Reader Comments:

Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.

• Colin, Hampshire

  Would making these trains Hybrids be an option?
  
  Possibly add a (or possibly two small (say 2ltr) diesel engine to each power car under the floor which provides power for the already present traction motors and compressors and motor alternators,

• B.Holmes, Leeds

  As far as I can see the only good ideas with this scheme are the 15 minute interval service Leeds to Knaresborough and 30 minute interval service York to Knaresborough, also opening some new stations such as Arthington P&R for Pool and east side of Otley, Knaresborough East, and Bilton.
  
  As to third rail electrification this is rubbish due to
  
  Mixing electrification schemes at York and Leeds with complicated track circuit problems.
  
  Electrification would have to be carried between Leeds & Neville Hill Depot for serviceing & repairs.
  
  Trains would need to have toilets fitted and to use these toilets and for ticket checking purposes proper corridor connections.
  
  The Leeds to Harrogate line is prone to flooding that diesel trains can cope with, but not third rail trains, the snow & ice on this line would also hinder third rail trains.
  
  The only acceptable modern standard electrification is 25kv overhead that is compatible with the electrification at both ends of the line.

• Cameron, Harrogate, engand

  I think this plan is too outdated, £150 million should be invested in brand new diesel rolling stock. The fact of the matter is that D78 stock is not built for long distance travel. Although I admit Pacers & Sprinters are ageing , D78 stock is ageing faster. I also think that the plan to introduce more stations is pathetic, People dont want a journey time any longer than what it is now.
  
  With £150 million the Harrogate line should be double tracked all the way from York to Leeds, this will mean services can be increased. I think double tracking the harrogate line is a positive investment and should be considered.
  
  Newer DMU rolling stock should be built for the Harrogate line, using a mixture of new rolling stock and refreshed sprinters at a higher rate of service will increase customer satisfaction and make using the railways a good experience .

• Lorentz, London

  "Local governments in Germany/Holland can all build quality local public transport systems, this one is like going back in time"
  - Alan, Leeds, UK
  
  Most of these projects are expensive and a good number go over budget. The current economic climate demands value for money, and if necessary, utilitarian solutions.
  

• Paul, Carlisle, UK

  Well done to Harrogate chamber for thinking out of the box and trying to do something to improve their train service. I do think they are barking up the wrong tree here though. Other posts mention the problems associated with third rail electrification. Network Rail should be looking at how costs for 25KV can be brought down for branch lines. Using simple trolley wires instead of complex catenery is on e possiblility. With modern pantograph technology speeds up o 70mph are still possible with this arrangement. Application of 25KV-0-25KV autotransformer feeding would also mean less expensive feeder stations whilst using this approach would save on Electrification at the Leeds and York ends where 25KV is already in place. As for the trains, Scotrail will be releaseing class 314 3 car units shortly. Not the last word in modern EMU technology but similar vintage to the D78s and when the time comes to replace them its straightforward off the shelf AC units. Taking 25KV to Harrogate would also allow Electrically hauled East Coast expresses to provide a direct service to London and would future proof the line if a spur to Leeds Bradford airport was ever built.

• Claydon William, Norwich, Norfolk

  This line should be electrified @ 25kv like the rest of the network as part of an ongoing rolling national programme over the next 20 years,
  
  (Pssssst........I know where there are miles of practically unused OHLE that they could re-use between Harrogate and York, If the good burghers at the Harrogate Chamber of Business would care to take a few trucks and some cutting equipment down to Old Dalby, I'm sure nobody would miss those un-used wires down on the test track there, now that all the Pendolinos are in service !!!!!!!).

• Dr Adrian Morgan, City of Ripon

  What a load of rubbish. Discredited in the fact that this has not been thought through before being published and open to criticism. Do they not know about business plans and benefit/cost analysis? An island of non standard equipment in an otherwise improving network. Advisors paid in buttons obviously.
  
