Should the ORR be friendlier to third rail?

[mr_jrt]

No, never. However, I wonder if a sensible half way house exists. Build the fourth rail out to Aylesbury Parkway, pay TfL to manage it, but have Chiltern run the services. Chiltern have to find suitable stock and drivers, TfL can do the safety training. Build a new fourth rail depot for Chiltern north of AVP and sell the current one for housing.

I'd argue quite the opposite.

Optionally, rebuild Rickmansworth to the east as a four platform (straight!) station, and extend the four tracking from Watford south junction to the new terminal platforms. Terminate the Met there. Failing that, cut the Met's Ricky branch entirely. The Met becomes a metro that runs to Watford and Uxbridge, and interchanges with Chiltern at Moor Park, Harrow, (and ideally in dreamland, West Hampstead).

This frees up the 1960s fast lines, which can then be OHLE all the way from Aylesbury into Marylebone. NR can maintain them to a higher standard to permit faster linespeeds, and the now-NR-only platforms can be extended for longer Chiltern trains. Chiltern can then utilise the large pool of standard AC EMUs. Maybe a battery unit for the Chesham branch.

 

[HSTEd]

I'd argue quite the opposite.

Optionally, rebuild Rickmansworth to the east as a four platform (straight!) station, and extend the four tracking from Watford south junction to the new terminal platforms. Terminate the Met there. Failing that, cut the Met's Ricky branch entirely. The Met becomes a metro that runs to Watford and Uxbridge, and interchanges with Chiltern at Moor Park, Harrow, (and ideally in dreamland, West Hampstead).

This frees up the 1960s fast lines, which can then be OHLE all the way from Aylesbury into Marylebone. NR can maintain them to a higher standard to permit faster linespeeds, and the now-NR-only platforms can be extended for longer Chiltern trains. Chiltern can then utilise the large pool of standard AC EMUs. Maybe a battery unit for the Chesham branch.

That's going to cost an absolute fortune.
The cost of 25kV installations are skyrocketing (@Bald Rick suggests £4m/track-km).

And Marylebone is likely a significantly less attractive terminus to passengers than Baker STreet.

I can't see it being more economic than 4th rail to Aylesbury and two trains per hour from Baker Street to Aylesbury, using slots previously associated with peak trains that are likely unnecessary post coronavirus.

 

[Chester1]

How many of the proposed infills could be done by using batteries instead? I can't see any third rail extensions to Merseyrail now that they have battery EMUs in service to Headbolt Lane. Battery tech is only going to improve.

 

[Bald Rick]

The cost of 25kV installations are skyrocketing (@Bald Rick suggests £4m/track-km).

To be fair, they are not skyrocketing. Theyve been that sort of level (inflation adjusted) for some time.

 

[JamesT]

To be fair, they are not skyrocketing. Theyve been that sort of level (inflation adjusted) for some time.

Is there an equivalent figure for third rail, or has there not been enough done recently to provide that information?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there an equivalent figure for third rail, or has there not been enough done recently to provide that information?

Leaving aside the East London Line (done from new) and some depot works, theres nothing for 30 years

 

[Bartsimho]

Leaving aside the East London Line (done from new) and some depot works, theres nothing for 30 years

Maybe a percentage difference comparison with other countries. Those who have more recently installed third rail

 

[HSTEd]

Is there an equivalent figure for third rail, or has there not been enough done recently to provide that information?

The last official reference I've seen was in relation to the Kent Coast Route Utilisation Study, that suggested Ashford-Ore electrification with third rail would be significantly cheaper than electrification with 25kV, based on the admitted prices for the latter at that time.

But we don't really have good figures, at least not ones in the public domain.

 

[AzureOtsu]

4th rail stock isn't much different electronically, so if ordering new DC stock, you could order stock with 4th rail shoes and 50 miles of battery capacity.
Install chargers at AVP and Marylebone - the currently unelectrified section is approx 22.75 miles, then you can bypass ORR objections completely.
The only potential issue I could think of would be the supply of current on the shared section with LU, but otherwise, it would be a great way to cascade the 165s and reduce pollution in and around Marylebone.

