Hope Valley Capacity Scheme updates

[Killingworth]

You can just tell that he is reading what some gnome in the DfT has copied out of the NR documents, with no understanding whatsoever.
As proposed, the NR scheme runs from just east of Earles 'box (first signalling alteration) to half way down Heeley Loop (last signalling alteration).

And "modernise" is a bit strong ...

He also doesn't seem to have been told about it being a vital inter-city route between Liverpool and Norwich via Sheffield, Manchester and Nottingham, also between Manchester Airport and Sheffield plus Doncaster and Grimsby.

He seems to have also missed the value of limestone and cement coming out of the Peak District, conflicting movements of long freight trains being a major source of the congestion. In this picture an empty working has just been released towards the Hope Valley, as a fully laden and late running train has pulled across the line below the hill in the background taking the Dore curve to head south. Behind that freight was a Hope Valley stopping service, now being held to wait for this empty working to clear. Inevitably the Northern service came late!

Redoubling would have allowed this train to pass the stopper in the platform. One of the loops at Bamford or Dore would have allowed the laden freight to be kept off the running track to let the stopped proceed.

I haven't seen anything yet to suggest the new tracks will go beyond Dore Station Junction, although taking them as fas as possible towards the Tesco's/Sainsbury's bottleneck would be sensible. That's likely to happen for 3 tracks for HS2. Resignalling is necessary of course to tie in the new tracks with old.

[ ATTACH=full]55508[/ATTACH]

 

[edwin_m]

And "modernise" is a bit strong ...

Bring into the 2nd half of the 20th century?

Also "proposing" doesn't mean the same as "proceeding".

 

[Killingworth]

Bring into the 2nd half of the 20th century?

Also "proposing" doesn't mean the same as "proceeding".

No it doesn't. The devil in the detail. Taking possibly more than a year to replan and recost the project before it can be tendered means achieving a 2021 completion date will be - challenging. 2022 is ominously mentioned in the suggestion it may take longer to complete.

 

[DanTrain]

This is telling, all 7 ‘core’ Hope Valley stations fall in the bottom 100 (<2500 out of 2607) stations for performance in the country. Stockport, Piccadilly and Sheffield don’t fare much better, with Sheffield and Piccadilly in the bottom 10 major stations. And yet Mr Grayling is still too concerned with London (where 9 out of the 10 best performing major stations happen to be located) to do anything about it!

https://www.ontimetrains.co.uk/stations/performance-timelines

Link to comparison website, photo if HV comparison!

 

[Killingworth]

View attachment 55523This is telling, all 7 ‘core’ Hope Valley stations fall in the bottom 100 (<2500 out of 2607) stations for performance in the country. Stockport, Piccadilly and Sheffield don’t fare much better, with Sheffield and Piccadilly in the bottom 10 major stations. And yet Mr Grayling is still too concerned with London (where 9 out of the 10 best performing major stations happen to be located) to do anything about it!

https://www.ontimetrains.co.uk/stations/performance-timelines

Link to comparison website, photo if HV comparison!

Those are almost unbelievable statistics - unless you're a regular user of any of those stations!

I've made 8 journeys on the Hope Valley line this week, 2 TPE, 4 Northern. The worst performer was 30 minutes late (TPE), the best only 3. I stood all the way to Manchester twice and was impressed with the good humour of those standing around me. Even the Northern services seemed to be fuller than they were 2 or 3 years ago. I suspect some have realised that although they take longer you'll probably get a seat, and more are now 15x units.

 

[spongsdad]

View attachment 55523This is telling, all 7 ‘core’ Hope Valley stations fall in the bottom 100 (<2500 out of 2607) stations for performance in the country. Stockport, Piccadilly and Sheffield don’t fare much better, with Sheffield and Piccadilly in the bottom 10 major stations. And yet Mr Grayling is still too concerned with London (where 9 out of the 10 best performing major stations happen to be located) to do anything about it!

https://www.ontimetrains.co.uk/stations/performance-timelines

Link to comparison website, photo if HV comparison!

And all this brought to you by the team who are delivering such a wonderful Brexit. The Conservative Government.......working for commuters in the North by stifling the development of their rail network. Give me strength!

 

[Killingworth]

Hot from the news desk, you need to read a long way down, but the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme and Dore & Totley station get a mention in the Secretary of State's speech today at the Northern Transport Conference; https://www.gov.uk/…/ambitious-transport-programme-is-funda…

"But let us also remember that the North is not just about cities.
It also has some of the most stunning countryside in Europe.

And a very important rural economy.

