Hope Valley Capacity Scheme updates

[Jozhua]

It isn't that long so it would seem to be a bit of an extravagance.

I think it was that Hazel Grove chord that was the final nail in the coffin for Woodhead.

With the Hope Valley gaining a fast route into Manchester and linking Stockport to Sheffield too, Woodhead is never going to be needed or be a desirable route.

Woodhead isn't the solution when looked into. It would be a good freight route, but for reducing passenger journey times, not anything gamechanging. It's probably even more windy than the Hope Valley is, only thing it had going before was electrification!

The pandemic's effect on passenger services may reduce the need for an early 3rd fast passenger service but the fundamental issue is capacity to run slower moving train loads of heavy limestone from the quarries near Buxton and cement from Hope. That also requires paths for light engines going for servicing and and coal to Hope. Because siding capacity is limited at both Buxton quarries and the cement works empty wagons may be held in reserve at Toton or Barrow Hill.

These two pictures show a train of empty wagons back in May, stopped below the Twentywell Lane road bridge at Dore. It had come from the west side but there wasn't space at Buxton so it had come all the way along the Hope Valley and was going to drag through Sheffield and round to Barrow Hill. It was halted in the station platform and stretched almost as far back as Dore West Junction. It stood there for 5-10 minutes during which time a loaded stone train followed and took the Dore curve to head south. At this time a reduced passenger timetable was operating on all routes so this track block wasn't a problem.

Once there was a clear northbound route through Sheffield the train moved off, helped by the downhill gradient. That is a stronger factor for loaded trains that may soon be held in the Bamford loop. The drawback of that is it's on an uphill gradient and it's distance from the MML with the 5-6 minute separation demanded by Totley Tunnel.

That's less of an issue with trains heading south that will be able to shelter in the Dore loop to await an opportunity to cross northbound traffic and slot in to go south. However it is a steep uphill gradient round the tight 90 degree Dore curve and into Bradway Tunnel, currently limited to 15 mph - and produces a lot of squeeling wheels! That limit is supposed to increase to 20 mph.

Others have pointed out that York will have a limited view of trains approaching from the west (but presumably much better than today) in order to decide which may need to be looped. However getting eastbound freight traffic released from Buxton and Earles across the westbound traffic flow will be easier.

It was probably a mistake, but the documentation for the Public Inquiry included a diagram showing an option for bi-directional working between Dore Station and Dore West Junctions. If that were to exist the train shown below could have sat there for some time without totally blocking all other traffic in both directions. It would be in a much better position to take advantage of a gap in MML northbound traffic than if held at Bamford.

It would also make it possible for a Northern stopping service to move forward and across the MML into Dore station to await being overtaken by the often late preceding TPE service! Last but not least it might allow an additional service to run up to Dore and back into Sheffield rather than having to proceed further along the route where loadings are much lower.
View attachment 87753 View attachment 87754

Another bottleneck that isn't currently going to be resolved is entering and leaving the Hope Valley line or the Buxton quarries to head west and south. The route normally used involves a big detour north up to Guide Bridge before heading south through Denton. Relatively few trains go that way. One that currently does is coal bound for Earles from Cwmbargoed Opencast Colliery. To enter Earles Sidings it has to stop and reverse across westbound traffic.

This is the train last Tuesday; https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/H11101/2020-12-21/detailed What exactly went wrong is difficult to follow, but it has been suggested that there wasn't a driver available at some point.

View attachment 87762

Whatever, the Northern stopping service was held behind it until the route was cleared; https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P28844/2020-12-22/detailed#allox_id=0 That particular service has the best punctuality record into Sheffield of any on the line, but this particular coal train has caused delays before. The coal finally arrived at Earles almost 2 hours late, being passed at Edale by the Northern service, by then on its way back to Manchester! Reversing long freight trains across the westbound traffic could be eliminated by a crossover west of Earles, or signalling one track bi-diectionally through Cowburn Tunnel. But these ideas should have been incorporated into the planning 5-10 years ago. It's far too late now.

In a letter to TOCs in October Network Rail said "The Secretary of State finally announced his decision to support the TWAO for this scheme in February 2018. Whilst there are a number of conditions that constrain the construction process, the TWAO does effectively provide planning approval for the works that it covers. It does, however, also introduce a significant limitation on the ability to make changes to the scheme: any changes to the geographic scope, for instance, would very probably require a further TWAO submission, which would introduce a significant delay as well as a substantial cost.

