Fourth platform for Chesterfield?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Raul_Duke

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
397
http://m.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news...built-at-chesterfield-train-station-1-7830099

A fourth platform could be built at Chesterfield train station as part of multi-million pound work.

The proposal has been outlined in a Network Rail report which sets out its long-term vision for services in the East Midlands.

Network Rail says a fourth platform would enable extra trains to carry more passengers between Derby and Chesterfield stations.

It would also allow trains to travel faster, removing the present constraint caused by stopping and non-stop services passing through Chesterfield on a single line.

Track and signalling work could also be carried out at the busy town station.

The total cost of the proposed work would be up to £20million.

Erica Blamire, principal strategic planner at Network Rail, said: "It is an exciting time for rail in the East Midlands."

Pipe dream or real possibility?

Also, really needed?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,098
Location
Sheffield

Let's hope they build it big enough to hold a HS2 classic compatable, running a unit from Chesterfield to Sheffield and joining HS2 at Meadowhall for a service to London - convoluted route I accept, but would please a lot of currently excluded from HS2 Chesterfield based London travellers and be quicker than the current EMT service

I've thought a similar plan could would for Wolverhampton too, take a HS2 classic compatable service north then loop back via a cheap chord onto the main HS2 line somewhere near Stone - offering quicker journey times than current VT services
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,082
Let's hope they build it big enough to hold a HS2 classic compatable, running a unit from Chesterfield to Sheffield and joining HS2 at Meadowhall for a service to London - convoluted route I accept, but would please a lot of currently excluded from HS2 Chesterfield based London travellers and be quicker than the current EMT service

I've thought a similar plan could would for Wolverhampton too, take a HS2 classic compatable service north then loop back via a cheap chord onto the main HS2 line somewhere near Stone - offering quicker journey times than current VT services

What would the business case for reducing journey times specifically to Wolverhampton and Chesterfield by a few dozen minutes each actually be? Instead of that 200m train reversing at Sheffield and going the wrong way down to Chesterfield, it could instead head north-east towards Hull via Doncaster and reduce journey times for a much, much larger number of people. Similarly, that 200m set that could reverse at Wolverhampton would instead be much more useful going northwards via Stoke-on-Trent.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
20,942
Location
Nottingham
Let's hope they build it big enough to hold a HS2 classic compatable, running a unit from Chesterfield to Sheffield and joining HS2 at Meadowhall for a service to London - convoluted route I accept, but would please a lot of currently excluded from HS2 Chesterfield based London travellers and be quicker than the current EMT service

To do that would require a huge curve on viaduct across the Don Valley, demolishing chunks of the Meadowhall Centre on the way. A fourth platform at Chesterfield would be chickenfeed by comparison.

If anything like that was to happen (and I have absolutely no reason to believe it would) then it would be better to go south and join HS2 near Toton.
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,098
Location
Sheffield
To do that would require a huge curve on viaduct across the Don Valley, demolishing chunks of the Meadowhall Centre on the way. A fourth platform at Chesterfield would be chickenfeed by comparison. If anything like that was to happen (and I have absolutely no reason to believe it would) then it would be better to go south and join HS2 near Toton.

It's clear to many that a HS2 station in Sheffield City Centre cannot happen, most due to the sheer inconvenience of delay to Leeds and beyond created by the convoluted route change. However, it's inconceivable to think that a key city like Sheffield would not get direct to city centre services, plus, recent TfN and High Speed North documents make explicit mention of Leeds to Sheffield Midland Classic Compatable HS2 services using new chords. It's not a large leap to consider if a northern link to HS2 is being promoted, a southern link to HS2 via the Darnall/Woodhouse line could also be accommodated at Sheffield and consequently extended to Chesterfield thus spreading the benefit of HS2 further around Sheffield City Region.

