Manchester - Liverpool Electrification

[furnessvale]

Is the idea to use pallisade fencing where a line is (or about to be) electrified ?

It looks that way but, unless things have changed, this is entirely self imposed by NR and is not a legal requirement.

 

[edwin_m]

There is or was a HMRI requirement for better standard of fencing on third rail lines because of the increased risk of electrocution. I'm not aware of anything relating to lines with OLE.

 

[swt_passenger]

There is or was a HMRI requirement for better standard of fencing on third rail lines because of the increased risk of electrocution. I'm not aware of anything relating to lines with OLE.

There's also loads of the third rail area with normal post and wire fencing, especially once outside built up areas. I don't really think that it is much different to a non-electric line in areas where there is little trespass risk.

 

[urbophile]

There are also several (many?) instances of pedestrian crossings over 3rd-rail-electrified track. Kent and Merseyside for two examples.

 

[PDG1949]

There are also several (many?) instances of pedestrian crossings over 3rd-rail-electrified track. Kent and Merseyside for two examples.

I'm not local enough to check it, but I'm guessing with 3rd rail that at level and pedestrian rail crossings, there's probably a short neutral section with the live connection to the following section made underground.

Further to the above, have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail. Even having a natural break can be hazardous !

 

[Philip Phlopp]

There's also loads of the third rail area with normal post and wire fencing, especially once outside built up areas. I don't really think that it is much different to a non-electric line in areas where there is little trespass risk.

Electrified routes were supposed to have better fencing and better vegetation management, that's why the BR-era electric units don't have obstacle deflectors fitted, but the BR-era diesel units do (after being retro-fitted) but it was a BR decision, not a regulatory issue.

In many cases, new fencing is going up because during tree clearance prior to electrification, old fences are damaged, they fall down, or there's easier public access for which a small fence is considered unsuitable. That's in addition to new bits of OLE or power supply which we don't want people going near.

 

[snowball]

There's even a lot of palisade fencing on the Borders Railway.

 

[edwin_m]

There's even a lot of palisade fencing on the Borders Railway.

That's to keep the English out.

 

[SodTheDrummer]

Originally Posted by snowball
There's even a lot of palisade fencing on the Borders Railway.

That's to keep the English out.

or the Scottish in.....?

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Electrified routes were supposed to have better fencing and better vegetation management, that's why the BR-era electric units don't have obstacle deflectors fitted, but the BR-era diesel units do (after being retro-fitted) but it was a BR decision, not a regulatory issue.

In many cases, new fencing is going up because during tree clearance prior to electrification, old fences are damaged, they fall down, or there's easier public access for which a small fence is considered unsuitable. That's in addition to new bits of OLE or power supply which we don't want people going near.

And the Maintainer insists on it, as it's a higher spec and lasts longer, but the Project pays for it, not them ...

 

[Philip Phlopp]

There's even a lot of palisade fencing on the Borders Railway.

It's basically an electrified railway without the electrification. Signalling is compatible with 25kV AC, bridges have sufficient clearance, signalling cable runs are properly documented, drainage is in sensible locations, and so on.

 

[childwallblues]

It's basically an electrified railway without the electrification. Signalling is compatible with 25kV AC, bridges have sufficient clearance, signalling cable runs are properly documented, drainage is in sensible locations, and so on.

A sensible decision.

 

[LDECRexile]

Paul Gaskell has kindly sent shots of work done, in hand and intended in the Lea Green area.

I've added them to Paul's album here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/albums/72157649792560381

and to the Combined Volume here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/albums/72157648494725811

Thank you Paul

 

[Class 170101]

It's basically an electrified railway without the electrification. Signalling is compatible with 25kV AC, bridges have sufficient clearance, signalling cable runs are properly documented, drainage is in sensible locations, and so on.

How long do these clearance standards last before they are superseded on average though?

 

[Ploughman]

It's basically an electrified railway without the electrification. Signalling is compatible with 25kV AC, bridges have sufficient clearance, signalling cable runs are properly documented, drainage is in sensible locations, and so on.

What do you consider to be sensible locations?

I know in the past OHLE schemes seem to have had a magnetic attraction to planting masts in existing drain runs.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

What do you consider to be sensible locations?

I know in the past OHLE schemes seem to have had a magnetic attraction to planting masts in existing drain runs.

The Borders Railway has the drainage runs a little closer/tighter to the track, instead of being a bit further out into the cess. They're, in part, where they are to give passive provision for electrification, but they're also where they are to give passive provision for further double tracking of the route.

The detailed drawings will help enormously if/when the route is electrified too, there's a lot of drawings which went missing in the days of Railtrack, and a lot of track alignment drift over the years, so even if drawings exist, they can be quite inaccurate. That has been an issue for various things over the years, curious drainage or flooding issues which are revealed to be damaged drainage nobody knew about.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

How long do these clearance standards last before they are superseded on average though?

