MatthewRead
On Moderation
Real shame about most of those trains 442's should never have been dumped in the first place and neither should the 456's 319's could've worked a few more years and the re-tractioned 455's could've done a few more years.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
3rd rail infills and extensions may have a future after all…
- Thread starter Deepgreen
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
What on earth? just because they were once Southern? Exmouth goes to Paignton, are they advocating 3rd rail along Dawlish now too? did they mention 3rd rail to Plymouth via Bere Alston by any chance?
Exeter to Salisbury/Basingstoke on AC makes a little more sense, but wiring that and not the GW routes to Exeter makes *no* sense.
railwaytrack
Member
I am surprised that the Reading to Basingstoke line is never mentioned in plans or ideas to extend third rail. As this would be an ideal section to add third rail to and is quite short distance compared to some of the other sections. This would enable SWR trains to be easily diverted from London Waterloo via Staines and Reading to Badingstoke and then onwards when parts of the SWML are closed.
3rd rail towards Exeter makes sense, however I would suggest that given the need for more power connections required for 3rd rail in an otherwise rural location that OHLE would probably be more cost effective for at least West of Yeovil.
In the short term I'd suspect that even to Salisbury reorient be the goal, rather enough electrification to allow a battery train to run to Salisbury.
Whilst that would require a change of train to get to Yeovil and the retention of DMU's for Exeter services, it would be a good first step.
Assuming an 80 mile range in a battery train you'd hardly need any extra 3rd rail, and even a 60 mile range would need about 10 miles of 3rd rail (although probably about 12 would be better as that allows you to start off from Whitchurch using electric).
To get to Yeovil using battery trains would require about 40 to 50 miles of 3rd rail.
However then you could potentially have half the Exeter services as they currently are and half requiring a change at Yeovil to reduce much further the number of DMU's required to travel to London.
The improved journey time of an EMU could allow a reasonable overlap between one service arriving and the connecting departing without adding padding to the timetable. Likewise as it would be an across the platform connection, the minimum time needed to swap trains would likely be fairly limited.
Yes when there's significant delays it could cause problems, however if there's 2tph from Yeovil to Waterloo, the risk of this could be limited. For instance you wish to go to be Exeter and there's issues at Basingstoke, then many would get the preceding service to Yeovil (if they were able to) so they made their connection. However under such a scenario currently the Exeter services would all be impacted anyway and so a traveler has to catch a train an hour earlier (rather than 30 minutes) to ensure they aren't delayed in their arrival.
Kite159
Veteran Member
Overhead wires would be better for Reading to Basingstoke, considering that it's already wired at the Reading end.
Also the link lines between the AC platforms at Reading to the DC line towards Ascot hasn't got anything. Most passengers if faced with the option of the fast train to Paddington or the slow train to Waterloo from Reading will go the fast way.
The 319s do not have a reputation for poor reliability. The 769s on the other hand.....
The 442s were utter junk. The 456s weren't much better. Most 319s are still active in some form as are the SWR retractioned 455s.
Indeed, the other thing to consider is XC who are more likely to be looking for bimodal trains rather than EMU's and so wires to Basingstoke assist them more.
Yes a small factor in the overall calculation, but it may be enough to justify wires over 3rd rail.
Having said that, it may well be that XC changes significantly with the opening of HS2 (again a factor in this maybe that it'll be faster, even on current services, to get to Birmingham from Southampton going via Old Oak Common). As such EMU's (or at least battery trains, as Didcot to Coventry is short enough that it's about 70 miles, so fairly few extra miles of wires would be needed even if the range was 60 miles) maybe the way forwards with more services being split at Birmingham and/or the pairing of services to/through Reading with the services to Manchester.
But you know that to even consider scrapping a single 23m Mklll vehicle is heresy to some here.
Interesting points. I do wonder if GBR will eventually see XC withdrawing from Bournemouth and using Southampton as their south coast terminus, that would reduce their diesel over DC mileage and would seem a pretty reasonable adjustment really. More radical still would be to pull back to Basingstoke, but I imagine that would be a cut too far.