  Most of the supporters of the plan (very few from Harrogate) should take a look at the newly reopened and electrified line from Edinburgh to Bathgate and Airdrie. 25 miles of completely rebuilt 90 mph railway with the most modern signalling technology on curves just as sharp as the Harrogate loop, 8 brand new stations, (a large one at Bathgate) and a substantial maintenance depot. Many overbridges were rebuilt and a lot of underbridges also. New trains were built for other parts of the Central Corridor to allow cascade of 10 year old trains onto the route. All this for £300M. The line opened just before Christmas 2010 at the height of the sub zero Arctic conditions when the adjacent M8 was closed for two days with snow and ice and 3rd rail trains around London also icebound.
  A 15 mile. non-stop train from Bathgate to Airdrie(equivelent to Pannal-Leeds) up and over the high ground of West Lothian takes only 13 minutes. Trains accelerate to 90 mph in 90 seconds on similar gradients to Harrogate-Leeds with no difficulty. 50 mph D78 Underground stock is very inferior by comparison. For £150M all the Harrogate loop could be electrified to 25Kv standard with cascaded electric trains available in 2014 and still have change left over to open a spur to the airport and one to Pool (eventually Otley again proposed by WYPTE) allowing Harrogate trains to run non-stop Horsforth-Leeds.
  
  Park and ride stations with no possible road access, a Leeds/Bradford airport P&R station less than a mile from Horsforth where West Yorkshire PTE want to build a spur right to the airport. Most of the proposed new stations are unnecessary. Off peak, intermediate stations are lightly used. Where are all the passengers coming from to justify these new rural stations and a 15 minute interval service. Unsustainable.
  
  An ideal P&R site is adjacent to the A1M at Junction 47. This would be used by residents of Ripon, Boroughbridge, Wetherby and surrounding villages. Much more useful than Buttersyke Bar but not even mentioned.
  
  DC electrification in isolation would be as expensive as modern improved AC due to feeder systems and booster stations The nodal points at Leeds and York are already AC electrified and could easily feed the loop as is. Extending 3rd rail into Leeds and York, complicated, expensive. Every fifth sleeper for 38 miles would have to be changed to accept the contact rail fixings. Expensive.
  
  This proposal has been instigated by Harrogate Chamber of Trade. They are as isolated in their thinking as the proposed system. The Chamber has a poor history in rail support. It was asked to support the reopening campaign to Ripon and Northallerton giving Harrogate through trains to North and South once more and was very antagonistic towards the idea. Part of this 1988 study proposed a station on Hookstone Drive. The Chamber opposed this as bus operator members were against it. Fortunately, a Harrogate County Councillor adopted the idea and ran with it. Hornbeam Park is now one of the busiest stations on the line. Sickening mentality.
  
  If £150M is available, then reopening to Ripon and Northallerton would be better value for money with Transpennine and East Coast providing fast services hourly through Harrogate. All the studies and costings have been completed by Leeds based consultants Arup and JMP with funding from Ripon City Council, North Yorkshire County Council, the now defunct Countryside Agency and many smaller donations from supporters of a 90/100 mph railway north from Harrogate. Again Harrogate Chamber of Trade has ignored this fact in their submission even though two of their contributors were on the North Yorkshire County Council Ripon Reopening Steering Committe.
  
  As a spin off from the Harrogate Ripon-Northallerton reopening, Harrogate-Wetherby-Leeds was looked at. This would be just as beneficial to Harrogate as the route via Horsforth and would spread the load on this busy route. The fast services operated by Transpennine and East Coast would eventually route this way as Wetherby is now a substancial and wealthy satellite town of Leeds.
  
  This is bigger than Harrogate Chamber of Trade and should be looked at again but not just as Leeds-Harrogate-York centred on Harrogate but as the bigger picture revolving around Leeds as part of the Goverments Northern Hub plan. Buttons

• Richard, London, UK

  Electrify remaining gaps on Southern (Hurst Green to Uckfield, plus Ore to Ashford) releasing Class 171 Turbostars, which presently spend a considerable amount of time traversing electrified tracks. Class 377 emus will become available for those newly electrified routes once new Thameslink stock arrives from 2015

