MML Electrification: could it lead to extensions, such as Hope Valley or towards Leeds/Doncaster?

[zwk500]

But will it be considered, agreed and done in good time prior to electrification? Or will cost of reconfiguring be a reason not to electrify, or electrification be given as the reason for inadequate reconfiguration?

Electrification will likely trigger resignalling, which would trigger a revision of the layout. Given that the current one is clearly not fit for purpose, remodelling would be highly likely.

 

[Killingworth]

The TPE set is on P1B, at the northern end, beyond the points. Trains aren't usually let into P1A if P1B is occupied. I know this from past experience of waiting for the semi-fast from Nottingham, which is timed to arrive after the TPE to Cleethorpes. What happens now (at 5pm, anyway) is that the TPE pulls into P2, the semi-fast into P1A and the XC into P2. But yes, some of the pointwork at Sheffield is... odd.

I may have transposed my As and Bs, north and south, but the basic problems remain.

The platform lengths are there but can't be fully utilised by shorter trains without major reconfiguring of tracks, points, and signalling through the station and considering approach tracks out to Dore and Meadowhall. Also bearing in mind Sheffield station is mostly built on 150 year old arches above the confluence of the River Sheaf and Porter Brook. The adjacent swimming centre isn't called Ponds Forge without reason - it was a very wet area.before the railway arrived.

 

[bluelagoon8951]

The older bridge used for railway barrows is unsuitable for regular alternative passenger use (when lifts break down) but may also to too low.

i assume you mean the one slightly south of the current passenger bridge? no way is that ever being opened for passenger use - we absolutely need it to be exclusive for transport of refreshments trolleys, cleaners, restocking vehicles, etc. there's very high service traffic on that bridge, opening it for passenger use would ruin staff's ability to do their jobs. it would also be a safety hazard - the floor in there is really uneven, and there's nowhere else to put a lot of the stuff strewn about the floor.

i don't think it's too low for electrification clearance though.

 

[zwk500]

i don't think it's too low for electrification clearance though.

Agreed, a Class 195 is 3.8m and the OLE height can go down to around 4.2m, looking at the picture in #29 upthread there's more than half a metre clearance.

 

[Killingworth]

Electrification will likely trigger resignalling, which would trigger a revision of the layout. Given that the current one is clearly not fit for purpose, remodelling would be highly likely.

And that's my point. It needs redesigning and as fully future proofing as possible to allow for early traffic growth and the electrification to be as simple as possible before desired onward additions to Leeds and Doncaster.

Manchester may be a lot longer coming - only needs from Dore to Hazel Grove but through Totley, Cowburn and Disley Tunnels.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 May 2023 ==

i assume you mean the one slightly south of the current passenger bridge? no way is that ever being opened for passenger use - we absolutely need it to be exclusive for transport of refreshments trolleys, cleaners, restocking vehicles, etc. there's very high service traffic on that bridge, opening it for passenger use would ruin staff's ability to do their jobs. it would also be a safety hazard - the floor in there is really uneven, and there's nowhere else to put a lot of the stuff strewn about the floor.

i don't think it's too low for electrification clearance though.

Yes, and relieved to hear raising that at least is unlikely to be an issue. I know wheelchairs sometimes get sent that way when a normal passenger footbridge lift breaks down.

Planning any new public access footbridge/s will be a pain as the station is a listed building - and that may complicate any other major structural work.

 

[BrianW]

Reverting to 'the question' as in the thread title- could? Yes. Should? Maybe. Will? Probably not.

Where are most current users of Sheffield station coming from/ going to? London?

Future/ potential customers? Penistone? Manchester? Leeds? Lincoln?

As noted upthread- completion of MML between St Pancras and Sheffield must be priority. Leeds- London is to/from KX. Manchester-London Euston.

IF Sheffield- London via Retford or Stockport were to become quicker, maybe a different calculation. Likely??

 

[Western Sunset]

Is there any chance that Toadmoor Tunnel at Ambergate could be opened out? Due to limited clearances, this already precludes Freightliner traffic from taking the direct route between Clay Cross and Stenson Jn via Derby.

