• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

3rd rail vs OHLE

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,099
Location
Surrey
Quoted from @hwl from here.
RSSB are running a research project currently under the decarbonisation umbrella

21st Century DC electrification infill (T1214)
Whose purpose is

Third rail remains a cost-effective solution for electrification and decarbonising the railways when these are close or adjacent to existing 750V DC top contact third rail electrified lines. However, its further use is currently constrained by an unclear position on how to manage the system’s risks through scheme design.
The outcome of this will be used to inform further discussion and debate with ORR and thus will have to use current data to address the safety risks illuminated by this table although it won't have materially changed.

My assessment is battery based EMU's remain the most likely outcome for infill electrification and the main issue that needs to be overcome is managing the recharging method and locations and this is being addressed by another research project.

Battery powered trains: Route to enter into service (T1195)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,469
RSSB are running a research project currently under the decarbonisation umbrella


Whose purpose is


The outcome of this will be used to inform further discussion and debate with ORR and thus will have to use current data to address the safety risks illuminated by this table although it won't have materially changed.

My assessment is battery based EMU's remain the most likely outcome for infill electrification and the main issue that needs to be overcome is managing the recharging method and locations and this is being addressed by another research project.

The reality is the number of 'in-fill' schemes is actually very small:

Ashford - Ore
Hurst Green - Uckfield

Perhaps the North Downs line ?

I'm not sure Merseyrail justifies extension - particularly the ones which keep coming up i.e. Wigan - Kirkby and Ormskirk - Preston.

In some ways it's a pity that the Uckfield line can't take Mk3 EMUs because 769s would actually work quite nicely there - you could run them on 3rd rail to Hurst Green then diesel to Uckfield.
 

norbitonflyer

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
2,373
Location
SW London
The Midland also had an electrification project, between Lancaster and Morecambe, at 6.6kV ac. (the same as the LBSC system) It opened in 1908. The line was used as a test bed for the 25kV system in the 1950s but closed under Beeching (the present line to Morecambe was built by the LNWR route).

The LBSCR's electric network would undoubtedly have been bigger by 1923 had supplies of equipment from Germany not ceased abruptly in 1914. However, the ac system reached its greatest extent in 1925, with electrification completed to Sutton and Coulsdon, but the entire network was converted to 3rd rail DC by 1929.

The NER's 1500v dc ohle Newcastle-York electrification project did not survive the Grouping, and although one locomotive was built for it in 1922, it was never used, being stored throughout the lifetime of the LNER and eventually scrapped by BR in 1950.

The North Eastern Railway also electrified some sidings on Tyneside in 1902, at 600V, with two shunting engines built to operate on those sidings and on the local 3rd rail network,

In 1915 it also electrified (at 1500V) the original Stockton - Darlington - Shildon route and built ten locomotives for that line. The line was de-electrified in 1935 when the fixed equipment reached the end of its design life, although the locos were stored for potential use on the Woodhead route was was in the process of electrification at the time. During the delay to that project caused by WW2 their condition deteriorated to the point where it was more economic to expand the order for new locos (class 76) instead.

All thirteen NER locos (two Tyneside shunters, ten S&D, one Newcastle-York) survived into BR days, numbered 26500-11 and 26600, but all except the two shunters and one of the S&D locos (kept for shunting in Ilford depot) were scrapped in the early 1950s. The remaining three were retired in the 1960s, when the Tyneside network was de-electrified and the Great Eastern system was converted to AC. One of the Tyneside shunters is in the National Railway Museum
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,390
Turns out that smart motorways are actually safer than dumb ones, of course, with some careful and thoughtful analysis of the data. That's too subtle and factual for many headline-writers though. There's a section about it (which starts at 08:05) in this episode of More or Less (BBC radio 4) — not aware of transcripts of these available anywhere online, unfortunately.

