Tube trains on Harrogate Line

[moggie]

When they discover the scope and costs (which 'surprisingly' don't get a mention) of the signalling immunisation costs to replace ALL train detection equipment along the route and for a couple of kilometers beyond the sphere of operation - i.e ALL of Leeds and York stations and their approaches it should transform the project to the expensive category I should think.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Reading through this thread has reminded me of why I stopped posting on this forum and now only use it to research current events on the rail network. An awful lot of nonsensical gibberish written by people who have little idea about what they are describing and to whom common sense is something only they posess. Yes, it may be obvious to you that it is a stupid idea. But if you actually pull your head out of your trousers for one minute and give the subject a little bit of THOUGHT, you may appreciate why aspects of this plan are actually very sensible indeed. I am not suggesting for one minute that the plan as it stands is perfect - it most certainly is not - but with a number of tweaks, could be tailored to suit the line perfectly.

As has been widely discussed, the preferred option for the line would be light rail/tram train oriented in the style of the Manchester metrolink. HOWEVER, this would leave Harrogate without a London service, which I do not believe would suit Harrogate council. Which therefore leaves a dilemma. How to improve services on the line without affecting its usefulness whilst reducing costs?

It is clear that large scale additions to the diesel fleet is something the Government wants to move away from - they have EU directives to achieve and a budget deficit to deal with. So to those who say "why don't we just order more 172's? It's the obvious thing to do", sorry, but it isn't. The railway HAS to move in a different direction. The whole reason it is a problem in the first place is because it has failed, thus far, to move with the times. The railway has to slowly become electrified as the cost of running and maintaining a diesel network is becoming insurmountable. It is also a network that will soon have a large number of electric trains that cannot be cascaded elsewhere due to the lack of infrastructure. Building a new fleet of diesels whilst allowing the electic trains to sit idle is HUGELY wasteful. So what direction should it move in?

Clearly, the cost of any project is going to be a major setback in the current climate. Money just isn't available to be thrown around willy nilly. IF £150 odd million were to be made available, it would HAVE to be put into the future sustainabilty of the line and NOT just fixing the problem as it is now. What's more, there has to be some form of compromise. The line can't be upgraded and then more trains be built to run it. The costs are unfeasible. The way this particular report looks at the situation is by studying how much of the current trains and infrastructure can be used and where savings can be made. One massive and immediate saving would be to use any money that would be spent on new DMU's on electrifying lines and then cascading existing stock.

The line, as it is, runs through densely populated suburbs of Leeds that are underserved by public transport (and badly served by the local road network) and on, through open countryside, to Harrogate and Knaresborough. Any restructuring of the line would have to involve construction of 2 or 3 stations in the Leeds area and possibly 1 or 2 in the Harrogate area which would lend itself perfectly to the high acceleration of the units mentioned. The line is hideously overcrowded during commuter hours. Overcrowding would be significantly dealt with by the commuter oriented layout of the units in question. It would also deal with suppressed growth and encourage further growth. The door layout would improve loading times. The speed limits on the line are generally low and the short distance between most stations between Leeds and Knaresborough would negate the 60mph limit of the units. The line could continue to be used as heavy rail for the purposes of links such as London. The steep gradient to Leeds Bradford Airport could be overcome by the units in question (should the link ever be built). The challenges faced by the viaducts and tunnels on the line would be lessened by third rail. Etc, etc, etc.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of hurdles to clear and some of the ideas need a lot more thought (existing infrastructure at both ends of the line, 30 year old stock, journey times, ride comfort etc) But, the benefits that can be achieved from making changes to this line are tangible. Sometimes, you have to take a step backwards in order to move forwards. If the money can be spent wisely and the line is significantly better off, there is no reason why this idea, perhaps in a slightly altered form, can't work. Simply throwing a few diesels at the line will not change its long term future.

Put yourself in the shoes of people who regularly use the line or live close by and don't use it. 2 trains an hour or 4? New station near your house? Less chance of having your nose rubbing up against John Everyman's armpit? I know what I would say. I wouldn't care a jot if it meant using LU stock instead of a class 150.

What is obvious is that the line in its current form cannot continue. It would serve much greater purpose in an altered form and could potentially become a jewel in the crown of the Northern network instead of the lumbering behemoth that haemorrages money that it is at present - the amount of unlocked potential in the line is huge.

