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

[I'm here now]

There’s three articles on battery trains. One on the Hitachi trial under a TPE 802, one on Siemens‘ proposal for discontinuous electrification (both by Roger Ford), and one by Walmsley. All are worth a read, and I recommend buying the magazine (if only in the hope that the editor might buy me a pint that I think he owes me )

I won‘t spoil the read for those who have yet to see a copy. But very briefly, the two articles by Roger Ford both set out the facts about the trial (Hitachi) and proposal (Siemens). He does some rough calculations and develops numbers for battery capacity and thus range that are broadly the same as those I have been using / peddling (depending on your point of view) in this thread and many previous threads on the subject for what feels like almost a decade. Essentially, a battery train with an 80-100km ‘off juice’ range is entirely feasible. Which is just as well, as there are some in service now with many more on order (in Europe).

Ian Walmsley’s article needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, because it is written from the perspective of a rolling stock engineer. He does, helpfully, provide the cost of the battery on Alstom’s BEMUs being built for Ireland (spoiler - it’s about the same as 60 metres of OLE electrification, although he doesn‘t mention that). He also repeats his view that battery trains perform less well than straight EMUs - I dont understand why he thinks that. A BEMU can perform just as well as an EMU, it just comes down to the specification of the power rating of the battery. The traction motors are agnostic to the source of the electrons.

Finally, the articles mention the issue of current / power limitations for battery charging on the move from existing OLE or 3rd rail. Again, I don’t see what the issue is; trains will be limited to existing max current draw, and power modelling will be used on the infrastructure side to see where there are shortfalls in power capacity given the higher number of trains drawing higher power for longer. But, and getting us back on topic, that almost certainly won’t be an issue at Ashford, Ore - Eastbourne, Reading - Wokingham, Ash - Shalford, or Reigate - Gatwick. It might be an issue Hurst Green - South Croydon, but even then I’m doubtful.





Eh? Does iron ore just miraculously take itself out of the ground and present itself at the steelworks?




Standard 1.8m Pallisade fencing, installed in railway conditions, will cost on average about £200k per route km.

I really don’t know why you think 3rd rail would be cheaper in the long term on the routes in this thread subject, when its not even cheaper to start with. And also not clear what grade separation has to do with it.

Iron can be recycled though - in a more proven manner than Lithium. I wasn’t necessarily suggesting making it out of thin air was a viable route.

On the second point, a PFI deal might be cheaper to start with, ending up more expensive in the long term. While different, investing in a more expensive infrastructure at the start would in my mind merit more rewards. 3rd rail, while having its inefficiencies, is a more proven technology than batteries.
The fencing would also protect against trespass anyway, so might as well be done.

 

[Trainbike46]

Iron can be recycled though - in a more proven manner than Lithium. I wasn’t necessarily suggesting making it out of thin air was a viable route.

Lithium batttery recycling facilities exist - the main challenges for lithium battery recycling are collection (many old phones, laptops etc. are not collected currently, but instead lie in people's drawers for a decade or two) and that many car batteries are lasting longer than expected, which means there's less batteries available to recycle, but it also means that batteries are being used for longer which is more sustainable.

The railway doesn't really have to worry about either - no longer usable batteries from the railway will not face the collection challenge, and if the batteries outlast expectations on the railway that will only be a good thing.

 

[nw1]

What are the significant benefits of an all electric only fleet compared to having a small dedicated battery fleet? It’s peanuts.

Presumably one could use the same stock everywhere, which increases flexibility, rather than having a small microfleet which would require separate maintenance.

For avoidance of doubt I wouldn't advocate extensive electrification of long sections (e.g. Basingstoke to Exeter) because bi-mode or even diesel clearly would make more sense here, but I'd have thought for small gaps, quick third-rail extensions would make sense. It worked before (East Grinstead, Hastings) so why not now?

Not saying do it now, but if and when Southern (or future equivalent) have funds to expand their fleet with new EMUs to effectively replace the lost 455s and 313s, that would be the sensible time to do it.

 

[AM9]

In terms of safety one argument is that you're arguably not going to be making the network significantly more unsafe by extending third-rail from Hurst Green to Uckfield or Ore to Ashford. If we think in terms of percentages, the percentage increase in total mileage of the third-rail network is tiny as a result of said extensions - yet the benefits (of not requiring dedicated stock for the lines, and indeed potentially not requiring Southern to have a diesel depot at all) are significant.

