|
|
Post by silenthunter on Feb 3, 2018 17:18:42 GMT
It is entirely possible to operate a heritage railway with overhead electrification, mind. I've been on one such line (The Buckow Light Railway east of Berlin) in Germany. Only 600V mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Feb 3, 2018 17:26:09 GMT
It is entirely possible to operate a heritage railway with overhead electrification, mind. In the UK there are the Seaton, Beamish and Crich tramway museum systems, all operating on the overhead, not to mention three working trolleybus museums. |
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Feb 3, 2018 22:44:47 GMT
Then the AC and DC units could be based on the national network for charters.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,765
|
Post by Chris M on Feb 3, 2018 22:45:50 GMT
There is a heritage railway using an electrified third rail in the UK - the Volks Electric Railway in Brighton. It's only 110 volts though,
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Feb 4, 2018 19:04:29 GMT
There is a heritage railway using an electrified third rail in the UK - the Volks Electric Railway in Brighton. It's only 110 volts though, For a moment I thought you were going to say MerseyRail! |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Feb 4, 2018 19:09:03 GMT
Then the AC and DC units could be based on the national network for charters. Yes, theres something tantalising about a ROSCO being set up that deals solely with heritage rolling stock, leasing it out for charters, specials, charity stuff, heritage days and organisations. Is there an electric version of Pete Waterman and his chequebook? |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 4, 2018 21:34:53 GMT
There is a heritage railway using an electrified third rail in the UK - the Volks Electric Railway in Brighton. It's only 110 volts though, Except the Volks Railway is actually Owned by Brighton & Hove City Council! Yes it has a superb supporters group and is run largely with volunteers, but liabilities as regards the traction supply (and people being injured by anything going wrong) ultimately end up with the Council - and thus could be considered to be a more 'responsible' organisation. |
|
|
|
Post by ducatisti on Feb 5, 2018 10:34:34 GMT
What the ORR has said is (in essence), no more third-rail electrification without a very good reason.
Preservation is not a very good reason.
They can't take out the ones that exist, but 3 rail is (compared to overhead) inefficient and dangerous
as for them just hanging around on the national network... trains cost money, trackspace costs money, working in their spaces costs money.
I like the idea of an electric Pete Waterman...(Waterbot 2000(TM)?)
It's going to be a big problem going forwards - if preserving a 4-car emu is tricky, who the heck is going to preserve a pendelino?
|
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Feb 5, 2018 10:41:10 GMT
If they can preserve two complete Trans Europe Express sets on the continent, then it should not be beyond the will of someone here to preserve a Pendolino.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Feb 5, 2018 11:00:36 GMT
Its not beyond the will certainly, but it seems to be strength of voice of electric preservationists thats sadly lacking. That really should be an aim of a national preservation group - to promote the history and development of something if it is unappreciated yet historically important outside of its own industry. Unfortunately, whilst commercial points of view dominate in arts and culture, populism marches forward irrespective of whether there is something else equally worthy but unknown.
The ELR could have become something big and important as an umbrella or pressure group, but it never gained the respect and authority outside of the private heritage scene it could have so successfully used for the preservation of EMUs and the understanding of early electric traction in transport.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Feb 5, 2018 17:28:08 GMT
In the UK there are the Seaton, Beamish and Crich tramway museum systems, all operating on the overhead, not to mention three working trolleybus museums. Which are not a problem because as with the national rail network (or indeed Pylons or domestic electricity supplies to houses) having electric cables up in the air and normally out of reach is in accordance with best practice. Whether the ORR would be happy with a Heritage Railway having 25KV is another matter - but as indicated they seem happy with the 750V (nominal) at Crich. Ultimately if there's an effective Safety Management System (SMS) in place then under the Rail and Other Guided Transport Systems (ROGS) regulations the ORR would struggle to not 'be happy'; irrespective of any 'policies' the same applies to third-rail, and indeed the wording of the previously linked policy agrees with this ("demonstrate that any proposed new-build or extended third rail proposal will comply with all applicable health and safety legislation"). Managing risk appropriately is a skill, and the issues are not insurmountable in a heritage railway context if the willpower and financial backing is available. It's likely that neither will be particularly forthcoming for what's a relative niche, and that's always going to kill such ideas off. (Regards tramways, for the sake of completeness there are also the running lines at the Black Country Living Museum, Heaton Park, Birkenhead and Summerlee. None could be particularly regarded as 'systems' [More than one route...], whilst all [plus Blackpool] operate vehicles that drastically reduce the separation between overhead line equipment and wandering hands. It's entirely possible to suitably mitigate most risks with electrification via an appropriate SMS.) |
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Feb 6, 2018 17:37:56 GMT
Les Ross?