I am going back to the shadows now, but I urge each and every one of you to actually THINK about it and write something intelligent, rather than the complete drivel I have read so far. If you think something is stupid, that is fine. But instead of blurting it out in the simplistic style of a 3 year old, come up with a constructive argument as to why you think it is stupid. And, weigh up the benefits with the costs. You never know, we may get an interesting thread to read.

 

[yorksrob]

Reading through this thread has reminded me of why I stopped posting on this forum and now only use it to research current events on the rail network. An awful lot of nonsensical gibberish written by people who have little idea about what they are describing and to whom common sense is something only they posess. Yes, it may be obvious to you that it is a stupid idea. But if you actually pull your head out of your trousers for one minute and give the subject a little bit of THOUGHT, you may appreciate why aspects of this plan are actually very sensible indeed. I am not suggesting for one minute that the plan as it stands is perfect - it most certainly is not - but with a number of tweaks, could be tailored to suit the line perfectly.

As has been widely discussed, the preferred option for the line would be light rail/tram train oriented in the style of the Manchester metrolink. HOWEVER, this would leave Harrogate without a London service, which I do not believe would suit Harrogate council. Which therefore leaves a dilemma. How to improve services on the line without affecting its usefulness whilst reducing costs? .

I always find it fascinating that the preferred option for the route is to turn it over to light rail/tram. I would have thought that the lack of other light rail routes in the area would suggest that it would be more suitable to integrate the route in to the existing network.

Exactly which aspects of the proposed plan are very sensible indeed ? Building a completely different traction system separate from every other system in the area nearby? Using completely different rolling stock from the rest of the network with it’s own costs of bespoke parts as well as a separate maintenance structure.

t is clear that large scale additions to the diesel fleet is something the Government wants to move away from - they have EU directives to achieve and a budget deficit to deal with. So to those who say "why don't we just order more 172's? It's the obvious thing to do", sorry, but it isn't. The railway HAS to move in a different direction. The whole reason it is a problem in the first place is because it has failed, thus far, to move with the times. The railway has to slowly become electrified as the cost of running and maintaining a diesel network is becoming insurmountable. It is also a network that will soon have a large number of electric trains that cannot be cascaded elsewhere due to the lack of infrastructure. Building a new fleet of diesels whilst allowing the electic trains to sit idle is HUGELY wasteful. So what direction should it move in?

Electrification would seem sensible.

.

Well, yes indeed it would. Infact, integrating it into the existing electric network, which includes suburban as well as longer distance services would seem very sensible indeed. These are of course standard overhead networks.

Clearly, the cost of any project is going to be a major setback in the current climate. Money just isn't available to be thrown around willy nilly. IF £150 odd million were to be made available, it would HAVE to be put into the future sustainabilty of the line and NOT just fixing the problem as it is now. What's more, there has to be some form of compromise. The line can't be upgraded and then more trains be built to run it. The costs are unfeasible. .

Why ? Electrification and cascading might work out as less expensive than an entirely new system.

The way this particular report looks at the situation is by studying how much of the current trains and infrastructure can be used and where savings can be made. One massive and immediate saving would be to use any money that would be spent on new DMU's on electrifying lines and then cascading existing stock..

Yes. That is what we have been suggesting all along. Only, instead of choosing a completely new electrification scheme (for the area) which would need its own maintenance and skills base, why not electrify it by the existing system.

The line, as it is, runs through densely populated suburbs of Leeds that are underserved by public transport (and badly served by the local road network) and on, through open countryside, to Harrogate and Knaresborough. Any restructuring of the line would have to involve construction of 2 or 3 stations in the Leeds area and possibly 1 or 2 in the Harrogate area which would lend itself perfectly to the high acceleration of the units mentioned. The line is hideously overcrowded during commuter hours. Overcrowding would be significantly dealt with by the commuter oriented layout of the units in question. It would also deal with suppressed growth and encourage further growth. The door layout would improve loading times. The speed limits on the line are generally low and the short distance between most stations between Leeds and Knaresborough would negate the 60mph limit of the units. The line could continue to be used as heavy rail for the purposes of links such as London. The steep gradient to Leeds Bradford Airport could be overcome by the units in question (should the link ever be built). The challenges faced by the viaducts and tunnels on the line would be lessened by third rail. Etc, etc, etc...

