Future of Third Rail

[Bald Rick]

And I'm sure with suitably designed fencing

You “hazard a guess”

Risk assessments are not based on guesses.

What is “suitably designed fencing”?

 

[tomuk]

You “hazard a guess”

Risk assessments are not based on guesses.

What is “suitably designed fencing”?

I'm not carrying out a risk assessment. You tell me what are the stats for trespasser deaths for Third Rail and OHL normalised by the route mile. How many have their been over say the last five years?

By suitable fencing I mean better than currently used in third rail areas which form what I can see varies a lot. That used on HS1 would be a starting point.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm not carrying out a risk assessment. You tell me what are the stats for trespasser deaths for Third Rail and OHL normalised by the route mile. How many have their been over say the last five years?

By suitable fencing I mean better than currently used in third rail areas which form what I can see varies a lot. That used on HS1 would be a starting point.

I don’t have the data to hand. But IIRC there’s been three trespasser fatalities on the DC so far this year, and none on the AC. There’s a little more than twice as much AC as DC.

 

[zwk500]

I'm not carrying out a risk assessment. You tell me what are the stats for trespasser deaths for Third Rail and OHL normalised by the route mile. How many have their been over say the last five years?

By suitable fencing I mean better than currently used in third rail areas which form what I can see varies a lot. That used on HS1 would be a starting point.

Have a look on the RSSB website, the third rail safety assessment is there.

 

[A0wen]

So we just ignore statistics then? What do you tell the family of the lad killed by OHL trespassing at Daventry? Sorry for your loss but OHL is safe?

You're being deliberately disingenuous. The likelihood of coming in to contact with OHLE is miniscule compared to contact with 3rd rail. To come into contact with the OHLE you either need to be dangling something over a bridge (where there are usually warnings), waving something around in its vicinity from ground level or to have climbed on top of an item of rolling stock. You can't trip over it in a moment's inattention in the way you can with 3rd rail - and in that way it's a much greater risk - both to those who have to work in its vicinity and those who are trespassing. The rail industry is spending huge amounts on fencing - lines which as little as 10 years ago had basic wire fencing are now hemmed in with palisade fencing - but you can't fence in every last inch and yard of the rail network.

People 'get' that a train coming towards them is likely to do them harm - but they figure they'll see or hear a train coming. People don't 'get' that in some places, at foot level is a piece of metal carrying 750v - 3 times the level you find in a household supply - and at a much higher current. I'm not sure there are many workplaces which think it's OK to have such a high voltage exposed in this way and at foot level.

 

[eldomtom2]

I have, and can assure you that any glib words about 'never mind that, what about the air quality?' would not have gone down well.

Well yes, but that doesn't mean that the views of the deceased's family are necessarily correct when it comes to the broader picture.

 

[MattRat]

Tell that to the family of the guy who died whilst trespassing last week

So we just ignore statistics then? What do you tell the family of the lad killed by OHL trespassing at Daventry? Sorry for your loss but OHL is safe?

How about we tell them this is what happens when you trespass onto a railway, because only professionals who know what they are doing are allowed near them for obvious reasons. If you trespass and then you died because of that, that's your responsibility. The signs are there to read.

 

[Dr Hoo]

How about we tell them this is what happens when you trespass onto a railway, because only professionals who know what they are doing are allowed near them for obvious reasons. If you trespass and then you died because of that, that's your responsibility. The signs are there to read.

As I exampled above, for an inquisitive nine-year-old following a staff shortcut there are NO signs. And a professional who 'knew what he was doing' got electrocuted right next me because he assumed that someone else had followed proper procedures.

Welcome to the sad consequences of real life.

 

[eldomtom2]

As I exampled above, for an inquisitive nine-year-old following a staff shortcut there are NO signs.

Well in that case the issue is the presence of the staff shortcut...

 

[Peter Sarf]

Well in that case the issue is the presence of the staff shortcut...

If railways are properly fenced off then all well and good BUT at every level crossing or station there is easy access to the track-bed if the electricity is high up out of reach you cannot step on it. Even for staff when supposed to be on the track the juice is out of the way for more activities.