Similarly with Wolverhampton, I'd agree, a north facing chord would be good, but the current HS2 proposals require many existing passengers for London to change at Birmingham unless some form of linked route free of congestion is provided... One way is via a northern exit from Wolverhampton, which avoids the busy commuter line between Wolverhampton and Birmingham. All typical convention of direct routing goes out of the window for these secondary target destinations once you have a 400kph line further along the route to make time back up - going north to just south of Stoke then doing an effective u-turn would still be quicker a change at Birmingham New Street.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What would the business case for reducing journey times specifically to Wolverhampton and Chesterfield by a few dozen minutes each actually be? Instead of that 200m train reversing at Sheffield and going the wrong way down to Chesterfield, it could instead head north-east towards Hull via Doncaster and reduce journey times for a much, much larger number of people. Similarly, that 200m set that could reverse at Wolverhampton would instead be much more useful going northwards via Stoke-on-Trent.

Just to clarify, Classic Compatable units

Start at Chesterfield > Sheffield > HS2 to Toton, and

Start at Wolverhampton > north joining HS2 south of Stoke then onwards to Birmingham Interchange
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,082
It's clear to many that a HS2 station in Sheffield City Centre cannot happen, most due to the sheer inconvenience of delay to Leeds and beyond created by the convoluted route change. However, it's inconceivable to think that a key city like Sheffield would not get direct to city centre services, plus, recent TfN and High Speed North documents make explicit mention of Leeds to Sheffield Midland Classic Compatable HS2 services using new chords. It's not a large leap to consider if a northern link to HS2 is being promoted, a southern link to HS2 via the Darnall/Woodhouse line could also be accommodated at Sheffield and consequently extended to Chesterfield thus spreading the benefit of HS2 further around Sheffield City Region.

Similarly with Wolverhampton, I'd agree, a north facing chord would be good, but the current HS2 proposals require many existing passengers for London to change at Birmingham unless some form of linked route free of congestion is provided... One way is via a northern exit from Wolverhampton, which avoids the busy commuter line between Wolverhampton and Birmingham. All typical convention of direct routing goes out of the window for these secondary target destinations once you have a 400kph line further along the route to make time back up - going north to just south of Stoke then doing an effective u-turn would still be quicker a change at Birmingham New Street.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Just to clarify, Classic Compatable units

Start at Chesterfield > Sheffield > HS2 to Toton, and

Start at Wolverhampton > north joining HS2 south of Stoke then onwards to Birmingham Interchange

Victoria wouldn't take any longer than Meadowhall to build. The decision of one or the other will be made this year, and with an opening date of 2033 (the 2030 date that had been considered once by HS2 Ltd now appears to be dead and buried) there would be more than enough time to change plans.

The NPR service patterns are somewhat unrealistic for any spur-based solution to deliver. 6tph Leeds/York to Sheffield Midland as well as 8tph through Meadowhall would be expensive and inefficient given the amount of capacity that will be available on each train on that section vs the passenger numbers. The cost of Victoria has to be compared against the cost of Meadowhall plus a spur to Midland and all the works that would entail, so it may well be cheaper initially to have Victoria as the single combined station for the two services.

I know that is your proposal for classic-compatible services but I think they're never going to happen, and there has never been even the smallest inkling that they might ever happen either. Splitting and joining a 200m set is not free, since it involves the risk of importing delays and disruption from the classic network onto HS2, requires the cost of an additional trainset and the additional infrastructure needed to connect the lines. With the limited money and timetable flexibility/reliability available, only the extensions with the best business case could go ahead and those would never involve turning back and running the wrong way. That 200m set split off at Birmingham Interchange could either just benefit a small number of people in Wolverhampton by a few dozen minutes (and since it would be at best hourly, most people would find it faster to take the train to New Street and walk to an HS2 service at Curzon Street than wait) or it could ensure that Stoke-on-Trent does not lose its fast connection to London.
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,098
Location
Sheffield
Victoria wouldn't take any longer than Meadowhall to build. The decision of one or the other will be made this year, and with an opening date of 2033 (the 2030 date that had been considered once by HS2 Ltd now appears to be dead and buried) there would be more than enough time to change plans.

The cost of Victoria has already been costed as being more - the real issue isn't the cost, but diversion of the main eastern leg of HS2 which will extend the journey times to Leeds and beyond. There are also the issues of how you link Victoria to other rail services, which have been convieniently pushed aside by Sheffield City Council - quite simply, Victoria has been a fools errend and may yet show that Sheffield has shot itself in the foot and not pushed for direct funding for the much needed tram and rail infrastructure to link he HS2 station at Meadowhall the rest of the City Region.