There are loads of existing train designs which are fine for access and egress. These could easily be added to.. There is nothing that the district line units have that the national networks’ units don’t have.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of hurdles to clear and some of the ideas need a lot more thought (existing infrastructure at both ends of the line, 30 year old stock, journey times, ride comfort etc) But, the benefits that can be achieved from making changes to this line are tangible. Sometimes, you have to take a step backwards in order to move forwards. If the money can be spent wisely and the line is significantly better off, there is no reason why this idea, perhaps in a slightly altered form, can't work. Simply throwing a few diesels at the line will not change its long term future.

Put yourself in the shoes of people who regularly use the line or live close by and don't use it. 2 trains an hour or 4? New station near your house? Less chance of having your nose rubbing up against John Everyman's armpit? I know what I would say. I wouldn't care a jot if it meant using LU stock instead of a class 150.

What is obvious is that the line in its current form cannot continue. It would serve much greater purpose in an altered form and could potentially become a jewel in the crown of the Northern network instead of the lumbering behemoth that haemorrages money that it is at present - the amount of unlocked potential in the line is huge.

All this arty farty nonsense is not necessary. The line currently has six carriage trains in the peak hour. With additional units and some platform extensions these could be increased without an expensive bespoke system with different traction and rolling stock from everything else in the area.

I am going back to the shadows now, but I urge each and every one of you to actually THINK about it and write something intelligent, rather than the complete drivel I have read so far. If you think something is stupid, that is fine. But instead of blurting it out in the simplistic style of a 3 year old, come up with a constructive argument as to why you think it is stupid. And, weigh up the benefits with the costs. You never know, we may get an interesting thread to read.

I didn’t know you were in the Shadows. Do you know Hank Marvin?

 

[Anvil1984]

Hmmm

Just to pick up on the last post the Harrogate line is not 6 coaches long in the peak, the most that most platforms on the line can take is 4 car 150s (so 2 units), it cant even handle a 150 + a 23m 15x. It would be expensive to lengthen some of the platforms, Knaresborough springs to mind as you would have to either build over the crossing and / or build into the tunnel. There is one 6 car working from York to Harrogate (2C07 0652 York to Leeds) however back set is locked out of use for that reason as only Starbeck could take them between those points and the back set is detached at Harrogate to work a later service which another 150 in tow

District Line stock is a no-goer on this line. As someone who works in day in and day out on this line (Im on it tomorrow) I am aware the stock is substandard for the job. I dont fancy taking a unit with no toilets on any service after 9pm especially during York Races as that is leading for disaster, the only stations with decent facilities are at York and at Harrogate, a journey of 35 minutes in between. If theres an event on at Headingley these facilities are very well used.

Now Heavy Rail vs Light Rail is an interesting decision especially with urges to build a line to Leeds - Bradford Airport. I'm naturally against it being a guard and it being one of our top money earners but I agree in its current form (1 third pacer to 2 third sprinters) its not acceptable and I moan about this a lot. The line has stops every 4 minutes which lends itself to Light Rail formation but with that their has to be scope for the trains to run on the regular AC OHLE network as well as the Light Rail standard DC OHLE. Im not convinced on relaibility of the 3rd rail especially when we are having to adapt 4 rail stock with new 3rd rail pick ups. Light rail units can have toilets nowadays and if it adopts the Sheffield Supertram request stop feature it can be a good idea if no-one gets on / off at the smaller stations.

However I do feel that the line at least between Leeds and Harrogate should be ran at the normal AC OHLE which would mean it being kept heavy rail and theres plenty of "vintage" 80s stock to choose from with regular facilities in the coming years post Crossrail etc. The line from York to Harrogate should also be done but theres a lot that needs done on that section, a few level crossings converted, signalling renewed andsingle line sections redoubled so I would advocate a temporary split to allow that to happen

I just thought I'd put a balanced view out from someone local and works and uses the line

 

[tbtc]

Reading through this thread has reminded me of why I stopped posting on this forum and now only use it to research current events on the rail network. An awful lot of nonsensical gibberish written by people who have little idea about what they are describing and to whom common sense is something only they posess. Yes, it may be obvious to you that it is a stupid idea. But if you actually pull your head out of your trousers for one minute and give the subject a little bit of THOUGHT, you may appreciate why aspects of this plan are actually very sensible indeed. I am not suggesting for one minute that the plan as it stands is perfect - it most certainly is not - but with a number of tweaks, could be tailored to suit the line perfectly.