• Graham, Hook, UK

  I think that, at first glance it sounds a good idea, however as has been pointed out there are problems with the suggestion, although none of them appear to be insurmountable.
  I would suggest that by providing doing this and getting electrification on the cheap although it could potentially prove insufficient in the medium to long term, it could well encourage the number of passengers to then prove that the line has a commercial basis for full electrification in due course. Even if this means that in the long run more money is spent redoing what could have been done now, it at least gets a much better service faster than if the business case for the full works were proved.
  Given that Network Rail and London Underground has been involved in the discussions I am sure that they have given advice on the highlighted problems of station layouts, signalling, moving between carriages and the like. Therefore, I would suggest, that this is less of a pie in the sky idea than if the Harrogate Chamber of Commerce had just thought of it and thought it was a good idea.
  Also 180 HGV's carrying the trains from London to Yorkshire (assuming they weren't moved by road a short distance and then loco hauled) would be a one off event and would be spread out a little (so no 180 lorry long convey), however if the result of these trains being used it could well save hundreds of car journeys per week each and every week.

• Richard, Barking (tube driver on the Distict)

  I was thinking of the logistics of this. The only way to move a D78 is to break it into individual cars and transport them one by one via road. London to Harrogate is not just round the corner and to transport 30 units would take 180 HGVs.

• Joseph Curry, Leeds

  Sorry, what "facts" show that 25kV is highly unaffordable for this route. What "facts" show that in the long term, this project is affordable for the route.
  
  What happens to all these trains at Leeds? Brand new station? New act of fiction? Blows the £150 million suggestion
  
  Three years for electrification is highly optimistic considering that you have not even got a business case yet.
  
  Capacity appears to be a major issue at the Leeds end of the line and this could be accomodated with a short 25kV electrification of the line to Horsforth. Scotland should release stock in 2015. Yes they are a similar age but they will be more than capable of adding capacity to the route.
  
  In addition, the bottom contact is subseptible to flooding, icing and snow accumulations. It will not be a simple plough and deicing job as would happen elsewhere because of the rail. 25kV stock is mainly developed for getting to 100mph but a regearing could bring these trains to a similar performance to LUL stock.
  
  The problem with Harrogate Chamber of Commerce is that they are seeing short term gain rather than looking over the long term where an isolated network will prove more damaging than a patient strategy of development that integrates the network.

• T J Price, Bestwood Village Nott's, United Kingdom

  JAMES BARLOW:- Thank you for your kind words. More services on the Robin Hood line, and to a wider area would be a Godsend, however the current infrastructure prevents this, notably the single line section between Bulwell South and Kirkby. With only two passing loops it just takes one train to be a few minutes down and all the others suffer from knock on delays due to this lengthy bottleneck.
  Back on topic and, although i'm not an expert in the finer points of electrification and stand to be corrected, don't "London Underground" trains work on both 3 and 4 rail systems? I'm sure the Isle of Wight syatem is only 3 rail.
  As regards signalling, i don't envisage any variation from normal mainline signalling will be necessary. TPWS and OTMR has been successfully retrofitted to all traction currently in mainline use so there shouldn't be much of an issue fitting it to the proposed stock. I'm sure the stock will also have a good refurbishment which could well involve the fitting of toilets and gangways.
  Merseyrail is an excellent example to follow. I believe it's the best performing operator? Although a lot of this will be down to the self contained nature of the route, the efficiency of the electrics must also be a major contribution.
  

• Cris, Pembroke (Formerly Parsons Green Depot), UK

  Interesting Idea. The D78s are recently overhauled units, having worked them in the past I would say they are eminently suitable. They are not - as some have said - "tube stock", as for the operating environment, the District line has more running miles on the surface than in the shallow cut and cover section across town (hence the full sized dimensions that happily accommodate a 6'4" person such as myself). They offer a lot of capacity for peak loading with a decent amount of seating for off peak. From the comments here it seems a lot of people have drawn conclusions about D78 stock without ever having travelled on it.
  
  The diesel is dying, being eased out of the market by world oil prices. Electric traction is the way forward, and from the way the area is described, 3rd rail seems to be the answer to low headrooms, scenic views and the problem of downed overhead cables.