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Feb 6, 2018 23:17:47 GMT
I feel sure that if there was the will then a way to run electric rail trains on preserved railways could be found.
It might require the use of batteries or even diesel generator trailers - and not the installation of electric rails (although these would be nice, even if solely for visual purposes and they were not not actually energised).
This could even lead to preserved London Underground trains being able to carry passengers!
Isn't there a museum railway in France where they do just this with withdrawn Parisian metro trains?
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Feb 6, 2018 23:36:09 GMT
In the UK there are the Seaton, Beamish and Crich tramway museum systems, all operating on the overhead, not to mention three working trolleybus museums. Which are not a problem because as with the national rail network (or indeed Pylons or domestic electricity supplies to houses) having electric cables up in the air and normally out of reach is in accordance with best practice. Whether the ORR would be happy with a Heritage Railway having 25KV is another matter - but as indicated they seem happy with the 750V (nominal) at Crich. Yes but all of these systems came into being before the ORR, indeed at a time when regulations were lighter (if they existed at all) and they almost certainly have grandfather rights. re: the three trolleybus systems (East Anglian Transport Museum, Sandtoft Trolleybus Museum and Black Country Living Museum), there will soon be a fourth. This will be Beamish where a 1950's town centre which will be served by trolleybuses is being built. However whilst the wiring to / from / within the town centre will be new the use of trolleybuses here will not be new. I say this because Beamish has had at least one operational trolleybus plus a small amount of working overhead wiring for many years. So technically the town centre wiring will be an extension to an existing system. Simon |
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Feb 7, 2018 1:18:30 GMT
Which are not a problem because as with the national rail network (or indeed Pylons or domestic electricity supplies to houses) having electric cables up in the air and normally out of reach is in accordance with best practice. Whether the ORR would be happy with a Heritage Railway having 25KV is another matter - but as indicated they seem happy with the 750V (nominal) at Crich. Yes but all of these systems came into being before the ORR, indeed at a time when regulations were lighter (if they existed at all) and they almost certainly have grandfather rights. This isn't accurate I'm afraid. Preserved systems have been created and extended under the ORR (granted the previous initialism rather than the current one) and, more pertinently, since the formation of the aforementioned ROGS regulations. As I stated a few posts back, it is these regulations that must be satisfied for new systems, and if that is done so (via the SMS) then the ORR (or HMRI as was) could not reasonably object. Whilst some organisations may have grandfather rights for existing infrastructure this does not automatically apply to extensions - once again, an appropriate SMS must be formulated to weigh up the associated risks, from which any restrictions or otherwise will be imposed. If something can happen within the regulations on the mainline then it can also happen within the heritage sector, and vice versa. The limitations are resourcing - both people and financial - and, again, it is likely that these factors will derail (pun intended) any schemes before they get developed. Trolleybuses do not come under the ROGS regulations and as such have no bearing on whether third rail (or overhead) electrification would be permitted in a rail context. We seem to be drifting away from the specific topic of preserving BR-era EMUs now, and are also getting to the limits of this forum's remit. I'm going to leave the thread open for now as the last few posts have started to show relevance to preserving and operating LUL stock, and I'd encourage posters to move towards that subject if anything further needs to be added. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Feb 7, 2018 8:45:23 GMT
A shame about the Epping-Ongar 'lost opportunity'.
