would be excess deaths from air quality attributable to diesel trains that could have been removed vs deaths from third rail above alternative electrification options.
Remember air quality is impacted by things like heavy industry, road and shipping traffic, etc., so a raw comparison of air quality deaths is going to be completely misleading as third rail wouldn't have prevented a significant amount of the deaths/illness.

There are of course, various other benefits to filling in those gaps.

indeed, and there are also problems with filling in the gaps so you'd need to take the whole thing on balance.

So in conclusion, yes ORR needs to get with the programme.

Just a reminder, there's no prohibition on third rail and it's up to the project to make the safety case, something the RSSB has recently published a paper helping proposals decide on the best mitigation methods.

 

[Snow1964]

Yes of course they should do the gaps.
Adding less than 1% to route mileage of third rail electrification.

If risks are very low for properly fenced third rail route, for simple maths say million to one for dangerous act per mile of track per day, then clearly lowering that by 1% is still a very low number (1 in 990,100). I don't know the actual risk number

Conversely, not just pollution cost, there are hazards with fuelling diesel trains, spillages, trips etc, plus more maintenance of potentially hot or heavy parts.

So risk of not doing it, compared to all the risks of diesel, might mean its a dumb policy blocking it.

 

[yorksrob]

No. The comparison would be excess deaths from air quality attributable to diesel trains that could have been removed vs deaths from third rail above alternative electrification options.
Remember air quality is impacted by things like heavy industry, road and shipping traffic, etc., so a raw comparison of air quality deaths is going to be completely misleading as third rail wouldn't have prevented a significant amount of the deaths/illness.

indeed, and there are also problems with filling in the gaps so you'd need to take the whole thing on balance.

Just a reminder, there's no prohibition on third rail and it's up to the project to make the safety case, something the RSSB has recently published a paper helping proposals decide on the best mitigation methods.

A mealy mouthed "oh, theres no ban on third rail ( but we're not going to allow it anyway)" isn't really up to it. There needs to be an explicit allowance for the traditional third rail network to be infilled.

 

[A0]

As others have said, the NDL, Marshlink and Uckfield lines would be good starters.
You could use the dual voltage 350/1s (30 4 car units) coming off lease at West Mids Trains soon to cascade both Class 165s at GWR and Class 171s to Northern. There are 30 4 cars, and on Marshlink the improved acceleration would help increase stops at the smaller stations, without having to change the path.

Bit in bold - don't think you can. For starters it's the 350/2s which are being released from WMT / LNW, which aren't and never have been dual voltage. Secondly the 350/1s have had all their shoegear removed as it wasn't needed, there is every chance that other changes have since been made to the units which would prevent it being reinstated.

A mealy mouthed "oh, theres no ban on third rail ( but we're not going to allow it anyway)" isn't really up to it. There needs to be an explicit allowance for the traditional third rail network to be infilled.

There isn't a "ban" on 3rd rail as can be evidenced by the extensions to the Overground network which were built in in 2010.

The point @zwk500 is making is that *any* project proposing 3rd rail is going to have to meet the required safety standards - now we all know that you think this is grossly unfair that this means an Victorian solution can't continue to be deployed using Victorian safety standards, but you wouldn't accept it for domestic wiring, road transport, air transport, sea transport or food safety, so why you think the rail network should get a free pass and be allowed to extend what is a dangerous system using unacceptably low safety standard is beyond me.

 

[yorksrob]

Bit in bold - don't think you can. For starters it's the 350/2s which are being released from WMT / LNW, which aren't and never have been dual voltage. Secondly the 350/1s have had all their shoegear removed as it wasn't needed, there is every chance that other changes have since been made to the units which would prevent it being reinstated.



There isn't a "ban" on 3rd rail as can be evidenced by the extensions to the Overground network which were built in in 2010.

The point @zwk500 is making is that *any* project proposing 3rd rail is going to have to meet the required safety standards - now we all know that you think this is grossly unfair that this means an Victorian solution can't continue to be deployed using Victorian safety standards, but you wouldn't accept it for domestic wiring, road transport, air transport, sea transport or food safety, so why you think the rail network should get a free pass and be allowed to extend what is a dangerous system using unacceptably low safety standard is beyond me.

