Tube trains on Harrogate Line

[Metrailway]

So many suggestions and so many should's. Please can I point out that a significant reduction in Health and Safety would attract the attention of the HSE and the courts

You are probably right, but that says more about the country than the proposal.

I would be surprised to see it become a vertical concession as maintenance of a route is not cheap and the liabilities are significant. Before Network Rail has even breathed, liability insurance already needs to be paid for.

A concession has been suggested by the guys putting forward this proposal. Whether it is vertically integrated is another matter.

What a way to win friends. The Tube has crap maintenance standards. :roll:

Anyone who's been travelling regularly on the Aylesbury line for the past 20 years, like I have, or is involved in LUL track maintenance would know this. Admittedly, it has improved in recent years.

Can i ask how crashworthy they are? i woulnnt like a 333 to hit one...

I have been pondering this. Havent really found much out about their structure. I guess the question is do they have more in common with 1st or 2nd Generation BR Multiple Units, or are they completely different? Might they even be effectively prohibited by the Mark 1 restrictions?

D78 stock have operated regularly for 30 years on Mainline infrastructure, between Gunnersbury and Richmond on the North London Line. Interactions between other mainline stock in this proposal would only be at the junctions at Leeds and York so would be at low speed.

 

[bluenoxid]

You are probably right, but that says more about the country than the proposal.

Unfortunately for this project and some of your arguments, this is the country that it will operate in, so this is the country whose standards the trains and operating procedures need to meet.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, I believe they are required currently for all units. But if this line would become a McNulty pilot, then this requirement may be dropped. But you are right that there is no reason the same could apply to an OHLE proposal.

The disadvantage of OHLE to 3rd Rail is the higher maintenance cost, which may be a problem if the line becomes a vertically integrated concession funded by WYPTE and independent of Network Rail/DfT

If line of sight signalling is employed, the probable max speed would be 50mph. The current max speed I believe is 60mph, and if additional stations are built, a 10mph reduction wouldn't make much difference.



No, normal mainline trains should be able to operate, as well as steam. The guage is still the same, it's just the method of electrification which differs.

I really don't see what such a pilot would achieve.

In terms of signalling, yes, the London Underground and preserved railways do sometimes share with mainline trains, but both of them have fairly traditional style signalling systems as far as I can see, so if this type of system were used, I don't forsee a saving as far as signalling is concerned. The Docklands light railway on the other hand doesn't have such traditional signalling, and I'm fairly sure that it does not share it's tracks with main line trains, so I suspect that a system modelled on this would be the same.

Are we really convinced that the savings from not having Network Rail running it and having third rail over OHLE (if savings they be) will be enough to transform the route into a self financing enterprise? What if it isn't. The route could be at risk and exposed without the benefits of scale of being part of the wider network.

 

[bluenoxid]

Are we really convinced that the savings from not having Network Rail running it and having third rail over OHLE (if savings they be) will be enough to transform the route into a self financing enterprise? What if it isn't. The route could be at risk and exposed without the benefits of scale of being part of the wider network.

Unfortunately no, they cannot show it because they currently have nothing that could reasonably stand up to scrutiny at the moment. This will be something for a business case that has yet to be developed.

 

[tbtc]

they currently have nothing that could reasonably stand up to scrutiny at the moment

I guess that however daft this suggestion is, Harrogate Chamber of Commerce have got themselves a fair bit of free publicity, such is the modern media where you create a story cheaply and then watch the headlines roll in (e.g. make up some spurious "opinion poll" and forward it round the newspapers).

All of a sudden, improving the railway to Harrogate is on the agenda. Cost of doing this = Virtually nil.

 

[yorksrob]

All of a sudden, improving the railway to Harrogate is on the agenda. Cost of doing this = Virtually nil.

That's certainly a good thing. It just remains to be seen what type of a railway we get out of it.

 

[Metrailway]

I really don't see what such a pilot would achieve.

In terms of signalling, yes, the London Underground and preserved railways do sometimes share with mainline trains, but both of them have fairly traditional style signalling systems as far as I can see, so if this type of system were used, I don't forsee a saving as far as signalling is concerned. The Docklands light railway on the other hand doesn't have such traditional signalling, and I'm fairly sure that it does not share it's tracks with main line trains, so I suspect that a system modelled on this would be the same.

It's unlikely that DLR moving block is employed. Moving block isn't needed for the Harrogate line. If they do re-signal the line, it is more likely is 'line of sight' or GSM-R signalling, which would be cheaper to implement and maintain compared to traditional/moving block signalling. I would be surprised that Harrogate Chamber of Commerce would suggest a system which prevents operation of the London services, which is what they have campaigned for.

