Headbolt Lane to Kirkby not electrified due to "safety concerns" ?

[Ianigsy]

Probably also worth adding that since that section has long had a reputation for antisocial behaviour, the likelihood of a potentially fatal trespass incident would be above average.

 

[WAO]

ALL asbestos must now be removed or encapsulated regardless of cost.

We're happy to jog along with over 1000km of third rail, however!

The question is how far should grandfather rights extend, with what precautions and what constitutes "de minimis".

WAO

 

[Bletchleyite]

Speculative thread for discussion of ways to make it safer: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/making-top-contact-third-rail-safer.267339/

 

[Justin Smith]

We made massive use of asbestos in the past. Then we realised the risks, came up with safer alternatives and phased out its use.....

Just because something has been around a long time does not mean that it meets current standards. If it wasn't for the cost and disruption l'm sure that third rail would have been completely replaced.

But it's surely about proportion, asbestos was killing thousands of people a year !

>>If it wasn't for the cost and disruption<<

That's the whole point though isn't it ?
How many lives are going to be saved for how much cost an disruption, and, in my opinion, the balance has swung far too far in the safe at all costs direction now. Safe is a relative word anyway, it means nothing if not qualified.

 

[Greybeard33]

The premise of this thread, that third rail electrification to Headbolt Lane was ruled out on safety grounds, is incorrect. Up to and including the Outline Business Case stage of the Headbolt Lane station project it was assumed that the third rail would be extended, and that ORR approval could be obtained on the grounds it would only be a short extension of the existing network. Indeed the Class 777 trains were not originally specified with battery capability, and it was only in 2021 that Merseyrail carried out testing to validate the 777 battery conversion.

The Headbolt Lane Full Business Case document makes clear that a key consideration in the decision to switch to battery operation was the strategic benefit of an operational trial of the battery technology, to support the case for future Merseyrail extension projects without the costs of electrification:

The extension also provides an opportunity to
trial the operation of The Independently Powered Electric Multiple-Unit (IPEMU) rolling
stock as an alternative to extension of the third rail electrification. This should provide
efficiencies and opportunities for other potential projects across the LCR and its wider
travel-to-work hinterland.

11.2 Wider Implications – Liverpool City Region Long Term Rail Strategy
The Liverpool City Region LTRS, published in 2014 and revised in 2018, contains significant
reference to extensions of the current Merseyrail network beyond the current extents to serve
new markets, destinations and attractors, creating the opportunity for new journey opportunities
and increasing the accessibility of the residents of Liverpool City Region. As battery-electric bi-
mode operation was in its infancy when this strategy was published, it was initially envisaged
that these extensions would be facilitated by costly electrification of lines adjacent to the
Merseyrail network, and the equipping of the new Merseyrail trains with dual voltage AC and DC
capability.
The opportunities provided by the rapid development of battery technology cannot be
overstated in this regard since this provides the potential to facilitate a proportion of the network
extensions without further electrification (either AC or DC). This in turn will allow Merseyrail
services to run, without interruption, on to destinations beyond the current extents of the Wirral
and Northern Lines, and onto sections of the current City Line helping to realise the original
vision of Merseyrail as a 360 degree network.
In particular, the equipping of additional class 777 units for battery-electric bi-mode operation
has the potential to allow Merseyrail services from central Liverpool to be extended in the
following ways (shown in Figure 11.1):
● The onward running of Northern Line services beyond Headbolt Lane to Skelmersdale and
Wigan Wallgate via the line through Rainford;
● The onward running of Northern Line services beyond Ormskirk to Burscough and Preston
via Rufford and Croston;
● The onward running of Northern Line services beyond Hunts Cross to Warrington via the
Cheshire Lines Committee route;
● The onward running of Wirral Line services beyond Bidston to Heswall, Shotton and
Wrexham via the Borderlands line;
● The onward running of Wirral Line services beyond Chester to Crewe; and
● The onward running of Wirral Line services beyond Ellesmere Port to Helsby, Frodsham and
Runcorn East.

https://api.liverpoolcityregion-ca.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Headbolt-Lane-FBC_Final-issue_02_03_2022.pdf

 

[Justin Smith]

The premise of this thread, that third rail electrification to Headbolt Lane was ruled out on safety grounds, is incorrect. Up to and including the Outline Business Case stage of the Headbolt Lane station project it was assumed that the third rail would be extended, and that ORR approval could be obtained on the grounds it would only be a short extension of the existing network. Indeed the Class 777 trains were not originally specified with battery capability, and it was only in 2021 that Merseyrail carried out testing to validate the 777 battery conversion.

