• 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!

Reports of the death of Third Rail appear greatly exaggerated

Status
Not open for further replies.

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,556
The Wessex Draft route study for consultation states:

"DC would only be considered for infill schemes, such as the electrification of the North Downs Line." (page 142)


"Given the position of this national scheme in the Department for Transport’s High Level Output Statement (HLOS) for CP5, the Route Study has treated this[Basingstoke-Soton]option as baseline and has not undertaken further analysis on the case for such an intervention.

It is recognised that as a standalone scheme, there are a number of
potential disadvantages, including for example:

• a significant cost is involved in converting the present-day DC
electric passenger fleet to dual-voltage capability, it being
assumed that it will not prove possible or practicable to keep in
place the third-rail DC system as well as the AC system

• whilst some minor passenger journey time improvements might
be achievable between Basingstoke and Southampton, there is
very little overall passenger benefit in the short to medium term

• from an asset management and maintenance perspective, the
scope of AC electrification may be insufficient to offer efficiencies
of scale."
(page 113)


Looks like the reports of the death of Third Rail were greatly exaggerated

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-t...wessex-route-study-draft-for-consultation.pdf
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,994
Location
Yorks
Can't say as I blame them. Seems like a lot of money and work for limited benefit.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
?

Electrostars and Desiros are already equipped (afaik) internally for dual voltage and with the time scale that it would take Networkers, 455, 456, 458 (any DC only ones that I've missed), they'll be getting towards the end of their lifespan anyway
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,994
Location
Yorks
?

Electrostars and Desiros are already equipped (afaik) internally for dual voltage and with the time scale that it would take Networkers, 455, 456, 458 (any DC only ones that I've missed), they'll be getting towards the end of their lifespan anyway

I suppose it's the transition and making sure the right type of trains are in the right place at the right time. Then there's the infrastructure. Even if you do it as the existing third rail becomes life expired, you've got a whole new set of catenary and a whole lot of bridges to raise. A lot of work to end up in the same place, i.e. with a working electrified railway.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,556
I suppose it's the transition and making sure the right type of trains are in the right place at the right time. Then there's the infrastructure. Even if you do it as the existing third rail becomes life expired, you've got a whole new set of catenary and a whole lot of bridges to raise. A lot of work to end up in the same place, i.e. with a working electrified railway.

There is also the slight matter of having to replace or immunise the signalling and telecommunications infrastructure (including the extensive third party public operator infrastructure that runs lineside) which is generally designed for immunity to 750 V d.c traction not the much larger (and potentially dangerous) induced voltages that come from 25kv a.c. Any new equipment would need to be immunised for both systems unless you want to operate the line on diesel for a few months.
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,994
Location
Yorks
There is also the slight matter of having to replace or immunise the signalling and telecommunications infrastructure (including the extensive third party public operator infrastructure that runs lineside) which is generally designed for immunity to 750 V d.c traction not the much larger (and potentially dangerous) induced voltages that come from 25kv a.c. Any new equipment would need to be immunised for both systems unless you want to operate the line on diesel for a few months.

I must admit, that's an issue I hadn't even thought of.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
What sort of % of signalling in the 3rd rail area is reaching the end of it's life span anyway (I'd assume that any resignalling or renewel in the last decade (or at least the last 5 years) will have been done to take into account future dual voltage
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,994
Location
Yorks
What sort of % of signalling in the 3rd rail area is reaching the end of it's life span anyway (I'd assume that any resignalling or renewel in the last decade (or at least the last 5 years) will have been done to take into account future dual voltage

There's a whole lot in Kent that's based around the Ashford signalling centre from the early nineties. I know the area has some overhead, but I'm not sure the classic network surrounding it was signaled with a view to conversion.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,556
There's a whole lot in Kent that's based around the Ashford signalling centre from the early nineties. I know the area has some overhead, but I'm not sure the classic network surrounding it was signaled with a view to conversion.

