Hope Valley Capacity Scheme updates

[DynamicSpirit]

But Manchester - Leeds, Manchester - Liverpool, Sheffield - Leeds all have 4 or 5 tph, why should 2tph suddenly suffice for Manchester to Sheffield when those two cities have the worst road connection of any above pairing?

Are those figures inflated by including slow trains which you wouldn't normally use unless you're heading to an intermediate station that the fast trains don't stop at?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Surely the same could be said about say Norwich to Corby or Lincoln to Bradford? That doesn’t mean we should immediately introduce a direct service at the expense of connections between two major cities? If the Hope Valley had 3 trains per hour, the chance of having a long wait in Sheffield is therefore reduced as well?

In terms of population, I don't think Norwich to Corby is exactly comparable to - say Manchester to Nottingham or Manchester to Leicester. And if you feel that 2 tph (plus a 2-hourly slow train) is inadequate for Manchester-Sheffield, isn't the same argument even more powerful for Manchester-Nottingham - which currently has 1 tph that offers a very slow journey time thanks in part to its significant detour into Sheffield and back.

 

[Esker-pades]

Are those figures inflated by including slow trains which you wouldn't normally use unless you're heading to an intermediate station that the fast trains don't stop at?

No. Simply.

 

[yorksrob]

Its a personal wish of his. Personally I cannot see the logic when the Hope Valley route could be easily upgraded to support much more traffic.

Myself and some rather more important Local Authorities who funded a study into the route's reopening around ten years ago.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No. Simply.

Really? The claim was "Manchester - Leeds, Manchester - Liverpool, Sheffield - Leeds all have 4 or 5 tph". I'm struggling to think of any one of those that has 5tph unless you include stopping trains. From what I can make out in the timetables, Manchester - Leeds and Manchester - Liverpool both have 4 fast tph, Sheffield - Leeds has 3.

(Manchester-Leeds you could argue a bit with because, besides the 4 fast tph, there are two slower trains, but which are the only trains that go direct to Piccadilly without running through Victoria, so you might conceivably use those for through journeys if you specifically wanted Piccadilly).

 

[Esker-pades]

Really? The claim was "Manchester - Leeds, Manchester - Liverpool, Sheffield - Leeds all have 4 or 5 tph". I'm struggling to think of any one of those that has 5tph unless you include stopping trains. From what I can make out in the timetables, Manchester - Leeds and Manchester - Liverpool both have 4 fast tph, Sheffield - Leeds has 3.

(Manchester-Leeds you could argue a bit with because, besides the 4 fast tph, there are two slower trains, but which are the only trains that go direct to Piccadilly without running through Victoria, so you might conceivably use those for through journeys if you specifically wanted Piccadilly).

Manchester to Leeds:
1tph Newcastle to Liverpool
1tph Hull to Manchester
1tph Newcastle to Manchester
1tph Scarborough to Liverpool
1tph Middlesbrough to Manchester

Manchester to Liverpool:
1tph Liverpool to Norwich
1tph Liverpool to Manchester Airport (via Warrington Central)
1tph Liverpool to Scarborough
1tph Liverpool to Newcastle Central

Sheffield to Leeds:
2tph CrossCountry
1tph Lincoln to Leeds
1tph Nottingham to Leeds

 

[snowball]

Why? None of it would be going in that direction.

From the Inspector's Report on the upgrade:

7.2.19 Existing destinations of freight traffic heading eastbound along the Hope
Valley route include:
 Via Sheffield- Dewsbury, Scunthorpe, West Burton, Drax, Leeds,
Selby Potter Group, Eggborough, Attercliffe and Ferrybridge; and,
 Via Chesterfield- Bow East, Ripple Lane, Barrow Hill, Washwood
Heath, Elstow, Walsall, Harlow Mill, Ely, Ratcliffe, Wellingborough,
West Thurrock, Theale and Brentford180.