Highways England general point was that 4+0 is usually safer than 3+1 but what they really didn't want to provide answers for was that 4+1 even safer still (which it is, but is more expensive and the idea was to avoid 4+1 (or 5+1)).

The outcome of this will be used to inform further discussion and debate with ORR and thus will have to use current data to address the safety risks illuminated by this table although it won't have materially changed.
The calculation methodology and detail behind some of the numbers in that table are shaky hence a complete refresh, reanalysis and a look at risk reduction opportunities (e.g. no Urban /Rural split). I would be surprised if there weren't some changes, whether the changes are bit enough is the key question.
 
Last edited:

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,611
Location
In the cab with the paper
RSSB are running a research project currently under the decarbonisation umbrella

Yes, I am aware. I’m waiting with some interest to see what comes out of this and whether or not CRE has any future for upcoming electrification schemes. However, I do think that battery electric may be more likely provided he operational issues can be ironed out.
 

Gareth

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2011
Messages
1,449
Location
Liverpool
Not quite - that something which exists is unsafe doesn't automatically mean it must be immediately replaced, simply that you can't use it for new installations. In a domestic situation the move from 2 pin to 3 pin plugs would be an example. The regs changed in 1970 but householders didn't have to wholesale replace them with 3 pin but new builds or re-wires had to be 3 pin.

Sorry for dragging this up, as it's technically off topic but the existing electrical plugs and sockets we use date from immediately after WWII, c1947 and was designed for use with ring circuits (hence, the fuse in the plug). Before then, there were a few different designs but the main one was a round pin design that was also three pin. I'm not sure unearthed sockets were ever common in this country, although they did exist in the very early days.

You might be getting mixed up with the US which had two pin outlets but changed to three pin around that time (60s/70s). There's still plenty of two pin sockets knocking about though. Alternatively, you may be getting mixed up with lighting circuits which weren't required to have an earth until 1967.

You're point is ultimately correct, however. I think the term is known as "grandfather rights" - that is, if it was compliant at the time of installation, it can remain in place for the duration of its serviceable life. No one would install new top-contact third rail these days (outside of extensions to existing networks, perhaps) but you wouldn't replace it with OHLE merely because the latter is deemed slightly safer. You might, however, if there are other factors, such as the existing 3rd rail is mostly life-expired and the system interfaces with OHLE and has potential for through services.

 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,469
Sorry for dragging this up, as it's technically off topic but the existing electrical plugs and sockets we use date from immediately after WWII, c1947 and was designed for use with ring circuits (hence, the fuse in the plug). Before then, there were a few different designs but the main one was a round pin design that was also three pin. I'm not sure unearthed sockets were ever common in this country, although they did exist in the very early days.

You might be getting mixed up with the US which had two pin outlets but changed to three pin around that time (60s/70s). There's still plenty of two pin sockets knocking about though. Alternatively, you may be getting mixed up with lighting circuits which weren't required to have an earth until 1967.

You're point is ultimately correct, however. I think the term is known as "grandfather rights" - that is, if it was compliant at the time of installation, it can remain in place for the duration of its serviceable life. No one would install new top-contact third rail these days (outside of extensions to existing networks, perhaps) but you wouldn't replace it with OHLE merely because the latter is deemed slightly safer. You might, however, if there are other factors, such as the existing 3rd rail is mostly life-expired and the system interfaces with OHLE and has potential for through services.

I'd noticed BS4573 which defined the sole remaining use for 2 pin, specifically shavers and electric toothbrushes - but you're right the actual 3 pin dates back a bit further than that.

