Electrification of Heritage Services

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.

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,

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?

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?

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.

Les Ross?

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

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.