Hope Valley temporary "timetable"

[nw1]

Edale's passenger numbers fell from 100k 2019/20: to 46k 2021/21, but I'd expect in 2021/22 they could be well over 100k. At the height of the pandemic trains were empty but Edale was gridlocked with cars.

Reminds me of my experience in the New Forest in July 2020. The hourly stopping service to Bournemouth was formed of empty 5 car 444s yet plenty of people were out having arrived by car!

Not sure why the train loadings were so poor given this was during a trough in case numbers, and there was plenty of close mixing of people going on elsewhere, such as at Bournemouth Beach.

The other problem is that there are some lines where services don't lend themselves very well to a moderate but not massive cutback.

It's one thing if a line previously had 6tph to cut that to 4tph, but most lines are on 1tph or 2tph. Cutting either of those in half is unpalatable.

Also what do you do at somewhere like Guildford, which has had a 15-min interval service since May 1999?

Do you make a modest reduction to 20-min, which is still basically turn up and go-ish, and was the service prevailing from about 1995 (?) to 1999? Maybe, but then in other parts of the network you might have a 30-min interval service, and 20-min and 30-min don't mix so well.

Or, do you cut all the way down to half-hourly, which admittedly was the standard pattern to Guildford until the mid-90s? That would of course also have a knock-on effect of only one fast train per hour to Portsmouth, as you'd want to preserve through services to stations such as Farncombe and Godalming so one of the two trains per hour would have to be an '82' stopping at the majority of stations. Then add in a third originating at Guildford calling at all stations to Portsmouth and you're back with the 80s/early 90s timetable again!

 

[Killingworth]

The other problem is that there are some lines where services don't lend themselves very well to a moderate but not massive cutback.

It's one thing if a line previously had 6tph to cut that to 4tph, but most lines are on 1tph or 2tph. Cutting either of those in half is unpalatable.

Which brings us back to the subject of this thread, an almost hourly service reduced to gaps of 2, 3 and almost 4 hours. At Edale it's less severe a deterrent to leisure users than other stations down the line into Sheffield.

There a sometimes hourly, often late and unreliable service meets almost 100% car owning families - who keep well away from stations! Double the frequency to half hourly and you'd not double patronage, certainly not quickly, but you'd certainly double operational costs Make it 2 hourly you'd halve operational cots and who knows how much income. As most lines cost far more to operate than they generate in fares we face some very hard choices.

Here are some interesting facts that need to be taken into account when planning rail expenditure in the years ahead ; https://assets.publishing.service.g...ent_data/file/1049929/rail-factsheet-2021.pdf

 

[tbtc]

If we're going to have reduced timetables for many years, we need even-interval reduced timetables. An even-interval half-hourly service, for example, is better than two of the three trains per hour of a 20-min service, with a 40-min gap.

Normally I'd agree with simple clcokface timetables on all routes

The problem with Hope Valley line is the random freight paths are set in stone (or cement), even if they are barely used, which makes it hard to path some passenger services

So we get into the territory of "number of freight trains that actually run per week multiplied by number of lorries that they take off the roads" versus "number of cars that you'd remove from the roads with an additional stop at somewhere like Edale" - no easy answers (well, not unless you have a billion pounds to spend)

The Hope Valley line's single train that's been cut from the regular timetable is a small price to pay compared with others. I still don't like it but most using Hope Valley trains are stoical people

Agreed - it's a balancing act - but it's typical that somewhere small/remote/scenic like Edale gets so much attention and little gets said about places like Conisbrough going down from a half hourly train to some ninety minute gaps (but people don't seem to care about places like Conisbrough, there's far too much focus on the exotic and not enough on the everyday - if people actually cared about the "green" stuff that they preach then they'd stop obsessing about rural branch lines and focus more on unremarkable urban services)

It's a challenging route to operate with weather a big factor in loadings, particularly for Edale. Weekends are too. End to end journeys are adding to loadings, not entirely unconnected with fares generally being a lot lower than on TPE and EMR fast services

It is, and must be a nightmare to try to balance all of the competing demands (even something as simple as sticking an extra carriage on the Hope Valley stopper can then mean no longer being able to fit it into Sheffield station, as the bay platform that it usually uses is fairly short and not all of the through platforms are bi-directional (or can accommodate a terminating service sitting there for a period)

You can make plans for a baseline service then see trains empty or packed depending on the weather (or the closure of the Snake/Woodhead can suddenly send many more people onto trains instead)

surely a 30-min interval fast service from Manchester to Sheffield is sufficient, providing those services have sufficient capacity?