• James Barlow, Sheffield/Leeds

  T J PRICE- you make some pretty good points there and must confess my inital shock at the plan is starting to go and i can se the merits of the scheme.
  And if i remember rightly that your on the robin hood line, if it was up to me your service would extend through to sheffield or meadowhall and be more regular. I recently took place in some interesting debates at work about how to improve EMTs local services from an infrastructure point of view.
  
  My only concern now is the electrification for LU is different to mainline 3rd rail? If you were electrifying the harrogate line to mainline 3rd rail not LU 4th rail then id probably be eating my words on the idea right now. Are you wanting a merseyrail type system? As that is a very effective system. Will the LU stock have corridor connections for toilet?
  
  I think you should try and intergrate the signalling and type of electrification to mainline types as much as possible so as not to hinder the future use of the line in recieving cascaded 3rd rail stock from down south.
  
  
  

• T J Price, Bestwood Village Nott's, United Kingdon

  JAMES BARLOW:- Yes i have travelled on Pacers before and, apart from a bouncy ride in places they're not a lot worse than Sprinters. EMT are not upgrading 153's and 156's, they're giving them a coat of paint and new seat covers and carpets. The reliability and performance of them is still terrible, especially on heavily graded routes, of which there are plenty!
  The newest Sprinters will be 30 years old and life expired in around 15years time and diesels are unsustainable, more so with the ever rising cost of fuel. The time to think about replacement is upon us. The McNulty report also brands local routes as loss makers, and if we continue with slow, unreliable diesels drinking vast amounts of expensive fuel, then nothing will change. If, however, we can electrify a few local lines using cascaded stock from wherever, then those loss making lines will eventually become sustainable over a period of time, and once the initial electrification has been paid for they will become profitable!
  However, we digress.
  
  The simple fact is, can anyone reasonably see an effective business case being made for overhead ac electrification of the Harrogate line in the foreseeable future? I think not. This may well be the only opportunity to electrify this line and so people should embrace it. Any progress at all is good.
  
  Be happy that a little bit of money is being proposed to be spent in your area, as some of us live on lines where there is very little prospect of any meaningful investment.

• Bryce, Oxford

  I don\'t know much about different classes of rolling stock and their pro\'s and con\'s, but I do wonder whether power usage has been taken into account when OPEX calculations are made over x time. A DC power system typically sees 15-20% losses at the shoe compared to 0.5-5% at the pantograph for 25kV AC system, given the same distance from feeding point. This loss can be quite substantial in pound note terms now, and in 10/15/20 years time could be horrendous! This ignores the ability to connect to either DNO or NG at a reasonable price given the type of load.

• Jimbob, Harrogate, North Yorkshire

  Interesting that all the naysayers don't live in the area.
  
  We have needed and begged for a rail upgrade in Harrogate for decades. The line between Leeds and York via Harrogate has much potential but always seems to get left behind when the money is being dished out.
  
  This way the local residents are actually doing something on a limited budget as we have waited far too long for the 'powers that be' to help us. To the naysayers I say this - with the given budget you come up with a better idea but also consider the 2 mile Bramhope tunnel and the various (grade 2 listed) picturesque viaducts - including the stunning one over the river Nidd.
  
  

• James barlow, sheffield

  TJ PRICE- worn out sprinters... do you ever travel on pacers? if a sprinter turns up at my local station i am delighted. You moan about a 153 or a 156... which a far superior to the occasional 150..... EMT are currently doing a very nice upgrade fo there sprinters too something northern arnt even considering...
  
  By doing this electrification you are inhibiting the future of yorkshire electrifcation when every line around you is 25KV AC i will be the first person to say i told you so as you carry on with tired trains while the rest of us travel round on mainline standard heavy rail trains.
  
  Underground stock isnt designed to run like this.
  
  As i halfway house i suggest you electrify it 3rd rail main line and use 508 or similar, then the resignalling is nowhere near as complex. And the trains are fit for the line.... The harrogate line couldnt be further away from the london underground in terms of its type.

