3141
Established Member
After NR's performance on the Great Western electrification I'd find it hard to feel confidence in their comparative costs estimates for either 25 kv AC or 750v DC. In assessing the various factors to take into account in connection with DC (as discussed earlier in this thread), we should also consider the available rolling stock. If Basingstoke to Salisbury was electrified, either new dual voltage stock would be needed, or work would have to be done to classes 444 and 450 to make them capable of dual voltage operation. That probably isn't an issue for the Marshlink line, where the operator already has dual voltage class 377s.
I'd also consider the benefits from DC infill electrification schemes when looking at comparative costs. In the case of the possible Southern region schemes 125mph isn't necessary, so the DC limitation of 100mph isn't a problem.
In relation to injuries and fatalities, I would take into account who the victims were. I see railway employees whose work takes them into proximity to a live rail in a different category from trespassers.
If it was the case that third rail DC was cheaper than AC, having considered capital costs, power consumption, rolling stock, and all the other things proponents of both systems would almost certainly try to bring into the assessment, I think it would be reasonable to accept a larger number of injuries with DC - the total of which is a small number - rather than spend considerably more on AC for infill schemes in DC areas. The arguments are almost certainly different for new schemes, especially since electrification outside the south east and the Liverpool area is almost certainly going to connect with existing AC lines.
I'd also consider the benefits from DC infill electrification schemes when looking at comparative costs. In the case of the possible Southern region schemes 125mph isn't necessary, so the DC limitation of 100mph isn't a problem.
In relation to injuries and fatalities, I would take into account who the victims were. I see railway employees whose work takes them into proximity to a live rail in a different category from trespassers.
If it was the case that third rail DC was cheaper than AC, having considered capital costs, power consumption, rolling stock, and all the other things proponents of both systems would almost certainly try to bring into the assessment, I think it would be reasonable to accept a larger number of injuries with DC - the total of which is a small number - rather than spend considerably more on AC for infill schemes in DC areas. The arguments are almost certainly different for new schemes, especially since electrification outside the south east and the Liverpool area is almost certainly going to connect with existing AC lines.