The NPR service patterns are somewhat unrealistic for any spur-based solution to deliver. 6tph Leeds/York to Sheffield Midland as well as 8tph through Meadowhall would be expensive and inefficient given the amount of capacity that will be available on each train on that section vs the passenger numbers. The cost of Victoria has to be compared against the cost of Meadowhall plus a spur to Midland and all the works that would entail, so it may well be cheaper initially to have Victoria as the single combined station for the two services.

It's good to have challenging targets to aim for

I know that is your proposal for classic-compatible services but I think they're never going to happen, and there has never been even the smallest inkling that they might ever happen either.

I'm hopeful that my statement above is wrong, and that indeed the folly of Victoria is a bargaining chip for providing both Meadowhall and Classic Compatable services directly into midland station.

Splitting and joining a 200m set is not free, since it involves the risk of importing delays and disruption from the classic network onto HS2, requires the cost of an additional trainset and the additional infrastructure needed to connect the lines. With the limited money and timetable flexibility/reliability available, only the extensions with the best business case could go ahead and those would never involve turning back and running the wrong way. That 200m set split off at Birmingham Interchange could either just benefit a small number of people in Wolverhampton by a few dozen minutes (and since it would be at best hourly, most people would find it faster to take the train to New Street and walk to an HS2 service at Curzon Street than wait) or it could ensure that Stoke-on-Trent does not lose its fast connection to London.

I'm well aware of the current issues of joining and splitting - however, we are talking a largely closed system where external influences such as Pacers, trespass and signals faults can be reduced significantly - splitting and joining is a key part of IEP services and will be with HS2.
 
Last edited:

Comstock

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2012
Messages
535
I used to use this station fairly regularly and I can only remember two platforms- one towards Derby and one northbound.

Where is the third one?
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,098
Location
Sheffield
To add, Wolverhampton isn't a "small number of people" it has a population of 250,000... A huge market for London and Manchester services
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,082
The cost of Victoria has already been costed as being more - the real issue isn't the cost, but diversion of the main eastern leg of HS2 which will extend the journey times to Leeds and beyond. There are also the issues of how you link Victoria to other rail services, which have been convieniently pushed aside by Sheffield City Council - quite simply, Victoria has been a fools errend and may yet show that Sheffield has shot itself in the foot and not pushed for direct funding for the much needed tram and rail infrastructure to link he HS2 station at Meadowhall the rest of the City Region.

You've missed the point that a spur from Meadowhall to Midland for NPR services would cost money as well. Not only that, but there would be extra works involved at Leeds to handle Sheffield NPR services in addition to the HS2 services. Even if NPR services went into the classic station, they would still take up paths which will be needed for other services, and so more money will need to be spent to accommodate them.

The alternative is that the Sheffield-Leeds NPR service is folded entirely into the HS2 service, which really wouldn't be a problem whatseover. The London trains would have fewer and fewer passengers as they head north, since the reason for the eastern arm being as it is is that Leeds passengers alone won't fill the London trains and to make it worthwhile, Sheffield and East Midlands passengers are also needed. As the trains head north, the number of people on board will decrease, without any decrease in operational cost. If the Sheffield-Leeds passengers can be put on these trains instead the total number of passengers wouldn't decrease so much without any increase in operational costs, thereby making the whole system more efficient.

Even if there is a minor journey time cost in calling at Victoria the question is whether the economic gain from stopping there, carrying more passengers and providing a better transport link is enough to outweigh the marginal loss to Leeds passengers going south of Sheffield. In all likelihood, it probably is, and with the Clegg Kink the difference in journey time between Victoria and Meadowhall has reduced from what it was originally when the two routes were drawn up by Arup.

Even if the London trains will still be too full to take NPR passengers there will still be 2tph to Birmingham from Leeds, and these trains will be effectively empty. In effect, it would be these Birmingham trains which would be the main NPR service between Leeds and Sheffield, with the added advantage that they also link the 'Northern Powerhouse' to both the West and East Midlands, which isn't going to be a bad idea by any means. Victoria wouldn't just serve Sheffield-Leeds but Sheffield-York-NE as well as any other places that HS2 classic-compatibles may be extended to.