• James barlow, sheffield

  Shall i tell you who i will feel sorry for the most, the poor workers at neville hill depot who are going to suddenly have to deal with all these new electrified rails in there depot. Small fleet of already 40 year old stock to maintain with no experience of light rail or third rail stock. No matter how much you refurbish them you cannot make them new.
  So then what are you going to do, are you going to alter the LU stock to work of heavy rail signalling or are you going to complicate the signalling system at leeds station beyond all imagination?
  The track alogn the line will have to be perfect they cannot take jointed track either or it will be very uncomforatble.
  Are you aware how often you need to put power supplys with road access? not going to be easy in the rural sections? The fact that LU stock is wider the the maximum allowed on northern units? Station lengths? Good luck when it snows too, the Harrogate line has always been a very reliable line during snow fall, this plan will wave that good bye. You will have no service during snow.
  It sounds like a fantastic idea, but you need to think about it a lot more before you take it forward, taking it into leeds and york will not be fun.
  
  Can i suggest with your 150 million you instead build a rail link to bradford itnernational airport, serving burley headingley and horsforth, this would allow some of the overcrowding on the southern part of the line to be taken by the airport services. You could stop calling harrogate services at burley park and headingley and achieve the faster timings you want as well as reducing overcrowding, also redouble the lines throughout. Much more practical use of money.

• T J Price, Bestwood Village, Nottinghamshire

  The only outdated technology is diesel traction!
  
  People should be grateful for any electrification whether it's ac overhead or dc third rail. Either system is far more reliable, cheaper and better performing than any diesel traction. It may even make local routes economic over a period of time and so the idea should be welcomed and not derided.
  
  If the folks of Yorkshire don't want the third rail and older stock then that's just fine by me, we'll gladly pioneer the scheme on our local Robin Hood line instead of the worn out struggling Sprinters we currently have to put up with!
  
  

• Lee, Manchester, England

  Not sure about the practicality of this idea. It sounds like a ice easy cheap solution to replacing the Northern's awful rolling stock on the Harrogate line, but there are a number of differences between LU and mainline equipment. For starters, how will fares be collected on the trains? The LU stock dosen't have through corridors. As far as I am aware the brakes come on automatically when the access doors at the ends of the carriages are opened 9i will concede I may be wrong about this). Secondly, as awful as pacers are, they at least have on-board toilets, which 'D' stock dosen't. Fitting them will reduce capacity. Thirdly, 'D' stock is equipped with trip cocks to activate train breaks should they run past a red signal. Will this system be retained or will the rolling stock be re-equipped to use TPWS/AWS as currently used on the line? Either way, there is a huge signalling equipment cost involved. Northerns trains are maintained at Newton heath, Neville Hill or Heaton depots, where will the 'D' stock be maintained? Another big cost in builing a purpose built depot is involved. Fourthly, which platforms will the 'D' stock run into at Leeds? Northerns trains can use any platform but the 'D' stock will require a third-rail installing into one or more platforms, which could cause operational difficulties, particulalry during busier times and inclement weather. lastly, why not use redundant class 508 rolling stock instead? This has already been equipped with AWS/TPWS signalling and already has a Network Rail safety case.
  

• Dave Holladay, Glasgow

  The Harrogate project should link with the RVE Class 73 to deliver low cost high capacity units for several Northern Rail commuter routes as a near immediate delivery of high capacity, LOW DWELL TIME trains for the services currently under stress. Remember that the poor internal layout of the BR Mk 3 suburban body with double doors that cannot pass 2 passengers side by side, creates as much of a problem as the lack of capacity inside the train.
  
  3rd rail is substantially MORE reliable than OHLE as proven by the total closures of major routes totally when one train pulls down the wires, we've had both Euston AND Kings Cross out on a number of occasions. With 3rd rail and decent patrolling/de-icing the main issue is dealt with, and the top contact - besides being the UK standard is a lot less of a maintenance burden (top & side covers for bottom contact and greater rail level clearances needed for brackets and shoegear passing platforms. A fault with a 3rd rail train normally leaves the track available for other trains to continue running without the need to clear wires etc.
  
