Suggestions for improving the Hope Valley route

[HSTEd]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hope-valley-capacity-scheme.168285/

Honestly the railway infrastructure in the entire valley is a mess.

Ideally we would rip it all up and start again.

Noone would conceive of having three lines up the valley, all slaloming all over the place.

 

[Killingworth]

Honestly the railway infrastructure in the entire valley is a mess.

Ideally we would rip it all up and start again.

Noone woudl concieve of having three lines up the valley, all slaloming all over the place.

With an unlimited pot of money, and no other competing projects, either rail or anything else, there's a simple answer.

At least it would be an answer to getting the best possible journey tine between Sheffield and Manchester City centres. I'll come back to that.

Massive cross Alpine tunnels are being completed. In India they're building a line through the lower slopes of the Himalayas to Kashmir. The Japanese will tunnel below the sea and the Norwegians tunnel everywhere.

Drive a straight tunnel between our two northern cities. A possible station at Glossop, but otherwise a line of about 32 miles as level and straight as you like. Journey time 20 minutes, better than halving the best times at present. No over bridges, level crossings, embankments, cuttings, rain, snow, gales, trespassers, rivers, canals or congested buildings to get in the way.

Back to the first paragraph, it would cost a fortune and there are many competing projects of many kinds.

Paragraph two brings us to how many may want to travel between city centres. Of course I'm biased as I live 10 minutes walk from Dore. If I had to go into Sheffield to go to Manchester it would probably take me longer than now. Not everyone would get ful benefit.

However a journey time of only 20 minutes would revolutionise the relationship between the two cities, a real Northern power house. Joined to similar schemes (money and competing projects no object) to link Leeds with Sheffield and Manchester that would be truly transformational. The triangle of the North. The freight and local traffic could then have the old tracks to themselves.

In my lifetime such a project will not get onto the drawing board. Shame. We're stuck with what we've got, and decades of patching up and preserving the work our Victorian ancestors had the foresight to build. Reopening old branch lines is emotive, but investing in the ones that remain open may be better investment.

 

[edwin_m]

By far the greatest majority of Hope Valley passengers travel end to end between at least Sheffield and Stockport, reflected in the fact that two of the three trains are non-stop between those stations in most hours. Like most proposals to link city pairs by high speed services, a Hope Valley base tunnel would release capacity for more frequent stopping trains or freight on the existing line.

However I agree it's far too costly to ever happen.

 

[Bald Rick]

It’s radical, but I wouldn’t rule it out completely. The issue is what to do with all the capacity it creates, which means doing expensive things at either end. I suspect there’s also some ‘interesting’ geology on the way

 

[ABB125]

It’s radical, but I wouldn’t rule it out completely. The issue is what to do with all the capacity it creates, which means doing expensive things at either end. I suspect there’s also some ‘interesting’ geology on the way

Although we are very much becoming speculative...
Would there be any cost efficiencies from building a combined road/rail tunnel(s) as one project? It would certainly improve current road access between the two cities.

 

[Llandudno]

With an unlimited pot of money, and no other competing projects, either rail or anything else, there's a simple answer.

At least it would be an answer to getting the best possible journey tine between Sheffield and Manchester City centres. I'll come back to that.

Massive cross Alpine tunnels are being completed. In India they're building a line through the lower slopes of the Himalayas to Kashmir. The Japanese will tunnel below the sea and the Norwegians tunnel everywhere.

Drive a straight tunnel between our two northern cities. A possible station at Glossop, but otherwise a line of about 32 miles as level and straight as you like. Journey time 20 minutes, better than halving the best times at present. No over bridges, level crossings, embankments, cuttings, rain, snow, gales, trespassers, rivers, canals or congested buildings to get in the way.

Back to the first paragraph, it would cost a fortune and there are many competing projects of many kinds.

Paragraph two brings us to how many may want to travel between city centres. Of course I'm biased as I live 10 minutes walk from Dore. If I had to go into Sheffield to go to Manchester it would probably take me longer than now. Not everyone would get ful benefit.

However a journey time of only 20 minutes would revolutionise the relationship between the two cities, a real Northern power house. Joined to similar schemes (money and competing projects no object) to link Leeds with Sheffield and Manchester that would be truly transformational. The triangle of the North. The freight and local traffic could then have the old tracks to themselves.

In my lifetime such a project will not get onto the drawing board. Shame. We're stuck with what we've got, and decades of patching up and preserving the work our Victorian ancestors had the foresight to build. Reopening old branch lines is emotive, but investing in the ones that remain open may be better investment.