That’s why we’re also supporting local railways like the Hope Valley line.

Network Rail is proposing to modernise sections of the railway between Bamford station and Jaggers Lane Bridge in Hathersage.

And around Dore and Totley station.

We are now updating the business case and anticipate being able to announce a delivery date in the next year."

May still take until 2022 is the sting in the tale!

Best estimate now is that it will take the better part of a year to update the plans as many details and necessary procedures have changed since the scheme was prepared. Then contractors will be appointed and timescales calculated to include possessions. Construction may begin in 2020.

After major cost and time over runs tracks will probably not be made available for new timetables before December 2022. That will depend on whether everything can proceed to plan. It might be later, but if work can go well tracks could become available earlier to relieve congestion before new services are introduced.

Still a long way to go. Platforms 15 & 16 at Piccadilly would take another decade even if approval were granted!

 

[Killingworth]

East Midlands say that 1/3 of all their delays are on the hourly Liverpool-Norwich service, way out of proportion to that routes weighting among all their others.

The Hope Valley is only one of a big collection of bottlenecks from East Anglia to Liverpool and back again. Whoever gets the new franchise will be very happy to lose much of that route, and soon!

 

[yorksrob]

East Midlands say that 1/3 of all their delays are on the hourly Liverpool-Norwich service, way out of proportion to that routes weighting among all their others.

The Hope Valley is only one of a big collection of bottlenecks from East Anglia to Liverpool and back again. Whoever gets the new franchise will be very happy to lose much of that route, and soon!

But will such a change bring any benefits to us as passengers.

Answer, No.

 

[ivanhoe]

But will such a change bring any benefits to us as passengers.

Answer, No.

Correct Yorksrob. This route May be a pain to the rail industry but it’s an important route. Is it really beyond the wit of railman or railwomen to sort this one out? It’s never always been this bad on this route. It is an important ‘cross country’ route, linking west to east and giving many journey opportunities along the core of its route. Yes, not many will go all the way,and I’m sure the number of people travelling from Widnes to Grantham are very few but purely using infrastructure reasons as to either split, or drop it will sort anything out. Make the decision on what is best for passengers, not primarily for the rail industry.

 

[Killingworth]

I have just discovered Network Rail's Yorkshire and Humber Route Utilisation Strategy from July 2009 on Rotherham council's website.

Hope is mentioned 42 times and Dore 59. It is quite clear that almost 10 years ago the need to redouble at Dore, and to provide additional passing loops, had been researched and a strong case made. The section below carries the first of many references to such plans.

"Medium-term strategy 2014 – 2019 (Control Period 5)

The following recommended changes to train services form the proposed strategy for CP5. There would be continued train lengthening on local services, including the additional shuttles introduced during CP. A 43 minute journey time Leeds – Manchester via Huddersfield should become standard for most fast services, with a further recast of services on the Huddersfield route to allow this to happen. A ‘standard hour’ service of three fast trains per hour would be introduced between Sheffield and Manchester. Improved journey times would be introduced in the Leeds – Sheffield via Barnsley corridor, between Sheffield and Manchester and between Bradford and Manchester. Freight paths are expected to be further increased on those routes highlighted in the Freight RUS plus routes where further growth is driven by gauge enhancement. Improved capacity, performance, linespeeds and engineering access will be provided between Immingham and Wrawby Junction and between Hessle Road Jn and Gilberdyke. Subject to the realisation of projected housing growth in the Pontefract area, a half-hourly Knottingley to Leeds service would be provided.

New rolling stock is expected to begin to bring benefits with: greater seating capacity on London – Yorkshire services as the result of IEP introduction IEP dual fuel sub-fleet could provide potential for improved London links for towns/cities not on electrified routes new generation Diesel Multiple Units starting to replace the Pacer/Sprinter fleet possible extension of electrification within the RUS area.

It is envisaged that the following projects will be needed to deliver the above train service strategy:

1. further platform lengthening
   
2. further capacity and linespeed enhancements between Leeds and Manchester via Huddersfield further enhancement to the track and signalling at Castleford
   
3. doubling of the Dore & Totley station curve and new loops in the Hope Valley
4. additional crossover at Bradford Interchange and some bidirectional signalling capacity and performance improvements in the Rotherham area
   
5. enhancements between Wrawby Junction and Brocklesby
   
6. enhancements between Ulceby and the Immingham dock complex
   
7. possible extension of electrified network within the RUS area
   
8. possible incremental improvements to capacity, performance and engineering access in the Doncaster station area prior to more significant enhancement on the back of signalling renewals in the longer term
   
9. any further W9/W10/W12 loading gauge works identified through the Strategic Freight Network mechanism
   
10. other schemes identified as representing (sic?) to reduce reactionary delay and/or improve the balance between engineering access and continuity of service operation."

