OMGitsDAVE
Member
Despite the IoW having the oldest stock, it has some of the best reliability...
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Tube trains on Harrogate Line
- Thread starter telstarbox
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
tbtc
Veteran Member
One unit type to maintain/ train for, one simple route to run, no interference from other lines/ TOCs/ types of train... it almost makes C2C look like Northern!
Have you measured the climb required to get from the Harrogate line to Leeds Bradford Airport. It will be a steep couple of miles, to put it bluntly.
The irony is that this proposal will require extra platforms at Leeds, which they just don't have.
The best thing to do would be to put in a turn back above Horsforth, open Woodhouse??? and electrify the line to the turn back. Then the route can be enchanced on the busiest sections. With good timetabling, the Horsforth and Knaresborough/York trains can roll in one behind the other into the same platform, therefore preventing the additional platform space requirements at Leeds.
Then you would be looking at Knaresborough as the next point. The problem with this line and the electrification of it is that it does not release that many DMU's unless you take it round to York. Unfortunately.
OMGitsDAVE
Member
Don't know if its already posted, but its on RailNews too!
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/07/15-district-line-to-harrogate-electrification.html
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/07/15-district-line-to-harrogate-electrification.html
tbtc
Veteran Member
...or run it as Leeds - Knaresborough and Harrogate - York. Wouldn't be popular, but would free more units.
There are lots of reasons why this proposal is unworkable.
But it set me thinking (we female Electrical Engineers are such a rare breed we have to think a lot) ...
Is it not possible, with modern engineering to create (even refit?) an OHLE/Third Rail train that can switch over at speed? With automated pantograph and shoe elevating and something to intermediate the inevitable power surges (a flywheel contraption perhaps).
Also if the Third Rail were electrified with phase-matched AC (1000volts perhaps?) that would overcome a lot of the grounding problems.
And the point of all this is that OHLE is cheaper for long distances especially when flooding or strong fencing to keep dimwits off the line is difficult. But third rail is cheaper for ancient tunnels and bridges where clearances are the big issues. So with modern engineering (not feasible years ago) isn't is possible to get the best of both worlds by having multiple changeovers at speed en route?
A tragedy the BR research labs were destroyed, this would have been a great project for them.
But it set me thinking (we female Electrical Engineers are such a rare breed we have to think a lot) ...
Is it not possible, with modern engineering to create (even refit?) an OHLE/Third Rail train that can switch over at speed? With automated pantograph and shoe elevating and something to intermediate the inevitable power surges (a flywheel contraption perhaps).
Also if the Third Rail were electrified with phase-matched AC (1000volts perhaps?) that would overcome a lot of the grounding problems.
And the point of all this is that OHLE is cheaper for long distances especially when flooding or strong fencing to keep dimwits off the line is difficult. But third rail is cheaper for ancient tunnels and bridges where clearances are the big issues. So with modern engineering (not feasible years ago) isn't is possible to get the best of both worlds by having multiple changeovers at speed en route?
A tragedy the BR research labs were destroyed, this would have been a great project for them.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
The Bramhope Tunnel is 2 miles 241 yards in length and has very specific problems with water ingress. A posting was made on the Infrastructure forum some while ago from someone who actually had to work in this particular tunnel and his rather forthright views on the working conditions inside the tunnel. I would not like to be a member of a 3rd rail working team in this environment...not I should imagine, would you be.
What platform issues are there on this line? Other than Knaresborough which I understand is limited to about 80m, I guess there are others that are not up to 6 cars (D Stock or otherwise) but are there others which are also not practical to extend?
There is a lot of water but that is not to say that the issues with water cannot be solved. Is money being spent on the right things? Don't forget that every time there is a change over, you need to provide a supply of power to it. So the third rail section will need a transformer and supply for it. They are not cheap and would the money spent on that be better spent on lining the tunnel and draining it properly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Would Knaresborough Railway Station be better located if it was moved to the other side of the tunnel? Is there the capability to expand the tunnel so that it had platforms running into it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Would Knaresborough Railway Station be better located if it was moved to the other side of the tunnel? Is there the capability to expand the tunnel so that it had platforms running into it.
Well you understand I'm an electrical engineer and as the old saying goes "When the tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".
Not a solution for Harrogate then but still an interesting idea - the advantages of switchover at speed with third rail AC rather than DC.
Wasn't there talk at one time of putting third rail in the Severn Tunnel at one time?
And thank you.
It's just a matter of identifying the possible alternatives. If a third rail switchover proved the best value then that is what I would support but if spending that money on lining works better, then lining and drainage it should be. My worry is that in their bid to get trains that are cheap, they have not identified the options available if they use different methods.
One major issue in my book is the lost opportunity for through trains to London via York if they proceeded with this.
Knaresborough is 82/83 metres down/up.
It has the shortest platforms on the route.
One major issue in my book is the lost opportunity for through trains to London via York if they proceeded with this.
Knaresborough is 82/83 metres down/up.