Once again I express my opinion that the loss of electric working capacity on this line was short-sighted.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Feb 7, 2018 10:18:00 GMT
A shame about the Epping-Ongar 'lost opportunity'. Once again I express my opinion that the loss of electric working capacity on this line was short-sighted. Possibly, but the 24/7 costs of keeping the equipment live, or even present, whilst the line was closed (public safety, theft, etc) would have been prohibitive. (I understand that the copper overhead cables on the Woodhead line were kept energised until very shortly before they were scheduled to be dismantled, to deter opportunist scrap merchants from getting there first) |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 7, 2018 21:53:18 GMT
Which are not a problem because as with the national rail network (or indeed Pylons or domestic electricity supplies to houses) having electric cables up in the air and normally out of reach is in accordance with best practice. Whether the ORR would be happy with a Heritage Railway having 25KV is another matter - but as indicated they seem happy with the 750V (nominal) at Crich. .....demonstrate that any proposed new-build or extended third rail proposal will comply with all applicable health and safety legislation.. Sorry, the wording of the "Electricity At Work Regulations" by the Health & Safety Executive makes it crystal clear that exposed conductor rail power supply systems can NEVER be made be compliant with said said regulation (note HSE rules still apply to the railway industry - its just the regulator is the ORR rather than the HSE itself) As such it doesn't matter how much money / enthusiasm / popular support there is, Heritage groups installing / operating 3 / 4 rail electrification won't happen - unless all the units get fitted with revised shoegear and a DLR style shielded system is used. |
|
|
|
Post by silenthunter on Feb 7, 2018 22:00:20 GMT
A relevant point here - the latest issue of Heritage Railway reports that Angel Trains are to preserve at least one Class 314 EMU.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Feb 7, 2018 22:23:42 GMT
Their prerogative as a ROSCO I suppose.
The idea of a shielded 3rd rail pick up system being used in a heritage setting seems head-smackingly-obvious if by its nature of increased safety to trackside persons it satisfies safety legislation and reduces risk to any operator/owner. Surely thats the answer then - a bottom contact system, combined with a redesigned shoe and beam arrangement?
When can EOR begin crowdfunding!
|
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Feb 7, 2018 22:27:21 GMT
.....demonstrate that any proposed new-build or extended third rail proposal will comply with all applicable health and safety legislation.. Sorry, the wording of the "Electricity At Work Regulations" by the Health & Safety Executive makes it crystal clear that exposed conductor rail power supply systems can NEVER be made be compliant with said said regulation (note HSE rules still apply to the railway industry - its just the regulator is the ORR rather than the HSE itself) As such it doesn't matter how much money / enthusiasm / popular support there is, Heritage groups installing / operating 3 / 4 rail electrification won't happen - unless all the units get fitted with revised shoegear and a DLR style shielded system is used. None of which disproves any of my statements; I was not explicit in stating the method of electrification nor that it was feasible, just that the ORR's guidance does not explicitly prohibit such extensions. For the benefit of other members it would however be useful if you could quote the relevant sections of the HSE's guidance from the Electricity at Work Regulations. As an off topic aside, the history of the ORR and HSE is of interest to those in this discussion, including the previous incarnations as HMRI and the Board of Trade, but that's left as an exercise for the reader. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Feb 8, 2018 9:28:03 GMT
There are MILES of conductor rail installations in use, despite not being 'compliant' with the "Electricity at Work" regulations.
The Regs clearly are rather less than binding!