7.2.20 [part snipped] ... This traffic predominantly runs to and from 2 locations south of the line:
quarries along the Peak Forest/Buxton route, linked to the Hope Valley
line at Chinley East Junction; and, Hope Cement Works, linked to the
Hope Valley line at Earles’ Siding. At Dore West Junction approximately
two thirds of the freight services go via Dore South Curve, towards
Chesterfield and beyond. The remaining freight services, and all
passenger services, continue through Dore & Totley Station towards
Sheffield.

 

[furnessvale]

From the Inspector's Report on the upgrade:

Thanks for that list which does omit traffic leaving the quarries but turning left towards Manchester before finally turning south. That adds a few more trains and destinations which would be removed from the Hope Valley line by a reinstated line to the south.

 

[DanTrain]

Manchester to Leeds:
1tph Newcastle to Liverpool
1tph Hull to Manchester
1tph Newcastle to Manchester
1tph Scarborough to Liverpool
1tph Middlesbrough to Manchester

Manchester to Liverpool:
1tph Liverpool to Norwich
1tph Liverpool to Manchester Airport (via Warrington Central)
1tph Liverpool to Scarborough
1tph Liverpool to Newcastle Central

Sheffield to Leeds:
2tph CrossCountry
1tph Lincoln to Leeds
1tph Nottingham to Leeds

Sheffield to Leeds was slightly inflated in fairness, it's only 1tph XC, but the others are 4 or 5 as you say.

In terms of population, I don't think Norwich to Corby is exactly comparable to - say Manchester to Nottingham or Manchester to Leicester. And if you feel that 2 tph (plus a 2-hourly slow train) is inadequate for Manchester-Sheffield, isn't the same argument even more powerful for Manchester-Nottingham - which currently has 1 tph that offers a very slow journey time thanks in part to its significant detour into Sheffield and back.

Yes, to some extent I would agree about Manchester-Nottingham. However, the way to solve that in my opinion is to go via Stoke or create signifiicantly more Sheffield paths (i.e. the Woodhead or a new train/road tunnel) than try to restrict what are already hopelessly overcrowded trains. In the short term, I would argue that EMT need to stop calling at places like Dore, Chinley and Hazel Grove (leave that to TPE) and put on much longer trains - there's no operational reason why 8 carriage trains couldn't be used, maybe even find some 222s with SDO. The problem is that that's a pipe dream, I don't actually see things changing much at all.

As for Manchester to Derby and Leicester, I still think this is a silly idea. Lots of places don't have a direct service and the solution is simple: change trains. The population of Bradford is 50% larger than that of Leicester, and yet Bradford doesn't have a direct train to Sheffield, Liverpool or Newcastle, people simply change trains, using the very frequent Bradford-Leeds service and then going onwards from Leeds (Bradford is appaulingly served, but that's another matter!). As I said above, 3tph HV is one every 20 mins, so even allowing a 10 mins connection time, you'll never have more than a 30 minute wait at Sheffield, and if things connect well, you could do it in 5-10 mins at Chesterfield.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes, to some extent I would agree about Manchester-Nottingham. However, the way to solve that in my opinion is to go via Stoke or create signifiicantly more Sheffield paths (i.e. the Woodhead or a new train/road tunnel) than try to restrict what are already hopelessly overcrowded trains. In the short term, I would argue that EMT need to stop calling at places like Dore, Chinley and Hazel Grove (leave that to TPE) and put on much longer trains - there's no operational reason why 8 carriage trains couldn't be used, maybe even find some 222s with SDO. The problem is that that's a pipe dream, I don't actually see things changing much at all.

Yes, longer trains would be a good solution without (I assume) requiring extra infrastructure.

Genuine question... are trains between Manchester and Sheffield that really busy? I used the route regularly 20 years ago, but usually for weekend breaks, and I recall trains were normally packed - but then that was usually on a Friday evening and they were only 2-car trains! More recently I used the route once a month ago, and the Tuesday daytime 4-car EMT train I was on seemed pretty lightly loaded to me.