It has the shortest platforms on the route.
Metrailway
Member
Water ingress is a network wide problem on LUL due to the high and rising water table in London. This is obviously not ideal but does not prevent the operation and maintenance of the system.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I did realise the LUL problems, all I was saying that the Bramhope Tunnel was not the ideal working conditions for staff to work in, which was stated by someone in a team that had to spend time within its confines. The area in which the Bramhope Tunnel is situated is rather more weather-beaten than in the LUL areas, especially in a hard Yorkshire winter.
Kingfisher200262
Member
It can't be any worse than some of the tunnels on the Merseyrail network.
David Dunning
Member
While I no longer need to stick up for Look North officially ... I must point out that in this case the story reports
Business leaders in a North Yorkshire town believe they have found a solution to the limited rail services between Leeds, York and Harrogate, by using former London Underground trains.
It does not report
LOOK NORTH believe they have found a solution to the limited rail services between Leeds, York and Harrogate, by using former London Underground trains.
It was introduced 1981-83 and so will be just over 30 years old when released from the District Line but was totally rebuilt in 2004-7, so what the passengers get is less than 10 years old. Also all of the running gear/bogies was also replaced with a new design in 2000-2001 following continued problems from new. So, in many respects, these trains are, apart from external appearance, as new as, if not newer than the 333's!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Tell that to the passengers who get left behind when they can't get on the 142 or 150 and the next train is 30 mins or an hour later. There was a police incident at Headingley/Burley Park as a consequence of this a few weeks ago. The report said that the Harrogate line carried more passengers than the Ilkley Line and from my experience this is very likley to be correct.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
D78's are far more comfortable than anything currently in use on the Harrogate line apart from the daily HST and the occasional 158. You can also see out of the huge windows they have unlike the 150's where all you can do is peer over the sill. Even than the window is likely to be so dirty you can't see much. The press release said approx 40% more seats. If you use the line as a means of travel you won't argue with that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The D78's have SDO operable simultaneously from the front and rear, so a train could still call at Knaresborough with passengers able to board and alight from front and rear veh's. A short platform extension could also be possible if the level crossing were closed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The proposal stated that it did not immediately propose any increase in peak services, which are already at a 15" interval to/from Leeds, so capacity would not be a problem. D78 trains already climb 1 in 28 from a standing start on a tight curve at Bow Road (and perform a station stop in the opposite direction) so I don't see the airport as a problem, though the press release for this said it was looking at a station at the south end of Bramhope tunnel which is just over a mile from the airport terminal. This could be better than a spur because it would also link York and Harrogate to it. I know the area and the airport car park on Scotland Lane already has a continuous minibus shuttle - this car park can't be more than half a mile from the tunnel, so they could just extend the airport car park shutlle bus.
So the traction package is going to be 15 years old and the train internals 10 years old. Has any bodywork been done on these trains? Sorry, I am just not convinced that passengers are going to be that impressed.
Just think here. £150 million to give you just 40% extra seats. So an extra two car train on every service could deliver that rather than spending so much money on lots of platform extensions and over length trains. The Level Crossing is not going to be closed and you are faced with a train now sitting with its cab in a tunnel. They will not have internal gangways so the Guards will be made redundant. Most of the stations on this line are unmanned and there is no completely safe method of escape if the nutter gets on.
My advice would be for this lot to go back to the drawing board. Most of the improvements can be delivered much cheaper than the £150 million quoted rather than trying to play to the aesthetics and reduced train value brigade.
The press release states a modern DLR style under-running contact system is proposed because of the high cost of 25kV. This seems to make perfect sense if you know the route - it has lots of low overbridges already prohibited to certain traction types, Bramhope tunnel and four major long viaducts, all of which are grade II listed. I guess the cost of reconstructing this lot and then making the catenary invisible on the viaducts would be immense when compared with around 10 or so sub-stations needed for a DC system of this length. This modern system also is more weather risistant than either top contact third rail or 25kV overhead. Not susceptible to icing or wind!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The press release suggested that the inter-car gangways were being reconstructed to make them safe for passengers and staff to use. The main purpose of the idea was to unlock the current diesel rolling stock constraint, unlock the potential for more stations without increasing the journey time (no chance with diesels) and provide significantly more capacity on each train. There was no mention of removing guards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Your facts are wrong. These trains already operate on the main line network without problem and the concept is no different from the Metro Cars operating over the Tyne & Wear Metro line to Sunderland, which share the same tracks as DMU's and freight. There is no prohibition on third rail, and the proposed DLR electrification system is probably the best possible option for this route in terms of affordability - no structures to demolish and rebuild etc. The live contact surface is underneath, with the top and sides insulated against unintentional contact. No winter icing and no dewirements in the wind.
