Tube trains on Harrogate Line

[yorksrob]

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

So they're suggesting that four major viaducts and Bramhope tunnel will need to be "rebuilt" unlike with every other OHL electrification scheme.

It will be run by standard metro cars, even though they will have been replaced from elsewhere in the country, and even then they won't have the standard pick up.

Maintaining ten units as spare just for this route will be better value for money over the long term than having units which are intersperseable with the rest of the local network to be swapped around as necessary.

Hmmm. If I were them, I would concentrate on the longer term strategy to overcome capacity constraints to start off with then press for a more suitable electrification scheme.

All the while, in other news we have perfectly sensible extensions of the third rail network which are turned down as not value for money whilst at the same time being told that there is apparently no future for DC third rail on the Southern Region which has been running slow and express trains largely successfully for nearly a century and which will presumably have to be replaced with OHLE at the farepayers expense.

 

[142094]

Anyone want to take a bet that we'll still have either 14x or 15x units on this line 10-15 years in the future?

 

[Aictos]

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

What Thameslink 317s? The only rolling stock on that route are the 377/5s and 319s.

The 317s are only used on the Great Northern which together with the 321s and 365s allow for 12 car services to be run.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am sure that there are forum members who can give a cost estimate for the required for the total amount of all works required to bring the 2 miles 241 yards Bramhope Tunnel up to the standard proposed.

 

[Nonsense]

The more I read about this idea, the more I like it.

Does it really matter that the equipment might not be standard for the region? Or that power supply differences reduce interoperability? It could be that the right stock for one line, isn't right for another, in which case a shared fleet is a compromise.

 

[bluenoxid]

The Harrogate, Airedale and Wharfedale lines have good synergies as does the local service between Leeds and York in the future. They are all commuter services.

I still don't understand what they plan to do at Leeds. All those platforms are busy and wiping out a car park is not going to go down very well.

 

[yorksrob]

Does it really matter that the equipment might not be standard for the region? Or that power supply differences reduce interoperability?

If this idea takes off, you can guarantee that someone in whitehall will still be totting up how much all of these incompatible seperately run lines cost. We'll find out then.

 

[DavyCrocket]

Lots of 3rd rail stations are on level crossings.

There is more than one shoe on each unit, as long as one is in contact with the 3rd rail, the unit has power.

And on LU there are already Traction Current Sectionalisation Gaps that are bigger than level crossings

 

[tbtc]

Does it really matter that the equipment might not be standard for the region? Or that power supply differences reduce interoperability?

Yes.

We have enough problems with non-standard things on the railway.

At the moment the Harrogate line can share some of its costs with other local lines, meaning fewer DMUs are needed (since they can interwork), meaning maintenance costs are cheaper (since the Harrogate line is run by standard stock) etc.

Building brand new depot in Harrogate won't make Neville Hill much cheaper to run, but will be a significant cost for the new depot (hmm, an expensive new depot in Harrogate, bound to mean a few local jobs, wonder if this is one of the real reasons for Harrogate Chamber of Commerce wanting this built in their back yard? :roll. And then they are wanting to convert/maintain *twenty* old trains for this line - thats going to make thing even more expensive.

I could see some logic if someone suggested converting something big like the Valley Lines to "Tube" trains - at least that'd offer some economies of scale and be less wasteful. However doing all this on one branchline is plain daft.

 

[moggie]

So the line currently manages with 14x units yet class 172 are too slow? I guess they have in depth research to back up this claim?

If class 172 style MU's are too slow presumably they want to run at linespeeds and headways inconsistant with light rail 'lne of sight signalling', irrespective of braking capabilities to support this style of operating.

The line also has unique infrastructure that prevents use of OLE despite large areas of the network happily managing to accomodate it (as a standard which generally conveys suitibility for the majority of the network). Again, they no doubt have detailed design surveys supporting their opinion???

They no doubt have detailed studies confirming suitability to operate on shared tracks with mainline rolling stock in terms of crashworthiness at Leeds ( I note they intend to separate operations at York, maybe Leeds also.

Still no acknowledgement of large scale signalling alterations required to existing equipment at York and Leeds to provide immunisation against electrical interference.