All in all, it's an extraordinarily effective way of delivering massively improved rail services between places in the North with minimal upfront cost and a reduction in operational cost. The fact that the only part of the entire HS2 route which is still not confirmed in one way or another is the South Yorkshire section does really indicate that the powers that be are seeing the same things that I'm describing. We know what's going to happen in Leeds, we know that Toton is the site of the East Midlands Hub, we know that Manchester is now sorted, we know that a Crewe Hub is going to happen but we still don't know about Sheffield.

I'm hopeful that my statement above is wrong, and that indeed the folly of Victoria is a bargaining chip for providing both Meadowhall and Classic Compatable services directly into midland station.



I'm well aware of the current issues of joining and splitting - however, we are talking a largely closed system where external influences such as Pacers, trespass and signals faults can be reduced significantly - splitting and joining is a key part of IEP services and will be with HS2.

The more classic-compatible services are there, the higher the likelihood that a problem on the classic rail network will cause an issue on the HS2 network. Any delay could mean that the classic-compatible train can't reach its path on HS2, and if anything goes wrong the scope to sort things out is incredibly limited. The risk of importing delays onto the network is managed by the fact that there will be very few classic-compatible services - Scotland, Liverpool and Newcastle - only to places which absolutely require them. If HS2 Ltd wants to accept more risk in order to allow more places to be served (as well as buying an extra trainset, remember) it will serve places in order of their business case, and there's no way that Chesterfield would come ahead of another possible CC service like Stoke or Middlesbrough or Hull or North Wales or wherever else.
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,098
Location
Sheffield
I've not missed any point, the cost of providing CC services to midland runs to a set of points north of Meadowhall and somewhere near Beighton and in the first instance about half a km of linking track - services will be able to slow on the main track as the number of services on HS2 east spur aren't as intense as they are on Phase 1 - as services increase, slows down may need to be moved off the mainline.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
6,655
Chesterfield to London would be quicker via HS2 at Toton as noted above.

Wolverhamtpon to London via HS2 connection could be via Stafford and Lichfield surely rather than travelling all the way to Crewe?
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,098
Location
Sheffield
Oh, you do realise hat there are almost as many classic Compatable sets being proposed as captive sets ?
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,082
I've not missed any point, the cost of providing CC services to midland runs to a set of points north of Meadowhall and somewhere near Beighton and in the first instance about half a km of linking track - services will be able to slow on the main track as the number of services on HS2 east spur aren't as intense as they are on Phase 1 - as services increase, slows down may need to be moved off the mainline.

That would still cost money. There is no way extra infrastructure could cost nothing. Remember too that it would need to be a grade-separated junction, so the cost would be even higher than a simple link for maintenance purposes. When you also take into account the works required to deliver a reliable and fast service into Midland, e.g. remodelling and adding new platforms, or even having to four-track the entire line from Midland to Meadowhall, the total upfront cost will have increased and it may well no longer be the case that Victoria would cost that much more. Small increases in cost are justified if they mean there's a better business case, and if spending £200m extra on Victoria means there will be £300m extra benefit then that's a better business case than Meadowhall.

And still, there's the operational issues to be contended with. You would need more platforms to be built in Leeds and there would be trains running half-empty most of the time between the two cities. If 2tph 200m trains between Birmingham and Leeds will be mostly empty during the day, how on earth would that frequency or more between only Leeds and Sheffield be any busier?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh, you do realise hat there are almost as many classic Compatable sets being proposed as captive sets ?

All of which are planned to be used on classic-compatible services to Scotland, Liverpool and Newcastle. There won't be any massive pool of CC sets lying around unused since each train will be at least £25m each, if not more.
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,098
Location
Sheffield
Chesterfield to London would be quicker via HS2 at Toton as noted above.

It may be slightly quicker, but you wouldn't get a CC purely for Chesterfield, a CC service from Midland would not go via Chesterfield - thus the best that Chesterfield could expect as a CC service is London via Sheffield

Wolverhamtpon to London via HS2 connection could be via Stafford and Lichfield surely rather than travelling all the way to Crewe?