If they have sufficient capacity, yes, but six coach 185s already foul many of the stations east of Doncaster (plus Meadowhall), so do you then look at cutting the through trains from Manchester to Cleethorpes? And, if so, where? Given that Sheffielders like their trips to the beach (and quite a few people retire to Cleethorpes area), but then Doncaster won't want to lose it's Manchester services...

At the same time, Manchester to Leeds has gone from having a frequency barely better than Manchester to Sheffield to having more than double the services- I can understand why some in this part of South Yorkshire feel left behind as investment in "the north" seems to be only about the M62 corridor

Also what do you do at somewhere like Guildford, which has had a 15-min interval service since May 1999?

Do you make a modest reduction to 20-min, which is still basically turn up and go-ish, and was the service prevailing from about 1995 (?) to 1999? Maybe, but then in other parts of the network you might have a 30-min interval service, and 20-min and 30-min don't mix so well.

This is a big problem - the railway can remove services quite easily but it can take months to tweak a diagram (e.g. you can go from every fifteen minutes to every half hour fairly easily but to go to three trains an hour would probably mean a "15-15-30" pattern (which then means one train gets a disproportionate number of passengers)

Bus companies can change a ten minute service to a twelve minute one, then a fifteen minute one, it's fairly easy, but the railway can't change a fifteen minute service into a twenty minute one without conflicts (as two of the services now run in brand new paths)

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

In my opinion this is the direction the railway will be going in, ie a complete rewrite for many operators to produce a reduced even interval service, but...

Yes if running railway for least cost is govt policy

It’s a huge task. Think the May 2018 changes x 5. And if it goes wrong, it’s May 2018 x 10. I can’t see how it can take less than 2 years to complete.

but No as govt policy is to achieve net zero in part through modal shift but that won't happen if service provision isn't sufficient to incentivise that shift.

 

[Killingworth]

For information, according to RTT the missing 14.14 is back from 18th April.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Normally I'd agree with simple clcokface timetables on all routes

The problem with Hope Valley line is the random freight paths are set in stone (or cement), even if they are barely used, which makes it hard to path some passenger services

So we get into the territory of "number of freight trains that actually run per week multiplied by number of lorries that they take off the roads" versus "number of cars that you'd remove from the roads with an additional stop at somewhere like Edale" - no easy answers (well, not unless you have a billion pounds to spend)



Agreed - it's a balancing act - but it's typical that somewhere small/remote/scenic like Edale gets so much attention and little gets said about places like Conisbrough going down from a half hourly train to some ninety minute gaps (but people don't seem to care about places like Conisbrough, there's far too much focus on the exotic and not enough on the everyday - if people actually cared about the "green" stuff that they preach then they'd stop obsessing about rural branch lines and focus more on unremarkable urban services)



It is, and must be a nightmare to try to balance all of the competing demands (even something as simple as sticking an extra carriage on the Hope Valley stopper can then mean no longer being able to fit it into Sheffield station, as the bay platform that it usually uses is fairly short and not all of the through platforms are bi-directional (or can accommodate a terminating service sitting there for a period)

You can make plans for a baseline service then see trains empty or packed depending on the weather (or the closure of the Snake/Woodhead can suddenly send many more people onto trains instead)



If they have sufficient capacity, yes, but six coach 185s already foul many of the stations east of Doncaster (plus Meadowhall), so do you then look at cutting the through trains from Manchester to Cleethorpes? And, if so, where? Given that Sheffielders like their trips to the beach (and quite a few people retire to Cleethorpes area), but then Doncaster won't want to lose it's Manchester services...

At the same time, Manchester to Leeds has gone from having a frequency barely better than Manchester to Sheffield to having more than double the services- I can understand why some in this part of South Yorkshire feel left behind as investment in "the north" seems to be only about the M62 corridor


D
This is a big problem - the railway can remove services quite easily but it can take months to tweak a diagram (e.g. you can go from every fifteen minutes to every half hour fairly easily but to go to three trains an hour would probably mean a "15-15-30" pattern (which then means one train gets a disproportionate number of passengers)

Bus companies can change a ten minute service to a twelve minute one, then a fifteen minute one, it's fairly easy, but the railway can't change a fifteen minute service into a twenty minute one without conflicts (as two of the services now run in brand new paths)

