Talk:Railway electrification in Great Britain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Railway electrification in Great Britain article.
Article policies
Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
Mid Importance: mid within UK Railways WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport in Scotland.
Low Importance: low within Transport in Scotland WikiProject.
This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article. Once the requested map is added, remove the Mapneeded parameter from the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template call on this page to remove this map request.

Contents

[edit] To do

Pickle 11:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Still plodding along and expanding parts, the 1500 V DC section is an example of how a finished part should/might like. Thanks for all the little fixes / additions various people have done ;)
Pickle 14:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I have added some more information under the 25kV and 6.25kV sections. I have also tried to tidy the formatting of some parts of the article to improve readability. In this respect I take note of the comments by Pickle in terms of how a finished section/article should/might look like. I think further discussion on this is needed.
Some sections on the article are starting to get quite large, so perhaps these should be made separate pages in order to improve readability/referencing. Anyone got any thoughts on this or how the structure could be improved?
ALECTRIC451, 10-Jan-2007

[edit] Links from other articles

Also as a To Do, I'm slowly adding links to this article where ever an GB article mentions "railway electrification" - i think I've covered most of the southern region and East Anglia but haven't really got beyond that.

Main Lines - done
London - done
South East England - done
East England - done
South West England
Central England
Northern England
Scotland - done all current lines, haven't said "not electrifed" on all non electrifed lines (have in glasgow area)
Wales

Pickle 14:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Good graphical guide (well maps) [[2]]

  • British Isles [[3]]
  • Scotland's central belt [[4]]
  • Northern England cities [[5]]
  • London & SE [[6]]

To use :-

  • LNER encylopedia - [[7]]

[edit] Cleanup? Ideas

This article is improving all the time, but still needs a lot of work. I appreciate the effort being put in, so please take these as helpful suggestions (from a rail enthusiast) for improvement rather than just straight criticism.

(1) The introduction 'doesn't work'. It would be normal practice to include the page title, in bold, in the first sentence, leading into a brief description of what the page is about. The present intro 'launches straight in', but quickly becomes ensnared in a too-brief history section. Starting an article with '40%' is really not on, and the intro needs urgent attention!

(2) 'History' section needed. Some is already there, but more would be welcome. If written correctly, it could allow removal of some of the later detail.

(3) What is the page for? Is it a list of electrification schemes, is it supposed to be a potted history of each scheme, or what? Again, not trying to be negative, but article seems to be struggling to achieve its true form (not helped by this 'true form' not being stated in the intro). Is the problem that the list of schemes and the history/chronology are mixed? Some schemes, (eg Bury) appear with the same information in several sections (eg where the voltage has changed). Is there too much detail here? Would it be better to have a "History of railway electrification in great britain" page and a "List of electrified lines, and "...former lines", etc? (Some food for thought, I hope.)

(4) Within sections, are lines supposed to be listed alphabetically, by length, by 'significance' (whatever that means), by age, or what? Again, this is not stated, so the reader has to guess.

Remember that the article must be readable/understandable by a non- rail enthusiast! That is one of the main reasons I have made the above comments. I hope it will have provided a slightly different perspective of the page.

Keep up the good work. -- EdJogg 13:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