  The downside of 750VDC is the greater number of traction supply feeds, each with a national grid connection, and hence the suggestion that the Harrogate service could start quickly with a plug-in diesel (class 73 or Class 20 if a supply of ETH can be delivered or a Class 37) The RVE Class 73 (or putative Class 75) should have a control system option for the LUL train, and enable the service to be steadily electrified and especially deal with the likely delay in delivery of the full route where the final sections in to Leeds and York are most likely to take longer than the plain line for most of the rest of the route to be completed. The ED will, also enable the trains to be stabled and moved over non electrified sections as a useful contingency and cost saving option - avoiding the need to electrify every piece of track the trains are likely to use.

• Jack, York, United Kingdom

  I'd be amazed if the £150m quoted includes signalling isolation at Leeds and York. Not withstanding resignalling elements of the Harrogate line itself. Nothing this far north will be immune to interference from DC electrification.
  
  Is a 6 car D Stock unit also too long for the current Knaresborough platform? Is it not around 80m between tunnel mouth and level crossing? But really if the good people of Harrogate would rather spend £150m on outdated technology, for trains that will last no more than 15 years, with no toilets then so be it.
  
  I know I'd rather spend £140m on 20 brand new 4 car (260 seats) Class 172s. They have toilets, air conditioning and have been designed for very similar services on the Snow Hill routes around Birmingham. That would still allow for a massive increase in frequency and will be around for 30+ years.

• Timbo, London

  And what happens in a few years time when the D78s wear out? There are no other trains using that current ciolection system likely to come spare in that time frame.
  
  Introducing dc traction into an area already electrified on ac means the signalling needs modifying - dc traction uses ac track circuits to detect the trains, and vice versa. Where both traction systems are in operation complex electronic trickery is needed. The cost of resignalling the complex layouts at both Leeds and York would add a lot to the cost of this project.
  
  There would be no synergies with the existing Yorkshire electric fleet, so each would have to have their own maintenance cover. And where would the trains be maintained? Either you have to electrify on dc all the way out to Neville Hill, or build a completely new electric depot.
  
  Why not electrify on ac - it would work out much cheape, and with both ends already done, looks like it might be quite high up the queue if the money becomes avaialble. It wiold a,lso allow electric trains to run from KX to Harrogate, a possibility which would be killed off for good if the line is electrified on DC.
  As for Bramhope Tunnel, a short single track section might allow enough headroom - maybe with doubling elesewhere to maintain overall capacity. And electrication of the viaducts is not such a big deal - look at the Royal Border Bridge for how it can be done sensitively.

• Holly Cheshire, Wallasey, UK

  There are so many reasons why this is not a good idea, but it is good food for thought.
  
  With modern engineering, is there any good reason why AC/DC switchover absolutely must be a stationary manual process? If it could be engineered to happen automatically and at speed (say 60mph) then a mixed system becomes possible.
  Third rail under bridges and through tunnels where overhead clearance is the big issue. OHLE for long distances where ground level insulation and ground level safety are the big issues. Best of both worlds (OHLE and third rail).
  Of course newly engineered trains would be needed wherein pan operation is automatic and a big flywheel or something intermediates the switchover surges. And more engineering I'm sure for things still to be thought about.
  The third rail could perhaps best be electrified at 1000vAC since using AC solves many engineering problems.
  
  It's an idea, surely modern engineering could allow a mix of technologies not previously possible.

• Michael, Liverpool, UK

  This plan is neither daft nor retarded. It is an inspired solution to lift this busy route, which is vital to the local economy of the region, and make it fit for 21st century needs. D78 trains provide a very compelling opportunity and with the basic electrified infrastructure in place, the route would be very well placed to much better serve the areas through which it operates. When the rolling does become due for replacement, the new Metroplitan Line S trains would provide a far better benchmark than the over-engineered yet quite claustrophopbic 378s on the Overground routes. In my view London Underground have a far better understanding of what's needed and it would be great to have some of this good practice exported to Yorkshire!

• Paul, Harrogate, UK

  Its not the 1st of April is it? Completely barking idea that will effectively cut Harrogate off from the rest of the national rail network if it goes ahead. Both ends of the line are electrified at 25KV by overhead lines. Common sense dictates that the Harrogate line should use the same system with proper trains and access for main line trains from the East Coast mainline to Harrogate.