Re-the point above about Sheff - London traffic. The route via Retford and the ECML was, during one period, the premier route between those cities, taken by the "Master Cutler" Pullman.

 

[zwk500]

Is there any chance that Toadmoor Tunnel at Ambergate could be opened out? Due to limited clearances, this already precludes Freightliner traffic from taking the direct route between Clay Cross and Stenson Jn via Derby.

Extremely unlikely, there'd be an awful lot of woods lost and a reasonable amount of spoil to move. Track lowering may be feasible though.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Capacity concerns and access to Castle Donnington are bigger reasons to send freight via the Erewash than the tunnel though. And the Tunnel will need to be sorted for OLE as part of the confirmed MML project, so doesn't really affect this thread.

 

[YorksLad12]

I've been trying to find SMISM (Sheffield Midland Integrated Station Masterplan) to see what it said about remodelling Sheffield, but I suspect that as it was from 2018 they were still thinking that HS2 would come in somewhere at some point.

 

[Killingworth]

I've been trying to find SMISM (Sheffield Midland Integrated Station Masterplan) to see what it said about remodelling Sheffield, but I suspect that as it was from 2018 they were still thinking that HS2 would come in somewhere at some point.

Is this what you're looking for; https://southyorkshire-ca.gov.uk/ge...4a9-7133ebc37c30/SCR_Integrated_Rail_Plan.pdf

Brave talk that seems quite dated already.

 

[YorksLad12]

Is this what you're looking for; https://southyorkshire-ca.gov.uk/ge...4a9-7133ebc37c30/SCR_Integrated_Rail_Plan.pdf

Brave talk that seems quite dated already.

No - that was one I did find, but I was looking for something from 2018. It's the one that suggests sending traffic via the current tram route east of the station, while diverting trams to run on the road to the west (among other things). Think it's a Network Rail document. I'll have a copy somewhere

 

[Killingworth]

No - that was one I did find, but I was looking for something from 2018. It's the one that suggests sending traffic via the current tram route east of the station, while diverting trams to run on the road to the west (among other things). Think it's a Network Rail document. I'll have a copy somewhere

So not this one either, SHEFFIELD CITY REGION TRANSPORT STRATEGY 2018 - 2040?

I'll keep digging, I must have it.

The Network Rail, Yorkshire and Humber Route Utilisation Strategy July 2009 is also interesting.

Then there's Sheffield Transport Strategy, June 2018,

But the one we want is SHEFFIELD MIDLAND STATION AND SHEAF VALLEY Development Framework here; https://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/documents/s38895/Midland%20Station%20Development%20Framework%20Summary.pdf

How quickly these plans get overtaken by events.

 

[YorksLad12]

How quickly these plans get overtaken by events.

Yup. Grey to Green happened though.

The Atkins reports has the SMISM stuff I was thinking of, with the road/tram diversions. You'd have to cut out a lot of traffic to make that work, and the locals will not be happy even with what's left!

 

[Verulamius]

Networkrail produced last year a refresh of their long term planning document for Sheffield.

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/regional-long-term-planning/Eastern/Sheffield%20Area%20Strategic%20Advice%20Refresh%202022.pdf

Conclusion
The three scenarios shown in this refresh show there’s still a clear need to explore what interventions are required to support a reliable train service in the Sheffield area that truly puts passengers and freight operators first. All three scenarios presented are plausible future states and highlight the high number of movements in the area.
The work underway on the short-term ‘no regrets’ interventions will make positive improvements to capability at Sheffield Midland by allowing more flexible use of platforms and being able to accommodate longer rolling stock, but these smaller interventions will not be able to support the increase in services desired in the Sheffield area in the long-term. The IRP’s recommendation of three-tracking the line between Sheffield Midland and Dore & Totley station is likely to go some way to accommodating the increase in services to the south, but there are no known committed enhancements to the line north of Sheffield Midland to accommodate the desired future services to support economic growth, connectivity and sustainable travel choices.
It should be noted that, during conversations with stakeholders, there are aspirations over and above the service provision Sheffield currently provides and even shown in the scenarios in this report, such as increasing the Sheffield to Huddersfield via Penistone to 2tph. Whilst there are other constraints, it’s clear that finding capacity at Sheffield Midland and Nunnery Main Line junction would be challenging and likely mean this service enhancement cannot be realised, unless at the expense of another.