"Not significantly more unsafe" is the likely to be unacceptable in the eyes of those charged with approving any scheme, (see @Bald Rick 's comment in post #270 above "In law, relative safety matters."

Also, it's been said here before, part of the safety case is that introducing a new electrified line with a less that optimum safety provision not only involves the additional risk of that chosen method, but also the problem of a previously safer unelectrified route having public habits incompatible with live conductors at ground level.

 

[SynthD]

I'd have thought for small gaps, quick third-rail extensions would make sense. It worked before (East Grinstead, Hastings) so why not now?

East Grinstead (1987) and Hastings (1986) didn't have the current law explained in this thread.

 

[fandroid]

I don't know if it's been mentioned previously, but on some routes there could be power supply issues on the current routes that the diesels also run over as part of their overall service. Could the SWML power supplies between Waterloo and Worting Junction also handle EMUs heading to and from Salisbury? I suspect a similar question arises for Uckfield services and North Downs Line trains from Redhill to Gatwick and Reading to Wokingham. A related problem applies for battery emus. Is there enough excess supply capacity on the existing 3rd rail parts of these routes to recharge the batteries while in motion, as well as powering the trains?

The costs of upgrading existing power supplies has to be taken into account when deciding whether either of these choices is viable. They might be, but only at the cost of downgrading the service level to the public by eliminating through services or including extended stops for battery recharge

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't know if it's been mentioned previously, but on some routes there could be power supply issues on the current routes that the diesels also run over as part of their overall service. Could the SWML power supplies between Waterloo and Worting Junction also handle EMUs heading to and from Salisbury? I suspect a similar question arises for Uckfield services and North Downs Line trains from Redhill to Gatwick and Reading to Wokingham. A related problem applies for battery emus. Is there enough excess supply capacity on the existing 3rd rail parts of these routes to recharge the batteries while in motion, as well as powering the trains?

The costs of upgrading existing power supplies has to be taken into account when deciding whether either of these choices is viable. They might be, but only at the cost of downgrading the service level to the public by eliminating through services or including extended stops for battery recharge

Thats an entirely correct observation.

The ‘but’ is that if the power supplies are insuficient for BEMUs, they will almost certainly be insufficient for EMUs too, in aggregate. However, it is likely that in many cases (but by no means all) that there is spare power capacity for BEMUs.

Would you take the same view of a similar infill project in OLE territory ?

If the route characteristics were the same, yes.

 

[D7666]

Ian Walmsley’s article needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, because it is written from the perspective of a rolling stock engineer. He does, helpfully, provide the cost of the battery on Alstom’s BEMUs being built for Ireland (spoiler - it’s about the same as 60 metres of OLE electrification, although he doesn‘t mention that). He also repeats his view that battery trains perform less well than straight EMUs - I dont understand why he thinks that. A BEMU can perform just as well as an EMU, it just comes down to the specification of the power rating of the battery. The traction motors are agnostic to the source of the electrons.

In the light of /this/ thread here, apart from that one fact about an actual battery cost, that item does not contribute anything useful and as you say repeats again his performance view, and, even worse, ends the item with a rant which is unworthy of a journal like MR (except but in the blood and custard section).

The trouble is, a lot of people will be taken in my items like that appearing in respected publications of that level.

 

[WAO]

In law, relative safety matters.

Relative to what? A red flag and 4mph?
Would an OLE equipped route be relatively less safe than a Diesel operated route?
Would an aircraft under that consideration ever be allowed above taxiing speed?
Is a train battery fire risk relatively less safe?

Still, I like your BEMU's - bring 'em on!

WAO

 

[Bald Rick]

Relative to what?

Relative to what is reasonably practical.

Someone wants electric trains between Reading and Gatwick, for all the obvious benefits.

Option 1: put down over 100km of bare conductors at 750v DC, and buy some trains that can use it
Option 2: buy battery trains.

Option 2 is clearly safer than option 1, and some intelligent people with safety management models can show you by how much.

If the whole life cost of option 2 is within ‘reasonable bounds’ of option 1, then it is reasonably practical. The ORR has produced guidance of what is reasonable, using values of fatalities / injuries prevented.

