How Trains Are Powered on the Railway | Third Rail vs Over Head Line Wires

🚆 As we transition away from carbon-based fossil fuels, public transport is in the spotlight, especially railways. Electric trains are key to reducing our carbon footprint, but how is electricity delivered to these trains? This video dives into the two main systems: overhead lines and third rail systems. ⚡️
Explore the pros and cons of each system, and understand why one might be chosen over the other. But is electrification always the best choice? Stay tuned till the end to find out!
🛤️ Learn about the origins of these systems, their advantages, and the significant drawbacks. From cost and maintenance to safety and efficiency, we cover it all.
#RailwayElectrification #OverheadLines #ThirdRail #ElectricTrains #RailwayEngineering #PublicTransport #Decarbonization #TrainSafety #RailwayInfrastructure #SustainableTransport
Subscribe to our channel for more!
For more on Rails Track Geometry, check out this video👇👇👇
kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZDIlqugoMaMh7c
For more on the Hither Green Railway Crash, check out this video👇👇👇
kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4rPdJ5jmZJpmdk
For more on the Rail and the Weather, check out this Playlist👇👇👇
kzbin.info/aero/PLQzlnixSFeE3-37CiNiEQ1cuRFHf8WIyc
📖📚 Looking for a good book to help your learning? 👇Check out this one👇
amzn.to/3JFFvpu
📗📗FREE PDF DOWNLOAD
Free Downloadable PDF Guide for Cant!
Hit the link to get yours 👇👇👇
thepwayengineer.ck.page/cantpdf
📖📖 Want to know more about Railway Track Geometry?
Hit this link👇👇👇
thepwayengineer.ck.page/products/the-track-geometry-bundle
📖📖 Want to know more about Railway Components?
Hit this link👇👇👇
thepwayengineer.ck.page/products/track-component-guide
If you have enjoyed this video, and want to support the channel you can give me a tip at the link below! Thank you 🙏🙏🙏
bit.ly/pwayengineertips
Connect with us!
Website: [www.thepwayengineer.com](www.thepwayengineer.com/)
Instagram: the_pway_engineer
Video Chapter's:
00:00 - Intro
01:01 - Third rail
04:15 - Overhead line
08:19 - The move to electrification
09:32 - Summary

[@paulstubbs7678]

My father in-law was working on an overhead gantry, he slipped and came into contact with the 1500VDC used on Australian suburban trains, he survived but lost his arm just past his elbow. (boy was he lucky) As for wires stretching during heat events, that has long been solved by using weights and pulley wheels to keep a constant tension on the lines, irrespective of the heat, have a look at 0:20 those 'things' ever side of the poles are a stack of steel plates used for such.

[@jonathonshanecrawford1840]

Would that be in Sydney or Melbourne? As they both use 1,000VDC! Not like in Brisbane they use 25,000V~

[@paulstubbs7678]

@@jonathonshanecrawford1840 Well that's interesting for what I know Melbourne is 1500, and I assumed the rest of Australia would be the same.

[@Falkirion]

​@paulstubbs7678 it's not. Qld is 3500V AC. Another disadvantage to overhead electrical supply is that a storm can knock out whole segments of track, was working in Callemondah yard one day and had a storm take down the overhead traction right as we were heading back to stable

[@jonathonshanecrawford1840]

@@Falkirion I know that QLD uses 25,000 Volts AC, like Auckland and between Hamilton and Palmerston North. Both use the Narrow Gauge! Normally wind would not bring down the over head wires, unless the wind was well over 100Km/hr or poor maintenance! It is true storm can bring with them debris that could _"catch"_ the overhead wires and bring them down, however, its rare that it happens ~ it is the design of the structure is the key!

[@Falkirion]

@@jonathonshanecrawford1840 ah I knew it was 35 something. Haven't had to deal with the QLD system in over 2 years

[@Titot182]

One thing to add from a metallurgical and corrosion aspect on third rail. Stray current and grounds have caused a lot of corrosion on buried pipework, particularly around the the home counties area, with the victorian cast iron pipework. So whilst they don't directly affect the operation of the railways, it does pose other problems for utilities, such as Thames Water. Was a case study on my University of Surrey MSc modules about 15 years ago.

[@trueriver1950]

The reason the London Underground ("Tube") is four rail is to make sure the return path does not leave the track. The track has a positive and negative rail, that are not symmetrical about zero. That means the electrons never get tempted to leave the official path (at least in theory). That decision was forced on the Underground when it was first electrified, following the experiences of above surface third rail electrification already damaging water pipes. In part, ai well, the Railway did not want to risk electrification damaging the steel linings of some of the tunnels. Where the four rail units share track with three rail units, the centre rail is grounded, and so it's one of the running rails. That means that for safety the DC components of the four rail units have to be insulated too cope with both scenarios. There actual motors don't actually care where the positives and negatives sit in comparison to a theoretical Earth, but the parts of the train exposed to people need to be grounded properly.

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

I think you have got which units need transformers mixed up. For example, the British Rail Class 86 locos have transformers to reduce voltage from 25kv to 900v for the motors, whereas British Rail Class 423 4VEPs don't have a transformers for traction power as they get the 750v direct from the third rail. DC units without transformers require ballast to keep their centre of gravity low. British Rail Class 86s are 25kv AC OLE locos, and the British Rail Class 423 4VEPs are 750v DC third Rail units.

[@thepwayengineer]

Thank you for the information!

[@musiqtee]

Second that… 😅 Transformers only work with AC, as the fluctuating polarity is needed to create the shifting magnetic field induction to the secondary coil(s). Running DC through one would just create a big magnet - and a single spike across the secondary coil (and an opposite polarity spike when turned off). Early AC traction was regulated by tapping into sections of the coils, mostly avoiding huge and hot resistors used with DC (energy loss). Mercury or motor rectifiers were often used in AC, as DC drive-motors were more efficient than AC ones. Last 50ish years, both AC and DC fed traction is either “chopped” (like a lamp dimmer, but huge), or turned into multiphase variable frequency - a bit like e-vehicles. All solid state without moving mechanics - except the driving motor-wheel assembly. Oh well, this was certainly more than anyone asked for… (and correct me if & where wrong) 😅

[@MervynPartin]

DC units do not require ballast- their CoG is already low and quite irrelevant. Diesel locos have a higher CoG due to the mass of their engine & generator.

[@musiqtee]

@@MervynPartin Agree - I overlooked the “ballast” part, as this video was about electric traction… Silly me. 😅

[@genoobtlp4424]

@@MervynPartin afaik, ballast can be used, but it’s because the electric equipment is too light and wouldn’t get the full axle load for maximum usable traction (mostly a concern for low speed drags and thus cargo only operations in countries like the US with few limits on train length and minimum train speeds)

[@PaulSmith-pl7fo]

One of the disadvantages of OLE you mentioned was sagging lines. Most (if not all) lines have "automatic" tensioners installed to overcome/minimise this problem. I don't believe you mentioned this.

[@thepwayengineer]

A very good point! Something I have over looked. I remember there used to always be issues in certain areas on the Great Eastern due to sagging wires, that maybe have gone with upgrades to equipment. I wonder if the increase in the temperatures we are starting to see will bring the issue back or if the tensioner systems have enough in them to deal with a wide range of temperatures

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

@@thepwayengineer One of the reasons for the Upgrades was to remove the variable tension depending on the weather.

[@MrAljosav]

@@thepwayengineeras an Australian (where all metro/suburban rail systems are OHLE) sagging catenaries is rarely an issue these days even on 45°c days! You’re only ever at the mercy of poor maintenance.

[@jonathonshanecrawford1840]

Overhead wire don't sag due to heat or cold, they are counter balanced to prevent sagging, as the wire expands (heat), the weights raises, when the wire contracts (cools) the weights lower! These weights are referred as automatic tensioning weights...

[@jonathonshanecrawford1840]

@@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire Why remove it when it is 100% proven to work, whet did they replace it with?

[@6yjjk]

It's pretty cool to ride on a train in the dark depths of Finnish winter and see the trackside illuminated in the flickering blue glow as the pantograph constantly makes and breaks contact through the ice. Waiting to see what they do with the Forth Bridge, whether they're going to put masts on it or run trains on battery.

[@thepwayengineer]

It will be interesting to see! Maybe more steel work to be painted!

[@philhoward4466]

i'd go with some small (1km range) batteries that can be recharged from the overhead very quickly.

[@6yjjk]

@@philhoward4466 The Forth Bridge is 2.5km long...

[@physiocrat7143]

Rapid wear to the pantograph

[@haweater1555]

Is there an issue with electrification of the Forth bridge? Don't like the look of the wires?