Absolutely agree with your comment regarding Conisbrough. The Sheffield to Doncaster stopping service has been reduced by two thirds. The gap is not 90 minutes but 2 hours in some instances, no trains into Doncaster between c 07.30 and c09.30, first and last trains cut and it applies to Mexborough and Conisbrough, Rotherham and Swinton have also had Doncaster services slashed. These are towns not villages. Pre Covid Swinton had more passengers than all the stations from Grindleford to Edale inclusive.
Today, partly due to the weather, there was no service from Sheffield to Doncaster by any operator from 16.05 to 18.05 even though the line itself was not effected. Not surprisingly the 18.05 was rammed, left passengers behind and lost ten minutes due to station overtime.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The problem with Hope Valley line is the random freight paths are set in stone (or cement), even if they are barely used, which makes it hard to path some passenger services

Of course, the freight paths aren't really 'random', they are largely a reflection of the fact that freights tend to travel to/from all over the place through numerous passenger bottlenecks such as Sheffield station, Dronfield and Guide Bridge (let alone further afield) and have to present themselves in narrow windows given the lack of looping opportunities en route. These then reflect back on the timings at Dore or Chinley and so on.

But there are some people who think that they can just be moved around by a few minutes with timetable margins and headways ignored or fudged and then criticise "incompetent" or "clueless" timetablers, controllers, signallers and managers when their train gets a yellow signal or the timetable at their local station is less than a perfect even interval.

 

[Killingworth]

Of course, the freight paths aren't really 'random', they are largely a reflection of the fact that freights tend to travel to/from all over the place through numerous passenger bottlenecks such as Sheffield station, Dronfield and Guide Bridge (let alone further afield) and have to present themselves in narrow windows given the lack of looping opportunities en route. These then reflect back on the timings at Dore or Chinley and so on.

But there are some people who think that they can just be moved around by a few minutes with timetable margins and headways ignored or fudged and then criticise "incompetent" or "clueless" timetablers, controllers, signallers and managers when their train gets a yellow signal or the timetable at their local station is less than a perfect even interval.

The indicative timetable for December 2022 appears to have resolved these issues to provide an hourly stopping all stations.service all day. I may not be the only one wondering if it can be introduced before Deember 2023.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course, the freight paths aren't really 'random', they are largely a reflection of the fact that freights tend to travel to/from all over the place through numerous passenger bottlenecks such as Sheffield station, Dronfield and Guide Bridge (let alone further afield) and have to present themselves in narrow windows given the lack of looping opportunities en route. These then reflect back on the timings at Dore or Chinley and so on.

But there are some people who think that they can just be moved around by a few minutes with timetable margins and headways ignored or fudged and then criticise "incompetent" or "clueless" timetablers, controllers, signallers and managers when their train gets a yellow signal or the timetable at their local station is less than a perfect even interval.

Well, passengers can be subjected to four hour gaps Wiley nilly. Why are passengers always expected to be the fall guy ?

 

[Watershed]

Well, passengers can be subjected to four hour gaps Wiley nilly. Why are passengers always expected to be the fall guy ?

Because freight operators have the contractual right to operate in the paths they have. They would need to be compensated (rather handsomely) to give up those rights. The fact that some TOCs couldn't organise a p***up in a brewery is not their concern.

It's not as if the FOCs have had it easy either. Plenty of 'whitespace' on the graph in some areas with passenger service reductions, yet as soon as they begin to build up new flows, their paths get thrown out at the next timetable change when the TOCs bid for the return of services that end up being binned again.

 

[yorksrob]

Because freight operators have the contractual right to operate in the paths they have. They would need to be compensated (rather handsomely) to give up those rights. The fact that some TOCs couldn't organise a p***up in a brewery is not their concern.

It's not as if the FOCs have had it easy either. Plenty of 'whitespace' on the graph in some areas with passenger service reductions, yet as soon as they begin to build up new flows, their paths get thrown out at the next timetable change when the TOCs bid for the return of services that end up being binned again.

The reality is that on lines such as the Hope Valley, passengers at Edale already get the mucky end of the stick with two hour gaps. That's built in

When there's a change, passengers are so far down the list, they can't even be bothered to replace some of the stops with some of the other services.

This whole thread has become an explanation why the industry can't help the passenger.

 

[ashworth]

The reality is that on lines such as the Hope Valley, passengers at Edale already get the mucky end of the stick with two hour gaps. That's built in

When there's a change, passengers are so far down the list, they can't even be bothered to replace some of the stops with some of the other services.

This whole thread has become an explanation why the industry can't help the passenger.

