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

[weeklycommuter]

... apart from the fact that further 3rd rail is unlikely to get approval under the ORR's current safety policy. Unless that changes, new 3rd rail is a dead duck.

So everyone keeps saying so I am surprised to read in this article in RAIL 1018 that Network Rail and South Western Railway have been working on this proposal for islands of third-rail electric power for the West of England line between Basingstoke and Exeter. Surely Network Rail and South Western Railway must know the Office of Rail and Road's latest thinking on extensions of third rail electrification. Has the ORR policy on this changed? If not why are Network Rail and South Western Railway working on this proposal?

 

[AM9]

So everyone keeps saying so I am surprised to read in this article in RAIL 1018 that Network Rail and South Western Railway have been working on this proposal for islands of third-rail electric power for the West of England line between Basingstoke and Exeter. Surely Network Rail and South Western Railway must know the Office of Rail and Road's latest thinking on extensions of third rail electrification. Has the ORR policy on this changed? If not why are Network Rail and South Western Railway working on this proposal?

Writing an article, working on a proposal etc., is not the same as the ORR approving the use of live conductors at shin level for tens, maybe 10 miles as part of a new installation.

 

[eldomtom2]

Writing an article, working on a proposal etc., is not the same as the ORR approving the use of live conductors at shin level for tens, maybe 10 miles as part of a new installation.

But presumably NR and SWR wouldn't be spending time on working on a proposal if they didn't think there was some chance of the ORR approving it?

 

[AM9]

But presumably NR and SWR wouldn't be spending time on working on a proposal if they didn't think there was some chance of the ORR approving it?

They've probably done just that before, and whilst it may interest some politicians along the route, the ORR is the ultimate arbiter.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

So everyone keeps saying so I am surprised to read in this article in RAIL 1018 that Network Rail and South Western Railway have been working on this proposal for islands of third-rail electric power for the West of England line between Basingstoke and Exeter. Surely Network Rail and South Western Railway must know the Office of Rail and Road's latest thinking on extensions of third rail electrification. Has the ORR policy on this changed? If not why are Network Rail and South Western Railway working on this proposal?

ORR may consent to a system where short sections are livened up as trains approach then discharge after passage but that needs a whole lot of electrical infrastructure and interface with the signalling system or i suppose it could be activated by treadles. The sensible solution would be tri mode with a battery vice diesel but needs to be 25kV islands optimised around where grid connections can be readily obtained.

 

[eldomtom2]

They've probably done just that before, and whilst it may interest some politicians along the route, the ORR is the ultimate arbiter.

I'm not disagreeing that the ORR is the ultimate arbiter. What I'm saying is that if NR etc. thought there was no chance of the proposal being approved then working on it would be a waste of time.

 

[AM9]

I'm not disagreeing that the ORR is the ultimate arbiter. What I'm saying is that if NR etc. thought there was no chance of the proposal being approved then working on it would be a waste of time.

I doubt whether this latest 'proposal' is the first and probably not the last speculative effort, but nothing has changed with the ORR and there's no real indication that it will.

 

[Belperpete]

ORR may consent to a system where short sections are livened up as trains approach then discharge after passage but that needs a whole lot of electrical infrastructure and interface with the signalling system or i suppose it could be activated by treadles. The sensible solution would be tri mode with a battery vice diesel but needs to be 25kV islands optimised around where grid connections can be readily obtained.

It could be done by detecting that there was something in electrical contact with the third rail. I have something in the back of my mind that some tramways with conduit pickup worked this way?

 

[WAO]

The PWI talk about work to reduce dc risk dwelt upon public risk in stations; plain line risk to staff and trespassers could hopefully be minimised, so that a general waiver of sorts to the safety regulations for bare conductors above touch voltage might be achieved.

This does not reduce the complexity, cost, energy inefficiency and low power potential (double is needed for charging when motoring) of the dc system. The Windsor lines power upgrade involved the conversion of largely every TSC into a substation!

I can't see any argument for dc outside the confines of the existing system(s).

WAO

 

[brad465]

It could be done by detecting that there was something in electrical contact with the third rail. I have something in the back of my mind that some tramways with conduit pickup worked this way?

The battery ground charging kit at West Ealing for the Greenford branch is only live when the train's charging contact kit is above the ground kit, so if a person came in contact with the ground kit at any other time there's no risk of electrocution. If it's possible to have a third rail section that works like this (and doesn't activate if other "conductors" make contact) that would be safer, particularly where it's installed in stations (the RAIL article cited this as being critical as accelerating out of stations is a key energy demand).