[@Ddrhodes123]

Chicago sees more variety of weather than most major cities. We’ve seen temperatures from below 0F/-18C to over 100F/38C. And snow and ice so bad, switches near the main stations have permanent natural gas pipes that provide open flames in the winter to keep the switches working. Even so, there is a mix of electric power supply. The ‘L’ subway system primarily consists of third-rail with a short section (Yellow line) with both. The L tracks are famously overhead in the Loop but are also underground and at street level (some far ends). The Metra Electric/South Shore train line uses overhead lines (and until recently, had a street-running section). And the many other passenger and freight lines use diesel/electric engines.

[@tzor]

As someone who lives on Long Island, New York, United States, I am familiar with the strange marriage of both systems and unelectrified rails on the "Long Island Railroad." The line at the western most point is used by both Amtrack (overhead) and the Long Island Railroad (third rail) mostly because there is a yard on Long Island for Amtrack, but there is a rumor about a possible tunnel and extension of the Amtrack line through one of the main lines of the LIRR, meaning a significant portion of the line will have both third rail and overhead at the same time. Then we have many extensions of the line without any electrification (not to mention that the freight line is diesel electric, even when they are running on the lines with the third rail).

[@filanfyretracker]

around NYC they have some trains that can run overhead and third rail as well as diesel locomotives that can run diesel or third. Dual Power diesels for example run up the Danbury branch of the New Haven line as the branch has no electrification but you also cannot run a diesel into Grand Central. So the locomotive cuts the engine and runs on the third, The Overhead and third trainsets are because the NH line shares most of its track with the NE corridor which is overhead, but the Metro North lines into NYC are all third rail.

[@samuelbistline4973]

Great video. Well done. Here in PA, the Penn Central had taken down miles of wire and left the high volt at the top. Here in PA, the wire only goes on amtrk from Philly to Harrisburg PA, but there is a lot of lines missing in the Central eastern part of PA and all thu south Philly. There has been talk running new lines west on NS from Harrisburg, but it just falls on the death doors.

[@sethtaylor5938]

Third rail is 600 Volts DC. The currents are enormous. Voltage drop per mile is high. Third rail requires several feeders from the supplying utility every couple of miles. Expensive electric construction. Overhead catenary in USA is typically 23,000 to 25,000 volts AC which requires utility feed every 10 to 20 miles. There is no comparison. Third rail works on local metro trains, never on long distance without a lot of power infrastructure. Also, because of the high currents at the DC traction motors vs. 2400 volt traction motors in catenary locomotives, third rail engines have limited horsepower. DC third rail is highly inefficient. Ballast resistors on the rolling stock are used to limited current inrush. Once again, great for city and suburban lines, not for long distance high speed rail.

[@delurkor]

To solve the ice problem on 3rd rail the New York Central used under running rails. The contact was on the bottom of rail and the shoe was sprung upwards to contact. This system is still in use on the electrified lines running out of Grand Central Station in New York City. The Pennsylvania Railroad chose over-running 3rd rail for Penn Station in NYC. I believe the New Haven , which served both stations had use 3rd rail shoes that could run on both.

[@jonathonshanecrawford1840]

They could install carbon heater pads under the _"third"_

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

The cost to covert to the bottom contact the third rail from top contact third rail in the UK would be similar to converting OLE. In the UK OLE is the national standard as well as you would save money by using less electricity.

[@jonathonshanecrawford1840]

@@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire Isn't true, that the lower the voltage, the higher the current? Like 120V~ @ 20A as to 240V~@ 10A or 110.000V~ has low current, until it reaches the sub station, then dropped down to 11,000V~ and then again to 400V~ That's to was the power rating (current) goes up at 630VDC and the 25,000V~ uses less current?

[@delurkor]

Well bugger. I wrote over-running, that should be under-running. the contact is on the bottom. never comment before coffee.

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

@@jonathonshanecrawford1840 With 750v 3rd rail you lose about half the energy down to heating versus 20% with 25kv OLE. For example, starting a 750v 3rd rail train takes around 3000A versus 200A for 25kv and 500A for double-headed 25kv.

[@heronimousbrapson863]

DC powered third rail type locomotives would not be equipped with transformers, which can't be used with direct current.

[@JfromUK_]

Thanks for this clear info. Growing up in south-east England where third-rail electrification is the norm (and I spotted your Southern train as an example!), I was surprised when I first went up to York as a teenager and noticed the overhead lines and supports on lines north of London. It seemed such a blot on the landscape as well as an unthinkable task to install them all (not that putting in big heavy rails seems like easy work either though, to be fair). You did a thorough job listing the pros and cons, some of which I hadn't considered such as speed restriction. Like others in the comments, I was confused by trains on the third rail network needing transformers, but I'll leave that to people who know more than me about trains 😅

[@physiocrat7143]

The transformers are in the feeder stations next to the track.

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

@@physiocrat7143 ...and therefore do NOT add to the weight of the train.

[@user-ub6zt9xl1o]

Ice breakers can be installed on pantograph collectors as is done in the U.S. for the east coast commuter systems and light rail systems around the country. Third rail systems mostly use 750 volts ac. Metro North rail in New York City uses trains that can run on third rail systems as well as overhead systems of both 12,500/2500 volts.

[@thepwayengineer]

Interesting about the ice breakers, I haven't heard of them before for OLE systems

[@James_Knott]

I live near Toronto, Ontario. At the moment, a new LRT line is being installed right down the street in front of my condo. They are going with a pantograph system and will soon be installing the wires. In Toronto, the subway system uses 3rd rail, but the streetcars recently switched from trolley pole to pantograph. The new LRT lines in Toronto will also use pantograph.

[@dfwrider3830]

i worked a bunch of those empty trains used to keep the third rail from building up ice this past winter. it required a person to sit in the back of the train and flip a pump switch between left and right output. the pump pushed antifreeze out of a hose connected to each trolley shoe on the rearmost truck. easy way to make time and a half. the rest of the year though, having to walk over live 3rd rail in the yard is a pain. they even set up the grabirons on the side such that the third rail is exactly where you would expect the bottom step of the ladder to be. obviously you dont want to step on it though.

[@stephenphilp1380]

If the third tail is DC, why are there transformers in the train. Transformers only work with AC?!?

[@roberthuron9160]

When you discussed third rail systems,you left out Conduits,and contact systems ! Both had been in use,in Britain and the US! Also those were combined on streetcars/trams,and had long work lives! London,and New York,had miles of those types of operations! Add,on DC operations,there were/are voltage ranges from 600,to 3500,and used on both third rail,and overhead! In Chicago,the former ILLINOIS CENTRAL lines are operated at 3500 volts,and under arduous conditions[lots of snow,ice,and cold],and the CTA elevateds operate with exposed third,as does Boston! Anyway,the history is interesting,and covers some 100+ years of operations! Thank for an interesting video,and you forgot the Liverpool Overhead,as a pioneering rail line! Again thank you 😊!

[@justmeajah]

Very excellent explanation for a novice rail enthusiast like me!!

[@thepwayengineer]

Glad to hear that!

[@michaellaudahn]

Your clip was informative, and you sound quite convincing, yet should we take everything you say at face value? Two examples: 1:43 Apart from this being a skewing tele lens catch, masts do not have to look like that. Germany in particular invested energy in designing masts that have fairly little visual influence on their surrounding. Have a look at the WP article 'overhead line', then click on the german version, then count down to the eighth photo - 'stahlflachmasten deutscher bauart'. [Another way to gather info on this would be via YT, then 'führerstandsmitfahrt' (cab ride).] Similar masts as the ones used fx in Germany were also erected earlier in Britain. Why did your decision takers not follow course when the Paddington - Cardiff line was electrified? As far as I can see, this question was raised a number of times in the public (maybe not quite as straightforward) but never answered by those responsible. 7:34 Are you certain? There's a tension mechanism, in Germany it has been used since the early days of electrification - the learning phase was from ca 1905 to 1930, since then the overhead system has not changed substantially. (It was copied by most other countries.) If you scroll further down on that same WP page, slightly beyond mid-page to the photo 'radspannwerk DB-bauart zur getrennten abspannung von tragseil und fahrdraht'? And why not use the chance to also note the following image, 'überlappende...'

[@red_rassmueller1716]

Ob the topic of Germany, 3rd rail Systems used by the Munich underground and the Berlin S-Bahn, are not exposed on the top. They have a (I assume plastic) cover on top and are So far off the ground that I have seen Rabbits traversing the rails without problems.

[@genoobtlp4424]

@@red_rassmueller1716 still can zap you, even with bottom contact 3rd rail. I prefer the bottom contact 3rd rail that runs at the ceiling as a low clearance OHLE

[@physiocrat7143]

The Great Western electrification is a 120 mile long eyesore of gallows and goalposts stretched across Southern England.

[@olgakarelova6965]

On the contrary, lower voltage DC third rail does not need a transformer, while higher voltage AC catenary wire system (like 25kV AC) requires stepdown transformer on the train.

