Time to convert 3rd rail to OHLE in light of recent snow/ice problems?

[mcnw35282]

Oh good god...not this again.

Never going to happen. Get over it.

 

[cjmillsnun]

There is no need to rush to replace third rail. As the equipment nears becoming life expired, then it may be something that is looked at on a case by case basis. In the mean time, it the money would be better spent stringing wires up where there is currently no electrification.

 

[HSTEd]

Time to squander vast sums of money replacing serviceable equipment with overhead line equipment that costs so much it might as well be made from solid silver?

The 25kV programme is dead
Time to accept it.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not convinced that an OHE railway is much more reliable than a third rail one. Outside of exceptionally cold weather, the third rail seems to just get on with it most of the time.

I would rather spend money on pretty much anything else on the railway, than re-electrifying an already electrified railway.

The only thing I'm certain of is that diesel is much more reliable than either OLE or third rail !

 

[Bromley boy]

I'm not convinced that an OHE railway is much more reliable than a third rail one. Outside of exceptionally cold weather, the third rail seems to just get on with it most of the time.

I would rather spend money on pretty much anything else on the railway, than re-electrifying an already electrified railway.

The only thing I'm certain of is that diesel is much more reliable than either OLE or third rail !

Indeed. It does seem to be a peculiar obsession on this forum.

I suspect the reality is that third rail electrification will outlive most of us posting on here today.

 

[The Ham]

Indeed. It does seem to be a peculiar obsession on this forum.

I suspect the reality is that third rail electrification will outlive most of us posting on here today.

If third rail is replaced, it will be a long time in happening even if it were to be started to be replaced now.

However I can see that there would be sections that would benefit from being replaced either to simplify the operation of the network (such as replacing a section of third rail with OHLE to reduce the number of change overs, which is probably linked to the next point) or as part of a wider electrification project on currently on an unelectrified lines.

Although certain sections, especially towards the country end of the third rail network (like Weymouth) which could benefit from being either upgraded from their current setup or conversion to OHLE. Either of which is likely to cost a significant amount and so is probably worth converting.

 

[Bromley boy]

If third rail is replaced, it will be a long time in happening even if it were to be started to be replaced now.

However I can see that there would be sections that would benefit from being replaced either to simplify the operation of the network (such as replacing a section of third rail with OHLE to reduce the number of change overs, which is probably linked to the next point) or as part of a wider electrification project on currently on an unelectrified lines.

Although certain sections, especially towards the country end of the third rail network (like Weymouth) which could benefit from being either upgraded from their current setup or conversion to OHLE. Either of which is likely to cost a significant amount and so is probably worth converting.

Once the entire network west of Weymouth is electrified with OHLE with then yes - wouldn’t make a lot of sense beforehand.

Equally some areas could benefit from third tail extension - uckfield line and east coast way between ore and Ashford. But that isn’t allowed to happen due to intransigence.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm not convinced that an OHE railway is much more reliable than a third rail one. Outside of exceptionally cold weather, the third rail seems to just get on with it most of the time.

I would rather spend money on pretty much anything else on the railway, than re-electrifying an already electrified railway.

The only thing I'm certain of is that diesel is much more reliable than either OLE or third rail !

You'll just have to trust me, having operated and maintained both, that a 25kV AC railway system is more reliable than a 750V DC railway. It's also cheaper to operate and maintain. I'm talking about the whole system, and not just the electrification. For example whilst a third rail system looks quite straightforward - it's just an extra rail - it isn't. There's a lot of bonding and other kit on the ground needed to make the whole system work. And if it fails, the signalling often gets affected. I've mentioned before, but getting on for a third of all 'signal failures' in DC land would not happen if it was OLE. Any trespass or debris on the tracks - power must go off. And so on.

As an aside, the DC system is intrinsically less reliable too, there is at least one service affecting failure of the third rail every day somewhere south of the river. Con rail joints failing, power cables burning through, con rail displacement, returning bonding failures, etc etc.

 

[The Ham]

Once the entire network west of Weymouth is electrified with OHLE with then yes - wouldn’t make a lot of sense beforehand.