• David Faircloth, Derby, UK

  Back in the 1930s, Armstrong-Whitworth built a number of diesel-electric trains for use in South America.
  
  These comprised a diesel "power station on wheels", which provided an electrical supply to an emu to which it was coupled.
  
  There are currently many relatively new class 60s in store; could these be converted to "mobile power stations" to work with the D stock? This would provide the capacity benefits identified from this exercise, but would eliminate the capital cost of electrificaion.

• Sam, Bristol, England

  The District line trains are way more comfortable and less cramped than the "pack-em-in" 150s and pacers and you can see out of the windows! They should be much faster at station stops as well and with their rapid acceleration, the journey times should be much faster. The sooner they come the better!

• H Harvey, Birmingham

  Even Network Rail says 4-rail electrification is all but outdated and with Northern England weather heaven help us. GNER proposed electrification of line and I remeber figure below £100million for 25kv

• H Harvey, Birmingham

  What a stupid idea
  Tube trains terrible ride terrible, claustrophobic roof 6" above your head. Comparison with 350 stock or 323 emu tube stock would not even be on the page.
  Suggestion is anachronistic and will take rail back to 1980s which intruth is what McNulty wants when read by anyone with eyes wide open.
  Better to use Derby to extend DMU line and provide employment
  Any diesel would be better than tube stock which would be a PR disaster.
  
  
  

• CJSutcliffe, Manchester, United Kingdom

  The plan seems like a good one given the circumstances. Third rail electrification may be an object from the dark ages in todays railway scene, however it can deliver results, take the East London Line for example, which was converted from 630v DC fourth rail to 750v DC third rail recently. That reaped rewards with the line being integrated into the London Overground network and thus extended with more destination options open to the regular users of the line.
  
  The same sort of win win situation can be delivered for the Harrogate Line. The D Stock requires little conversion work to side contact third rail, and being an interurban unit that also works on shared Network Rail metals, it means that besides the electrification little conversion work needs to be done the lines stations, and newer trains need not be ordered for some time either due to the recent refurbishment of the D Stock. The units will also be faster, be able to provide a better service frequency, have more room inside for passengers, and will be cheaper for the operating company in charge of them, and as a final benefit kinder to the local environment, with the diesel emissions of the line nullified as a result.
  
  This is a win win situation for the local economy, if not maybe for Network Rail in using third rail on existing 25kv lines. But Network Rail's job is to provide adequate local and national rail services, and if this is the most cost efficient and plausible way to improve the local rail services without shelling out for tram-trains which would probably turn out to be prohibitively expensive, then it is the way to go.
  
  It's also very interesting to the rail enthusiast, as currently the only place on the national network (though whether you can call it national is open to suggestion) that re-uses older London Underground stock is the Island Line on the Isle Of Wight, which utilises 1938 tube stock. To see D stock carry on providing services past withdrawal by LU would be excellent from my point of view.

• Harrogate Chamber, Harrogate, England

  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.

• Harrogate Chamber, Harrogate, England

  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.)

• Andrew Kinge, Brisbane, Australia

  What a daft plan. For probably the same amount of money the Gospel Oak Barking Line could be electrified for third rail thereby standardising the London Overground Network, puchase some more Class 378 Electrostars to run this service, freeing up Class 172's to head north, plus buying more 172's to improve the Leeds - Harrogate - York Service. No more diesel operation around London, and the new trains can only be built in Derby helping to secure more orders for the plant there.

• Lorentz, London

  Excellent, value for money proposal - its a shame that there are not more out of the box proposals out there.

• Stevemotorbikes, Leeds, England

  Option 1
  
  3rd rail with D 78 stock. Rapid acceleration. Up to 1372 passengers per 6 car train. Read LU's stats. At least when you turn up to catch the train you will know you are in with a good chance of getting on it. More stations. Less cars driving to Leeds. This has to be good for Harrogate. Merseyrail are by the way the most efficient 3rd rail operator in UK.
  