Probably benefit more ‘every day’ Northerners than HS2

 

[Bald Rick]

Although we are very much becoming speculative...
Would there be any cost efficiencies from building a combined road/rail tunnel(s) as one project? It would certainly improve current road access between the two cities.

I very much doubt it.

 

[Killingworth]

It’s radical, but I wouldn’t rule it out completely. The issue is what to do with all the capacity it creates, which means doing expensive things at either end. I suspect there’s also some ‘interesting’ geology on the way

I know this should be in the (highly) speculative section, so we'd better stop after this but the Himalayan tunnels to Srinagar have to contend with earthquakes and terrorists as well as fractured rocks and extreme weather and everything else. The Japanese seem to manage too.

I'd put the terminal station platforms below Piccadilly and Sheffield Midland, in both cities connecting to other tracks away from the city centres - like Kings Cross/St Pancras Thameslink and in Liverpool with the Wirral lines circuit. A Manchester underground ring, and getting extra capacity out of Sheffield to the north and east is rather difficult without a tunnelling element.

Time for my fanciful slumber and sweet dreams.

 

[Killingworth]

Probably benefit more ‘every day’ Northerners than HS2

I'm too biased to possibly comment.

 

[HSTEd]

As much as I love base tunnels, I'm honestly not convinced a conventional one is truly the best option here.

We are never going to need a full 14+tph high speed line on the Sheffield-Manchester axis, 4-5 trains per hour end to end at most.

So something a little less aggressive might get us better bang for our buck.

 

[Killingworth]

As much as I love base tunnels, I'm honestly not convinced a conventional one is truly the best option here.

We are never going to need a full 14+tph high speed line on the Sheffield-Manchester axis, 4-5 trains per hour end to end at most.
So a closer to the surface solution would allow that capacity to provide a drastic rationalisation of the existing service pattern.

I tried to work out a hypothetical money-no-object alignment that allows all the urban areas in the valley to be served with one line, but keeping the curve radius up to allow high speeds for the end to end service makes it look silly.

EDIT:

The biggest problem is Whaley Bridge being stuck on its own out on a branch from the valley where nothing else really is.

Some said the M25 wasn't needed, look at it now - well, look at it 3 months ago. Good projects create their own demand.

But as I said earlier, my idea is fanciful, and won't happen, but it wouldn't be impossible, or unreasonable, just look at the map. Driven dead straight and level it could be a modern and fast underground line all the way.

Look how far the Hope Valley and Woodhead routes snake away from that line, go up and down, and have to weave through congested suburbs, plus they're underground for sections in old and slower tunnels.

Think big, keep it simple and a straight line. Apart from (a big issue) disposal of spoil and some air shafts there'd be little to show on the surface after work was completed. Any other route development will send all sorts of pressure groups wild.

.

Ah, currently a maximum of 2 trains an hour carrying 5 or 6 passengers each. Time for bed, we should be closing all railways .........................

 

[HSTEd]

Some said the M25 wasn't needed, look at it now - well, look at it 3 months ago. Good projects create their own demand.

14tph each way of high capacity rolling stock could handle any reasonable demand for decades upon decades.
And thats without esoteric solutions requiring larger loading gauges on the connecting lines.

Also you end up at right angles to the existing Sheffield station in an area full of subterranean messes like the River Sheaf.

How about a slightly less aggressive base tunnel from vicinityAshburys or Belle Vue to vicinity Dore, with a dog leg to Chinley?
It avoids tearing down half of central Sheffield and Manchester, still slashes the journey time and also slashes journey times to Buxton etc.

 

[Killingworth]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we can't even get bi-directional signalling and point work to improve resilience and flexibility through the two platforms to be provided at Dore from 2023, hopefully.

 

[Jozhua]

Time to develop and submit bids, Fairly evaluating the tenders, selecting a preferred bidder, final negotiations on the detail, Agreeing and signing Contracts, Due Diligence, Authorising use of funds....

None of which happens overnight and is certainly not "sitting around" (a very insulting term to the office folk who make this all happen)

I mean I assume that's what people do in offices, sitting around, unless they have standing desks?

Tbh, you can see people's frustrations with it all though, the Midlands (Sheffield, Chesterfield, Derby, Nottingham, Leicester) and North West (Manchester, Liverpool, Lancashire & above) have to rely on paltry two express trains an hour between each other, both of which are pretty slow, especially if you're heading south of Sheffield and have to do the same four miles up to the city centre twice! They also tend to be three-four coaches and overcrowded, although Transpennine Express has improved this in recent months.