[@MumvuriYolanda]

DC rails have a transformer every 6miles or so

[@ian-nz-2000]

The London Underground, which uses a four rail DC system, solves the lack of power problem by distributing drive bogies through the train. This also helps avoid power loss when crossing points. Anyone who has travelled on the tube will have noticed the large copper cables used to distribute the power to the rails, a train pulling out of a station easily draws over 3,000A which will cause noticeable losses along a steel rail.

[@rickardandreasson5095]

I have for long time wondered about low frequency AC power for trains. I heard its much cheaper to produce big motors for low frequency AC than power grid frequency. Also there are frequency converters for modern units of today.

[@mityace]

Here are three things you missed: 1) Floods will also affect most overhead wires. In both third rail and overhead lines, the power returns on the running rails so if the track is flooded even overhead wire will be taken out. The only way around it would be to have 2 wires overhead. That hasn't been used much on rails but it is necessary for trolley busses. 2) A trolley pole can also be used for overhead wire collection. I think they are still used more here in the US but even here they are mainly used for museums and heritage streetcar (aka trolley, tram) lines like those in Tampa, FL and Memphis, TN. There have been other methods like the bus bar (that may not be right) which is a loop of metal that contacts the wire like a pantograph but has little support hardware like a trolley pole. This method is pretty much extinct as it was mainly used as an intermediate step between trolley poles and pantographs. 3) Another issue for overhead wires is that it restricts the loading gauge. Here in the US, most trains that carry intermodal containers are double stacked containers. In areas with overhead wire, (primarily the Northeast Corridor and some suburban electrification) only single stack containers can be run. Similarly, Amtrak's Superliner cars and other bi-level cars can't run on the northeast corridor either. That is not as much of an issue in Europe and the loading gauge from other factors limits containers and passenger cars to single level. This is not insurmountable as the Metra Electric lines in Chicago, IL run bi-levels and some French TGV's are bi-level. Of course, the wire much be much higher to allow for high height cars and thus is best done before the wire is strung. Raising the wire height significantly will usually require larger pantographs and will often require modifying bridges and tunnels or lowering the track to make the required clearance. This is not unique to overhead wire. The US railroads have spent millions if not billions of dollars to increase clearances to permit double stacks in non-electrified territory as well.

[@1258-Eckhart]

Very well explained! (subscribed) At last they're electrifying the transpennine route via Standedge at last and I hope the new government sees the good sense in electrifying the East-West route as well. Very silly not to electrify when the railway is under possession anyway.

[@TheRip72]

The exiting part of east-west rail from Bletchley to Bedford has no electrification planned. The new section from Oxford to Bletchley which has not opened yet had electrification dropped from its plans early in the planning phase.

[@rhock1979]

also with the third rail is if a item made of metal get blown on the track and it touches the third rail and live rail it causes them get welded on the track resulting in trains getting stuck unable to move (if the track is not a type allow trains to run both directions

[@SRN42069]

Overhead wires offer the most safety and have lower maintenance costs. Also it’s almost impossible to run any sort of high speed rail with 3rd rails which is why it’s usually limited to subways.

[@jozefbubez6116]

Lower maintence costs? Maybe, but with overhead wires you have to maintain a repair-crew 24/7 in case of failure. Many years ago, my tutor, a veteran of South African railways related how he was involved in re-fixing the trains in Italy in the wake of the German retreat in WW2. One day, the wire broke and snaked back on forth on the station platform with people literally petrified. At least third-rail will not do that!

[@Gelatinocyte2]

There really is no reason for Third Rail systems other than spatial availability issues and NIMBY-esqe mentality of "visual clutter" (they don't like overhead wires).

[@sanchoodell6789]

8:12 Funny how he decides to move his camera when filmimg under the moving train.

[@solentbum]

Not sure if its still running , but I once travelled on a Train from the Bedford area to Brighton, the first part of the journey was powered from above via a pantograph, then somewhere on the line round west London the train stopped for a couple of minute , the Pantograph was retracted and we continued using power from the third rail! A most interesting ride.

[@barvdw]

Thameslink still does this, yes, there hasn't been any major change to the 3rd-rail network, it was neither expanded nor converted to OHLE.

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

@@barvdw ...although some parts of it were once overhead.

[@haweater1555]

Both New York City and London have multiple lines of third rail electric commuter trains that reach far out into the countryside, with level crossings, unprotected access and all the potential danger it implies.

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

Railways in Great Britain are fenced, to exclude 'open access'. How does the implied risk compare with reality?

[@imjusthereeatingpopcorn5234]

Hopefully developments towards short range battery electric or hydrogen fuel cell trains will help to plug the gap on the shorter lines. Electric buses are already a marvel for public transportation. The future is only going to get better

[@d1234as]

Heat is not a real issue on constant tension catenaries because they counterbalance the lose of tension caused from heat stretching with tensioning system. Heat is a problem only on old fixed tension catenaries, like parts of NEC electrification. Another disadvantages of third track is the needed of use high currents to supply sufficient power to engine, limiting also the power that train can pick up from third rail, especially if they use a low numbers of shoes like on locomotive hauled trains. OHLE usually can use higher voltage (up to 3kV on DC or up to 25 kV on AC typically, sometimes also 50 kV), carrying more power with less current. Nowadays third rail electrification make sense only on metro lines to save money in digging tunnels and not always, because if there is sufficient room overhead is better to install rigid OHLE instead of third rail equipment, it's safer, can manage higher voltage, it doesn't have gaps on switches zone and allow higher speeds.

[@JP_TaVeryMuch]

Thanks for this video. It's the most balanced treatment of the ups and downs of either one that I've seen. Thank you also for packing in so many nuggets of information whilst keeping the whole thing entertainingly speeding along down the track. Can it _really_ be because of the impact of pick-up shoe to next section of 3rd rail that top speed is stubbornly stuck at 100mph‽ Can't find anything else online. Not a fan of all the gubbins that comes with OLE for possibly facile visual pollution reasons, I can't help but think that it's about time that entirely different ways to get trains moving should exist by now. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to come up with an onboard energy source, non-polluting, negating the need for any of it to be installed, maintained and child/idiot/accident - proofed in the first place.

[@thepwayengineer]

Thank you for the kind words! Having been next to a train when it is running at a fair speed, they do hit those ramps pretty hard!

[@cjmillsnun]

I think you have that wrong with regard to onboard transformers. Transformers are used to step up or step down AC voltage. They are most definitely required on AC OHLE trains, and not required on DC 3rd rail. where the systems can run at 750V and use more efficient DC - DC converters to step down for equipment like lighting.

[@jonathonshanecrawford1840]

To convert DC up or down, first it has to be converted to something like AC (cars do the same (sort of) with the points switching on and off, simulating AC so 12VDC can pass through the transformer (AKA coil), thus "Stepping up" the voltage! So therefore, low voltage say 720VDC may be needed to be stepped up to 900VDC, to do so, one need to "invert" the 720VDC to say 700V~ (due to loss - normal) then stepped up via a transformer, then rectified to 900VDC.

[@trueriver1950]

All DC to DC converters are off two sorts. Almost all consist of a "chopper" that converts DC to square wave AC, then a transformer, then rectification. So these ALWAYS contain a transformer. Sorry😢 Older large scale DC to DC conversion was achieved with a motor powering a -dinosaur- dynamo. These fell out of use in new installations during the 20th century, once switched mode converters became efficient and cost effective, but some units are still in use on large scale static power systems.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

We've used battery locomotives for almost as long as we've had electric trains. The Hational Collection has a Norh Staffordshire Railway battery locomotive built in 1917, which is about 10 years younger than the NER steeple cab shunter they have.

[@trainjedi9651]

It should also be noted that with OHLE, because it is typically run at higher voltage, it is incredibly dangerous to work or be near active overhead lines. E.g. 25kV AC ohle (what is used in the UK) can jump out to someone up to 6 feet away from the cable itself.

[@Volcano-Man]

The OLE in UK can be approached to within 0.6 metres by specially trained staff using specialist equipment. I was investigating the properties of Lightning for a technical paper and contacted Rail Track about the problems they encounter with the OLE. Which is where I got that information from. Incidentally a lightning cell can affect structures up to 16 km away! There is a case of a real bolt out of the blue at the Army's cup final in 1948 at Aldershot. A clear blue sky and a bolt of Lightning hit the ground, people were killed, and badly injured.

[@yvesd_fr1810]

Another disadvantage of 3rd rail is the necessity to leave open spaces at junctions or diamonds. This generates an unstable current supply to the engine (loc) plus numerous electric arc formation... Aside, I fully agree with the fact that supplying current under low or medium voltage is less efficient in terms of current loss by Joule effect. In this line, in France electric locs working under 1500 V need to raise two pantos when starting as the intensity of the current going thru the pantos is extremey high compared to locs working under 25 kV, which is now the standard supply over here...

[@physiocrat7143]

We have most overhead electrification in Sweden. My last train journey ended up with an overnight hotel stay due to wires being stolen. No trains today due to high winds.

[@haweater1555]

There is a trend worldwide for some new urban metro systems, which would normally be third rail, to install overhead wires.