There’s just no thoughts for, or care about the passenger, in many of the cuts. Edale may be quiet during January and the village does only have a population of around 350. However, it does attract lots of tourist, especially walkers. The other issue is that Edale has no bus service so anyone out for a walk can easily become stranded for a few hours without a train to get home.

Away from the Hope Valley EMR have recently made another round of random temporary timetable cuts. This leaves Mansfield, with a population of over 100,000 with a 2 hour gap without a train in the afternoon. Not only Mansfield, but lots of other large towns and villages between Nottingham and Worksop. As has been reported elsewhere EMR cut the timetable from half hourly to hourly last June and now even one of the remaining hourly trains has been cut.

The big difference between Mansfield and Edale is that Mansfield does at least have buses. However, what concern is there for the passenger when cuts like these are made. Would a town with a population of over 100,000 in the South East be left with a 2 hour gap in the timetable between 3pm and 5pm in the afternoon?

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes if running railway for least cost is govt policy

but No as govt policy is to achieve net zero in part through modal shift but that won't happen if service provision isn't sufficient to incentivise that shift.

Govt policy is evidently to reduce subsidy to something more sustainable in the next couple of years - which will still be above Covid levels, so let’s not all get too upset about that.

Govt policy on net zero is in the long term. You can have both.

 

[Killingworth]

The reality is that major short term and short notice timetable changes couldn't easily take account of every stop by every other train on every line. This one single return working of the day that has been cut on this line illustrates that well enough. As a user from Dore I'd want the 13.14 to stop as would those in Hathersage. We would every day not just when the 14.14 doesn't run but current freight paths prevent it. .

It is said that Edale, and the line, may owe it's survival to then Transport Miinister Barbara Castle having been taken there for a camping holiday with her parents. There is no bus to Edale. I have met senior people in Northern, TPE and TfN who walk from there so the small community is certainly noticed, despite it's 3-400 residents being spread in hamlets, booths, along the Edale valley.

A 3 hour timetable gap, temporarily, isn't great but if asked Edale residents bigger grouse might be cancelled last trains of the day, but they may inconvenience only 2 or 3 people..

But there is an early prospect of hourly stoppers.

 

[nw1]

Normally I'd agree with simple clcokface timetables on all routes

The problem with Hope Valley line is the random freight paths are set in stone (or cement), even if they are barely used, which makes it hard to path some passenger services

So we get into the territory of "number of freight trains that actually run per week multiplied by number of lorries that they take off the roads" versus "number of cars that you'd remove from the roads with an additional stop at somewhere like Edale" - no easy answers (well, not unless you have a billion pounds to spend)



Agreed - it's a balancing act - but it's typical that somewhere small/remote/scenic like Edale gets so much attention and little gets said about places like Conisbrough going down from a half hourly train to some ninety minute gaps (but people don't seem to care about places like Conisbrough, there's far too much focus on the exotic and not enough on the everyday - if people actually cared about the "green" stuff that they preach then they'd stop obsessing about rural branch lines and focus more on unremarkable urban services)



It is, and must be a nightmare to try to balance all of the competing demands (even something as simple as sticking an extra carriage on the Hope Valley stopper can then mean no longer being able to fit it into Sheffield station, as the bay platform that it usually uses is fairly short and not all of the through platforms are bi-directional (or can accommodate a terminating service sitting there for a period)

You can make plans for a baseline service then see trains empty or packed depending on the weather (or the closure of the Snake/Woodhead can suddenly send many more people onto trains instead)



If they have sufficient capacity, yes, but six coach 185s already foul many of the stations east of Doncaster (plus Meadowhall), so do you then look at cutting the through trains from Manchester to Cleethorpes? And, if so, where? Given that Sheffielders like their trips to the beach (and quite a few people retire to Cleethorpes area), but then Doncaster won't want to lose it's Manchester services...

At the same time, Manchester to Leeds has gone from having a frequency barely better than Manchester to Sheffield to having more than double the services- I can understand why some in this part of South Yorkshire feel left behind as investment in "the north" seems to be only about the M62 corridor



This is a big problem - the railway can remove services quite easily but it can take months to tweak a diagram (e.g. you can go from every fifteen minutes to every half hour fairly easily but to go to three trains an hour would probably mean a "15-15-30" pattern (which then means one train gets a disproportionate number of passengers)

Bus companies can change a ten minute service to a twelve minute one, then a fifteen minute one, it's fairly easy, but the railway can't change a fifteen minute service into a twenty minute one without conflicts (as two of the services now run in brand new paths)

Indeed, which is why when such changes happen, there's normally a complete recast.