That's an alternative I guess - depends on the utilisation of track
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That would still cost money. There is no way extra infrastructure could cost nothing.

For goodness sake... Of course things cost money, however, I'm a blue sky thinker... Least that's what my employers pay me for in my work with clients such as WYPTE, TfM, Sheffield City Region, Highways England, Transport for London and so on...

Please try to open your mind beyond what has been written on Wikipedia and in published reports !
 
Last edited:

RichmondCommu

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond, London
Let's hope they build it big enough to hold a HS2 classic compatable, running a unit from Chesterfield to Sheffield and joining HS2 at Meadowhall for a service to London - convoluted route I accept, but would please a lot of currently excluded from HS2 Chesterfield based London travellers and be quicker than the current EMT service

Not a bad idea in principal but why not run a service from the existing Sheffield station in the morning and a return service in the evening via Chesterfield and Toton?
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,082
It may be slightly quicker, but you wouldn't get a CC purely for Chesterfield, a CC service from Midland would not go via Chesterfield - thus the best that Chesterfield could expect as a CC service is London via Sheffield



That's an alternative I guess - depends on the utilisation of track
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


For goodness sake... Of course things cost money, however, I'm a blue sky thinker... Least that's what my employers pay me for in my work with clients such as WYPTE, TfM, Sheffield City Region, Highways England, Transport for London and so on...

Please try to open your mind beyond what has been written on Wikipedia and in published reports !

Why does Chesterfield need a CC service when there are so many other similarly-sized towns around the North that wouldn't get it? Why, specifically, would it be a good use of money to provide a CC service to this one place when the same amount of money could benefit several of these other towns at the same time?
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,098
Location
Sheffield
Why does Chesterfield need a CC service when there are so many other similarly-sized towns around the North that wouldn't get it? Why, specifically, would it be a good use of money to provide a CC service to this one place when the same amount of money could benefit several of these other towns at the same time?

Chesterfield doesn't, but Sheffield does ! And if your running a CC into Midland Station from say, a Beighton turnout, you could continue onwards to Chesterfield to fill additional seats - CC services give the flexibility to extend reach from HS2 not just to cities off the fast track, but also a stage further, the Sheffield and Wolverhampton examples are just two, I'm sure there are others out there, a slip off approaching Leeds that takes a CC unit to Bradford, one near Toton to dip into Derby, even new markets, slip from WCML interface to service Bolton and Blackburn - all big places, potential markets that could even be untapped
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,082
Chesterfield doesn't, but Sheffield does ! And if your running a CC into Midland Station from say, a Beighton turnout, you could continue onwards to Chesterfield to fill additional seats - CC services give the flexibility to extend reach from HS2 not just to cities off the fast track, but also a stage further, the Sheffield and Wolverhampton examples are just two, I'm sure there are others out there, a slip off approaching Leeds that takes a CC unit to Bradford, one near Toton to dip into Derby, even new markets, slip from WCML interface to service Bolton and Blackburn - all big places, potential markets that could even be untapped

I genuinely do not think there will be a spur from Meadowhall to Midland, as the Victoria option makes far more sense for HS2 when you take into account the goals of the NPR network. There is no efficient way to run a Midland spur in any way, shape or form. It could never justify a London HS2 service, since the increase in passengers from serving Sheffield CC and other places directly (compared to Meadowhall) wouldn't be enough to compensate for the loss of Leeds passengers. The NPR aspiration is for 6tph between Leeds and Sheffield and there's no way that could ever be efficiently accommodated alongside the planned HS2 service. If only 2tph ran into Midland it the entire cost of the spur would have to be borne by those two trains an hour carrying passengers only to Leeds and not particularly frequently.
 

Comstock

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2012
Messages
535
I'm still mystified about where the third platform is at Chesterfield, although it has been three years since I used the station.
 

Comstock

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2012
Messages
535
It's the other side of platform two.