If the whole life cost of Option 2 is less than option 1, its going to be pretty difficult to explain whay you want to spend more money on something less safe for the same output (electric trains). In my opinion, having done some thiking about it, the cost of battery trains on the North Downs will be substantially lower than electrification.

 

[Energy]

In my opinion, having done some thiking about it, the cost of battery trains on the North Downs will be substantially lower than electrification.

IIRC battery 387s isn't difficult, but you'd lose a traction pack so the units could only do 100mph. Of course GWR can look at a new fleet of 110mph, battery possible EMUs.

 

[Bald Rick]

IIRC battery 387s isn't difficult, but you'd lose a traction pack so the units could only do 100mph. Of course GWR can look at a new fleet of 110mph, battery possible EMUs.

Its reasonable to assume battery trains will be new builds.

 

[eldomtom2]

Weight matters, obviously, but batteries are really not that heavy in the context of a train. Besides, we are now at the point where acceleration on electric trains is limited by passenger comfort.

Please help me to understand where you feel battery units are superior to overhead electrification or third rail, and where you feel they are inferior. Do you think, for instance, that say the Brighton Main Line could be operated entirely by battery units, thus removing the safety risk of the third rail? If not, why not? What about overhead electrification? Does it have greater advantages over batteries than third rail? Should we be continuing to install overhead electrification instead of using battery units? If so, why? What are the advantages that overhead electrification provides?

 

[Energy]

Should we be continuing to install overhead electrification instead of using battery units? If so, why? What are the advantages that overhead electrification provides?

It isn't a single factor but a combination of speed, frequency, freight, difficulty, and islands.

Speed
The speed for most electric cars where they are most efficient is around 55 mph, it is unlikely to be much different for trains. Faster trains take more energy to get to the higher speed and maintain said speed, so the range will be shorter than when doing ~60mph. As such bigger batteries and more time to recharge is going to be required.

Frequency
Pretty simple, the more trains that use the OHLE the easier it is to justify the costs of fitting all those trains with batteries. E.g the Crossrail tunnels and Marshlink are both about 26 miles but the former has a lot more trains running.

Freight
A multiple unit can fit batteries all over the train while a freight train can currently only fit them in the loco. As such the range is limited though still useful for shunting.

...and freight trains use a lot of power.

Difficulty
A route with minimal bridge/tunnel works required like East West Rail will be fairly cheap to electrify.

Islands
Where the neighboring lines are all electrified so a battery solution would leave a single digit number of units required. The Abbey Line is an obvious example, being short with very simple signaling and no tunnels it is easy to electrify.

Following this a good line to electrify is Oxford; it is 90mph throughout with a large number of trains using it, freight trains to Southampton use it and there are no tunnels.

Under the same criteria, Marshlink comes up badly; it is only 60mph with some sections being slower, only 1tph (each way) uses it, some freight runs there but 26 miles is within probable battery range for freight, there is a tunnel at Ore and the many farm crossings could be a problem for third rail.

 

[Bald Rick]

Please help me to understand where you feel battery units are superior to overhead electrification or third rail, and where you feel they are inferior. Do you think, for instance, that say the Brighton Main Line could be operated entirely by battery units, thus removing the safety risk of the third rail? If not, why not? What about overhead electrification? Does it have greater advantages over batteries than third rail? Should we be continuing to install overhead electrification instead of using battery units? If so, why? What are the advantages that overhead electrification provides?

In simple terms, and given what we already have electrified, and assuming battery technology develops at @ rather slower pace for the next 20 years compared to the last 20:

New, continuous AC electrification will be suitable on lines with decent stretches of high speed (100mph+) and/or frequent services (at least 4tph, possibly more). The power requirement is high, and relatively constant.

Discontinuous AC electrification will suit everywhere else thats not electrified, with battery trains. This is simply because the cost of electrification, particualrly the enabling costs, are going to be much greater than the costs of batteries.

I can see a time in the future where, when every train has traction batteries that can deal with short gaps (for emergency back up to prevent stranded trains, as per Southeastern’s tender) that some sections of line that have higher levels of safety risk due to the electrification, or performance risk, or high maintenace cost, has the electrification removed. For example the Severn Tunnel (maintenance and performance), sections of the Fen Line (maintenance and performance), particularly busy junction areas with high incidences of trespass (Croydon area, Clapham). But that is decades away at least.


My opinion, obviously.

 

[WAO]

Relative to what is reasonably practical.

