RSSB looking at possible extension of 3rd rail electrification

[Bald Rick]

Maybe when battery power is actually feasible for modern EMUs (well BEMUs) with A/C etc..

Same could be said for the Marshlink but the tech isn't good enough vs 3rd Rail for that section.

It is feasible (and in service in other countries), and the tech is good enough for Ore-Ashford. It’s just a matter of priority.

 

[Fincra5]

Problem is 3rd rail is a hazard to rail employees who have to work close to it.

Having an exposed high voltage power supply, unprotected, unshielded at ground level is a liability.

If you were building railways from scratch today you'd never get safety approval for such a method of electrification. Just because 100 years ago we took a more cavalier view of health and safety doesn't mean we should persist with such liabilities today when we ought to know better.

I am aware, as I work on 3rd Rail units...

maybe the answer is kickboards on the outside of the 3rd Rail for a bit more protection for staff working trackside.

Or smaller sections in which you can take up a breif isolation to inspect something.

Again I'm not saying 3rd Rail is the answer for all electrification but on an operational level for TOCs, where 99% of their network is DC, it makes a LOT more sense to use it to fill in the gaps on the current system than small AC Sections requiring extra DV units, at a cost for modifications and a cost of operational flexibility going forward.

 

[Fincra5]

It is feasible (and in service in other countries), and the tech is good enough for Ore-Ashford. It’s just a matter of priority.

It was investigated by GTR but nothing came of it. Suppose the issue was ensure charge was good enough for Modern Units (A/C, Toilets, Plugs etc). Maybe it just wasn't practical for a 377/3 even with Regen.

Would a TOC really want another Micro-Fleet? When the trend seems to be standardisation.

 

[mmh]

Would a TOC really want another Micro

Indeed. Why would you want to remove diesel in an electrified area? To allow you to have a standard fleet. I don't follow why replacing a small fleet of dedicated diesels with a small fleet of dedicated DV / battery trains is an improvement. Emissions is a green herring.

 

[Mikey C]

I remembered this excellent document from Network Rail on DC to AC Conversion

https://www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/events/Sir_Seymour_Biscoe_Tritton_Lecture-_DC_to_AC_Conversion_by_Steve_Yianni.pdf?sfvrsn=0

A 2012 document, and we all know how well Network Rail's electrification programme went...

And even if you convert the higher speed DC rail lines like the South West Mainline outside of London, that's the easy bit. The cost and disruption of doing the London bit would be horrendous. I can just imagine the reaction if it was proposed...

"We're going to spend £100bn converting already electrified lines from one form of electricity to another. There will be no trains running into Waterloo at weekends for the next 6 months etc"

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed. Why would you want to remove diesel in an electrified area? To allow you to have a standard fleet. I don't follow why replacing a small fleet of dedicated diesels with a small fleet of dedicated DV / battery trains is an improvement. Emissions is a green herring.

While there is value in having a standard fleet, the actual reason to consider removing diesels to do with decarbonization. Batteries, if they are viable for this duty, would achieve that just as well as electrification.

 

[edwin_m]

A 2012 document, and we all know how well Network Rail's electrification programme went...

And even if you convert the higher speed DC rail lines like the South West Mainline outside of London, that's the easy bit. The cost and disruption of doing the London bit would be horrendous. I can just imagine the reaction if it was proposed...

"We're going to spend £100bn converting already electrified lines from one form of electricity to another. There will be no trains running into Waterloo at weekends for the next 6 months etc"

Closer to London the costs would be more and the returns would be less as well, because the disadvantages of DC relative to AC are less significant for inner-suburban areas where there is an intensive but relatively slow service. There's also much less freight east of Basingstoke, although how to power what freight there is will be an interesting question. If that issue can be solved then decarbonization might only convert Southampton to Basingstoke and leave the rest of the DC network alone until at least 2050.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Indeed. Why would you want to remove diesel in an electrified area? To allow you to have a standard fleet. I don't follow why replacing a small fleet of dedicated diesels with a small fleet of dedicated DV / battery trains is an improvement. Emissions is a green herring.

There is a significant difference between a small fleet of DMUs and a small fleet of EMUs which are, batteries and associated electronics apart, technically identical to the rest of the EMU stock you operate.

 

[The Ham]

There is a significant difference between a small fleet of DMUs and a small fleet of EMUs which are, batteries and associated electronics apart, technically identical to the rest of the EMU stock you operate.

Indeed, as I understand it, the main savings from having a uniform fleet are to do with staff training/parts rather than to with reducing the number of units that you have.

However, of you've got to have 10% extra units/2 units (whichever is greater) for maintenance then there'll be limited savings from doing so, however those savings could be used to create a larger fleet which is interchangeable between the two sections of the network.

For example if you can save 1 unit by having a uniform fleet with 500/15 units but can use the savings to create a fleet of 50 units which can be used in either section of the network then the risk of their being a unit short is significantly reduced.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

"We're going to spend £100bn converting already electrified lines from one form of electricity to another. There will be no trains running into Waterloo at weekends for the next 6 months etc"

Please trust me - I dont disagree. I totally agree get the rest of the UK no-brainers electrified first and only do the bits of DC that makes total sense. Hell if bimodes are the saviour then by god dual voltage trains must be too. I am 63 years old so wont get done in my lifetime.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Emissions is a green herring.

I love that phrase -may I use it please?