I'll leave others to debate on other threads the progress on other intended interventions, but it is illuminating to see how quickly, or not, things progress on today's railways. Since 2009 passenger numbers at single platform Dore & Totley have grown by well over 100%.

The need for the works must surely be greater today than in 2009, yet the most highly optimistic start date for any work is 2019 and completion not before 2022 - if all goes to a plan that has till to be confirmed.

Yet as long ago as July 2005 Network Rail was giving out signs that work was likely to start fairly soon, see application to Sheffield City Council Planning Department "Provision of a new platform and footbridge (Application for determination if approval required for design and siting)"

Now we're being told the HS2a Sheffield spur should pass through the not to be rebuilt mainline platforms 3 & 4 at Dore & Totley - by 2033.

We in the north sometimes sound a little jealous of all that cash being spent on the likes of Crossrail ( I know, that's been in planning since about the period when the platform and tracks at Dore & Totley were singled in 1985). It's possibly less the targetting of spending, but more the incredible delays which delay projects for decades, ultimately adding vast sums to their eventual cost.

Having returned from my annual Christmas visit to the south-east I know it's painful by rail all round. No through trains from Liverpool Street to Southend for the better part of a fortnight - but at least the work is getting done.

 

[Chester1]

I have just discovered Network Rail's Yorkshire and Humber Route Utilisation Strategy from July 2009 on Rotherham council's website.

Hope is mentioned 42 times and Dore 59. It is quite clear that almost 10 years ago the need to redouble at Dore, and to provide additional passing loops, had been researched and a strong case made. The section below carries the first of many references to such plans.

"Medium-term strategy 2014 – 2019 (Control Period 5)

The following recommended changes to train services form the proposed strategy for CP5. There would be continued train lengthening on local services, including the additional shuttles introduced during CP. A 43 minute journey time Leeds – Manchester via Huddersfield should become standard for most fast services, with a further recast of services on the Huddersfield route to allow this to happen. A ‘standard hour’ service of three fast trains per hour would be introduced between Sheffield and Manchester. Improved journey times would be introduced in the Leeds – Sheffield via Barnsley corridor, between Sheffield and Manchester and between Bradford and Manchester. Freight paths are expected to be further increased on those routes highlighted in the Freight RUS plus routes where further growth is driven by gauge enhancement. Improved capacity, performance, linespeeds and engineering access will be provided between Immingham and Wrawby Junction and between Hessle Road Jn and Gilberdyke. Subject to the realisation of projected housing growth in the Pontefract area, a half-hourly Knottingley to Leeds service would be provided.

New rolling stock is expected to begin to bring benefits with: greater seating capacity on London – Yorkshire services as the result of IEP introduction IEP dual fuel sub-fleet could provide potential for improved London links for towns/cities not on electrified routes new generation Diesel Multiple Units starting to replace the Pacer/Sprinter fleet possible extension of electrification within the RUS area.

It is envisaged that the following projects will be needed to deliver the above train service strategy:

1. further platform lengthening
   
2. further capacity and linespeed enhancements between Leeds and Manchester via Huddersfield further enhancement to the track and signalling at Castleford
   
3. doubling of the Dore & Totley station curve and new loops in the Hope Valley
4. additional crossover at Bradford Interchange and some bidirectional signalling capacity and performance improvements in the Rotherham area
   
5. enhancements between Wrawby Junction and Brocklesby
   
6. enhancements between Ulceby and the Immingham dock complex
   
7. possible extension of electrified network within the RUS area
   
8. possible incremental improvements to capacity, performance and engineering access in the Doncaster station area prior to more significant enhancement on the back of signalling renewals in the longer term
   
9. any further W9/W10/W12 loading gauge works identified through the Strategic Freight Network mechanism
   
10. other schemes identified as representing (sic?) to reduce reactionary delay and/or improve the balance between engineering access and continuity of service operation."

I'll leave others to debate on other threads the progress on other intended interventions, but it is illuminating to see how quickly, or not, things progress on today's railways. Since 2009 passenger numbers at single platform Dore & Totley have grown by well over 100%.

The need for the works must surely be greater today than in 2009, yet the most highly optimistic start date for any work is 2019 and completion not before 2022 - if all goes to a plan that has till to be confirmed.