Someone wants electric trains between Reading and Gatwick, for all the obvious benefits.

Option 1: put down over 100km of bare conductors at 750v DC, and buy some trains that can use it
Option 2: buy battery trains.

Option 2 is clearly safer than option 1, and some intelligent people with safety management models can show you by how much.

If the whole life cost of option 2 is within ‘reasonable bounds’ of option 1, then it is reasonably practical. The ORR has produced guidance of what is reasonable, using values of fatalities / injuries prevented.

If the whole life cost of Option 2 is less than option 1, its going to be pretty difficult to explain whay you want to spend more money on something less safe for the same output (electric trains). In my opinion, having done some thiking about it, the cost of battery trains on the North Downs will be substantially lower than electrification.

The problem with these options is that they mix a financial appraisal with a safety analysis. At present the safety analysis is effectively a blanket No (when ALARP or SFAIRP principles are proportional, not binary) so the financial analysis is pointless. The problem is the improper application of the 1989 electrical safety rules to railways, which were previously exempt. (Those impressed by IET wiring regulations should ask themselves why there have been 18 editions, some of which actually introduced fire risks, such as plastic cased consumer units.)

One could introduce safety into the financial appraisal by introducing the Value of Casualty Prevented concept, as with air and road schemes. This would penalise a dc scheme for the cost of a casualty, times its probability over the life of the investment, discounted to present value. In an infill case, the casualty cost would only be the marginal value as the rest of the existing dc route risk is unchanged.

While dc would introduce more risk than ac (which in turn has a higher risk that non-electrification, it does seem unlikely that the dc accident rate is sufficient to swing a case, though I am open to being convinced. The highest risk on the railway is that of trespassers/suicides, of which there are c250 each year.

WAO

 

[Energy]

The problem with these options is that they mix a financial appraisal with a safety analysis. At present the safety analysis is effectively a blanket No (when ALARP or SFAIRP principles are proportional, not binary) so the financial analysis is pointless.

It isn't a blanket no, it's been allowed since 1988 like the Jubilee Line Extension and the new Merseyrail depot. However any new installation will need to sufficiently keep untrained people out, typically this would be high enough fencing either side.

Any proposal put to appraisal will include the cost of safety measures. Cost isn't the only consideration but a scheme, like Marshlink, which would cost significantly more than battery units is going to be a tough sell.

The problem is the improper application of the 1989 electrical safety rules to railways, which were previously exempt.

Without stating precident, why should the railways be exempt? If the railways can be exempt there will be other industries who'd quite like to ignore the rules as well.

(Those impressed by IET wiring regulations should ask themselves why there have been 18 editions, some of which actually introduced fire risks, such as plastic cased consumer units.)

Yes, wiring is superceded and old installations do have grandfather rights but if a new circuit is added its needs to follow the current regs even if the rest of existing installation doesn't.

Offtopic but I don't think the IET is harsh enough, I'd have banned dual RCD boards and ring circuits in new installations years ago.

One could introduce safety into the financial appraisal by introducing the Value of Casualty Prevented concept, as with air and road schemes. This would penalise a dc scheme for the cost of a casualty, times its probability over the life of the investment, discounted to present value. In an infill case, the casualty cost would only be the marginal value as the rest of the existing dc route risk is unchanged.

While not a bad idea I fail to see how this will change the status on Marshlink and Uckfield. Both lines are only 1tph and would be substantially cheaper with batteries.

 

[Bald Rick]

The problem with these options is that they mix a financial appraisal with a safety analysis. At present the safety analysis is effectively a blanket No (when ALARP or SFAIRP principles are proportional, not binary) so the financial analysis is pointless.

This is not the case.
I’m clearly not getting through.

I’ll put it in simple terms. For these lines, battery trains are cheaper than electrification. So the safety argument is, actually, irrelevant - unless for some reason you woould want to put down more third rail, at which point you couldnt show the risk was ALARP, as there is a reaosnable alternative (batteries) that is safer and cheaper.

 

[WAO]

I'm not getting through either!

I generally agree with your post #285

You assume that the argument is on the side of batteries. If that is so (and I do believe you for quiet routes) then you are quite right, the extra safety risk is only that of battery use.

If the traffic is intensive and an argument for marginal dc electrification against batteries could perhaps be made, then the safety cost is relevant and dc cannot be excluded as it is widely used elsewhere with sufficient safety so as not to require further mitigation or removal.