Gerald Fiennes
Member
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 864
Having debated all this with the Chief Inspector and NR some years ago it is worth recalling that it is up to NR to demonstrate that any new 3rd rail electrification is safe, ie. reduces risk so far as is reasonably practicable (as per the 1974 Act). It is not up to ORR or RSSB to do this, the former reviews risk assessments that might be done against this requirement during project authorisation and the latter devises standards in consulation with the industry. NR holds the safety case for the infrastructure and it is their responsibility to plan and build any new works to meet the 1974 Act requirement -- both in respect of the staff and the public.
In the case of extending 3rd rail electrification, the fundamental problem is the ability of staff and the public to, as a consequence, more easily come into contact with live conductors, bearing in mind in also the Electricity at Work Regulations which, although having been in place since 1989, were not given much priority by the industry until recently (ballast packing with shovels near live conductor rails, anyone?).
In essence, my understanding has been that ORR felt that it would be near impossible to make the case for 3rd rail extension compared either to OHLE which is (by design) lower risk or (because this is the starting point) non-electrified working where electrocution risk does not arise. And these days, it would be also be against battery or hydrogen traction, presumably... Third rail would add a quantum of risk which ultimately could only be partially (=not fully) mitigated by actions such as stern warning boards at eg crossing points/platform ends or enhanced staff training.
Therefore ORR had what seemed to be a quite well founded presumption that any new 3rd rail electrification (other than tiny new sections in eg. depots) would be unlikely to be consistent with the 1974 Act and 1989 Regulations as they were then being applied (ie. with the background of overall lowering of passenger and staff risks, certainly when compared with 1930s, 50s and 60s when most 3rd rail was put down.). This was amplified by the Chief Inspector's several fairly stark public pronouncements on the topic, such that NR felt that there was little point in attempting to develop risk assessment as ORR seemingly could never be convinced.
As pointed out up-thread, I think all that is being signalled here is that ORR is potentially ready to talk a bit more positively about standards or mitigations for 3rd rail than in the past -- but presumably within the current legal position (which is not going to change in a hurry). It may be that through measures such as -- enhanced fencing, switching on of higher risk conductor rail sections only when a train is approaching (much easier technically to do now), half-barriers on foot crossings (NS has a lot of these where passengers still cross tracks to/from platforms to reduce risk of being hit by trains), and procedures to isolate rail during maintenance/inspection ( = tracks under possession more often), tougher training and certification requirements for track workers and better detection of when conductor rails are live (LUL introduced warning lights some years back to provide a visual check on whether the juice was on) -- the risk could be mitigated sufficiently. It may also now be that, thanks to RIDDOR monitoring, NR has much higher quality data on the current risk, ie. injuries and fatalities on the current 3rd rail networ,k and can show the level of risk is actually very low (which it seems to be). But it's a tough call, particularly in respect of track workers and bearing in mind all that NR is doing at the moment to reduce the risks they face during patrolling and routine maintenance.
We may need to acknowledge that the 3rd rail system is inherently just too challenging to extend even on short bits like Basingstoke - Reading. It's a great story for Rail Magazine to run, certainly worth another examination of the issues, but don't hold one's breath.
In the case of extending 3rd rail electrification, the fundamental problem is the ability of staff and the public to, as a consequence, more easily come into contact with live conductors, bearing in mind in also the Electricity at Work Regulations which, although having been in place since 1989, were not given much priority by the industry until recently (ballast packing with shovels near live conductor rails, anyone?).
In essence, my understanding has been that ORR felt that it would be near impossible to make the case for 3rd rail extension compared either to OHLE which is (by design) lower risk or (because this is the starting point) non-electrified working where electrocution risk does not arise. And these days, it would be also be against battery or hydrogen traction, presumably... Third rail would add a quantum of risk which ultimately could only be partially (=not fully) mitigated by actions such as stern warning boards at eg crossing points/platform ends or enhanced staff training.