EdJogg and Pickle_UK - Thank you both for the kind welcome to WP, I greatly appreciate it. But now let's get down to business. I think the article is getting too large and unwieldy. I could quite easily expand some sections but am reluctant to do so without a clear plan as to what this page should ultimately look like. You two have been on WP longer than myself, so I trust that you have a clearer idea of how long or short a good article should be. Can we keep this page as an index to other pages (perhaps a.c. and d.c.) thereby making it shorter, but giving more detail on sub-pages (I am not sure how to do this). Anyhow, before I plough on adding more data, I would greatly appreciate some input on how we should structure this article to allow for expansion without making it too long. --ALECTRIC451 00:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
That is sooooooooooooooo much better! Great chunks of the article (especially the 'Obsolete' section) are as clear and as well laid-out as we could hope for. Great stuff.
Couple of points before tackling your questions.
(1) There are some bizarre goings-on in the 25kV section - suggest you take an urgent look there first!
(2) It is not clear to me how multiple lines are ordered within any particular category. They are not alphabetical, as I would expect, so they appear to be random. If they are arranged by date, the date will need to be specified to make this clear (which could be untidy).
Questions... Yes the article is getting quite large, so the correct procedure is, as you say, to split it up. To see how this might come off, see History of rail transport in Great Britain. I would suggest that much of the 25kV detail can be extracted to a new page, and expanded appropriately; the current 3rd-rail (and 4th-rail?) sections could also be split out, but I would leave the rest in place. The split-out sections will need summary paragraphs added here - usually based on the intro paragraph/s of the 'main' page.
This page will act as an excellent index page. I would suggest that each distinct 'type' needs to have a summary paragraph (or more) describing pertinent features, with a link to either a main article or a railway line page. Once you've rationalised the detail, you may want to promote all the headers so that the number of bullet points can be reduced. (By 'promote the header', I mean remove an '=' from each side!)
Where there is only a single railway for a specific type, I would suggest that any notes beyond the summary should be placed in the railway's own page.
Hope this helps you with the next stage
EdJogg 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I could have sworn i wrote a big long reply here a few days ago... I must be going mad as i can't find it!
Anyway - thanks to both of you for all your recent work! I've been mostly working on this page on my own for some time (with lots of thankful typo correction, etc from many others)
Importantly i sort of just threw this page together because there was nothing on the subject. In the context of the other pages on the topic its neither List of railway electrification systems in Japan or Railroad electrification in the United States. I presume the user is going to have had the basics of railway electrification by visiting Railway electrification system, List of current systems for electric rail traction, Third rail or Overhead lines.
These comments are in no particular order -
1) I don't like like the word "Obsolete" in Obsolete Systems, it might sound better with a word like "discontinued" or "former", etc. I mean, normal third and fourth rail down here in the south is obsolete but its still used, and 1500V DC is obsolete but was reintroduced (bizarrely) for the Tyne and Wear metro
2) My area of expertise is third rail as such, but that is the section i have yet to pad out, the only sections i ever really got around to doing in detail are Glasgow and 1500V DC.
3) As for tidying up the article, we haven't yet hit the file size limit (somewhere around 33 kb IIRC), but as above i would recommend using this as an index to pages on say "Railway electrification in Great Britain - Third Rail" and "Railway electrification in Great Britain - 25KV AC" and maybe even "discontinued", "former", etc. The other way this topic was approached was in this fashion - Suburban electrification of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway - which if you look at the history was some time ago, by another editor. As i understand it it only focused on Liverpool, and was extended by other editors to what it said on the tin, but in the wider context a) all the efforts were by LMS predecessors not LMS, and b) there are no similar articles covering the other members of the big 4 (even then IMHO the work of their predecessors is the important factor - LNER from NER, Southern from LSWR and LBSCR and what did GWR ever do?)
4) I'm not sure where the dividing line is between rail and trams, and weather we want to cross that. Its an issue i thought of, to start with and tended not to go there - i don't know how far down th tram route we want to go ???
5) The logic (LOL!) to my layout of the 25KV AC section was me thinking anticlockwise from the Thames / Fenchurch Street around (anticlockwise) to Paddington - which upon reflection is stark raving mad!
6) I think it is best to approach from the different systems perspective rather than geographical area, even if that means that certain area (eg LNWR suburban comes up twice as 4 and then 3 rail electrification, Tyneside and the Bury to Holcombe Brook 3500V DC OLE to 1200V DC s/c)
Hope that helps, as i said before, i have been left to my own devices for some time, never finished what i originally intended (real back burner project) so all this sudden input is really welcome! --Pickle 17:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Some quick answers...
I haven't looked at the Japanese and American equivalents. If they have ideas that can usefully be copied, then copy. If they have common formats, then it makes sense to use them if possible. But I would be inclined to let this article grow organically by itself for now.
User knowledge of electrification: assume they can find this out from other articles to which we provide links here!
(1) Your comment re 'Obsolete' is fair. Don't like the other two, but we need something that means "Systems no longer used". My mental thesaurus is not co-operating, sorry!
(3) The 'History...' series I mentioned before, started as a single article and grew into a set of six: one introductory summary and five sensibly-divided sub-pages. I suggest the same is done here, but only splitting off pages when there is sufficient 'meat' so to do. The 25kV and 3rd-rail bits would benefit from this already. The remaining summaries will duplicate some text, of course, but should be sufficient that the reader does not HAVE to follow the link!
(3)b - valid point about electrification by former companies, sounds like an interesting set of articles (your next project? :o) ). As for the GWR; they developed colour light and automatic signalling, gas turbine locos, diesel railcars, railway bus services, etc, but I don't think they did any electrification - why bother when you have the South Wales coalfield available to power your steam engines?
(4) Trams - scope to cover former and present systems as a separate article - but you could start it off as a section here and split it later. Also, consider trolleybuses - admittedly they are road vehicles, but they all used OHL equipment - is this covered on WP yet?
(5) Hee, hee! I'd never have guessed! In fact, it may not matter what order you use, provided you tell the reader what it is. However, I would suggest that listing them clockwise does assume a high level of reader knowledge!
(6) Having multiple entries is not too much of a problem provided the repeated information is kept to a minimum. Having multiple links is definitiely not a problem. Must watch that the level of summary detail is kept consistent - you need to decide how much detail is appropriate for the links and aim for that coverage for each entry.
Phew. I need to leave you two to it now. Between you, you have most bases covered! There's plenty of ideas above to keep you going for some weeks...!
EdJogg 21:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
1) Yes, my thesaurus is equally bad, and i can't really come up with any great terms. MS Word comes up with some naff ones, although "superseded" does come up, which i like the sound of (better than "discontinued" and "former")
3b) I've enough projects on the go!!! - my point was that, to approach the topic, looking at how others have gone about it is interesting to get ideas. I'm very critical of the LMS electrification article, to the verge i think it probable should be deleted, but a lot of work was done to fill it out by other editors. The idea really doesn't work IMHO as a way of accessing the topic, the really interesting period was 1890/1900 to WW1/grouping, there is then a hiatus for most, with only the national adoption by a government enquiry (of 1500V DC - an area that needs an article or several paragraphs somewhere, especially when compared to similar developments world wide, particularly in the empire at the time) and the work of Southern.
GWR - I'm not knocking GWR at all, several companies (pre grouping - many, post - GWR and by inference LMS) weren't interested at all. The point of electrification is that traffic volume calls for it, especially pre diesels - ie on extensive suburban/commuter workings and on the very heavy mineral route, mainly coal. The only places outside the cites where it was done in the states was for coal. its why the woodhead route was electrified as the first real mainline (to boost speed form 5 mph to 10 mph or something on coal and steel trains) and around the world (south Africa first electrified coal routes in the mountainous natal).
5) Trams - it is an area I've avoided, and all i was getting at is, should entries like Grimsby & Immingham Electric Railway and Swansea and Mumbles Railway (article explains how the definition is contentious) be there ???
thanks for all that, it keep me busy for some time! The thing i would really like is some way of getting a map showing the whole country by system (ie explain the GWR hole, southern electric, etc), various region, "superseded" systems, etc - but there doesn't appear to be a graphics person floating around UK trains (by comparison Chicago has some nice images).
Pickle 14:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another question - Third (& 4th) rail voltage