I think we'd all be less frustrated if we saw shovels and boots on the ground at least resolving these issues if/when they come up, rather than chatting about the possibility of them happening...(we can all do that for free here!)

Then budget wise, the longer the consultation goes on for, the more is spent on that and the less money is available for actually improving the railways!

Sure, there are complex operational challenges to deal with, and I'm sure there are less than trivial situations that may not be so obvious on the surface... but this sums up pretty much every industry/project!

Obviously that isn't to completely diminish the skill involved, but this project's complexity is lower than that of other railway schemes across the country taking place in recent years. We literally built a rail tunnel under the ocean! A passing loop and extra platform can't be that hard.

At this point you'd start to think its about money and will, rather than the actual difficulty of the project.

 

[edwin_m]

It’s radical, but I wouldn’t rule it out completely. The issue is what to do with all the capacity it creates, which means doing expensive things at either end. I suspect there’s also some ‘interesting’ geology on the way

AKA, don't go anywhere near the Mam Tor beds... I think Cowburn Tunnel is below them so maybe a base tunnel would be OK in that respect.

 

[cle]

Somebody mentioned it earlier, but could they not just go for a full closure (3 months? 6?) - build the platforms, loops, signalling - anything else like more doubling or even some exploratory future-proofing for wires - if not wires themselves.

Appreciate there is no electrification on the Dore side to connect to, but hey, if it's closed, we should discuss. Why not take it up to at least Doncaster? Bi-modes on the Cleethorpes and some electric stoppers from Manchester.

Better than the gulf before Market Harborough, sadly... and that should be an MML project!

 

[Meerkat]

The base tunnels in the Alps are justified by them connecting a whole country (Italy) to the industries and ports of Northern Europe. A South Pennines base tunnel connects a few regional (geographically) services.

 

[HSTEd]

The base tunnels in the Alps are justified by them connecting a whole country (Italy) to the industries and ports of Northern Europe. A South Pennines base tunnel connects a few regional (geographically) services.

Not every base tunnel can really claim connecting an entire country can it?
There are multiple Trans Alps axis, each with one or more base tunnels.

One base tunnel is so heavily trafficked its partially single track!

Then there are the minor base tunnels that are still 15km long.
Including one for a single track narrow gauge railway (Furka base tunnel)

 

[apk55]

The base tunnels in the Alps are justified by them connecting a whole country (Italy) to the industries and ports of Northern Europe. A South Pennines base tunnel connects a few regional (geographically) services.

If you wanted more capacity on the line another option would be to reopen the Buxton Matlock line. Most of the freight traffic could use this route and it would also offer an improved passenger service from the North West to East Midlands (which is very slow at present). This has been disused elseware

 

[Meerkat]

Not every base tunnel can really claim connecting an entire country can it?
There are multiple Trans Alps axis, each with one or more base tunnels.

One base tunnel is so heavily trafficked its partially single track!

Then there are the minor base tunnels that are still 15km long.
Including one for a single track narrow gauge railway (Furka base tunnel)

But the principle of all of them is connecting Italy to the north, and Switzerland is very keen on them taking the huge number of lorries that drive right across their country.
A South Pennine base tunnel has very limited potential in comparison.

 

[HSTEd]

But the principle of all of them is connecting Italy to the north, and Switzerland is very keen on them taking the huge number of lorries that drive right across their country.
A South Pennine base tunnel has very limited potential in comparison.

The base tunnels in aggregate carry more traffic than a South Pennine base tunnel does, but in aggregate they also cost a more than a south pennine base tunnel system would cost.

People aren't proposing three independent south pennine travel axes.
Also I'd argue that the potential traffic on the tunnel is enormous given the large populations at each end, and the limited alternative transport links.

Driving across the pennines in that region is not fun.

 

[Meerkat]

The base tunnels in aggregate carry more traffic than a South Pennine base tunnel does, but in aggregate they also cost a more than a south pennine base tunnel system would cost.

People aren't proposing three independent south pennine travel axes.
Also I'd argue that the potential traffic on the tunnel is enormous given the large populations at each end, and the limited alternative transport links.

Driving across the pennines in that region is not fun.

Individually they will carry more surely - each is effectively a rolling road from Germany/Holland to Italy.
Enormous? What large populations are these and how many of them need to cross the Pennines?
There is definitely a need for improvement but no way it could justify base tunnel scale expenditure!

Unless I finally get my freight railway from the Channel Tunnel, round the East of London to pick up the East Coast Container traffic, and on via a base tunnel to Manchester. But then even that is more like to go via the West Midlands and up the west side of the Pennines!