Therefore ORR had what seemed to be a quite well founded presumption that any new 3rd rail electrification (other than tiny new sections in eg. depots) would be unlikely to be consistent with the 1974 Act and 1989 Regulations as they were then being applied (ie. with the background of overall lowering of passenger and staff risks, certainly when compared with 1930s, 50s and 60s when most 3rd rail was put down.). This was amplified by the Chief Inspector's several fairly stark public pronouncements on the topic, such that NR felt that there was little point in attempting to develop risk assessment as ORR seemingly could never be convinced.
As pointed out up-thread, I think all that is being signalled here is that ORR is potentially ready to talk a bit more positively about standards or mitigations for 3rd rail than in the past -- but presumably within the current legal position (which is not going to change in a hurry). It may be that through measures such as -- enhanced fencing, switching on of higher risk conductor rail sections only when a train is approaching (much easier technically to do now), half-barriers on foot crossings (NS has a lot of these where passengers still cross tracks to/from platforms to reduce risk of being hit by trains), and procedures to isolate rail during maintenance/inspection ( = tracks under possession more often), tougher training and certification requirements for track workers and better detection of when conductor rails are live (LUL introduced warning lights some years back to provide a visual check on whether the juice was on) -- the risk could be mitigated sufficiently. It may also now be that, thanks to RIDDOR monitoring, NR has much higher quality data on the current risk, ie. injuries and fatalities on the current 3rd rail networ,k and can show the level of risk is actually very low (which it seems to be). But it's a tough call, particularly in respect of track workers and bearing in mind all that NR is doing at the moment to reduce the risks they face during patrolling and routine maintenance.
We may need to acknowledge that the 3rd rail system is inherently just too challenging to extend even on short bits like Basingstoke - Reading. It's a great story for Rail Magazine to run, certainly worth another examination of the issues, but don't hold one's breath.
reddragon
Established Member
This is the problem that you get when you look at a single in isolation. Anything can be 'dangerous'.
The issues or working around OLE cannot be understated and personally I feel safer working near the 3rd rail than 25kv ac OL£.
3rd rail risks can easily be mitigated today and climate change is more serious by multiple factors! We now have trams running with power at road level switchable underneath the tram.
ALARP is all the HSE require, not zero risk.
Clearly NR to achieve net zero are engaging various bodies to find a way ahead.
The issues or working around OLE cannot be understated and personally I feel safer working near the 3rd rail than 25kv ac OL£.
3rd rail risks can easily be mitigated today and climate change is more serious by multiple factors! We now have trams running with power at road level switchable underneath the tram.
ALARP is all the HSE require, not zero risk.
Clearly NR to achieve net zero are engaging various bodies to find a way ahead.
Risk assessments can produce some daft outcomes at times. Guildford platform 7 has the juice rail platform-side (a single line runs through it, with platform 6 being the other, non-juice rail side), and so it isn't routinely used. However, it gets plenty busy with passengers using the adjacent platform 8, meaning that there's still plenty of opportunity for someone to fall off the platform edge and land on it - you could argue that the risk should surely require a barrier of some sort, as the third rail is even more exposed with no train sitting over it? Where do you draw the line?
For the railway to take the view that DC is unsafe is, IMHO, plainly ridiculous. By the same measure - that is, that iy poses a risk to an unauthorised person who has no reason to be anywhere near it - the presence of the railway itself is also a danger. Close the whole lot, perhaps?!
For the railway to take the view that DC is unsafe is, IMHO, plainly ridiculous. By the same measure - that is, that iy poses a risk to an unauthorised person who has no reason to be anywhere near it - the presence of the railway itself is also a danger. Close the whole lot, perhaps?!
DC *IS* unsafe. the question is 'can it be made safe enough?'
OHLE makes most sense west of Salisbury. It's half-and-half between 3rd rail and OHLE for Worting Jn-Salisbury. Reading-Basingstoke should be OHLE as well.
Uckfield, Regiate-Guildford, Ash-Wokingham and Romsey-Southampton are the most obvious 3rd Rail candidates.