The key to all of this is

(i) 3rd rail isn't a particularly safe form of railway electrification
(ii) just because of (i), it's not practical to rip out all of the 3rd rail and replace it with OHLE
(iii) just because of i and ii, it doesn't mean we should allow extension of a fundamentally unsafe system unless there is a very good reason for doing so.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,717
Location
Leeds
Sorry for dragging this up, as it's technically off topic but the existing electrical plugs and sockets we use date from immediately after WWII, c1947 and was designed for use with ring circuits (hence, the fuse in the plug). Before then, there were a few different designs but the main one was a round pin design that was also three pin. I'm not sure unearthed sockets were ever common in this country, although they did exist in the very early days.
I think there were two main sizes of 3-pin round-pin plugs before the introduction of the present 13A type - a smaller one for 5A lighting circuits and a larger one for 15A heating etc circuits.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
2,657
Location
West is best
Talking about plugs and sockets in the U.K. is going way off topic here, so I will keep it very short. Before the three pin rectangular pined BS 1363 plugs, plugs and sockets were made to BS 546. Plugs and sockets to BS 546 can still be used. There have also been various other types/makes from manufacturers and that included two pin plugs/sockets (see BS 73). The ratings were 2A, 2.5A, 3A, 5A, 10A 15A, 20A and 30A depending on which make/type and style.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,099
Location
Surrey
Yes, I am aware. I’m waiting with some interest to see what comes out of this and whether or not CRE has any future for upcoming electrification schemes. However, I do think that battery electric may be more likely provided he operational issues can be ironed out.
Japan has converted two lines to be operated by 2 car AC/battery units with one being just over 20km with fast charging at the terminus station. They have also got a third line 26km long planned to be switched to AC/battery units after successful tests. One of the big issues they had to factor in was maintaining passenger ambience given the extremes of temperatures particularly on hot days. They get good regen recovery in battery mode as the system is optimised to absorb power unlike regen on a traction system we you need a nearby receptive load.

Uckfield Line would need double the battery capacity of the Japanese units unless mid point recharging is undertaking but that will drive extended journey times. It would also need a pretty hefty charging system at Uckfield to achieve a fast recharge.

I still wonder whether a hybrid of conductor rail in areas between stations would be accepted by safety authorities although i guess that runs the risk of complacency with staff although with Red Zone Working virtually banned that risk is diminishing.

Finally Hitachi is supplier for Japanese Units so im sure they could provide a traction package that could be retrofitted to something for a trial.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,176
Japan has converted two lines to be operated by 2 car AC/battery units with one being just over 20km with fast charging at the terminus station. They have also got a third line 26km long planned to be switched to AC/battery units after successful tests. One of the big issues they had to factor in was maintaining passenger ambience given the extremes of temperatures particularly on hot days. They get good regen recovery in battery mode as the system is optimised to absorb power unlike regen on a traction system we you need a nearby receptive load.

Uckfield Line would need double the battery capacity of the Japanese units unless mid point recharging is undertaking but that will drive extended journey times. It would also need a pretty hefty charging system at Uckfield to achieve a fast recharge.

I still wonder whether a hybrid of conductor rail in areas between stations would be accepted by safety authorities although i guess that runs the risk of complacency with staff although with Red Zone Working virtually banned that risk is diminishing.

Finally Hitachi is supplier for Japanese Units so im sure they could provide a traction package that could be retrofitted to something for a trial.

DB have units that will be doing 100km off the wire, which is half as far again as Hurst Green to Uckfield and back.

I think ‘opportunity’ charging on the Uckfield line is relatively simple though. A stretch of 3R in the platform at Uckfield, away from the platform side and shielded, only live when the train is present (easy enough to switch), and powered from a lineside battery bank, trickle charged off the local network. That’s about as safe as it can be. A 10 minute top up during turnaround could get 100-200kWh onto each 4 car unit.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,099
Location
Surrey
DB have units that will be doing 100km off the wire, which is half as far again as Hurst Green to Uckfield and back.

I think ‘opportunity’ charging on the Uckfield line is relatively simple though. A stretch of 3R in the platform at Uckfield, away from the platform side and shielded, only live when the train is present (easy enough to switch), and powered from a lineside battery bank, trickle charged off the local network. That’s about as safe as it can be. A 10 minute top up during turnaround could get 100-200kWh onto each 4 car unit.
If only a Bombardier Talent 3 would fit in our loading gauge we would be alright.

