• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

£48m boost for Penistone line service doubling and capacity increases

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,788
Location
North
I do wonder if this is quite possibly why the line is to be upgraded

Well it certainly wont be covering electrification!

Which begs the question what sort of trains can we expect to see ? I think the line would be idea for 170s although theyre unlikely to be redeployed unless the Harrogate line is upgraded and electrified!
When cancelled HS2 money was reasigned to Northern levelling up, I wrote to the DfT suggesting £120M (costed in 2016 at £99M) to electrify the Harrogate Loop which would mop up redundant 323s reducing journey times by 1 minute per station stop on acceleration alone, release 9 diesel units, increase iine speed to 75mph and allow London trains to operate on electric.
The reply was an emphatic NO.
What hopeless times we live in without common sense.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,500
By the time this line is upgraded the upgrade of Huddersfield should well be on the way if not completed. Which I believe does include lengthening platform 2.

I have also previously wondered post upgrade of running terminating services straight through Huddersfield and terminating them beyond some where such as Lockwood. Removing the need to change at Huddersfield would certainly make travelling by rail much more attractive. With this additional upgrade you could potentially double the line all the way to Lockwood and reinstate the second platform and turn services back there although I would slew the existing line over so that turnback services could be completely segregated from Penistone line services.

The other problem you have is that such a service pattern would create conflicts on the flat at Huddersfield. The slow lines from the east will arrive on the high numbered/sidings side, with the fast lines nearest the main station building. Unless you want to run a Lockwood to Newcastle or whatever then you're undoing the benefits being delivered in TRU.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
5,702
Location
Sheffield
A heretical thought crosses my mind, how many free bus services could be provided for more places between Sheffield and Huddersfield for £46m? There don't seem to be many at present.
 

lachlan

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2019
Messages
1,015
A heretical thought crosses my mind, how many free bus services could be provided for more places between Sheffield and Huddersfield for £46m? There don't seem to be many at present.
That would be an ongoing cost whereas the £48m funding is one off
 

fishwomp

Member
Joined
5 Jan 2020
Messages
895
Location
milton keynes
A heretical thought crosses my mind, how many free bus services could be provided for more places between Sheffield and Huddersfield for £46m? There don't seem to be many at present.
You might be able to run some connectors into the rail services, but can you provide an example you had in mind of somewhere that needs it but that doesn't today have a bus service to a station on the route.
There is also the problem that this grant is for one off but for recurring subsidy.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
18,558
Location
Yorkshire
When cancelled HS2 money was reasigned to Northern levelling up, I wrote to the DfT suggesting £120M (costed in 2016 at £99M) to electrify the Harrogate Loop which would mop up redundant 323s reducing journey times by 1 minute per station stop on acceleration alone, release 9 diesel units, increase iine speed to 75mph and allow London trains to operate on electric.
The reply was an emphatic NO.
What hopeless times we live in without common sense.
Whilst I'm not going to defend the Department for Transport as a Paragon of Wisdom, the fact that they didn't immediately follow the advice of a random letter is hardly a condemnation. They probably get dozens of letters and emails from ordinary people with a bee in their bonnet about a particular pet scheme of theirs... if they'd done anything more than a simple "thanks but no thanks" that really would be newsworthy. I'm slightly disappointed they didn't ask for tips on how to get wires up so cheaply though!
The other problem you have is that such a service pattern would create conflicts on the flat at Huddersfield. The slow lines from the east will arrive on the high numbered/sidings side, with the fast lines nearest the main station building. Unless you want to run a Lockwood to Newcastle or whatever then you're undoing the benefits being delivered in TRU.
This is one of the reasons there wasn't a through service towards Leeds in recent years, despite there being one towards Sheffield until a few years ago. Though according to discussions a couple of months back on the Trans-Pennine Upgrade thread, the arrangement of the through lines at Huddersfield station will be, from the station building, Fast, Slow, Fast, Slow. Rather than the originally assumed Fast, Fast, Slow, Slow. Still more conflicts than you'd like for very little benefit.
 
Last edited:

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
5,702
Location
Sheffield
You might be able to run some connectors into the rail services, but can you provide an example you had in mind of somewhere that needs it but that doesn't today have a bus service to a station on the route.
There is also the problem that this grant is for one off but for recurring subsidy.

I don't live to that rural side of Sheffield, and this is a digression anyway. I hear much talk about how poor rural transport links are by bus and rail but when they're provided the car is still preferred. The volumes aren't there to justify the necessary frequency and flexilbilty of better public transport that some urban areas get.