Funding for the scheme was paused in 2016 as part of the Hendy review, but has become available in CP6. Network Rail is now working with the DfT with a view to achieving “Decision to Deliver” by December 2020, enabling a contract for the works to be let in January 2021."

Maybe we'll hear that Decision announced very soon.

Everyone forgets about the freight!

The fact of the matter is, especially for large, heavy, bulky, relatively low value stuff like rocks, rail is the only real sensible way to transport it long distance.

Even for other non-rocky stuff, we desperately need more rail freight capacity. HGVs are frankly less efficient, and also we're running out of drivers for them. Unless we want to improve pay and working conditions to get more people into it (fat chance lol), the only way to move stuff long distance going forward, will be rail.

 

[HSTEd]

The fact of the matter is, especially for large, heavy, bulky, relatively low value stuff like rocks, rail is the only real sensible way to transport it long distance.

Define long distance?

The Woodsmith Mine Tunnel rather torpedoes this argument doesn't it?

Let alone things like Ropecon.

 

[Killingworth]

"The scheme as designed was assessed to be able to deliver an additional fast path through the Hope Valley at the time (2012). This has not yet been re-analysed in the light of current timetable and infrastructure constraints. In particular it is recognised that capacity constraints at Manchester Piccadilly and Sheffield may preclude the additional path without further works at one or both of those locations."

Network Rail's letter to TOCs makes it clear that they are not guaranteeing a third passenger service path between Manchester and Sheffield. What we should get is capacity for a more reliable service than currently exits. All the stations from Dore to Edale have an abysmal record for punctuality of their services, see On Time Trains.

Over 10 years from assessment to delivery (maybe 2023) of this modest scheme!

 

[Jozhua]

Define long distance?

The Woodsmith Mine Tunnel rather torpedoes this argument doesn't it?

Let alone things like Ropecon.

Long distance, 100 miles +

Obviously conveyors are another practical solution, but for these operations, just adding some extra rail infrastructure is probably cheaper.

 

[HSTEd]

Long distance, 100 miles +

Obviously conveyors are another practical solution, but for these operations, just adding some extra rail infrastructure is probably cheaper.

Given how expensive rail infrastructure, is and how lousy the performance of stone trains is in British practice.... I am not so sure.

 

[Killingworth]

Long distance, 100 miles +

Obviously conveyors are another practical solution, but for these operations, just adding some extra rail infrastructure is probably cheaper.

This scheme is costed at a mere £145m.

 

[edwin_m]

That also requires paths for light engines going for servicing and and coal to Hope. Because siding capacity is limited at both Buxton quarries and the cement works empty wagons may be held in reserve at Toton or Barrow Hill.

Would providing servicing facilities and more sidings at Peak Forest or Hope, perhaps using some of the area that has been quarried out, be better or cheaper than enhancing main line capacity for this purpose?

Last but not least it might allow an additional service to run up to Dore and back into Sheffield rather than having to proceed further along the route where loadings are much lower.

Reversing long freight trains across the westbound traffic could be eliminated by a crossover west of Earles, or signalling one track bi-diectionally through Cowburn Tunnel. But these ideas should have been incorporated into the planning 5-10 years ago. It's far too late now.
[/QUOTE]
That crossover is unlikely to need a TWAO as work would be fully within the railway boundary. But it would probably need re-signalling of Earles (could even be a legacy of the Midland's abhorrence of facing points? Although a search suggests the Hope plant has only been there 90 years, which would put it in LMS days), which would also help with co-ordination of what needs to be looped at Bamford.

 

[mwmbwls]

The geometry looks challenging! One way of making room for a second track would be to close the Northenden line, but I guess it's a useful way to keep some freights out of Stockport and central Manchester so that may not be popular! An alternative might be a second new single track chord, diverging from the LNW immediately south of the intersection bridge, climbing and crossing Macclesfield Rd, Buxton Rd and the P&R car park, then joining the Midland on the embankment to the east of the viaduct (Disclaimer: Purely speculative, some non-residential demolition may be required, other alignments may be available, no diagrams prepared or published).

Hazel Grove Hump by mwmbwls, on Flickr

That is because it is challenging.

 

[unlevel42]

Could the Hazel Grove rail/rail bridge be removed and the upper line lowered and the Buxton line lifted to make a a level crossing? This would enable the Chord to be doubled with a simplified junction toward Disley.

Would there be enough distance after the A6/A523 bridges to allow the top line to be dropped enough?

