Fill in 3rd rail?

[whole diary]

[Noggin]

I always thought that the RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) failed to classify the route properly as it is an international gateway (their words) and should have therefore had tier 1 priority for electrification. Perhaps Gatwick Express wanted GW^▸ (Great Western) originating customers for itself.

It also struck me that given dual voltage operation, 25kV to Wokingham or even Aldershot South Jn (where it joins the Alton line) would have given simpler interfacing with the dc system  than at Reading. The remaining Shalford - Reigate section could have had dc electrification using surplus equipment from the power supply upgrades - only two substations were needed I believe.

It may be early days to expect a strategy for moving AC ahead in the South, especially with the horrific overspend on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line). The South Western main line interface should probably be at Pirbright Junction, rather than Basingstoke, as it was before the Bournemouth scheme in 1967.

The "tadpoles" would make Pacers seem attractive today particularly with the driving trailer locked out of use. This left only one and a bit, narrow coaches for customers even during school term time.

OTC

I've seen suggestions elsewhere that NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are now far more pragmatic about 3rd Rail, but IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) the GWML franchise invitation to tender encourages battery/diesel IPEMUs^▸ (Independely Powered Electic Multiple Unit (train running on batteries)) on this route. I can see their point, it's a long stretch of 3rd rail and difficult to comply with modern H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) legislation in a rural area where access can't be tightly controlled.

At the end of the day though, I'd suggest that in many ways it's about the rolling stock. Whilst you have Reading depot providing DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) for the Thames Valley branches etc, then it seems cost-effective for them to share the same stock with the Gatwicks. There's going to be plenty of DMUs to go round post-electrification to beef up services, especially now that Northern and TransPennine are having new-build. If the next franchisee decides that they want to replace those DMUs with a fleet of IPEMUs and the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) agrees that it is practical, then it would seem sensible to use them on the Gatwicks too. If they need a bit more time on the juice rail, then it would seem sensible to provide third rail between Guildford and Redhill, and leave the northern stretch.
 

[anthony215]

Rumour doing the rounds that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) could be looking at a possible order for new dmu's tagged onto the back of Northern's. Not sure how true that is will wait and see especially as we should have had new dmu's years ago before  it was cancelled when electrification  was announced.

 ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) could do with new dmu's as well unless we take on those 153's from GWR

[Noggin]

Rumour doing the rounds that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) could be looking at a possible order for new dmu's tagged onto the back of Northern's. Not sure how true that is will wait and see especially as we should have had new dmu's years ago before  it was cancelled when electrification  was announced.

 ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) could do with new dmu's as well unless we take on those 153's from GWR

I've seen that rumour but I'm not sure how credible it is, the suggestion was that if the lease & operating costs were no more than current stock, the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) were open to persuasion. My guess is that it would be part of a package for Devon and Cornwall, where of course there are a lot of newly won Conservative seats that the Government would like retained. Plenty of Turbos to run Bristol area services etc.

As for ATW, isn't it complicated by discussions on what gets devolved to the Assembly? Mind you, if Plaid do get control, then perhaps London might be inclined to buy some favours?

[Rhydgaled]

Since Noggin has continued anthony's off-topic line...

Rumour doing the rounds that GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) could be looking at a possible order for new dmu's tagged onto the back of Northern's. Not sure how true that is will wait and see especially as we should have had new dmu's years ago before  it was cancelled when electrification  was announced.

 ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) could do with new dmu's as well unless we take on those 153's from GWR

Shame Northern's new DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) are outer-suburban units (doors not at vehicle ends = suburban), because ATW could really use some more regional express stock to suplement the 158s and 175s. I'm a little concerned that it will be 2045 before any new DMUs ordered now are life-expired though, and we'll need to be almost zero-carbon by then to meet climate change targets.

As for 153s, I think Northern is getting rid of them as well so if ATW could get hold of those and the FirstGW sets they could possibly re-create a good number of 155s to take over HOWL and Pembrokeshire-Swansea services, perhaps the Conwy Valley Line too but that's rather remote from Landore depot.

HOWL = Heart Of Wales Line

[IndustryInsider]

Shame Northern's new DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) are outer-suburban units (doors not at vehicle ends = suburban), because ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) could really use some more regional express stock to suplement the 158s and 175s.

How about all those TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) Class 185s that are being replaced by their new fleet?  Don't think anyone has snapped those up yet.

They'd be very good trains for the routes you describe, even if the doors aren't in the right place!

[Electric train]

An interesting presentation at last week's GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) Stakeholder conference concerning the North Downs line, and in particular future growth. Point came up (in questions as I recall) that it's already 3rd rail at both ends and in the middle, and whether it might be sensible to infill the diesel-only bits with third rails.   I think it was suggested that the technologies are sufficiently different to overhead electrification for there to be technical resources available to do it in parallel with other electrification rather  that having to wait in an OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line) queue.

The North Downs Line is not on the plot for CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) or even CP7 for electrification.  The ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) (the elf n safety part of it) would not allow such a large 3rd rail "in fill"  There are other practical reasons why 3rd rail would not be popular the number of substations, track paralleling huts would be expensive.

[onthecushions]

How about all those TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) Class 185s that are being replaced by their new fleet?  Don't think anyone has snapped those up yet.

They'd be very good trains for the routes you describe, even if the doors aren't in the right place!

I remember standing on the passenger bridge at Leeds City station, watching a 185  TP arrive  packed with over a hundred trying to board. What suits the route and the convenience of the depot may not cope with customer requirements and demand.