It makes no sense to order rolling stock and a system that would be proprietary for the national rail network, far easier to use a system that we have in place and would allow for the cascade of third rail emus if needed thus saving precious resources and money

 

[AlastairFraser]

It makes no sense to order rolling stock and a system that would be proprietary for the national rail network, far easier to use a system that we have in place and would allow for the cascade of third rail emus if needed thus saving precious resources and money

The thing is, there is nothing proprietary about the 4th rail system, it is barely different from 3rd rail and 4th rail trains I'm sure can be used on existing 3rd rail lines with minimal modification.
And there aren't any spare 3rd rail EMUs, because they have been scrapped.

 

[JamesT]

The last official reference I've seen was in relation to the Kent Coast Route Utilisation Study, that suggested Ashford-Ore electrification with third rail would be significantly cheaper than electrification with 25kV, based on the admitted prices for the latter at that time.

But we don't really have good figures, at least not ones in the public domain.

I’m wondering if the factors that have increased the cost of 25kV would also apply to third rail, so you could extrapolate a new cost.
The Kent RUS has figures of £100m-250m for 3rd rail, £250m-500m for 25kV. For a 25 mile section of track.

 

[DJ_K666]

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.



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.

Isn't there a specific immunisation of the signalling equipment amongst other things that has to be done if you put 750v DC in the same place as 25kV OHLE? IIRC it's something to do with if the traction current is DC then the signalling is on AC and vice versa. Where you pit them together like at Euston or Farringdon/City Thameslink you end up with a soup of issues.

 

[AM9]

Isn't there a specific immunisation of the signalling equipment amongst other things that has to be done if you put 750v DC in the same place as 25kV OHLE? IIRC it's something to do with if the traction current is DC then the signalling is on AC and vice versa. Where you pit them together like at Euston or Farringdon/City Thameslink you end up with a soup of issues.

There is plenty of bandwidth outside the bands needed for DC isolation and ac (50Hz) together with it's harmonics that electronic drives generate. And that's before really high isolation achievable with fibre comms is available. The main issues are around shared grounding arrangements, both for primary safety reasons as well a avoiding the corrosive effects of ground currents (as in earth).

 

[AzureOtsu]

The thing is, there is nothing proprietary about the 4th rail system, it is barely different from 3rd rail and 4th rail trains I'm sure can be used on existing 3rd rail lines with minimal modification.
And there aren't any spare 3rd rail EMUs, because they have been scrapped.

4th rail emus would be proprietary for the national network as no other emu in the country currently uses that system aside from LU it makes no sense to mix these systems in basically a reverse way to what's already in practice on the Wimbledon branch and the Watford DC line. it would make far more sense just to use the identical system that's already been proven to work for decades rather than try to reinvent the wheel.

Think about it from a future perspective and not what's currently (un)available now. Between now and 2040, which is the mandate for all diesel trains to be removed from the network, what's the likelihood that some third rail stock will become available, such as 458s, 350s or even some of the Electrostars from down south.

 

[AlastairFraser]

4th rail emus would be proprietary for the national network as no other emu in the country currently uses that system aside from LU it makes no sense to mix these systems in basically a reverse way to what's already in practice on the Wimbledon branch and the Watford DC line. it would make far more sense just to use the identical system that's already been proven to work for decades rather than try to reinvent the wheel.

Think about it from a future perspective and not what's currently (un)available now. Between now and 2040, which is the mandate for all diesel trains to be removed from the network, what's the likelihood that some third rail stock will become available, such as 458s, 350s or even some of the Electrostars from down south.

With your latter point, of course in the future some will be available, but not for a good decade and I'd like to see the Cl165s displaced sooner.

You could build EMUs with both 4th/3rd rail/battery capability relatively cheaply - most new stock has both 3rd rail and OHLE capability required and that's significantly more expensive.