The cost of signalling assets could be significantly cut by reducing or eliminating the need for
lineside signalling equipment. Initiatives to enable this removal include:
• operating on “drive on sight” principles as used in tram operations where the driver responds to the visual presence of vehicles and obstructions ahead – essentially this is the method of driving employed in a road vehicle, and with modern technology and low speeds can be regarded as a low-risk method of operation;
• equipping trains with improved braking to enable quicker stops – one application, found on trams, is the track brake, whereby braking is enabled by direct interaction between the vehicle and the track rather than via the wheel – this facilitates “drive on sight” operation; and
• moving to a dispatch-based signalling control where instructions to proceed are given to the driver over mobile phone or the GSM-R network. This would greatly reduce, but not eliminate, the need for lineside equipment. It would also enable control to be centrally located and would remove the need for manned signal boxes, which control only a small geographical area.

I guess that however daft this suggestion is, Harrogate Chamber of Commerce have got themselves a fair bit of free publicity, such is the modern media where you create a story cheaply and then watch the headlines roll in (e.g. make up some spurious "opinion poll" and forward it round the newspapers).

All of a sudden, improving the railway to Harrogate is on the agenda. Cost of doing this = Virtually nil.

Yep definately a positive that we've talking about improving the line. It's been good fun debating this, me playing devil's advocate

 

[tbtc]

I would be surprised that Harrogate Chamber of Commerce would suggest a system which prevents operation of the London services, which is what they have campaigned for.

That's assuming that they are fully aware of the practicalities of Third Rail operation (and not just coming up with a story to generate media coverage of the need for improved trains to Harrogate).

Lets face it, if they'd put out a press release asking for three of the cascaded LM 150s to be allocated to the Harrogate line, nobody would have taken any notice. But suggest something as "odd" as London Underground trains in Emmerdale Country and you get headlines (who cares about the finer details?)

 

[Metrailway]

That's assuming that they are fully aware of the practicalities of Third Rail operation (and not just coming up with a story to generate media coverage of the need for improved trains to Harrogate).

Lets face it, if they'd put out a press release asking for three of the cascaded LM 150s to be allocated to the Harrogate line, nobody would have taken any notice. But suggest something as "odd" as London Underground trains in Emmerdale Country and you get headlines (who cares about the finer details?)

Possibly, but they do have a former MD of First Hull Trains, Mark Leving, on their team. Surely he would know about these practicalities.

 

[PinzaC55]

I find it very hard to believe that some people are taking this idea seriously.

BTW I have shares in a Brass Mine available for sale.

 

[gordonthemoron]

ofcourse, if OHLE was used, rather than 3rd rail, EC could operate electric locos on Harrogate-London services, rather than HSTs

 

[Fincra5]

• 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!

Well actually, Top contact 3rd rail maybe out dated, even though its not any less reliable than OHLE ; Yes there are a few days so snow and ice but it doesn't get blown over by stock wind or knackered by the panto. The DLR system is hardly out dated at works well.

Age hardly seems to be much of a problem, the trains were recently overhauled massively and are "new" inside. Look at the 'A' stock, its still going. Even 313s and 508s are touching nearly 40years.

There are loads of trains without toilets, people have to make do at stations.

So basically as a concept, being offered longer trains and more of them. But you don't want this?

 

[Metrailway]

"Harrogate Chamber" have posted on the rail news article. This is what they have posted.

On the issue of toilets, it is feasible and an option has already been budget priced to fit one of the trailer cars in each train with a toilet.

As for the technology on the trains - it is simple, modern, reliable and low cost to maintain. It has been proven, tried and tested over a very long period and when it does become due for replacement, it will be a standard, "off-the-shelf" electric Metro car (e.g. "S" stock) or a standard dual voltage Electric Multiple Unit.

The longer term strategy deals with the single line constraints and the section between Skelton Junction and York, which is too congested to provide for any additional trains over and above the current service levels.

The first stage would be to re-route the trains via the slow lines and into a new island platform at the west side of York station. This would unlock the capability to provide a 30" interval service over the Knaresborough to York section even with the two single line sections remaining.

172, (or any diesels for that matter) are just too slow and costly to maintain. This is a steeply graded route with closely spaced stations and some tight radii curves for which the acceleration and braking capabilities delivered by this type of Metro rolling stock are essential. D78 trains tackle the 1 in 28 climb at Bow Road every few minutes from a standing start. The route also must have something that can deal with large spikes in demand caused by any of the several event venues along the line (Headingley Cricket/Rugby - Yorkshire Show at Harrogate-York Races etc. etc.)

It is important to recognise that whilst 25kV electrification may be felt to be the best aspiration, the facts show it is highly likely to be unaffordable and will not be prioritised for Harrogate above other routes. There are many structures on the route (every major structure is Grade II listed) including Bramhope tunnel and four major viaducts plus many overbridges that would require reconstruction for 25kV and overhead electrification will not represent good value for passengers or taxpayers.

