Would electrifying the WEML, Marshlink, North Downs and Uckfield lines with third rail be possible under the ORR's current policy?

[Joseph T]

Moderator note: Split from

Headbolt Lane to Kirkby not electrified due to "safety concerns" ?

Probably also worth adding that since that section has long had a reputation for antisocial behaviour, the likelihood of a potentially fatal trespass incident would be above average.

www.railforums.co.uk

ORR's policy on third rail electrification attached, from https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/10702

Is there any chance that electrifying the WEML, Marshlink, North Downs and Uckfield lines with third rail are possible under this policy, especially since they link exclusively with third rail sections except for AFK and RDG (unless they plan on relegating the latter to Thameslink)?

 

[yorksrob]

Apparently "there is no ban on third rail electrification".

Yet, mysteriously this never seems to be possible for logical extensions such as the Marshlink.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I just have this feeling - my opinion only of course - that no matter how logical, we will not see much 750DC 3rd rail infill. The technology is just too old and the safety case way too weak.

 

[yorksrob]

And the Establishment too entrenched.

 

[WAO]

With the new Government wanting to re-write planning rules, it could do well to re-visit the ORR's dubious decisions on third rail and OLE clearances.

The first involved the application of external electrical safety rules in an industry always seen as inappropriate. Railways were specifically exempted from these for good reason. The second involved the lack of written data on clearances - probably because it had been binned at privatisation, like CWR stressing data. European rules were therefore adopted (what data underlay those?) again inappropriate and unproven with the smaller UK loading gauge.

As Lord Hendy is now Railways Minister, perhaps he will bring ORR to heel, with rational rules suitable for UK.

WAO

 

[SynthD]

From what I’ve read on this forum, it’s about telling the ORR how the public will not be significantly at risk. How difficult are these lines to make considerably safer? Could every pedestrian crossing be replaced with a bridge/tunnel or closure? What makes batteries unsuitable? Is it plausible to connect them to an ohle line?

As we’ve seen before (eg Heathrow’s third runway), if the government forces through a decision that conflicts with the law, they might get judicial review.

 

[D7666]

Apparently "there is no ban on third rail electrification".

Yet, mysteriously this never seems to be possible for logical extensions such as the Marshlink.

There is no ban - but there is a lot of mitigation work necessary to allow it within assorted legislations.

That mitigation work is costly - and all schemes - Ashford Hastings included - has to make a business case based on those costs.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I just have this feeling - my opinion only of course - that no matter how logical, we will not see much 750DC 3rd rail infill. The technology is just too old and the safety case way too weak.

Technology isn't old they have three phase drives just like their AC friends. They have a contact system same as over heads just inverted and a bit bigger!! The main issue remains convincing the ORR that any extension complies with the Electricity at Work Act largely particularly clause 7

7. All conductors in a system which may give rise to danger shall either–

(a)be suitably covered with insulating material and as necessary protected so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger; or

(b)have such precautions taken in respect of them (including, where appropriate, their being suitably placed) as will prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, danger.

which is going to be a challenge for a ground mounted exposed conductor

 

[I'm here now]

Moderator note: Split from

Headbolt Lane to Kirkby not electrified due to "safety concerns" ?

Probably also worth adding that since that section has long had a reputation for antisocial behaviour, the likelihood of a potentially fatal trespass incident would be above average.

www.railforums.co.uk

Is there any chance that electrifying the WEML, Marshlink, North Downs and Uckfield lines with third rail are possible under this policy, especially since they link exclusively with third rail sections except for AFK and RDG (unless they plan on relegating the latter to Thameslink)?

A reasonable amount of electrification policy reports by CILT, etc have the line as AC 25kv OHLE. This is due to the position of part of the line for the Electric Spine freight project. Though, the other lines are probably more sensible with 3rd rail.

 

[Bald Rick]

There’s no need to electrify these with third rail. Batteries are the answer.

 

[Kite159]

There’s no need to electrify these with third rail. Batteries are the answer.

The gaps are too long for the unproven battery technology

 

[yorksrob]

There is no ban - but there is a lot of mitigation work necessary to allow it within assorted legislations.

That mitigation work is costly - and all schemes - Ashford Hastings included - has to make a business case based on those costs.

Mitigations that effectively make extension impractical.

 

[Bald Rick]

The gaps are too long for the unproven battery technology

a) it‘s proven
b) the gaps aren‘t too long (WoE excepted), and can be filled easily.

 

[Northerngirl]

Hopefully as said above the new government will change there mind, surely the bakerloo extension will face the same challenge. I just can't understand how the ORR is so incapable of anything, if I was standing in a position to electrify myself on a 3rd rail, I'd also be standing in a position where I could get hit buy a train, no matter what power it uses, but unfortunately the people that were in power didn't seem to get that

 

[Verulamius]

a) it‘s proven
b) the gaps aren‘t too long (WoE excepted), and can be filled easily.

I thought I had read that battery for Uckfield had been rejected because there was not sufficient time to recharge?

Has this now changed with advances in technology?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Hopefully as said above the new government will change there mind, surely the bakerloo extension will face the same challenge. I just can't understand how the ORR is so incapable of anything, if I was standing in a position to electrify myself on a 3rd rail, I'd also be standing in a position where I could get hit buy a train, no matter what power it uses, but unfortunately the people that were in power didn't seem to get that

Not entirely true. Staff have been electrocuted on a blocked line when another movement has ‘bridged up’ an isolated section.

(Yes, I know that a short circuiting bar should have been used but, in real life, staff in a hurry… )

 

[Turtle]

I just have this feeling - my opinion only of course - that no matter how logical, we will not see much 750DC 3rd rail infill. The technology is just too old and the safety case way too weak.