[@CoyoteUK84]

Shout out to the rigid overhead conductor beams. Suprised that didn't at least get an honerable mention while talking about OLE.

[@delurkor]

The local transit agency, BART, decided early on to forgo the old school 600v or 750v third rail and go to 1000v DC third rail. The is sited higher than usual, and contact is by an over-running paddle style contact. They also went with 5'6" guage and non-tapered wheel profile. Who needs 150 years experience.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

The safety issue for 3rd rail systems can be reduced if using a bottom contact system as the conductor rail can be covered.

[@ismoleppanen]

Bottom-contact 3rd rail is used on modern metro networks, and the S-Bahn in Hamburg uses side-contact 3rd rail.

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway used 1.2kV DC side-contact 3rd rail between Manchester and Bury from 1916. It was chiefly to stop ice building-up on the contact surface.

[@MrMeehan1993]

We Need it On Vline In Australia Also in Melbourne Has A Metro Rail system Southern Cross is The Terminus of Vline Services !! AND metro Services! Metro Tunnel will open With 5 New Stations in Melbourne! Two Stations Will Connect Flinders Street Station And Melbourne Central Station Will edit this

[@jensschroder8214]

The third power rail is well suited for subways in narrow tunnels. A suspended cable would mean a larger tunnel diameter. There is often no space for this. It is enough for a power rail on the ground.

[@victoryleadership1]

Safety to human an animal life would be my reason for eliminating the use of third-rail. Human life should not have a cost when safer alternatives exist. Thanks for sharing.

[@physiocrat7143]

Members of the public should not be on the track anyway. Track work is normally done with the current switched off. Live rails in depot are shielded.

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

@@physiocrat7143 I think safety to human and animal life might be more of a reason to eliminate motor cars, rather than third-rail electrification on railways. Can anyone supply the relavent figures?

[@nova290r]

I think that suspended bottom contact third rails are the best way to implement a third rail system

[@philhoward4466]

maintenance trains could be battery powered instead of diesel powered. EVs have created a market for improved battery technology.

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

London Underground has had battery electric locos since the 1920s for maintenance trains.

[@dukeofgibbon4043]

I think the US should mandate a pantograph on every new locomotive. Diesel locomotives already use an electric drivetrain. Electrify the main line and batteries can handle deliveries to spurs.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

There is another disadvantage of 3rd rail systems I that they are limited in voltage to 1,200V (although some systems have used1,500V) due to earth leakage becoming a significant problem.

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

This was the main reason for Vincent Raven's decision not to use third-rail on his North Eastern Railway main-line electrification scheme. It proved virtually impossible to stop flashovers. As it happened, the whole scheme was dropped post-grouping, and the York-Newcastle section had to wait until the mid-'80s for electrification.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@tooleyheadbang4239 surely the early 1990s?

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

@@neiloflongbeck5705 Possibly as late as that. The scheme didn't receive approval until the '80s.

[@johnburns4017]

Alston announced a 100mph 90 mile range battery train. They are here. The batteries are only getting better. This sort of range is good for say a HS2 hybrid serving Chester, on battery for the last 30 miles as wires cannot be fitted as the bridges are too low. Trains will also get lighter to improve efficiencies. I can see *de-electrification* on many passenger routes especially on 3rd rail. Ellesmere Port . For example on Merseyrail, the dangerous 3rd rail can be ripped up from Spital station to Chester and Ellesmere Port stations when the Warrington service extended from Ellesmere Port comes online using the battery hybrid Class 777s which can charge from the 3rd rail.

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

We had de-electrification on Tyneside, when commuter services were changed to Diesel. Nothing had become dangerous, nothing was 'ripped up'. The electric installation was declared to be 'worn out', and Diesel was the cheaper option.

[@johnburns4017]

@@tooleyheadbang4239 3rd rail is dangerous - for obvious reasons. If it can be ripped up for safety reasons, then rip it up. Times move on.

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

@@johnburns4017 I'm only interested in facts, not Journalism.

[@erikziak1249]

There are pantograph contact strips that can be used to remove ice from the wires. Equally there are special inserts for shoes on trolley poles for the same reason. They are made from steel and can withstand the mechanical forces when scraping off ice build up on the wire. However, these are not good for conducting electricity, but when it comes to de-icing, the efficient transmission of electricity is not the main issue.

[@filanfyretracker]

on the US NE Corridor you will see some trains run with both pantographs up in the winter. The forward one presumably has the ice breaker and the back of the locomotive is primary power collection. Normally they run with the rear one up and the front down, Which I presume is because if something happens and it rips off they still have one, Where as if the front was the primary it could damage the back on its way off the locomotive.

[@Ackmipro]

the heat is not a big deal for overhead lines cz there is a system which manage the wiers elasticity

[@squeaksvids5886]

DC trains do not have transformers, only high voltage AC trains.

[@adrianbaron4994]

I've often wondered ( and perhaps an engineer can enlighten me ) regarding 3rd and 4th rail systems. If metal shoes are held against the live rail by a spring or similar means, and the train can run up to 85mph, then why don't the shoes heat up through friction and even start to glow red hot?

[@trueriver1950]

Because the pressure is minimal (on the London Underground for example it's only the weight of the pickup keeping the connection) keeping the friction down, plus the thickness of the rail means that a train does not have time to heat it up appreciably. And the pick up shoe is cooled by the rail, as well as recieving electrical power. It's hard for a small pick up to stay hot when sliding along a big lump of metal at outside temperature. Sideways and inverted rail systems do need springs, as you say, but again the pressures are designed to be as low as possible to allow the system to work, partly to reduce wear and also as you say this reduces the friction heating.

[@davidhawkins683]

The German S-Bahn third rail system is technically superior to the British system. The third rail is covered and the current is collected from underneath the third rail. This means there is less danger of electrocution and fewer problems with snow and ice. In Britain this variant is used on the DLR.

[@physiocrat7143]

The British system would be OK if the rails were protected with planks at more locations.

[@LostsTVandRadio]

Surely AC systems need transformers, whilst DC systems don't ...

[@cyri96]

well really both need tranformers nowadays since AC motors have become the standard for new Rolling stock

[@LostsTVandRadio]

@@cyri96 Inverters needed as well I guess ...

[@genoobtlp4424]

Yup, 3phase AC doesn’t care, the input will be delivered the wrong way, so you need to get the voltage to something reasonable (afaik 300-600V), get it to DC and then invert it to the right frequency (which is a gear ratio and fancy circuiting away from the wheel speed)

[@philhoward4466]

the transformer easily changes the voltage of AC to what you need. to do that with DC it requires more complex equipment (on the train). AC motors are the way these days requiring just one (big) capacitor when starting. they also can be wired for a wide range of operating voltages, possibly eliminating the need for a heavy transformer.

[@philhoward4466]

@@genoobtlp4424 the AC on the overhead is just single phase. 3phase would need 3 wires. AC motors can be wired and/or geared for a wide range of frequencies easily covering the common ones.

[@jensschroder8214]

In Switzerland the railways are 100% electrified. Previously, Switzerland used steam locomotives and was dependent on coal deliveries from Germany. This was also the case during WW2, where Switzerland was afraid of being occupied by Germany, which didn't happen. But Switzerland has the ability to generate its own electricity using water. That's why steam locomotives were soon equipped with electric heaters. Because that was ineffective, they then built electric locomotives.

[@SabotsLibres]

Not sure where you get the idea that high voltages obviate the need for transformers - the traction motors in a locomotive draw a lower voltage than the majority of overhead supplies. I am pleased that at no point have you referred to catenary, only overhead line equipment (OLE). Most videos bang on about trains drawing their power from the catenary not realizing that their error.

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

The only error there is in your understanding of English.

[@SabotsLibres]

@@tooleyheadbang4239 that’s an interesting comment - please explain why to this ignorant native speaker teacher of English as a foreign language…

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

@@SabotsLibres Because in railway terms, the type of overhead power supply which consists of a rope or cable suspended above the line is known as 'catenary', from the geometrical shape of the curve which such a rope or cable assumes.

[@SabotsLibres]

@@tooleyheadbang4239 exactly, it is the curve of the suspension wire between the masts which can also be the carrier wire where the droppers attach directly to the contact wire. But the entire structure is not catenary…

[@extrude22]

Overhead lines definitely need transformers if they are AC. 25,000 volts AC is way more than the train actually needs. DC is usually 750 volts so a large transformer isn’t required.

[@paulstubbs7678]

1500VDC in Australia, however I believe the long haul European systems use 15KV or 25KV

[@extrude22]

@@paulstubbs7678 25KV is the standard for overhead lines in the UK. All trains which use overheads in the UK have on board transformers.

