Probably thousands of photos of these trains are taken every day.
But this photographer is really rather good.
The photos also highlight the different design approaches taken to these machines.
I'm not convinced by all of them (especially the Darth Vader cab front of the Gatwick Express train in the first image) -- and I suspect some of them will look extremely dated in twenty or thirty years time.
But that shouldn't detract from the fine work of the photographer -- nice job.
5 comments:
What puzzled me some days ago on photos of the Met&GC and also here: is the live rail completely uncovered?
Iirc correctly the live rail in other cities is covered by the sides and the top, leaving only open the side facing the adjacent rail. The pickup shoe either takes the current from the side or from underneath the live rail. Isn't the live rail completely uncovered a unnecessary safety issue for workers in the track and personnel leaving the trains on an 'emergency'?
There are several different systems in the UK, but by far the most common one is the one you see here -- with a completely exposed "live" 3rd rail, from the top of which current is collected by "shoes" on the train. This "top contact" was the first form of 3rd rail and, as the UK was one of the world's pioneers in implementing this system, unsurprisingly there is now a vast legacy of it.
New 3rd rail systems in the UK (ie, not extensions of existing systems with their "grandfather" rights) are of one of the types you describe -- usually with current collected from the bottom side of the 3rd rail, and the other three sides usually boxed in (the Docklands Light Railway uses this system).
Is the old system an "unnecessary safety issue"? Well, the number of workers who stand on 3rd rails each year is tiny to zero: it's more about being aware of the risks, trained to operate safely, and following the rules. In areas where staff walk, the 3rd rail is often boxed-in by wooden shutters.
If idiot members of the public decide to take a stroll along the railway line (this usually happens when they're drunk), I guess there probably is a greater chance of them being electrocuted. In my view that should be allowed to happen -- it helps remove idiocy from the gene pool. The US Supreme Court famously disagreed with this position and fined Chicago a vast sum for not protecting some drunken idiot who walked along the tracks and then peed on the 3rd rail.
A more serious problem with top-collecting from the 3rd rail is snow and ice. In last winter's severe snow, those parts of the UK's mainline railway that used the traditional 3rd rail system were badly affected, while the DLR ran as if nothing had happened.
On the photo of the Met&GC a Black Five was pictured on Met rails with live 3rd rail. Suppose there is a hot axle box or some other problems, and as engineer or fireman you have to check it out. You have to be attentive for wet or icy (i.e. slippery) sleepers and when leaning inside the frame for inside valve motion or cylinders your feet could easily reach the live rail when counterbalancing your move.
As an employer/company responsible for my employees i would feel uncomfortable, but i understand that the change of the 'vast legacy' would be an enormous task.
The 3rd rail system was first installed when, as for most employers, the life of their employees was very cheap indeed. The work-related death tolls in the first century of the Industrial Revolution were horrendous and, in Britain, they only started to get under some sort of control during the inter-war period.
While your scenario is entirely plausible, the fact remains that there have been no employees electrocuted by the 3rd rail since... well, I can't actually remember the last time I read about one.
Railways are hazardous working environments (I think around half a dozen track-side workers were killed in Britain last year from being struck by moving trains). But training is everything.
Would it be better if there were no 3rd rail electrification and everything was catenary? Yes, of course. But around 10% of the UK network has 3rd rail, 20% has overhead catenary, the remaining 70% is not electrified. Would it make more sense to spend money converting that 3rd rail to overhead, or electrifying a further 10% of the network that is currently operated entirely by diesel traction? I know where my money would go!
Alas, in the UK's present culture which is obsessed with theoretical or relatively trivial safety "risks", the chances are at some point we'll see money frittered away on converting 3rd rail rather than being spent on new electrification.
After all, we're currently building fences at the end of platforms to stop people walking down the slopes and onto the tracks(!), and we're installing platform edge electric doors at underground stations: why not install platform edge doors along every single stretch of road in the country, so pedestrians can only cross roads when the traffic lights are in phase? After all, thousands of people are killed by cars each year, whereas last year the number of people killed waiting at a station and then accidentally falling under a train was, er, none.
You are right, converting from third rail to overhead would not make much sense from an economical point of view (and the gauge needed for the catenary shown in your recent pictures from the ER proof this point). What i had in mind was covering the existing third rail (and changing the pickup from top to underneath), which would still be an exhausting task.
Anyway i'm certainly not the one to decide this, and my original question is answered ;-)
Post a Comment