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 8, 2018 17:06:57 GMT
There are MILES of conductor rail installations in use, despite not being 'compliant' with the "Electricity at Work" regulations. The Regs clearly are rather less than binding! You rather miss the point. Many HSE regulations actually permit existing installations to remain in service providing they meet certain criteria and that mitigating measures are put in place to limit the risks. Asbestos cement cladding for example is prohibited from being manufactured or installed in any new / refurbished / repaired building due to Health and Safety risks. However the HSE are willing for existing cladding to remain providing it is in good condition with no potential to release harmful asbestos fibres. It is the same with exposed conductor rails, what already exists can be retained (and modified should it be necessary as a result of track layout changes such as at London Bridge), but as it contravenes all sorts of HSE regulations regarding electricity, exposed conductor must not be installed to extend the current network, or to set up a new one.To use the asbestos cement boarding analogy if you have a barn covered with the stuff and wish to extend the building then the extension must be clad in something else that does not contain asbestos - while equally a new barn (even if it is built on the site of a previous building that used asbestos cement) must not use said asbestos cladding |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 8, 2018 17:32:21 GMT
Sorry, the wording of the "Electricity At Work Regulations" by the Health & Safety Executive makes it crystal clear that exposed conductor rail power supply systems can NEVER be made be compliant with said said regulation (note HSE rules still apply to the railway industry - its just the regulator is the ORR rather than the HSE itself) As such it doesn't matter how much money / enthusiasm / popular support there is, Heritage groups installing / operating 3 / 4 rail electrification won't happen - unless all the units get fitted with revised shoegear and a DLR style shielded system is used. For the benefit of other members it would however be useful if you could quote the relevant sections of the HSE's guidance from the Electricity at Work Regulations. As per www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiLn5SZ5pbZAhVoLMAKHe9PCS0QFggzMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hse.gov.uk%2FpUbns%2Fpriced%2Fhsr25.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3VfCAvf8KT-4Xn4IaPB8OC Regulation 7 states:-
Regulation 7 Insulation, protection and placing of conductors
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.
Official Guidance:-
E109 The danger to be protected against generally arises from differences in electrical potential (voltage) between circuit conductors or between such conductors and other conductors in a system – usually conductors at earth
potential. The conventional approach is either to insulate the conductors or place them so people are unable to receive an electric shock or burn from them.]
110 Some form of basic insulation, or physical separation, of conductors in a system is necessary for the system to function. That functional minimum, however, may not be sufficient to comply with the requirements of regulation 7. Factors which must be taken into account are:
(a) the nature and severity of the probable danger;
(b) the functions to be performed by the equipment;
(c) the location of the equipment, its environment and the conditions to which it
will be subjected;
(d) any work which is likely to be done on, with or near the equipment.
Insulation
111 Regulation 7(a) states that conductors must be insulated. Suitable insulation of the conductors in an electrical system is, in the majority of cases, the primary and necessary safeguard to prevent danger from electric shock, either between live conductors or between a live conductor and earth. It will also prevent danger from fire and explosion arising from contact of conductors either with each other or with earth. Energy from quite low levels of voltage (and levels insufficient to create a shock risk) can ignite a flammable atmosphere. The quality and effectiveness of insulation therefore needs to be commensurate with the voltages applied to the conductors and the conditions of use.
112 BS 7671 gives some advice on these matters for fixed electrical installations up to 1000 V ac or 1500 V dc.
113 The regulation requires that the insulation be protected as necessary, so that danger may be prevented so far as is reasonably practicable. Often, the protection required is to prevent mechanical damage to the insulation but may include any of the effects detailed under regulation 6. Examples of such protection would be the use of steel trunking and conduits or the use of steel armoured cables.
Other precautions including placing
114 Regulation 7(b) permits the alternative of having such precautions taken in respect of the conductors. These precautions may include the suitable placing of conductors. They may comprise strictly controlled working practices reinforced by measures such as written instructions, training and warning notices etc. The precautions must prevent danger so far as is reasonably practicable. Examples where bare conductors are used in conjunction with suitable precautions are to be found in many applications including overhead electric power lines, down-shop conductors for overhead travelling cranes in factories etc, railway electrification using either separate conductor and running rails or overhead pick-up wires, and certain large electrolytic and electrothermal plants.