Ah thanks. According to Wiki it opened in 2010? Really odd because I used the station every Friday night for about 3 months in the Autumn of 2012 and if questioned would swear it only had two platforms :oops:

In my defence I was rushing to see my girlfriend for the weekend, so counting platforms probably wasn't the top thing on my mind. :lol::oops:
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,098
Location
Sheffield
I genuinely do not think there will be a spur from Meadowhall to Midland, as the Victoria option makes far more sense for HS2 when you take into account the goals of the NPR network.

Thankfully you do not have the final say ;) HIghSpeed North needs a fast fast connection between Sheffield Ciy Centre and Leeds City Centre, the only way to achieve this is via a link from the HS2 line into Midland Station because Victoria isn't going to happen. Why won't Victoria happen ? Because It's a silly idea that requires the demolishing of the Wicker Arches and that's going to cause more upset than Mark Whitby on a Ordsall Curve convention !

A realistic way of getting Leeds-Sheffield Midland services running is via a link between the HS2 line near Shiregreen, linking to to Barnsley-Meadowhall line.

There is no efficient way to run a Midland spur in any way, shape or form.

Yes there is, via Woodhouse and Darnall with an improved chord into Midland at the north.

It could never justify a London HS2 service, since the increase in passengers from serving Sheffield CC and other places directly (compared to Meadowhall) wouldn't be enough to compensate for the loss of Leeds passengers.

Sheffield couldn't justify a HS2 London service ? Really ?

The NPR aspiration is for 6tph between Leeds and Sheffield and there's no way that could ever be efficiently accommodated alongside the planned HS2 service. If only 2tph ran into Midland it the entire cost of the spur would have to be borne by those two trains an hour carrying passengers only to Leeds and not particularly frequently.

Six trains per hour between Sheffield and Leeds does not mean six HS trains, it means a selection of a HS and traditional rail - this could be done by a variety of methods, but will include 2-3 stoppers via Swinton and Barnsley, may well include a couple of semi fasts, this could be a Northern Connect type service via Barnsley or a CrossCountry service via Swinton to service Wakefield, then a couple of HS services, these could be commuter style units, pimped up Javalin trains running in the 150-160mph range or perhaps more likely, a CrossCountry service terminating at Leeds HS2 Station, or perhaps even an extended MML service - essentially, two HS trains using the HS2 line between Meadowhall and Leeds, which can easily be accommodated and four on existing track.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
20,942
Location
Nottingham
Ah thanks. According to Wiki it opened in 2010? Really odd because I used the station every Friday night for about 3 months in the Autumn of 2012 and if questioned would swear it only had two platforms :oops:

In my defence I was rushing to see my girlfriend for the weekend, so counting platforms probably wasn't the top thing on my mind. :lol::oops:

It's mainly used during engineering access so passenger trains can call on the eastern pair of tracks which are mostly used by freight. Crossovers north and south of the station allow trains in either direction to use it.

The Liverpool-Nottingham that leaves Manchester at 1743 and Sheffield about an hour later seems to be scheduled to use platform 3 at Chesterfield, extending the journey even more after the wait of about 12min at Dore. This is the only time I've been on a train using it except when service is obviously disrupted.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,082
Thankfully you do not have the final say ;) HIghSpeed North needs a fast fast connection between Sheffield Ciy Centre and Leeds City Centre, the only way to achieve this is via a link from the HS2 line into Midland Station because Victoria isn't going to happen. Why won't Victoria happen ? Because It's a silly idea that requires the demolishing of the Wicker Arches and that's going to cause more upset than Mark Whitby on a Ordsall Curve convention !

Arup, one of the most respected consultancy firms in the world, found that a Victoria route would be possible without ever touching the Wicker Arch. That's the end of it.

A realistic way of getting Leeds-Sheffield Midland services running is via a link between the HS2 line near Shiregreen, linking to to Barnsley-Meadowhall line.



Yes there is, via Woodhouse and Darnall with an improved chord into Midland at the north.

At what cost? Would Meadowhall + Midland spur be any cheaper than the Victoria option, especially if there were no need for non-stop trains?

Sheffield couldn't justify a HS2 London service ? Really ?