Recommendations
It is this report’s firm recommendation that further development work at Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) stage and beyond is progressed so that a clear future baseline for Sheffield’s train services is identified and interventions developed to support this over the next thirty years.
This report makes a number of subordinate recommendations that may form part of further development work at SOBC stage or beyond, as appropriate:
1. It’s recommended that the SOBC explores whether one or a combination of the following options are the most beneficial for the Sheffield area:
• The interventions recommended in the 2019 Sheffield Area strategic advice
• The extension of the tram-train network
• The building of a new station at Sheffield Victoria
• The development of new options identified in subsequent workstreams
2. It’s recommended that the SOBC investigates whether the three tracking of the line south of Sheffield Midland provides sufficient capacity for planned future services.
3. It's recommended that this progression to SOBC stage is done quickly, so that it can provide certainty to the industry and start to inform other workstreams that are ongoing or soon to be starting.
• In particular, the Midland Main Line electrification programme has a design-freeze date of 2025 and with a potential delivery date in the early 2030s.
• Further development stages should be looking to inform the electrification programme with more certainty of a preferred layout of Sheffield Midland and the route to the south, and looking to identify potential synergies in delivery.
4. It’s recommended that opportunities are sought to deliver other programs, such as the electrification of the network north of Sheffield and delivery of ETCS, to increase the performance of the network and benefits, whilst minimising disruption to rail users.
5. It’s recommended that certainty is given whether a new station is necessary at Sheffield Victoria to support the area, and if so a connectivity study is undertaken as part of the SOBC to identify what potential impact this might have on passenger flows and demand.
6. It’s recommended that the Department for Transport depots and stabling strategy incorporates the findings of the 2020 Depots and Stabling strategic advice.

 

[Chester1]

I'm often asked when the Hope Valley line will be electrified - official suggestions of after the MML. No chance in my lifetime is my usual sad response.

I am in my early 30s and healthy but I am not sure it will happen in my lifetime either!

If you include the pre Hazel Grove chord route as Hope Valley Line then electrification from Ardwick to New Mills Central (and Rose Hill) might be a contender after TRU and CLC. There isn't an obvious need to prioritise Hope Valley until its necessary to run long distance trains.

 

[bluelagoon8951]

this is very much getting off topic and towards hoping something could happen (sorry mods!) but imo the service between liverpool, manchester, and sheffield (3 close together, big, important northern cities) is currently woeful. they deserve a high speed, frequent, electric service. the problem is that most of hope valley is absolutely unsuitable for 100mph+ running, which means a whole new line would have to be built for an actually sufficient service between the cities

 

[D365]

... which means a whole new line would have to be built for an actually sufficient service between the cities

I'll prepare to check 'Woodhead' off my speculative discussions bingo card

 

[Killingworth]

I'll prepare to check 'Woodhead' off my speculative discussions bingo card

And a totally new base tunnel running straight from Sheffield below Piccadilly and out towards Liverpool with a deep station under Glossop, no curves or gradients and 20-25 minute journey time. Call it CrossPennineLink. Open it as the William Line, although George Line may be optimistic at the current speed of rail investment projects.

Back on topic, electrification of services between Dore (which won't be electrified much before 2035, if that) and Hazel Grove will be debated for another 10 years or more. Via Marple and Guide Bridge too Each suggestion will bring feasibility studies, costings, consultations and possibly public inquiries - and nothing much will hapen on the ground

First it's necessary to adequatrly electrify down the Sheaf and Don Valleys before wires can connect with Leeds and Doncaster..These bits are vital to future proof all else.

