Talk:Railway electrification in Great Britain

To do

• Add dates of start, completion, etc
• References and links
• Map showing extent and 3 current systems- see "Network Rail's Business Plan 2003 - Network Capability" [1] 1,581KB PDF for a current GB map
• Resolve extent of article
  • UK (ie NI, IOM and GB) or just GB
  • Include Trams ??? - Current and/or past ( Blackpool, Croydon, Manchester, Midlands, Nottingham, and Sheffield )
• Full links to
  • Railway electrification system
  • List of current systems for electric rail traction
  • Overhead lines
  • Railroad electrification in the United States
  • Third rail
  • Tram if approporiate

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

• when was Cambridge-Royston electrified? 1988 according to 'Royston railway station'

62.60.100.139 (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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]]

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)

I have rearranged the list of existing 25kv lines. They now start with main lines out of London from west to east, then areas of local lines starting in London and moving north to Scotland. Hope this will make it easier to find/update information. I have added information about recently electrified lines and added links to make the section more consistent.Chris1515 (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

A further question relates to the present voltage of the Southern third rail systems. The entire Brighton main line was upgraded to 750 Volts at some time in the mid-1980s. This resulted in higher speed running and early arrivals at East Croydon from the south coast. The statement that the original 660 volt routes are at their present voltage is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.80.49.162 (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've tried to update the article to reflect recent events. Substantial electrification now appears to be moving ahead, though to what extent this will happen in Control Period 4 isn't clear yet. As Network Rail's consultation comes to an end, this situation will change.

Benjym (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

AC or a.c.

I've noticed that parts of this article has AC as an abbreviation, and other parts a.c. Can someone please please point me to what's prefered? Edgepedia (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Stratford

Some mention in the article might be made of Stratford station in London, which uniquely has four different electrification types. 25kv 50z AC OHLE for the mainline platforms, LU 630v DC fourth rail for the Central and Jubilee Lines, 750v DC bottom contact third rail for the DLR and 750v DC top contact for the North London Line. Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee, that's interesting <stifles a yawn>. Perhaps you ought to nominate it for a DYK slot <struggles to avoid entering a coma>. Bhtpbank (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal - conductor rail systems

I propose that Railway electrification in Great Britain - conductor rail systems is merged into this article, for the following reasons:

• It seems to duplicate information already in this article
• We don't have separate articles for overhead systems in Britain
• The article is largely orphaned, whereas this one is well-linked

Thoughts welcome. NRTurner (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I found in that article which wasn't in this was was Volk's Electric Railway, which I've just added to this one. I suggest that we delete Railway electrification in Great Britain - conductor rail systems. It's an unlikely search term and a fork of this article. Edgepedia (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Just do it.

Benjym (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've nominated it for deletion. Benjym (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• • The prod was removed as this discussion was still active. I'm therefore closing this discuss as merge and delete and taken the article to AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railway electrification in Great Britain - conductor rail systems for the discussion. Edgepedia (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support merger -- PROD and AFD are not appropriate. However the redirect resulting from the merger need not be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Isle of Man

Does the term "Great Britain" encompass the Isle of Man, and should the Manx Electric Railway be mentioned? Mjroots (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking no, see Terminology of the British Isles, but to intents and purposes why not. 91.109.197.112 (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No U-turn

The idea that the article needed a thorough rewrite from schoolboy essay style, has led to no action, for example the cliché "U-turn" should go; the change of favoured voltage was not a U-turn (that is a sudden reversal of direction) but the adopting of an technological improvement. --92.238.57.195 (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

New plans 2011

There have been several announcements in 2010-11 which would be relevant to include in this article. Perhaps it could be a 'future development of electrification' section? See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12606470 for announcement today that London to Cardiff will be electrified, for instance. DewiMR (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am planning a new article for this. Biscuittin (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Created Proposed railway electrification in Great Britain. Biscuittin (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Blackpool Tramway?