As for Manchester to Derby and Leicester, I still think this is a silly idea. Lots of places don't have a direct service and the solution is simple: change trains. The population of Bradford is 50% larger than that of Leicester, and yet Bradford doesn't have a direct train to Sheffield, Liverpool or Newcastle, people simply change trains, using the very frequent Bradford-Leeds service and then going onwards from Leeds (Bradford is appaulingly served, but that's another matter!).

I wouldn't say it's a silly idea. Usually I tend to err towards providing decent connections as a more robust solution than direct trains to everywhere. However, it seems to me that Manchester has become such an important centre that it does merit direct services where practicable to all large towns within reasonable commuting distance (I'd put Derby and Nottingham in that category, Leicester is further away and so perhaps a bit more marginal). Changing at Stoke is problematic at the moment because of the slow Stoke-Derby journey times (50 minutes to go about 30 miles!?!) and infrequent journey times. I'm not sure what infrastructure work would be needed to improve things there, but perhaps an hourly (eventually, half-hourly) Manchester-Stoke-Derby-Nottingham fast train taking just over an hour Manchester-Derby would be a good aim (Would obviously require capacity improvements at the Manchester end though). And (to get this back to thread topic) that would start to satisfy the problem of poor journey opportunities (and I'd be very certain, a lot of suppressed demand) from Manchester to the East Midlands without putting additional pressure on the Hope Valley line.

 

[DanTrain]

Yes, longer trains would be a good solution without (I assume) requiring extra infrastructure.

Genuine question... are trains between Manchester and Sheffield that really busy? I used the route regularly 20 years ago, but usually for weekend breaks, and I recall trains were normally packed - but then that was usually on a Friday evening and they were only 2-car trains! More recently I used the route once a month ago, and the Tuesday daytime 4-car EMT train I was on seemed pretty lightly loaded to me.

I tend to find the TPEs are packed whatever time of day it is, even ones coming into Sheffield at 11:10 are pretty much at capacity arriving, with plenty waiting at Sheffield (and plenty getting off too). As for the EMTs, I reckon they're less loaded outside of peaks than the TPEs, but during the peaks they're full to the rafters, especially when EMT shortforms (I was recently left behind by a shortformed EMT in the very early peak). They'd also be busier if they were faster and marketed better - after all it is currently the main connection from Liverpool to Sheffield and Notts and from Man to Notts, as well as providing a Liv-Man fast, Man-Shf fast and a Shf-Notts fast. As for the stoppers, it's very variable, they can go from fairly lightly loaded at odd times to full and standing on sunny weekends, although the (nearly) hourly service has helped somewhat in the peak.

I wouldn't say it's a silly idea. Usually I tend to err towards providing decent connections as a more robust solution than direct trains to everywhere. However, it seems to me that Manchester has become such an important centre that it does merit direct services where practicable to all large towns within reasonable commuting distance (I'd put Derby and Nottingham in that category, Leicester is further away and so perhaps a bit more marginal). Changing at Stoke is problematic at the moment because of the slow Stoke-Derby journey times (50 minutes to go about 30 miles!?!) and infrequent journey times. I'm not sure what infrastructure work would be needed to improve things there, but perhaps an hourly (eventually, half-hourly) Manchester-Stoke-Derby-Nottingham fast train with the aim that it should take only about an hour Manchester-Derby would be a good aim (Would obviously require capacity improvements at the Manchester end though). And (to get this back to thread topic) that would start to satisfy the problem of poor journeys from Manchester to the East Midlands without putting additional pressure on the Hope Valley line.

That would be a fairly workable solution, providing the path can be found from Stoke for another fast into Manchester, I do agree that Derby/Notts should have a better service to Manchester .

 

[g22]

Surely the same could be said about say Norwich to Corby or Lincoln to Bradford? That doesn’t mean we should immediately introduce a direct service at the expense of connections between two major cities? If the Hope Valley had 3 trains per hour, the chance of having a long wait in Sheffield is therefore reduced as well?

I agree that if there are only 3 fast paths on the Hope Valley Line then priority should be for a Sheffield to Manchester 3rd Train. However, I don't understand how you can compare Leicester or Derby to Manchester with Corby to Norwich.

I wouldn't say it's a silly idea. Usually I tend to err towards providing decent connections as a more robust solution than direct trains to everywhere. However, it seems to me that Manchester has become such an important centre that it does merit direct services where practicable to all large towns within reasonable commuting distance (I'd put Derby and Nottingham in that category, Leicester is further away and so perhaps a bit more marginal). Changing at Stoke is problematic at the moment because of the slow Stoke-Derby journey times (50 minutes to go about 30 miles!?!) and infrequent journey times. I'm not sure what infrastructure work would be needed to improve things there, but perhaps an hourly (eventually, half-hourly) Manchester-Stoke-Derby-Nottingham fast train taking just over an hour Manchester-Derby would be a good aim (Would obviously require capacity improvements at the Manchester end though). And (to get this back to thread topic) that would start to satisfy the problem of poor journey opportunities (and I'd be very certain, a lot of suppressed demand) from Manchester to the East Midlands without putting additional pressure on the Hope Valley line.

The Leicester to Manchester flow is unlikely to be smaller than the Derby to Manchester flow according to snippets of information that have been made available over recent years.

 

[Chester1]

I tend to find the TPEs are packed whatever time of day it is, even ones coming into Sheffield at 11:10 are pretty much at capacity arriving, with plenty waiting at Sheffield (and plenty getting off too). As for the EMTs, I reckon they're less loaded outside of peaks than the TPEs, but during the peaks they're full to the rafters, especially when EMT shortforms (I was recently left behind by a shortformed EMT in the very early peak). They'd also be busier if they were faster and marketed better - after all it is currently the main connection from Liverpool to Sheffield and Notts and from Man to Notts, as well as providing a Liv-Man fast, Man-Shf fast and a Shf-Notts fast. As for the stoppers, it's very variable, they can go from fairly lightly loaded at odd times to full and standing on sunny weekends, although the (nearly) hourly service has helped somewhat in the peak.

That would be a fairly workable solution, providing the path can be found from Stoke for another fast into Manchester, I do agree that Derby/Notts should have a better service to Manchester .

The East Midlands franchise consultation has stated the intention to split Liverpool-Norwich in December 2021 with bidders proposing alternative extensions (or none) for Nottingham-Norwich. I would say Sheffield/Leeds or to Derby to merge with the Crewe service are the most likely options. Liverpool-Nottingham will be given to TPE or Northern. I would be very surprised if a 2 coach DMU service was allowed to be extended from Crewe to Manchester. There is no free capacity between Slade Lane and Piccadilly so it would require cancelling or diverting a higher capacity service.

 

[DanTrain]

However, I don't understand how you can compare Leicester or Derby to Manchester with Corby to Norwich.

That was meant as a comparison to Market Harbrough/Kettering, it isn’t really applicable to Leicester/Derby I appreciate.

The East Midlands franchise consultation has stated the intention to split Liverpool-Norwich in December 2021 with bidders proposing alternative extensions (or none) for Nottingham-Norwich. I would say Sheffield/Leeds or to Derby to merge with the Crewe service are the most likely options. Liverpool-Nottingham will be given to TPE or Northern. I would be very surprised if a 2 coach DMU service was allowed to be extended from Crewe to Manchester. There is no free capacity between Slade Lane and Piccadilly so it would require cancelling or diverting a higher capacity service.

Well how about the radical idea of not running a 2 car train. Order some new stock for Liv-Notts (or use 185s) and sent the 158s to run as 4 car Notts - Man (maybe one of the Hazel Grove paths could be used since they’re currently running Diesels up an electric line there - this last suggestion isn’t entirely thought through - it may be a terrible idea!)

 

[Chester1]

Well how about the radical idea of not running a 2 car train. Order some new stock for Liv-Notts (or use 185s) and sent the 158s to run as 4 car Notts - Man (maybe one of the Hazel Grove paths could be used since they’re currently running Diesels up an electric line there - this last suggestion isn’t entirely thought through - it may be a terrible idea!)

Jumping from a 153 to double 158s is a bit excessive. Northern might want to retain the 156s and 158s but its much more likely TPE will get the route instead and its reported they would use Mark V sets and order more 802s for Scarborough and Middlesbrough. Running under the wires is not the only other issue, 158s have a top speed of 90mph meaning they may not be able to be given fast paths on the WCML.

Hazel Grove terminators should be entirely EMUs once Manchester-Preston wiring is finally done.

 

[chefchenko]

Hard to believe 2 major cities that are so close yet so poorly connected by both the archaic rail and road exist in 2018 !!

 

[unlevel42]

Genuine question... are trains between Manchester and Sheffield that really busy? I used the route regularly 20 years ago, but usually for weekend breaks, and I recall trains were normally packed - but then that was usually on a Friday evening and they were only 2-car trains! More recently I used the route once a month ago, and the Tuesday daytime 4-car EMT train I was on seemed pretty lightly loaded to me.

I regularly travel off peak weekdays and weekends between Sheffield and Stockport then Poynton.
A third of the time we stand on 2 car EMT and 3 car TPEs.
Engage in the platform hopping (today 8-7-8 at Sheffield and 0-2 at Stockport).
EMT alphabet problems (today BADC unlabelled- which caused a delay as passengers wandered around and argued about reservations).
EMT counting problems- 2(last Tuesday at Peak on return) or 4 carriages?
EMT geography problem- make sure you use the correct coaches for Norwich- which coaches?, what about Grantham?
EMT information is readily available from the EMT staff puffing away on the Supertram platform above.
Then the bliss of one person per carriage Poynton service!

PS as usual the Virgin staff at Stockport are brilliant!



.

 

[Chester1]

Hard to believe 2 major cities that are so close yet so poorly connected by both the archaic rail and road exist in 2018 !!

Yes its poor but hopefully the worst is nearly over. TPE are extending their services between Airport and Sheffield to 6 coaches in December by internally cascading a small number of 185s freed up by Mark V sets entering service. That should remove the worst of the capacity issues until Liverpool-Nottingham transfers in 2021, which if run with 2 x 185s / 5 x Mark Vs / 802s should provide enough capacity until the passing loops are built and a 3rd express starts. 3tph fast and 1tph slow would be a reasonable outcome.

 

[Killingworth]

A quick check on RTT for today shows 27 freight paths which could make use of a reopened Buxton-Matlock line relieving the Hope Valley route. ALL of the 27 would incur less mileage using the Matlock line.

Admittedly, many of these paths are shown as cancelled but presumably, even on the Hope Valley line, provision has to be made in the timetable in case they run. A more detailed check I made some time ago indicated at least 10 actual trains daily would use a reopened quarries to Matlock line as opposed to theoretical paths.

The stone traffic runs acording to demand, and from more than one quarry. Some of the paths are light engine movements for servicing and/or repositioning. The paths will be kept in case of need, but can be used at relatively short notice. From a quarry manager I know the traffic is currently rising and there can be days when getting enough freight wagons is difficult. The quarries have time limited extraction licences which isn't a concern today, but will have an effect in 20 years or so if they can't be extended.

Reopening the line via Bakewell was considered and rejected by the inspector (as was reopening Woodhead). Peak Rail have been trying to get it reopened for over 40 years and so far have got a single track from Matlock to Rowsley. It should be noted that the section from Rowsley to Buxton includes tunnels and viaducts - and the Monsal Trail that is now very popular with walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Leaving aside the fact that the section from Ambergate to Matlock is also now a single line, maintained for slow moving DMU stock, any proposal to reopen the line for freight would set the Peak District National Park and lots of other bodies on a collision course of opposition.

If local opposition were overcome it would be an expensive project to relay to modern freight standards. The track bed is fine for walking

It isn't likely to happen. I say that as PR member for over 30 years who can't see us even getting to Bakewell in my lifetime - but this is a digression from the Hope Valley.

The two planned freight loops will help, but some shorter loops for parking a stopping service to allow a fast to pass might also help to improve timekeeping by all. Hope might be a good area to look at for that, with a 3rd bi-directional platform perhaps. Or more simply just reinstate disconnected track on both sides west of both Edale and Grindleford. (I know, even that's hard, particularly controlling points and signals in the wilder parts of Britain in ice and snow.)

 

[Killingworth]

I regularly travel off peak weekdays and weekends between Sheffield and Stockport then Poynton.
A third of the time we stand on 2 car EMT and 3 car TPEs.
Engage in the platform hopping (today 8-7-8 at Sheffield and 0-2 at Stockport).
EMT alphabet problems (today BADC unlabelled- which caused a delay as passengers wandered around and argued about reservations).
EMT counting problems- 2(last Tuesday at Peak on return) or 4 carriages?
EMT geography problem- make sure you use the correct coaches for Norwich- which coaches?, what about Grantham?
EMT information is readily available from the EMT staff puffing away on the Supertram platform above.

Trying to be fair, EMT have been getting 4 cars onto more trains in recent weeks. 3 cars with a 153 tagging along have reduced the number of 2 car trains.
However, Norwich -Liverpool gives plenty of scope for delays, some quite lengthy, and stock get in the wrong places at the wrong time.
The lack of platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly doesn't help EMT one bit, especially having to queue to go east.
It's amusing when you're on a 2 car train and asked to use the front two cars for Norwich at Sheffield, but were told the back two cars at Liverpool and Manchester - but on such days you may not have been able to get on at all.
In recent weeks some trains are averaging over 10 minutes late on a journey timed to take about 50 minutes, Recent Train Times shows both TPE and EMT are dire.

TPE 6 coach trains are like an alphabet soup ABC, FED or maybe FDE, ABC. A-F is useful, but it may be F-A. It's murder finding a booked seat, especially when boarding at Dore & Totley when the last 2 cars are out of the platform. That's why the 1 minute booked stop often becomes 3.

 

[Killingworth]

Yes its poor but hopefully the worst is nearly over. TPE are extending their services between Airport and Sheffield to 6 coaches in December by internally cascading a small number of 185s freed up by Mark V sets entering service. That should remove the worst of the capacity issues until Liverpool-Nottingham transfers in 2021, which if run with 2 x 185s / 5 x Mark Vs / 802s should provide enough capacity until the passing loops are built and a 3rd express starts. 3tph fast and 1tph slow would be a reasonable outcome.

TPE are gradually upgrading specific trains to 6 cars now, as stock comes available. They're trying to send out 6 on the same services every day to meet the busiest timings.

The point is that HVCS should be ready for December 2021, which is why that date's in the East Midlands refranchising tender. However, it's not certain TPE will get the route, or any additional new route. It's supposedly TPE OR Northern for Liverpool - Nottingham BUT East Midlands may keep it, possibly if HVCS isn't delivered by then (or, at this rate, ever).

DfT may not be too keen on 2 x 185 due to lack of connectivity within the train. A train of 5 x Mark Vs would work better - or even a shortened HST

 

[Joseph_Locke]

A train of 5 x Mark Vs would work better - or even a Class 221

Fixed for you ...

 

[DanTrain]

Fixed for you ...

Or maybe even a 222 if bi-modes ever arrive

 

[skifans]

Don't know if it's related in any way but there is a sign at Dore about refurbishing the shelter. Still open at the moment, possibly had a lick of paint since my last visit and th broken payphone has been removed.

 

[DanTrain]

Don't know if it's related in any way but there is a sign at Dore about refurbishing the shelter. Still open at the moment, possibly had a lick of paint since my last visit and th broken payphone has been removed.

They were working on it on Monday, it appeared to mostly be paintpots, but I didn't get a close look.

 

[Killingworth]

They were working on it on Monday, it appeared to mostly be paintpots, but I didn't get a close look.

It's just a standard refurbishment. The grammar on the notice has caused some amusement.The payphone went years ago and was replaced by a Help Point beside the ticket machine.

The wooden bench seat was to have been removed and replaced with modern steel seating with hard arm rests. In a move for local democracy Northern have listened to users and agreed to save that money and the cosy bench is being repainted. The shelter will take about 20 at most, all crammed in when it rains heavily. Most just hide under the large conifer by the entrance, or just get wet. 100 or more can be waiting if trains are late - which they often are.

Platform 2 is a long way away. When/if it comes users are hoping for more than the small bus shelter shown on the illustrations given at the public inquiry. They did concede using brick facings on the bridge towers after being asked if there were to be lions or tigers kept in the cages as illustrated.

A long way from the old junction station of 100 years ago.

 

[edwin_m]

A long way from the old junction station of 100 years ago.

View attachment 51121

The stream underbridge visible on that photo is still there and obviously designed to accommodate a set of left-handed crossovers at the nearer end of the platforms. That photo must be 1920s or earlier (going by the marking of the back of the distant signal in the foreground) so those crossovers must have gone even earlier, possibly to allow platform lengthening.

 

[faltskog36abba]

Just re timings for Sheffield to Manchester Victoria, in the late ‘80s I remember using all three routes out of Manchester on Nottingham or boat trains (Phillips Park, Guide Bridge and via Slade Lane).

Before the Hazel Grove Chord was built in ‘86, in 85/6 trains from north of Manchester (eg The European from Scotland-Harwich) would travel via Victoria, Phillips Park and New Mills to the Hope Valley Line. Journey time from memory was about 1hr 10 to Sheffield, slower than Piccadilly which was about 55 minutes at that time. Remember that would be a 47+10 snaking around the Park curves so sprinters/185s would be a bit quicker.

I remember the through trains to Harwich from Edinburgh/Blackpool. Looking at my old timetable from 86/87, The Blackpool to Harwich Parkeston quay

After the Hazel Grove Chord but before the Windsor Link in 1988/9, similar trains usually went from Victoria via Ashton Moss, Guide Bridge and Stockport - again from memory (I wish I still had that timetable!) I think the North West Dane from Blackpool to Harwich used to leave Victoria at 0843 and get to Stockport at 0906, so 25 mins-30 mins. It was certainly a long way around. I think around that time Phillips Park to Ashburys went freight-only. Then the Windsor Link was built and everything came in that way and through Slade Lane to Stockport.

Interesting thought though about how Ashburys/Phillips Park/Victoria might be a way of routing an additional hourly Hope Valley if the core route problems could be overcome, without adding to the Piccadilly and/or Castlefield mix, especially if you continued it north to eg Preston and kept it away from the main problem altogether.

I remember the through trains from Blackpool to Harwich Parkeston quay. Your memory serves you well, The train left Victoria at 08.40 and arrived in Sheffield at 09.54, That's according to the timetable from sept 86 to may 87. Only a few minutes out.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The wooden bench seat was to have been removed and replaced with modern steel seating with hard arm rests. In a move for local democracy Northern have listened to users and agreed to save that money and the cosy bench is being repainted. The shelter will take about 20 at most, all crammed in when it rains heavily. Most just hide under the large conifer by the entrance, or just get wet. 100 or more can be waiting if trains are late - which they often are.

How does an at-best hourly train being late make a difference to the number of people waiting for it?

Platform 2 is a long way away. When/if it comes users are hoping for more than the small bus shelter shown on the illustrations given at the public inquiry. They did concede using brick facings on the bridge towers after being asked if there were to be lions or tigers kept in the cages as illustrated.

Dore does look in a sorry state compared to 100 years ago and could definitely use a new canopy. Judging from those photos I suspect when the 2nd platform arrives you'll have people using the bridge as a shelter

 

[DanTrain]

How does an at-best hourly train being late make a difference to the number of people waiting for it?

I assume this refers to the morning peak when 6 trains arrive in the space of an hour

Dore does look in a sorry state compared to 100 years ago and could definitely use a new canopy. Judging from those photos I suspect when the 2nd platform arrives you'll have people using the bridge as a shelter

There is a plan to add a small new canopy, I'll see if I can find the visualised drawing for it.