Which is where we get back on track. If you need a car to drive to the station you then need a frequent and reliable service to go quickly to, or very near to, your ultimate destination. If it doesn't the car's going to go all the way.

I hope this expenditure will make a material difference but remain intrigued to know exactly how.
 
Last edited:

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
18,558
Location
Yorkshire
I don't live to that rural side of Sheffield, and this is a digression anyway. I hear much talk about how poor rural transport links are by bus and rail but when they're provided the car is still preferred. The volumes aren't there to justify the necessary frequency and flexilbilty of better public transport that some urban areas get.

Which is where we get back on track. If you need a car to drive to the station you then need a frequent and reliable service to go quickly to, or very near to, your ultimate destination. If it doesn't the car's going to go all the way.

I hope this expenditure will make a material difference but remain intrigued to to know exactly how.
If we had a decent integrated transport policy, I'd like to see something like a dedicated rail link bus service (with through ticketing) between Holmfirth and Honley station. The recently(-ish) vacated Team Pennine storage depot adjacent to the station would be ideal for conversion into an interchange. It's currently leased to South Pennine Community Transport, but I'm sure an alternative site for their minibuses could be found.
 

fishwomp

Member
Joined
5 Jan 2020
Messages
895
Location
milton keynes
If we had a decent integrated transport policy, I'd like to see something like a dedicated rail link bus service (with through ticketing) between Holmfirth and Honley station. The recently(-ish) vacated Team Pennine storage depot adjacent to the station would be ideal for conversion into an interchange. It's currently leased to South Pennine Community Transport, but I'm sure an alternative site for their minibuses could be found.
Google Maps suggests plenty of options for bus + train for Holmfirth - Sheffield, connecting at either Penistone, Holmfirth or Brockholes. Not too shabby at ~1h35-ish, vs 1h03 to Brockholes itself.

Other options could be the Skelmanthorpe/Clayton West population - but they're already reasonably served with Denby Dale 'interchange' IIRC.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
18,558
Location
Yorkshire
Google Maps suggests plenty of options for bus + train for Holmfirth - Sheffield, connecting at either Penistone, Holmfirth or Brockholes. Not too shabby at ~1h35-ish, vs 1h03 to Brockholes itself.

Other options could be the Skelmanthorpe/Clayton West population - but they're already reasonably served with Denby Dale 'interchange' IIRC.
They are, apart from poor connections between bus and train, and the lack of through ticketing. Your Holmfirth example isn't too bad but connections at DBD for Skelmanthorpe are poor and/or not guaranteed.

My point on the Honley thing was more that the opportunity for a proper interchange facility to be built might not come up again for another half-century or more, if all or part of the former K-Line site ends up being sold off for housing.
 

fishwomp

Member
Joined
5 Jan 2020
Messages
895
Location
milton keynes
They are, apart from poor connections between bus and train, and the lack of through ticketing. Your Holmfirth example isn't too bad but connections at DBD for Skelmanthorpe are poor and/or not guaranteed.
Currently with £2 on bus max and free concessionary travel renders through ticketing fairly moot - but DBD bus is thrice hourly: X1 which is quick and then 2 of D1 that are darn slow to Shat (distance 2 miles as crow flies-ish), but not so bad to Clayton West (which D1 goes via, first).

I was surprised that the X1 from Holmfirth wasn't recommended as Holmfirth-Sheffield option with change at DBD.
My point on the Honley thing was more that the opportunity for a proper interchange facility to be built might not come up again for another half-century or more, if all or part of the former K-Line site ends up being sold off for housing.
Yeah, but i don't think it brings much to have that. Bus needs a turning circle at Honley, no more and it can do that with the rest of the road.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
18,558
Location
Yorkshire
I was surprised that the X1 from Holmfirth wasn't recommended as Holmfirth-Sheffield option with change at DBD.
Am I right in thinking that the X1 still uses the stops on the main road in Denby Dale, rather than going up the hill to the 'Interchange' (which is a rather flattering name for a bus shelter and turning circle)? Back in Arriva days (when it was run from their Wakefield depot) it used to serve the turning circle. Up until around 2008/9 it even ran through to Leeds as (iirc) the 484.