Equally some areas could benefit from third tail extension - uckfield line and east coast way between ore and Ashford. But that isn’t allowed to happen due to intransigence.

The line Weymouth is limited by it's power supply so can't run any more services. As such, as I said, to get more services would either need an upgrade (i.e. more substations, which are the expensive bits of electrification) when it is life expired or conversion to OHLE (which probably wouldn't need more connection points for the power supply). As such the costs between the two options wouldn't be that significant, but at some point will need spending.

However, taking your argument to the extreme, given that the whole of the network West of Weymouth hasn't got wires we'll not spend ANY money on it and so it will have to be run by DMU's.

Your point about things not happening is probably precisely why the "Transport for the South East" is being set up.

 

[squizzler]

As an aside, the DC system is intrinsically less reliable too, there is at least one service affecting failure of the third rail every day somewhere south of the river. Con rail joints failing, power cables burning through, con rail displacement, returning bonding failures, etc etc.

Points are another source of failure. Like third rail, they are prone to stop working during icy weather, logically enough because they too are technical equipment at ground level. I wonder whether infrastructure providers consider the benefits of resilience against extreme weather when deciding on substitution of points with, say, flyovers or providing separate pairs of tracks for different services?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Just fit juice rail heating throughout (or in most exposed areas) as seen on some parts of the network - would still be a huge cost though and who would pay?

 

[RichJF]

In this snow/ice period Southern actually managed to provide a decent service & didn't wholesale shut down their network lke GA did for one night. This was using 3rd rail trains. They & Network Rail ran trains overnight to clear the lines and also attended to problems relatively quickly.

Therefore I actually think at least on Southern/TL they coped admiraby this time round.

 

[HowardGWR]

Once the entire network west of Weymouth is electrified with OHLE with then yes - wouldn’t make a lot of sense beforehand.

My emphasis. Are you thinking of extending to Abbotsbury?

Seriously, this reason (inadequate power supply) has been trotted out, for decades now, as a reason why the line cannot be doubled through Moreton but the reasons why the power supply cannot be improved have never been made clear.

 

[The Planner]

Come on, it's an antiquated system. The old 3rd rail could be sold for scrap and the network could be rationalised with fewer stations and junctions. This should have been done after WWII. OHLE is the way forward powered by a string of new nuclear power stations, built and operated by a national cooperative. Just think of all the jobs it would create.

Need to get rid of all the antiquated signal boxes first.

 

[B&I]

I can see the nurse approaching with my medication now. We need to be willing to think differently otherwise all we do is keep repeating the same mistakes as before. We seem to be willing to spend about £100 billion on HS2 so the captains of industry and masters of the universe can get to Birmingham 20 minutes quicker. Why not spend that on making sure nurses, teachers and doctors can get to work instead?

How about spending it outside the south-east, where there are also nurses, doctors and teachers?

As 3rd rail becomes life expired it makes sense then to convert to OHLE. In the meantime, the money can go on elctrifying a few lines outside the south-east. If that encourages a few jobs to move to the provinces, so much the better.

 

[Envoy]

I think that the rest of the country would be very annoyed if a decision was taken to plough money into the south-east for a 25Kv. overhead system. Ideally, we would have all of the railways electrified with overhead line equipment. The priority should be to press on with more electrification of the Great Western Mainlines - starting with Cardiff to Swansea which not only has the London trains but also local stopping services. The Midland Mainlines should also have a high priority.

Anyway, returning to the land of the third rail, yesterday I viewed the cab ride video of the Southampton to Weymouth line and noted several old low bridges. However, what amazed me was that the relatively new road bridge carrying the Dorchester by-pass (A35) over the railway looked so low that I reckon overhead wires would not fit underneath. Surely, all new bridges over the railway should be built high enough so that in the event of future electrification, the wires could be accommodated without incurring further costs? The video can be seen here:>

 

[yorksrob]

You'll just have to trust me, having operated and maintained both, that a 25kV AC railway system is more reliable than a 750V DC railway. It's also cheaper to operate and maintain. I'm talking about the whole system, and not just the electrification. For example whilst a third rail system looks quite straightforward - it's just an extra rail - it isn't. There's a lot of bonding and other kit on the ground needed to make the whole system work. And if it fails, the signalling often gets affected. I've mentioned before, but getting on for a third of all 'signal failures' in DC land would not happen if it was OLE. Any trespass or debris on the tracks - power must go off. And so on.