115 The placing of overhead electric power lines is specified in ESQCR (see Introduction for more information).
116 Electric railway and tramway operators, in conjunction with the Office of Rail and Road, have developed standards and safety specifications for the construction of those parts of their systems which use bare conductors at overhead and at track level, together with safe systems of work.
117 Safety is ensured in electrochemical plants which use high current by such means as the separation of conductors which are at different potentials, the use of insulating working platforms and unearthed or isolated electrical supplies (see paragraphs 121–123).
118 Suitable placing of the conductors may, on its own, go a considerable way towards preventing danger, for example where the conductors are within a secure enclosure or where they are placed overhead at such a height that contact with these conductors is not reasonably foreseeable. Guidance on the security and protection of enclosures and the measure of their accessibility as determined by standard (finger) tests is given in standards listed in Further reading.
119 However, if the placing of the conductors cannot alone be relied upon to prevent danger, then additional precautions must be taken and rigorously applied. For example, in the case of live railway conductor rails the precautions may include warning notices, barriers and special training for railway staff. Electrolytic and electrothermal processes are further examples and are covered in paragraphs 121–123.
120 Dutyholders should carefully consider the inherent risks that may still exist if bare conductors are placed where they cannot normally be touched, eg maintenance activities around the conductors of an electric overhead crane system Firstly, the protection of the equipment is required under regulation 6 for a range of reasonably foreseeable effects and, secondly, there may be occasions when people will require access to the area or enclosure where such conductors are located, eg substations and test areas. Where work is to be done with the conductors live, regulation 14 is relevant and the guidance under that regulation also applies.So, in summery, ALL forms of railway electrification break the Electricity at Work Regulations and no amount of fancy words can disguise that! However the HSE recognise that in certain situation, where compliance is not possible then alternative mitigating measures may be employed. Keeping exposed conductors well away from workers / the public / trespassers via the simple use of distance has long been recommended as the next best solution to insiluating everything so it stands to reason that the use of Overhead electrification is the prefered method of mitigation going forward. This is why the ORR has quite clearly stated they have a presumption against allowing new conductor rail installations. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,765
|
Post by Chris M on Feb 8, 2018 18:08:45 GMT
Except nothing in that prohibits the installation of new electrified third rail (or other exposed conductors) if appropriate actions, systems and/or procedures are taken/in place to mitigate the danger. It will be difficult for a heritage railway to meet those requirements but not impossible.
The ORR has a presumption against new 3rd rail but does not forbid it because they take a pragmatic view that it is impractical to require it in all circumstances. This is why the East London Line and Heathrow T5 extensions were permitted to be installed with conductor rails, and why the Croxley link (in the unlikely event it ever gets built) will be permitted to have electrified track. A new-build Crossrail line connecting the Watford DC line to somewhere south of the River would be permitted to operate with electrified track to connect two existing systems. Even a wholly new line unconnected to anything else or anywhere near an existing installation would be permitted if the promoters could satisfy the ORR that there was some reason it was the best option in the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 8, 2018 19:13:08 GMT
Except nothing in that prohibits the installation of new electrified third rail (or other exposed conductors) if appropriate actions, systems and/or procedures are taken/in place to mitigate the danger. It will be difficult for a heritage railway to meet those requirements but not impossible. The ORR has a presumption against new 3rd rail but does not forbid it because they take a pragmatic view that it is impractical to require it in all circumstances. This is why the East London Line and Heathrow T5 extensions were permitted to be installed with conductor rails, and why the Croxley link (in the unlikely event it ever gets built) will be permitted to have electrified track. A new-build Crossrail line connecting the Watford DC line to somewhere south of the River would be permitted to operate with electrified track to connect two existing systems. Even a wholly new line unconnected to anything else or anywhere near an existing installation would be permitted if the promoters could satisfy the ORR that