In May 1999 it went the other way (20-min to 15-min) on SWT, but it involved recasting both the Portsmouth Direct and the SWML as both formerly had a 20-min interval service, and both were recast to 15-min. It resulted in virtually every mainline service out of Waterloo getting a completely new time, even those with no change in frequency. (Incidentally SWT's publicity in 2004 talked about it being the 'first major recast since 1967', but that was false: 1999 was a major rewrite).

Yes if running railway for least cost is govt policy

but No as govt policy is to achieve net zero in part through modal shift but that won't happen if service provision isn't sufficient to incentivise that shift.

Normally I'd agree with simple clcokface timetables on all routes

The problem with Hope Valley line is the random freight paths are set in stone (or cement), even if they are barely used, which makes it hard to path some passenger services

So we get into the territory of "number of freight trains that actually run per week multiplied by number of lorries that they take off the roads" versus "number of cars that you'd remove from the roads with an additional stop at somewhere like Edale" - no easy answers (well, not unless you have a billion pounds to spend)


If they have sufficient capacity, yes, but six coach 185s already foul many of the stations east of Doncaster (plus Meadowhall), so do you then look at cutting the through trains from Manchester to Cleethorpes? And, if so, where? Given that Sheffielders like their trips to the beach (and quite a few people retire to Cleethorpes area), but then Doncaster won't want to lose it's Manchester services...

But then one could argue: do we really need to provide through trains from everywhere to everywhere? Such things add constraints to an already-congested railway: for example I do wonder whether Manchester Airport would be better served by a high-frequency dedicated shuttle from Piccadilly.

The main flow is Manchester to Sheffield presumably so isn't it best to put on a 30-min high-capacity service from Manchester to Sheffield, or onward destinations with sufficiently long platforms (Nottingham?), and get everyone else to change onto connecting services, rather than try and cram more than two fast trains an hour on this already congested line (as you mentioned, freight is also a consideration on this line).

Of course I recognise platform capacity at Sheffield may be an issue (I don't know Sheffield station, I will admit) in the sense that through trains may be desired to reduce platform occupancy. But one could choose the through destinations to be destinations without platform length issues. Or, for short platform destinations, use selective door opening or even split at Sheffield so only 3 cars go forward? (once again I don't know Sheffield station so don't know how easy splitting and joining would be).

 

[tbtc]

Absolutely agree with your comment regarding Conisbrough. The Sheffield to Doncaster stopping service has been reduced by two thirds. The gap is not 90 minutes but 2 hours in some instances, no trains into Doncaster between c 07.30 and c09.30, first and last trains cut and it applies to Mexborough and Conisbrough, Rotherham and Swinton have also had Doncaster services slashed. These are towns not villages. Pre Covid Swinton had more passengers than all the stations from Grindleford to Edale inclusive.
Today, partly due to the weather, there was no service from Sheffield to Doncaster by any operator from 16.05 to 18.05 even though the line itself was not effected. Not surprisingly the 18.05 was rammed, left passengers behind and lost ten minutes due to station overtime.

I was on the (Super) trams yesterday and I think that the TramTrains were cancelled at one point due to issues at Rotherham, which will have compounded things

Mexborough feels like it could sustain a fifteen minute service to Doncaster/ Sheffield but it's one of many "local" stations on lines with non-stop services, so feels left behind

I wish that we paid more attention to stations like these though, instead of all of the predictable stuff about rural hamlets

Of course, the freight paths aren't really 'random', they are largely a reflection of the fact that freights tend to travel to/from all over the place through numerous passenger bottlenecks such as Sheffield station, Dronfield and Guide Bridge (let alone further afield) and have to present themselves in narrow windows given the lack of looping opportunities en route. These then reflect back on the timings at Dore or Chinley and so on.

True, I should have been clearer in terms of the freight not being one simple clock face hourly path (i.e. the handful of freight trains a day don't seem many in number but they don't all run at the same time of the hour so can stop multiple paths where an hourly passenger train could run

But there are some people who think that they can just be moved around by a few minutes with timetable margins and headways ignored or fudged and then criticise "incompetent" or "clueless" timetablers, controllers, signallers and managers when their train gets a yellow signal or the timetable at their local station is less than a perfect even interval.

Yeah, it's a problem - I like to come on here and learn about how complicated situations are, rather than assume that those in charge "can't be bothered" to fix everything

When there's a change, passengers are so far down the list, they can't even be bothered to replace some of the stops with some of the other services.

This whole thread has become an explanation why the industry can't help the passenger.

Yeah, Rob, that's it, they just can't be bothered to put Edale stops in the other services, that'll be it

Nothing like, y'know, the three minute time penalty of an Edale stop meaning that a train would then miss it's path over the single track chords at Dore/ Hazel Grove, or not getting a slot through Castlefield/ Brightside - it must just be that they can't be bothered

Away from the Hope Valley EMR have recently made another round of random temporary timetable cuts. This leaves Mansfield, with a population of over 100,000 with a 2 hour gap without a train in the afternoon. Not only Mansfield, but lots of other large towns and villages between Nottingham and Worksop. As has been reported elsewhere EMR cut the timetable from half hourly to hourly last June and now even one of the remaining hourly trains has been cut.

The big difference between Mansfield and Edale is that Mansfield does at least have buses. However, what concern is there for the passenger when cuts like these are made. Would a town with a population of over 100,000 in the South East be left with a 2 hour gap in the timetable between 3pm and 5pm in the afternoon?

That's another place missing out that isn't getting much attention (whilst we have various threads about the Far North/ Conwy Valley etc

I think that Mansfield's problem is that the railway re-opened - before that happened it got a lot of attention from a certain type of enthusiast (the kind of "biggest place in Europe without a train station"), but now that it has a station they've moved onto caring about places like Bakewell and don't care that the passenger numbers at Mansfield are fairly underwhelming or that it has long gaps in its service (they'll only care if they get to suggest a direct London service!)

But then one could argue: do we really need to provide through trains from everywhere to everywhere? Such things add constraints to an already-congested railway: for example I do wonder whether Manchester Airport would be better served by a high-frequency dedicated shuttle from Piccadilly.

The main flow is Manchester to Sheffield presumably so isn't it best to put on a 30-min high-capacity service from Manchester to Sheffield, or onward destinations with sufficiently long platforms (Nottingham?), and get everyone else to change onto connecting services, rather than try and cram more than two fast trains an hour on this already congested line (as you mentioned, freight is also a consideration on this line).

Of course I recognise platform capacity at Sheffield may be an issue (I don't know Sheffield station, I will admit) in the sense that through trains may be desired to reduce platform occupancy. But one could choose the through destinations to be destinations without platform length issues. Or, for short platform destinations, use selective door opening or even split at Sheffield so only 3 cars go forward? (once again I don't know Sheffield station so don't know how easy splitting and joining would be).

I agree about the problems with the "linking everywhere to everywhere" approach - people talk on here about linking places hundreds of miles apart as if there's some particular reason why Liverpool has an hourly train to Norwich rather than it just being operationally convenient for the railway and the result of various services being linked together (but no train from Liverpool to Cambridge or Norwich to Blackpool or Skegness to Morecambe)

A shuttle to Manchester Airport has a lot of merits, given that the attempt to provide direct services from Llandudno/ Liverpool/ Blackpool/ Barrow/ Windermere/ Glasgow/ Edinburgh/ Newcastle/ Middlesbrough/ Scarborough/ Hull/ Cleethorpes (etc!) means clogging up railways in northern England to try to accommodate all of these demands

Sheffield station is a tricky one - it looks deceptively simple - five through platforms and a couple of bays at each end. BUT not all of the through platforms are bi-directional (so terminating/reversing services can't use them) and platform 1 is the only way of accessing the Northern fuel/sidings so nothing can clog that up for long - plus one of the southern bay platforms (2C) was fine to accommodate a short Pacer on the Hope Valley stopper but can't take a four coach 195, so if we want to run longer trains for places like Edale then something needs to be done (and, if the weather changes then we might have a hundred more people wanting to go to Edale on a Saturday morning which the railway sometimes struggles to cope with at short notice!)

 

[Killingworth]

Sheffield station is a tricky one - it looks deceptively simple - five through platforms and a couple of bays at each end. BUT not all of the through platforms are bi-directional (so terminating/reversing services can't use them) and platform 1 is the only way of accessing the Northern fuel/sidings so nothing can clog that up for long - plus one of the southern bay platforms (2C) was fine to accommodate a short Pacer on the Hope Valley stopper but can't take a four coach 195, so if we want to run longer trains for places like Edale then something needs to be done (and, if the weather changes then we might have a hundred more people wanting to go to Edale on a Saturday morning which the railway sometimes struggles to cope with at short notice!)