Back vaguely on topic, better links with Holmfirth could potentially boost ridership on the line, particularly if the plan for 2tph goes ahead. It's a shame that the old branch is no longer in a state where reopening would be a realistic prospect... though that would introduce its own set of problems to solve in terms of paths between Brockholes and Huddersfield. I imagine that had Holmfirth survived into BR days, it wouldn't have suffered PTE funding cuts that did for Clayton West. It also might have tipped the scales in favour of retaining (at least some of) the double track between Stocksmoor and Huddersfield, which was lifted in the mid to late 80s after the coal traffic from Clayton West ceased.
 

eastwestdivide

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2009
Messages
2,913
Location
S Yorks, usually
Am I right in thinking that the X1 still uses the stops on the main road in Denby Dale, rather than going up the hill to the 'Interchange
No, it’s does the interchange according to the map on bustimes.org, and did so last time I used it (March ’23) and the previous time, 2022
 

fishwomp

Member
Joined
5 Jan 2020
Messages
895
Location
milton keynes
[..] I imagine that had Holmfirth survived into BR days, it wouldn't have suffered PTE funding cuts that did for Clayton West. It also might have tipped the scales in favour of retaining (at least some of) the double track between Stocksmoor and Huddersfield, which was lifted in the mid to late 80s after the coal traffic from Clayton West ceased.
The coal traffic was not the driver for double track retention into the late 80s: the Clayton West branch shut in 1983. Back in 1981, traffic on the whole line was low - 7 a day to Huddersfield/Penistone/Sheffield, and 4 a day to Clayton West - but freight would've been one or fewer per day down to Skelmanthorpe for the colliery.

However, it might've been a motivator for it being kept double when the initial Denby Dale singling happened, or just that the track didn't need replacing for a long time, and any singling between Huddersfield and Clayton West Jct would've required work. Cheaper to keep the track as it was until it needed replacing, and the funds to close Clayton West Jct box found and to create a loop all at the same time.

The daftness was that the hourly service was added at the same time that the branch got singled - or it might've been +/- one year or so: Meadowhall shopping centre opened in 1990 and I associate the addition with that, rightly or wrongly.

The single tracking was done north of Stocksmoor in April 1989. Here's a photo of a railtour in January 1989 - and a sprinter 20 years later - March 2009 - from the same place - Brockholes side of the Stocksmoor tunnel.

2020-12-03-12-AE140.jpgP3270010.jpg
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
18,558
Location
Yorkshire
Your second paragraph was more in line with my thinking- not so much that the double was required for the freight, more that the existence of the freight (and the residual passenger service) to Clayton West made the prospect of singling less desirable... at least until the track was due for replacement. Though I do believe the Holmfirth branch, had it survived, would have had a similar effect. Little or no freight traffic, but by the 1980s it would have been very competitive with the congested A616.

Great photos by the way. The second one really illustrates the extent of the track slewing that took place after singling, and shows that redoubling the line throughout would be a complex endeavour. The tunnel is called Thurstonland Tunnel, by the way- named after the village on top of it rather than the one at one end. ;)
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
8,143
Location
West Wiltshire
I see a tender award has been issued for Barnsley works
Seems to include a potential turnback

1 buyer​

1 supplier​

Description​

This work is the next steps to undertake surveys, further work with East Midlands / Network Rail which will also determine the extent of land required for any potential turnback.

Award Detail​

1 SLC Rail (Birmingham)
  • Value: £61,675

CPV Codes​

  • 45213321 - Railway station construction work

Reference​

  • 20240306083215-103835
  • CF b447e3ac-c6e0-4d4a-a017-b056335a9c70

Domains​

Status​

This tender has been awarded.
The specified contract start date is 07 Mar 2024.

History​

  • 06 Mar 2024 - Contract Award Notice

 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
18,558
Location
Yorkshire
Funding for improvements to the Penistone Line also mentioned as part of the latest tranche of "Levelling Up" funds (Link). This may well be the original funding that prompted this thread being "re-announced" as Central Government loves to do.

With regard to the Barnsley work, I thought that Barnsley station already had the ability to turn back services from the Sheffield direction (as per the former London 170 services) so is this adding the capability to turn back services from the North (either Huddersfield or Leeds)? As much as I'd welcome a second hourly service from Huddersfield to Shepley and beyond, I'm not convinced that a service to Barnsley only will attract much usage, unless it connects well with one of the semi-fast ex-Leeds services... and capacity on board those services is already at a premium due to Leeds platform 17.

Quote of the relevant part of the article linked above here:
More than £100m of Levelling Up money is set to be invested in Kirklees as major regeneration projects move forward.

Senior councillors will be asked to formally accept cash for several schemes from the government fund at a meeting next week.