I do think some third rail is inevitable where is fills a gap.

I do dream of conversion to bottom or side contact as maybe safer but would also not allow rain-water/snow to stand on the third rail and freeze. maybe 1,500 DC overhead would be not be much more expensive but give better safety.

 

[AM9]

I do think some third rail is inevitable where is fills a gap.

I do dream of conversion to bottom or side contact as maybe safer but would also not allow rain-water/snow to stand on the third rail and freeze. maybe 1,500 DC overhead would be not be much more expensive but give better safety.

1500VDC would have almost all of the civil costs of 25kV ac but higher initial costs because of more feeds needed and in service more power consumption because of higher cable losses. So there's no point in re-inventing another standard for probably no overall benefit.

 

[MattRat]

As I exampled above, for an inquisitive nine-year-old following a staff shortcut there are NO signs. And a professional who 'knew what he was doing' got electrocuted right next me because he assumed that someone else had followed proper procedures.

Welcome to the sad consequences of real life.

Well then the solution is more signs, and anyone who didn't do their job (in this case, turning off the power) should be fired. Put the responsibility on people, not the third rail, because railways themselves could deemed too dangerous if we aren't careful.

 

[zwk500]

Well then the solution is more signs, and anyone who didn't do their job (in this case, turning off the power) should be fired. Put the responsibility on people, not the third rail, because railways themselves could deemed too dangerous if we aren't careful.

'Don't get yourself hurt' is no longer an acceptable working practice in the eyes of the law where reasonable precautions could have been taken to minimise the risk regardless of Human nature.

If you want the railway to start taking more risks, you need the law to change.

 

[Ken H]

'Don't get yourself hurt' is no longer an acceptable working practice in the eyes of the law where reasonable precautions could have been taken to minimise the risk regardless of Human nature.

If you want the railway to start taking more risks, you need the law to change.

The law didnt change. They allowed lawyers to operate in a no win, no fee basis. So now people can make vexatious claims that companies and their insurers dont defend because paying the compo is cheaper than a court case.
So now many people do stupid things (like trespass on a railway) and expect compo for getting hurt.

In India you are expected to look out for your own safety and if you get it wrong, its not the railways fault, but yours. Accidents involving people on a live railway are not even considered railway accidents.

I am not sure where you draw the line between the 2 systems, TBH

 

[AM9]

Put the responsibility on people, not the third rail, because railways themselves could deemed too dangerous if we aren't careful.

Were the level of potential dangers the same for OLE as it is for 3rd rail (both of which are lower CO2/pollutant solutions than the default diesel with its whole spectrum of environmental hazards), then there might be a case for a balanced deployment of informative and protective solutions. The simple fact is that 3rd rail is nowhere as safe as OLE (irrespective of the voltage on the wires) which the reported figures year after year demonstrate. That's allowing for a level of non-reporting of 3rd rail incidents that are by their nature close calls.
So the position on any significant extension of 3rd rail is still a no-go and the the grandfather rights are a legal fudge that effectively allows existing practices to continue because of the impracticality of changing the whole 3rd rail network in a very short time. I doubt there will be any broadening of the scope of grandfather rights.
If deaths and injuries continue there will be increasing pressure to commit to a programme to remove the hazard, which if sensibly done will be integrated with renewal/refurbishment of civil infrastructure that would currently affect establishing sufficient clearances for OLE.

 

[MattRat]

If deaths and injuries continue there will be increasing pressure to commit to a programme to remove the hazard, which if sensibly done will be integrated with renewal/refurbishment of civil infrastructure that would currently affect establishing sufficient clearances for OLE.

But then how does that affect similar systems like the fourth rail on the London Underground? Unless that is somehow safer, how on earth could that system be changed without bankrupting the country?

 

[eldomtom2]

'Don't get yourself hurt' is no longer an acceptable working practice in the eyes of the law where reasonable precautions could have been taken to minimise the risk regardless of Human nature.

Well, "reasonable precautions" are a very slippery concept...