[@paulstubbs7678]

@@extrude22 The 1500V is for local passenger services, country, intercity & freight are diesel

[@tacitdionysus3220]

Um, it's not the train that's the issue it's the transmission system. 25vAC can transmit the same power at a much lower amperage. That means wires and infrastructure can be much lighter. Higher voltage enables it to be transmitted over longer distances. DC systems need five times as many substations to feed a line as 25Kv AC systems. Most new systems use high voltage AC. DC systems were an early 20th century system.

[@physiocrat7143]

Railways account for 0.7% of UK emissions. Why is anyone concerned about this? We in Sweden have large scale overhead electrification. It is grossly unreliable. My last journey ended up with an overnight hotel stay due to the wires being stolen, which happens regularly. A previous journey ended up with four hours in a forest waiting to be rescued. No trains in Western Sweden today due to high winds. A lot of the electrification in Sweden could usefully be removed when it wears out. There are very few fatalies to staff due to 3rd rail electrification. It is easy to shield the live rail.

[@petermostyneccleston2884]

The Railway line through North Wales is not electric, so can only have Diesel trains over here. In the 1980's the train to London would be diesel powered, usually a class 45, or 47, until Crewe, then the locomotive would be changed at Crewe, for an electric one, something like a class 86, or 87. During the 1990's the HST 125's were put onto the London to Holyhead service, and the same locomotives were used all the way through. Trains from Llandudno used DMU's, and are now using the current version of those. As the whole of North Wales does not have any electricity on the route, it is suitable for the Steam Special service. This happened in the summer during the 1990's, and was very popular. They still have special steam trains coming through now, but not as often as they were in the 1990's.

[@6yjjk]

@@petermostyneccleston2884 I'm sure Virgin were diesel-hauling a Pendolino set along there at some point in the 2000s. I remember it being an extraordinarily smooth and quiet ride.

[@petermostyneccleston2884]

@@6yjjk they did do that at some point, but that was the only way that they were able to take the electric train units beyond Crewe.

[@physiocrat7143]

Electrification of the North Wales coast line would be asking for trouble.

[@trueriver1950]

​​@@6yjjk that's right :) The diesel loco also supplied so-called "hotel power" at 240 VAC single phase to the Pendo's, so that the lights and so on worked, and passengers didn't get left in the dark at night time How embarrassing for an electric train to have to import electricity from a Diesel loco...😮

[@trueriver1950]

​@@physiocrat7143 in what way?

[@philipdouglas5911]

Lets hope that the residents in Bath objections to electric trains can be overcome if the wires are ever going to reach Bristol. They claimed that the overhead equipment was too unsightly and would ruin their view. Only in the UK can nimbies sabotage a major rail upgrade and they were glad when it was paused by the government due to increasing costs. That is another reason why electrification has stalled in the UK as we have lost the expertise to do such upgrades. BR used to have it and would have done the whole job on time and within budget. Now we are reliant on private tenders who submit an unrealistically low budget to win the contract. It is only when the work starts that the true cost becomes known leading to cuts due to political interference. Lets hope that if the new government find that they are able to start upgrade works again - which is unknown given the state of the public finances that they have inherited - that the work can be done fully again.

[@AndrewJohnson-ur3lw]

There are 3 types of 3rd rail, top contact, bottom contact and side contact. For areas with less frequent services it has been suggested that trains that can run on battery mode for the length of the line and then charge up when on "mains" are a way to reduce diesel powered trains.

[@thepwayengineer]

I honestly didnt know there were three different types, thank you!

[@constancel4211]

@@thepwayengineer Are tracks your personnal area of expertise, as I had first assumed when watching you channel ?

[@thepwayengineer]

@@constancel4211 It is indeed

[@DH-tv2yw]

Don't forget trains have an inherently low rolling resistance due to the steel on steel interface. So even a diesel train will be more efficient than a car or a lorry in most cases. I often wonder if some of the efforts to decarbonise the railways would be better spent in just increasing the modal share of the railways. Electricification where it makes sense (and again the steel tracks make a natural return conductor, so it's easier than for road transport) but not at any cost.

[@andybray9791]

Less visual pollution on commuter lines. While ohle is better for high speed services

[@petermikus2363]

You can always cover the third rail with a plastic shround like in the Prague metro. It's not foolproof tho.

[@James_Knott]

In the Toronto subway, there's a wood plank above the 3rd rail.

[@petermikus2363]

​@@James_KnottNeat, i'll admit i haven't really looked up a lot of metro systems so i'll go take a look at it. Thanks for mentioning that.

[@PhilRable]

Longer heavier freight trains tend to be diesel electric aren’t they?

[@trueriver1950]

Yes, bit only for top the lack of end to end wires. At some point the gaps will be small enough that bi mode locos will become cosy effective (that might be Diesel vs OLe, or battery vs OLE). Pure OLE creates an issue for container handling, because an OLE loco can't push a train all the way under a container crane. You either need a local shunter (costing extra wages) or for the main loco to have a power source that is independent of the infrastructure.

[@user-fed-yum]

3:04 The commonly held belief that transmitting DC is less efficient than AC isn't necessarily the case. Whilst this was true many years ago, we now have technology that is being used to transform DC voltage up and down at transmission line capacities.

[@tacitdionysus3220]

It's not just about transformers. Long distance high voltage DC transmission is great for sending very large voltages over major transmission lines, suspended from large towers running through cleared rights of way connecting places of supply and distribution that are a very long way apart. The same technology is not optimised (and not economically adaptable) for supplying suitable voltage connections to train systems at points that are relatively close together. In the past something like 750 or 1500v DC was the best option. In the last several decades higher voltage AC technology has developed so that it is the 'go to' system. and 25v AC is easily drawn from typical public power grids and suitable for overhead wire supply.

[@James_Knott]

Yep. There are very high voltage systems that reduce the loss that AC systems have through capacitive and inductive reactance.

[@TheRip72]

DC is usually for 3rd rail & that cannot use high voltages for safety reasons.

[@larryppe]

One more disadvantage of the overhead power lines you didn't mention is the height restriction on the trains themselves. Double decker freight trains cannot run on those lines.

[@philhoward4466]

@larryppe in countries like India where people ride on top of trains often, overhead power can be a big hazard. i've seen a video showing such an event.

[@jmitc91516]

@@philhoward4466 Also in India - they run double stack container trains under overhead wires: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aXPFlXewoLKMgNU

[@davebowman6497]

So I got interested in your PDFs, but.. £25 for three PDFs, no info beyond an of the front page. No info on number of pages, no preview, no info on terms for the purchase etc. No deal for me.

[@thepwayengineer]

Hi Dave, I am sorry to hear that. I will take that feedback and look to see if I can address it in anyway

[@danensis]

What about the cost of the metal? Third rail uses a massive chunk of steel whereas overhead wires are much lighter.

[@physiocrat7143]

There is plenty of steel in the masts and expensive copper in the wires. It gets stolen regularly.

[@Micke120872]

It amazes me that there is not the ability to have the live sections come alive as a train approaches each section. Surely that could be built into the signalling system so that as a train approaches the end of one section then the next section of line becomes energised. I know that this would cost more to set up, but if live third rail or live OLE was not energised until just before the train gets to that section, then anytime a train is not in that section, the system could isolate that section so that the risk of electrocution, either by third rail or OLE is negated to quite a degree. Any views please anyone. Serious question which I am interested in.. Thanks.

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

This is like the surface-contact system for street-running trams. Live contacts on the road surface would be clearly unacceptable, so the extra complication of switching had to be introduced. The cost soon killed the system, and overhead live was installed instead. On railways, the problem doesn't arise, because the line isn't available to walk on, and anyone doing so faces a far greater danger than electrocution.

[@MervynPartin]

Despite the over-engineered, over-expensive GW electrification, its resilience to damage is appalling, as was proved earlier this year. For high speed lines, there is no alternative to overhead supplies (unless using diesels as per class 43), but in urban areas with clearance issues and potentially lower speeds due to track geometry, third rail might be a better option. The class 313 trains on the Moorgate branch and the dual voltage Javelin trains in Kent both on HS1 and the 750V dc network have shown that the systems work well. Perhaps the lines through Bath could have been electrified this way, cheaply and without upsetting the sensitive eyes of the Nimbys? One point regarding efficiency- Overhead line are not more efficient due to being on AC, but it is because the very much higher voltage possible reduces the current required, and thus resistive losses, so a smaller conductor can be used. It is only required to be AC in order to step down the voltage via a transformer on the train to a usable working voltage. (Note that Belgian Railways used 3000Vdc overhead but would still need to have a current carrying capacity 6 times higher than that of 25kV system).

[@mrikoantal]

The major problem with conductor rail electrification is safety, and for that reason it's quite difficult from a regulatory point of view to extend existing lines, never mind new electrification schemes. Personally speaking, I don't think myself or my colleagues should be electrocuted at work to protect the sensibilities of nimby sorts!