So as I understand it in summary;

Costs to provide 3rd rail and traction power supply.
Costs to modify / refurbish trains.
Costs to provide maintenance depot and stabling sidings for up to 30 x 6car units.
Costs to provide new platform(s) at York.
Costs of Resignalling of core route including control centre for power / signalling?.
Costs of staffing for route operation / maintenance (seems set up for stand alone operation separate from NR)
Costs for wholesale Signalling immunisation mods to NR infrastructure in Leeds and York areas and their approaches including TOC 3rd party engineering work disruption costs.
Costs for ATP system compatible with shared running and core area (TPWS or equivalent) - train and signalling mods.

All for 'some' £150M.

And for that you get a unique system with second hand rolling stock. Every lesson in recent history suggests as others have stated that they'll be stumping up more to remove the non-standard features in lese time than if they opt for an initially more expensive standard system from the word go.

If they are not careful they'll end up losing the whole system within 20 to 30 years as if they can't afford a conventional upgrade now, what makes them believe they can afford to do it twice in half the timescale of doing it conventionally once?

 

[Fincra5]

Don;t think they would need to refurb trains that have been done only a couple of years ago.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am now awaiting the think tank at the Harrogate Chamber of Commerce to pontificate upon:-

How the debt crisis in Greece may be solved.

The EU fisheries policy

Reforms in the NHS

JUST THREE TO BE GOING ON WITH:roll:

 

[PinzaC55]

If it DID cost 150 million............big "if" what about the scheme (which seems to have been forgotten) to reopen the Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton line? If that was ever done the benefits would be enormous, not only to Ripon and Harrogate but to the ECML as a diversionary route. I'd like to bet £150,000,000 would get most of it relaid.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Well at the moment i see this project going ahead and HS2 not. People fo harrogate seem to love this idea,

maybe they just wish they lived in london?

 

[lyndhurst25]

I think that the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Harrogate Chamber of Commerce has missed the obvious option. Forget about installing expensive 3rd and 4th rails and use the money saved to buy some second-hand Valenta diesel engines and generators from the recent HST refurbishment. These could be installed in the leading carriages of the underground trains to make screaming super-Thumper DEMUs for the Harrogate line. You know it makes sense....

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Well at the moment i see this project going ahead and HS2 not. People fo harrogate seem to love this idea,

maybe they just wish they lived in london?

With the greatest respect to the people of Harrogate, they simply do not understand the workings of the railway. If you told them that the line would be electrified at 25kV and every third train to either York or Leeds would be a through train to London, I'm sure they would "love" that idea even more.

Whilst this idea may be workable (not even sure about that), it is simply not sensible. If capacity is the issue, I have a better idea - build a fleet of new (hopefully CSRE Pulsar ) DMUs and place them where necessary in the UK. Then cascade Pacers to the Harrogate line in as many numbers as are necessary to make sure that everyone gets a seat.

Or even better (there's better???) - electrify at 25 kV, joining Leeds OHLE to York OHLE and operate some proper EMUs on the route. Add to the LM/FTPE 350/2 build to give economy of scale to that order, and make the wider railway a better system.

 

[YorkshireBear]

With the greatest respect to the people of Harrogate, they simply do not understand the workings of the railway. If you told them that the line would be electrified at 25kV and every third train to either York or Leeds would be a through train to London, I'm sure they would "love" that idea even more.

Whilst this idea may be workable (not even sure about that), it is simply not sensible. If capacity is the issue, I have a better idea - build a fleet of new (hopefully CSRE Pulsar ) DMUs and place them where necessary in the UK. Then cascade Pacers to the Harrogate line in as many numbers as are necessary to make sure that everyone gets a seat.

Or even better (there's better???) - electrify at 25 kV, joining Leeds OHLE to York OHLE and operate some proper EMUs on the route. Add to the LM/FTPE 350/2 build to give economy of scale to that order, and make the wider railway a better system.

You should work at harrogate chamber of commerce surely? youd be a novelty coming up with sensible ideas like that.

 

[Mainliner]

I am now awaiting the think tank at the Harrogate Chamber of Commerce to pontificate upon:-

How the debt crisis in Greece may be solved.

The EU fisheries policy

Reforms in the NHS

JUST THREE TO BE GOING ON WITH:roll:

As travel seems to be their forte, I think they should offer NASA their considered opinion on the best design of a spacecraft for a manned mission to Mars, which the best minds at NASA seem to be struggling with.

Oh wait...converted Underground stock?

 

[ECJS189]

If it DID cost 150 million............big "if" what about the scheme (which seems to have been forgotten) to reopen the Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton line? If that was ever done the benefits would be enormous, not only to Ripon and Harrogate but to the ECML as a diversionary route. I'd like to bet £150,000,000 would get most of it relaid.