As has been widely discussed, the preferred option for the line would be light rail/tram train oriented in the style of the Manchester metrolink. HOWEVER, this would leave Harrogate without a London service, which I do not believe would suit Harrogate council. Which therefore leaves a dilemma. How to improve services on the line without affecting its usefulness whilst reducing costs?

It is clear that large scale additions to the diesel fleet is something the Government wants to move away from - they have EU directives to achieve and a budget deficit to deal with. So to those who say "why don't we just order more 172's? It's the obvious thing to do", sorry, but it isn't. The railway HAS to move in a different direction. The whole reason it is a problem in the first place is because it has failed, thus far, to move with the times. The railway has to slowly become electrified as the cost of running and maintaining a diesel network is becoming insurmountable. It is also a network that will soon have a large number of electric trains that cannot be cascaded elsewhere due to the lack of infrastructure. Building a new fleet of diesels whilst allowing the electic trains to sit idle is HUGELY wasteful. So what direction should it move in?

Clearly, the cost of any project is going to be a major setback in the current climate. Money just isn't available to be thrown around willy nilly. IF £150 odd million were to be made available, it would HAVE to be put into the future sustainabilty of the line and NOT just fixing the problem as it is now. What's more, there has to be some form of compromise. The line can't be upgraded and then more trains be built to run it. The costs are unfeasible. The way this particular report looks at the situation is by studying how much of the current trains and infrastructure can be used and where savings can be made. One massive and immediate saving would be to use any money that would be spent on new DMU's on electrifying lines and then cascading existing stock.

The line, as it is, runs through densely populated suburbs of Leeds that are underserved by public transport (and badly served by the local road network) and on, through open countryside, to Harrogate and Knaresborough. Any restructuring of the line would have to involve construction of 2 or 3 stations in the Leeds area and possibly 1 or 2 in the Harrogate area which would lend itself perfectly to the high acceleration of the units mentioned. The line is hideously overcrowded during commuter hours. Overcrowding would be significantly dealt with by the commuter oriented layout of the units in question. It would also deal with suppressed growth and encourage further growth. The door layout would improve loading times. The speed limits on the line are generally low and the short distance between most stations between Leeds and Knaresborough would negate the 60mph limit of the units. The line could continue to be used as heavy rail for the purposes of links such as London. The steep gradient to Leeds Bradford Airport could be overcome by the units in question (should the link ever be built). The challenges faced by the viaducts and tunnels on the line would be lessened by third rail. Etc, etc, etc.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of hurdles to clear and some of the ideas need a lot more thought (existing infrastructure at both ends of the line, 30 year old stock, journey times, ride comfort etc) But, the benefits that can be achieved from making changes to this line are tangible. Sometimes, you have to take a step backwards in order to move forwards. If the money can be spent wisely and the line is significantly better off, there is no reason why this idea, perhaps in a slightly altered form, can't work. Simply throwing a few diesels at the line will not change its long term future.

Put yourself in the shoes of people who regularly use the line or live close by and don't use it. 2 trains an hour or 4? New station near your house? Less chance of having your nose rubbing up against John Everyman's armpit? I know what I would say. I wouldn't care a jot if it meant using LU stock instead of a class 150.

What is obvious is that the line in its current form cannot continue. It would serve much greater purpose in an altered form and could potentially become a jewel in the crown of the Northern network instead of the lumbering behemoth that haemorrages money that it is at present - the amount of unlocked potential in the line is huge.

I am going back to the shadows now, but I urge each and every one of you to actually THINK about it and write something intelligent, rather than the complete drivel I have read so far. If you think something is stupid, that is fine. But instead of blurting it out in the simplistic style of a 3 year old, come up with a constructive argument as to why you think it is stupid. And, weigh up the benefits with the costs. You never know, we may get an interesting thread to read.

