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

[Justin Smith]

Apologies if this has been asked before but I put the subject into the and a thread on this subject did not come up !

I was reading article on the new class 777s in both the current Railway Magazine and the current Milepost (the journal of the Railway Performance Society) and they both stated that the recent extension to the new Headbolt Lane station could not be electrified because of "safety considerations". In fact it was even questioned whether any more third rail electrification would be permitted for the same reason !
It was also speculated that this extreme H&S approach was due to the fact that, unlike BR, the safety authorities have no direct responsibility for income and expenditure, (i.e. the practicalities - and costs - of said safety edicts are of no interest to them).

Can this really be true ?
Or was it simply a case of it was cheaper not to electrify that short section of line (as long as one forgets about the cost of the battery installations on the trains as well as restricted flexibility....)

 

[Wallsendmag]

No it's true

 

[jfollows]

ORR's policy on third rail electrification attached, from https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/10702

There is a presumption against the reasonable practicability of new-build or
extended DC third rail in view of the safety requirements duty holders must satisfy
in order to justify the use of third rail.

 

[zwk500]

It was cheaper not to electrify the short section because of the requirements of the H&S authorities to permit further 3rd rail installations.

This is one specific location where I disagree with the decision not to install more 3rd rail. However, given Battery units were being procured for Merseyrail anyway for other extensions where 3rd rail wouldn't be as justifiable I can see the logic of it.

Regarding any future third rail electrification - it *is* permitted, but the safety requirements are such that it is unlikely to be installed anywhere that is not physcially isolated from public access, such as on a viaduct or in a tunnel.

 

[Class 317]

Apologies if this has been asked before but I put the subject into the and a thread on this subject did not come up !

I was reading article on the new class 777s in both the current Railway Magazine and the current Milepost (the journal of the Railway Performance Society) and they both stated that the recent extension to the new Headbolt Lane station could not be electrified because of "safety considerations". In fact it was even questioned whether any more third rail electrification would be permitted for the same reason !
It was also speculated that this extreme H&S approach was due to the fact that, unlike BR, the safety authorities have no direct responsibility for income and expenditure, (i.e. the practicalities - and costs - of said safety edicts are of no interest to them).

Can this really be true ?
Or was it simply a case of it was cheaper not to electrify that short section of line (as long as one forgets about the cost of the battery installations on the trains as well as restricted flexibility....)

The cost of adding the batteries and maintaining them will have been less then the cost of adding 3rd rail and associated other changes.

Batteries also increase rather than decrease flexibility with the ability to operate over sections where the 3rd rail is isolated for maintenance or emergency situations or allowing the extension of services to other destinations with little need for further investment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The cost of adding the batteries and maintaining them will have been less then the cost of adding 3rd rail and associated other changes.

Batteries also increase rather than decrease flexibility with the ability to operate over sections where the 3rd rail is isolated for maintenance or emergency situations or allowing the extension of services to other destinations with little need for further investment.

The batteries would have enabled an easy extension to Wigan Wallgate, simplifying operations there (the hourly service is a pest in a generally 2tph pattern)....had the station not been built on two levels with a gap between the lines to save a few quid on changing the level of the trackbed further along. I really think that was a huge missed opportunity. It almost seems like connecting Ormskirk back up is more likely now.

 

[Justin Smith]

Batteries also increase rather than decrease flexibility with the ability to operate over sections where the 3rd rail is isolated for maintenance or emergency situations or allowing the extension of services to other destinations with little need for further investment.

As far as I am aware only 7 of the class 777s have batteries, and thus only they can operate to Headbolt lane.
If that is not inflexible I do not know what is !
Plus on battery power they also have worse performance on batteries plus they have to lug around an extra 5 tons in weight whilst on the third rail.
It is madness.

The cost of adding the batteries and maintaining them will have been less then the cost of adding 3rd rail and associated other changes.

Over what time period ?

 

[Efini92]

The batteries would have enabled an easy extension to Wigan Wallgate, simplifying operations there (the hourly service is a pest in a generally 2tph pattern)....had the station not been built on two levels with a gap between the lines to save a few quid on changing the level of the trackbed further along. I really think that was a huge missed opportunity. It almost seems like connecting Ormskirk back up is more likely now.

