A few questions?
Splitting the up and down Hope Valley line loops is an elegant solution to coping with the need for 775 metre trains.
In furthering of the aspiration to electrify the Hope Valley Route after the MML expressed in the Rail North Strategy Document does the work being done at Grindleford and Dore include passive provision for such an eventuality in addition to the eventual clearing of the gauge to W10 to allow the passage of 9 foot 6 inch containers.
The works at Chinley are all within the generous Network Rail boundary tyat exists following the lines quadrupling when the Disley cut off was opened in the early 1900s. Hence they fall under the Permitted Development Rights enjoyed by Network Rail. The balancing works at Chinley envisage platform extensions presumably bringing unused sections of the existing platform back into use together with a reversing siding and a loop. I assume that this loop will also be at least 800 -1,000 metres long to match the works at Dore and Grindlefold. Will this loop be north or south of Chinley station and as part of the platform works will this station be provided with a disability friendly footbridge?
Because of the need for lengthy possessions will work at all three locations take place (a) simultaneously (b) consecutively in which case in which order? How will diversions work (a) Use of the Chinley North-Buxton-Stockport route to relieve Chinley (b) use of the Southern chord at Dore with either reversal at Chesterfield for Cleethorpes trains or strengthening of Nottingham Chesterfield Sheffield trains to make up for the diversion of the Liverpool Norwich service? Bus replacement services will be scenically charming but incredibly slow.
In the longer term, is there a case for a two, and in parts a three, track bi-directional arrangement between New Mills South Junction and Chinley North and between Dore and Sheffield to enable dynamic rather than static loops to operate?