 

[AM9]

The battery ground charging kit at West Ealing for the Greenford branch is only live when the train's charging contact kit is above the ground kit, so if a person came in contact with the ground kit at any other time there's no risk of electrocution. If it's possible to have a third rail section that works like this (and doesn't activate if other "conductors" make contact) that would be safer, particularly where it's installed in stations (the RAIL article cited this as being critical as accelerating out of stations is a key energy demand).

If it can be done on the Greenford branch then it can be done anywhere. However, the Greenford branch uses MUs comprising two short card with a maximum 60mph speed. on a 2 1/2 mile long route with the end-to-end journey time around 10-12 minutes including 3 intermediate stops. It's charging power requirements are modest because of it's limited speed and size.
Now translate that from a cross between a tramway and a rural branch line into a proper railway with, say 4-car trains, with the now standard main-line top speed of 100mph and commensurate acceleration over distances of 25miles (Ashford to Ore) not to mention 125miles (Basingstoke to Exeter), and it would become very expensive to have every feed section with high speed switchgear and high reliability isolation facilities and what have you got? You would have the same high energy loss in the collection of power, a lot of additional switchgear to fail, safety fencing to protect the line from tresspassers, and dedicated EMU stock for the line(s). Of coure there would be a saving of modification or replacement of some life expired overbridges, but the actual electrification with all it's additional feeds and switchgear would probably be more than the full OLE system both in capital and maintenance cost throughout it's life.

 

[zwk500]

I'm not disagreeing that the ORR is the ultimate arbiter. What I'm saying is that if NR etc. thought there was no chance of the proposal being approved then working on it would be a waste of time.

NR frequently are required to look at things that are a total waste of time, because a politician gets a bee in their bonnet about a constituency issue and demands NR disprove the hypothesis.

The battery ground charging kit at West Ealing for the Greenford branch is only live when the train's charging contact kit is above the ground kit, so if a person came in contact with the ground kit at any other time there's no risk of electrocution. If it's possible to have a third rail section that works like this (and doesn't activate if other "conductors" make contact) that would be safer, particularly where it's installed in stations (the RAIL article cited this as being critical as accelerating out of stations is a key energy demand).

As has been discussed before, trying to scale up the Tramway APS system (or anything like it) to be suitable for a mainline railway increases maintenance costs dramatically.

If you're going for the Greenford system, then it's just a Battery EMU with several charging stations. I happen to think that Marshlink, Uckfield and North Downs all fit well for this system, with moderate extension of 3rd rail to get the juice rail 'around the corner' so to speak.
For the Basingstoke-Exeter line, My strategy would be to put Southampton/Eastleigh-Romsey-Salisbury-Westbury-Bath-Bristol as OLE, and then extend the OLE from Worting Jn to Yeovil Jn. When OLE on the GWML gets to Exeter, wire as far along the line from that end as you can without major reconstruction/substation work, and use a dual-voltage Battery EMU to run the Waterloo-Exeter services.

 

[brad465]

If you're going for the Greenford system, then it's just a Battery EMU with several charging stations. I happen to think that Marshlink, Uckfield and North Downs all fit well for this system, with moderate extension of 3rd rail to get the juice rail 'around the corner' so to speak.
For the Basingstoke-Exeter line, My strategy would be to put Southampton/Eastleigh-Romsey-Salisbury-Westbury-Bath-Bristol as OLE, and then extend the OLE from Worting Jn to Yeovil Jn. When OLE on the GWML gets to Exeter, wire as far along the line from that end as you can without major reconstruction/substation work, and use a dual-voltage Battery EMU to run the Waterloo-Exeter services.

Depending on battery range, the North Downs line probably doesn't need any charging stations beyond the existing third rail extent for a dual-voltage battery to run, given Gatwick-Redhill and Reading-Wokingham at each end are electrified, with Guildford and a stretch either side acting as a reasonable mid-section "booster". If the Marshlink saw no increase in double track length, then charging points could be built at Rye, both as a mid-point boost and somewhere a train is likely to sit for at least a few mins anyway. Uckfield would probably be the most challenging and would definitely warrant a charge point at Uckfield itself, plus one or more at stations like Ashurst and/or Crowborough.