Third rail voltages vary greatly across the different places they are implemented, have change over time and it get very awkward if one tries to pin them down to be exact (unlike the easier systems of 1500V DC and 25KV AC OLE). Eg a southern region third rail line was originally electrified at around 650V DC (a value that would fluctuate), but under BR this was increased to around 750V DC and in certain areas which the Eurostar uses its been boosted up to 850V DC.
What I'm getting at is i was being deliberately vague with the original phrase "650V to 850V DC Third rail" - i should have probably put "600V to 850V DC". Southern stock was used on Tyneside and the NLL (2EPB) , while the PEP (445 & 446) class 2nd generation EMUs where used all over the place - with 508 serving on mersyside and around southern, and the 313s operating all over the place.
What I'm proposing is that the "Northern City Line", "southern electric", "LNWR Suburban/Silverlink Metro", and "Mersyrail" sections be put together under a common hading. The Glasgow subway and DLR are however radically different systems intended to be separate.
Pickle 16:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You could split this in lots of ways! For example, have several sections: 'Existing systems - Conductor rail (XXX)', where 'XXX' is either '3-rail', '4-rail' or 'Other' (putting Glasgow Subway and DLR into the last group).
You could also get away with a paragraph at the start of the 3-rail section explaining that the stated voltages were nominal, and actually ranged between x and y.
However, as it stands now, I'd say that section is nearly 'OK' - if you move DLR into its own section (seeing as how it is bottom-contact and should not be grouped with any others). The Underground could be moved too - a new section on 4-rail between the 3-rail and OHL sections, maybe? (Avoids a title with 'or' in!)
I think you'll have to keep playing until it looks OK!
EdJogg 16:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Very useful comments. The splitting of the DC section is a bit of a headache. I would be minded to separate the Southern Region from all of the rest based on its sheer size. The other systems north of London (such as Liverpool, Tyneside, Euston-Watford, Richmond-North Woolwich) as these were designed and build to a very different set of standards than the Southern Region system. The Docklands Light Railway, and London Underground should have separate sections, as they have unique features (Bottom Contact (DLR) and 4th Rail (LUL). ALECTRIC451 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Different split?

I really must leave you two to work out how best to tackle this article (as I know precious little about electrification!), but I've had one more idea, which is perhaps more radical than the others...

How about splitting-off the whole of the "Systems no longer used" section into a new article titled: History of railway electrification in Great Britain? The existing 'History' section would then link ('Main article:') to the new history article. It could also form the basis for that article's introduction.