Yes, last Saturday morning was manic when for 3 hours there were only 3 car 195s and nothing from EMR or TPE. The coincidence of many factors, including much lower end to end fares on Northern, meant many were left on the platforms at Sheffield and Dore - and possibly all the way into Piccadilly.

Sheffield station will have to be reconfigured before electrification. How extensive that can be will probably determine flexibility for new routes and services until the next century. The ability to get 3rd and maybe 4th tracks down the Sheaf Valley from Dore into Sheffield could be crucial

The two new freight loops aren't a panacea to make all things right. They'll help but heavy stone and cement trains take time to pull in, and will need even more time to pull away up the gradients from both - as was highlighted at the 2016 public inquiry.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Indeed, which is why when such changes happen, there's normally a complete recast.

In May 1999 it went the other way (20-min to 15-min) on SWT, but it involved recasting both the Portsmouth Direct and the SWML as both formerly had a 20-min interval service, and both were recast to 15-min. It resulted in virtually every mainline service out of Waterloo getting a completely new time, even those with no change in frequency. (Incidentally SWT's publicity in 2004 talked about it being the 'first major recast since 1967', but that was false: 1999 was a major rewrite).



But then one could argue: do we really need to provide through trains from everywhere to everywhere? Such things add constraints to an already-congested railway: for example I do wonder whether Manchester Airport would be better served by a high-frequency dedicated shuttle from Piccadilly.

The main flow is Manchester to Sheffield presumably so isn't it best to put on a 30-min high-capacity service from Manchester to Sheffield, or onward destinations with sufficiently long platforms (Nottingham?), and get everyone else to change onto connecting services, rather than try and cram more than two fast trains an hour on this already congested line (as you mentioned, freight is also a consideration on this line).

Of course I recognise platform capacity at Sheffield may be an issue (I don't know Sheffield station, I will admit) in the sense that through trains may be desired to reduce platform occupancy. But one could choose the through destinations to be destinations without platform length issues. Or, for short platform destinations, use selective door opening or even split at Sheffield so only 3 cars go forward? (once again I don't know Sheffield station so don't know how easy splitting and joining would be).

Totally agree and a consequence of TOCs trying to compete with each other for ORCATS raid. The industry desperately needs GBR to do a grand rest and rebuild the timetable from a clean sheet that delivers journey opportunities but with a higher reliance upon reliable connections so the network runs freer. It was disappointing Shapps-Williams vision didn't include something along the lines of a Taktfahrplan to enable modal transfer - would take 5+ years to create but be worth it.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Totally agree and a consequence of TOCs trying to compete with each other for ORCATS raid. The industry desperately needs GBR to do a grand rest and rebuild the timetable from a clean sheet that delivers journey opportunities but with a higher reliance upon reliable connections so the network runs freer. It was disappointing Shapps-Williams vision didn't include something along the lines of a Taktfahrplan to enable modal transfer - would take 5+ years to create but be worth it.

I'm not clear if you are talking about SWT/R services in Surrey (in which case I don't understand the comment about TOCs in the plural and ORCATS raids) or the Hope Valley.

Back at the end of BR-planned services in early 1994 there were already services through the Hope Valley operated by three of Regional Railways' profit centres (Central, North West and North East) with a mixture of fast and stopping trains. Revenue was allocated between the three using ORCATS!

Over the next 25 years the trains may have got busier and longer (up to Covid) and freight has increased significantly. The principal reason that there can't be a more even and punctual service is the various infrastructure limitations introduced in the BR era, largely triggered by the Surplus Track Capacity [rapid removal] Grant provisions in the Transport Act 1968.

There is no quick, easy organisational or ownership fix to the current capacity inadequacies.

 

[yorksrob]

And now the TPE from Sheffield to Pic has just turned up with a 3 carriage 185.

It feels as though there's an active campaign to discourage rail travel at the moment.

And now the EMR is showing as short formed as well.

"Surprise surprise, the unexpected hits you between the eyes......"

 

[Killingworth]

And now the TPE from Sheffield to Pic has just turned up with a 3 carriage 185.

It feels as though there's an active campaign to discourage rail travel at the moment.

And now the EMR is showing as short formed as well.

"Surprise surprise, the unexpected hits you between the eyes......"

Hope Valley station users, outgoing and incoming, struggle to even get aboard their stopping trains at weekends because they're rammed with end to end users. They're usually paying less on Northern than on TPE and ERM. Meanwhile the station car parks are full of walkers who've given up on trains.