Terminating at Basingstoke would be operationally painful for XC. Cutting short the Bournemouth's would help with more Dorset SWML traffic (and local services) but at a cost of platform capacity at Southampton Central.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,445
XC services terminating at Southampton aren’t normally booked to sit in the platforms (although they have done if arriving late), they generally run through to either the up or down loop and layover there for about half an hour. So a hypothetically shortened Bournemouth would still be able to arrive in P4 and depart from P1 as now.
But pre Covid one of the morning Southampton terminators went further and reversed in Totton yard. (I think what might be an issue is if SWR‘s new Waterloo - Southampton terminating train also needs to be put in a loop between arrival and departure.)
But I very much doubt XC‘s destinations would change as a result of any further DC electrification if it’s only a short infill type.
Unsafe for who? And relative to what??
AC is unsafe if I climb up a stanchion and lunge at it! A train hurtling towards me while I amble carelessly over a foot crossing is unsafe. If I break down on the hard shoulder of the M6, that's probably pretty unsafe too.
And so on! Nobody is suggesting laying juice rails across the local high street, they should be deemed safe enough by virtue of them being in a place where they are accessible only to those who are authorised to be there. A person on the track who shouldn't be there is at risk from DC in exactly the same way that they are at risk from approaching trains, and the DC can be made safe if need be just as those approaching trains can be brought to a stand.
It's utter nonsense!
Last edited:
Unshielded DC is considered unsafe for staff. I certainly wouldn't like to spend my entire career one stumble away from electrocution.
Trains terminating in the platform going to the loop usually need a little extra time in the platform to make sure nobody's left on board while it sits in the loop. It also increases the number of conflicting moves at one end of the station or the other. Terminating in Totton Yard is possible but has potential problems with capacity at Redbridge and any potential Fawley branch service. I don't think Southampton's impossible but also the XC to Bournemouth was fairly popular in the summer pre-covid.
It's not. 3rd rail is not a system you'd use for a mainline railway today, and for good reasons. We are left with a legacy system that's too large for us to do the ideal option of converting it to a modern system, so we need to be sensible about any further expansion. People on and around the line need to be very careful when working on the 3rd rail network, and there are regular incidents of contact with the 3rd rail causing injury, delays or death. Like it or not the railway does need to consider the risk to people who shouldn't be there just as it has to consider the risk to people trained in the dangers.
That being said, 3rd rail has been demonstrated to be a workable system with appropriate precautions and small extensions to the system should be considered. The main consideration with 3rd rail is likely to shift from safety to cost fairly soon - 25KV AC OHLE requires less substations and fixed electrical infrastructure, so can often be cheaper lifetime cost, and as battery technology improves many of the infill proposals will likely be much more sensibly dealt with by BEMUs, potentially with rapid-charge stations at termini.
To me, the sensible policy would see Marshlink, North Downs and the Blackwater lines being Battery EMUs; Uckfield, Romsey-Eastleigh and Romsey-Redbridge (and possibly Worting to Andover) to be 3rd rail, with Reading-Basingstoke and Salisbury westwards being OHLE, Andover/Worting Jn to Salisbury and Salisbury to Romsey being battery or OHLE.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,445
All good points, and I also think people proposing withdrawal from Bournemouth also seem to forget that Bournemouth‘s existing track layout is optimised for both SWR splitting and joining, and XC reversing, with most moves happening between the through lines. It would be odd to give that up in favour of far more complex operations elsewhere.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
^^^^^
This (and the rest) is a stunningly good post from Gerald Fiennes.
As I have described several times before; having 'happily' worked with third rail in North London, Merseyside and the Southern, my views changed utterly after a very experienced permanent way colleague was electrocuted right next to me after some serious procedural errors.
Then having a nine-year-old child electrocuted after getting onto the line a few weeks later and having to attend the inquest. The incident had occurred after they found a hole in the fence created by rail staff to form a short cut to a depot.
No more third rail, please.