Remember that passengers are ultimately expected to help pay for investment via the farebox so there is a duty to ensure everything represents the best achievable value for money.

There will also be no suitable 25kV rolling stock available until 2018-20 and even then that rolling stock is OLDER than the D78's and in all respects less suitable.

On this route, many of the stations have an average distance already of around 1.6 miles between them, where lighterweight Metro rolling stock is more suited to the need for excellent acceleration and braking. If the aspirational new stations are built then the average distance between them falls even further D78 trains are nimbler than 25kV trains with shorter station dwell times so journey times are improved even more. They are lower cost to operate and 100 mph 25kV systems represent an unnecessary overspecification and costly way of improving the corridor, which has a maximum line speed of 65 mph.

The passenger accommodation on D78 trains is SUPERIOR to that generally experienced on the Harrogate line. The seats are wider, most have armrests with considerably more leg room and there is a mix of seating types providing over 40% MORE seats than is provided per train on overage. In addition to this the trains can accommodate around 700 passengers comfortably when standing is taken into account. Standing for 4 minutes on a short-hop journey from Burley Park to Leeds when the Cricket is on is far preferable than being unable to board the train at all.

The availability of this rolling stock means that all of the current constraints adversely affecting the line can be unlocked - new stations, more seats, more frequent trains, faster journey times, quiter reliable trains, lower operating costs.

Most new main-line EMU's in the UK are already dual voltage - so if fitted with the modern under-running current collection gear could use the route in the future.

The modern state-of-the art-underrunning DC contact systems are less susceptible to problems than any other electrification system - unaffected by wind, ice or snow. The system works very well in Copenhagen which has very cold icy and snowy winters - so the basic electrification is most definitely the way forward.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There are loads of trains without toilets, people have to make do at stations.

There may well be toilet facilities for rail staff on some staffed stations, but I can name numerous stations that do not have this facility for the use of rail passengers. What about unstaffed stations with no facilities. Are there any published statistics on stations that have no such toilet facilities for rail passengers in the public domain?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I am starting to come round to the idea of this project, i feel ashamed of myself.

I can see where they are coming from its so wierd.

 

[ukrob]

I'm sure people can see where they are coming from - but that doesn't mean it is any more viable than when the thread was started.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I'm sure people can see where they are coming from - but that doesn't mean it is any more viable than when the thread was started.

what im trying to get at is i could see it becoming viable if a few people who know what there talking about get involved and start tweaking.

 

[gordonthemoron]

instead of district line trains, couldn't they have Thameslink trains, they could then run on 3rd rail Leeds-Harrogate-York & OHL elsewhere around Leeds

 

[YorkshireBear]

instead of district line trains, couldn't they have Thameslink trains, they could then run on 3rd rail Leeds-Harrogate-York & OHL elsewhere around Leeds

Like a 319 you mean? yes but that would be too logical

 

[Metrailway]

Like a 319 you mean? yes but that would be too logical

Arn't they all going to operate the Thames Valley and Manchester - Liverpool services after Thameslink? If so, they are unavailable

 

[anthony263]

Are any of the thameslink class 317's going to become available? perhaps send these to FGW to free up some class 319's

 

[tbtc]

The route also must have something that can deal with large spikes in demand caused by any of the several event venues along the line (Headingley Cricket/Rugby - Yorkshire Show at Harrogate-York Races etc. etc.)

...in which case a wholly stand alone system is going to be little use.

At the moment if there's a large spike in demand then there's nothing stopping Northern from using DMU capacity off other lines on the Harrogate service. These DMUs could obviously use any platform at Leeds.

If the Harrogate line were electrified the sensible way then there'd be nothing stopping Northern from using EMUs from the Ilkley/ Skipton/Doncaster services to bulk up services on the Harrogate line. These EMUs could use any of the platforms at the north western corner of Leeds station (where the Harrogate/Ilkley/ Skipton trains use).

If the Harrogate line were electrified the way that Harrogate Chamber of Commerce want it then what spare stock would there be to meet a "spike" in demand? If the PVR of the Harrogate service is around seven (based on current service provision) then you'd expect nine or ten Underground trains to be based at Neville Hill? So not a lot of additional units that can meet demand (in the way that Sheffield Supertram don't have spare trams to meet the spike in demand for a Sheffield Wednesday game at Hillsborough). Unless they keep several spare Underground trains sitting around in Leeds for the handful of days a year when there's a big cricket game/ Yorkshire Show on? Which would be a bit of a waste...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well actually, Top contact 3rd rail maybe out dated, even though its not any less reliable than OHLE ; Yes there are a few days so snow and ice but it doesn't get blown over by stock wind or knackered by the panto. The DLR system is hardly out dated at works well.