...all well and good, but the only advantage of using London Underground stock you've mentioned is the door layout suiting commuter operation (which is handy between Leeds and Horsforth, but less important on the rural section of the route).

I think most people would be happy if the line were electrified, but why Third Rail? There really is no justification for it.

Considering that the line would need Third Rail infrastructure from York to Leeds and on to Neville Hill (which would be quite a long section of dual voltage track east of Leeds City Station)?

Considering that the Harrogate line trains wouldn't be able to share workings/ maintenance/ training with other Northern units?

The Tram Train idea is a bad one too, since most of the line is always going to be rural and relatively infrequent (e.g. hourly/ half hourly between Horsforth and York, nothing like "tram" frequencies).

 

[IanXC]

The proposed District Line stock would be 35 years old at the time of its introduction - how long is it likely to be serviceable for on this service?

Once it does become life expired would it be a case of acquiring non standard stock (to use the relatively obscure electrification) and does anyone have any thoughts on the likely extra cost being stored up?

 

[yorksrob]

Hmmm

Just to pick up on the last post the Harrogate line is not 6 coaches long in the peak, the most that most platforms on the line can take is 4 car 150s (so 2 units), it cant even handle a 150 + a 23m 15x. It would be expensive to lengthen some of the platforms, Knaresborough springs to mind as you would have to either build over the crossing and / or build into the tunnel. There is one 6 car working from York to Harrogate (2C07 0652 York to Leeds) however back set is locked out of use for that reason as only Starbeck could take them between those points and the back set is detached at Harrogate to work a later service which another 150 in tow

For those platforms that couldn't be extended, there is always selective door opening - something I suspect may be more common on electric units than the 14* and 15*'s. I think the route south of Harrogate is going to have a greater volume of passengers anyway so even just strengthening trains on this section would improve things.

I don't understand what it is about this route that seems to have people (WY Metro included) reaching into the mind bending ideas box.

The proponents of this idea do have a tide of influential opinion behind them. Infact it is precisely the sort of "bespoke" solution the McNulty report would have us adopt all over the country. However, I've made my thoughts clear about that report elsewhere.

 

[Anvil1984]

The only 15x stock with SDO that comes to mind is the South West Trains sets, I could be wrong but nothing else comes to mind.

The Harrogate to Leeds part is the busiest of the two halves without question and especially the portion from Horsforth to Leeds (ie the student suburbs). I believe they are working on a better turnback facility at Horsforth to allow more shuttle services especially in peak time.

My opinion is that the line should be electrified and maintained at Heavy Rail and District Line stock is substandard, but there needs to be a will to improve it or it might go the way of the Oldham line.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The proposed District Line stock would be 35 years old at the time of its introduction - how long is it likely to be serviceable for on this service?

Once it does become life expired would it be a case of acquiring non standard stock (to use the relatively obscure electrification) and does anyone have any thoughts on the likely extra cost being stored up?

I think that you will find such a problem will affect the Isle of Wight in the none too distant future.

 

[jopsuk]

The proposed District Line stock would be 35 years old at the time of its introduction - how long is it likely to be serviceable for on this service?

Indeed- fine that it's had an internal tart-up. but TfL aren't replacing them just because they feel like it. They've run intensive heaily loaded metro services for over thirty years.

 

[Mojo]

Indeed- fine that it's had an internal tart-up. but TfL aren't replacing them just because they feel like it. They've run intensive heaily loaded metro services for over thirty years.

They are, but it is also required to provide extra capacity on the District line, move towards a standard fleet on the sub-surface railway as part of the new signalling system which would require new trains.

Internally, they're very decent trains to travel on as a passenger.

As an aside, they wouldn't have to be operated as 6 car units - there are double ended units and trains could easily be shortened by removing coaches.

 

[krisk]

Add some third rail components to a 142 and get on with it.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Surely it would be better to stick a pantograph on the roof and do 750v overhead. Depending on what tunnels and bridges on the route are like (which would be a consideration for 25kV too) you might even get away with it on the roof as opposed to having to build a well. Actually the idea of converting third or 4th rail stock to run off overhead is something that crossed my mind recently as a way of allowing working EMU preservation. DC overhead electrification is already found on preserved tramways. A Trolley (AKA Tram) museum in the US has actually fitted a trolley pole to a former New York Subway "Red Bird" to allow it to run on their system.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Thank you all. It seems as though I have managed to spark a sensible debate (krisk excluded).