As an aside, the DC system is intrinsically less reliable too, there is at least one service affecting failure of the third rail every day somewhere south of the river. Con rail joints failing, power cables burning through, con rail displacement, returning bonding failures, etc etc.

You're undoubtedly correct. But I have to say, Overhead line disruptions do seem to be fairly frequent on the ECML.

 

[DanTrain]

I can see the nurse approaching with my medication now. We need to be willing to think differently otherwise all we do is keep repeating the same mistakes as before. We seem to be willing to spend about £100 billion on HS2 so the captains of industry and masters of the universe can get to Birmingham 20 minutes quicker. Why not spend that on making sure nurses, teachers and doctors can get to work instead?

Completely agreed. How about a Transpennine tunnel or 3 (road and rail) so the entire North isn't disconnected everytime it snows. Or maybe open up some new railway lines - the rest of the borders line to Carlisle, a new line around Dawlish. All of these would have a brilliant impact on helping your doctors, teachers and nurses get to work, because quite frankly it snows once every few years in the south east, and in the same way British homes don't have air conditioning for the few days a year it's over 30C, we also don't all have winter tyres, 4x4 and nice, adapted railways for the few days a year it's below 0C.

...Also, how about using all this money to just pay for some more doctors and nurses and teachers, I don't think the problem in the system is caused by them being unable to get to work!

 

[Bald Rick]

Points are another source of failure. Like third rail, they are prone to stop working during icy weather, logically enough because they too are technical equipment at ground level. I wonder whether infrastructure providers consider the benefits of resilience against extreme weather when deciding on substitution of points with, say, flyovers or providing separate pairs of tracks for different services?

Flyovers still need points!

 

[6Gman]

Completely agreed. How about a Transpennine tunnel or 3 (road and rail) so the entire North isn't disconnected everytime it snows.

Agree with your general point, but the "entire north" isn't "disconnected everytime it snows". I have travelled - pretty well on time - on many occasions during and after snow.

 

[JohnElliott]

The other day I was looking at some railway magazines from a few years ago, and someone was recommending converting all the third rail electrification to side-contact. Never heard any more about that...

 

[richieb1971]

The South would be better served by a Business Continuity Plan for times when the weather gets like this.

On Facebook there is a lot of talk of what happened yesteryear during snowy periods. They used spare diesel locomotives that coupled to the passenger trains of the era. Apparently on newer trains that is not possible. The South would be wise to adopt a Thunderbirds program during Winter months and have 57's and 67's lined up waiting. Thats if we have any trains that utilize a coupling system left in the south.

Unfortunately the UK doesn't make contingency plans for bad weather every 10 years, they just wait for the sun to tidy things up.

 

[DanTrain]

On Facebook there is a lot of talk of what happened yesteryear during snowy periods. They used spare diesel locomotives that coupled to the passenger trains of the era. Apparently on newer trains that is not possible. The South would be wise to adopt a Thunderbirds program during Winter months and have 57's and 67's lined up waiting. Thats if we have any trains that utilize a coupling system left in the south.

Now there’s a pragmatic approach- I believe there’s a whole stack of old diesels sitting in a siding outside Leicester, and that’s just one example. Couldn’t these be warmed up and scattered around, perhaps with some spare freight drivers on standby to at leat try to help. Having said that, I’m not quite sure how the practicalities would work!?

 

[edwin_m]

As well as the other reasons mentioned, replacing third rail with OLE would reduce the power consumption by around 20%, and that's enough to pay for a fair bit of investment over the system life especially if the existing supply equipment for the third rail is life-expired so would otherwise need replacing anyway. However, for all the reasons mentioned in posts above, I don't see it happening any time soon.