There's no hard and fast clearance standards for our conventional railways - contact wire has a range it can be in. The new bridges were built to take a contact wire height of 4.7 metres, so ordinary catenary can be used, no rigid overhead conductor.

Bowshank Tunnel would need rigid overhead conductor, from memory there was no way to get the trackbed lower, and that's already using slab track.

 

[Ploughman]

The Borders Railway has the drainage runs a little closer/tighter to the track, instead of being a bit further out into the cess. They're, in part, where they are to give passive provision for electrification, but they're also where they are to give passive provision for further double tracking of the route.

The detailed drawings will help enormously if/when the route is electrified too, there's a lot of drawings which went missing in the days of Railtrack, and a lot of track alignment drift over the years, so even if drawings exist, they can be quite inaccurate. That has been an issue for various things over the years, curious drainage or flooding issues which are revealed to be damaged drainage nobody knew about.

No excuse when the mast is planted between 2 drain catchpits with pipe visible and accessible.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

No excuse when the mast is planted between 2 drain catchpits with pipe visible and accessible.

Nope, indeed not.

 

[LDECRexile]

I called in on the footbridge at Sutton Leach this afternoon.

Photos in the Combined Volume here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/albums/72157648494725811

The former railway bridge referred to in one of the photo's captions can be seen here, at the top right of the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Helens_and_Runcorn_Gap_Railway

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I called in on the footbridge at Sutton Leach this afternoon.

Photos in the Combined Volume here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127646831@N03/albums/72157648494725811

Does this mean that all the work in connection with Manchester-Liverpool etc electrification is still not complete?

 

[LDECRexile]

Does this mean that all the work in connection with Manchester-Liverpool etc electrification is still not complete?

Counting the work on Middlewood Viaduct etc as Ordsall Chord work, not Liv-Man work I can only think of three physical works not yet complete:

1. the Sutton Leach footbridge parapets as per today's photos

2. the nearby Marshalls Cross road bridge parapets, as per Paul's recent shots

3. work on the outside tracks and OHLE at Allerton Depot.

I'll be going past Allerton by train tomorrow, so I'll report on how that looks when I get home tomorrow night.

A possible No. 4 is parapets on Earlestown station footbridge, which had notices saying they were to be raised ages ago, but I never noticed any changes. That might well be my error.

No. 5 is cleaning the Sankey Viaduct, which would make a wonderful finale, perhaps on the day a new sooped up timetable starts?

 

[DJH1971]

Does this mean that all the work in connection with Manchester-Liverpool etc electrification is still not complete?

They could certainly do with fully replacing the footbridge.

It's in a truly bad state.

 

[LDECRexile]

I'll be going past Allerton by train tomorrow, so I'll report on how that looks when I get home tomorrow night.

Mission not accomplished.

I was so involved with a lady, her bags and children getting their seats Allerton Depot was past and gone before I could pay heed. It was dark on my way past in the evening.

Not the end of the world.

 

[PDG1949]

Leach Lane (St Helens) ?Works?

Visited Leach Lane footbridge this evening as the footpath is "due" to re-open at 5 pm tomorrow afternoon.

Everything was precisely the same as Dave's photos 5732 i and m - effectively gated off closed (one assumes both sides!) with the plywood sheets removed and nothing more substantial put in its place (as per Rainhill Station footbridges ). Yet the Council planning notice - see 5732 k - (which incidentally is lying on the grass) specifically says 'work on bridge parapets'.

Anyone any the wiser as to what's happening? Maybe it's going to be demolished and the original first cross-railway bridge in the world next to it is set to be re-opened as a super new heritage footbridge ??

 

[DJH1971]

Leach Lane (St Helens) ?Works?

Visited Leach Lane footbridge this evening as the footpath is "due" to re-open at 5 pm tomorrow afternoon.

Everything was precisely the same as Dave's photos 5732 i and m - effectively gated off closed (one assumes both sides!) with the plywood sheets removed and nothing more substantial put in its place (as per Rainhill Station footbridges ). Yet the Council planning notice - see 5732 k - (which incidentally is lying on the grass) specifically says 'work on bridge parapets'.

Anyone any the wiser as to what's happening? Maybe it's going to be demolished and the original first cross-railway bridge in the world next to it is set to be re-opened as a super new heritage footbridge ??

It reopened this morning

 

[PDG1949]

It reopened this morning

Ah ! When I saw it on Sunday afternoon it was finished, but still gated - obviously waiting to be signed off. What a difference a day (or two) makes !

 

[DJH1971]

Ah ! When I saw it on Sunday afternoon it was finished, but still gated - obviously waiting to be signed off What a difference a day (or two) makes !

See that the makeshift wooden guard against the wires has gone.

 

[PDG1949]

See that the makeshift wooden guard against the wires has gone.

They went the first week it was closed off !

 

[snowball]

So is the bridge any different from before the electrification started?

(Apologies, I'm not familiar with the site and haven't memorised any old pictures of it from the early days of the albums.)