Does the track not connect anymore from Kirkby to rainford?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does the track not connect anymore from Kirkby to rainford?

It hasn't since the 1970s, and it doesn't, no. There's a big concrete block in the way, but not only that the Rainford side is higher - it's been terraced to allow for level platforms without the cost of modifying the embankments.

 

[Justin Smith]

Regarding any future third rail electrification - it *is* permitted, but the safety requirements are such that it is unlikely to be installed anywhere that is not physcially isolated from public access, such as on a viaduct or in a tunnel.

So basically it [third rail electrification] is not permitted.
And the implication is that about 1300m of our rail system is now deemed unsafe.
Am I the only person who thinks the world has gone stark staring mad ?

I think the point John Heaton made in his RM article has great validity.
Unlike BR the present body responsible for rail safety has no interest in the costs (and not just financial) of its increasingly extreme edicts.

 

[yorkie]

Am I the only person who thinks the world has gone stark staring mad ?

Not "the world"; travel the rail network in places like Czechia and you will be in for a treat.

But this is the UK, so what happened at Kirkby is entirely to be expected.

The batteries would have enabled an easy extension to Wigan Wallgate, simplifying operations there (the hourly service is a pest in a generally 2tph pattern)....had the station not been built on two levels with a gap between the lines to save a few quid on changing the level of the trackbed further along. I really think that was a huge missed opportunity. It almost seems like connecting Ormskirk back up is more likely now.

If anyone wants to speculate, feel free to create a thread (if there isn't one already) in Speculative Discussion

 

[Mgameing123]

Apologies if this has been asked before but I put the subject into the and a thread on this subject did not come up !

I was reading article on the new class 777s in both the current Railway Magazine and the current Milepost (the journal of the Railway Performance Society) and they both stated that the recent extension to the new Headbolt Lane station could not be electrified because of "safety considerations". In fact it was even questioned whether any more third rail electrification would be permitted for the same reason !
It was also speculated that this extreme H&S approach was due to the fact that, unlike BR, the safety authorities have no direct responsibility for income and expenditure, (i.e. the practicalities - and costs - of said safety edicts are of no interest to them).

Can this really be true ?
Or was it simply a case of it was cheaper not to electrify that short section of line (as long as one forgets about the cost of the battery installations on the trains as well as restricted flexibility....)

The third rail policy is absurd. Is it not easier to just extend existing third rail sections when we wanna go green?

 

[swt_passenger]

Apologies if this has been asked before but I put the subject into the and a thread on this subject did not come up !

I think getting the search terms closer, eg “third rail extensions” would probably have found the target. Most previous discussions have involved the same question in various parts of the southeast, but the ORR policy is interpreted the same way down here.

 

[Justin Smith]

ORR's policy on third rail electrification attached, from https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/10702

I started reading that but stopped immediately when it started using cobblers words like "duty holder" !

 

[Efini92]

It hasn't since the 1970s, and it doesn't, no. There's a big concrete block in the way, but not only that the Rainford side is higher - it's been terraced to allow for level platforms without the cost of modifying the embankments.

I’m sure the regular commuters from Kirkby to Wigan for the last 50 years might disagree

That seems very shortsighted, I thought they would’ve planned for it to run to Wigan eventually.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The turning point for third rail really came with the Electricity at Work legislation in 1989, which came into effect in the very early 1990s. Essentially any conductor carrying lethal voltages has to be either insulated or out of reach. Conventional third rail on open line (I.e. not tunnel or inaccessible viaduct) clearly fails spectacularly at both tests.
Even BR realised that would effectively be no new third rail extensions. The bits for the Channel Tunnel related links and Merseyrail extensions to Chester and Ellesmere Port were already in hand and were allowed to continue but they were the last, over 30 years ago.

 

[Class 317]

As far as I am aware only 7 of the class 777s have batteries, and thus only they can operate to Headbolt lane.
If that is not inflexible I do not know what is !
Plus on battery power they also have worse performance on batteries plus they have to lug around an extra 5 tons in weight whilst on the third rail.
It is madness.


Over what time period ?