I certainly would support OHLE along the WoE if ever announced and that strategy is certainly an ambitious one. I'd add doubling most if not all of the WoE from Salisbury-Yeovil as part of electrification, then extend all Salisbury terminators to Yeovil. I don't see wires all the way to Exeter via Westbury anytime soon however, as nice as this would be (you'd also want to add Bristol-Cogload Jct into that to infill a notable gap that features 100mph+ running).

 

[Meerkat]

The battery ground charging kit at West Ealing for the Greenford branch is only live when the train's charging contact kit is above the ground kit, so if a person came in contact with the ground kit at any other time there's no risk of electrocution. If it's possible to have a third rail section that works like this (and doesn't activate if other "conductors" make contact) that would be safer, particularly where it's installed in stations (the RAIL article cited this as being critical as accelerating out of stations is a key energy demand).

Can conductor rail have insulated joints (longer than a shoe) or would this system have the shoes clattering on and off the 3rd rail constantly, at line speed?
Also moving away from its ’always live’ would add risks , particularly for trespassers/kids.

 

[zwk500]

Can conductor rail have insulated joints (longer than a shoe) or would this system have the shoes clattering on and off the 3rd rail constantly, at line speed?

I don't see any technical reason why not, however AIUI the shoes on a unit are not isolated from each other, so you'd need the insulated joints to be quite long to avoid bridging the sections not yet under the train.

Also moving away from its ’always live’ would add risks , particularly for trespassers/kids.

I don't see how it adds risk to have less live rail, although I also don't see that it particularly reduces risk.

 

[Meerkat]

I don't see any technical reason why not, however AIUI the shoes on a unit are not isolated from each other, so you'd need the insulated joints to be quite long to avoid bridging the sections not yet under the train.

I don't see how it adds risk to have less live rail, although I also don't see that it particularly reduces risk.

So you would need 240m gaps between third rail bits……these ‘islands’ are going to be pretty big!
I was thinking in terms of the risk of staff/trespassers/kids assuming the power was off when it could become live at any moment.

 

[zwk500]

So you would need 240m gaps between third rail bits……these ‘islands’ are going to be pretty big!

Yes. And things will be gapping all over the place. Or you have extremely short sections and therefore a rather large amount of switchgear.

I was thinking in terms of the risk of staff/trespassers/kids assuming the power was off when it could become live at any moment.

staff will be told to assume it's always live, and tresspassers/kids won't care if they're ignoring the warnings today.

 

[Meerkat]

tresspassers/kids won't care if they're ignoring the warnings today.

“I’ve touched it loads of times and nothing happens”
Then gets spread around by Chinese whispers*/social media.
Would make it nice and easy to place a trolley on the 3rd rail then retire a safe distance and wait……

*is chinese whispers allowed these days - I can’t think of an alternative.

 

[Mikey C]

Having live rail which may or may not be live could cause issues similar to Smart Motorways, when they have hard shoulders that sometimes are running lanes.

It just takes one driver to not realise that the inside lane is a hard shoulder for a potential disaster, ditto people getting casual with live rails because the assume they are always off.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Having live rail which may or may not be live could cause issues similar to Smart Motorways, when they have hard shoulders that sometimes are running lanes.

It just takes one driver to not realise that the inside lane is a hard shoulder for a potential disaster, ditto people getting casual with live rails because the assume they are always off.

Good analogy and as ever the law of untended outcomes always has a part to play

 

[yorksrob]

Having live rail which may or may not be live could cause issues similar to Smart Motorways, when they have hard shoulders that sometimes are running lanes.

It just takes one driver to not realise that the inside lane is a hard shoulder for a potential disaster, ditto people getting casual with live rails because the assume they are always off.

Easier to just have a traditional live rail which is always assumed live.

 

[AM9]

Easier to just have a traditional live rail which is always assumed live.

So there is the reason for refusing any new 3rd rail projects, - it just won't be sanctioned by the ORR.

 

[AM9]

Interesting to see that Network Rail is biting the bullet on the previously 'impossible' bits of the MML electrification. Recent posts in the thread on that subject mention the surveys that has have been undertaken of Nottingham Station bridge and may have been done at Leicester. Of course the imperative is much greater on an inter-city line like the MML, but whatever techniques are deployed there will then be added to the toolkit for dealing with clearance difficulties. Those tools might well reduce the consequential capital cost of OLE on many of the existing 3rd rail areas which would bring prospects of benefits of lower running costs, higher train performance and of course less unacceptable safety issues.