Yet as long ago as July 2005 Network Rail was giving out signs that work was likely to start fairly soon, see application to Sheffield City Council Planning Department "Provision of a new platform and footbridge (Application for determination if approval required for design and siting)"

Now we're being told the HS2a Sheffield spur should pass through the not to be rebuilt mainline platforms 3 & 4 at Dore & Totley - by 2033.

We in the north sometimes sound a little jealous of all that cash being spent on the likes of Crossrail ( I know, that's been in planning since about the period when the platform and tracks at Dore & Totley were singled in 1985). It's possibly less the targetting of spending, but more the incredible delays which delay projects for decades, ultimately adding vast sums to their eventual cost.

Having returned from my annual Christmas visit to the south-east I know it's painful by rail all round. No through trains from Liverpool Street to Southend for the better part of a fortnight - but at least the work is getting done.

I very much doubt the 2033 plan will change the plans to redouble the station soon. 2021 is the expected completion date for the program to allow a recast and 3rd express service from December 2021. Its gone quiet because NR has no spare cash until April.

 

[Killingworth]

I very much doubt the 2033 plan will change the plans to redouble the station soon. 2021 is the expected completion date for the program to allow a recast and 3rd express service from December 2021. Its gone quiet because NR has no spare cash until April.

Network Rail have put aside £0.5m from CP5 to update their plans and hope to have it ready to seek tenders by about April/May, with contractors appointed by about October. At that point they will all confirm their more detailed works programme and arrange agreed possessions.

Heavy earthworks will be avoided in the winter months. Together with the booking of possessions to fit around timetable changes that all but rules out any significant work in 2019, and possibly anything much in 2020! On that basis heavy work starting in 2021 might get things completed by autumn 2022. Network Rail have already said they do not expect to be able to provide paths for more trains before the December 2022 timetable changes.

Locally that is now accepted to be the best position. It needs a lot of continued attention and pressure by all interested parties to ensure this relatively modest scheme gets completed. Network Rail are terrified that any project will go over budget, or over promised timescales. Better to offer a long lead time and achieve a less stretching target.


Rather disappointing for all who have to sit and wait for trains to clear the single section at Dore, possibly due to those trying to board a 6 coach TPE train from the front 4 carriages take 3 minutes instead of the booked one. Those two trains further delaying trains on the Midland mainline and XC routes.

Parking is a big issue at Dore & Totley with over 100 cars now unable to get into the car park most weekdays during school term time. Two options have been identified but neither can be progressed until NR have finished their work.

Since 2007/8 passenger numbers have increased by 5-15% every year. At that continued rate of growth numbers would be over 250,000 by 2021/2 - from a single platform. Locally that's a daunting prospect! With two platforms and more trains stopping it's a local nightmare - probably of a good kind for those who support railways, but not for those who live nearby!

I'm afraid the recasting of Liverpool-Norwich is likely to be delayed beyond 2021. It might as well be done sooner as TPE seem to have the 185s lined up for it. (I like the 185s for speed and comfort but the 158s are more practical as they offer walk through access to any combination of 2, 4, 6 or 8 carriages - but no first.) A 6 coach 185 is well loaded at peak times now, so more may soon be needed. That third fast service will be part of it.

No the HS2 plans are unlikely to materially delay matters, but the HVCS is specifically expected to take into account electrification of the mainline, and also any possible impact of any tramtrain along the Sheaf Valley. There are plenty of spanners that can be thrown in the works, not forgetting regular financial reviews. I didn't use that B***** word!

 

[AndrewE]

Reading that I strongly suspect that some of us readers will be dead before any upgrade happens!
I note that Killingworth didn't comment on the near-universal 8- or 12-coach trains in the south-east. I know they have big traffic flows down there, but heavy flows do happen outside London too (plus people being left behind on once-an hour services, which I think is almost unknown in Greater London - once an hour I mean.)
Actually we get left behind on 3- or 4-times an hour services westbound out of Leeds. Pity there isn't the money for anything longer than 3 cars on a trunk route up here.
Christmas/ New Year quiz question: what would be the quickest way of doubling TransPennine capacity with the existing track and signalling? I wonder what the answer could possibly be?
What a shame that they didn't decant the Houses of Commons and Lords to a combination or selection of Manchester, Leeds or Sheffield while they sort their building out...