Just to clarify, I do not believe the plans are ultimately the workable option for the line. Indeed, overhead wiring as per what is available at Leeds and York is clearly the most desirable option. However, the start up costs would be massive and there would be a number of challenges (Bramhpe Tunnel, Kirkstall, Arthington and Crimple Viaducts) which are very significant. The plan as it stands is able to significantly negate some of the issues which will be caused by the above landmarks.

When I say some of the ideas are sensible, what I mean is, they are along the right lines. For example, District Line stock may not be the most suitable for the line, but the stock does have several advantages that would clearly benefit the line and aid its growth and possible future expansion - the internal layout being the most obvious one. The line is increasingly commuter based and, if frequencies were increased between Leeds and Knaresborough, the potential growth is huge. The door layout of 155/3 units is not right for the line and the short hop between stations (even shorter if certain projects go ahead) is not particularly suitable for DMU's full stop.

The main thing here is that the line has a massive amount of potential that cannot currently be realised because of the infrastructure and the trains that run along it. It sits perfectly alongside the poorly planned, congested road network in North West Leeds and, in a more appropriate form, would deal with this issue beautifully. The thorns in the side of planning the future of the line are: Harrogate's desire to retain a direct London service and the potential future link to Leeds Bradford Airport. Light rail is not suitable for the former, heavy rail is not suitable for the latter. Something along the lines of the system described (which is basically the DLR without the automation), with the ability to accomodate both, could be ultimately the best compromise. But the plans as they stand need a fair old amount of tinkering first.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Do Harrogate Chamber of Commerce (or whoever) propose to run the trains themselves? I bet Northern will be REALLY pleased to add a third form of traction to their area and acquire a small fleet of vehicles that they have to pay shed loads to maintain because they don’t have the skills or recourses to look after the fleet.

I think that this quote, from a member of our rail industry, states the matter to perfection.

 

[moggie]

Reading through this thread has reminded me of why I stopped posting on this forum and now only use it to research current events on the rail network. An awful lot of nonsensical gibberish written by people who have little idea about what they are describing and to whom common sense is something only they posess. Yes, it may be obvious to you that it is a stupid idea. But if you actually pull your head out of your trousers for one minute and give the subject a little bit of THOUGHT, you may appreciate why aspects of this plan are actually very sensible indeed. I am not suggesting for one minute that the plan as it stands is perfect - it most certainly is not - but with a number of tweaks, could be tailored to suit the line perfectly.

whoshotjimmi, as your comment immediately followed mine can you tell us all why you consider the point of my comment 'nonsensical gibberish'.

The idea verges on barmy from a technical point of view as many on here have already observed. Why, they don't even propose to retain the same method of traction collection that the stock currently uses.

The portrayal of these trumpeted proposals in the media announcements appears so ill thought through as to seem amateurish in concept, yet risks injecting delay into some properly thought out proposal to improve the service for the suffering folks who use it. Why sure, it makes use of rolling stock arguably not yet at the end of its life, with as you say, a favourable seating layout. But that's about the limit of any semblance of sensibility. It's all very well for these groups to come up with a 'good idea' but there are costs involved in bringing these so called good ideas anywhere near to fruition. Who precisely is going to be paying for what will utlimately result in failure of this proposal to see the light of day as currently conceived because of fundamental engineering challenges that seem to have been grossly oversimplified. The worrying thing is that if St Teresa is already giving it the time of day money is already being spent seemingly in ignorance of the flaws in the proposal.

To my mind the powers that be driving this agenda need to decide the following;

Tramway / Light 'Metro' Rail or retain 'heavy' rail solution?

As they have proposed re-use of the LUL stock then for arguments sake let's assume the latter. The list below provides a quick overview of what is likely to be needed;

(it is assumed that trains will run on the same lines as today - i.e. shared occupation with mainline rolling stock)

Rolling stock traction mods for 3rd rail / side contact.

