Not correct. 3rd rail electrification is allowed where the safety case can be made. There is no outright ban.
Existing installations are grandfathered, so when time comes for renewal the option of conversion will presumably be looked at but it's perfectly possible 3rd rail will be maintained.
Minor detail, but Waterloo-Basingstoke-Weymouth is already electrified
I personally can't see Waterloo-Basingstoke ever being converted to OLE, it will just be too problematic. However I think there will come a point where Basingstoke-Southampton-Weymouth does get converted. As the intense service drops off the advantages of AC OLE over DC 3rd rail start to stack up, and as the interoperability factor sways toward OLE there will come a tipping point. 3rd Rail would probably end at St Denys on the Netley route, with a flying change just outside Easteligh.
OLE on Basingstoke-Southampton then removes a major headache for Salisbury and the WoE.
Together with all the money spent upgrading the joint line. Perhaps a few electrified loops on the ECML between Peterborough and Doncaster might have been a better option. Although this might have been considered at the time of course.
It's certainly a long way off.
Belgium converted a line from 3KV to 25KV last summer: https://www.railway-international.c...sing-a-technology-never-seen-before-in-europe. Of course their situation is somewhat different as they're converting one OLE to another, whereas in the UK it'd be installing OLE to replace 3rd rail. We'd have far bigger costs rebuilding bridges etc, but also be able to leave the 3rd rail in situ if required.
Probably for passenger, but increasing freight demands do draw big power.
A bit off topic here but Belgium is currently replacing 3000v electrification to upgrade to 25Kv from Ostend to Luxembourg. Otherwise somebody has fitted the wrong insulators.
You can't leave the third rail in situ, or at least can't be left in-situ and operational.
Oh it's a complete pain in the neck, to be sure, but you could e.g. At Basingstoke leave 3rd rail in for terminating trains.
A ready made solution is just over the hill for freight with the arrival of the class 93. Which could be used until OHL is completed. Most modern trains bought in the last few years are capable of AC/DC. Sone are even being scrapped.
yes
Capable of conversion to or between voltages, very few were actually dual voltage fitted.
Although they were built for both and can be changed over to one or other. 317, 350/1, 365 and 319 spring to mind. Others would need to be converted.
for freight, having locomotives capable of running both third rail and OHL would be a better solution. The 92 for example, but more would presumably be needed if lots of freight were to go electric
Yes the 92s would be a good solution for GBRf and DBS. Not much use to Freightliner though.
why not freightliner?
The 92 itself is not a great solution because it has all sorts of issues with feedback and frequencies. A dual-voltage loco with batteries, similar to a 93 or 99 is what is needed (hence why they were ordered!).
Batteries or (less likely) retractable OLE are potential options.
Didn't think about batteries, obviously you couldn't load containers etc under overhead wires!
will the 93 and 99 be able to use 3rd rail as well?
Because it would be about short distances batteries are very suited to that exact scenario!
Why couldn’t a driver do this? An artic driver can couple the tractor unit to the trailer.
Don't believe so, it was a choice between 3rd rail or diesel engine and diesel is more useful at the moment.
if the platform allows for it for potential future/follow-up orders that is still useful
I'm just going off what I've seen on other threads and press, I could be wrong.
Stadler is known for their flexibility, so it does sound likely
Could also ask the Belgians or French - they've got plenty of 25KV~/1.5KV= locos, It's quite possible some of them have 750v DC motors in series or something (I'm not an electrician!), at which point you'd only need a small fiddle with the wiring and then to fit the battery packs in. Of course, having a slightly more restrictive loading gauge doesn't help (and AIUI this is one of the reasons for the power spec the 88 has) but batteries at least are, in theory, more space flexible as a collection of cells that can be distributed whereas an engine doesn't really work very well if parts are disconnected.
Why doesn’t the industry ask for that here?
Lots has been learned from Thameslink - Specifically exactly how hard it is to have shared 3rd rail/OLE section. Conversion from one to the other is, in theory, simpler than maintaining both. However you'd need a substantial blockade to switch all the equipment over. Belgium took a 3-week blockade to convert a smaller mileage (66km) than Basingstoke-Weymouth (130KM) last summer from 3KV= OLE to 25KV~ OLE. I can't imagine the furore if there were no electric trains to Southampton for 3 weeks. And that required years of preparation including several new techniques for switchable systems. https://www.railway-international.c...sing-a-technology-never-seen-before-in-europe
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. OLE on it's own can't raise linespeeds, however you can have simpler OLE for lower linespeeds. The cost savings depend on the speed difference - 'Tram' type OLE (Single wire, no droppers etc) is relatively cheap but can't go fast at all. OLE limited to 100mph can have smaller bracing and lower tensions, but the cost savings are less.
The EuroLight/UKLight is a product of Vossloh heritage, though.
Very different processes.
Is this actually technically true? If the wire was at max height like for level crossings, and the structures on the far side, is there enough physical space for a reach stacker to lift a container?