 

[NSEFAN]

Now there’s a pragmatic approach- I believe there’s a whole stack of old diesels sitting in a siding outside Leicester, and that’s just one example. Couldn’t these be warmed up and scattered around, perhaps with some spare freight drivers on standby to at leat try to help. Having said that, I’m not quite sure how the practicalities would work!?

It would be "easy" if the trains had been designed to be compatible from the outset. The old Southern region seemed to understand this concept, which paid off during heavy snow. Class 33s and 73s were used to either rescue stuck trains or remain coupled in service to keep things moving. Freight locos such as class 56s were also used. With the way things are now, trains are a lot more reliable in general but also more complicated and don't have standard couplers, so you end up needing a whole extra vehicle as well as the locomotive just to translate the couplers. It's not worth making the conversions to the locomotives themselves for what is essentially a few days per year of bad weather. It's cheaper and easier to just not run trains and tell people to stay at home.

 

[30907]

The old Southern region seemed to understand this concept, which paid off during heavy snow.
...a few days per year of bad weather. It's cheaper and easier to just not run trains and tell people to stay at home.

I agree, but even with a load of underutilised 33s/73s to assist, the Southern would also have told people to stay at home in the sort of conditions experienced a couple of days ago. I recall a coulle of days in early 1979 (with industrial action and snow combined)....

 

[HSTEd]

The operating cost benefits of 25kV do exist but are small compared to the capital cost of the installation. Especially considering the runaway budget overruns of the current electrification programme.

So there is essentially no business case.

The Kent Draft RUS (has that been released yet?) even had 3rd rail being drastically cheaper than 25kV for installation, which leads me to believe that the overruns are now considered to be structural and repeatable.

Its a drastic change from the promise of ten years ago in terms of capital costs

 

[lyndhurst25]

The other day I was looking at some railway magazines from a few years ago, and someone was recommending converting all the third rail electrification to side-contact. Never heard any more about that...

(I've posted this question in another tread also - lots of discussion about iced up third rail going on at the moment!)

Not that I'm suggesting that it is reintroduced, but was the old Manchester-Bury 3rd rail system (1200V DC side contact with, I think, some wooden shielding) more or less prone to ice problems that the Southern system? I suspect that it would be more robust. I've been trying to find a decent picture of what the 3rd rail and the collector-shoe system on the class 504s looked like, but can't.

 

[squizzler]

The other day I was looking at some railway magazines from a few years ago, and someone was recommending converting all the third rail electrification to side-contact. Never heard any more about that...

I think what happened was they took that concept to its logical conclusion:
Rather than side contact why not go for bottom-contact? It would be safer still because the pickup shoe actually has to reach under the shroud on the rail to touch live parts.
Even with bottom-contact your conductor system would be even safer if it was mounted high above the rails, the pickup shoe could then be on the roof of the locomotive or unit.
And with the live electrical system safely out of the reach of people it could run at a higher voltage than any third rail...

 

[edwin_m]

Bottom contact is pretty much the standard for new metro systems, a couple of which have gone for 1500V instead of the traditional 750V. However I'm not sure how it would work on the main line, where the rails and pickups would probably foul platforms and structures. It might also be difficult to dual-fit units with the two pickups, and if so passengers would have to change when travelling between the converted and unconverted zones.

Metro-North in the States has bottom-contact third rail on a "main line" railway, but with the benefit of a much larger loading gauge. There was also a very nasty accident when a train hit a car on a level crossing, which led to the third rail being detached and entering the body of the train with many fatalities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valhalla_train_crash

The crash occurred after an earlier accident on the Taconic State Parkway, which parallels that section of track, had led to the road's closure in one direction. Drivers from the Taconic State Parkway sought alternate routes, one of which went through the grade crossing. The driver of an SUV was caught between the crossing gates when they descended onto the rear of her vehicle. She reportedly attempted to rectify the situation by proceeding forward across the tracks, instead of backing up. Along with five train passengers, she died when her vehicle was struck by the train. The impact tore loose more than 450 feet (140 m) of third rail; after piercing a train car, it went into the front of the train, broken into sections.