Almost half of the money will be used to upgrade the Penistone railway line, which runs from Huddersfield into South Yorkshire.

The line passes through three Tory marginals, though I'm sure that will not have been a consideration behind this announcement
Apologies for quoting a six month old post, but this is a relevant point I'm sure. However with boundary changes at the next General Election this will change. For example Denby Dale and Shepley which are currently in the Dewsbury constituency (one of the Tory marginals) will be moved into the new constituency of Ossett and Denby Dale.
 
Last edited:

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
9,048
Location
West Riding
Funding for improvements to the Penistone Line also mentioned as part of the latest tranche of "Levelling Up" funds (Link). This may well be the original funding that prompted this thread being "re-announced" as Central Government loves to do.

With regard to the Barnsley work, I thought that Barnsley station already had the ability to turn back services from the Sheffield direction (as per the former London 170 services) so is this adding the capability to turn back services from the North (either Huddersfield or Leeds)? As much as I'd welcome a second hourly service from Huddersfield to Shepley and beyond, I'm not convinced that a service to Barnsley only will attract much usage, unless it connects well with one of the semi-fast ex-Leeds services... and capacity on board those services is already at a premium due to Leeds platform 17.

Quote of the relevant part of the article linked above here:



Apologies for quoting a six month old post, but this is a relevant point I'm sure. However with boundary changes at the next General Election this will change. For example Denby Dale and Shepley which are currently in the Dewsbury constituency (one of the Tory marginals) will be moved into the new constituency of Ossett and Denby Dale.
There still is a daily Sheffield-Barnsley Northern early morning service that turns back and heads South at Barnsley.

I agree that through services to Sheffield are important, both the Huddersfield stoppers and the Leeds semi-fasts have been very popular recently when I’ve been on them.
 

Halifaxlad

Established Member
Joined
5 Apr 2018
Messages
1,658
Location
The White Rose County
I'm not convinced that a service to Barnsley only will attract much usage, unless it connects well with one of the semi-fast ex-Leeds services... and capacity on board those services is already at a premium due to Leeds platform 17.

I suspect a turnback is more about creating a segregated line, as both ends would then be segregated from adjacent lines enabling a more frequent service.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
18,558
Location
Yorkshire
I suspect a turnback is more about creating a segregated line, as both ends would then be segregated from adjacent lines enabling a more frequent service.
This is true, and it also deals with the capacity issue getting into Sheffield. Don't get me wrong, a second hourly service to Barnsley only is a step in the right direction and will be useful for myself and relatives who live at the northern end of the route. My only concern is that if usage isn't great due to not serving the big draws of Meadowhall and Sheffield, the additional service could then be withdrawn... no doubt this failure would then be used as a reason to not try again even if the Sheffield problem later gets solved.
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
9,048
Location
West Riding
This is true, and it also deals with the capacity issue getting into Sheffield. Don't get me wrong, a second hourly service to Barnsley only is a step in the right direction and will be useful for myself and relatives who live at the northern end of the route. My only concern is that if usage isn't great due to not serving the big draws of Meadowhall and Sheffield, the additional service could then be withdrawn... no doubt this failure would then be used as a reason to not try again even if the Sheffield problem later gets solved.
How also would the 2tph local service be maintained between Sheffield and Barnsley? And how would that train clear the line for the following semi-fast if it didn't continue on somewhere else at Barnsley?
 

JD2168

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2022
Messages
1,368
Location
Sheffield
I suspect a turnback is more about creating a segregated line, as both ends would then be segregated from adjacent lines enabling a more frequent service.

It would be better if the suggested terminating service at Barnsley ran through to at least Meadowhall if it can’t run to Sheffield due to capacity but is there enough space on the line from Meadowhall to Barnsley to enable a fifth train per hour?

Could it even run through from Meadowhall to Doncaster using the lines past Meadowhall to cross over. Would enable an additional stopping service to Doncaster & a through train service from Barnsley to Doncaster.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
18,558
Location
Yorkshire
How also would the 2tph local service be maintained between Sheffield and Barnsley? And how would that train clear the line for the following semi-fast if it didn't continue on somewhere else at Barnsley?
I'm not sure what you're asking here- if the second Huddersfield service was to terminate at Barnsley, the service beyond there would be unchanged. Some of the funding announced today is for a study towards adding a turnback facility at Barnsley. I'm pretty sure that services from the north can already terminate and turn back in the existing platforms as this has been done previously when the line beyond Barnsley was under a possession. This would suggest that any additional facility would be in addition to the existing layout- presumably either a bay platform or a turnback siding to the south, either of which would not affect a following Sheffield service.
It would be better if the suggested terminating service at Barnsley ran through to at least Meadowhall if it can’t run to Sheffield due to capacity but is there enough space on the line from Meadowhall to Barnsley to enable a fifth train per hour?

