running heritage 3rd rail emus on a preserved line

What are everybodies thoughts on the possibilities of having a preserved line that still has a working 3rd rail and wanted to run heritage emus what can you see would be the pit falls, having spoken to some of my network rail friends , who raised exactly this in the why dont you catagory their feeling was that as long as you got the necessary safety case and suitable rules and regulations to keep HSE happy there was no physical reason why you couldnt do it when you think of the units that have been preserved and with the likelyhood of a 4 vep returning to the mainline it might be a good idea, the only drawback as i can see it are, what do you do about trespassers, after all one foot wrong, and your history and the maintainance that units would need , but even this is not insumountable how many units are used as hauled coaches you still have to carry out yearly checks im not saying this would happen, but its got me and several of my friends thinking

 

Battery-electric might be the best solution. BR had a battery-electric railcar working in Scotland many years ago with great success.

Regards

 

we regularly run one of our rakes of 4CEP's with 2 MLV's at the eden valley railway, admittedly one of the mlv's has a diesel generator in it to help things along, and the other full of batteries, but it does work, though using the mlv's motors and not the cep's

 

the thinking is this, as we would seriously be thinking of keeping an energised line, for emergancy use by southeastern for when the tunnel is not usable , and the network rail engineers i know who happen to be emu fans, think that we could use a CEP or EPB along side the DMU or steam stock as an additional attraction, southern emu running days that sort of thing but would anyone want to ride in an Cep or EPB under is own power or even have a shuttle from ashford if the vep ever returns to the main line, imagine that 4vep or one of the 3 cigs then you transfer to a 2 EPB for a run down the branch, who would want to see that?

 

Which line are you talking about ?

 

Presumably the Folkestone Harbour. With regards to keeping it open for SouthEastern, i see no reason why they'd use it, and while you mght attract a 3rd rail EMU, if a group has spent a large amount restoring it they wont want it anywhere near Folkestone without guaranteed secure storage, probably undercover. So thats the cost of valuable shed space, plus restoring the power supply and all the paperwork etc, just to satisfy a very niche interest.

Perhaps im alone in this, but i really dont think the idea of restoring the 3rd rail, in the middle of a residential area after a decade+ with it turned off, is a good idea.

Chris

 

Unless the third rail is an extension of an existing system, or in situ now, AND the company can find appropriately qualified staff to control the power systems this is a non starter. Various bits of legislation make it unlikely that a new standalone third rail system of the configuration used on the southern would be authorised. Look at the difference between the SR system and DLR for a picture of the sort of shielding required for new systems. Personally I think any preserved railway that thinks that volunteers and live 750V d.c. traction rails will mix well, has lost the plot. The complexity needed to manage the risks to staff just isn't worth the additional revenue - unless you are going to run a commuter service in conjunction with the "big railway".

 

the live rail is still in situ, and like i said, it was some network rail men who said we should think about it, personally, i dont think its wise, for the reasons that 21b gives above and i can assure you we have not lost the plot , as regards a commuter service its a long term asperation to be able to offer a service but most likily using a DMU or rail car , but in the end its going to be down to network rail and what they decide to do, but its very strange that its local management that concider such things

 

As was said in the first post if you can prove you can do it safely then you only drawbacks will be the same as everywhere else e.g. money, skills, time, space etc.

A steam engine is a potential bomb waiting to go off, often maintained by volunteers, running on a railway built, maintained and operated by volunteers. Yet thanks to careful management, training, inspections and the like it becomes very safe to carry the public on them.

3rd rail is already used to transport thousands of people every day in the UK. The dangers are a known quantity and have been years. So as long as you can prove to the HSE or whoever that you can manage those dangers competently then they would have little to complain about.

People don't always appreciate that just because your a volunteer doesn't mean you don’t know what your doing. A lot of them are highly skilled and knowledgeable in a vast range of trades from maintaining telephone exchanges to running a business. If they weren't our preserved railways would fall apart.
Tim

 

Tend to agree with meeee. The whole point of a safety case is to prove that systems and training are in place to prevent injury. There is no reason why a volunteer should, once informed, treat a 750V rail with any less respect than somebody trained on NR metals. I think that the main problem would be with maintaining the supply - substation(s) are a big drain on resources, although potentially the costs might be similar to providing treated water to a steam engine?

 

Please Explain?

Third Rail.

How many of you posting have any experience of working with it?

After 25 years working in preservation, I've the utmost respect for volunteers, but you do not want them messing with this system. You do not walk away from mistakes with it.