there was some reason it was the best option in the circumstances. It sort of depends on how you define 'prohibit' I quite agree that there is nothing in the regulations that expressly prohibits conductor rail electrification, but at the same time the wording of regulation 7 is quite clear and ALL railway electrification systems (as well as most of the National grid electricity distribution system) do not comply with the regulations as written. This is entirely appropriate - if you are striving to improve H&S generally, and expect compliance by companies outside of the transport industry then its only right to ensure that the EAW regulations apply to all organisations / businesses. As you say however, the HSE / ORR are however pragmatic - and providing enough mitigating measures are taken then what amounts to a 'derogation' is considered acceptable. The guidance makes it clear putting the exposed conductor physically out of reach (as per the national grid / overhead electrification) is the preferred method of trying to keep as close to the regulation as possible, while using bottom contact with non conductive shrouding as per the DLR is also considered as being in sprit (if not total compliance) with the regulation. As for the ELL - yes it was conductor rail but the promoters had several powerful mitigating arguments which preservationists (or even the likes if the Uckfield line come to that) will find it difficult to employ, including a complete absence of level crossings (which includes footpaths by the way), the majority of the line being in tunnels / on high viaducts, high quality anti-trespass fencing installed throughout. Further reassurance comes from the electrification system being maintained by a 24/7 'statutory undertaking' with many years experience of exposed conductor rail systems. Much the same sort of reasoning is why the Piccadilly line extension to T5 or the Battasea extension were deemed as acceptable despite being extensions of current conductor rail systems - while the rural Ashford - Hastings line or the Uckfield branch are not even though fitment of conductor rail to these lines would also be considered an 'extension of electrification' Were another Crossrail style line linking the DC lines to those of SE to be proposed then pretty much the same considerations apply and the use of conductor rail would likely to be found acceptable - by contrast however where 2 different systems are linked (as is proposed by CR2) the choice of Overhead electrification for the new linking section has a much stronger case. |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286
|
Post by rincew1nd on Feb 8, 2018 19:25:23 GMT
MerseyRail want to extend their network and serve Skelmersdale, I've not seen anything to suggest this won't be 3rd rail.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Feb 8, 2018 19:31:37 GMT
Interesting re the Uckfield - Lewes line
I live in Sussex
There are a dedicated band, (some would call them "crayonistas") devoting their lives to re-instating this former link. It would have to be 'third rail' as an isolated island of either diesel or overhead would not be practical
But why?
There is an almost parallel fast bus route, and as far as Lewes is concerned, better placed to capture what traffic there would be. A re-instatement of the line would not generate any new traffic to compete with the already existing regular bus
But why?
Because most bus users are of an age where they enjoy free bus travel. They are not going to use a railway that they have to pay to use. The relevance to London is that you need to compare the facts. London residents over a certain age enjoy free bus and rail travel. Residents of the same age outside London enjoy free bus travel but do not get free rail travel. Londoncentric crayonistas forget this.
No point in re-instating a link that few people would ever pay to use. Crayonistas often overlook this simple truth. It didn't pay well before free bus travel appeared on the scene. It would be an economic disaster now.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Feb 8, 2018 20:02:28 GMT
MerseyRail want to extend their network and serve Skelmersdale, I've not seen anything to suggest this won't be 3rd rail. Merseyrail's new trains will be fully equipped for both con rail and OLE (even if they don't have a pantograph and 25KV transformer underneath) as that makes the fleet more 'future proof' for owners. As for Skelmersdale, time will tell, but its short length and the nature of the existing Merseyrail service may allow a more robust case to be made to the ORR in favour of Conductor rail. However as the ORR publicly state the default position is to say 'No' and as such it won't be easy process. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Feb 8, 2018 20:11:30 GMT
Just to reiterate what MoreToJack said the other day, we need to keep this discussion relevant to LU / TFL. Preserved railways that are electrified may one day operate LU / TFL stock, hence the relevance.
But discussions about electrification of national rail routes or reopening of non heritage lines is beyond the scope of this forum.
|
|