So a class 777 has 2.5 tonnes of batteries not 5 tonnes. They have a total capacity of 320kwh. Based on the price for lithium batteries back in 2018 of 210 USD per KWH ( they are much lower now), I'd expect the cost to be around £70k per unit but let's say £250k per unit to allow for integration costs, safety approvals and other costs outside of the battery costs.

Works out at about £1.5m extra for the 7 trains.

3rd rail electrification costs I believe are between £1m to £1.5m per KM depending on the complexity of the installation. I'd expect the batteries to pay for them selves very quickly.

 

[bramling]

The turning point for third rail really came with the Electricity at Work legislation in 1989, which came into effect in the very early 1990s. Essentially any conductor carrying lethal voltages has to be either insulated or out of reach. Conventional third rail on open line (I.e. not tunnel or inaccessible viaduct) clearly fails spectacularly at both tests.
Even BR realised that would effectively be no new third rail extensions. The bits for the Channel Tunnel related links and Merseyrail extensions to Chester and Ellesmere Port were already in hand and were allowed to continue but they were the last, over 30 years ago.

The East London Line has some sections of third rail which could be considered “new” - Whitechapel to Dalston Junction, and Deptford Road Junction to Old Kent Road Junction. Little seems to have been said regarding how this was able to be done.

 

[swt_passenger]

The East London Line has some sections of third rail which could be considered “new” - Whitechapel to Dalston Junction, and Deptford Road Junction to Old Kent Road Junction. Little seems to have been said regarding how this was able to be done.

Previous discussions suggested the main ELL section was considering OK because the Kingsland viaduct is inaccessible to the public. Not sure about the relatively short SLL link, is it fully enclosed by security fencing or something?

 

[507 001]

It hasn't since the 1970s, and it doesn't, no. There's a big concrete block in the way, but not only that the Rainford side is higher - it's been terraced to allow for level platforms without the cost of modifying the embankments.

The station was designed to make it relatively easy to remove the Rainford side platform etc for potential extensions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The station was designed to make it relatively easy to remove the Rainford side platform etc for potential extensions.

Relatively is doing a lot of heavy lifting there (as would be the diggers doing the digging). I originally thought it was just going to be like Kirkby with the lines aligned and on the same level and an easily knockable-out concrete block, but in fact I realised when I first went there that the Rainford side is a couple of feet higher, presumably to allow that platform to be level, so there'll need to be a fair bit of earthwork to do it.

Not impossible of course but not as easy as Kirkby was, which was just a case of knocking out a concrete block and joining the lines up (plus presumably signalling).

 

[Justin Smith]

The turning point for third rail really came with the Electricity at Work legislation in 1989, which came into effect in the very early 1990s. Essentially any conductor carrying lethal voltages has to be either insulated or out of reach. Conventional third rail on open line (I.e. not tunnel or inaccessible viaduct) clearly fails spectacularly at both tests.
Even BR realised that would effectively be no new third rail extensions. The bits for the Channel Tunnel related links and Merseyrail extensions to Chester and Ellesmere Port were already in hand and were allowed to continue but they were the last, over 30 years ago.

Does anyone have any stats for the numbers of people killed every year by electrocution on third rail lines ?

 

[507 001]

Relatively is doing a lot of heavy lifting there (as would be the diggers doing the digging). I originally thought it was just going to be like Kirkby with the lines aligned and on the same level and an easily knockable-out concrete block, but in fact I realised when I first went there that the Rainford side is a couple of feet higher, presumably to allow that platform to be level, so there'll need to be a fair bit of earthwork to do it.

Not impossible of course but not as easy as Kirkby was, which was just a case of knocking out a concrete block and joining the lines up (plus presumably signalling).

I think you’re over egging it to be honest.

 

[Justin Smith]

So a class 777 has 2.5 tonnes of batteries not 5 tonnes. They have a total capacity of 320kwh. Based on the price for lithium batteries back in 2018 of 210 USD per KWH ( they are much lower now), I'd expect the cost to be around £70k per unit but let's say £250k per unit to allow for integration costs, safety approvals and other costs outside of the battery costs.

Works out at about £1.5m extra for the 7 trains.

3rd rail electrification costs I believe are between £1m to £1.5m per KM depending on the complexity of the installation. I'd expect the batteries to pay for them selves very quickly.

