Higher Fares To Heat The Third Rail?

[whole diary]

[Lee]

From the Telegraph:

Commuters could revolt against more fare rises

A passenger watchdog has warned of a backlash if rail fares are pushed up even higher to weatherproof the network.

David Quarmby, the Government's transport troubleshooter, has recommended a radical overhaul of nearly 3,000 miles of track in the London commuter belt south of the Thames. It could include a heated third rail to ensure tracks do not freeze.

But his proposals, which are not part of current Department for Transport plans, would be hugely expensive, with the bill falling on commuters who have already been hit with the biggest fare rises in a generation.

Anthony Smith, chief executive of Passenger Focus, said passengers would prefer a few days of disruption to being hit with even bigger increases in the cost of commuting which next year will go up by three per cent above the retail price index. "We need to ensure that the costs don't pile up," he said.

"Passengers need to be asked about the balance of the cost of doing this weatherproofing of the railways, against the bill that will increasingly fall on rail users. Someone needs to ask what passengers want on this, not just government and industry.

"Would you rather have two or three days of disruption or would you rather pay 10% more for your ticket to ensure it does not happen again? Heating the third rail is going to cost a fortune."

Mr Quarmby unveiled his proposals before Christmas when he produced an audit into how Britain had coped with the first cold snap of the winter.

The biggest problems were suffered by operators running trains powered by an electric third rail, with Southeastern at one point being forced to cancel most of its services.

One estimate suggests that the Quarmby option, which would entail shifting the third rail, could cost as much as ^800,000 a mile.

A cheaper alternative being explored by the Government is putting heated strips on key points of the network, such as at stations and at signals, to guarantee that trains have the power to start moving after coming to a halt.

[Electric train]

David Quarmby is talking out of his .................. hat I have listened to him being interviewed his vision of altering the conrail is put across as so simplistic it does him no credit, the former Southern Region (Railway) is stuck with its history.  The introduction of conrail heaters (which is not a concept of the current Government) is a fix for "normal" heavy icing.

If David Quarmby had recommended the conversion of the conrail area to OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line) system that would have should he actually has an understanding of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Railways.

It should be worrying to us all that the Government have such an expert as David Quarmby as their trouble shooter

[Henry]

 That is the problem, since 'privatisation' we have very few 'Railway people' and more economists.

 Where's Chris Green when you need him ?

[paul7575]

If David Quarmby had recommended the conversion of the conrail area to OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line) system that would have should he actually has an understanding of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Railways.

That sentence doesn't make sense to me, I'm afraid.

In his recent report Quarmby does actually suggest that modification of the third rail or conversion to OHLE should be considered - and that is exactly what displays his lack of understanding of either the costs or disruption involved.

http://transportwinterresilience.independent.gov.uk/docs/audit/winter_resilience_audit.pdf

The time has come to consider seriously the conversion of the third rail network to a more
weather-resilient system of providing traction power for trains on this network. Possible methods
include side or underneath contact with the third rail (common in continental Europe, and on the
DLR^▸ (Docklands Light Railway)) ^ which should not require significant changes to the DC^▸ (Direct Current) power distribution network nor to
the trains themselves ^ or conversion to 25kV overhead. Network Rail should lead a strategic
review of the alternative technologies, including the migration method, and prepare a preferred
proposal with business case for consideration by government.

Side and bottom contact third rail systems used on local metros do not scale up to 100 mph running as used on our network, and OHLE fitting would generally also require massive signalling immunisation, particular to track circuits, ie AC track circuits would require complete replacement to allow OHLE.  Dual voltage sections at boundaries during the necessary phased construction would be complex, as would rolling stock modification and full replacement costs (where necessary as the oldest units are pure DC).

Paul

[inspector_blakey]

Side and bottom contact third rail systems used on local metros do not scale up to 100 mph running as used on our network

I'm not sure that's absolutely correct - I believe that a significant portion of the Metro-North Railroad (commuter services operating from Grand Central Terminal, New York City, out to Connecticut and New Jersey) is electrified using bottom contact third rail, and that much of their equipment including the GE P32AC-DM locos can operate at 110 mph.