Yes. This was in the Arup report when it discounted the idea of a spur into Midland. Since there are so few paths available on HS2, it isn't possible to provide Sheffield with a city centre service via a terminus spur. If a spur were built anyway, it wouldn't get rid of the need to build the Meadowhall viaduct and the station, since the South Yorkshire calls cannot be removed from other services.

Six trains per hour between Sheffield and Leeds does not mean six HS trains, it means a selection of a HS and traditional rail - this could be done by a variety of methods, but will include 2-3 stoppers via Swinton and Barnsley, may well include a couple of semi fasts, this could be a Northern Connect type service via Barnsley or a CrossCountry service via Swinton to service Wakefield, then a couple of HS services, these could be commuter style units, pimped up Javalin trains running in the 150-160mph range or perhaps more likely, a CrossCountry service terminating at Leeds HS2 Station, or perhaps even an extended MML service - essentially, two HS trains using the HS2 line between Meadowhall and Leeds, which can easily be accommodated and four on existing track.

With that wheeze there's no need for almost any of the other NPR infrastructure, since there are already plenty of services between the various places in the North. The NPR requirement is for much faster and much more frequent services that people can use to get from city centre to city centre quickly and efficiently.
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,098
Location
Sheffield
Arup, one of the most respected consultancy firms in the world, found that a Victoria route would be possible without ever touching the Wicker Arch. That's the end of it.

I'm familiar with Arup, I was seconded into them as a specialist from another well respected consultancy when designing the M6 Toll, I'm also familiar with Sheffield, having being part of the design team for South Yorkshire LRT (Supertram), the Inner Relief Road that part runs under the Wicker Arches and numerous other projects in the area over nearly 3 decades.

Arup proposal shows a four platform station going over an existing viaduct that's about wide enough for two tracks without platforms - clearly Arup have to build a wider viaduct over the Wicker Arches, making the arches a dark shadow under the station - that's not an acceptable solution for a listed structure.

Also, Arup also proposed continuation through to Leeds via the Upper Don Valley, which will require long tunnels under north Sheffield, the proposal also involves building a new classic station in a hole to the eastern end of Victoria, constrained to the south with Sheffield Parkway and to the north by a canal and Darnall Viaduct, less than 1km from Sheffield Midland, plus at one point proposed a tram spur off the Parkway Viaduct (revised in the final plan). I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's a very constrained site. Oh, then there's the geometry at the eastern end, the report manages to pull HS2 services around a 1km radius... That's not going to impact journey times much is it !

At what cost? Would Meadowhall + Midland spur be any cheaper than the Victoria option, especially if there were no need for non-stop trains?

You keep talking about a spur when I've demonstrated above that a spur is not required. Getting services into Midland will cost two sets of high speed points, about 2-3km of linking track and minor clearance works along the existing route to accommodate CC units - which are likely to be similar to IEP gauging.

Yes. This was in the Arup report when it discounted the idea of a spur into Midland. Since there are so few paths available on HS2, it isn't possible to provide Sheffield with a city centre service via a terminus spur. If a spur were built anyway, it wouldn't get rid of the need to build the Meadowhall viaduct and the station, since the South Yorkshire calls cannot be removed from other services.

So now your quoting a part of a report that referred to a dedicated spur through the Waverley Site from the first report as a reason why it can't be done, yet Victoria is possible in your next breath... As I've said, there doesn't need to be a spur, just connections to the classic network, maintain Meadowhall Viaduct and Station as a central point of City Region services, provide the links to Midland to service some direct linkage also.

With that wheeze there's no need for almost any of the other NPR infrastructure, since there are already plenty of services between the various places in the North. The NPR requirement is for much faster and much more frequent services that people can use to get from city centre to city centre quickly and efficiently.

What's it to be, this morning you were saying six services per hour couldn't be accommodated, now your saying the there needs to be six 30 minute services between Sheffield and Leeds ;) Let's not forget that there will also be several Leeds-Meadowhall trains per hour too... Let's hope the parking remains free !
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,082
I'm familiar with Arup, I was seconded into them as a specialist from another well respected consultancy when designing the M6 Toll, I'm also familiar with Sheffield, having being part of the design team for South Yorkshire LRT (Supertram), the Inner Relief Road that part runs under the Wicker Arches and numerous other projects in the area over nearly 3 decades.