 

[quantinghome]

The base tunnels in the Alps are justified by them connecting a whole country (Italy) to the industries and ports of Northern Europe. A South Pennines base tunnel connects a few regional (geographically) services.

They are also justified by there being no viable alternative. You can't go around the Alps. Like the bear hunt, you have to go through it. By contrast if you wanted to make a big improvement to the Sheffield-Manchester service you could probably upgrade or parallel the line via Dore and Hope Valley to a decent speed (say 125mph) to get the same sort of benefits as a fully tunnelled route.

 

[HSTEd]

Individually they will carry more surely - each is effectively a rolling road from Germany/Holland to Italy.

The Lötschberg Base Tunnel that has a 21km single track section in it, and has done since it opened over a decade ago?

The Gotthard tunnel is heavily trafficked, but in order to use it you also need the Zimmerberg and Ceneri base tunnels.
That is something like 80+km of route of tunnel on that axis.

Enormous? What large populations are these and how many of them need to cross the Pennines?

2.7 million people in the Manchester urban area, 1.2 million in the Sheffield urban area, another three quarters of a million in the Nottingham urban area?

And however many of them need to cross the pennines is an irrelevance.
The important thing is how many can be convinced that they want to cross the pennines.
Put Sheffield less than half an hour from central Manchester, and traffic will explode

There is definitely a need for improvement but no way it could justify base tunnel scale expenditure!

Given the extraordinarily low costs of borrowing, any improvement that requires significant increase in operational expenditures will cost about as much as the tunnel options with the asme operational expenditures.
The tunnel will cost essentially nothing over it's life!
Government debt rates, despite massive upticks in government borrowing remain lower than inflation.

Unless I finally get my freight railway from the Channel Tunnel, round the East of London to pick up the East Coast Container traffic, and on via a base tunnel to Manchester. But then even that is more like to go via the West Midlands and up the west side of the Pennines!

The overhead wiring in the Channel Tunnel is too low for it to ever be a reasonable container transport route without major work.
It doesn't meet AAR Plate H and is thus pretty much useless. (The wire is under 5.9m above the rail, AAR Plate H is ~6.15m clearance so you want a wire height of something like ~6.5m)

They are also justified by there being no viable alternative. You can't go around the Alps. Like the bear hunt, you have to go through it. By contrast if wanted to make a big improvement to the Sheffield-Manchester service you could probably upgrade or parallel the line via Dore and Hope Valley to a decent speed (say 125mph) to get the same sort of benefits as a fully tunnelled route.

You ain't getting 125mph out of Hope Valley unless you've invented inertial compensators.

 

[Revaulx]

Individually they will carry more surely - each is effectively a rolling road from Germany/Holland to Italy.
Enormous? What large populations are these and how many of them need to cross the Pennines?
There is definitely a need for improvement but no way it could justify base tunnel scale expenditure!

What though?

Sorting out Dore (even better: restoring the whole pre-70s rationalisation layout south of Sheffield) is the easy bit. To the west there's a line snaking through pretty and (rightly) protected countryside and tunnels that apparently need lots of work. West of that, the fast route into Manchester was lost decades ago. Even were it restored, there's nowhere to send the trains in the city centre, unless Central is also reopened. The Hazel Grove Chord and Stockport are slow and already congested.

Re-opening Woodhead would just create another snaking route, with similar issues regarding entry into Manchester and much harder ones at the Sheffield end.

 

[Killingworth]

They are also justified by there being no viable alternative. You can't go around the Alps. Like the bear hunt, you have to go through it. By contrast if wanted to make a big improvement to the Sheffield-Manchester service you could probably upgrade or parallel the line via Dore and Hope Valley to a decent speed (say 125mph) to get the same sort of benefits as a fully tunnelled route.

The Peak District National Park is a major barrier to anything betweeen Manchester and the east, be it even modest improvements to the Hope Valley line, reinstatement of Woodhead or the Chinley to Matlock route. Paralleling the Hope Valley line on the surface is not going to happen, and certainly not at 125mph.

For now it's this scheme or nothing.

My fanciful idea might work out relatively cheaper than it may seem if we avoided decades of proposals for smaller schemes, with multiple consultations and public inquiries for very small incremental improvements. Going for the big one to get the job done won't happen, so it's back to where we are with all the faults.

It's too late to make any significant changes to the present scheme now tenders for the work are due in.