For several years I traveled from Middlewood to Sheffield(not Middlewood) via Hazel Grove(easement) and New Mills* and wished that more than one train a day would stop at Hazel Grove bound to/from Sheffield. Does the gradient prevent trains that have stopped at platform one at Hazel Grove going east?
*Tere are many alternative ways but none cheaper(Senior Derbyshire Wayfarer) andvia The Rock at NewMills -the best waiting room in the world.

 

[Killingworth]

Hazel Grove Hump by mwmbwls, on Flickr

That is because it is challenging.

An excellent picture illustrating how the Buxton line has been slewed to allow the embankment to be built up to reach the higher level. That's not apparent on the OS map. Given the current frequency of trains on both routes the number of conflicts on the chord wouldn't justify major work to double it. The more pressing conflicts are in Manchester and Sheffield.

 

[21C101]

Could the Hazel Grove rail/rail bridge be removed and the upper line lowered and the Buxton line lifted to make a a level crossing? This would enable the Chord to be doubled with a simplified junction toward Disley.

Would there be enough distance after the A6/A523 bridges to allow the top line to be dropped enough?

For several years I traveled from Middlewood to Sheffield(not Middlewood) via Hazel Grove(easement) and New Mills* and wished that more than one train a day would stop at Hazel Grove bound to/from Sheffield. Does the gradient prevent trains that have stopped at platform one at Hazel Grove going east?
*Tere are many alternative ways but none cheaper(Senior Derbyshire Wayfarer) andvia The Rock at NewMills -the best waiting room in the world.

If the Metrolink 2050 maps are correct that show the East Didsbury line being extended to Hazel Grove via Cheadle Heath, I suspect more Sheffields calling at Hazel Grove will be likely.

The Hazel Grove Chord and Windsor Link were a hell of achievement by BR. Manchesters Thameslink, enabling you to come from London or Sheffield, interchange cross platform at Stockport and go on to newly built, Salford Crescent, Bolton etc.

 

[Greybeard33]

I think it was that Hazel Grove chord that was the final nail in the coffin for Woodhead.

With the Hope Valley gaining a fast route into Manchester and linking Stockport to Sheffield too, Woodhead is never going to be needed or be a desirable route.

Passenger traffic over Woodhead ceased in 1970 and the line closed in 1981. Nothing to do with the Hazel Grove chord, which did not open until 1986.

 

[21C101]

Passenger traffic over Woodhead ceased in 1970 and the line closed in 1981. Nothing to do with the Hazel Grove chord, which did not open until 1986.

1986 was the expiration of the five year moratorium on ripping up Woodheads track and dismantling the line.

Hazel Grove chord nailed down the coffin and saw to it that the dismantling would happen with no realistic prospect of it ever reopening, by making the Hope Valley line not just a viable replacement for the Woodhead Manchester to Sheffield services for the first time, but serving Stockport as well.

From 1970 to 1986 the goat track via Marple was used, which was inadequate, slow and infested with suburban stopping trains.

But for the Hazel Grove Chord BR would have had to reopen Woodhead sooner or later.

 

[Greybeard33]

1986 was the expiration of the five year moratorium on ripping up Woodheads track and dismantling the line.

Hazel Grove chord nailed down the coffin and saw to it that the dismantling would happen with no realistic prospect of it ever reopening, by making the Hope Valley line not just a viable replacement for the Woodhead Manchester to Sheffield services for the first time, but serving Stockport as well.

From 1970 to 1986 the goat track via Marple was used, which was inadequate, slow and infested with suburban stopping trains.

But for the Hazel Grove Chord BR would have had to reopen Woodhead sooner or later.

I think it is implausible that BR would ever have seriously considered reinstating passenger services over Woodhead, after Sheffield Victoria had closed. The route into Manchester Piccadilly from Hadfield was equally "infested with suburban stopping trains", just like the Marple line.

It is a curious opinion that the service between Manchester and Sheffield via the Hope Valley was "not viable" until the Hazel Grove chord opened. BR in the 70s and 80s was not in the habit of running unviable services!

 

[Revaulx]

I think it is implausible that BR would ever have seriously considered reinstating passenger services over Woodhead, after Sheffield Victoria had closed. The route into Manchester Piccadilly from Hadfield was equally "infested with suburban stopping trains", just like the Marple line.

It is a curious opinion that the service between Manchester and Sheffield via the Hope Valley was "not viable" until the Hazel Grove chord opened. BR in the 70s and 80s was not in the habit of running unviable services!