Most of the SWML has been resignalled in the last 10-20 years and I'm fairly sure none of it is 25kV immunised. For a start immunising for 25kV would be expensive because you would have to immunise against both a.c. and d.c electrification and secondly the idea of converting the 3rd rail to 25Kv a.c. is fairly recent (and a politician not engineer led idea from what I can make out)

I certainly don't remember any such provision being made when I worked down that way in the late 90's. Those were the days when semaphore boxes were being relocked and LED lights fitted in the signals as it had a better whole life cost than renewal....

The policy may have changed in recent years but I rather doubt, the push has been to get resignalling costs down, not load them with extra costs "just in case"
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,994
Location
Yorks
The policy may have changed in recent years but I rather doubt, the push has been to get resignalling costs down, not load them with extra costs "just in case"

Yes, that sounds more realistic to me.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,205
It's not just about immunisation, most of which is easily solved by the use of axle counters and the current types of track circuit used.

More complicated is the earthing. Providing correct earthing for DC and AC is very difficult on anything but lightly used railways. Enormous issues with it Farringdon - Blackfriars (block joints burning out in 6months) and similarly at South Acton. Quite possible to do switchable earthing on a long stretch being converted, but that's yet more cost.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,556
It's not just about immunisation, most of which is easily solved by the use of axle counters and the current types of track circuit used.

More complicated is the earthing. Providing correct earthing for DC and AC is very difficult on anything but lightly used railways. Enormous issues with it Farringdon - Blackfriars (block joints burning out in 6months) and similarly at South Acton. Quite possible to do switchable earthing on a long stretch being converted, but that's yet more cost.

I was thinking more of the lineside signalling and telecom cabling especially but not exclusively the extensive copper cabling. As with track circuits it can be done but £££££.

The stray earths is a very good point. For a long time the amount of Thameslinks was limited to six per hour when it first opened. Ironically if fourth rail had been used as per LUL rather than third rail it would be less of a problem. (LUL was converted to fourth rail in early years of C20th after someone built a cast iron tube tunnel with third rail and rapidly discovered that the stray earths were xausing electrolysis and if they didnt do something the tunnel would eventually be dissolved!
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,205
The stray earths is a very good point. For a long time the amount of Thameslinks was limited to six per hour when it first opened. Ironically if fourth rail had been used as per LUL rather than third rail it would be less of a problem. (LUL was converted to fourth rail in early years of C20th after someone built a cast iron tube tunnel with third rail and rapidly discovered that the stray earths were xausing electrolysis and if they didnt do something the tunnel would eventually be dissolved!

Indeed. The Chief Engineer of Thameslink told me once that he rather wished the TL core had a 4th rail system.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,918
Location
Nottingham
It's not just about immunisation, most of which is easily solved by the use of axle counters and the current types of track circuit used.

More complicated is the earthing. Providing correct earthing for DC and AC is very difficult on anything but lightly used railways. Enormous issues with it Farringdon - Blackfriars (block joints burning out in 6months) and similarly at South Acton. Quite possible to do switchable earthing on a long stretch being converted, but that's yet more cost.

For this reason I think the approach, if it happens, would be to cut over areas from DC to AC rather than having lots of dual voltage areas. The boundaries would probably be on simple plain line between stations so that complex areas don't need earthing for both systems, perhaps with trains changing system on the move or in the worst case having to make a short non-station stop.

All the earths for the AC would be installed but not connected up, then at changeover time there would be a few days of blockade while they were all attached and tested.
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,851
Location
St Neots
For this reason I think the approach, if it happens, would be to cut over areas from DC to AC rather than having lots of dual voltage areas. The boundaries would probably be on simple plain line between stations so that complex areas don't need earthing for both systems, perhaps with trains changing system on the move or in the worst case having to make a short non-station stop.

All the earths for the AC would be installed but not connected up, then at changeover time there would be a few days of blockade while they were all attached and tested.

