Table 1: Infrastructure on the mainline

This table shows the characteristics of the infrastructure on the rail network, Great Britain. 

Annual data (financial year): 1985-86 to 2020-21

Source(s): Network Rail – Last updated: 14 October 2021 – Next updated: October 2022 – Email: rail.stats@orr.gov.uk.

Symbols: (:) Data not available; (r) Data revised; (p) Data are provisional; (b) Break in time series.

Notes

(b)  Prior to 2004-05 route length data and electrification data was collected using various systems and collected on a semi-annual basis. These systems, whilst often the most accurate measures available at the time, would not have provided as accurate a measure as the GEOGIS system and there is therefore a break in the time series between 2003-04 and 2004-05.

(b) There is a break in the time series between 2006-07 and 2007-08 due to a new methodology where the route classification reference data was revamped.        

(b) There is a break in the time series between 2016-17 and 2017-18 due to Network Rail replacing GEOGIS, its master database for track assets, with a new system called INM (Integrated Network Model).This means any comparison of the current route length with previous years must be treated with caution.

(b) Prior to 2012-13, data is only available for Great Britain as a whole and not split by country. However, the data for new electrification projects track km is available separately for England, Wales and Scotland going back to 1995-96. This may not equal the Great Britain total due to rounding.

(r) The total Great Britain figure does not include Isle of Wight line, which is 17.4 track km. This line is leased from Network Rail to First MTR South Western Trains Limited (operating as South Western Railway).

1. High Speed 1 is not included in these figures. This has a route length of 109km.                       

2. The majority of the total new electrification projects track km was in England between 1995-96 and 2011-12. In 2005-06 5km of new electrified track km was added in Scotland. In 2010-11 106km of new electrified track was added in Scotland.

Rail infrastructure and assets release and quality and methodology report

ORR Revisions log

ORR’s Policy on Third Rail dc electrification systems

ORR’s aim is to ensure:

Purpose and scope of this policy statement:

This statement sets out and clarifies ORR’s policy on third rail DC electrification systems and is intended to provide dutyholders with a clear view of the issues we, as the regulator, expect industry to consider and address when evaluating options for the proposed construction or renewal, upgrade or extension of third rail.

Considerations:

• ORR considers that the weight of safety evidence creates a presumption against new-build or extended third rail being reasonably practicable. A dutyholder will therefore need to demonstrate, to ORR’s satisfaction, that any proposed new-build or extended third rail proposal complies with the applicable legislation and be able to explain how and why it rebuts this presumption.
• Infrastructure managers have a range of duties under health and safety law to design and operate their undertaking so that risk to workers, passengers and members of the public is minimised. There are more specific duties in the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 (the “EAW Regulations”) which require precautions to be taken to avoid death or personal injury from electricity at work activities. The existing DC network predates the EAW Regulations and consequently was not designed to comply with them. Therefore, when developing options for the design and implementation of electrification schemes, and when approaching maintenance and renewal of the existing network, we expect the industry to appropriately and robustly address the serious safety concerns associated with third rail DC electrification.
• If, at the earliest design optioneering stage, a dutyholder fully assesses the risks of a proposed electrification scheme then it is possible to exploit opportunities to design those risks out or minimise them, as required by legislation. For example, later DC systems – such as the DLR – have designed their traction arrangements so that the conductor rail is insulated or shrouded. Access to third rail by the public on this system is also more restricted than on the mainline as it is raised or underground and has no level crossings. Similarly, this has been the case where London Underground has expanded its fourth rail network. Physical limitations and compatibility considerations have constrained adoption of alternative traction current arrangements but this is set against the already greater levels of compliance achieved on that network, such as no live working and greater separation of members of the public from the network.
• A suitable and detailed assessment of the risks at the start of any project – or project proposal – should identify the full range of statutory duties and associated requirements with which a dutyholder must comply. A design option selected to minimise those risks will tend to satisfy any specific legal duties, although it is incumbent on the dutyholder to ensure it complies with all such duties. The rail industry should take every opportunity to design out risk and shortcomings and install electrical infrastructure that is safer and will ensure greater compliance with the legal requirements than the current system. 
• ORR’s most significant concern in regard to legacy third rail systems (the “legacy network”) is the running of bare, live conductors through publicly accessible areas. These conductors are not insulated or shrouded. The legacy network does not allow quick, secure isolations, and exposes individuals to a range of risks whilst carrying out isolations (this weakness has been recognised by Network Rail in its acknowledgment of the safety benefits of DC – Electrical Power Asset Policy December 2012 (page 284) and is why ORR has agreed to a ring fenced fund for ‘safer, faster isolations’ in CP5.). Due to the difficulty in obtaining isolations on the legacy network, a lot of work tends to be carried out on or near the live conductor, further undermining safety and weakening compliance with the applicable legislation. This is not an abstract or theoretical risk: the harm done to both workers and members of the public by the legacy network occurs significantly more frequently than on the overhead AC network (this is borne out by data from RSSB’s safety risk model – despite the legacy network being only half the size of the AC network (4400km compared to 8200km), it contributes almost eight times more (in terms of fatalities and weighted injuries per year) to overall risks on the railway. See FWI comparative data for OLE / conductor rail / non-electrified: Network Rail Electrical Power Asset Policy December 2012 (Table 2.1, page 52).). A dutyholder proposing the laying of new bare third rail (as used across the legacy network) would therefore have to make a compelling case that it had considered all other possibilities and could satisfactorily demonstrate that all such possibilities would be grossly disproportionate in comparison to using third rail.
• No significant geographic extension of third rail electrification has taken place on the mainline railway for many years. However, smaller third rail renewal and very minor extension schemes have been – and continue to be – proposed. For these smallscale projects, dutyholders may be able to demonstrate that simple extension or replacement of the third rail is the only viable option in the circumstances. Nevertheless, this does not detract from dutyholders’ obligations to show:
  • they have evaluated the full range of options available; 
  • proceeding with third rail is the only viable option in those circumstances; and 
  • how compliance with applicable health and safety legislation will be delivered in relation to this project from the design stage onward (for Network Rail this must at least include making optimal use of funding ORR has agreed for CP5 to deliver safer and faster isolations).
• Where existing third rail needs to continue being operated, maintained and renewed, the rail industry must ensure continuous improvements in the design, operation and maintenance of such electrical systems.

How we expect dutyholders to move towards our aim: