I'd suggest that you're catching up with the stopper then. Grindleford's distant is around the right-hand curve after Hathersage.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
Hope Valley Capacity Scheme updates
- Thread starter Killingworth
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Killingworth
Established Member
When the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme was approved back in February there was brave talk about work starting in 2019. Originally the work was planned to start in early 2017 for completion in Deptember 2018, trains to be running in December 2018.
Transport for the North welcomed the announcement on 15th February; https://transportforthenorth.com/upgrades-sheffield-hope-valley-line-manchester/
They said "Rail North will now be pressing for release of the funding required to undertake the detailed design work during 2018/9, with a view to enabling the physical works to start after April 2019."
7 months later - silence! TfN have a board meeting in Sheffield tomorrow. This project is on the agenda. If work starts next April it could even be ready for 2020, but the words "after April 2019" sound ominous. It seems quite possible that it won't be completed in time for the supposed move of the East Midlands Liverpool - Norwich service in December 2021. Let's hope TfN's pressing is quietly getting us somewhere and we can be told.
The information given at the public inquiry included costings and was online, but all the links are now dead; http://hope-valley.persona-pi.com/core-documents My memory says it was to cost £20-30m.
Transport for the North welcomed the announcement on 15th February; https://transportforthenorth.com/upgrades-sheffield-hope-valley-line-manchester/
They said "Rail North will now be pressing for release of the funding required to undertake the detailed design work during 2018/9, with a view to enabling the physical works to start after April 2019."
7 months later - silence! TfN have a board meeting in Sheffield tomorrow. This project is on the agenda. If work starts next April it could even be ready for 2020, but the words "after April 2019" sound ominous. It seems quite possible that it won't be completed in time for the supposed move of the East Midlands Liverpool - Norwich service in December 2021. Let's hope TfN's pressing is quietly getting us somewhere and we can be told.
The information given at the public inquiry included costings and was online, but all the links are now dead; http://hope-valley.persona-pi.com/core-documents My memory says it was to cost £20-30m.
The slippage of this scheme from CP5 to CP6 was known long before the authorisation was announced - no doubt because of overspends on other projects. As you say there has been no recent information about when it will start, but it is no different in that respect from any other CP6 scheme. The start of CP6 is uncomfortably near.
Last edited:
Killingworth
Established Member
£10m here, £15m there, over-run as a £30m project becomes £50m, they all add up.
The redoubling at Dore & Totley station has been on the to-do list almost since the day the operational departments took over the singled line and found it didn't work - over 30 years ago. At the inquiry many voices suggested the Dore package should go ahead on it's own. The Inspector adjourned over night to consider that option. There's much local support and little opposition, but DfT and Network Rail wanted all or nothing - and nothing is what we've still got.
Joseph_Locke
Established Member
Oooh, you are all impatient!
Killingworth
Established Member
When this scheme went out to 3 rounds of public consultation, causing much upset to many residents living near the line at both Dore and Bamford, it was repeatedly stated that money was committed to the scheme and that after years, even decades, of delay it would go ahead. Since then construction economies have been made by building the loop at Bamford instead of Grindleford, and the old bridge over the River Sheaf at Dore is not to be replaced as originally planned. 4 years later, after a public inquiry delayed the scheme, there's no longer any money.
Sheffield City Region Mayor, Dan Jarvis, is now on the case; https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/shef...r-improved-rail-links-to-manchester-1-9350528
Impatient? You bet. Until 1985 there were 4 platforms at Dore & Totley, then reduced to one without any local consultation whatsoever. The good commuter service into Sheffield had by then been reduced to a 2 hourly stopping train to New Mills only. Here a group of young people have gathered to see the new single platform just provided - and a major bottleneck created for Sheffield-Manchester services for over 30 years since.
And this is how the busy junction looked 100 years ago with frequent trains into Sheffield on those 4 tracks.
Sheffield City Region Mayor, Dan Jarvis, is now on the case; https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/shef...r-improved-rail-links-to-manchester-1-9350528
Impatient? You bet. Until 1985 there were 4 platforms at Dore & Totley, then reduced to one without any local consultation whatsoever. The good commuter service into Sheffield had by then been reduced to a 2 hourly stopping train to New Mills only. Here a group of young people have gathered to see the new single platform just provided - and a major bottleneck created for Sheffield-Manchester services for over 30 years since.