Let the arithmetic speak.

WAO

 

[Energy]

If the traffic is intensive and an argument for marginal dc electrification against batteries could perhaps be made, then the safety cost is relevant and dc cannot be excluded as it is widely used elsewhere with sufficient safety so as not to require further mitigation or removal.

3rd rail isn't excluded, and the cost used to access 3rd rail includes the cost of fencing and whatnot to bring it to the required safety standard.

Again 3rd rail installation has happened, like the Jubilee Line Extension and new Merseyrail depot. The latter has sufficient fencing and the former has sufficient fencing, is bordered by another railway or is in a tunnel.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm not getting through either!

I generally agree with your post #285

You assume that the argument is on the side of batteries. If that is so (and I do believe you for quiet routes) then you are quite right, the extra safety risk is only that of battery use.

If the traffic is intensive and an argument for marginal dc electrification against batteries could perhaps be made, then the safety cost is relevant and dc cannot be excluded as it is widely used elsewhere with sufficient safety so as not to require further mitigation or removal.

Let the arithmetic speak.

WAO

That’s right.

The safety cost is assessed. Perhaps indidnt make that clear.


But the point is that there isnt anywhere left on the national network with sufficiently intensive traffic that will justify 3rd rail electrification comapred to battery trains. But note that it has done, several times, in the last 3 decades where the cost of providing alternatives to ground level exposed conductors have been shown to be not reasonably practical.

 

[yorksrob]

That’s right.

The safety cost is assessed. Perhaps indidnt make that clear.


But the point is that there isnt anywhere left on the national network with sufficiently intensive traffic that will justify 3rd rail electrification comapred to battery trains. But note that it has done, several times, in the last 3 decades where the cost of providing alternatives to ground level exposed conductors have been shown to be not reasonably practical.

Interesting that during those last three decades, nothing has been done for the southern third rail networks

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting that during those last three decades, nothing has been done for the southern third rail networks

Except it has.

 

[Energy]

Interesting that during those last three decades, nothing has been done for the southern third rail networks

The Desiros and Electrostars brought in some power upgrades.

 

[WAO]

That’s right.

The safety cost is assessed. Perhaps indidnt make that clear.


But the point is that there isnt anywhere left on the national network with sufficiently intensive traffic that will justify 3rd rail electrification comapred to battery trains. But note that it has done, several times, in the last 3 decades where the cost of providing alternatives to ground level exposed conductors have been shown to be not reasonably practical.

My only reservation is with the North Downs Line, the busiest of the Diesel islands. The 769 failure was a particular blow.

The station entries and exits between Reading and Guildford are very healthy and suggest that the is some suppression of demand because of lack of capacity. East of Guildford this is less so as the area is more rural.

Indeed, a housing development in the area proposed a dedicated parallel bus link to Reading via a new Kennetmouth bridge to the horror of local residents.

Adding third rail to the gap to Guildford would allow 4 or 8 car trains in this busy, growing, Silicon Valley corridor. The business case would be favoured as 12 miles of new third rail would allow 25 miles of dc operation. A split at Guildford would reduce Gatwick connections but the extra third rail would facilitate through BEMU use as there would be more charging time.

I agree there should be proper fencing, more protection of the live rail and isolations for staff access but this route needs and deserves electrification, period.

WAO

 

[Stephen42]

My only reservation is with the North Downs Line, the busiest of the Diesel islands. The 769 failure was a particular blow.

The station entries and exits between Reading and Guildford are very healthy and suggest that the is some suppression of demand because of lack of capacity. East of Guildford this is less so as the area is more rural.

Indeed, a housing development in the area proposed a dedicated parallel bus link to Reading via a new Kennetmouth bridge to the horror of local residents.

Adding third rail to the gap to Guildford would allow 4 or 8 car trains in this busy, growing, Silicon Valley corridor. The business case would be favoured as 12 miles of new third rail would allow 25 miles of dc operation. A split at Guildford would reduce Gatwick connections but the extra third rail would facilitate through BEMU use as there would be more charging time.

I agree there should be proper fencing, more protection of the live rail and isolations for staff access but this route needs and deserves electrification, period.