Before the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electrification disaster, ac was touted as cheaper than dc. As dc is a known known, it must now be significantly more attractive. A pity that the industry (whether TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company), NR^» (Network Rail - home page) or ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)) won't stand up for its passengers.

OTC

[ellendune]

Is 3rd Rail a known known?  IF ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) in their capacity as safety regulator were to permit further 3rd rail what conditions might they put on this? 

A full security fence down both sides of the track?
Removal of all pedestrian level crossings?
Special measures at vehicle level crossings to prevent trespass?
Or even removal of all level crossings?

How much of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) overspend is to do with alterations to structures to give clearances?  Would a more reasonable estimation timescale give a better estimate of this?  Clearly the number of structures that need alterations varies between lines. 

[Electric train]

Is 3rd Rail a known known?  IF ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) in their capacity as safety regulator were to permit further 3rd rail what conditions might they put on this? 

A full security fence down both sides of the track?
Removal of all pedestrian level crossings?
Special measures at vehicle level crossings to prevent trespass?
Or even removal of all level crossings?

How much of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) overspend is to do with alterations to structures to give clearances?  Would a more reasonable estimation timescale give a better estimate of this?  Clearly the number of structures that need alterations varies between lines. 

A full security fence down both sides of the track? - For exposed top contact not even 3 metre high razor wire topped fence would convince the ORR, fully shrouded bottom contact like the DLR^▸ (Docklands Light Railway) may get approval but then it will be incompatible with the rest of the network
Removal of all pedestrian level crossings? - That is current policy even if the line remains diesel
Special measures at vehicle level crossings to prevent trespass? - The removal of all level crossings is the current policy, there are already additional measures take, cutting the conrail back but then gapping of trains is a big risk (gapping where a trains shoes are not in contact with any conrail) especially for 3, 4 and even 5 car trains
Or even removal of all level crossings? - That is current policy even if the line remains diesel

The GWML GWEP^▸ (Great Western Electrification Program) is designed for high density high speed 225kph railway a slower speed 145 kph railway the OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") could have greater spacing's between structures

[onthecushions]

If the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) was really that set against 3rd rail dc  then it would have required a timetable for its replacement, as with slam doors and non-DDA^» (Disability Discrimination Act - about) compliance. It has not.

Any form of power electification is hazardous (as is any track access) and causes material risk, ac overhead included. I wonder what the comparative casualty figures are?

Perhaps we should look at how the Class 71 locomotive collected current.

OTC

[grahame]

Would an IPEMU^▸ (Independely Powered Electic Multiple Unit (train running on batteries)) be able to get from Wokingham to Ash on a charge?  And from the junction near Shalford to Reigate?   Unlike the use of the technology to Bedwyn from Newbury, where the retained power would need t be there and back, it could be just one way on the North Downs.

[Electric train]

If the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) was really that set against 3rd rail dc  then it would have required a timetable for its replacement, as with slam doors and non-DDA^» (Disability Discrimination Act - about) compliance. It has not.

The was / is a plan best will in the world its a 100 year one and very expensive even more so if you try to reduce the timescale.  The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) have basically had a block on new third rail ever since they were hood winked by the infill Bournemouth to Weymouth and the Tonbridge - Redhill infill

Any form of power electification is hazardous (as is any track access) and causes material risk, ac overhead included. I wonder what the comparative casualty figures are?

The casualty rate is far far higher in third rail areas, there are several reports a month of staff and public being injured from contact with the third rail, 25kV tends to make the National press as they are rarer and a usually fatal or a life changing injury 

Perhaps we should look at how the Class 71 locomotive collected current.

OTC

There was a proposal about a decade ago to overhead electrify at 1500V dc in some areas but is was decided if you going to the expense of putting wires up it might as well be at 25kV ac

[onthecushions]

Would an IPEMU^▸ (Independely Powered Electic Multiple Unit (train running on batteries)) be able to get from Wokingham to Ash on a charge?  And from the junction near Shalford to Reigate?   Unlike the use of the technology to Bedwyn from Newbury, where the retained power would need t be there and back, it could be just one way on the North Downs.

I think that Bombardier's figures for the Class 379 experiment were that it required storage of 500 kWh or 1800 MJ for a range of 50 km or 31 miles and that 2 hours of charging were needed for each hour of motoring. The Wokingham gap is 12 miles and the Reigate one is 26.5 miles.  An outer range of 60 miles was also suggested. The unknown is battery life; below 3 years kills the project, 5 years is hoped for. Battery life and range depends also on use; high drain is inefficient and reduces life.

Fingers crossed,

OTC

[onthecushions]

The was / is a plan best will in the world its a 100 year one and very expensive even more so if you try to reduce the timescale.  The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) have basically had a block on new third rail ever since they were hood winked by the infill Bournemouth to Weymouth and the Tonbridge - Redhill infill.

I'm no fan of 3rd rail. A friend was a PW^▸ (Permanent Way) supervisor at Reading and I remember the fear that his wife confided that she had each day he was out on the SR^‡(resolve) and her relief when he was transferred West. However risk cannot be disinvented and I have not seen any such objection to LUL^▸ (London Underground Ltd)'s Croxley, Bakerloo or Battersea extensions. They may be (partly) in tunnels and have platform doors but 4th rail is arguably worse in that you have both +420V and -210V to trip over.

OTC

[John R]

The ELL was also reopened as third rail not so long ago.