  Option 2
  
  Tram train via Kirkstall Road. That should add 20 minutes to the journey time between Leeds and Harrogate assuming your not following a moped. You might get a few actors on at YTV if your lucky. I tell you what I will use my car its quicker. I don't know what this idea would do for Harrogate if this is how you have to get there. Well done Metro. Who the hell keeps pushing this tram train nonsense? Your going to look very silly if Harrogate Chamber of Commerce pulls this one off.
  
  Option 3.
  
  Nothing Happens.
  
  Your Call?
  

• Colin, London, UK

  The idea is to modernise these trains, and electrify these lines using a form of third rail electrification used on the Docklands light railway. As for for trains being uncomfortable, well they are much better than those life expired Pacers that you have to put up with now, with the added benefits of having greater capacity. It's not an ideal solution, however we are in challenging times, so get anything in the transport field at the moment will blessing.

• Graham Bell, Chicago, USA

  I like this idea. It would be nice to have a brand new system but the simple fact is that money is not available for improvements on lower traffic routes. Therefore we need to take an opportunities like this when we get the chance. To most of the travelling public they would see this a new service and therefore would attract new passengers to rail. The cost looks a little high at 5 million per mile but I don't see 25Kv or double tracking the whole route as being any cheaper. There are a number of examples across the UK where there are isolated electrical system for example the Tyne and Wear Metro (where the rolling stock was build it the early 80’s and is in the process of receiving a 15 year life extension). Finally there is too much good quality rolling stock sitting around the UK that should be used for services on secondary routes. If we wait for new rolling stock we will wait a very long time. We need low cost innovative projects like this to ensure the future of rail.

• Harrogate Chamber, Harrogate, England

  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.

• Chris, Leeds, England

  40% more seats, loads of leg room, armrests, quiet clean electric trains - this is far far better either than what we've got now (slow, noisy and not big enough) or tram train which is pie in the sky unaffordable nonsense and totally inappropriate for use on this line because it can't deal with the volumes.
  
  More people use the Harrogate Line than the Ilkley line which needs 4-coach trains and we're in a recession demanding value for money solutions which can be delivered quickly. People are being left behind unable to get on the trains on the Harrogate Line whever there's any event taking place and it's overcrowded much of rest of the time. The District line trains have only recently been refurbished are light and airy with big windows to enjoy the Wharfedale scenery.
  
  The Airedale and Wharfedale lines were first electrified and used secondhand trains (which had slam doors) long before the 333s were obtained. I wish this every success and look forward to being able to use it. It's a great idea for the long suffering users of the route.

• Timbo, London, UK

  As ot Leeds and York alrady have 25kV electrification, stringing up catenary between the two may well be cheaper than duplicating the electrification of both stationsying both stations - notwithstanding the costs of electrifying the tunnel.
  The District Line's D stock will already be 35 years old by 2014 - now, I admit they are better built than the younger "Pacers" but they will be increasingly expensive to maintain.
  And the clincher: how long will the good burghers of Harrogate and Knaresborough put up with trains with no toilets?

• KenH, York, UK

  The key point is that there are three significant sections of one-way track on this line. The investment should be focussed at re-establishing twin track (still possible) and then you could have a ten minute service.

• Tony Pearce, Reading, UK

  I did think this was a cheap way of opening an old line when I first read it.
  
  Electric trains are not like the go-anywhere diesels.
  
  They are also prone to whole system shut downs when just one thing goes wrong.
  
  However if someone has done their costings, and the trains they are re-placing are nearing the end of their life, maybe its a good idea.
  
  

• Alan, Leeds, UK

  This is retarded
  
  Does it not occur to these people that employing out-dated technology is not the way to go?
  
  Does it not matter that at both ends of the line, electrification is by 25kv overhead?
  
  So instead of this line being tram train, what has effectively happened is that we're getting really really old, uncomfortable cast-off stock thats ready to be scrapped plus 1900's electrification, plus trolley buses.
  
  I have never heard a more retarded improvement scheme in my life.
  
  Local governments in Germany/Holland can all build quality local public transport systems, this one is like going back in time