[@MervynPartin]

@@mrikoantal The problem with using safety as a reason for not using third rail is what do you do about systems already in widespread use? e.g. Merseyrail, Northern City Line, Glasgow Subway, London Underground and Overground, plus the huge ex-BR SR network. Do you shut them down because they are unsafe? Track Staff should have safe working methods in place (I have personally worked on live systems under strict safety procedures), but trespassers deserve Darwin Awards- I have no sympathy for them. The risk of unintended contact with the third rail can, however, be mitigated by timber shrouds, as already used in some locations. My intentions were to avoid the huge cost of raising bridges (and their parapets because idiots still manage to electrocute themselves on the overhead wires). In the Bath area, the track curves would prevent high speeds anyway, so third rail is quite satisfactory for speeds up to 160km/h. I actually share your views about Nimbys. They have cost the country dearly with the HS2 tunnelling so I really don't care if they are upset, but they would certainly have less about which to complain and hold up progress.

[@mrikoantal]

@@MervynPartin I generally agree with the ORR policy statement, I'd say. From their point of view, the existing mainline network can stay with small extensions and upgrades and so on, but newer stuff has to be safer. They rate LU and DLR as being safer than mainline third rail, at that. They're not proposing tearing down the former southern region, but a new top-contact scheme isolated from the wider network would be very hard to justify, even if every inch of it was boarded. We're trained on safe working, but if you're placing interlocking shrouds down straight on top of the conductor rail, and have to get them off when a lookout blows you out, it's another thing that can go wrong.

[@physiocrat7143]

​​@@mrikoantal Electrified third rails discourage trespassing. That is an important safety feature. Electrification masts are a hazard in themselves. Fatalies at Souhall and elsewhere been due to impacts with masts. The attitude of the safety authority is inconsistent.

[@physiocrat7143]

​@@MervynPartin The whole GW route should have been done on 3rd rail long ago. Apart from the other advantages it would then have been compatible with Southern and London Underground routes. The Elizabeth Line would have been less expensive.

[@W4BIN]

High Voltage centenary systems (most common) REQUIRE a hV to lV transformer associated with the engine. A paragraph is diamond shaped device, where a flat framework is more of an energy collector. Ron W4BIN

[@trueriver1950]

That's not quite correct. A pantograph is any framework with a double set of linkages arranged so the collection surface remains horizontal at any height. Early electric trains did have diamond pantos, but the name comes from the technical drawing tool that is a third shape again, neither the diamond nor the more modern high speed panto. It's simply the design of the lever system that the name refers to, not the layout of those levers.

[@johnclapshoe8059]

"Being DC, 3rd rail is inefficient." Ba-bow! No, Being a lower voltage, 3rd rail is inefficient. AC or DC has nothing to do with it. End of.

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

It's the same old misinformatiom, over and over again.

[@TheRip72]

Yep. Pushing current consumes power. Stepping up the voltage drops the current.

[@WhiskeyGulf71]

2:50 this is misleading, the class 387 which is primarily used on the Gatwick Express has a top line speed of 110 mph, that’s only 15 mph slower than most high speed trains in the UK.

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

Gatwick Express is limited 90mph as that is the top speed of the Brighton Mainline and 387s are limited to 100mph on the third rail.

[@Micke120872]

I thought the old Wessex Electric 442 (Plastic Pig) units were mostly used for GX services. Has that changed in the last 3 years??

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

@@Micke120872 NSE built the 442s in the 1980s for Weymouth from 4REPs, SWT got rid of them in mid 2000s and GX took them in last 2000s, the 442s were then replaced with 387s in 2018, in 2019 SWR took the 442s back, in 2021 they were withdrawn and scrapped.

[@DavidShepheard]

We need to have a pro-rail government that creates a rolling program of railway electrification. A rolling program of electrification will increase the amount of work being done and lower costs. The Scottish Government has already been doing some of this north of the border with England and their rail experts have been able to work out a system where equipment is pre-installed on electrification masts to minimise the number of closures needed to get overhead electrification put in. Overhead rail electrification needs to be done on the basis of the best early impact. So a lot of it is going to have to be based about removing diesel pollution from densely populated areas. But you can not run an electric fright train if part of the route is an "electrification desert". Third rail needs to be banished from the UK. It's already illegal to install new bits of third rail (it can only be repaired). However, it is far more important for us to decarbonise, as quickly as possible. So priority needs to be given to electrifying non-electrified routes and a plan to eventually pull up third rail and replace it with overhead electrification should be tied in to routes like Thameslink, where we currently have trains that switch between both systems. If we electrify most of England, Scotland and Wales (Northern Ireland also needs to be electrified, but uses different trains) we could have enough spare trains to cover the third rail sections transitioning over to overhead electrification later.

[@John.Mann.1941]

I have no idea how one would go about replacing the 3rd (& 4th) rail of the London Underground, especially the tube lines.

[@mrikoantal]

New third rail isn't strictly illegal, ORR's position is a bit more nuanced than that, new third rail would have to be justifiable. Wholesale electrification of the mainline isn't going to fly, but small extensions are potentially acceptable, as is LU and DLR extension, since those are safer systems. LU doesn't do live working, and DLR is bottom contact, but both have better separation for staff and the public from the conductor rail

[@physiocrat7143]

Rail accounts for 0.7% of UK emissions. Nobody should be wasting time talking about decarbonisation of rail. Overhead electrification makes the railway unreliable. I have personally been caught up in a couple of nasty incidents in Sweden due to OHLE failures, and I don't travel very often. All trains in Western Sweden were cancelled today because of the wind. Electrified third rail is a useful safety feature: it discourages trespassing. Fatalies at Southall and elsewhere were caught by the lineside masts. The RSSB needs to be challenged on this and other issues.

[@physiocrat7143]

Why does NI need to be electrified?

[@screwdriver5181]

You have mixed up the term transformer and inverter. The transformer is used on ac systems to drop the 25kv down to around 1kv for the traction system. Dc systems use an inverter to convert the 600 to 800 vdc to ac for other systems. All modern trains first of all make dc on board and then convert it to different voltages and frequencies for the auxiliaries and traction supplies. Dc sub stations now have inverters to convert the regenerated dc into 50 hz to pump back into the grid. It’s a lot more complex than your explanation. Also you might ask why DB and SBB etc use 16 2/3 Hz. I could go on for hours on that subject, but it is actually a more efficient system. AND it allows regeneration into an ac oh without semiconductors or rotating converters way back from the 1920’s.

[@philhoward4466]

the lower the AC frequency, the larger the core, and thus heavier, for the same voltage and power.

[@trueriver1950]

​@@philhoward4466 conversely, the AC square wave in the middle of a switching DC-DC converter will run at over 1000Hz to maximise efficiency. That actual transformation stage of a switching converter is just a normal transformer, optimised for the frequency of the chopper.

[@daanwolters3751]

Thing about lowering tracks is that it is expensive to do upfront. However, once every 40 years, rails need replacement. And when you are replacing the rails anyway, the costs of placing the new rails a few centimetres lower, to make space for electrification, are negligible (compared to the cost of replacing the tracks). Meaning that these cost of preparing overhead structures such as bridges, can be lowered significantly, by slowly doing it over time, when work has to be done on that section anyway. Also, newer models of third rail have a collector shoe collecting current from the underside of the rail, allowing for a cover to be placed on top of the rail, making it very resilient to snow and ice. And electrification has two big advantages: electric trains are cheaper and faster, costing up to 20% less, especially when using ac overhead wires. Second, electric trains need less maintenance, are lighter, and last a good 15 years longer than your average diesel train (average electric train lasts up to 40 years, while an average diesel train only last 25 years).

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

In the UK third rail electrification on the mainline has to use top contact third rail and the ORR & RSSB will not permit more third rail.

[@annabelholland]

Maybe thats why UK opted for third rail south of the Thames (and a little at Liverpool) because the OLE cannot fit under the bridges. It has to be at least 6m above the rails, hence why new bridges over railways are now required to give clearance for future OLE electrification. it may be the case for the same reason why UK railway electrification is relatively low at ~38%. Therefore, the Midland Mainline, Oxford to Didcot, Bristol Temple Meads to Bristol Parkway/Chippenham electrification projects have been paused with no date of resuming it.

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

@@annabelholland The reason for the Southern region using third rail is because there were 120 miles of 600v third rail versus 60 miles of 6.25kv AC OLE. OLE isn't 6m the lowest wire height, the foot crossings have a wire height of 5.2m, level crossings have a wire height of 5.6m and the lowest wire height is 4.165m with the standard wire height being 4.7m. The only time when an OLE wire is height than 6m is to trip the Over Height Drop system which will drop the pan at 6.2m. The reason for the cancelling has nothing to do with wire height and everything to do with the former government didn't want it. Labour has plans to restart the electrification projects as they were mostly finished. Bridges only need a gap of 70mm between OLE and the bridge, for example, the Cardiff Intersection bridge has an air gap of 70mm and a wire height of 4.165m. The Southern Railway by the 1940s regretted their choice to go with the third rail system rather than the OLE system. Also, Network Rail recommends the replacement of most of the third rail with OLE. Merseyrail also could fit OLE in. There is only a few lines which would keep third rail and that is the Island Line, Northern City Line and London Underground shared sections. Island Line and Northern City Line are due to the small tunnels which will not fit normal trains in.