Your entire premise is wrong. The third rail is not a dangerous system with an unacceptably low safety standard otherwise it would not be in use. The very fact that it is widely in use means that the safety standard is accepted.

 

[Falcon1200]

I'd be astonished if it was anywhere near the deaths attributable to 3rd rail directly above other electrification systems.

What actually are the deaths attributable to the 3rd rail, broken down by 1) railway staff and 2) members of the public (ie trespassers)? In the case of 2), people who should not be on the track in the first place are at risk regardless of the 3rd rail, and anyway there have been incidents involving both staff and the public with overhead wire systems too.

Yes of course they should do the gaps.

Yes indeed. It is a nonsense that for example, East Grinstead can quite happily be served by 3rd rail electric trains but Uckfield apparently cannot.

The third rail is not a dangerous system with an unacceptably low safety standard otherwise it would not be in use.

Agree.

 

[zwk500]

A mealy mouthed "oh, theres no ban on third rail ( but we're not going to allow it anyway)" isn't really up to it. There needs to be an explicit allowance for the traditional third rail network to be infilled.

A mealy mouthed 'I don't care about people getting electrocuted' also doesn't really cut it.

Your entire premise is wrong. The third rail is not a dangerous system with an unacceptably low safety standard otherwise it would not be in use. The very fact that it is widely in use means that the safety standard is accepted.

Your premise is completely wrong because third rail isn't in widespread use. Its largely Confined to metro routes, much of which are either elevated or tunnelled and have very few ways to gain unauthorised access.

What actually are the deaths attributable to the 3rd rail, broken down by 1) railway staff and 2) members of the public (ie trespassers)? In the case of 2), people who should not be on the track in the first place are at risk regardless of the 3rd rail,

For the numbers id need to do look it up so ill have to get back to you. Trespassers are still the railways responsibility to take.reasonable precaution against, like it or not (I don't, fwiw).

and anyway there have been incidents involving both staff and the public with overhead wire systems too.

Indeed, which is why the important number is risk/death from 3rd rail *above* alternative methods of electrification.

 

[A0]

Your entire premise is wrong. The third rail is not a dangerous system with an unacceptably low safety standard otherwise it would not be in use. The very fact that it is widely in use means that the safety standard is accepted.

The way *you*want it deployed, it is. The reality is a number of provisions have been put in place to make 3rd rail "safer" where it is installed and it has been installed in places where people are less likely to come into contact with it, as ZWK500 has pointed out.

You think it's OK to install 3rd rail to the same standards as it was in the 1930s or 1960s - the world's changed and there is a greater requirement for safety. And those extra safety standards come at a cost or, on occasion may mean something cannot be done. So it *is* an unsafe system, it has *always* been an unsafe system. The safety standards have now improved, but that doesn't mean it can't still be used. But as I've explained to you before (at least once) safety standards apply to *new* installations - you can see this with housebuilding, most of Britain's housing stock wouldn't meet the current standards and building regulations, but there isn't a requirement to retrofit everything to meet those standards to every house, *however* as works are done to each house, works need to meet the current standards. So if you have a house with wiring from the 1950s, there's no legal requirement for you to rewire your house *now*, so you can have an old style fusebox, 2 pin plugs, rubberised coatings on the wires, sockets on the light fittings etc etc (providing it is all in good, working condition), but the sparky you call in to rewire your house will rewire it with a modern RCB fusebox, 3 pin 13 amp sockets, modern wiring, including the new colour requirements of Brown = Live, Blue = Neutral and so on - it will be rewired to the standards that are live *now* not those which were live when the house was built.

 

[stuu]

Its largely Confined to metro routes, much of which are either elevated or tunnelled and have very few ways to gain unauthorised access.

This is absolute nonsense. Weymouth says hi, as does Sheerness and Seaford

 

[A0]

This is absolute nonsense. Weymouth says hi, as does Sheerness and Seaford

I think what @zwk500 means is *recent* deployments of 3rd rail have been primarily in metro / tunnelled areas.

All of those examples were installed over 30 years ago to *very* different safety standards.

 

[renegademaster]

Bit in bold - don't think you can. For starters it's the 350/2s which are being released from WMT / LNW, which aren't and never have been dual voltage. Secondly the 350/1s have had all their shoegear removed as it wasn't needed, there is every chance that other changes have since been made to the units which would prevent it being reinstated.