 

[Killingworth]

Reading that I strongly suspect that some of us readers will be dead before any upgrade happens!
I note that Killingworth didn't comment on the near-universal 8- or 12-coach trains in the south-east. I know they have big traffic flows down there, but heavy flows do happen outside London too (plus people being left behind on once-an hour services, which I think is almost unknown in Greater London - once an hour I mean.)
Actually we get left behind on 3- or 4-times an hour services westbound out of Leeds. Pity there isn't the money for anything longer than 3 cars on a trunk route up here.
Christmas/ New Year quiz question: what would be the quickest way of doubling TransPennine capacity with the existing track and signalling? I wonder what the answer could possibly be?
What a shame that they didn't decant the Houses of Commons and Lords to a combination or selection of Manchester, Leeds or Sheffield while they sort their building out...

Having just returned from Essex where I noted 8 carriage trains (almost empty this week) every few minutes running through Leigh-on-Sea, and my grandson stands on a 12 car train from Billericay to school each day, I have to accept there is need for more expenditure down south.

Yes, we more or less invented railways in the north, but we've let innovation slip away from us. The North Eastern was preparing to electrify mainline miles when WW1 broke out. We had suburban electrics on Tyneside and Merseyside before that. The LNER had their plans to electrify Woodhead delayed by WW2.

One of the reasons we use trains so much less in the north is partially because we got into a cycle of decline after 1945 that resulted in many lines being closed, and many tracks lifted which would provide extra paths if still there today. The Sheffield - Manchester line is just one. My current view is that building a 6 car platform at Dore & Totley may be short sighted. Possibly it should take 8 or 9 to avoid needing too many extra paths to provide capacity. It might also have been helpful to have designed in a bay at, or near, Dore to allow trains to run up from Sheffield and return without having to go through to Manchester. That might allow a better service for the 4.5 miles into Sheffield than the almost hourly (sometimes 90, 120 or 153 minute gaps) service today. The current service for the 40 miles to Manchester is far better than to Sheffield, which is why 60% of commuters go that way!

At present growth rates it may need 3 fast trains an hour of 6 coaches very soon, plus 4 cars on Northern's slow trains. The number commuting long distances is rising fast. Modern couples don't move to follow a male breadwinner's job as tended to be the case 40 years ago. Today both have good jobs and they may be in different cities. One commuting to Sheffield, the second to Manchester, or Leeds.

When asked their final destination a random sample of travellers from Dore might give Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds as the most likely places, but I've heard New York and Moscow (executive jet pilot) mentioned. Incoming travellers come to visit family and friends from across the nation, but recently I met a Chinese couple fresh off a plane that morning with luggage who'd headed straight for Dore and a 218 bus to Chatsworth as their first day sightseeing outing before booking into their Manchester hotel! It's a different world we live in today

Earlier this year I met a couple of young men from the south who'd come to sample Pacer travel! They'd read about them, but had finally travelled on one and were about to try another. Amazing experience. Like a third world country. Do we really travel on these every day? Oh yes we do - but not for much longer. Although better a Saturday Pacer than no train at all!

 

[grumpyoldman01]

I see fashion moved slowly in the Hope Valley - I would have dated yer woman's hairstyle and outfit about 4 years before that. That whole poster is crying out for the Scarfolk treatment

No lining on the class 101, which suggests it is plain blue.

Doesn't this put the image at 1966 at the earliest?

 

[Killingworth]

No lining on the class 101, which suggests it is plain blue.

Doesn't this put the image at 1966 at the earliest?

It's from a leaflet issued in 1969, so unlikely to have been taken more than a year or two before that. I suspect it was a standard leaflet with only the date changed to match the specific line going over to pay trains so might conceivably have been as early as 1966 - but almost certainly not taken in the Hope Valley.

 

[mwmbwls]

He seems to have also missed the value of limestone and cement coming out of the Peak District, conflicting movements of long freight trains being a major source of the congestion. In this picture an empty working has just been released towards the Hope Valley, as a fully laden and late running train has pulled across the line below the hill in the background taking the Dore curve to head south. Behind that freight was a Hope Valley stopping service, now being held to wait for this empty working to clear. Inevitably the Northern service came late!

Redoubling would have allowed this train to pass the stopper in the platform. One of the loops at Bamford or Dore would have allowed the laden freight to be kept off the running track to let the stopped proceed.

I haven't seen anything yet to suggest the new tracks will go beyond Dore Station Junction, although taking them as fas as possible towards the Tesco's/Sainsbury's bottleneck would be sensible. That's likely to happen for 3 tracks for HS2. Resignalling is necessary of course to tie in the new tracks with old.