Yep, this is exactly why near-universally dual-voltage stock is necessary before it happens.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,670
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Most of the SWML has been resignalled in the last 10-20 years and I'm fairly sure none of it is 25kV immunised. For a start immunising for 25kV would be expensive because you would have to immunise against both a.c. and d.c electrification and secondly the idea of converting the 3rd rail to 25Kv a.c. is fairly recent (and a politician not engineer led idea from what I can make out)
I certainly don't remember any such provision being made when I worked down that way in the late 90's. Those were the days when semaphore boxes were being relocked and LED lights fitted in the signals as it had a better whole life cost than renewal....
The policy may have changed in recent years but I rather doubt, the push has been to get resignalling costs down, not load them with extra costs "just in case"

I thought the move to axle detectors instead of track circuits did away with all that?
Not sure if that is being used in the Basingstake resignalling scheme.
 

johnnychips

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2011
Messages
3,679
Location
Sheffield
I might seem very thick, but some experts have posted above me and may have answered the question. Is it possible to have third rail and overhead wires in the same place?
 
Last edited:

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,172
Location
Somewhere, not in London
I might seem very thick, but some experts have posted above me and may have answered the question. Is it possible to have third rail and overhead wires in the same place.

Yes, but there are soooo many issues with it that it is best to be avoided at a significant level of cost, especially in stations.

South Acton is rotting through it's OHLE supports quicker than if they where made of softwood.

390s regeneratively braking on the WCML has caused many issues for the 1972 Tube Stock.

(The WCML has a number of pretty significant fudges that may not hold if the service level increases, even the Croxley Rail Link could tip the balance.)

Thameslink has an insane amount of work done at Farringdon to make it work.

Whitechapel is an absolute nightmare to design (and that's just 3rd, 4th and OHLE in the same station complex).

etc. etc. etc.
 

johnnychips

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2011
Messages
3,679
Location
Sheffield
South Acton is rotting through it's OHLE supports quicker than if they where made of softwood.

I'll take that one. Is it because a 3rd rail current is affecting the ground around it, which causes a chemical reaction?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,205
I'll take that one. Is it because a 3rd rail current is affecting the ground around it, which causes a chemical reaction?

It's the return current for the DC trying to find its way into the return path for the AC. (Or vice versa, can never remember). Causes electrolytic corrosion of the rebar in the foundations and fixing bolts for the OLE masts. The old masts were pulling out quite easily. I spent a Sunday at South Acton a decade ago pouring concrete for new foundations, the bolts had special insulation.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,172
Location
Somewhere, not in London
It's the return current for the DC trying to find its way into the return path for the AC. (Or vice versa, can never remember). Causes electrolytic corrosion of the rebar in the foundations and fixing bolts for the OLE masts. The old masts were pulling out quite easily. I spent a Sunday at South Acton a decade ago pouring concrete for new foundations, the bolts had special insulation.

It's the former IIRC.

What is happening is that eventually the centre point of the DC "Rail" and I'm on about rectifier rail here is at the same potential as the AC Ground, or neutral point. The return current from the DC system leaks and leaches into everything around it, finding the easiest return route to the rectifier, and any other route.

If you think back to GCSE or O Level Physics, with parallel resistors, if you think of a 47R and 4R7 in parallel, most of the current will flow through the 4R7 resistor, but some current will flow through the 47R one.

One can model the 47R as the ground and services around the desired current return path (the running rails) as they are not insulated from ground, current will also flow through the ground.

When one considers that a single train will realistically have 3MW of traction motors per unit, or up to 9 or 10MW for a 12 car train, using the most basic forms of power calc you can see a current of around 13kA for the latter. A single unit being around 4kA peak current draw. Even if the resistance of the ground is 1000 times that of the return path via the rail (it isn't, it's a lot less in reality, even less in areas with AC electrification) there is still a meaningful current being passed through the ground.

Next up we bring into account the fact that we have different materials in contact, (as you always will). The current flowing in a certain direction, all the time, passes electrons from one material to another constantly, and through chemistry I can't fully explain, passes corrosion on from one place to another, known as electrolytic corrosion if I remember correctly.

Now when we have an AC and DC system that are not intentionally connected to each other (as they shouldn't be in an ideal world), the DC leakage will flow in and out of the AC return paths and earthing routes, as the OHLE supports and earthing connection through them is of a significantly lower impedance than the ground, this attracts more of this corrosion to the boundary points where this stray current is able to flow.