There isn't a "ban" on 3rd rail as can be evidenced by the extensions to the Overground network which were built in in 2010.

The point @zwk500 is making is that *any* project proposing 3rd rail is going to have to meet the required safety standards - now we all know that you think this is grossly unfair that this means an Victorian solution can't continue to be deployed using Victorian safety standards, but you wouldn't accept it for domestic wiring, road transport, air transport, sea transport or food safety, so why you think the rail network should get a free pass and be allowed to extend what is a dangerous system using unacceptably low safety standard is beyond me.

One of the things Southern have done recently is concentrating on getting an all Electrostar fleet, and messing that up with dual voltages nobody down south is trained for is going to mess everything up

 

[paul1609]

As others have said, the NDL, Marshlink and Uckfield lines would be good starters.
You could use the dual voltage 350/1s (30 4 car units) coming off lease at West Mids Trains soon to cascade both Class 165s at GWR and Class 171s to Northern. There are 30 4 cars, and on Marshlink the improved acceleration would help increase stops at the smaller stations, without having to change the path.

With the exception of Doleham since May every Marsh link train stops at every station.
There's absolutely no reason why Marsh link couldn't be electrified with overhead to Ore, there's ample 25Kv available at Ashford for 2 trains in the 30 mile section to the third rail. Both the local TOCs have dual voltage EMUs available.

 

[ainsworth74]

One of the things Southern have done recently is concentrating on getting an all Electrostar fleet, and messing that up with dual voltages nobody down south is trained for is going to mess everything up

But there are plenty of dual voltage Electrostars, some operated by Southern!

 

[Mikey C]

What IS untenable is the idea that we can't infill the small gaps in the southeast like Uckfield, while leaving the existing 3rd rail across the network in place forever, simply because it was done before safety standards changed.

Either it's unacceptable or not, and if it isn't there needs to be an immediate plan to close all level and foot crossings over 3rd rail and replace them with bridges for example.

 

[renegademaster]

But there are plenty of dual voltage Electrostars, some operated by Southern!

I phrased myself badly, those are the same trains they run just everywhere else just with pantos, 350s are a totally different train

 

[ainsworth74]

I phrased myself badly, those are the same trains they run just everywhere else just with pantos, 350s are a totally different train

Ah gotcha!

 

[zwk500]

This is absolute nonsense. Weymouth says hi, as does Sheerness and Seaford

Those prove the 'largely' part, and were largely done as cheap add ons to the existing network for operational reasons (allowing through EMU services to replace/avoid loco haul). They certainly wouldn't have been third rail if it wasn't for the existing third rail network.

 

[yorksrob]

A mealy mouthed 'I don't care about people getting electrocuted' also doesn't really cut it.

Your premise is completely wrong because third rail isn't in widespread use. Its largely Confined to metro routes, much of which are either elevated or tunnelled and have very few ways to gain unauthorised access.

Third rail is the main traction system for the South of England. Its risks are already well known and lived with, that is the reality.

The way *you*want it deployed, it is. The reality is a number of provisions have been put in place to make 3rd rail "safer" where it is installed and it has been installed in places where people are less likely to come into contact with it, as ZWK500 has pointed out.

You think it's OK to install 3rd rail to the same standards as it was in the 1930s or 1960s - the world's changed and there is a greater requirement for safety. And those extra safety standards come at a cost or, on occasion may mean something cannot be done. So it *is* an unsafe system, it has *always* been an unsafe system. The safety standards have now improved, but that doesn't mean it can't still be used. But as I've explained to you before (at least once) safety standards apply to *new* installations - you can see this with housebuilding, most of Britain's housing stock wouldn't meet the current standards and building regulations, but there isn't a requirement to retrofit everything to meet those standards to every house, *however* as works are done to each house, works need to meet the current standards. So if you have a house with wiring from the 1950s, there's no legal requirement for you to rewire your house *now*, so you can have an old style fusebox, 2 pin plugs, rubberised coatings on the wires, sockets on the light fittings etc etc (providing it is all in good, working condition), but the sparky you call in to rewire your house will rewire it with a modern RCB fusebox, 3 pin 13 amp sockets, modern wiring, including the new colour requirements of Brown = Live, Blue = Neutral and so on - it will be rewired to the standards that are live *now* not those which were live when the house was built.