Product acceptance certification to run trains on NR Network (possible modification of existing certification)

Safety Case for revised application (Electrical system compatibility with existing network systems, crashworthiness studies, fitting of Safety Systems (AWS, TPWS, OTMR or alternative systems???)

Provision of Traction Power Supply from Electricity Network

Guaging and clearance works.

Rolling stock modifications (e.g. toilets)

Installation of 3rd Rail contact rail (ignoring any ORR / DfT issues relating to extension of 3rd Rail traction to this geographical area)

Signalling costs.

Line of route will require signalling to be modified to address immunity from stray DC traction current (in effect resignalling of older signalling installations).

In areas of shared running, e.g. Leeds and York;
Provision of Trainstop technology (as per shared running sections on Bakerloo, Metropolitan and District lines) will require fitting and incorporation into signalling in addition to existing AWS / TPWS.
Wholesale signalling immunisation (dual immunity) - currently only AC immune.

In essance, the above (and there will be other costs which I have not included, that I can be certain) suggests the proposal introduces many significant avoidable costs with little obvious benefit compared with alternative options of diesel traction or conventional AC traction which would be compatible with the existing network. Moreso, they end up with a non-standard system using trains already near the end of their working life which will require renewal in not too many years (a decade or two at most?)

Therefore respectively, before I (and others) are requested to remove my head from my trousers (painful) maybe you could explain where your head is if you still think the idea has merit- perhaps?

 

[OMGitsDAVE]

Some are you are being very blunt and narrow minded! Think of it this way, stock is stock. Without this, there's not a lot that can be done to the Harrogate line! Any stock is worth utilising, especially in this climate. Third Rail electrification just means that there's more options in the future as well as sorting the current problems out, I don't see why some of you are so against it!

 

[tbtc]

Some are you are being very blunt and narrow minded! Think of it this way, stock is stock. Without this, there's not a lot that can be done to the Harrogate line! Any stock is worth utilising, especially in this climate. Third Rail electrification just means that there's more options in the future as well as sorting the current problems out, I don't see why some of you are so against it!

• Its electrifying 40 miles of track to an outdated system of electrification (whilst both the Leeds and York ends of the line have overhead electrification)
  
• Its using 35 year old Underground trains which have had a hard life in London (and therefore much lower life expectancy than any modern stock)
  
• Its the practicalities of a system which doesn't work with overhead electrification (e.g. you'd have to electrify the Third Rail from Leeds to Neville Hill, you'd need to train staff on a whole new class, you'd have no interworking of trains throughout the working week, you'd create more headaches for Neville Hill staff who maintain other stock) - this will push up the costs of running the trains significantly!
  
• I could understand it if this was just a branch from Leeds to Horsforth, but its a mainly rural line from Horsforth to York (hourly east of Knaresborough) which is totally unsuited to the cost of Third Rail electrification
  
• Its toiletless trains on a route where a decent number of people will be on board for long enough that this will be an issue if no trains have them

Considering how far fetched the idea is, I'm impressed at how reasonable and restrained some of the "feedback" on here is!

 

[IanXC]

Some are you are being very blunt and narrow minded! Think of it this way, stock is stock. Without this, there's not a lot that can be done to the Harrogate line! Any stock is worth utilising, especially in this climate. Third Rail electrification just means that there's more options in the future as well as sorting the current problems out, I don't see why some of you are so against it!

OK so in the current climate there *is* £150m for this scheme, but not £120m for a fleet of 172s??

 

[OMGitsDAVE]

OK so in the current climate there *is* £150m for this scheme, but not £120m for a fleet of 172s??

172's are diesel, it doesn't take us that far forward... We have a lot of electric stock just waiting to be done, actually applying things to the infrastructure helps us in the future, not just now.

 

[moggie]

What doesn't take 'us' forward is hair brained proposals like the one being debated. They just waste time, money and credibility once the inevitable back peddling commences when engineering reality bites, meaning the passengers once again wonder if the industry knows what it's doing.

Fortunately (some politicians and business leaders excepted ) I have no worries that the industry will, once given the opportunity, firmly shunt this into the grassy knoll siding where it belongs along with the fairies and Cuckoo's.

 

[aspierail]

I heard about this and its a daft idea to be fair with you.