Exactly. The additional Trans-Pennine services that would be created by re-opening the lost part of the Leeds Northern would supplement the local Northern Rail Leeds-Harrogate service. I think putting Harrogate back onto a major trunk route would seem a more attractive option and better value for money.

 

[tbtc]

Exactly. The additional Trans-Pennine services that would be created by re-opening the lost part of the Leeds Northern would supplement the local Northern Rail Leeds-Harrogate service. I think putting Harrogate back onto a major trunk route would seem a more attractive option and better value for money.

Any suggestions of how Leeds - Harrogate - Northallerton would compare to Leeds - York - Northallerton?

Via Harrogate/ Ripon is certainly the way the crow would fly the route, but it'd obviously be at slower line speeds than the ECML north of York.

 

[ECJS189]

Any suggestions of how Leeds - Harrogate - Northallerton would compare to Leeds - York - Northallerton?

Via Harrogate/ Ripon is certainly the way the crow would fly the route, but it'd obviously be at slower line speeds than the ECML north of York.

Well I think I read somewhere it is 13 miles shorter going that way.
The formation north of Harrogate was fairly straight so I assume a modern new build would enable a decent line speed.
The disadvantage (for trans-pennine services) is that it would require a reversal at Leeds, the advantage is that it would avoid the congested eastern route from Leeds City via Neville Hill.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Any suggestions of how Leeds - Harrogate - Northallerton would compare to Leeds - York - Northallerton?

Via Harrogate/ Ripon is certainly the way the crow would fly the route, but it'd obviously be at slower line speeds than the ECML north of York.

When the line from Harrogate through Ripon to Northallerton was closed, was the cost of keeping this line open against revenue a major factor or was the idea that all traffic had path capacity from York to Northallerton, allowing these savings to be made? What is the current path availability northwards from York at this present time?

I think that the original stops, if my memory serves me right, onward from Harrogate northward were:-

Nidd Bridge
Wormald Green
Ripon
Melmerby
Sinderby
Pickhill
Newby Wiske
Northallerton.

Of course, there was the other route where the line diverged at Melmerby to Thirsk, which had intermediate stations at Baldersby and at Topcliffe.

 

[bluenoxid]

So the line currently manages with 14x units yet class 172 are too slow? I guess they have in depth research to back up this claim?

If class 172 style MU's are too slow presumably they want to run at linespeeds and headways inconsistant with light rail 'lne of sight signalling', irrespective of braking capabilities to support this style of operating.

The line also has unique infrastructure that prevents use of OLE despite large areas of the network happily managing to accomodate it (as a standard which generally conveys suitibility for the majority of the network). Again, they no doubt have detailed design surveys supporting their opinion???

They no doubt have detailed studies confirming suitability to operate on shared tracks with mainline rolling stock in terms of crashworthiness at Leeds ( I note they intend to separate operations at York, maybe Leeds also.

Still no acknowledgement of large scale signalling alterations required to existing equipment at York and Leeds to provide immunisation against electrical interference.

So as I understand it in summary;

Costs to provide 3rd rail and traction power supply.
Costs to modify / refurbish trains.
Costs to provide maintenance depot and stabling sidings for up to 30 x 6car units.
Costs to provide new platform(s) at York.
Costs of Resignalling of core route including control centre for power / signalling?.
Costs of staffing for route operation / maintenance (seems set up for stand alone operation separate from NR)
Costs for wholesale Signalling immunisation mods to NR infrastructure in Leeds and York areas and their approaches including TOC 3rd party engineering work disruption costs.
Costs for ATP system compatible with shared running and core area (TPWS or equivalent) - train and signalling mods.

All for 'some' £150M.

And for that you get a unique system with second hand rolling stock. Every lesson in recent history suggests as others have stated that they'll be stumping up more to remove the non-standard features in lese time than if they opt for an initially more expensive standard system from the word go.

If they are not careful they'll end up losing the whole system within 20 to 30 years as if they can't afford a conventional upgrade now, what makes them believe they can afford to do it twice in half the timescale of doing it conventionally once?

They don't have any costs so I don't know where £150 million has come from. An email chain has been forwarded to me and they seem to think that the DfT will fund the business case. It is an idea and like all speculative ideas, it should be treated with a pinch of salt :roll:

I wonder whether the people of Harrogate would be happy to foot the bill then. They currently are not part of Metro so do not get subsidised travel. I wonder what would be raised if they were charged what the people of West Yorks get added to their council tax to fund Metro. Could be a small pot there?