[ ATTACH=full]55508[/ATTACH]

It also needs to be kept in mind that the works in progress at Buxton on the site of the former LNWR MPD stretching out towards Bibbington will mean that 750 metre trains (or the maximum haulage capacity of the locomotives) will soon be able to operate via the Hope Valley from Buxton. In coping with train path constraints it intuitively makes sense to run trains at their maximum length.
operating length. Are the proposed Hope Valley loops designed with this development in mind?

 

[Killingworth]

It also needs to be kept in mind that the works in progress at Buxton on the site of the former LNWR MPD stretching out towards Bibbington will mean that 750 metre trains (or the maximum haulage capacity of the locomotives) will soon be able to operate via the Hope Valley from Buxton. In coping with train path constraints it intuitively makes sense to run trains at their maximum length.
operating length.

In theory, yes. To get the best out of the longer sidings they need to be able to feed long trains into the wider network 24/7. At present they will be restricted to night times and a few short windows during the day.

Those windows currently prevent an hourly stopping passenger service down the Hope Valley. Any slight error means there will be delays reverberating around the country as one late passenger or freight service knocks on to others.

Build the new loops and redouble at Dore and the capacity will be significantly increased and those knock on effects greatly reduced.

 

[mwmbwls]

You make a salient point. It does come down to taking a causal rather than a symptomatic approach with regard to train pathing - this involves looking holistically at all the pinch points in the system . Most of these pinch points are self-inflicted as a result of previous rationalisations.Now whilst rationalisation is a valid form of cost reduction that British Rail engineers developed almost to an art form - it does have an inherent weakness - rationalisation reduces operational capacity and flexibility. I am sure many people will remember when single lead junctions were thought of as a spiffing wheeze to reduce costs - at the time they were. However safety and capacity issues soon emerged in this area.

Innovation theory suggests that spare or under-utilised assets can/should be used to develop the system - in this case space for new loops within the Hope Valley and the approach tracks to and from it. The alignment between New Mills South Junction and Chinley North used to be a four track formation as did the section from Dore and Totley to Sheffield Midland. Following rationalisation the remaining tracks have been slewed to facilitate mechanised ballasting and improve line speed. Whilst the case for re-quadrupling might prove to be an engineering and financial challenge, I believe that there is a conceptual case for considering tripling tracks by the incorporation of a centre reversible track on the approach to Sheffield - whilst at New Mills South Junction a third north side track North resulting in the by-passing of fast Sheffield trains at Chinley could assist operations. Gowhole remains a verdant pasture.

In itself such solutions do not address the other pinch points such as the single lead feed at Hazel Grove, the difficult link to the MML at Totley, the congestion issues between there and Chesterfield but additional capacity the would increase the operational choices available to signallers.

Should this prove unacceptable - there is always the Peak Rail/Quarrying Industry solution of reopening the line from Great Rocks to Rowsley - but that is another well rehearsed debate.​

 

[Killingworth]

You make a salient point. It does come down to taking a causal rather than a symptomatic approach with regard to train pathing - this involves looking holistically at all the pinch points in the system . Most of these pinch points are self-inflicted as a result of previous rationalisations.Now whilst rationalisation is a valid form of cost reduction that British Rail engineers developed almost to an art form - it does have an inherent weakness - rationalisation reduces operational capacity and flexibility. I am sure many people will remember when single lead junctions were thought of as a spiffing wheeze to reduce costs - at the time they were. However safety and capacity issues soon emerged in this area.

Innovation theory suggests that spare or under-utilised assets can/should be used to develop the system - in this case space for new loops within the Hope Valley and the approach tracks to and from it. The alignment between New Mills South Junction and Chinley North used to be a four track formation as did the section from Dore and Totley to Sheffield Midland. Following rationalisation the remaining tracks have been slewed to facilitate mechanised ballasting and improve line speed. Whilst the case for re-quadrupling might prove to be an engineering and financial challenge, I believe that there is a conceptual case for considering tripling tracks by the incorporation of a centre reversible track on the approach to Sheffield - whilst at New Mills South Junction a third north side track North resulting in the by-passing of fast Sheffield trains at Chinley could assist operations. Gowhole remains a verdant pasture.

In itself such solutions do not address the other pinch points such as the single lead feed at Hazel Grove, the difficult link to the MML at Totley, the congestion issues between there and Chesterfield but additional capacity the would increase the operational choices available to signallers.