Have you considered public liability insurance costs for any preserved railway operating it? Insurance costs for your staff too? Training costs for short circuiting bars? (not done on full voltage - NR have some training rigs for it). How's your electrical control going to work? Fed off the NR system? In which case, who monitors it 24 - 7?

Electrical infrastructure is a non - starter for a preserved railway. If you're into vintage electric traction, get stuck in to restoring something to NR spec, and run niche market railtours.

 

Electric preserved tramways already exist, but I agree that 3rd rail is much more dangerous than overhead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiler_explosion. However, it takes more than a momentary lack of care to cause that.

Why would it need to be monitored 24/7 if it is not switched on 24/7? At Heaton Park, we switch the (overhead) power off at the end of the day.

An alternative that has been suggested to avoid the safety problem of 3rd rail is to convert them to overhead power; this has been done on preserved subway cars, but I do not know how much work it would be on a BR set, and as they are too heavy for existing preserved tramways there would also be the cost of putting up and maintaining the wires.

 

Steam traction isn't inherently dangerous, which is what the OP seemed to be suggesting. You only get problems if it isn't operated or maintained correctly. It read like a modern traction enthusiasts perception of steam, rather than a factual statement based on experience. You can be maimed by any form of traction, if it isn't operated correctly. I know drivers who have been seriously injured after getting a shock from a diesel - electric.

I would suggest that converting vintage 3R stock to OHLE would be somewhat challenging! Take a look at a 319 - you'd have to find room for most of what's underneath the pan fitted vehicle, ie transformer, converter & rectification gear. Again, high voltage transformer oil comes under the very, very nasty category, and may not be something you want to be playing with on your day off. I suspect that most of the guys that get involved with that sort of thing on the preserved AC locos, have prior experience.

 

if its so dangerious, then steam would have not allowed back on 3rd rail because the support crew issue, i think that as long as people know the rules and are signed off by a suitably qualified network rail person, as you would when taking your NR PTS that would keep the insurrers happy the 3rd rail doesnt need to be on at all times the area box is at the junction and is manned 24/7 as far as i know
steam as long as things are done properly is perfectly safe, as is most types of traction

 

The idea was to convert to overhead but keep the voltage at 750V (ie. fit a pan and connect it to the existing power input, no need for transformers etc); while a wire can't carry as much current as a rail without overheating, it should be able to handle one unit (the French run much heavier trains under 1500V overhead). The likely problem is that the existing electric preserved lines are all tramways, which are unsuitable for ex-BR stock because of their low weight limits and sharp curves, while installing new electrification (of whatever form) is probably too expensive.

 

Have you ever worked on 3R?

For the rest of us - think of the "lowest common denominator" at your railway.... now introduce the concept of high voltage electricity.... are you comfortable with the prospect? Or do you detect a burning smell?

Seriously - 3R units deserve their chance in preservation as much as anything else, and I hope you find a way of doing it.

 

Would you be planning to run steam engines on this preserved line as well as electric EMUs, if you plan to run both I dread to think how expensive it would be for provisions for steam and substationsfor electric trains. Also I dont think the public are interested in EMUs compared to steam. So the line would struggle to make a bit of profit.

 

At the moment its going to have to be a dmu, but we will run steam as and when we have the facilities to do so, the line is double track thoughout and the thinking is that we would leave one un electrified and that would be the one we would use for our services the other would retain its connection with nr and be used in connection with a mainline toc if a ferry service was to be re introduced , in my view we would probally have to fence this line off except where we would have to run round, at the harbour both would share the same station platform but at the junction we would have to have a separate platform face so that units could work direct off the access road from the up line from dover which could also be used to form the interchange with the main line, as a matter of interest south eastern are going to be stabling a high speed unit at east , so there could be the possibility of in the future starting a service to london from here, 1000 new homes are planned for the former ammusment park site so that also raises the prospect of a commuter service
At folkestone east there are 6 roads, roads 1 and 2 are storage for southeastern ,3 is the connection for the branch, 4-6 are sidings that are assessed directly from the branch and not connected to the main line except by assessing road 3, we would use roads 4-6 , 1 to 3 would be retained by network rail i should imagine, and the cheepest option for a station is to place it between roads 3 and 5 turning 4 into a siding which stops at the platform edge , and the far end of no4 road would be removed

 

Martin,

Have you heard of this thing called a full stop?

 

Taking every think in to account What would be cheapest to run 3rd rail EMU’s or steam/diesel traction on the same preserved line?