Arup proposal shows a four platform station going over an existing viaduct that's about wide enough for two tracks without platforms - clearly Arup have to build a wider viaduct over the Wicker Arches, making the arches a dark shadow under the station - that's not an acceptable solution for a listed structure.

Also, Arup also proposed continuation through to Leeds via the Upper Don Valley, which will require long tunnels under north Sheffield, the proposal also involves building a new classic station in a hole to the eastern end of Victoria, constrained to the south with Sheffield Parkway and to the north by a canal and Darnall Viaduct, less than 1km from Sheffield Midland, plus at one point proposed a tram spur off the Parkway Viaduct (revised in the final plan). I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's a very constrained site. Oh, then there's the geometry at the eastern end, the report manages to pull HS2 services around a 1km radius... That's not going to impact journey times much is it !

Is anyone going to complain that the Wicker Arches would once again be a thriving part of the rail network? So what if they're going to be a bit dark? It's evidently not enough for Arup to discount the possibility of doing it, and they only report options to HS2 Ltd that they know are actually feasible.

The Manchester experience has shown that the planning authorities do not mind when railway-focussed listed buildings are affected by other railway developments. In this case, the Wicker Arches would most likely become part of the new station, thereby bringing them back into railway use and preserving them for the future. It's not like they're being knocked down to build a supermarket.

You keep talking about a spur when I've demonstrated above that a spur is not required. Getting services into Midland will cost two sets of high speed points, about 2-3km of linking track and minor clearance works along the existing route to accommodate CC units - which are likely to be similar to IEP gauging.

I know that it would only be CC sets, but your several kilometres of new track and other enhancement works on what is already a busy section of the rail network (particularly through the northern throat of Midland station) will cost money. If your argument against Victoria is that it will cost more money, then you have to take into account the need to spend money on linking Midland to the HS2 line to Leeds in your costings. Yes, adding classic platforms at Victoria would not be free either but these changes would be relatively limited in scale and scope compared to those you're proposing.

So now your quoting a part of a report that referred to a dedicated spur through the Waverley Site from the first report as a reason why it can't be done, yet Victoria is possible in your next breath... As I've said, there doesn't need to be a spur, just connections to the classic network, maintain Meadowhall Viaduct and Station as a central point of City Region services, provide the links to Midland to service some direct linkage also.

Would it be possible to build a connection between Midland and HS2 for NPR services? Yes. Would it be cheap as chips? No.

What's it to be, this morning you were saying six services per hour couldn't be accommodated, now your saying the there needs to be six 30 minute services between Sheffield and Leeds ;) Let's not forget that there will also be several Leeds-Meadowhall trains per hour too... Let's hope the parking remains free !

By spending possibly a few hundred million pounds extra on Victoria rather than Meadowhall + connection to Midland, you get 5tph between Sheffield city centre and Leeds city centre plus 3tph between Sheffield city centre and the North East entirely for free. No need for extra trains or platforms or drivers or depots or anything. One upfront spend solves the issue for decades to come. If more capacity is needed, then more trains can run between Leeds/NE and Birmingham.

If you build a spur, you not only need to run the existing planned service (and build the station at Meadowhall) but you also need to add additional services on top of that. You would end up with far more trains running between the two than are actually required or could ever be justified, so increasing operational cost, while not improving things for passengers. I genuinely cannot see why this is difficult to comprehend. The original arguments against Victoria and for Meadowhall made plenty of sense when it was just HS2 that was being considered. Now that connections between Sheffield and Leeds and York have to be considered as well, the benefit to these connections by moving HS2 to Victoria is more than enough to outweigh any costs that might arise by slowing down trains by a few minutes.
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,098
Location
Sheffield
We're going around in circles here, firstly, there's no need for a spur, second, Victoria isn't going to happen, third, I'm out of this because you are just quoting different reports to suit whatever arguements you have.

Roll on Autumn and the preferred route then we can start talking HS2 with some degree of foundation.
 

222ben

Member
Joined
18 Dec 2015
Messages
93
Victoria not Meadowhall is what is needed. More connectivity to classic services not less!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top