Age hardly seems to be much of a problem, the trains were recently overhauled massively and are "new" inside. Look at the 'A' stock, its still going. Even 313s and 508s are touching nearly 40years.

There are loads of trains without toilets, people have to make do at stations.

So basically as a concept, being offered longer trains and more of them. But you don't want this?

Would there be any justification for this if it wasn't for the fact that there are some supperanuated Underground trains that won't be needed in a few years?

As for the ability of this stock to cope with London winters versus its ability to cope with North Yorkshire in mid-winter... I think that'll be what separates the men from the boys.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Would there be any justification for this if it wasn't for the fact that there are some supperanuated Underground trains that won't be needed in a few years?

As for the ability of this stock to cope with London winters versus its ability to cope with North Yorkshire in mid-winter... I think that'll be what separates the men from the boys.

This is the point i tried to make earlier, I went on a 150 in the deep deep snow we had in december and that will be eaily deeper than anything the suberbs of london get. Unfortunately i think LU stock will come under little boy catagory ....

 

[PinzaC55]

I am starting to come round to the idea of this project, i feel ashamed of myself.

I can see where they are coming from its so wierd.

I can see where they are coming from too - they are non railway people who have little idea what is involved in a real railway outside of the train set they had as a kid. Has anyone thought of suggesting they use second hand road traffic lights as signals?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I can see where they are coming from too - they are non railway people who have little idea what is involved in a real railway outside of the train set they had as a kid. Has anyone thought of suggesting they use second hand road traffic lights as signals?

I mean that there arnt any long term propects from the people that decide such things to electrify it 25kv AC they dont wanna put up with sprinters and pacers anymore so there taking it into there own hands

 

[Metrailway]

...in which case a wholly stand alone system is going to be little use.

At the moment if there's a large spike in demand then there's nothing stopping Northern from using DMU capacity off other lines on the Harrogate service. These DMUs could obviously use any platform at Leeds.

If the Harrogate line were electrified the sensible way then there'd be nothing stopping Northern from using EMUs from the Ilkley/ Skipton/Doncaster services to bulk up services on the Harrogate line. These EMUs could use any of the platforms at the north western corner of Leeds station (where the Harrogate/Ilkley/ Skipton trains use).

If the Harrogate line were electrified the way that Harrogate Chamber of Commerce want it then what spare stock would there be to meet a "spike" in demand? If the PVR of the Harrogate service is around seven (based on current service provision) then you'd expect nine or ten Underground trains to be based at Neville Hill? So not a lot of additional units that can meet demand (in the way that Sheffield Supertram don't have spare trams to meet the spike in demand for a Sheffield Wednesday game at Hillsborough). Unless they keep several spare Underground trains sitting around in Leeds for the handful of days a year when there's a big cricket game/ Yorkshire Show on? Which would be a bit of a waste...

The plan talks about 20 D78 units (with 10 spare) being aquired and refurbished for £6m. So thew would be plenty of spare stock. Also according to LUL a refurb D78 can carry 685 passengers (This is the observed maximum. The theoretical maximum is 958), a lot more than any Mainline stock.

Would there be any justification for this if it wasn't for the fact that there are some supperanuated Underground trains that won't be needed in a few years?

As for the ability of this stock to cope with London winters versus its ability to cope with North Yorkshire in mid-winter... I think that'll be what separates the men from the boys.

LUL have no problem scrapping stock. Recently someone tried to acquire a 1967 stock car from Booth's, offering a price higher than scrap, but were refused not by Booth's but LUL.

The D78 Stock operated during the bitterly cold 1981-82 winter. Last winter's coldest temperature was in Chesham, Buckinghamshire where the older A Stock operates! There is nothing to suggest that D78s can't cope with the Yorkshire winter

 

[SWTCommuter]

This is the point i tried to make earlier, I went on a 150 in the deep deep snow we had in december and that will be eaily deeper than anything the suberbs of london get. Unfortunately i think LU stock will come under little boy catagory ....

Presumably that's why they propose to convert them to bottom-contact third rail as used on DLR

http://www.docklands24.co.uk/news/t...lear_war_praise_for_snow_defying_dlr_1_747073

 

[SS4]

I'm with tbtc - it's clearly a publicity stunt never designed to actually go into service but rather to draw the national media's attention to the railway in that area.

 

[CheekyBandit]

I live in Harrogate so I was amazed to see this had actually been proposed.

It seems that Heath Robinson also lives there.

 

[DarloRich]

I see i nthe Rialway Herlad that they prospe to build a new depot near Harrogate to service the tube stock.

http://www.railwayherald.org/magazine/pdf/RHUK/Issue275.pdf