If you think about the Harrogate line it has lots of stations close together already with various plans already on the cards for additional ones. The route needs trains that can accelerate, climb and do station stops faster. Makes perfect sense from where I sit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The press release suggested that the inter-car gangways were being reconstructed to make them safe for passengers and staff to use. The main purpose of the idea was to unlock the current diesel rolling stock constraint, unlock the potential for more stations without increasing the journey time (no chance with diesels) and provide significantly more capacity on each train. There was no mention of removing guards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Your facts are wrong. These trains already operate on the main line network without problem and the concept is no different from the Metro Cars operating over the Tyne & Wear Metro line to Sunderland, which share the same tracks as DMU's and freight. There is no prohibition on third rail, and the proposed DLR electrification system is probably the best possible option for this route in terms of affordability - no structures to demolish and rebuild etc. The live contact surface is underneath, with the top and sides insulated against unintentional contact. No winter icing and no dewirements in the wind.
If you think about the Harrogate line it has lots of stations close together already with various plans already on the cards for additional ones. The route needs trains that can accelerate, climb and do station stops faster. Makes perfect sense from where I sit.
Why is it daft, when virtually every EMU built for the last 20 years is already dual voltage, including the older 319's. All they would need is the right shoegear. D78 is faster than 319 when you take into account the closeness of intermediate stations on the Harrogate line and its max speed of 65 mph.
Side contact does not mean that the route will be able to be upgraded cheaply. This stock is already wide and will have to have space provided for the side/bottom contact rail on an existing railway infrastructure. Existing stock has to be able to operate on it without clouting it. It will be susceptible to icing, snow and flood water and will be even worse than that for deicing as any chemicals sprayed at it will not sit on it. OHLE can be made very light and effective on rail bridges and if they can get it over other listed structures like York, Royal Border and Durham Viaduct, this route is going to be a walk in the park for them.
If the gangways are being reconstructed, I hope that they are upping the upgrade costs because £500,000 is unlikely to cut the mustard for this kind of work. There are lots of suggestions as part of this project and unfortunately shoulds and would expects are just not solid enough for an argument.
Last edited:
It still doesn't alter the fact that it would be a completely different system on it's own, miles away from the nearest comparable system meaning no flexibility or compatability of rolling stock.
25kv is apparrently costly, yet has been proven to be value for money and robust weather-wise on numerous commuter routes already (thinking Essex and Airedale and Wharfedale). The problem of making catenary invisable on listed viaducts is non-existant. It has been solved. Yes, there are numerous overbridges, but so have there been on every other line electrified by 25kv ac.
What is needed on the railway is sustained investment and improvement using tried and tested technology, allowing for greater standardisation and flexibility.
Well, I think no-one would object to 25kV if it were affordable and 25kV trains were available quickly, but neither is the case and the Harrogate Line does not feature on anyone's list of priorities for electrification, which is necessary if long-term affordable improvements are to be achieved.
Therefore if 750V DC is more affordable (it should be) and the trains available, it's a very positive step in the right direction for passengers that can be achieved quickly. The trains are way more comfortable than 150's and meet the key objective of providing significantly more seats.
This electrification system works in Copenhagen which has very harsh icy and snowy winters, icing is not a problem there and any dual voltage unit could use it with the right shoegear.
It's also a far better option than trams which appear to be the only other option on the table.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But its not as harsh as the winter in Copenhagen, who's newish metro works very well with this electrification system.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The press info stated £6m for mandatory mods and more for a shopping list of mods including a toilet in each unit. The £500k was scrap price procurement.
Should is not a word that is going to pass muster with me if it is going to form the core of your argument. The press release contains four mentions of the word. You have no basis that 750 volts electrification is going to be cheaper over all. That depot is not going to be cheap is it?
I can get you a coach next week and build you a bus road right into Leeds. Do I get £150 million?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
£300k per unit. Wow. :roll:
In fact, where is this mention of a toilet?
Last edited:
And that ignores all the immunization of signalling that's going to be needed (even though poor old moggie keeps going on about it) not only along the line itself but at both York and Leeds and neither are exactly simple signalling installations. I just don't think that the costs of electrification at 750V DC using 3rd rail is going to be any cheaper than 25kV OHLE.
Unless they drop it to Line of Site signalling but that will cut train speeds to 50 mph at the fastest and maybe even slower.
I don't think that would make a difference as I can't imagine that Network Rail are going to consider converting busy stations like Leeds and York to line of sight operation which means you're still going to need to immunize them and they are very complex installations.
tbtc
Veteran Member
There will be a lot of EMUs potentially spare once Thameslink and Crossrail are built, as well as the other orders (e.g. Scotrail's units for their next batch of electrification). Some of these are earmarked for other lines, but there'll then be cascades (e.g. if London MIdland get the new stock they are wanting then there will be some 321s and 323s going spare).
The cynic in me suggests that the reason for Government generosity in Lancashire is partly because they need somewhere for all the EMUs spared in London to go.
Even 313s or 315s would be better than setting up a non standard outpost of the London Underground in Yorkshire (have they costed the new depot they'll need to build, or are they extending the Third Rail all the way to Neville Hill?)*
- Status