[@daanwolters3751]

@@annabelholland yes and no, the uk initially opted for third rail, because of the many tunnels and bridges, but also because overhead lines usually use AC systems, which were very expensive and unreliable in the 1900's. Third rail was only placed in the southeast, because those lines were electrified first. Afterwards the development of reliable higher voltage systems lead to the uk preferring overhead line for new projects. Also overhead lines are placed between 4.60m and 5.10 m in the UK. While in mainland europe the wires are placed between 5.10 and 5.60 m. With most high speed lines having the wire at 5.30. (This height difference is why mainland europe can have double stack trains.)

[@annabelholland]

I meant that the bridge should be at least 6m clearance above the rail, not the wires. I am not the best at railway electrification stuff. For comparison, bridges over road that are under 5m tall (16'6") have to be signposted. so that drivers of vehicles that exceed the height limit can find a way around it. This is why large vehicles colliding with bridges happen every so often (at least once a week) and most of them are railway bridges. But anyway, third rail electrification may be cheap at first (because no bridge raising/modification, track lowering, OLE installation, etc) but gets expensive long term because there are also so many substations (roughly every 6km), low effieiency, and cannot really go above 100mph. Plus the risks with staff and the public. Even small extensions/new stretches of third rail are/may not done. The Severn Tunnel had just enough clearance for OLE (possibly requiring track lowering), even though it was built over 100 years ago.

[@hatakekami]

Diesals being much heavier then electric trains have a greater tractive effort, and since most of the electric trains are run in thermal power plants (coal) they are much more polluting indirectly then diesal trains as diesal is lesser polluting, and also on steep gradients electric trains fail to start heavy loads where as diesal trains can easily pick up on such terrain

[@TheRip72]

Power can be generated in any number of ways in a power station & the method can even be changed at any time as new technology becomes available. The worst scenario is to generate power with huge diesel engines. Even after accounting for transmission losses, this would still be more efficient than generating it from a relatively smaller engine in a locomotive.

[@jonathonshanecrawford1840]

Overhead wire don't sag due to heat or cold, they are counter balanced to prevent sagging, as the wire expands (heat), the weights raises, when the wire contracts (cools) the weights lower!

[@royreynolds108]

I believe you have the weights reversed from what they actually do. Yes, wire and other items expand on heating thus sagging, and contract on cooling thus raising. All of the catenary and other overhead wire systems that I have seen, use weights connected to the contact wire to provide a more-or-less constant tension in the contact wire for the overhead system at uniform spacings.

[@jonathonshanecrawford1840]

@@royreynolds108 Thanks for the correction, at least you understood ! The same here in Australia and New Zealand we still use weights and pulley system to ensure the tension is kept constant! Why would Network Rail _(UK)_ abolish a system that has worked for decades?

[@jonathonshanecrawford1840]

The main point I got from this video is that overhead is 100% safer than third rail! I believe more people are killed by 3rd rail than overhead, I have never heard (under normal condition) being killed by overhead wire, just look at our streets where there are power polls! And yes idiot drivers (drunk and/or stoned) crash into power polls and cause the 11,000 & 400V wire to come down! Don't blame the trees, when trees fall onto power wires, blame the people that suppose to maintain the area!

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

How many people are killed by electric shock on the railways?

[@N330AA]

3rd rail is underrated IMO.

[@JM-bg1it]

Yea. Toasted eejits on the track is actually the third rail system performing a valuable evolutionary function

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

3rd Rail is unsafe.

[@physiocrat7143]

​@@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire You shouldn't be on the track anyway.

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

@@physiocrat7143 Hidden London runs tours on the East London Line track.

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

No country except Britain supplies main railways with a third rail and such a low DC voltage. On the continent, several countries leave their existing DC systems (1,5 or 3 kV) replacing them with 25kV 50Hz for high-speed trains as in France and Italy. Conversely, you rarely find urban underground railway systems without a third rail.

[@thepwayengineer]

Interesting! Thank you for sharing

[@musiqtee]

True, and this is also because of the given power from any current vs voltage. High current / low voltage needs “thick” cables (practically, third rail) to carry the same “horsepower” (ok, (k)Watts) as a low current / high voltage across a thin (way cheaper) conductor (catenary, never 3rd rail for kV). Watts (P) = Amperes x Volts (except losses, AC power factor, impedance, Eddy, r-emf and lots of other crap…😅)

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

@@musiqtee Thanks for explaining that to an engineer for electric energy. I even learned to calculate a railway motor 16 .7 Hz & 1000 kW fifty years ago before electronics entered the locomotives. But these have a similar problem as their Voltage was limited below 600 V. But these locomotives have a transformer down from 15kV. But anyhow, supplying main railways with 750V is odd.

[@musiqtee]

@@gottfriedheumesser1994 Slapping my forehead hard… I meant to explain to the channel’s creator comment… Sorry for that. But yes, there are some (very few) “dumb” systems actually running out there. Most could be “explained” from them being quite old (tech available at the time), and too expensive to change/redevelop. True, I don’t know of any low voltage 3rd rail systems using AC. Seems like an engineering nightmare for reasons you know better than I do…

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

@@musiqtee I is the dust and safety problem. Although the current rails in Europe are protected by a plastic housing against being contacted from the top and aside, their insulators are affected by moisture, dust, and dirt and cannot withstand higher voltages. In the emperor's times, the trams on Vienna's Ringstrasse should not have overhead lines. So they invented a third rail system where the current rail was situated in a small tunnel below the driving rail which had a slot for a contacting device. But this was very misfunction prone, and shortly after the Emperor was gone they installed overhead lines at the Ringstrasse and installed normal tramway rails.

[@Radioman.]

Since most diesel trains are actually diesel-electric wouldn't a hybrid system be more optimal? Run the trains on diesel when out in the country where electrification would be expensive. When approaching a city, connect to electric and not have the emissions and noise associated with diesel in a confined area. Many jobs could be created modifying existing diesel to connect to 3rd rail or overhead wires. Seems it may be less expensive than building new engines from scratch.

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

The UK has such a limited loading gauge that it wouldn't work for conversions. For example, the British Rail Class 769 was a total failure which was converting a dual voltage electric unit into a tri-mode unit.

[@yvesd_fr1810]

It is a question of pollution, particularly in terms of CO2 emission. If your electricity supply mostly relies upon non carbon sources (e.g. reniewable or nuclear), it's better to avoid to use fossile fuel to power trains, whatever the location (countryside vs. urban environment). The only advantage of Diesel engine is the lack of necessary equipment on the tracks. This is a reason why it is still widely use over the world, but it remains anyway a source of pollution.

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

@@yvesd_fr1810 In the UK electricity must be 10% cleaner than fossil fuels.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

You can't use a transformer with DC, they need AC to work.

[@geoffbarry9540]

The fundamental focus of this comparison is flawed. The pretty much universal opinion today is that high voltage AC based rail is the best option overall in terms of potential performance - in situations where speed and/or haulage capacity are paramount and, most importantly, when addressing a green fields, first-time electrification scenario. But, in order to put the options into true perspective, one needs to go back to the conditions that prevailed when practical electrification initiatives were first mooted. For a start, 25kv OH did not exist as an option to the best of my knowledge. Certainly the pioneer overhead schemes like the LBSCR used DC through their wires. Also, and most importantly, electrification as a concept was developed in response to serious revenue losses to other forms of passenger transport. It had to be done, but it also had to be done as cheaply as possible - which put the third rail firmly in the driving seat. And, finally, it must be remembered that the third rail has always been focussed upon a specific aspect of rail operation; relatively short distance travel patterns needing frequent service intervals, where capacity, reliability and cost are the primary determinants, rather than speed and electrical efficiency. And, when looking at the UK in particular, one must always look at where and how such benefits as speed or haulage capacity are paramount. Third rail can manage 100 mph although generally limited to 90. Outside the two main northern lines, there's not a lot of the network where higher speeds than that are feasible, necessary - or even electrified...

[@James_Knott]

I think it depends on the intended service. Full railway type operation tends to be high voltage AC, but local transit, low voltage DC.

[@dizzy2020]

How do they work out how much electricity a train is using - e.g. do electric trains have 'meters' and does the operating company get a bill? Many electric trains can actually put electricity back INTO the system as well as use it of course (from regenerative braking systems) I'm trying to not picture a driver pushing 50ps into a meter but it's hard not to ;0

[@constancel4211]

Overhead lines aren't part of the power grid, they connect to the national power grid in determined places called electric substations, which are facilities meant to provide the adequate voltage and current to the overhead line/third rail. The meters will be placed there. One disadvantage of third rail is that it runs on lower tensions (750v typically) which requires a closer spacing of substations (each of them a few kilometers appart). With 25kV overhead line, substations can spaced much farther, with 20 to 60km between two substations. Substations are expensive facilities and the fewer the better.