Your going to need about 800kwh per 4 car set to get down to Uckfield which is 15-20 Tonnes of extra weight to find a home for in the underframe. Current schedules leave just 9mins for recharge at Uckfield so your going to need to stick in substantially more than 200kw in that limited time which can be achieved by a trackside trickle system but if that's being done every hour for 16hours a day that will need to be sized accordingly. All doable but i would suggest Uckfield is pushing the limit of whats possible with current battery density by volume/weight that is suitable for a traction application in our loading gauge.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,150
If only a Bombardier Talent 3 would fit in our loading gauge we would be alright.

Your going to need about 800kwh per 4 car set to get down to Uckfield which is 15-20 Tonnes of extra weight to find a home for in the underframe. Current schedules leave just 9mins for recharge at Uckfield so your going to need to stick in substantially more than 200kw in that limited time which can be achieved by a trackside trickle system but if that's being done every hour for 16hours a day that will need to be sized accordingly. All doable but i would suggest Uckfield is pushing the limit of whats possible with current battery density by volume/weight that is suitable for a traction application in our loading gauge.
That'll be the Bombardier Talent 3 that has just had an order cancelled by OBB (and a bigger order is at risk) for horrible delivery delays and an inability to get certification, l assume....

 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,099
Location
Surrey
That'll be the Bombardier Talent 3 that has just had an order cancelled by OBB (and a bigger order is at risk) for horrible delivery delays and an inability to get certification, l assume....

Don't believe these were the battery ones but as i say ain't going to fit down the Uckfield line and currently only good for 40km range 100km is aspiration.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,150
Don't believe these were the battery ones but as i say ain't going to fit down the Uckfield line and currently only good for 40km range 100km is aspiration.
If they can't get the "simple" version to work properly... Presumably the battery version is more complex... Agreed re the loading gauge.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,099
Location
Surrey
If they can't get the "simple" version to work properly... Presumably the battery version is more complex... Agreed re the loading gauge.
Indeed you certainly need clever algorithms to manage the battery that's Teslas strong point.
 

alf

On Moderation
Joined
1 Mar 2021
Messages
356
Location
Bournemouth
We won’t be seeing any new 3rd rail schemes, at least not before the outcome of the consultation currently ongoing is known. No matter what it’s perceived advantages you can no longer go around leaving unprotected high voltage conductors where they can be easily accessed by Johnny Q Public.
The new kid on the block is not a “consultation” as mentioned above by O.L, although that may follow.

The possible game changer may be a consultant’s report into the economics of making 3rd rail safer.

Network Rail who have advertised for consultants to carry out the study made their position clear by saying at the start of the advert that third rail is ten times more dangerous.
Under pressure NR have now accepted that this figure is an exaggeration & they have withdrawn it the assertion.

NR had top level political pressure put on them to reconsider third rail extensions on the Southern & Merseyside.
Hence their response in ordering a consultant’s report.

No one is suggesting third rail be used in 100 mph + roles, but just for infill or Uckfield.

Perhaps the Network Rail press officer who regularly posts on the forum can confirm.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,099
Location
Surrey
The new kid on the block is not a “consultation” as mentioned above by O.L, although that may follow.

The possible game changer may be a consultant’s report into the economics of making 3rd rail safer.

Network Rail who have advertised for consultants to carry out the study made their position clear by saying at the start of the advert that third rail is ten times more dangerous.
Under pressure NR have now accepted that this figure is an exaggeration & they have withdrawn it the assertion.

NR had top level political pressure put on them to reconsider third rail extensions on the Southern & Merseyside.
Hence their response in ordering a consultant’s report.

No one is suggesting third rail be used in 100 mph + roles, but just for infill or Uckfield.

Perhaps the Network Rail press officer who regularly posts on the forum can confirm.
Interesting when did they advertise for this service?