Could it even run through from Meadowhall to Doncaster using the lines past Meadowhall to cross over. Would enable an additional stopping service to Doncaster & a through train service from Barnsley to Doncaster.
Running through to Meadowhall would certainly be better from a user point of view, and may even be a more efficient use of the additional stock that would be needed anyway for the second hourly service. Turning back beyond Meadowhall to head to Doncaster probably wouldn't be workable due to how congested the lines through Meadowhall are, and reversals away from stations are probably not desirable.
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
9,048
Location
West Riding
I'm not sure what you're asking here- if the second Huddersfield service was to terminate at Barnsley, the service beyond there would be unchanged. Some of the funding announced today is for a study towards adding a turnback facility at Barnsley. I'm pretty sure that services from the north can already terminate and turn back in the existing platforms as this has been done previously when the line beyond Barnsley was under a possession. This would suggest that any additional facility would be in addition to the existing layout- presumably either a bay platform or a turnback siding to the south, either of which would not affect a following Sheffield service.

Running through to Meadowhall would certainly be better from a user point of view, and may even be a more efficient use of the additional stock that would be needed anyway for the second hourly service. Turning back beyond Meadowhall to head to Doncaster probably wouldn't be workable due to how congested the lines through Meadowhall are, and reversals away from stations are probably not desirable.
Ah, yes I see your point now. Yes, I’ve seen a football special arrive from the North and return North thinking about it.
 

Tim_UK

Member
Joined
9 Jan 2019
Messages
174
It is worth noting that Penistone is on a mega growth spurt at the moment. There are houses going up everywhere. Just one site has 400 new homes being built right now.

The place is completely unrecognisable from 15 years ago.

(I was chatting to an old friend who has lived in Penistone for 70 years. And it has been somewhere I’ve visited every few months for the last 40 years)
 

fishwomp

Member
Joined
5 Jan 2020
Messages
895
Location
milton keynes
It is worth noting that Penistone is on a mega growth spurt at the moment. There are houses going up everywhere. Just one site has 400 new homes being built right now.
and still only the one road into the town from the north/east side, under the Woodhead line bridge, seems worse in the other direction - Penistone is literally hard to leave.
The place is completely unrecognisable from 15 years ago.
I was surprised to see the Tesco on the site of the old cattle market - I know it's been there a while but my last memory of that spot was of a bull going nuts and wrecking the farmer's car on market day, and then I spent time watching the auction, mid 1980s.

Back to rail topics :)

The new turnback seems 'interesting' to spend money on. Or rather, to spend £70k drawing up a plan for (it may not be chosen in the end). It would be good to know more about the £48M .. a turnback in Barnsley looks like a dead end to me (pun intended).

Rather than any turnback.. I'd think it better to see within current infrastructure: hourly that excludes Wombwell/Elsecar stops, and an hourly with stops there (there are a few tickets per day to stops on Penistone line - so people may now have jobs that need this). One of those - maybe the stopper, could terminate at Meadowhall, and turn back at Brightside. That way, there's a around 15 mins recovery time for both services. Add to this some extension of the passing loop at one or two of Penistone, Barnsley, and Stocksmoor, and you're gold.

Since they also announced £48M in November, what a pity that doesn't mean 2x £48M to spend..
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
18,558
Location
Yorkshire
You wouldn't turn back at Brightside... surely if you were terminating at Meadowhall you'd use the crossover on the Barnsley lines and turn back in the platforms?
 

Manclad

New Member
Joined
24 Jan 2021
Messages
4
Location
Manchester
I really don’t see the fixation on continuing to Meadowhall and Sheffield. Sure, these are big centres, at least for Meadowhall in the case of the Penistone line specifically.

However, a timed connection at Barnsley would be sufficient….. or attached to a fast service at Barnsley.

Either way, Barnsley town centre still sees a number of people visiting from just outside of its borders, notably Denby Dale.

A bay platform from the North sounds a real possibility though a bay platform from the south (both could theoretically work) would offer greater options, notably an extension of one of London—Sheffield services that spend time laying over in Barnsley…. Though I do appreciate there are capacity constraints north of Sheffield.
 

Top