And this is how the busy junction looked 100 years ago with frequent trains into Sheffield on those 4 tracks.
When (if) Dore Station is re-doubled, will the existing Dore Station Junction continue to be used for crossing over?
I was thinking perhaps the lines could be extended a few hundred yards towards Sheffield with a much higher speed crossover?
I was thinking perhaps the lines could be extended a few hundred yards towards Sheffield with a much higher speed crossover?
Killingworth
Established Member
Who knows? What's in the documentation for the capacity scheme inquiry suggests there'll be no major change, but detailed planning could alter that to take account of possible restoration of the 4 tracks even further into Sheffield. If HS2 and electrification is going to happen that must surely be considered.
The current buzz phrase it "HS2 ready" so it would make sense to ensure that the rebuild of Dore would link in with increasing capacity into Sheffield. The southern approach to Sheffield station will definitely need a rebuild in order to give extra through capacity without clashing with terminating / reversing services.
The dive under may live again!
Killingworth
Established Member
It seems £3bn is to be committed to the TransPennine upgrade, talked about as though there was just one TransPennine route between Manchester and Leeds. (The original north trans-Pennine route between Newcastle and Carlisle is usually overlooked, although it's been quietly operating since 1837.) That will require blockades of many weeks, nay months, and much disruption to travel plans.
The Hope Valley scheme will/would provide extra capacity across the Pennines by eliminating a kilometre of single line through a busy station and passing loops for slower freight trains. The most recent cost estimate may have been only £30m. By completing this modest scheme the availability of extra diversionary capacity will/would come in useful when those blockades start to kick in further north.
By not starting now it could coincide with the larger project. We may get the usual rail lack of foresight when both routes will be having blockades about the same time. Or the Hope Valley scheme will be shelved for another decade or more, thus limiting diversionary capacity indefinitely.
I can't help noting how much tunnelling the Swiss have achieved. 35 miles under the Alps for the Gotthard Base Tunnel. We're persisting with Victorian tunnels, but one day..........? Sheffield - Manchester isn't much further, but that will never happen. At least we should get started on improving what we've got.
The Hope Valley scheme will/would provide extra capacity across the Pennines by eliminating a kilometre of single line through a busy station and passing loops for slower freight trains. The most recent cost estimate may have been only £30m. By completing this modest scheme the availability of extra diversionary capacity will/would come in useful when those blockades start to kick in further north.
By not starting now it could coincide with the larger project. We may get the usual rail lack of foresight when both routes will be having blockades about the same time. Or the Hope Valley scheme will be shelved for another decade or more, thus limiting diversionary capacity indefinitely.
I can't help noting how much tunnelling the Swiss have achieved. 35 miles under the Alps for the Gotthard Base Tunnel. We're persisting with Victorian tunnels, but one day..........? Sheffield - Manchester isn't much further, but that will never happen. At least we should get started on improving what we've got.
Last edited:
The figure I've seen in multiple places is a tenth of that, £3 billion. To mention only one of the places, when Network Rail's new chief exec appeared before the Commons transport committee a couple of weeks ago, the chair said something like "what's the cost of it, £9 billion?" Maybe she was joking, but he corrected her to £3 billion.
Killingworth
Established Member
Oops! Yes, £3bn, typo! Corrected. But I'm sure we all doubt any of these figures, and that's probably why nothing is going through until everything has been treble checked.
From a project I do know about the price the railway eventually pays may well be twice what it might be done for elsewhere thanks to all the checking, rechecking, consultation, environmental impact and archaelogical surveys, tendering and risk assessments by multiple parties going back and forth before work even begins.
Killingworth
Established Member
Now I need to make another correction having trawled through the many booklets issued by Network Rail to support all aspects of the scheme, its design, impact and benefits at the public inquiry. A very large box of ring binders costing a small fortune to produce and send to all interested parties. As party to one of the organisations who made objections at the inquiry I now have custody of the box, much to my other half's disapproval due to the space taken up.
Lurking in the Statement of Case I find the two pages reproduced here. The cost was forecast as £60million. I understand that due to changes in the way the work now needs to be structured, the inevitable inflation while all the procedures have been followed, plus cost over runs when it gets nearer to tender, surprise, surprise, it's now coming out in the range £75-85 million! Oh dear, more delay likely, indefinitely, or is the bullet to be bitten so work can be completed before blockades start further north?
The original specification was for 4 fast trains an hour before it got watered down to 3. Looks like the Newcastle - Metrocentre frequency of 3 trains an hour - mind the gap!
Lurking in the Statement of Case I find the two pages reproduced here. The cost was forecast as £60million. I understand that due to changes in the way the work now needs to be structured, the inevitable inflation while all the procedures have been followed, plus cost over runs when it gets nearer to tender, surprise, surprise, it's now coming out in the range £75-85 million! Oh dear, more delay likely, indefinitely, or is the bullet to be bitten so work can be completed before blockades start further north?
The original specification was for 4 fast trains an hour before it got watered down to 3. Looks like the Newcastle - Metrocentre frequency of 3 trains an hour - mind the gap!
Yes it's not exactly a tremendous improvement is it. The present gap of 37 minutes reduces to 30 mins. under 'the scheme'
I don't think 4 tph was ever really achievable but I'd be happy to see 3tph if they were of sufficient length and evenly spaced.
A 20 minute headway would be great but the stumbling block will always be the stopper. Adding a loop somewhere for overtaking sounds fine but it doesn't necessarily work in practice. We've seen this on the North Transpennine route with TPE's new stopping service waiting two minutes at Heaton Lodge Jcn. for the following express to overtake it - except that it very often doesn't.
Perhaps a single, bi-directional line should be reintroduced all the way from New Mills South to Chinley just for the use of the stoppers!
I don't think 4 tph was ever really achievable but I'd be happy to see 3tph if they were of sufficient length and evenly spaced.
A 20 minute headway would be great but the stumbling block will always be the stopper. Adding a loop somewhere for overtaking sounds fine but it doesn't necessarily work in practice. We've seen this on the North Transpennine route with TPE's new stopping service waiting two minutes at Heaton Lodge Jcn. for the following express to overtake it - except that it very often doesn't.
Perhaps a single, bi-directional line should be reintroduced all the way from New Mills South to Chinley just for the use of the stoppers!
Killingworth
Established Member
There are many options that could be considered. Making the 2 platforms at Dore & Totley station bi-directional would give extra overtaking opportunities and give interchange options.
Making 2 trains fast and 2 trains semi fast might help e.g. one semi cuts out stops New Mills - Manchester by going fast via Stockport and stopping between Chinley and Sheffield, the other stops all the way to Edale then fast to Sheffield. Pattern might be 00.00 semi, 00.20 fast, 00.30 semi, 00.40 fast 00.00 semi.
Too early for details as there are some major pathing issues to be resolved right now.
I'm assuming that service pattern is in one direction only? Even with the resignalling, I feel it would be too tight still - EM coming from Norwich are regularly late and/or short formed leading to problems, and you've got to factor in the Earles Sidings freight trains which are slow and currently have nowhere to be overtook from Totley Tunnel all the way to their destination...
Killingworth
Established Member
Freights heading towards Earles are empty and less of an obstruction as they move more quickly. Those that may be going west towards Tunstead will occupy paths down the Hope Valley longer. In both cases the westbound track is not obstructed by these movements.
However it's the fully laden freight trains that are primarily being catered for with the two loops. Slower moving heavy stone or cement trains from Hope or Tunstead heading east first need a gap in the west bound traffic to slowly cross to the east bound track. Then they need a gap in the east bound traffic to get moving. Most will cross the west bound traffic again at Dore West, once more dragging slowly across before heading south towards Chesterfield from Dore South.
The Bamford loop offers a pull-in once the eastbound track has been cleared.
The loop at Dore is bi-directional. It will help to hold a west bound empty freight to slot into the flow up the Hope Valley, thus removing potential obstruction heading north on the MML. The heavily laden east bound freight services can go north through Sheffield or south via Chesterfield. At present they can be held at Dore West for a gap to cross the west bound Hope Valley traffic, also north bound MML traffic, before picking up a path to go south. The potential for delay on all 4 tracks is great. It is greatest when Hope Valley passenger services can be backed up behind it due to the 6 minute block through Totley Tunnel.
At the inquiry it was suggested by both objectors and supporters
that the Dore work was the more vital and needed doing urgently. There was greatest objection at Bamford. Those objectors have achieved part of their aim by delaying the whole project by at least 2 or 3 years - and ensured it's going to cost a lot more.
I’d agree that the loop at Dore appears far more useful. Bamford is too far away to effectively regulate for Dore, where (as you say) there are all sorts of conflicts and constraints.
I’ve seen freights turned out towards Chesterfield on a too tight margin in front of an express passenger because the alternative would be to hold them back at Dore West with another express passenger sitting behind them. I’ve been stopped just outside Totley Tunnel with a freight train in front waiting to go around the curve to Dore South, but with another freight train approaching from the south headed for the Hope Valley, with another class 1 on its tail. Incidentally, the relatively long block section doesn’t really add to the woes - a freight (most freights?) standing at the signal protecting Dore West will be clear of Totley Tunnel East’s clearing point and tail lamp camera, so the following train can be accepted and brought right up to TE’s home signal - as I was - within sight of the freight chap’s tail lamp. I wonder whether extending the curve, moving everything back towards the tunnel, will remove the ability to do that in, admittedly, what’d then be rarer circumstances.
I’ve seen freights turned out towards Chesterfield on a too tight margin in front of an express passenger because the alternative would be to hold them back at Dore West with another express passenger sitting behind them. I’ve been stopped just outside Totley Tunnel with a freight train in front waiting to go around the curve to Dore South, but with another freight train approaching from the south headed for the Hope Valley, with another class 1 on its tail. Incidentally, the relatively long block section doesn’t really add to the woes - a freight (most freights?) standing at the signal protecting Dore West will be clear of Totley Tunnel East’s clearing point and tail lamp camera, so the following train can be accepted and brought right up to TE’s home signal - as I was - within sight of the freight chap’s tail lamp. I wonder whether extending the curve, moving everything back towards the tunnel, will remove the ability to do that in, admittedly, what’d then be rarer circumstances.
Killingworth
Established Member
That's curious. On 14th August 2017 at 14.23 I caught this long freight entering Totley Tunnel. An East Midlands Liverpool-Norwich was then held to wait for it to clear. The blockage will have related to the west bound stopper that came through about this time, but this one wasn't headed south. Unfortunately I can't recover full details of the incident, but wrote a piece for the local paper to illustrate the problems on the Hope Valley line. My notes for that include the following;
"EWS Class 66 66083 heads into Totley Tunnel on a working from Peak Forest Cemex Sidings to Selby Potter Group. 45 minutes behind schedule at this point it will have delayed other trains as it made its way across Yorkshire.
That certainly included the following East Midlands Liverpool-Norwich service that was already 7 minutes late when stopped at the signal and had to wait a further 4 minutes for the freight train to clear the tunnel and single line section at Dore before being allowed to proceed.
The tunnel is 6,230 yards, 3.5 miles or 5.7km, long and following trains cannot be in the tunnel at the same time. This must be one of the longest block sections on a mainline in Britain. It's the 4th longest railway tunnel in Britain."
The picture was published, but the facts were skimmed over.
Incidentally, part of the Capacity Scheme includes transferring signalling control for Earle's Sidings from Manchester to York. At present any Bamford loop would be controlled west side, Dore east side. I'm sure that switch of control from the east end of Totley Tunnel to west of the major contributor of slow moving trains will in itself help with control of flows onto the MML, both north and south bound.
Last edited:
tbtc
Veteran Member
Okay, daft suggestion here, feel free to shoot it down, but...
The TPE North problems are being "solved" in December by bringing back separate stoppers either side of Huddersfield (since one slow train from Leeds to Manchester takes up a big chunk of the timetable and gets in the way of faster longer distance services).
Is there anything to be said for splitting up the Hope Valley stopper into a Sheffield - Edale service and a Chinley - Manchester service?
There's a line north of the main tracks at Edale (by the signal box IIRC) where services could terminate.
It looks like there's space for three tracks east of Chinley, for a headshunt.
You'd have to add in a little extra track/ points, but it'd all be within the footprint of existing railway land.
That way, the stopper should take less than ten minutes longer than the non-stop services to clear Edale station (and get into the siding), which would make it easier to path (at the moment the stopper takes about fifteen minutes to get from Edale until it's cleared the junction for New Mills).
There's no reason for the Chinley - Manchester service to be tied to the Edale stopper, so that should remove a big block out of the timetable.
Stop some of the three "fast" services per hour at Edale and Chinley to provide connections for both sides of the Pennines, but that'd still free up a good bit of space in the timetable.
(inconvenient for people travelling from Reddish to Grindleford, I appreciate, but if splitting up a slow service is seen as the solution on TPE North then I'm a little surprised that I've not seen it suggested on TPE South)
The TPE North problems are being "solved" in December by bringing back separate stoppers either side of Huddersfield (since one slow train from Leeds to Manchester takes up a big chunk of the timetable and gets in the way of faster longer distance services).
Is there anything to be said for splitting up the Hope Valley stopper into a Sheffield - Edale service and a Chinley - Manchester service?
There's a line north of the main tracks at Edale (by the signal box IIRC) where services could terminate.
It looks like there's space for three tracks east of Chinley, for a headshunt.
You'd have to add in a little extra track/ points, but it'd all be within the footprint of existing railway land.
That way, the stopper should take less than ten minutes longer than the non-stop services to clear Edale station (and get into the siding), which would make it easier to path (at the moment the stopper takes about fifteen minutes to get from Edale until it's cleared the junction for New Mills).
There's no reason for the Chinley - Manchester service to be tied to the Edale stopper, so that should remove a big block out of the timetable.
Stop some of the three "fast" services per hour at Edale and Chinley to provide connections for both sides of the Pennines, but that'd still free up a good bit of space in the timetable.
(inconvenient for people travelling from Reddish to Grindleford, I appreciate, but if splitting up a slow service is seen as the solution on TPE North then I'm a little surprised that I've not seen it suggested on TPE South)
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
It's certainly an innovative idea, but a couple of immediate differences occur to me.... Huddersfield is an important destination in its own right. That means that the fast services already stop there, so splitting the slow service and requiring some people to change at Huddersfield doesn't involve slowing down any of the fast services. I'm guessing it also means that Huddersfield has adequate facilities for people changing trains there, which Edale and Chinley probably lack. And of course, there is no additional infrastructure at all required to split services at Huddersfield. And further, a good proportion of passengers on the slow services will be travelling to Huddersfield itself, and so won't be remotely inconvenienced by splitting the stopper there.
Also, your idea means the stopping services don't link up at all. Manchester-Chinley and Sheffield-Edale services isn't quite equivalent to splitting the Sheffield-Leeds stopper at Huddersfield. To me, it feels more akin to running separate stopping services Manchester-Slaithwaite and Leeds-Deighton, and providing extra stops on the fast services to link them up - which seems more obviously inappropriate as a solution for northern TPE.
Killingworth
Established Member
Back in 1985 when Dore & Totley got singled the stopping service out of Sheffield was operated 2 hourly from the east only to New Mills and turned back. It connected with the Piccadilly - New Mills operated from Manchester. The trains weren't used much in an area with almost universal car ownership, which would have been the justification for removing the second track and platform at Dore.
Someone had the bright idea that having 2 units stopped over at New Mills was a bit daft, so they started to run straight through and ridership increased. Journey options from both sides opened up and now it's an almost hourly service ridership is slowly increasing. It will get even better when it's a full hourly service - and Northern can run trains reliably all day, every day!
Running some stoppers fast from Chinley via Stockport should be an option for the extra train.
To boost services from Dore into Sheffield I'd look at finding somewhere to rest a stopping unit that had run through to there from somewhere like Adwick, Leeds, Hull, York, Huddersfield or even Lincoln. Taking anything further up the Hope Valley would compound the congestion through Totley Tunnel and beyond. There is no contingency currently in the plans for holding and turning a train at Dore for return into Sheffield, so that spoils that idea!
There are thoughts about extending some of the Piccadilly - New Mills services to Chinley. There's certainly room for new track, but at present they'd have to run to Chinley North Junction to turn back. The 18.19 Mon-Fri ex-Picadilly may do that?
Someone had the bright idea that having 2 units stopped over at New Mills was a bit daft, so they started to run straight through and ridership increased. Journey options from both sides opened up and now it's an almost hourly service ridership is slowly increasing. It will get even better when it's a full hourly service - and Northern can run trains reliably all day, every day!
Running some stoppers fast from Chinley via Stockport should be an option for the extra train.