The Headbolt Lane Full Business Case document makes clear that a key consideration in the decision to switch to battery operation was the strategic benefit of an operational trial of the battery technology, to support the case for future Merseyrail extension projects without the costs of electrification:

https://api.liverpoolcityregion-ca.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Headbolt-Lane-FBC_Final-issue_02_03_2022.pdf

I didn't read it all but used "control F" and "third Rail" but could find nothing saying that the ORR would have no problems with the third rail extension. It just talked about using the 0.8mile stretch as a testing ground for battery powered trains. Is it some where else in the document ?

Does anyone know if John Heaton (from the RPS and the Railway Magazine) is a native of these parts ? If so he may like to comment ?

 

[alf]

A second up line between Southampton Parkway & Eastleigh parallel to the existing up line was built & third railed without fuss about six years ago.

Unsurprisingly no one has been hurt or electrocuted as a result.

Is anyone from SWR/SWT & NR able to tell the forum if there were any hoops to jump through?
The new third track is the same as the distance to Headbolt Lane from Kirby.

 

[Greybeard33]

I didn't read it all but used "control F" and "third Rail" but could find nothing saying that the ORR would have no problems with the third rail extension. It just talked about using the 0.8mile stretch as a testing ground for battery powered trains. Is it some where else in the document ?

The FBC does not say that the ORR would have no problems with third rail, because the decision to use batteries instead was made before the third rail safety case was presented to the ORR for approval.

Section 14.2, Option Development Process, says:

At the [Outline Business Case] stage there were outstanding determinations as to whether the existing DC ‘third rail’ MEL network could be extended to Headbolt Lane from Kirkby. Since the conclusion of the OBC (December 2020), the LCR CA in partnership with Merseytravel and Merseyrail Electrics commissioned the testing of a converted Class 777 bi-mode electric and battery train, which confirmed that a class 777 unit under battery power could easily run between Kirkby and Headbolt Lane and back again, meeting timetable requirements, without requiring a recharge. However, following testing, the preferred option for a new station at Headbolt Lane has been modified slightly to remove the need to provide an extension of third rail electrification between Kirkby and Headbolt Lane, instead including the modification of 6no class 777 units to battery-electric capability and the purchase of an additional battery unit.

The "outstanding determinations" presumably means approval of the safety case. But the ORR third rail policy predates the Headbolt Lane project, so the project would not have progressed to the OBC stage unless there was a reasonable expectation that the third rail extension would be approved. The case would no doubt have relied on section 6 of the ORR policy:

6. 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 small-
scale projects, duty holders may be able to demonstrate that simple extension or
replacement of the third rail is the only viable option in the circumstances.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/dc-electrification-policy-statement.pdf

 

[satisnek]

I really don't want to read about the subject of this thread which in my view is no different to more than 20 years ago when a small, dedicated fleet of DMUs was ordered for the two remaining routes which the Southern Region/Network SouthEast had not electrified prior to privatisation (I'm not including the North Downs Line because it has been serviced from the Reading end since 1979 and BR had a justifiable reason - i.e. finance - for not electrifying it).

I also don't want to look at the latest Quail map showing the partial electrification of the Valleys lines, the incomplete electrification of the GWML and those bits of the West Midlands Metro which haven't been wired for whatever reason.

As a lifelong railway enthusiast and a fiftysomething social conservative curmudgeon with an engineering background it makes me lose the will to live.