Tonbridge - Redhill was electrified in around 1992 and this standard would be fine for the infills.

When sections of third rail track are renewed, they are renewed with third rail components. By your domestic electrical works analogy, they would have to be replaced by sections of OLE.

It is perfectly sensible and practical to say that OLE is the standard outside of the two third rail areas of the country. It is impractical and backward to prevent short infills and even short extensions to those systems.

 

[A0]

Third rail is the main traction system for the South of England. Its risks are already well known and lived with, that is the reality.



Tonbridge - Redhill was electrified in around 1992 and this standard would be fine for the infills.

When sections of third rail track are renewed, they are renewed with third rail components. By your domestic electrical works analogy, they would have to be replaced by sections of OLE.

It is perfectly sensible and practical to say that OLE is the standard outside of the two third rail areas of the country. It is impractical and backward to prevent short infills and even short extensions to those systems.

Once again you are either being deliberately obtuse or wilfully ignorant - I'm not sure which.

Bit in bold is utterly untrue - it means that any *NEW* installation of 3rd rail needs to meet the *CURRENT STANDARDS* not be installed in the way it was back in the 1960s or 1980s - and that may mean addressing a safety case it didn't previously have to, closing foot or level crossings which are a risk and a multitude of other things.

Just because it's the main traction system in "the south of England" - by which you actually mean Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire - because it isn't for a number of the other counties in Southern England, doesn't mean that the installations on those lines meet current safety standards - and indeed if they were assessed by those standards *NOW* they may well fall short of them.

With the exception of Doleham since May every Marsh link train stops at every station.
There's absolutely no reason why Marsh link couldn't be electrified with overhead to Ore, there's ample 25Kv available at Ashford for 2 trains in the 30 mile section to the third rail. Both the local TOCs have dual voltage EMUs available.

The problem you've got is the 3rd rail and OHLE at Ashford are well segregated at the moment. If you were to wire Marshlink you'd then have to make a bunch of changes to support the necessary earthing which happens wherever you have 25kv AC OHLE and 750v DC 3rd rail in close proximity. Posters such as Bald Rick have written at length about that on other threads.

 

[SynthD]

It’s an interesting and desirable point but the ORR’s responsibility is just the third rail. Within their remit, the minimal permissions given is the right choice. If you shared responsibility government-wide, then I suspect this would be a minor issue among the huge changes made. It’s hard to consider somewhere between these two extremes.

Old 3rd rail is grandfathered in. The whole grandfather principle is that we have different standards for what was already in place versus what we do.

 

[Turtle]

If anything, any extensions will be limited to plugging in the gaps (North Downs Line, Uckfield, Ore - Ashford) rather than being for brand-new areas like the Chiltern mainline.

That would certainly be a start. I think the "safety" issue is yet another red herring encouraged by the anti electrification lobby.

 

[AlastairFraser]

With the exception of Doleham since May every Marsh link train stops at every station.
There's absolutely no reason why Marsh link couldn't be electrified with overhead to Ore, there's ample 25Kv available at Ashford for 2 trains in the 30 mile section to the third rail. Both the local TOCs have dual voltage EMUs available.

Doleham could be better placed as a station for the village of Westfield with a decent sized car park, and longer, faster electric services could also allow the planned station at Kingsnorth, just outside Ashford, to be built.

SN and SE are both short of EMUs and the 350/1s provide an answer helping them to release those 171s, rather then putting further pressure on their already very much streamlined fleet utilisation plan.

 

[paul1609]

The problem you've got is the 3rd rail and OHLE at Ashford are well segregated at the moment. If you were to wire Marshlink you'd then have to make a bunch of changes to support the necessary earthing which happens wherever you have 25kv AC OHLE and 750v DC 3rd rail in close proximity. Posters such as Bald Rick have written at length about that on other threads.

You are obviously not familiar with the layout at Ashford. Platforms 3, 4, 5 & 6 are all dual electrified for through running on ac/dc. The close proximity of the hs through line means the whole area has enhanced earthing.