John Heaton quoted 5 tons, but even at 2.5 tons, how much energy will be wasted dragging an additional 2.5 tons of batteries around when, for 99% of the time, they are not even being used ?
So you are saying they could have electrified about a mile of track for the extra price of the batteries ? I have the distance from Headbolt land to Kirkby as 0.83 miles...

I have never trusted batteries since it was explained to me that the batteries in my laptops are "not covered by the warranty" (i.e. they expect them to fail that quickly....) !

Previous discussions suggested the main ELL section was considering OK because the Kingsland viaduct is inaccessible to the public. Not sure about the relatively short SLL link, is it fully enclosed by security fencing or something?

Which is vitally important when the other 1300 miles are not.....

 

[Djgr]

It was cheaper not to electrify the short section because of the requirements of the H&S authorities to permit further 3rd rail installations.

This is one specific location where I disagree with the decision not to install more 3rd rail. However, given Battery units were being procured for Merseyrail anyway for other extensions where 3rd rail wouldn't be as justifiable I can see the logic of it.

Regarding any future third rail electrification - it *is* permitted, but the safety requirements are such that it is unlikely to be installed anywhere that is not physcially isolated from public access, such as on a viaduct or in a tunnel.

I think it was the other way around. Because of the third rail "police" batteries were the only way forward for Headbolt Lane.

However, having been forced to go down this route, this does open up the possibilities for additional use of battery powered trains e.g. Borderlands.

However these proposed extensions invariably seem to involve crossing out of Liverpool City Region into areas not renouned for putting their own cash in to make this happen.

 

[David Bullock]

Does anyone have any stats for the numbers of people killed every year by electrocution on third rail lines ?

There’s a footnote in the ORR policy document linked earlier that says that despite the 3rd rail network being half the size of the AC network it is responsible for 8 times more fatalities/injuries according to the RSSB

 

[87015]

Previous discussions suggested the main ELL section was considering OK because the Kingsland viaduct is inaccessible to the public. Not sure about the relatively short SLL link, is it fully enclosed by security fencing or something?

Sounds very retconned into a convenient reason. The SLL link and Dalston-Highbury are no more fenced than anywhere else, the latter not even separated from the NLL.

 

[Class 317]

John Heaton quoted 5 tons, but even at 2.5 tons, how much energy will be wasted dragging an additional 2.5 tons of batteries around when, for 99% of the time, they are not even being used ?
So you are saying they could have electrified about a mile of track for the extra price of the batteries ? I have the distance from Headbolt land to Kirkby as 0.83 miles...

I have never trusted batteries since it was explained to me that the batteries in my laptops are "not covered by the warranty" (i.e. they expect them to fail that quickly....) !


Which is vitally important when the other 1300 miles are not.....

I was being very pessimistic on the costs of the batteries. It will have paid for itself in 1 year or so based on a £1.5m electrification cost and battery costs being the same.

It's likely the electrification cost may have been higher as it's £1-£1.5m per track KM.

 

[Justin Smith]

There’s a footnote in the ORR policy document linked earlier that says that despite the 3rd rail network being half the size of the AC network it is responsible for 8 times more fatalities/injuries according to the RSSB

That hasn't actually answered the question though, how many people a year are killed because of the third rail system ?

I was being very pessimistic on the costs of the batteries. It will have paid for itself in 1 year or so based on a £1.5m electrification cost and battery costs being the same.

It's likely the electrification cost may have been higher as it's £1-£1.5m per track KM.

How are you calculating that and over what time period ?

0.83 miles is 1300m, roughly.
It still seems incredible to me they have gone to all the expense and complication of having a separate sub class of class 777s ("normal" 777s could not work on that service ! ) just to avoid electrifying 1300m of track.

 

[bramling]

Sounds very retconned into a convenient reason. The SLL link and Dalston-Highbury are no more fenced than anywhere else, the latter not even separated from the NLL.

Dalston to Highbury may have been able to be considered as an existing operation, especially as the ELL used the NLL tracks which (by fortunate coincidence) were the ones already electrified with DC.

Dalston to Whitechapel is a completely different matter of course, and I see no reason why this section could be regarded as anything other than new railway.