 

[ECJS189]

When the line from Harrogate through Ripon to Northallerton was closed, was the cost of keeping this line open against revenue a major factor or was the idea that all traffic had path capacity from York to Northallerton, allowing these savings to be made? What is the current path availability northwards from York at this present time?

I think that the original stops, if my memory serves me right, onward from Harrogate northward were:-

Nidd Bridge
Wormald Green
Ripon
Melmerby
Sinderby
Pickhill
Newby Wiske
Northallerton.

Of course, there was the other route where the line diverged at Melmerby to Thirsk, which had intermediate stations at Baldersby and at Topcliffe.

[/COLOR]

In 1959 the East Coast Main Line between York and Northallerton was quadrupled, thus increasing capacity and allowing services to be removed from the route via Harrogate. All intermediate stations except Ripon had closed by 1967 when the passenger services ceased. Ripon station was poorly located and there was no appetite to cut costs or build a new station nearer the city centre in the 1960's.

 

[tbtc]

When the line from Harrogate through Ripon to Northallerton was closed, was the cost of keeping this line open against revenue a major factor or was the idea that all traffic had path capacity from York to Northallerton, allowing these savings to be made? What is the current path availability northwards from York at this present time?

I think that the original stops, if my memory serves me right, onward from Harrogate northward were:-

Nidd Bridge
Wormald Green
Ripon
Melmerby
Sinderby
Pickhill
Newby Wiske
Northallerton.

Of course, there was the other route where the line diverged at Melmerby to Thirsk, which had intermediate stations at Baldersby and at Topcliffe.

I can't comment on the "logic" of closing the line at the time, other than to say that they tended to close routes with "alternatives" (e.g one of the two routes from Sheffield to Manchester was closed, presumably the Ripon route was closed because an alternative Leeds - North East route existed via York?).

Going via Ripon would be at the cost of avoiding York, but then Leeds - York is served by the Scarborough service and the stopper... York - North East is obviously very well served by ECML services (and with three trains an hour from Leeds - York - up the ECML - I wouldn't expect all to divert via Ripon).

Having been in Ripon a couple of weekends ago, and noticed the four buses an hour to Leeds, there's certainly a market that rail could tap in to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well I think I read somewhere it is 13 miles shorter going that way.
The formation north of Harrogate was fairly straight so I assume a modern new build would enable a decent line speed.
The disadvantage (for trans-pennine services) is that it would require a reversal at Leeds, the advantage is that it would avoid the congested eastern route from Leeds City via Neville Hill.

Thanks for confirming.

I agree with your comments about the benefits/ disadvantages - its certainly a better plan than any Underground conversion!

 

[PinzaC55]

This page gives useful info on the reasons for closing the Ripon line -
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/r/ripon/index.shtml
A site about the proposed reopening scheme gave an estimate of £40 million for a single line Harrogate - Ripon in 2004.

 

[ECJS189]

This page gives useful info on the reasons for closing the Ripon line -
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/r/ripon/index.shtml
A site about the proposed reopening scheme gave an estimate of £40 million for a single line Harrogate - Ripon in 2004.

It was disappointing that it was only considered 'feasible' to reinstate a branch from Harrogate to Ripon and not create a through route again. This would have had little benefit to Harrogate and not offered much more to residents of Ripon to the current bus service. There seems to be a lack of vision and looking at the 'bigger picture'

Of course if it did happen they could use cascaded pacers from the Leeds - Harrogate once they get underground stock!
(joking of course!)

 

[yorksrob]

Ripon does strike me as the sort of town that could support a busy station if it were on the railway.

 

[ECJS189]

Ripon does strike me as the sort of town that could support a busy station if it were on the railway.

Yep. To put in perspective it has the same population as Ilkley - consider what service that line now has - and proper electric units to boot!
There are a lot of people who commute Leeds - Harrogate - Ripon and vice versa. I work at Ripon's largest employer and know for a fact there would be demand for a rail service.

 

[yorksrob]

Yep. To put in perspective it has the same population as Ilkley - consider what service that line now has - and proper electric units to boot!
There are a lot of people who commute Leeds - Harrogate - Ripon and vice versa. I work at Ripon's largest employer and know for a fact there would be demand for a rail service.

I agree that if you're spending the money you might as well re-instate the through route to Northallerton.