Should this prove unacceptable - there is always the Peak Rail/Quarrying Industry solution of reopening the line from Great Rocks to Rowsley - but that is another well rehearsed debate.​

The 90 degree uphill turn off the Hope Valley onto the MML round the Dore curve through Dore Tunnel is one of the less well appreciated factors in the scheme. That used to be double track and is quite a tight turn. There used to be much squealing of wheels as some wagons clearly found it so. The new loop leading to it at Dore may not be long enough for the longest trains now being planned. It was originally thought possible to make it longer by demolishing some flats at West View. That would have added a lot more expense, aroused even more local opposition than running the loop right up to their car park, and was dropped even before the first round of public consultation. The Bamford loop is to be longer.

There is no easy way to avoid potential conflicts when a heavy load of cement or limestone is dragged round the curve to head south. That causes delays to both north and southbound MML traffic unless everything presents itself exactly as planned. A grade separated junction would be ideal, but incredibly expensive to construct even if it could be engineered! Think on.

At the recent round of public meetings to explain plans for HS2 it was verbally suggested that tracks from Dore into Sheffield would be tripled. Quadrupling would be better but that would involve demolishing a Tesco Superstore and other units. Even tripling will/would be quite an expensive operation due to the way slewing has been done over the last 50 years with consequent positioning of lineside equipment and removal of the bridge over London Road at Heeley. It was probably too low and a new one would need to be raised.

The Peak Rail debate is indeed another story. At the present rate of progress on other UK rail schemes already planned the quarries will be worked out and the Peak laid flat before that can be reopened! Progress on this modest Hope Valley scheme says not in the lifetime of most of us.

This scheme is only one example of how the after effects of the Beeching era are restricting the railway even when lines weren't closed. As is pointed out by mwmbls there are other points along this route that need attention.

Signalling is another factor. Although the scheme includes transfer of control from Earles to York from Manchester, thereby potentially improving control over the Dore junctions, there will be no change in the blocks. Line speeds will not be improved and as I currently understand it 185s will be unable to use their full capabilities, 158s currently being able to run faster in the Hope Valley due to lighter weight.

Going westwards a fast passenger service will still be unable to pass a stopper between the Heeley loop and after Chinley. Whether the Bamford loop will be used to allow a fast to overtake a stopper is a subject of interest. Who makes that decision and how do the penalties get passed around when the already late stopper has to take another 5 minute hit?

As always, when one bottleneck is eased the pressure starts building further along the line. Like 60mph restrictions on 3 long tunnels.

 

[edwin_m]

I imagine the loops at Bamford (assuming they are built) will be useable by passenger trains and they will be recessed there as they are at Heeley (or for example at Glazebrook) to reduce delay to a faster train. I assume the delay would be attributed to Northern if the problem was caused by the stopper setting out late, and to EMT/TPE if caused by a late running fast (with exceptions in both cases if that delay was someone else's fault).

Tripling from Dore to Sheffield would give some operational benefit, for example trains from Nottingham to Manchester and Manchester-Skegness trains in both directions could have routes free of conflict with London trains. However such a layout would effectively re-introduce the single line in the Dore area for some of the time!

On a pedantic note, I'd suggest rationalisation wasn't a Beeching thing - most of the routes in that era had complex track, stations and signalling right up to the date of closure. One of the objctions to the process was that infrastructure cost saving usually wasn't considered as an alternative to closure. Rationalisation was in part a response to the conditions after Beeching, when closures were largely unacceptable politically but the railway was still under cost pressure. In which connection I'll wonder again how a single lead junction saves cost compared with a double junction (crossover not diamond) when both have four point ends - never seen a satisfcatory justification for this.

 

[_toommm_]

Part of the problem with the Northern stopper is not with Northern themselves (contrary to popular opinion) but the tapography of the route. It's centred around a hilly National Park which will naturally attract cyclists and walkers, thus increasing dwell times.

Couple that with an extremely short turnaround time at Sheffield, and the probability of the TPE becoming late as it joins the ECML at Doncaster or at Numnery Main Line Jn, the stopper will be late a lot, and short of skipping stops (which would prove extremely unpopular), or recasting the whole timetable, loops may not be the solution.

Shorter signal blocks would help massively as some of them are immensely huge. Not only that, but the heavily-talked about of the splitting of Norwich-Liverpool would need to be a priority to alleviate delay. There's far too many pinch points to incumbere the Hope Valley at the moment.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Apologies if this has been mentioned up thread (I've read a lot of it, but not all), but I wonder if a partial solution for easing the overcrowding problem between Sheffield and Hope Valley + Manchester-Liverpool trains, along with the restrictions caused by the Dore single line, would be for a new Nottingham – Manchester service running via the Dore south curve and, I suspect, New Mills (to avoid the Stockport – Man Picc bottleneck)?

