QueensCurve
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2014
- Messages
- 1,912
There has been much discussion previously about the relative merits of OHLE and third rail electrification and it's been said by informed people that the two are fairly similar in their frequency of failure. However, my gut feeling is that this balance has shifted dramatically of late to OHLE having been far more frail. Is it simply that the OHLE failures have been more dramatic? I'm obviously not advocating juice rails over the Northern fells, by the way!
Only really a discussion in Little Britain. Other countries rarely have any third rail. I would really like to see a comparison of OHLE failure rates with other countries and to ask why ours fares so badly. I don't think it is purely the use of headspan wires. I have travelled on a lengthy 4 track route in Germany that uses headspan wires.
Personally I think the WCML needs some serious upgrading to the OHLE. It seems to be happening a bit more often, puts the ECML to shame.
Much comment has dismissed the ECML OHLE as fragile. My understanding is that when properly maintained there are fewer failures. If, in this case, there was an ADD drop on a set earlier in the day we need to ask why action wasn't taken before the wires were brought down. Had there been a suspected failure trains could have coasted through "pan down" pending an overnight inspection/repair. Again perhaps other countries do better.
Seems a good reason to improve road access to Oxenholme - shorter RRBs and better use as a Parkway.
Using Oxenholme as a terminus for trains to turn back is presently a non-starter and not just because of poor road access. The recent resignalling provided an up direction turnback signal on P2 but didn't, despite a request from TOCs provide a down direction turnback of P1. That would have required an additional trailing Xover at the north end. None such exists.
Carlisle and Preston are both all platforms reversible stations with more suitable facilities for early turnback. Another question might be why the biderectional platforms recently provided at Lancaster weren't used as the turnback point. This might have been better for passengers. I suspect it reflects the fact that Preston is a routine crew change point and that, with traincrews held up further North they were not available to operate the sets between Lancaster and Preston. Providing a Preston to Lancaster shuttle seems sensible although it seems to have taken too long to get it going.