 

[AM9]

But then how does that affect similar systems like the fourth rail on the London Underground? Unless that is somehow safer, how on earth could that system be changed without bankrupting the country?

Well LU's systm is considerably diffrent from National Rail 3rd rail:

a) public access to LU track is much more restricted, partly by enhanced barriers - the track and signal cabling in addition to a safety fence, and the fact that a large portion of the track is in tunnel​

b) there are very few places where there is anything to gain by crossing LU track, i.s. level crossings, access to open countryside, and sidings​

c) strangely enough the high frequency of services is in part a deterrent as the likelihood of being seen (and caught) is higher​

​

The split voltage plays a small part in the lower incidence of deaths/injuries, and is probably seen as more difficult to cross safely.

Part of the problem of upgrading overbridges to give OLE clearance is that two separate roles of the DFT are operated in separate silos, set up in competition for budgets. If an ageing road bridge is both inadequate for modern flows and in need of replacement/refurbishmnt, and at the same time the railway is becoming a candidate for electrification, there is a last man standing situation so that the other (sub) department picks up the cost. A policy of optimising plans to mutually benefit both transport modes, would save both budget and upgrade services in a much more timely manner.

 

[yorksrob]

Were the level of potential dangers the same for OLE as it is for 3rd rail (both of which are lower CO2/pollutant solutions than the default diesel with its whole spectrum of environmental hazards), then there might be a case for a balanced deployment of informative and protective solutions. The simple fact is that 3rd rail is nowhere as safe as OLE (irrespective of the voltage on the wires) which the reported figures year after year demonstrate. That's allowing for a level of non-reporting of 3rd rail incidents that are by their nature close calls.
So the position on any significant extension of 3rd rail is still a no-go and the the grandfather rights are a legal fudge that effectively allows existing practices to continue because of the impracticality of changing the whole 3rd rail network in a very short time. I doubt there will be any broadening of the scope of grandfather rights.
If deaths and injuries continue there will be increasing pressure to commit to a programme to remove the hazard, which if sensibly done will be integrated with renewal/refurbishment of civil infrastructure that would currently affect establishing sufficient clearances for OLE.

That's a bit of a nonsense position though.

Just because third rail might not be "as safe" as OLE, that doesn't mean it is unsafe. Infact a third rail electrified route will be safer than many other forms of transport.

 

[Ken H]

That's a bit of a nonsense position though.

Just because third rail might not be "as safe" as OLE, that doesn't mean it is unsafe. Infact a third rail electrified route will be safer than many other forms of transport.

Perhaps someone who is going to be on the track later in the day will be using the road, as a pedestrian or in/on a vehicle. Anyone got numbers which is more unsafe. The time using the road or the time on the track. Obvs, a trained track worked is less likely to get hurt on the track than a trespasser.

I am thinking of the oft quoted statistic that says the most dangerous part of flying is the journey to and from the airport

 

[XAM2175]

The law didnt change. They allowed lawyers to operate in a no win, no fee basis. So now people can make vexatious claims that companies and their insurers dont defend because paying the compo is cheaper than a court case.
So now many people do stupid things (like trespass on a railway) and expect compo for getting hurt.

In India you are expected to look out for your own safety and if you get it wrong, its not the railways fault, but yours. Accidents involving people on a live railway are not even considered railway accidents.

To a certain extent the law has changed, inasmuch as things like the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and all manner of subsequent acts affecting business and landowners (that annoyinglu slip my mind at the moment) have increased the duty of care that these parties have to pay not just to employees but all persons present on their premises.

In the absence of acts explicitly codifying exemptions to these responsibilities, it's not unreasonable that the courts have come to the decisions they have in cases along these lines, and further I don't think it's at all surprising that that regulatory bodies and insurers and company lawyers have become increasingly risk-averse.

I agree that there are instances where this has occasioned perverse results, and there are a number of things that I would change were it up to me, but fundamentally we're at the point now where only Parliament (or perhaps a very activist Supreme Court bench) can do anything about it.

That's a bit of a nonsense position though.