 

[Chrisgr31]

When does nice talk about doing something with the Uckfield line move to having to do something as the Class 171 fleet need replacing? They were built in 2003 I believe so are 21 years old. There are, I think, 24 cars and each car is 23m long.

A peak service last week saw a 9 car train operating but they usually operate as 8 cars in the peak and 2 or 3 off peak.

There is an hourly service currently although there is an additional half hour peak service in the morning. There is no equivalent in the evening. The peak hour services are 8 carriages long and generally full and standing between Oxted and London Bridge (Tuesdays to Thursdays). There is potential for more demand given a more reliable service.

A new sub station is being built by National Grid near Uckfield https://www.nationalgrid.com/electricity-transmission/network-and-infrastructure/little-horsted - no idea if this helps address the suggested power shortages for 3rd rail or battery charging at Uckfield.

Any battery train needs the ability to sit at Crowborough or Ashurst for a couple of hours without losing sufficient charge to get to a charging point!

It seems clear that the crunch will come when the 171s need replacing and battery is clearly cheaper than electrification. So how long? 10 or 20 years?

 

[yorksrob]

When does nice talk about doing something with the Uckfield line move to having to do something as the Class 171 fleet need replacing? They were built in 2003 I believe so are 21 years old. There are, I think, 24 cars and each car is 23m long.

A peak service last week saw a 9 car train operating but they usually operate as 8 cars in the peak and 2 or 3 off peak.

There is an hourly service currently although there is an additional half hour peak service in the morning. There is no equivalent in the evening. The peak hour services are 8 carriages long and generally full and standing between Oxted and London Bridge (Tuesdays to Thursdays). There is potential for more demand given a more reliable service.

A new sub station is being built by National Grid near Uckfield https://www.nationalgrid.com/electricity-transmission/network-and-infrastructure/little-horsted - no idea if this helps address the suggested power shortages for 3rd rail or battery charging at Uckfield.

Any battery train needs the ability to sit at Crowborough or Ashurst for a couple of hours without losing sufficient charge to get to a charging point!

It seems clear that the crunch will come when the 171s need replacing and battery is clearly cheaper than electrification. So how long? 10 or 20 years?

The thumpers almost made it to fifty !

 

[Harpo]

So there is the reason for refusing any new 3rd rail projects, - it just won't be sanctioned by the ORR.

October’s Modern Railways poked the ORR bear (Safety regulation - time for a reset) and quoted, amongst other examples, the need to carry batteries because of the missing 1.3 rail kms of conductor rail at Headbolt Lane.

November’s Modern Railway has the bear’s very tetchy response on its letters pages.

 

[Turtle]

October’s Modern Railways poked the ORR bear (Safety regulation - time for a reset) and quoted, amongst other examples, the need to carry batteries because of the missing 1.3 rail kms of conductor rail at Headbolt Lane.

November’s Modern Railway has the bear’s very tetchy response on its letters pages.

I read that very sensible article and agree that the so called "safety" aspect should be ignored. As I've mentioned before, if we follow the "safety" logic then the entire third rail system should be closed down while we discuss batteries, bimode, hydrogen etc etc.

 

[Chrisgr31]

The thumpers almost made it to fifty !

It’s strange how the Hastings Diesel is now much loved. I cant recall much love for them 30 years ago, when it was a lottery as to whether it would actually make the distance!

 

[yorksrob]

October’s Modern Railways poked the ORR bear (Safety regulation - time for a reset) and quoted, amongst other examples, the need to carry batteries because of the missing 1.3 rail kms of conductor rail at Headbolt Lane.

November’s Modern Railway has the bear’s very tetchy response on its letters pages.

It certainly doesn't address any of the points raised about third rail electrification.

It’s strange how the Hastings Diesel is now much loved. I cant recall much love for them 30 years ago, when it was a lottery as to whether it would actually make the distance!

I loved the thumpers thirty years ago - it certainly felt more niche back then, but then we didn't have the t'interweb.

I must say, the ones on the Marshlink usually made it the full journey, from my experience !

 

[Mikey C]

It’s strange how the Hastings Diesel is now much loved. I cant recall much love for them 30 years ago, when it was a lottery as to whether it would actually make the distance!

It's the difference between travelling with your enthusiast hat on, and travelling because you need to be somewhere!