I don't know how much traffic from Sheffield comes from the MML stations south of Sheffield, but there clearly has to be a chunk changing trains there from Derby, Leicester, Kettlingborough etc.

By running a Nottingham – Manchester direct via Dore south curve, you would attract passengers from Notts as it would be faster directly (even if it stopped at the Erewash Valley stations) than the current reversing service, and – provided it was scheduled correctly – lure passengers off MML and XC services at Chesterfield that would otherwise change at Sheffield.

This would then free up at least some seats on the current services out of Sheffield, as well as attract new traffic from the Notts direction. Of course, it would need more stock and crews, and still need paths over most of the Hope Valley route and platform capacity at Piccadily.
Perhaps it could be tried in the peaks as a temporary measure, if stock were made available?

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think splitting Liverpool-Norwich will have a big benefit for the Hope Valley. Westbound most of them have a long wait in Nottingham, much longer than needed to attach a unit, so most delays from further east will be cancelled out. Delays between Nottingham and Sheffield would be equally likely with the service starting from Nottingham.

Turning it back at Manchester would have much more benefit, even without the current and hopefully temporary problems on the Castlefield Corridor. The mix of ast and slow trains on the CLC route has the potential to turn a short delay going west through Manchester into a much longer one coming back. But the importance of a through train between Liverpool and Sheffield makes that unlikely to happen.

A service via Dore South Curve is unlikely as the main aim of the capacity works is to increase the frequency between Manchester and Sheffield.

 

[Killingworth]

Using the Dore South curve would cause massive opposition from cut off Sheffield and Dore users! Possibly 2/3 of the EMT trains passengers join or leave at Sheffield, in both directions.

It happens too much now when EM trains are massively delayed.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Using the Dore South curve would cause massive opposition from cut off Sheffield and Dore users! Possibly 2/3 of the EMT trains passengers join or leave at Sheffield, in both directions.

I was not suggesting using the Dore south curve for the current Liverpool - Norwich trains. Nor any splitting - this was a mis-read by EdwinM.
I wrote "a new service" - I mean in addition fo the current service.
Of course, I realise many passengers on the Norwich trains want to go to/from Sheffield.

 

[Killingworth]

I was not suggesting using the Dore south curve for the current Liverpool - Norwich trains. Nor any splitting - this was a mis-read by EdwinM.
I wrote "a new service" - I mean in addition fo the current service.
Of course, I realise many passengers on the Norwich trains want to go to/from Sheffield.

Very sensitive subject in Sheffield!

Hope Valley Capacity Improvement Scheme was originally designed to provide 4 fast passenger paths an hour, plus the slow and freight paths. That included 3 loops, at Chinley as well as Grindleford and Dore. Examination of that resulted in massive opposition at Grindleford and Bamford being substituted. My understanding is that capacity constraints at Stockport further impacted on the case for all those paths and the Chinley loop was considered unnecessary. A shame because it was on flat railway land and probably the easiest to construct.

A feasibility study was prepared to consider reinstating all 4 platforms at Dore to make it a junction, as it was until the 1960s. That might have offered a new range of options, but building platforms long enough for MML and XC trains would have been problematic on several grounds, apart from delays to fast services - and cost. Pushing HS2 down the Sheaf Valley must make that a total non-starter today.

I referred earlier to the tight Dore curve. When the Hope Valley line was being planned an early consideration was to build what we'd call today an interchange station on what is known locally as the railway triangle. A quick look at the maps and knowledge of platforms on curves and gradients will show why that idea didn't fly! Those who don't understand these matters still try to suggest it today.

 

[edwin_m]

I was not suggesting using the Dore south curve for the current Liverpool - Norwich trains. Nor any splitting - this was a mis-read by EdwinM.
I wrote "a new service" - I mean in addition fo the current service.
Of course, I realise many passengers on the Norwich trains want to go to/from Sheffield.

The splitting was in response to someone else's post.

I agree the extra service would have benefits - possibly run via Derby and perhaps even terminating at Leicester to restore long-list links to Manchester - but the need for capacity into Sheffield and the capacity penalty of taking the slow single curve at Dore almost certainly rules it out.

 

[cle]

They should aim to have the whole line doubled as a first point of order... if local services are augmented by shuttles, even to Stockport - that would be somewhat useful for connections, local journeys and so on.

Manchester - Sheffield and Nottingham should have quicker, more frequent journeys - and Liverpool should have at least an hourly connection to both - Sheffield I'd argue two per hour. Way more important than the Cleethorpes, which I'm sure could be played with at its western end - in lieu of another Nottingham for instance.