Just because third rail might not be "as safe" as OLE, that doesn't mean it is unsafe. Infact a third rail electrified route will be safer than many other forms of transport.

The present regulatory environment doesn't permit comparisons across modes, as you well know.

 

[D365]

How about we tell them this is what happens when you trespass onto a railway, because only professionals who know what they are doing are allowed near them for obvious reasons. If you trespass and then you died because of that, that's your responsibility. The signs are there to read.

For better and for worse, the railway has a responsibility for mitigating hazards as far as is reasonably possible. "Trespass" is no longer a valid defence.

Well, "reasonable precautions" are a very slippery concept...

Which is why safety engineering exists.

 

[yorksrob]

The present regulatory environment doesn't permit comparisons across modes, as you well know.

Well, that's precisely the problem that needs to be changed.

 

[Wolfie]

Well, that's precisely the problem that needs to be changed.

Frankly politicians currently have much bigger fish to fry....

 

[AM9]

Well, that's precisely the problem that needs to be changed.

No, that's really just citing a safety shortfall in one area to excuse a slightly less serious failing in another. Safety cases must stand in their own right as a loss of life etc., arising by a failure of a duty of care cannot be mitigated by comparing it to losses of life elsewhere.

 

[tomuk]

The present regulatory environment doesn't permit comparisons across modes, as you well know.

Well it did for the risk assessment to withdraw the Chiltern ATP system did. It specifically compared the increased risk of accidents from no ATP to the risk of passengers traveling by road if service was reduced due to ATP faults neding stock to be withdrawn.

No, that's really just citing a safety shortfall in one area to excuse a slightly less serious failing in another. Safety cases must stand in their own right as a loss of life etc., arising by a failure of a duty of care cannot be mitigated by comparing it to losses of life elsewhere.

See Chiltern ATP

It was considered that, with a worst case of ATP systems failing irreparably on 20 per cent of units per year, the safety risk from Option B would exceed the risk from Option A, taking into account the potential for intermodal transfer to car or bus if trains were withdrawn from service. This strongly indicated the safer option would be Option A, and for trains to continue to operate using TPWS and AWS if their ATP systems could not be repaired.

 

[AM9]

Well it did for the risk assessment to withdraw the Chiltern ATP system did. It specifically compared the increased risk of accidents from no ATP to the risk of passengers traveling by road if service was reduced due to ATP faults neding stock to be withdrawn.


See Chiltern ATP

That's a strawman argument. The subject in hand here is the fundamental safety of 3rd rail to staff, passengers and anybody else who is present on railway property for whatever reason. A critical factor is that the danger is permanently present, even if the train service is not in operation.

 

[JohnElliott]

1500VDC would have almost all of the civil costs of 25kV ac but higher initial costs because of more feeds needed and in service more power consumption because of higher cable losses. So there's no point in re-inventing another standard for probably no overall benefit.

Presumably the benefit would be that by converting one form of DC electrification to another, there wouldn't be the same electrical complications where third-rail sections adjoined overhead sections, and it would be easier to convert the network piecemeal.

 

[HSTEd]

That's a strawman argument. The subject in hand here is the fundamental safety of 3rd rail to staff, passengers and anybody else who is present on railway property for whatever reason. A critical factor is that the danger is permanently present, even if the train service is not in operation.

Well that's not strictly true given the existance of modern SCADA.

Indeed London Underground managed to escape the third rail (de-facto) prohibition by establishing safety procedures to eliiminate trackside staff with the conductor rail live.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps someone who is going to be on the track later in the day will be using the road, as a pedestrian or in/on a vehicle. Anyone got numbers which is more unsafe. The time using the road or the time on the track. Obvs, a trained track worked is less likely to get hurt on the track than a trespasser.

I am thinking of the oft quoted statistic that says the most dangerous part of flying is the journey to and from the airport

Indeed. This is a very pertinent consideration.

On the subject of track workers, I've heard of a device that can be held up to tell whether an overhead line is energised. I wonder whether there is something that can be devised for the third rail.