What I'm not 100% sure of is whether they actually do operate at 110 mph, but regardless of that it's still a relatively extensive and intensively served commuter system not so dissimilar from the ex-Southern region third-rail system.

[Electric train]

If David Quarmby had recommended the conversion of the conrail area to OHL^▸ (Over-Head Line) system that would have should he actually has an understanding of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Railways.

That sentence doesn't make sense to me, I'm afraid.

Appologies for that typed slower than the gray matter was thinking

In his recent report Quarmby does actually suggest that modification of the third rail or conversion to OHLE should be considered - and that is exactly what displays his lack of understanding of either the costs or disruption involved.
http://transportwinterresilience.independent.gov.uk/docs/audit/winter_resilience_audit.pdf

The time has come to consider seriously the conversion of the third rail network to a more
weather-resilient system of providing traction power for trains on this network. Possible methods
include side or underneath contact with the third rail (common in continental Europe, and on the
DLR^▸ (Docklands Light Railway)) ^ which should not require significant changes to the DC^▸ (Direct Current) power distribution network nor to
the trains themselves ^ or conversion to 25kV overhead. Network Rail should lead a strategic
review of the alternative technologies, including the migration method, and prepare a preferred
proposal with business case for consideration by government.

Side and bottom contact third rail systems used on local metros do not scale up to 100 mph running as used on our network, and OHLE fitting would generally also require massive signalling immunisation, particular to track circuits, ie AC track circuits would require complete replacement to allow OHLE.  Dual voltage sections at boundaries during the necessary phased construction would be complex, as would rolling stock modification and full replacement costs (where necessary as the oldest units are pure DC).

Paul

An option could be to use 1500v dc or even 3000V dc for OHL system, the balance has to be how often are we likely to suffer the type of weather that causes such server icing, can deicers and conrail heating manage this against the cost of installing OHLE, the changing the orientation of the conrail would be akin to changing the side of the road we drive on

[Henry]

 May I suggest that a lot of this is 'political spin' to appease the affluent voter's in the wealthy South-East.

 The cost involved 'weather-proofing' a relatively' small part of the network, which to be honest does not suffer
 extensive weather-related delays, would be considerable.
 
 

[tramway]

Wasn't sure where to post this, and unfortunately couldn't take a suitable picture, but the point heaters were working overtime at Filton this morning and were steaming quite nicely. First time I've seen so visible an indication of them working.

One to add to the 'platform lights on all day' list possibly?

[Tim]

 The cost involved 'weather-proofing' a relatively' small part of the network, which to be honest does not suffer
 extensive weather-related delays, would be considerable.
 

Complete weather proofing is one thing but making the network robust enough to provide "get you home eventually"  service levels rather then just shut everything down is something else and something that the SE failed on for a few days and could perhaps do better. 

[eightf48544]

Don't forget the LBSC Inner Area was converted from O/H to third rail in the 1920s on amalgamation into the Southern, mainly because the LSWR^▸ (London South Western Railway) and SECR had gone for third rail. Probably easier to do than the other way. Lay the conductor rail and change the feeds.

It is possible to do, parts of the NL have been converted to O/H 25Kv in recent years the pans of the 313s used to be up and down like the proverbial *****.

[hornbeam]

The problem is also down to the stock and how it copes with snow. The southern never seemed to have such problems so maybe the issue would be solved by adding more pick up shoes and running more sandite/ de icing trains at night. Apart from the three converetd MLV's what have they got?

[paul7575]

The three converted MLVs are only one small part of the deicing fleet.  The vast majority are the normal Network Rail MPVs which are also used for leaf fall treatment and weedkiller spraying at other times of the year.  IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) the three MLVs are only used in part of the SE TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) area, certainly around Hampshire we only ever see MPVs, based at Eastleigh works, like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SwRS100279.JPG

In any case, Network Rail drafted in loco hauled de-icing trains to cover the missing MLVs, according to that chap who wrote the resilience report update in early December, so all told the MLV shortage was of little relevance.

Paul