 

[IanXC]

172's are diesel, it doesn't take us that far forward... We have a lot of electric stock just waiting to be done, actually applying things to the infrastructure helps us in the future, not just now.

At least it doesnt take us backwards! We'd be lumbered with an outdated electrification, and the subsequent cost of acquiring non standard stock in little over 10 years, where a fleet of 172s would be around for around 30 years.

I heard about this and its a daft idea to be fair with you.

Ah fair enough, clearly I need to further lower my expectations of DafT

 

[Pumbaa]

Considering how far fetched the idea is, I'm impressed at how reasonable and restrained some of the "feedback" on here is!

Quite!

Harrogate chamber have my respect for trying to think outside the box and propose a solution. It's a crap solution, but it's more thinking than most TOCs in the last 15 years combined have been able to do. And with similar results too.

We need more thinking like this, just slightly more sane and realistic...!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As someone from outside the area concerned, but one who has used the York-Harrogate section when on holiday in York, what is wrong with the current rail service provision on the Leeds-Harrogate-York line and with the provision of the Harrogate-London rail service?

Are matters so bad that redundant LU stock are being considered, together with the infrastructual works required to effect 3rd rail electrification of the line, by the Harrogate Chamber of Commerce?

Merseyrail is the nearest area in the North of England with this method of rail traction and the technical expertise to run such a system.

 

[tbtc]

what is wrong with the current rail service provision on the Leeds-Harrogate-York line and with the provision of the Harrogate-London rail service?

Nothing that isn't also wrong on a number of other lines.

Capacity between Leeds and Horsforth could do with improving (which might also allow some Harrogate services to be speeded up, if there's scope for stoppers to deal with the suburban Leeds traffic)

The frequency north of Horsforth is probably about right (maybe a peak extra or two, but then the same could be said of most lines...)

The Harrogate - London service is HST run, though 95% of its route is under wires, so a short bit of electrification would allow this to be converted to 91/DVT operation.

There are two reasons why I suggest the Harrogate line is electrified (conventionally!) ahead of other Yorkshire schemes.

Firstly, the self contained aspect. The best way to convert DMU lines to EMU lines is to look at this aspect.

Secondly, the four coach DMUs on a few Harrogate services could be shared around a few other lines, thus giving a capacity boost there too.

However, I'd rather the line kept Sprinter operation than we imported some out-dated technology for the sake of squeezing a few more years of operation from some superannuated Underground trains (at great expense).

 

[Class172]

As a slightly cheaper solution, could you electrify only Leeds-Harrogate, with scope for future extension to York. This would be cheaper as it's less to electrify and would allow the current HST London-Harrogate to go to 91+DVT operation. Also stopping services which terminate at Harrogate can go to EMU operation.

 

[stanley T]

Leeds/Bradford airport is getting busier (Ryanair are making it their Northern base) and transport links are poor. Most of the overcrowding on the Harrogate line is south of Horsforth at peaks. So build an airport spur north of Horsforth (it's only a few miles, open country) with extra stations en route from Leeds, and electrify it, probably does not even need an extra substation. Harrogate trains are non-stop from Horsforth. I think this is all in the West Yorkshire metro wish list, and now that Leeds will not get trams, a good case for priority.

HSE put in stupid rules like huge disabled toilets on 2 car trains serving stations with no disabled access, unnecessary balises for tilting trains etc. - they would do better to ban Pacers and force their renewal. Wouldn't fancy a thirty five year old Leyland bus body in a crash.

 

[northwichcat]

• Its using 35 year old Underground trains which have had a hard life in London (and therefore much lower life expectancy than any modern stock)
  

Are you sure about that? The oldest trains in normal passenger service today are ex-LU stock on the Isle of Wight.

As they have been used on an underground system that will mean they've been less exposed to the elements than, for instance, ex-TPE or Scotrail stock in particular.

 

[tbtc]

Are you sure about that? The oldest trains in normal passenger service today are ex-LU stock on the Isle of Wight.

As they have been used on an underground system that will mean they've been less exposed to the elements than, for instance, ex-TPE or Scotrail stock in particular.

As far as I was aware the Isle of Wight is restricted by bridge clearance, and not profitable enough to justify brand new stock, so has to make do with cascaded London units.

The District line is only underground for part of the journey (Bromley - West Kensington?).