What the current crisis will do to boost or kill the Beeching reopening project remains a subject for another thread, but that might bring a re-opening of that Buxton - Matlock section. On the timescales seen here I'd estimate a 2035 completion date at best.

 

[Bald Rick]

The base tunnels in the Alps are justified by them connecting a whole country (Italy) to the industries and ports of Northern Europe. A South Pennines base tunnel connects a few regional (geographically) services.

A South Pennines Tunnel would connect the People’s Republic of Yorkshire to the rest of civilisation.

 

[quantinghome]

The Peak District National Park is a major barrier to anything betweeen Manchester and the east, be it even modest improvements to the Hope Valley line, reinstatement of Woodhead or the Chinley to Matlock route. Paralleling the Hope Valley line on the surface is not going to happen, and certainly not at 125mph.

Clearly the National Park complicates the planning process, but as you say this would be the case for any Manchester-Sheffield improvement, road or rail, unless you tunnel the whole thing which will never happen (even if you can borrow the money for free you've still got engineering resources to consider). So at some point someone is going to have to decide to build new infrastructure within the National Park. With surface realignments and some smaller scale tunnelling wouldn't a route via Hope Valley work?

 

[InOban]

The Lötschberg Base Tunnel that has a 21km single track section in it, and has done since it opened over a decade ago?

The Gotthard tunnel is heavily trafficked, but in order to use it you also need the Zimmerberg and Ceneri base tunnels.
That is something like 80+km of route of tunnel on that axis.



2.7 million people in the Manchester urban area, 1.2 million in the Sheffield urban area, another three quarters of a million in the Nottingham urban area?

And however many of them need to cross the pennines is an irrelevance.
The important thing is how many can be convinced that they want to cross the pennines.
Put Sheffield less than half an hour from central Manchester, and traffic will explode


Given the extraordinarily low costs of borrowing, any improvement that requires significant increase in operational expenditures will cost about as much as the tunnel options with the asme operational expenditures.
The tunnel will cost essentially nothing over it's life!
Government debt rates, despite massive upticks in government borrowing remain lower than inflation.



The overhead wiring in the Channel Tunnel is too low for it to ever be a reasonable container transport route without major work.
It doesn't meet AAR Plate H and is thus pretty much useless. (The wire is under 5.9m above the rail, AAR Plate H is ~6.15m clearance so you want a wire height of something like ~6.5m)



You ain't getting 125mph out of Hope Valley unless you've invented inertial compensators.

Edit
Power is delivered to the locomotives via an overhead line (catenary)[79] at 25 kV 50 Hz.[80] with a normal overhead clearance of 6.3 metres (20 ft 8 in).[81] All tunnel services run on electricity, shared equally from English and French sources. There are two sub-stations fed at 400 kV at each terminal, but in an emergency the tunnel's lighting (about 20,000 light fittings) and plant can be powered solely from either England or France.[82]

The Shuttles are restricted to Tunnel operations because they are out of gauge anywhere else.

 

[HSTEd]

Edit
Power is delivered to the locomotives via an overhead line (catenary)[79] at 25 kV 50 Hz.[80] with a normal overhead clearance of 6.3 metres (20 ft 8 in).[81] All tunnel services run on electricity, shared equally from English and French sources. There are two sub-stations fed at 400 kV at each terminal, but in an emergency the tunnel's lighting (about 20,000 light fittings) and plant can be powered solely from either England or France.[82]

The Shuttles are restricted to Tunnel operations because they are out of gauge anywhere else.

Documentation I found indicates a contact wire height of about 5.87m.
#
If the contact wire height was 6.3m, we would have expected a taller shuttle train as that would increase the fraction of vehicles that could be carried on the double deck portion.

So at some point someone is going to have to decide to build new infrastructure within the National Park. With surface realignments and some smaller scale tunnelling wouldn't a route via Hope Valley work?

If you don't mind demolishing several villages/small towns and buildnig huge viaducts, cuttings and embankments, yes.

But at that point the engineering and political resources of the tunnel solution start to look reasonable.

The railway wasnt built the way it was because the Victorians were incompetent, it was built because it was essentially forced to follow that route by the terrain.
Our superior earthmoving would allow a purely cost optimised railway to be built to a higher speed profile, but int he middle of a national park, with villages sprouting up around the railway, this becomes rapidly untenable.

Then we add in the cost escalation caused by working on a live railway.

As the HS2 saga has demonstrated, the cost multiplier for tunnels versus surface construction are the smallest they have ever been in human history.
Just look at the Woodsmith Tunnel for the polyhalite mine in the dales.