|
Surrey 455
|
 |
« on: July 17, 2011, 19:19:56 » |
|
Harrogate Chamber of Commerce are proposing to increase capacity between Leeds, York and Harrogate by supplementing / replacing existing stock with District line trains that will be replaced in London in the next few years. Can't see Network Rail enthusing about this. I seem to recall in a previous topic that they take a dim view of new third rail projects. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-14143032 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2011, 19:29:29 » |
|
Not so much NR» the HMIR (ORR» ) are not keen, there are legal issues The Electricity at Work Regulations (1989) being one.
Realistically I doubt they would not get the require infrastructure installed to meet the 2014 timescale stated in the BBC» article, 650v DC▸ traction requires a substation every 4 to 5 miles this could be stretched a little depending on the level of service.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2011, 19:58:17 » |
|
The idea in the original article (in the Harrogate local press) is to use DLR▸ style shrouded bottom contact third rail, which would be allowed on a new installation as far as I can see...
I still think the whole plan is ridiculous though...
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
anthony215
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2011, 21:20:31 » |
|
The idea in the original article (in the Harrogate local press) is to use DLR▸ style shrouded bottom contact third rail, which would be allowed on a new installation as far as I can see...
I still think the whole plan is ridiculous though...
Paul
Thats putting it lightly, especially compared to some comments on uk railforums & wnxx as well as a few other forums. Nice to see people thinking outside the box, but i have my doubts, then again i would its better than that stupid cable car in london. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2011, 09:28:43 » |
|
Wouldn't a better idea be to string the O/H wires from Leeds round to York three ways, Harrogate, Church Fenton. Whilst you are at it in fill via Hambledon and Selby up to Doncaster. That will give a number of Diversionary Routes for the ECML▸ . Then convert the Disrtrict line stock to AC. You might have to lower the roof bit for the pan, but I am sure that there is room on the underframe for the transformers etc.
One major problem might be if they run as 4 car sets will they need SDO▸ . They will certainly need the passenger door opening enabled even the good folk of Yorkshire won't like all the doors opening on cold winters morning.
Of course any sensible electrification scheme of this nature would have new stock. Be a cahnce to scrap a few nodding donkeys or send them to the West Country.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 18, 2011, 21:46:55 by eightf48544 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2011, 16:11:30 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, TravelWatch SouthWest Board Member
|
|
|
|
inspector_blakey
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2011, 16:33:42 » |
|
Nice to see someone doing a bit of creative thinking, but I really feel like they should have thought about things a little harder before splashing press releases around! Can't see the passengers being overly enamoured at the prospect of trains with longitudinal seating, no gangways and no toilets operating over that distance...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
smokey
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2011, 17:48:09 » |
|
There may be platforms that have services that see both BR▸ stock and Tube stock, but it's a step down off BR stock and a Step up from Tube Stock.
I doubt the Elf & Safety Suits would allow the low floor LU stock to be used on existing platforms.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
super tm
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2011, 17:58:52 » |
|
The district line stock is not low floor. Its the same size as National Rail stock.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
inspector_blakey
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2011, 18:50:48 » |
|
Seconded - Richmond and Kew Gardens for example are served by both LOROL▸ and LUL▸ , the D-stock normal height for those NR» platforms.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2011, 19:09:52 » |
|
Nice to see someone doing a bit of creative thinking, but I really feel like they should have thought about things a little harder before splashing press releases around! Can't see the passengers being overly enamoured at the prospect of trains with longitudinal seating, no gangways and no toilets operating over that distance... Not to mention the fact the stock is 50 years old |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2011, 19:18:59 » |
|
There may be platforms that have services that see both BR▸ stock and Tube stock, but it's a step down off BR stock and a Step up from Tube Stock.
I doubt the Elf & Safety Suits would allow the low floor LU stock to be used on existing platforms.
As others have suggested, although you are correct for the Bakerloo and ' DC▸ lines' shared platforms, which are at a tube stock/ NR» stock compromise height, and again in some other areas (eg Rayners Lane to Uxbridge - Met/Picc) where the platforms are at a tube stock/sub surface stock compromise, however where sub surface stock and NR stock run together there is not a stepping distance problem. Paul |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Worcester_Passenger
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2011, 22:25:29 » |
|
Not to mention the fact the stock is 50 years old
Surely the District Line stock isn't that old? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
inspector_blakey
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2011, 22:55:01 » |
|
Correct - introduced 1980, so a mere 31 years old!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2011, 06:45:16 » |
|
Correct - introduced 1980, so a mere 31 years old!
Not to mention the fact the stock is 50 years old
Surely the District Line stock isn't that old? Apologies I miss read it as Metline stock, |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|
Click on the map to explore geographics