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

@@constancel4211 Also with 750v you need Track Parrealling huts.

[@constancel4211]

@@dizzy2020 Sorry I forgot the scenario where multiple operators share the same tracks. I don't know how the do it. I'd guess that would be based on train tonnage per miles travelled but perhaps they do have a meter somewhere.

[@davidfalconer8913]

You mentioned ( BATTERY ) electric trains ... GWR ( UK ) are using old D78 LUL rolling stock to see if this is feasable for rural routes .... the BIG , BIG snag with overhead lines is simply that they are ( REALLY , REALLY UGLY ! ) , much like the electric trolley bus nightmare in SW London ( Surbiton ? ) in the 1960's ... FYI , the London Underground uses 4 rails to keep the track current AWAY from the running rails ( this avoids subsurface ringpiece corrosion ) . ( ? ) ...... DAVE™🛑

[@A-Trainspotter-From-Berkshire]

The reason is so that they are nice and strong so that if a wire breaks trains can still use the other lines which isn't possible with lighter OLE like on the East Coast Mainline.

[@philosoaper]

it's harder to get electrocuted when the trains have a pantograph

[@physiocrat7143]

It is still a hazard, especially to staff, flashover can occur.

[@chrismckellar9350]

There is new generation of train motive power other than diesel and full electrification being electric/battery, electric/hydrogen fuel cell, electric/hydrogen fuel cell/battery and hydrogen fuel cell/battery.

[@TheRip72]

But when technology moves forward, the trains themselves become outdated. Hydrogen is currently very expensive to extract & supply.

[@chrismckellar9350]

@@TheRip72 - Trains are vehicles that have 'steel' tyres traveling on dedicated 'steel' roads, so I am not sure why you think trains will be come outdated.

[@TheRip72]

​@chrismckellar9350 No, their method of generating power. Hydrogen has been suggested. That will either be improved massively or replaced, leaving any trains powered with current H technology outdated. Electric trains will simply have their power generated differently.

[@chrismckellar9350]

@@TheRip72 - What power sources are you thinking off? With regards to hydrogen, it can't be ruled out. In my country, there is 3,898 kms of track of which 506 kms is electrified, so hydrogen fuel cell/battery and electric/ hydrogen fuel cell/battery makes more sense to power future trains in the country, as the country can produce 'green' hydrogen via natural geothermal and hydro. Don't forget, commercial versions of solid state batteries will be available in the next 5 years that will allow increase range, quicker charging and less inflammable compared to current Lithium-ion batteries. Need to keep an open mind as technology is rapidly changing.

[@LawpickingLocksmith]

Never seen a 3rd rail until I came to the poverty stricken UK. Nobody even told me of the danger. Now they have fibreglass covers, safe and good for metros.

[@heronimousbrapson863]

Third rail systems are used in parts of the United States as well, notably near New York City.

[@John.Mann.1941]

Isn’t the Toronto subway system 3rd rail?

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Copenhagen Metro uses covered bottom contact 3rd rail. You can't do that with the top contact systems used in the UK.

[@LawpickingLocksmith]

@@neiloflongbeck5705 Seen that in Berlin and later on some Delhi metro lines.

[@tpaul2866]

As a yaw damper salesman I would like to thank all railways that use 3rd rail.

[@robllan]

Discontinuous electrification (OHLE) could be the future if the DfT realised the opportunity. Several bi-mode fleets (with battery propulsion) are already in service and most the Hitachi class 8xx fleets can retrofitted as such. It’s not necessary to install a huge battery capacity, as the concept is to reduce infrastructure build time & cost by skipping OHLE installation on the complexed track sections such as tunnels & bridges. So you only need enough battery capacity to get through those resulting unwired sections. And…. Rolling Stock fleets which have propulsion batteries have an ease of maintenance advantage too, because they can be moved around unwired sections of their maintenance depots without any shunting loco. Trains can also reach a station or siding when there’s an OHLE failure.

[@nofatchicks6]

Third rail seems like it should be more dangerous in principle, but what about in reality? Are there an appreciable number of injuries caused by third rails every year?

[@thepwayengineer]

In recent years Network Rail has moved toward all working being done in possession with no trains running and the 3rd rail isolated. Prior to that I know of two instances of people directly that came into contact and suffered injuries from it. While there are mitigations, such as shields, there is always an element of risk working around live equipment

[@mrikoantal]

It's bloody dangerous in reality, passengers and trespassers don't always appreciate the risk, and if they get in contact with the conductor rail, it's potentially game over for them. Not so much a risk under wires, not many trespassers are pole vaulting or abseiling onto the railway. This is also reflected in how infrastructure staff training is done in the UK, the third rail safety competency (DCCR) used to be delivered as part of PTS, it's done as a distinct competency now.

[@nofatchicks6]

@@mrikoantal I get that, it’s just that where I grew up we were constantly warned by the adults about being electrocuted by the third rail on the railway through the town. I guess that just conditioned me to assume that people were being killed by the dozen by third rails.

[@mrikoantal]

I'm not sure how it compares in terms of stats I'm afraid, I've had a look and as far as I can tell the ORR doesn't generally record cause of injury in its injury/death stats

[@John.Mann.1941]

It’s my understanding that on the London 4th rail system the train were equipped with shorting bars which train staff could place across the power rails thereby tripping breakers on the power supply. This left the tracks dead. This was to provide for safe evacuation of a train in emergency situations. Weren’t the stations also provided with means to kill the power in emergency? My information may be out of date, I’ve lived in Canada for 57 years, but I used the underground a lot as a child and youth - very inexpensive using the staff discount my father got for the family (he worked at Acton for most of his working life).

[@alcatel4539]

There are some errors and questionable assumptions in this.

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

I watched until 3:17. "Trains using third rail systems also require a transformer to be fitted, which takes up space and adds weight to a train..." Yeah, right.

[@Gelatinocyte2]

@@tooleyheadbang4239 some actually do if I'm not mistaken

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

@@Gelatinocyte2 Yeah, right.

[@richardfritz8797]

I don't know about UK but in USA the Diesel engines only run large 4,6 cylinder engines to power very high voltage producing generators which in turn send the electrical energy to the "Trucks" (Wheels) of the train which are powered by big heavy Powerful electrical motors. So those large looking Train engines are really just big motors like in a car that turns a generator to produce the electrical for the wheels. So in a way you really are running a truly Electric train. The diesel is only to allow the big machine to produce the electrical power on the go. Some say it is still the most efficient way of moving any train and almost any weight. At high speeds they can also do as well the problems with that is more the Rails on which the trains would need to run safely. Just thought I would add this comment. I like your video a lot. Thank You.! Informative and really cool. Peace.

[@TheRip72]

UK diesel trains are much the same (many were built in the US). But huge generators such as power stations are far more efficient than smaller ones in locomotives. The difference is enough to outweigh the transmission losses.

[@rikipondi]

Why didn't you mention overhead solid conductor, where you stick a rail on top of the train. It is costly to set up, but is very reliable, isn't prone to the same wind issue and can be used to give very high voltage, reducing losses.

[@SteinBee]

One advantage of desil is that it’s more power efficient because the electricity to power the generators which moves the train is generated locally instead of 200 miles away in a power plant.

[@northernblue1093]

Who is desil?

[@tooleyheadbang4239]

@@northernblue1093 A badly-spelt German engineer who developed a higy-efficiency oil engine.

[@TheRip72]

But generating it in a huge quantity such as power station is more than enough to offset the losses involved with transmitting it.

[@SteinBee]

It’s still not negligible, even still, your just changing were the carbon emissions are being generated and constructing new electric train infrastructure still will produce lots of C02.

[@matthewwilliamson8430]

Third Rail is also a trip hazard.

[@John.Mann.1941]

But the running rails aren’t a trip hazard?

[@matthewwilliamson8430]

@@John.Mann.1941 Indeed. But Third Rail, unlike running rail, is discontinuous and switches sides. I have seen maintenance workers adopt a 'tall stride' when crossing the rail. Also, have a look at systems like New York Subway and Long Island RR. The Third Rail is further away from the running rail, and is covered by a board. Jamming your foot in between the rails is less of a problem, but you've still got to step over the thing. There is also the possibility of catching your toe under the board. There are plenty of pictures and video online of staff standing on the board! And I haven't even touched on the trailing cables, hook switches, etc.

[@trueriver1950]

You should never get close enough to it for it to be a trip hazard.

[@l3v1ckUK]

Electricity and water do mix.... and that's the problem.

[@thepwayengineer]

This is a point! Not a sensible mix I should have said!

[@trueriver1950]

Every so often a dog, or a fox, makes the mistake of marking a third rail as part of its territory. That doesn't tend to be habit forming😮

[@l3v1ckUK]

I've seen a dog pee on an electric fence before..... The yelp was unreal.