Where has top level political pressure come from?

Ultimately ORR made it pretty difficult for NR to progress extensions so given NR don't like taking on risks they were happy to sit back and see diesels to continue. This was a few years back so with Haines/Hendy now in charge perhaps things are turning around but ORR are going to take some convincing and whatever's proposed would need to provide a step change in safety than the current system. ie something like switchable sections when trains are present perhaps but hardly going to be cheap or conducive to reliability.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,176
If only a Bombardier Talent 3 would fit in our loading gauge we would be alright.

Your going to need about 800kwh per 4 car set to get down to Uckfield which is 15-20 Tonnes of extra weight to find a home for in the underframe. Current schedules leave just 9mins for recharge at Uckfield so your going to need to stick in substantially more than 200kw in that limited time which can be achieved by a trackside trickle system but if that's being done every hour for 16hours a day that will need to be sized accordingly. All doable but i would suggest Uckfield is pushing the limit of whats possible with current battery density by volume/weight that is suitable for a traction application in our loading gauge.

I think your estimates are a little pessimistic.

A 4 car Electrostar would only need 800kWh from Hurst Green to Uckfield if it was pumping out full power the whole way - including while at constant speed, braking and stationary. The power modelling suggests it needs rather less. Indeed somewhat less than half that, given the amount of time it is on full power (only about 10-12 minutes) and the regen recovery.

Next, you can get 100kWh of battery pack (including all the cooling and management systems) from Tesla in a half tonne package. Even dear old Captain Deltic reckons that Hitachi have the potential to put a more robust / longer lasting rail spec 800kWh battery pack under a class 802 in place of the diesel power pack - and that is 8 tonnes.

Current schedules have most trains at Uckfield for 11 minutes. That discounts the better performance of (B)EMUs, which could conceivably gain a minute or two each way south of Ashurst where the trains usually pass.

Put those three factors together and you can have around 6 tonnes of battery under a four car unit (an extra 3.5% weight, and the equivalent of 80 average passengers) that, with a quick ‘top up’ charge at Uckfield (that, strictly speaking isn’t needed in normal circumstances), will get you back to Hurst Greem with plenty left in the tank.

The difficult bit is charging from Hurst Green to South Croydon whilst the current is also needed to power the train. However there would be a similar (albeit lesser) problem if Uckfield was electrified conventionally.

NR had top level political pressure put on them to reconsider third rail extensions on the Southern & Merseyside

I don’t think the pressure was to Network Rail...
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,069
DB have units that will be doing 100km off the wire, which is half as far again as Hurst Green to Uckfield and back.
I'll merely point out that the 1950s battery twin set operated on Aberdeen to Ballater, charging overnight in the bay at Aberdeen with a bit of a boost when turning round there, was 43 miles each way, 86 miles round trip, or 139km. It did three or four round trips a day, to the same timings as the dmu which operated the opposite diagram. The battery industry constantly goes on about how they are advancing, but really things are not that far forward in 60 years.

I presume that "will be" in the quote is future tense ...
 
Last edited:

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,099
Location
Surrey
I think your estimates are a little pessimistic.

A 4 car Electrostar would only need 800kWh from Hurst Green to Uckfield if it was pumping out full power the whole way - including while at constant speed, braking and stationary. The power modelling suggests it needs rather less. Indeed somewhat less than half that, given the amount of time it is on full power (only about 10-12 minutes) and the regen recovery.

Next, you can get 100kWh of battery pack (including all the cooling and management systems) from Tesla in a half tonne package. Even dear old Captain Deltic reckons that Hitachi have the potential to put a more robust / longer lasting rail spec 800kWh battery pack under a class 802 in place of the diesel power pack - and that is 8 tonnes.

Current schedules have most trains at Uckfield for 11 minutes. That discounts the better performance of (B)EMUs, which could conceivably gain a minute or two each way south of Ashurst where the trains usually pass.