 

[Chester1]

this is very much getting off topic and towards hoping something could happen (sorry mods!) but imo the service between liverpool, manchester, and sheffield (3 close together, big, important northern cities) is currently woeful. they deserve a high speed, frequent, electric service. the problem is that most of hope valley is absolutely unsuitable for 100mph+ running, which means a whole new line would have to be built for an actually sufficient service between the cities

Piccadilly to Sheffield could be reduce to a about 45 minutes without a new alignment. Electrification would help but also ending the slow crawls around Stockport and south of Sheffield. Liverpool - Sheffield went to half hourly in December but both services use CLC route.

 

[islandmonkey]

this is very much getting off topic and towards hoping something could happen (sorry mods!) but imo the service between liverpool, manchester, and sheffield (3 close together, big, important northern cities) is currently woeful. they deserve a high speed, frequent, electric service. the problem is that most of hope valley is absolutely unsuitable for 100mph+ running, which means a whole new line would have to be built for an actually sufficient service between the cities

Whatever the proposal, the Peaks will never go away. Road travel Sheffield to Manchester is just as bad as the rail travel. Actually, the road travel is probably worse...I'm looking at you Mottram Moor!

But the point is that you can't change physical geography and the fact that it's a national park surely makes development difficult politically.

 

[Bartsimho]

Whatever the proposal, the Peaks will never go away. Road travel Sheffield to Manchester is just as bad as the rail travel. Actually, the road travel is probably worse...I'm looking at you Mottram Moor!

But the point is that you can't change physical geography and the fact that it's a national park surely makes development difficult politically.

The fact that Road travel is probably worse should be a reason to electrify the route as then it is by far the best option to take between the major centres.

 

[Killingworth]

The fact that Road travel is probably worse should be a reason to electrify the route as then it is by far the best option to take between the major centres.

All the items linked to my post #42 effectively accept that. Electrification is planned in a fairly abstract inevitable future.

The snags arre hard to resolve. Cost is inevitably high on the list. At least wiring through the long, wet, Victorian tunnels hasn't salt water serping through like the Severn tunnel.

How to keep traffic flowing while tunnels are wired is challenging. Shutting the line completely for weeks is unthinkable.. Closing Totley and Cowburn tunnels alternately would still add major difficultiex for the quarries and cement works. Blockades for passenger traffic would inevitably be very disruptive.

Mission creep? Rebore the tunnels on parallel alignments to larger modern standatd freight gauges with the current tunnels remaining available? They did that with Woodhead. A lot cheaper than a new high speed base tunnel, but still very expensive and a lot of blockades to achieve even this.

Such major construction in the Peak Park would inevitably meet opposition, as will masts along the Hope Valley. This will not be an easy project, which is why it's likely to remain on the back burner for some time. Other carbon reduction schemes will bring better returns.

 

[zwk500]

All the items linked to my post #42 effectively accept that. Electrification is planned in a fairly abstract inevitable future.

The snags arre hard to resolve. Cost is inevitably high on the list. At least wiring through the long, wet, Victorian tunnels hasn't salt water serping through like the Severn tunnel.

How to keep traffic flowing while tunnels are wired is challenging. Shutting the line completely for weeks is unthinkable.. Closing Totley and Cowburn tunnels alternately would still add major difficultiex for the quarries and cement works. Blockades for passenger traffic would inevitably be very disruptive.

Mission creep? Rebore the tunnels on parallel alignments to larger modern standatd freight gauges with the current tunnels remaining available? They did that with Woodhead. A lot cheaper than a new high speed base tunnel, but still very expensive and a lot of blockades to achieve even this.

Such major construction in the Peak Park would inevitably meet opposition, as will masts along the Hope Valley. This will not be an easy project, which is why it's likely to remain on the back burner for some time. Other carbon reduction schemes will bring better returns.

They managed the Severn tunnel, so the Hope Valley tunnels should be possible. Depends how much needs doing, of course.

by far the biggest issue for the Hope Valley is that there's little benefit to doing anything to improve capacity on the line until you unjam both ends of the pipe.

 

[Killingworth]

They managed the Severn tunnel, so the Hope Valley tunnels should be possible. Depends how much needs doing, of course.

by far the biggest issue for the Hope Valley is that there's little benefit to doing anything to improve capacity on the line until you unjam both ends of the pipe.