Woodhead was doomed as a passenger line the moment all Victoria’s services that could be (i.e. everything except Woodhead) were diverted to Midland.

It’s a great shame that the benefits brought about by the building of the chord were partly cancelled out by the ridiculous “rationalisation” that took place at Dore at about the same time.

 

[yorksrob]

I think it is implausible that BR would ever have seriously considered reinstating passenger services over Woodhead, after Sheffield Victoria had closed. The route into Manchester Piccadilly from Hadfield was equally "infested with suburban stopping trains", just like the Marple line.

It is a curious opinion that the service between Manchester and Sheffield via the Hope Valley was "not viable" until the Hazel Grove chord opened. BR in the 70s and 80s was not in the habit of running unviable services!

Having caught the Hope Valley stopper on a few occasions (which still takes the route via Ashburys) it's hard to see how an acceptable express service could have run that way. BR of those years must have set a lot of store by the name "Hope" valley.

 

[markymark2000]

Based on the list of improvements in #607, will any of this make much difference in the grand scheme of things? I can't see any extra capacity being created or anything being done at the choke points. I note that some speeds are increased slightly but others reduced so that must even out somehow and also, how often will trains hit 55 or 60mph along this section and what is the chance of them just catching up to eachother? 3 or 4 aspect signals I can see being a good thing but does that increase capacity or speeds? Less signal boxes I can see the appeal there as that may help forward planning and delay reductions. Bamford loop is good and I can see that being used.

 

[edwin_m]

Based on the list of improvements in #607, will any of this make much difference in the grand scheme of things? I can't see any extra capacity being created or anything being done at the choke points. I note that some speeds are increased slightly but others reduced so that must even out somehow and also, how often will trains hit 55 or 60mph along this section and what is the chance of them just catching up to eachother? 3 or 4 aspect signals I can see being a good thing but does that increase capacity or speeds? Less signal boxes I can see the appeal there as that may help forward planning and delay reductions. Bamford loop is good and I can see that being used.

It shows every sign of being "value engineered" down from a comprehensive scheme to what someone thinks is the minimum to achieve the objectives. From the point of view of managing taxpayers' money that's a good thing, but as we have seen elsewhere the result of that sort of assessment is only as good as the data that's fed in.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Define long distance?

The Woodsmith Mine Tunnel rather torpedoes this argument doesn't it?

Let alone things like Ropecon.

(Sorry for belated reply.)

Setting aside RopeCon (which seems to have been applied in only a few locations over distances of 2-3 miles in 'remote' areas and needs massive pylons to carry it) I fail to see the relevance of a single-commodity, single direction, single origin/destination, single customer, medium distance subterranean conveyor belt to the movement of multiple commodities to and from multiple sites in the Peak District to and from multiple sites across Britain for multiple companies.

Could you provide any costs and timescales for constructing this network of tunnels stretching hundreds of miles?

Thanks.

 

[HSTEd]

I fail to see the relevance of a single-commodity, single direction, single origin/destination, single customer, medium distance subterranean conveyor belt to the movement of multiple commodities to and from multiple sites in the Peak District to and from multiple sites across Britain for multiple companies.

You can use it to move material from mines to conveniently located staging points.
There is no reason to go putting heavy stone trains on heavily loaded, terrain constrained track where all they achieve is blocking the line for everyone else.

Could you provide any costs and timescales for constructing this network of tunnels stretching hundreds of miles?

Thanks.

As opposed to the costs and timescales for railway upgrade work?
Given the track record of budget control on railway upgrade projects over the last 30 years....

The woodsmith mine tunnel's very existance is incredibly telling for the railways uncompetitiveness.

Building a brand new 20+ mile long tunnel was considered preferable to railway upgrades on an alignment that almost all already exists.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The woodsmith mine tunnel's very existance is incredibly telling for the railways uncompetitiveness.

Building a brand new 20+ mile long tunnel was considered preferable to railway upgrades on an alignment that almost all already exists.

Presumably, building the tunnel was also considered preferable to (= cheaper than) using lorries and taking the stuff by road, otherwise the tunnel wouldn't have been built? I'd surmise from that that there must've been some special circumstances, while agreeing with you that rail improvements in general do seem extremely expensive.

 

[MarkyT]

There is no reason to go putting heavy stone trains on heavily loaded, terrain constrained track where all they achieve is blocking the line for everyone else.
...
The woodsmith mine tunnel's very existance is incredibly telling for the railways uncompetitiveness.