 

[Blackpool boy]

ALL asbestos must now be removed or encapsulated regardless of cost.


WAO

This is simply not true.

 

[WAO]

Encapsulation means not shedding fibres into an occupied space, if so leave well alone.

WAO

 

[Bletchleyite]

Encapsulation means not shedding fibres into an occupied space, if so leave well alone.

The most common form of encapsulation for domestic asbestos being a couple of nice, thick layers of paint over the top. This is normally how asbestos artex is dealt with (though some go one further and skim plaster over the top too, but this isn't necessary, it's just to get rid of the look as it's rather dated now).

Similarly I've almost certainly got asbestos floor tiles in the kitchen (not had them tested but they likely are) and have just put vinyl over the top and sealed round the edges.

 

[Blackpool boy]

Encapsulation means not shedding fibres into an occupied space, if so leave well alone.

WAO

Im aware of what it means however, i refer to my previous post where you have made a claim that all must be removed or encapsulated. Unless the guidance has changed, this is simply not true. As long as its left intact asbestos can be left in situ.

 

[Justin Smith]

The FBC does not say that the ORR would have no problems with third rail, because the decision to use batteries instead was made before the third rail safety case was presented to the ORR for approval.

Section 14.2, Option Development Process, says:

The "outstanding determinations" presumably means approval of the safety case. But the ORR third rail policy predates the Headbolt Lane project, so the project would not have progressed to the OBC stage unless there was a reasonable expectation that the third rail extension would be approved. The case would no doubt have relied on section 6 of the ORR policy:

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/dc-electrification-policy-statement.pdf

6. 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 small-
scale projects, duty holders may be able to demonstrate that simple extension or
replacement of the third rail is the only viable option in the circumstances.

Ah, so the ORR can actually get out of having to give permission for something so dangerous as third rail electrification by stating "use battery powered trains" (even if 99% of the time they'd not be needed, and would adversely affect the flexibility of the operators train fleet).

 

[WAO]

Im aware of what it means however, i refer to my previous post where you have made a claim that all must be removed or encapsulated. Unless the guidance has changed, this is simply not true. As long as its left intact asbestos can be left in situ.

Your "intact" is my "encapsulation" - I actually agree with you!
A fibre count would prove its efficacy or otherwise.
Many products used only a small % of fibres as reinforcement, which aren't generally released to atmosphere.
We're a bit away from HBL/3rd rail safety!
WAO

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

6. 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 small-
scale projects, duty holders may be able to demonstrate that simple extension or
replacement of the third rail is the only viable option in the circumstances.

Ah, so the ORR can actually get out of having to give permission for something so dangerous as third rail electrification by stating "use battery powered trains" (even if 99% of the time they'd not be needed, and would adversely affect the flexibility of the operators train fleet).

ORR haven't said they won't give permission although they are making pretty clear they can't see how a duty holder could ever convince them they can comply with legislation. However, they acknowledge LUL have made the case because access to the infrastructure is far more restrictive when your up on a viaduct but seemingly the most obvious point of access at a station was made acceptable. Maybe for the latter the fact a member of staff is on duty throughout operating hours provides sufficient mitigation. Personally I would have thought palisade fencing provides sufficient mitigation against access from the lineside but full time staffing of stations will be a challenge outside of large cities but given most stations are flooded with CCTV these days im sure some sort of motion sensing could be used.

There was suggestions a few years back that NR was moving towards making the case for Uckfield but that seems to have gone quiet but industry really needs to test the waters again.

 

[Greybeard33]

Ah, so the ORR can actually get out of having to give permission for something so dangerous as third rail electrification by stating "use battery powered trains" (even if 99% of the time they'd not be needed, and would adversely affect the flexibility of the operators train fleet).

AIUI the ORR did not instruct Merseytravel to use battery powered trains. It would have been open to Merseytravel to argue that it was not "a viable option" to retrofit batteries to seven units just to work an extension less than 1km long. Instead the LCR/Merseytravel volunteered to fit the batteries. So we do not know whether or not the ORR would have accepted that argument.