WAO

Any business case should look at the most cost effective way of achieving the aims. DC operation by itself does not give strong benefits to a business case. If BEMUs can run without further electrification on the route, then spending millions to electrify more only makes sense if it significantly reduces battery costs to be worth the extra expense. It's far from clear that this is the case, the majority of the time is spent on electrified sections already.

 

[Minstral25]

My only reservation is with the North Downs Line, the busiest of the Diesel islands. The 769 failure was a particular blow.

The station entries and exits between Reading and Guildford are very healthy and suggest that the is some suppression of demand because of lack of capacity. East of Guildford this is less so as the area is more rural.

Indeed, a housing development in the area proposed a dedicated parallel bus link to Reading via a new Kennetmouth bridge to the horror of local residents.

Adding third rail to the gap to Guildford would allow 4 or 8 car trains in this busy, growing, Silicon Valley corridor. The business case would be favoured as 12 miles of new third rail would allow 25 miles of dc operation. A split at Guildford would reduce Gatwick connections but the extra third rail would facilitate through BEMU use as there would be more charging time.

I agree there should be proper fencing, more protection of the live rail and isolations for staff access but this route needs and deserves electrification, period.

WAO

As someone who uses Guildford to Reigate/Redhill regularly - they are not as full as the Reading section but I have had to stand on many occasions so they are more full than you suggest. Dorking and Reigate are both large towns with potential too.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Ian Walmsley’s article needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, because it is written from the perspective of a rolling stock engineer. He does, helpfully, provide the cost of the battery on Alstom’s BEMUs being built for Ireland (spoiler - it’s about the same as 60 metres of OLE electrification, although he doesn‘t mention that). He also repeats his view that battery trains perform less well than straight EMUs - I dont understand why he thinks that. A BEMU can perform just as well as an EMU, it just comes down to the specification of the power rating of the battery. The traction motors are agnostic to the source of the electrons.

Yes they are but when accelerating you over cook the motors by 10-15% of their nominal rating so to maximise range you may want to run the train in "eco" mode to maximise battery range. Yes you could put a bigger battery in but that just more weight to cart around.

Finally, the articles mention the issue of current / power limitations for battery charging on the move from existing OLE or 3rd rail. Again, I don’t see what the issue is; trains will be limited to existing max current draw, and power modelling will be used on the infrastructure side to see where there are shortfalls in power capacity given the higher number of trains drawing higher power for longer. But, and getting us back on topic, that almost certainly won’t be an issue at Ashford, Ore - Eastbourne, Reading - Wokingham, Ash - Shalford, or Reigate - Gatwick. It might be an issue Hurst Green - South Croydon, but even then I’m doubtful.

That section was reinforced to allow 12 car 377/700 operation so BEMU isn't going to tax it.

My only reservation is with the North Downs Line, the busiest of the Diesel islands. The 769 failure was a particular blow.

The station entries and exits between Reading and Guildford are very healthy and suggest that the is some suppression of demand because of lack of capacity. East of Guildford this is less so as the area is more rural.

Indeed, a housing development in the area proposed a dedicated parallel bus link to Reading via a new Kennetmouth bridge to the horror of local residents.

Adding third rail to the gap to Guildford would allow 4 or 8 car trains in this busy, growing, Silicon Valley corridor. The business case would be favoured as 12 miles of new third rail would allow 25 miles of dc operation. A split at Guildford would reduce Gatwick connections but the extra third rail would facilitate through BEMU use as there would be more charging time.

BEMUs can run in multiple so strengthening trains wouldn't be an issue and 12miles is well within battery range. Perhaps we can get back to local services run to/from Guildford and let the Gatwick return to the faster journey they had in the past.

I agree there should be proper fencing, more protection of the live rail and isolations for staff access but this route needs and deserves electrification, period.

WAO

Its not going to be electrified with third rail that boat sailed along time ago. On existing 3rs rail areas staff safety has largely been addressed by red zone working ban and the use of lineside short circuiting device to secure isolations safely now rather than using straps.

 

[Bald Rick]

Adding third rail to the gap to Guildford would allow 4 or 8 car trains in this busy, growing, Silicon Valley corridor. The business case would be favoured as 12 miles of new third rail would allow 25 miles of dc operation.

An 8 car battery train is very doable….

Less doable is 8 car platfroms all along the North Downs.

 

[PGAT]

An 8 car battery train is very doable….

Less doable is 8 car platfroms all along the North Downs.

Selective door opening is a thing