The remaining article would then cover just the existing systems, thus allowing the different bits to fall into natural sections, as you have already identified. You should find that it could be formatted conventionally, using more headings and fewer bullet points!

You would need to provide a link ('Main article:') back from the History article for the current systems, or the History article would be incomplete, but this would only need the smallest of summaries (eg literally just a bulleted list of the different systems covered ?).

The 'History' page might even be able to incorporate the contents of Suburban electrification of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway which you have such reservations about.

So there you go, what might be considered a 'parting gift', as I'm going to have to remove these pages from my watchlist at the weekend: I'm not getting on with other things I should be doing!! Feel free to drop a note on my talk page when you've done the bulk of the work and I'll gladly do some proof-reading for you.

Cheers -- EdJogg 21:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, a fresh pair of eyes aproaches the topic difrently and provides a very useful insight into it. I'm not sure yet what is the answer. I'll be sure to let oyu know when we've got somewhere! Pickle 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Underground fourth rail voltage

I have a question which arose from reading the London Underground article, which skips across the traction current supply topic. I have heard that the choice of four rails instead of three in London was due to legal reasons; there was some legal or regulatory ban on having third rails at a higher voltage than 500 (I guess), but this was not sufficient for the purpose at reasonable cost. So the fourth rail was invented, keeping each rail within the regulations, and giving a greater combined voltage. And this of course has major benefits in reducing stray currents. But I have no reference for this, and in fact have never read it anywhere - it is just verbal information. Does anyone know any more? Patche99z 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While LUL (well its predecessors) got to the electrification first (on a big scale in the UK anyway). AFAIK there was no legal restriction (i haven't read about one and I've done some limited digging on this subject but i could be wrong). Any such law would have had to have been repealed by time of the third rail pioneers pre WW1 (eg the Liverpool overhead railway was built in 1893 and was third rail electrified from the start). In London LSWR pioneered third rail (at 660V IIRC to start with) while LNWR was interlinked with the tube so went 4th rail.... Pickle 07:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason for the 4th rail was solely down to concerns over corrosion of the tunnel linings that were made out of iron from stray direct current. The idea of having two rails to get a higher voltage would not have played a part in the decision. At that time the voltage chosen for the traction supply was determined by the rated voltage of the motors on the train. This in turn was limited by the insulation requirements, a higher voltage requires more insulation, and affects the size of the motor. At this time, motors were still in their early development stage and a larger motor (that a higher voltage would have meant) would simply not have fitted on the train in any practical form. In terms on any legal issues, you have to remember that electricity was still a "new thing" and would probably have meant something quite scary to an ordinary person. So they would have probably not gone anywhere near anything electrical. So the risk of someone getting electrocuted was slim. Also, people would have taking a different view on things. If you went near the railway and got hurt, then it was your own stupid fault, and you got what you deserved. How times change!! Sheepcot 09:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, most people who get killed by electrocution from the conductor rails are children playing on the railway. More often than not this also coincides with the school holiday period. It also relates to when children may be staying away from home at their relatives and are unfamiliar with the conductor rail system. Where I lived, all of the schools were visited by the Police at least once a year to warn of the dangers of the railway, including the live rail. In the UK the railway has to spend a huge amount of money on fencing to keep idiots from hurting themselves or doing acts of vandalism. Compare and contrast this with most of the rest or europe. Yes, the vandalism is still a problem, but the railways are mostly unfenced. The view is that you should not trespass on the railway, and that if you injure yourself, then its your responsibility, not the railways. Europe is better than the UK in this respect ... people have to take responsibilty for their safety, unlike the UK, where we like to keep lawyers in a job. Sheepcot 11:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both for clearing that up - the two arguments on state-of-the-art and the "new thing" state of the safety laws related to it all are both very convincing. It seem I have had an urban myth in my head all these years... Patche99z 15:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of paragraphs

I'd prefer to have "Systems no longer used" after "Existing systems". What do others think? Biscuittin (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volks Railway

Should there not be some reference in this article to the Volks Electric Railway in Brighton? It is the oldest operating electric railway in the world...Duncanbourne (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harton Electric Railway

I can't see anything about this NCB line. Have I missed it?

http://railways-of-britain.com/Harton.html

Mixino1 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No it has been forgotten ... one more item for the "to do" list. Olana North (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thorough Clean-up/Rewrite needed

In passing I cut the favoured phrase "a plethora of".
"Railway electrification as a means of traction emerged.." Railway electrification is not a means of traction.
"committee agreed 1500 V DC overhead as.." needs an on or a chose.
and so on--SilasW (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)