Put those three factors together and you can have around 6 tonnes of battery under a four car unit (an extra 3.5% weight, and the equivalent of 80 average passengers) that, with a quick ‘top up’ charge at Uckfield (that, strictly speaking isn’t needed in normal circumstances), will get you back to Hurst Greem with plenty left in the tank.

The difficult bit is charging from Hurst Green to South Croydon whilst the current is also needed to power the train. However there would be a similar (albeit lesser) problem if Uckfield was electrified conventionally.



I don’t think the pressure was to Network Rail...
You have to allow for hotel load which on a hot day will need 30-40kwh/coach to run air con etc, then you need to allow for the potential for sitting down somewhere due to an operating incident so you need to have a margin in the "tank" as well and finally the batteries will degrade and lose charge ability. I used the weights quoted by Hitachi for the there Japanese trains albeit they are several years old now so with battery technology improving should be an improvement on weight. RSSB need to define these parameters on battery margins.

I don't see charging on the move too much of an issue as the train will be able to divert power to charging when its not motoring and reasonably guaranteed load when its regening. Current schedule gives around 75mins on the juice so ought to half that time with full load available for charging.

Finally i misread RTT so thanks for pointing that out, might only be 2 mins but every minute is worth a lot of kwh in the "tank" with fast charging.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,069
You have to allow for hotel load which on a hot day will need 30-40kwh/coach to run air con etc, then you need to allow for the potential for sitting down somewhere due to an operating incident so you need to have a margin in the "tank" as well and finally the batteries will degrade and lose charge ability.
You are correct in all this. The Kentish Town incident a few years ago showed that, for all the modern emergency batteries were rated to a certain spec, on the day they delivered less than half that.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,469
You are correct in all this. The Kentish Town incident a few years ago showed that, for all the modern emergency batteries were rated to a certain spec, on the day they delivered less than half that.

But where Kentish Town is different is the units couldn't move because they'd lost power. On the 3rd rail lines, even lesser incidents (e.g. trespass) require the con rail to be switched off which can affect a much larger area - however the battery units could conceivably continue to move to the next station - so in fact the battery units may actually be able to better mitigate this problem than a pure electric unit can.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,099
Location
Surrey
I'll merely point out that the 1950s battery twin set operated on Aberdeen to Ballater, charging overnight in the bay at Aberdeen with a bit of a boost when turning round there, was 43 miles each way, 86 miles round trip, or 139km. It did three or four round trips a day, to the same timings as the dmu which operated the opposite diagram. The battery industry constantly goes on about how they are advancing, but really things are not that far forward in 60 years.
They were lead acid cells but added 16T to train weight and they had 60min+ layovers either end for limited charging mind you although takes a fair time to recharge lead acid cells but this was pretty impressive given the basic technology and no regen. Guess it was go anywhere diesels that seemed much more straightforward at that time as to why it didn't catch on unlike the German Class 515's which ran into the 100's and lasted til early 90's.
 

BigB

Member
Joined
20 Dec 2018
Messages
267
Location
Scotland
I'll merely point out that the 1950s battery twin set operated on Aberdeen to Ballater, charging overnight in the bay at Aberdeen with a bit of a boost when turning round there, was 43 miles each way, 86 miles round trip, or 139km. It did three or four round trips a day, to the same timings as the dmu which operated the opposite diagram. The battery industry constantly goes on about how they are advancing, but really things are not that far forward in 60 years.
And the tales around these units were that when they were put on charge at Ballater the whole town's lights dimmed.... I don't think the timings were particularly tight - any footage I've ever seen had the trains running at quite a pedestrian rate, but I'm just guessing as I don't have a timetable to hand to check....
One unit remains and is still used at the Deesside railway, although nowadays diesel hauled. The economics of reinstating the batteries just don't make sense, even if they put up their own wind turbine and inverter just to keep them charged.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top