Regardless of any extensions, there's going to be a lot of existing 3rd rail around for the foreseeable future as widespread conversion to OHLE seems unlikely. Safety improvements for both staff and public cannot be ignored in this large network going forward. More finely grained remote-controlled isolation facilities would be a good start, allowing isolations to be a default for all routine on-track maintenance activities. What could make this practical is for all DC electric trains to have a moderately sized traction battery on board that could carry them through short isolations with no significant loss of performance. While some units might carry much larger batteries for longer off-grid excursions, a (say) 10-mile battery range for all units could be very useful to cover planned and unplanned local outages, and shunt around depots, where conductor rails could normally be left isolated, except when trains are being charged stationary overnight in stabling sidings. Such a battery could be small and light enough to accommodate somewhere even on existing vehicles.
You've got the evidence to support that?
There's no guarantee 350s can work with 444s or 450s - is their on-board software the same? It's unlikely the tender spec required them to be capable of working with 444s or 450s because there would have been no expectation of them working with them or there to be any need for them to do so.
How about no more staff making unauthorised holes in the fence.
Third rail needs to be authorised for the islands that are surrounded by third rail, OLE for any extensions onto new territory (i.e. West of England).
Because it makes no sense to electrify it as 3rd rail and far more sense to wire it as 25kv given it's used by XC and freight from Southampton to the Midlands which are far more likely to demand OHL than 3rd rail.
Extensions yes, new territory, absolutely not.
The WoE makes *far* more sense as 25kv from Basingstoke given its length - fewer substations would be needed than for 3rd rail.
So just how would you manage that given that is already criminal damage and a dismissing offence?
Also the local stopping service could plausibly be extended through to London or Heathrow via western connection (if that is ever built), which would require 25kV all the way, likely using AC-only stock. There's no obvious service west/south of Basingstoke that Reading stoppers could be linked to.
Would allow diverted GWR bi-modes to operate in electric via this route too.
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 6,855
Yes 3rd rail is less safe than OHLE, and in an ideal world it would all be converted to OHLE
But that's never realistically going to happen, certainly this side of 2050, when you consider the amount of unelectrified lines that need dealing with first, and the incredible cost and disruption, especially as you near London.
Thus, it feels a bit silly to not lay ANY new 3rd rail installations down, if the lines all around them have 3rd rails, and will keep them for 50 years, e.g. Uckfield
Exeter to Salisbury/Basingstoke is different as that goes ways outside the heart of the 3rd rail network. And at the Exeter end, presumably all the lines there will have OHLE anyway.
But that's never realistically going to happen, certainly this side of 2050, when you consider the amount of unelectrified lines that need dealing with first, and the incredible cost and disruption, especially as you near London.
Thus, it feels a bit silly to not lay ANY new 3rd rail installations down, if the lines all around them have 3rd rails, and will keep them for 50 years, e.g. Uckfield
Exeter to Salisbury/Basingstoke is different as that goes ways outside the heart of the 3rd rail network. And at the Exeter end, presumably all the lines there will have OHLE anyway.
Those remedies are already available and of course there's always the not inconsiderable problem of finding out who made the hole in the first place. Probably better not to have the unnecessary risk of more exposed 3rd rail.
Last edited:
dorsetdesiro
Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 583
If the Basingstoke to Exeter section does get third rail conversion, then SWR might have new stock ordered to replace the 158/9s or the new stock will be for the Weymouth & Portsmouth services with both 444s and upgraded 458s cascaded to Salisbury & Exeter services.
Also there are numerous 450s which likely will also go down Salisbury & Exeter way especially Romsey, Eastleigh & Southampton if converted to third rail.
Hopefully they may go ahead with strengthening the weak power supply between Poole & Weymouth and dual the track between Moreton & Dorchester after many years of litte action because of the possibility of the whole route eventually fitted with OHLE.
Also there are numerous 450s which likely will also go down Salisbury & Exeter way especially Romsey, Eastleigh & Southampton if converted to third rail.
Hopefully they may go ahead with strengthening the weak power supply between Poole & Weymouth and dual the track between Moreton & Dorchester after many years of litte action because of the possibility of the whole route eventually fitted with OHLE.
Last edited:
- Status