Building a brand new 20+ mile long tunnel was considered preferable to railway upgrades on an alignment that almost all already exists.

I don't think Woodsmith proves a general case against rail freight at all, just this particular flow in its very specific location and circumstances, for very large quantities of a highly profitable commodity, over a moderate distance and for a considerable expected period of extraction, for which the competing railway would have required very significant investment to cope with the traffic. As a deep mining orgnisation, the customer is presumably extremely familiar and competent in specifying and overseeing tunnelling activities. The Whitby line perhaps sadly missed out on some extra or relocated passing places, resignalling and maybe a new chord avoiding Battersby, which all could have benefitted passenger services as well, but as it stands the tunnel project seems a good result. As well as the conveyor, The tunnel will also apparently contains a railway for its full length, for maintenance access!

 

[InOban]

It was difficult enough to get planning permission for the mine in the national park. There was no way that they would have been allowed to build the surface infrastructure for transfer to rail

 

[Greybeard33]

Having caught the Hope Valley stopper on a few occasions (which still takes the route via Ashburys) it's hard to see how an acceptable express service could have run that way. BR of those years must have set a lot of store by the name "Hope" valley.

The route from New Mills South Jn to Piccadilly via Marple and Reddish North is almost exactly the same distance as via Stockport, but does not have a single track section. Most of the line is pretty straight, so many of the current 50/60mph speed restrictions could probably be increased if there was a need. I do not have a timetable for the 1970-86 period, but I would be surprised if the Sheffield - Manchester journey times were much longer than today.

Of course, diversion of the fast services via Stockport has enabled the Marple line timetable to be optimised for the stopping services.

 

[yorksrob]

The route from New Mills South Jn to Piccadilly via Marple and Reddish North is almost exactly the same distance as via Stockport, but does not have a single track section. Most of the line is pretty straight, so many of the current 50/60mph speed restrictions could probably be increased if there was a need. I do not have a timetable for the 1970-86 period, but I would be surprised if the Sheffield - Manchester journey times were much longer than today.

Of course, diversion of the fast services via Stockport has enabled the Marple line timetable to be optimised for the stopping services.

I'm guessing there must have been fewer stoppers in those days !

 

[eastwestdivide]

do not have a timetable for the 1970-86 period, but I would be surprised if the Sheffield - Manchester journey times were much longer than today

My 1978 timetable has broadly hourly Sheff-Manch fast trains at 59 mins, or 60 mins with one stop at New Mills.
Today's fasts via Stockport are 54/55 mins.
In that 1978 timetable, the Hope Valley stoppers ran Sheffield-New Mills only, didn't run through to Manchester, and were pretty infrequent, with 3-hour gaps in the service at the intermediate Hope Valley stations.

 

[Jozhua]

Woodhead was doomed as a passenger line the moment all Victoria’s services that could be (i.e. everything except Woodhead) were diverted to Midland.

It’s a great shame that the benefits brought about by the building of the chord were partly cancelled out by the ridiculous “rationalisation” that took place at Dore at about the same time.

Totally agree, who thought it was a good idea to reduce Dore to a single track?

In what way does this save money? (or anywhere near enough for it to be worth it)

 

[_toommm_]

Totally agree, who thought it was a good idea to reduce Dore to a single track?

In what way does this save money? (or anywhere near enough for it to be worth it)

It saved money as there would be only one set of tracks to maintain as opposed to two, along with only one set of points from the MML, half as many signals.

Not that I'm justifying Dore being single track - it's annoyed me a lot as it used to be my regular commute from Manchester to Sheffield and I've fell victim to it many a time.

 

[MarkyT]

Totally agree, who thought it was a good idea to reduce Dore to a single track?

In what way does this save money? (or anywhere near enough for it to be worth it)

A mid-1980s scheme, presumably as part of resignalling in the broader area. Peak Thatcherism, so whatever had been planned was probably cut back to the bone under Treasury diktat. They possibly thought they might be able to close the station in due course.

 

[edwin_m]

It saved money as there would be only one set of tracks to maintain as opposed to two, along with only one set of points from the MML, half as many signals.

But the track and points that remained would get twice as much use, and I think there would be just as many signals - possibly more - to maintain the same frequency on a single line. I suspect there was a "book saving" due to the way things were priced, but it was negligible in reality when all costs were taken into account (not to mention the capital cost of changing things, which didn't even save a signaller post).

There would however have been an actual saving by eliminating the second platform and footbridge at Dore.