 

[Mikey C]

With non essential capital expenditure always easily choppable, I'd be staggered if much or even any of DC network is converted to AC before 2050. Electrifying the main non electrified routes will take up the next 30 years, allowing for the usual stop starts as money runs out.

And once you make that assumption, using AC for infill gaps in the DC network (like Uckfield and Ashford to Hastings) looks less like the start of a conversion programme and more like the creation of non standard AC islands, albeit a safer and more efficient system.

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed. Why would you want to remove diesel in an electrified area? To allow you to have a standard fleet. I don't follow why replacing a small fleet of dedicated diesels with a small fleet of dedicated DV / battery trains is an improvement. Emissions is a green herring.

Most people will disagree with you on the emissions point. In any event, to date, almost all electrification in this ountry has been delivered on the basis of cost saving / revenue gain, and that is how it will work with battery trains.

There is a significant difference between a small fleet of DMUs and a small fleet of EMUs which are, batteries and associated electronics apart, technically identical to the rest of the EMU stock you operate.

Spot on. A 377 with a few tonnes of batteries on it will have an almost identical maintenance regime to a ‘regular’ 377. A rather simpler task than maintaining a small diesel fleet.

 

[Fincra5]

Spot on. A 377 with a few tonnes of batteries on it will have an almost identical maintenance regime to a ‘regular’ 377. A rather simpler task than maintaining a small diesel fleet.

And yet GTR/ Porterbrook aren't in favour of a 377 with batteries. Even though a 377/3 was looked at.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

With non essential capital expenditure always easily choppable, I'd be staggered if much or even any of DC network is converted to AC before 2050. Electrifying the main non electrified routes will take up the next 30 years, allowing for the usual stop starts as money runs out.

And once you make that assumption, using AC for infill gaps in the DC network (like Uckfield and Ashford to Hastings) looks less like the start of a conversion programme and more like the creation of non standard AC islands, albeit a safer and more efficient system.

I absolutely agree. Basingstoke - Southampton is about the only DC that MAY get converted.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There was a good bit of discussion on this thread too.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-lines-electrified-with-3rd-rail-convert-to-25kv-ac.201330/

 

[hwl]

And yet GTR/ Porterbrook aren't in favour of a 377 with batteries. Even though a 377/3 was looked at.

The general problem is finding enough space for enough battery for the required range (+ a margin) and also being able to easily hook up to existing electrics.
The 377/3 issue was also likely to involve finding another way of providing the 10car metro services they mostly currently formed into. That is a bigger issue than the batteries!

 

[James90012]

Most people will disagree with you on the emissions point. In any event, to date, almost all electrification in this ountry has been delivered on the basis of cost saving / revenue gain, and that is how it will work with battery trains.



Spot on. A 377 with a few tonnes of batteries on it will have an almost identical maintenance regime to a ‘regular’ 377. A rather simpler task than maintaining a small diesel fleet.

The issues of a bespoke fleet are not just maintenance - operationally replacing Uckfields into London Bridge with a battery train does nothing for improving route performance by enabling sets to be 'stepped up' or indeed lost potential benefits by allowing entire restructuring of service groups. The Gibb report pointed to some examples for Uckfield. Equally, the Brighton Main Line is certainly not where you start trialing and testing new solutions. Whether it exists or not in Europe is not really relevant - none of those current applications as far as I'm aware draw power to charge and drive from a third rail DC system and we know how disruptive other EMU conversions have been - though I appreciate battery fitment in principle should be simpler than slinging diesel engines underneath, it will almost definitely run into issues.

Batteries have a time and place but I'm not convinced the Southern region is right. We shouldn't accept an ongoing higher operational cost compared to EMUs and lose potential benefits from integration because it's the least controversial engineering solution.

 

[Fincra5]

The general problem is finding enough space for enough battery for the required range (+ a margin) and also being able to easily hook up to existing electrics.
The 377/3 issue was also likely to involve finding another way of providing the 10car metro services they mostly currently formed into. That is a bigger issue than the batteries!

Same if they use a 4 car. The 377/1s &4s are "Common Pool" So restricting any 4 car further will be a logistical nightmare. It's bad enough with most /2 series taken up for MKC services and the 3s, 6s, 7s all Metro Bound (weekday). The problem also with a 4 car is Battery Space still... if you have 2 cars with batteries, you tank the performance; as one MCB system (MOSL) has to be removed for space. That restricts the timetable etc. Its not as simple as "Yes battery power".

 

[Bald Rick]

The issues of a bespoke fleet are not just maintenance - operationally replacing Uckfields into London Bridge with a battery train does nothing for improving route performance by enabling sets to be 'stepped up' or indeed lost potential benefits by allowing entire restructuring of service groups. The Gibb report pointed to some examples for Uckfield. Equally, the Brighton Main Line is certainly not where you start trialing and testing new solutions. Whether it exists or not in Europe is not really relevant - none of those current applications as far as I'm aware draw power to charge and drive from a third rail DC system and we know how disruptive other EMU conversions have been - though I appreciate battery fitment in principle should be simpler than slinging diesel engines underneath, it will almost definitely run into issues.

Batteries have a time and place but I'm not convinced the Southern region is right. We shouldn't accept an ongoing higher operational cost compared to EMUs and lose potential benefits from integration because it's the least controversial engineering solution.

Chris Gibb’s report recommended AC electrification, of course, although several people tried to persuade him not to!