The government campaign to convince the public that travelling on public transport was likely to kill you almost killed public transport. You'd have thought the combined brains of the industry might have engaged to ensure there's capacity for those coming back.

 

[yorksrob]

Hope Valley station users, outgoing and incoming, struggle to even get aboard their stopping trains at weekends because they're rammed with end to end users. They're usually paying less on Northern than on TPE and ERM. Meanwhile the station car parks are full of walkers who've given up on trains.

The government campaign to convince the public that travelling on public transport was likely to kill you almost killed public transport. You'd have thought the combined brains of the industry might have engaged to ensure there's capacity for those coming back.

It's the same today, only the stopper is full and standing due to the previous 2 carriage EMR leaving half its passengers behind.

That said, I'm surprised at just how many people the 3 carriage Northern unit has managed to absorb. Northern are the heroes on this line at the moment.

As for the industry, it seems to be being diabolically run at the moment. I suspect the treasury are the root cause.

 

[LowLevel]

I believe EMR will as a contingency be introducing a 4 car 2x170 diagram on Liverpools at some point shortly, mostly to give crews some experience at working them in multiple but also it will be a useful backup for unit shortages freeing up some 15x for the summer Skegs. They need to have a test run to double check platform train interfaces first though.

 

[yorksrob]

Given the state of the service at the moment, i'm surprised questions aren't being asked in The House.

I believe EMR will as a contingency be introducing a 4 car 2x170 diagram on Liverpools at some point shortly, mostly to give crews some experience at working them in multiple but also it will be a useful backup for unit shortages freeing up some 15x for the summer Skegs. They need to have a test run to double check platform train interfaces first though.

To be honest, the old solution of shoving a 153 or 156 on the end would have helped today.

 

[LowLevel]

Given the state of the service at the moment, i'm surprised questions aren't being asked in The House.



To be honest, the old solution of shoving a 153 or 156 on the end would have helped today.

Shortages of available 15x this morning are the issue, a 170 has been dispatched to Norwich vice 158. The flexibility of the 153s is certainly missed.

 

[yorksrob]

Shortages of available 15x this morning are the issue, a 170 has been dispatched to Norwich vice 158. The flexibility of the 153s is certainly missed.

Indeed. Good to hear that relief is on its way in the form of the 170's though.

Now if only TPE could pull is weight on the route again as well !

 

[tbtc]

Hope Valley station users, outgoing and incoming, struggle to even get aboard their stopping trains at weekends because they're rammed with end to end users. They're usually paying less on Northern than on TPE and ERM. Meanwhile the station car parks are full of walkers who've given up on trains

Northern really shouldn't be selling deeply discounted tickets at the weekend - they've got enough on their plate with "leisure" passengers at Hope Valley stations - it seems dysfunctional to have passengers for Edale (who have no alternative options) struggling to board the Northern service because it's busy with people saving a few quid on Manchester to Sheffield fares

I can understand the logic in discounting tickets on the Northern services that will be quiet (off peak, during the week, when there's not so much demand at many of the intermediate stations) but we shouldn't be doing cheapo advances on services that are going to be busy with people paying regular fares

Given the state of the service at the moment, i'm surprised questions aren't being asked in The House

What are they going to do - fine the publicly controlled Northern? What would that solve?

 

[yorksrob]

Northern really shouldn't be selling deeply discounted tickets at the weekend - they've got enough on their plate with "leisure" passengers at Hope Valley stations - it seems dysfunctional to have passengers for Edale (who have no alternative options) struggling to board the Northern service because it's busy with people saving a few quid on Manchester to Sheffield fares

I can understand the logic in discounting tickets on the Northern services that will be quiet (off peak, during the week, when there's not so much demand at many of the intermediate stations) but we shouldn't be doing cheapo advances on services that are going to be busy with people paying regular fares



What are they going to do - fine the publicly controlled Northern? What would that solve?

To be fair to Northern, they're the ones who've provided their planned capacity today !

I see your point about the discounted fares, but if the long distance operators were pulling their weight in the first place, there wouldn't be such crowding on the stoppers to begin with

 

[Watershed]

It's a deeply disappointing situation. Unfortunately things are unlikely to improve for some time yet.

 

[Peterthegreat]

All TPE Hope Valley services appear to be only 3 cars today. Given Doncaster to Scunthorpe is blocked for engineering work there should be more units available. It also appears at least 3 units are stabled at Cleethorpes (plus 2 operating Scunthorpe to Cleethorpes). It really shouldn't be too difficult to have planned more units available in traffic.