To boost services from Dore into Sheffield I'd look at finding somewhere to rest a stopping unit that had run through to there from somewhere like Adwick, Leeds, Hull, York, Huddersfield or even Lincoln. Taking anything further up the Hope Valley would compound the congestion through Totley Tunnel and beyond. There is no contingency currently in the plans for holding and turning a train at Dore for return into Sheffield, so that spoils that idea!
There are thoughts about extending some of the Piccadilly - New Mills services to Chinley. There's certainly room for new track, but at present they'd have to run to Chinley North Junction to turn back. The 18.19 Mon-Fri ex-Picadilly may do that?
Last edited:
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
That's all just given me another possibly way-out idea, albeit one that would require some infrastructure investment... Build a station in the middle of Chapel-en-le-Frith on the freight-only line through the town, and have the Hope Valley stoppers call and reverse there. I believe the track to do that already exists, so all you'd need to do is build a (relatively cheap) single-platform station (unless any upgrades to the track or signalling are needed). It potentially gives another place for the fasts to overtake the slows, and has the bonus of being likely to bring a lot more passengers onto the stoppers, since Chapel-en-le-Frith is easily the biggest community between New Mills and Dore.
Killingworth
Established Member
Sorry, I don't think that detour would find favour amongst those having to be delayed by at least 10 extra minutes, assuming a business case could be proven on other grounds! At lot of cheaper and more practical options available before that one.
I don't know the exact distance available from the clearing point to the signal protecting Dore West (I'll try to find out), but it could be that the train was long enough to still be fouling the clearing point until it got the road and started to move forward onto the single line, or it could simply have taken that amount of time because of a slow approach to the signal - with a heavy train on a falling gradient, I wouldn't be surprised. Certainly, though, a following train can get on its way through the tunnel once the rear of the first has passed the clearing point, which is before it's passed Totley Tunnel East SB.
Incidentally, a quick calculation suggests that the Edale - Chinley block section is approximately the same length as this one.
Maybe, maybe not. It'd certainly be easier if they were worked from either the same workstation, or adjacent workstations, in the ROC. At the moment, it needn't be much less effective - just the signalman at Earles picking up the phone and talking to the chap on the Sheffield workstation. I don't know how much Control insist on being involved in that process though - certainly, in my experience, it becomes very convoluted when making an inter-regional regulating decision when they do (first signalman rings his Control, who ring the other Control, who ring their signalman, then the same in reverse).
The refuge sidings at Edale are both disconnected at present, and the shunts would be so time (and capacity) consuming that you'd probably lose any benefit gained by turning back the stopper. By the time the stopper's through Cowburn Tunnel on the Down (probably only a minute or two longer than it'd take to shunt it clear of the running line), you'll not be bothered by it again once you've slowed for the 60mph then 50mph curves approaching Chinley. Extending more Manchester suburban services to Chinley shouldn't be a problem even with the current infrastructure (at least one reverses on the single line at Chinley South Jn currently), but I don't think that should come at the cost of breaking up the busy local service along the valley.
Killingworth
Established Member
The west bound siding at Edale may be disconnected, but only last month there was what looked like a new point assembly sitting there awaiting installation somewhere. I doubt it would have been left there to go somewhere else. The tracks on both sides are well rusted from disuse. Reinstating both as loops might offer overtaking opportunities for fasts to overtake the stoppers.
Killingworth
Established Member
The weekend ramblers of Manchester would be apoplectic if their usual trains didn't go beyond Chinley.
I can just imagine now, letters to the national press from Disgusted of Didsbury!
Isn't the suggestion that the hourly stopping service from Piccadilly for New Mills would go to Chinley, and the Hope Valley service would go via Stockport, thus robbing intermediate stations New Mills - Manchester Piccadilly of their half hourly service? It's as clear as mud from the brief details in the aspiration list. It doesn't sound a viable proposal so it's probably incomplete, at best..
It’s a double slip sitting on the Down Refuge at Edale. I can only think that it’s destined for Earles Sidings to replace pointwork there. There’s certainly no use for it at Edale or in the new works at Bamford - they’re well out of favour now, because of their complexity and maintenance cost, so reserved only for genuinely restricted sites where the space saving is essential.
The existing layout at Edale, with single-ended refuge sidings (which is what they’ve always been) is virtually useless for traffic purposes nowadays. Converting them into loops with the existing signalling would be very expensive, and not justified if it’s to be resignalled soon, with loops at Bamford, anyway.