If 750DC 3rd rail is old and dangerous, then, logically we should consider shutting down the current network and replace it with AC. Obviously this will not happen so why not go ahead with the infill. No need then for diesels, batteries, hydrogen(that one seems to have gone off the boil) bionic duckweed etc. Seriously though, how many unavoidable injuries are caused by DC and what could be the proportionate increase by DC infilling?

 

[PGAT]

I thought I had read that battery for Uckfield had been rejected because there was not sufficient time to recharge?

Has this now changed with advances in technology?

Probably not but I think its perfectly reasonable to expect technology to mature enough in the coming decades by the time the 171s need replacing

 

[Turtle]

Not entirely true. Staff have been electrocuted on a blocked line when another movement has ‘bridged up’ an isolated section.

(Yes, I know that a short circuiting bar should have been used but, in real life, staff in a hurry… )

Yes, but that's an avoidable incident, as you have stated. We cannot use carelessness, forgetfulness etc as an excuse.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Yes, but that's an avoidable incident, as you have stated. We cannot use carelessness, forgetfulness etc as an excuse.

It's just not like that. We use a combination of technical measures and legislation in the knowledge that carelessness and forgetfulness by human beings is inevitable.

Having live electrical conductors at lethal voltages either out of reach or insulated is a good start.

Any safety regulator has to apply (and, where necessary, enforce) safety legislation and standards. Somebody has to 'sign off'/permission new works as compliant.

The Health & Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and Electricity at Work legislation of 1989 came into force before the ORR existed or (rather later) gained its safety responsibilities from the H&SE.

I'm sure that some on this forum would like to dismiss these pieces of legislation as evil deeds by right wing governments designed to stymie third rail electrification but I don't share that view.

Further third rail electrification of main line network route has been dead in the water since 1989. A few schemes, notably Channel Tunnel related work on the Southern and on Merseyside to Chester and Ellesmere Port were already committed but that was it.

 

[yorksrob]

It's just not like that. We use a combination of technical measures and legislation in the knowledge that carelessness and forgetfulness by human beings is inevitable.

Having live electrical conductors at lethal voltages either out of reach or insulated is a good start.

Any safety regulator has to apply (and, where necessary, enforce) safety legislation and standards. Somebody has to 'sign off'/permission new works as compliant.

The Health & Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and Electricity at Work legislation of 1989 came into force before the ORR existed or (rather later) gained its safety responsibilities from the H&SE.

I'm sure that some on this forum would like to dismiss these pieces of legislation as evil deeds by right wing governments designed to stymie third rail electrification but I don't share that view.

Further third rail electrification of main line network route has been dead in the water since 1989. A few schemes, notably Channel Tunnel related work on the Southern and on Merseyside to Chester and Ellesmere Port were already committed but that was it.

The railway is by its nature a dangerous environment where inattention can result in death or injury. The 1989 act should have been drafted to enable the limited infill of the third rail gaps.

 

[JamesT]

The railway is by its nature a dangerous environment where inattention can result in death or injury. The 1989 act should have been drafted to enable the limited infill of the third rail gaps.

Other working environments can be inherently dangerous. Why should the railway get a special exemption? Do the people who work on and use the railway not deserve the same protections as everyone else?

 

[yorksrob]

Other working environments can be inherently dangerous. Why should the railway get a special exemption? Do the people who work on and use the railway not deserve the same protections as everyone else?

For the obvious reason that we're not ripping up the existing third rail.

If you believe in that as an argument, then you are presumably in favour of its immediate replacement.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

If, as stated in posts 10 & 13, the battery technology is proven and available, why is no-one demanding its implementation on one of these lines? Why don't we just experiment and judge the results? For example, how many train sets would need to be converted for the Marshlink line?

 

[Elecman]

Maybe they are awaiting the results of the GWR Fast Charge project to see how effectively that works for perhaps installing one or more sets of chargers midway to alleviate Battery Charge anxiety?

 

[Bald Rick]

I thought I had read that battery for Uckfield had been rejected because there was not sufficient time to recharge?

Has this now changed with advances in technology?

The technology was there a decade ago. It’s cheaper now.

Maybe they are awaiting the results of the GWR Fast Charge project to see how effectively that works for perhaps installing one or more sets of chargers midway to alleviate Battery Charge anxiety?

No need to wait for that. Battery trains are in service in this country, and in many other countries around the world. Range isnt an issue - fit a bigger battery!

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Moderator note: Split from

Headbolt Lane to Kirkby not electrified due to "safety concerns" ?

Probably also worth adding that since that section has long had a reputation for antisocial behaviour, the likelihood of a potentially fatal trespass incident would be above average.

www.railforums.co.uk

Is there any chance that electrifying the WEML, Marshlink, North Downs and Uckfield lines with third rail are possible under this policy, especially since they link exclusively with third rail sections except for AFK and RDG (unless they plan on relegating the latter to Thameslink)?

WEML?

 

[Bald Rick]

WEML?

I think our correspondent meant the West of England line.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Maybe they are awaiting the results of the GWR Fast Charge project to see how effectively that works for perhaps installing one or more sets of chargers midway to alleviate Battery Charge anxiety?

Good point. Incidentally, I was at West Ealing Station a few weeks ago and one of the experimental trains was in the bay platform. I asked a member of the team if the results so far were encouraging and he replied "very."

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I think our correspondent meant the West of England line.

I wondered that, but as the Great Western is partly electrified by OLE, surely you’d choose to extend on by OLE? Not sure why you’d ever want 3rd rail down through Taunton! Assume they may mean the secondary route via Honiton but that’s hardly Main Line!