With apologies for sounding strident on this issue, I'm afraid that if you look at history, the omens for islands of non-standard kit dotted around the place don't seem to be good.
- Tyneside third rail - de-electrified and left to diesel until the advent of metro.
- Bury side contact rail - survived longer but eventually succumbed to tram.
- Non-standard overhead over Woodhead - would have undoubtedly contributed to the closure case for the central section, as well as a costly conversion of the Glossop section.
- Lymington CIG's - The TOC inherited a wealth of operational knowledge about these units and had ample opportunity to harvest spares, yet their non-standard nature made them uneconomic within five years.
I'm a great fan of the third rail system. But it needs to be extended on the Southern and on Merseyside rather than being parachuted into isolated areas.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I've just realised that they cite the McNulty Report as one of the key factors for this proposal. Specifically section 19. This section deals with reducing costs for regional lines such as the Harrogate line. The press release says that this proposal is a 'McNulty pilot scheme'. This is what we have missed with the costings.
Well, it's hardly surprising he proved to be the inspiration.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
[*]The line is segregated with no freight operation meaning significant reductions in health and safety would occur, thus significantly reducing costs over 20+ years.
[*]Due to the above point, several stations which have been suggested can be built significantly cheaper and quickly. McNulty cites Workington North as an example.]
To take issue with McNulty again, this seems to be a very topsy turvey way of looking at it. Why does not having any freight mean that the design of the station has to change ? Wasn't Workington North built on a line with freight, and even if this is not good enough, bear in mind that since the Harrogate Line doesn't have freight anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to relax the rules about a Workington North Style station untill the unlikely event when someone does decide to operate a heavy freight flow over the route.
Mc Nulty clearly doesn't have a clue.
[*]
[*]D78 stock is lightweight unlike a 378 or 172. This means a reduction in maintenance cost on infrastructure and operating costs of a service. Future stock will cascaded stock instead of new stock. It is possible that D78 stock might not need safety systems such as OTRMS and TPWS, due to the lower H&S standards. .]
With regard to OTRMS and TPWS aren't they required anyway in which case they should be installed already on the route and wouldn't cascaded OHL units also have the required equipment installed anyway. If they are not required now, why should OHL electrification require it to be installed. If it does, why, and shouldn't we be looking at whether such an installation would be appropriate on a line like the Harrogate loop anyway. If the idea is for "line of sight" signalling, wouldn't this make the route too slow anyway?
[*]
[*]Section 19 specifically cites the DLR system as an example. A DLR-esque system is being proposed. .]
Bang goes any opportunity for Harrogate's daily London train - or indeed those steam tours bringing tourists into the area
[*]
[*]The line is likely to not be included in the Northern franchise and probably will be a concession (possibly with vertically integrated) set by WYPTE instead of DfT.
[*]Funded partially by local private companies.
[/LIST]
I'm of the opinion that WYPTE should be more closely involved in any franchising decisions regarding trains in the whole of W Yorkshire anyway.
oops sorry should've spotted that
) 