I find it rather strange that the tramway system in Blackpool is included here. It is a street tramway, not a railway. On the basis of this logic, why not include London or Glasgow's trams. I suggest that this section should be delted.Pandondene (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

All the open light railways and tramways are included in the list as they are all forms of rail electrification, Blackpool is also notable for being a unique voltage in the UK WatcherZero (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, the entire article should be re-titled to include the words light and tramway. As it stands it is mis-leading since it is generally accepted that a tramway is NOT the same thing as a railway. Anyone else agree?Pandondene (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"Rail transport is a means of conveyance of passengers and goods by way of wheeled vehicles running on rail tracks" WatcherZero (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

On that basis, should the Seaton Tramway also be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.36.90 (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't see why not. Why not be WP:BOLD and add it? 109.156.49.202 (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Composite third rail

The composite third rail (aluminium/steel} obviously works but I have two technical questions. (1) Why doesn't the aluminium act as a sacrificial anode and gradually wither away? (2) Why doesn't the rail "arch its back" because of differences in the coefficient of expansion of aluminium and steel? Biscuittin (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(1) The electronegativity of iron (steel) and aluminium are fairly close together, therefore although there will be galvanic action with aluminium being the anode, the effect will be relatively slight.

(2) The two metals do have significantly different coefficients of expansion. Since aluminium expands more, the rail would actually tend to curl up at the ends (much like the sandwiches served on the trains that run over them - though this is an entirely different effect!). This does not, in fact, happen for two reasons. First, the weight of the rail is enough to apply sufficient force that the metal doesn't bend. Consequent on the first: second, the layer of steel is relatively thin so it is actually capable of stretching as the rail expands. 109.156.49.202 (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Future of third rail

I think this section needs expansion. I agree that long-distance routes like London-Brighton might have to be converted to 25kv but I see no reason to convert suburban systems which don't generally exceed 70 mph. Biscuittin (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources? I haven't seen any. Edgepedia (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean sources about not converting to 25kv? I think its fairly obvious the London Underground is not going to be converted to 25kv. Biscuittin (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Reordering

I have reordered the article to place existing systems ahead of former systems, and higher voltage systems ahead of lower voltages which again tends to put the more popular ones towards to front. Facts and figures has gone to the end of the article, but some key facts are now also in the lead. I have promoted the 'future or 3rd rail' section and renamed it as 'proposed developments' and suggest we detail very brief summaries of all impending projects. I hope these changes are considered an improvement and will make it more useful for people who are interested in the current systems and their future as well as for people interested in the history of the subject. PeterEastern (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, by reversing the order, you have completely screwed up the article as references within the text now point the wrong way as (for example) something refered to as being 'below' is now actually above (and vice versa). I would have restored normallity by reverting the edit but unfortunately too many other edits have taken place for this to be done. 109.156.49.202 (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead section image

I think that the image in the lead section should show both overhead line and third rail electrification at the same spot, to illustrate the two main systems. Something like this image but a bit brighter/clearer. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't much like that one, you can hardy see the overhead wires. There's already a photo illustrating the third rail in the third rail section. Seem as the overhead wire is far more extensive and covers much more of the country, I though that was most typical. G-13114 (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean that we should use that specific image, which is why I qualified it with "but a bit brighter/clearer". What I meant was that we should locate an image which contains those elements: overhead electrification and third-rail electrification in the same picture. At present, the lead image shows only OHLE, and so is atypical for the bulk of the country south of the Thames, and some other areas. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The only place I can think of where they run together is where the Watford DC line runs alongside the WCML. G-13114 (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The London Overground system isn't exclusively one electrification system, so there must be other places - changeover points like Farringdon or Acton Central for instance. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Railway electrification in Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071229005530/http://www.dft.gov.uk:80/about/strategy/whitepapers/whitepapercm7176/ to http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers/whitepapercm7176/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090827075926/http://www.nedrailways.com:80/html/merseyrailkeyfacts.html to http://www.nedrailways.com/html/merseyrailkeyfacts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070312075305/http://www.lyrs.org.uk:80/page14.html to http://www.lyrs.org.uk/page14.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060715004654/http://www.lyrs.org.uk:80/page14.html to http://www.lyrs.org.uk/page14.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

All seem OK. Dr Sludge (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Railway electrification in Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160117023312/http://www.lyrs.org.uk/page15.html to http://www.lyrs.org.uk/page15.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems OK Dr Sludge (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Railway electrification in Great Britain

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Railway electrification in Great Britain's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "networkrail.co.uk":

• From Network Rail: "Our stations". Network Rail. Archived from the original on 28 February 2017.
• From Electric Spine: "Delivering a better railway for a better Britain, Network Specification 2015, Western" (PDF). Network Rail. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 June 2015. Retrieved 21 April 2015.
• From List of proposed railway electrification routes in Great Britain: "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 October 2016. Retrieved 8 January 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
• From Manchester Victoria station: "North West electrification". Network Rail. n.d. Retrieved 21 February 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Great Western Electrification

To Do! Lawrence18uk (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)