Doubling the Hazel Grove chord and adding a third track down the Sheaf Valley are two specific capacity issues identifiad for attention in the various plans already produced.

However to increase passenger capacity between Sheffirld and Manchester making half hourly fsst services up to consistent 6 car should suffice for the next few years, possibly supplemented by stoppers made up to 4 car, and/or run half hourly* at peak periods.

Electrification irself won't significantly increase capacity.

*The current stopper requires 3 diagrams. The New Mills Central hourly service requires 2. Extendiing that to Sheffield would need only one eztra diagram and no extra paths into Piccadilly. Threading it along the Hope and Sheaf Valleys (skip stops, looping?) plus platforming at Sheffield would still need attention but a lot cheaper than an extra hourly fast service. Another advantage would be to offer back up when the fasts go missing east of Manchester or beyoind Sheffield.

 

[bluelagoon8951]

this is going to be controversial but.... third rail would work ok in the hope valley (when looked at out of context) i think. i know it's been decades since third rail was added to anything, but hope valley trains will never need to go above 100mph, and it would cause so much less disruption.

the problems arise when you consider level crossings, but especially that you would need bi/tri-mode units, unless you wanted services that exclusively run sheffield - picadilly and back.

either way, yeah electrifying hope valley is going to be a pain and i think if anything is going to happen in a reasonable amount of time, all the inquiries and consultations and other preliminary stuff needs to start happening now

 

[zwk500]

this is going to be controversial but.... third rail would work ok in the hope valley (when looked at out of context) i think. i know it's been decades since third rail was added to anything, but hope valley trains will never need to go above 100mph, and it would cause so much less disruption.

the problems arise when you consider level crossings, but especially that you would need bi/tri-mode units, unless you wanted services that exclusively run sheffield - picadilly and back.

either way, yeah electrifying hope valley is going to be a pain and i think if anything is going to happen in a reasonable amount of time, all the inquiries and consultations and other preliminary stuff needs to start happening now

Why would you have 1 line of completely isolated different system?

 

[HSTEd]

Networkrail produced last year a refresh of their long term planning document for Sheffield.

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/regional-long-term-planning/Eastern/Sheffield%20Area%20Strategic%20Advice%20Refresh%202022.pdf

That report makes it sound like Sheffield Midland is reaching the hard limits on its capability.

Makes you wonder if that much decried Meadowhall HS2 plan was such a bad one after all.....

 

[bluelagoon8951]

Why would you have 1 line of completely isolated different system?

that's why i said when looked at out of context, and gave required context later on!

 

[Chester1]

That report makes it sound like Sheffield Midland is reaching the hard limits on its capability.

Makes you wonder if that much decried Meadowhall HS2 plan was such a bad one after all.....

Electrification and resignalling will squeeze out more capacity but Sheffield is heading towards a Leeds situation where upgrades are pushing up against practical limits. I wonder if once Sheffield is electrified and resignalled, that the original HS2 Eastern branch plan will be revisited. If HS2 reaches East Midlands Parkway in about 10-15 years time the limits of the current infrastructure in Sheffield may have already been reached.

I would personally benefit from Hope Valley being prioritised after electrification reaching Sheffield but extending to Leeds and Doncaster is more important. Perhaps Barrow Hill line too if services need to be diverted away from Dore to Sheffield. Electrifying Hope Valley would mostly just allow the propulsion system of current services to be changed enabling slightly faster journey times. Unless the approaches into Sheffield (from both north and south) are improved there won't be many new services on Hope Valley.

 

[Philip]

Before electrification starts on the Hope Valley, it would ease capacity if Dore Station was made into a loop; so a junction off the existing single track just south of the platform to join the MML as it by-passes the station to the east. This would provide an opportunity to hold a stopping service in the loop if a fast train is close behind; likewise a freight. Freight currently booked to use the bottleneck South Curve could instead go via Sheffield and Beighton and use the loop to let anything catching up overtake.