LU 4th Rail systems do not suffer this issue (most of the time) as the return route to the rectifier is through the centre (4th) rail, the traction current is essentially (although it actually isn't) isolated from earth and the running rails, both on the track and the trains.

Bear in mind it is nearly half midnight so please forgive any mistakes as this isn't what I do on a day to day basis and a lot of it is remembered from a couple of reports I put together a few years back.
 
Last edited:

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,133
If DFT are determined to get the overhead wires to southampton docks then the SWT suggested route via Salisbury sounds a better option for the money required for such a scheme
 
Last edited:

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,556
If DFT are determined to get the overhead wires to southampton docks then the SWT suggested route via Salisbury sounds a better option for the money required for such a scheme

Even better value money would be to leave well alone other than some upgrade to the capacity of the third rail and haul the electric freights using class 92s....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_92

If I were doing it I would be very tempted to electrify the southern end of the Reading Basingstoke line with third rail as well and have a mile or so with both systems in the middle somewhere around Mortimer allowing changeover without stopping. Much easier than running 25kV into Basingstoke Station.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
Even better value money would be to leave well alone other than some upgrade to the capacity of the third rail and haul the electric freights using class 92s....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_92

If I were doing it I would be very tempted to electrify the southern end of the Reading Basingstoke line with third rail as well and have a mile or so with both systems in the middle somewhere around Mortimer allowing changeover without stopping. Much easier than running 25kV into Basingstoke Station.
In what way(s) could they upgrade the capacity of the 3rd rail?
 

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
9,669
Location
Nowhere near enough to a Pacer :(
Another question from a thicko here but, other than being a bit out of the ark, whats actually wrong with 3rd rail? When I see the megga money being put into bridges, tunnels and the like for new electriffication theres always that question in my head of why do we not just use 3rd rail?
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,556
In what way(s) could they upgrade the capacity of the 3rd rail?

Converting TP huts into extra Substations as was done quite recently on the Brighton Line
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another question from a thicko here but, other than being a bit out of the ark, whats actually wrong with 3rd rail? When I see the megga money being put into bridges, tunnels and the like for new electriffication theres always that question in my head of why do we not just use 3rd rail?

The limitiations are 100mph maximum speed along with the fact that low voltage (750V) means much higher current for the same power output so much more loss of energy in supply cables etc. (through heat). Third rails also ice up (so does the 25kV but the voltage is high enough to arc through it. There is also the H&S matter of if you are on the track and get tangled up in it, it hurts somewhat....

All of which means that you wouldn't use third rail if you were starting from scratch now, but is nowhere near enough to justify spending billions and causing years of chaos converting several thousand km of third rail track.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,265
Location
St Albans
When one considers that a single train will realistically have 3MW of traction motors per unit, or up to 9 or 10MW for a 12 car train, using the most basic forms of power calc you can see a current of around 13kA for the latter. A single unit being around 4kA peak current draw. Even if the resistance of the ground is 1000 times that of the return path via the rail (it isn't, it's a lot less in reality, even less in areas with AC electrification) there is still a meaningful current being passed through the ground.

I think that you are outhe but a factor of 2 here. Contemporary EMUs typically have maximum power draws of 1.5MW, so current draw will be about 6KA for a 3x4 car train. A single class 92 would draw 4MW or 5333KA.
Now a 3rd rail circuit can only be delivered to supply about 8000A as safety and resistance effects make greater currents impractical. Therefore if one 12 car train and a class 92 are working in the same section there may be problems. That's the whole issue with traffic between Basingstoke and Soton. If there is to be any meaningful capacity increase, then either the power sections will need to be made much shorter or the line converted to 25Kv. Raising a few bridges for OHLE will look cheap when the cost of 30 years operation of such an uprated DC system are accounted for.
That's why almost all serious mainlines in the world aren't 3rd rail.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
What's the current draw of a 12 car desiro (3xclass 450) and a 10 car desiro (2xclass444)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top