Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Before electrification starts on the Hope Valley, it would ease capacity if Dore Station was made into a loop; so a junction off the existing single track just south of the platform to join the MML as it by-passes the station to the east.
Freight currently booked to use the bottleneck South Curve could instead go via Sheffield and Beighton and use the loop to let anything catching up overtake.
Just looked at the satellite; there looks to be plenty of space for such a junction without the need to make it so slow, particularly if the new track was to run parallel to the MML for a while before joining it at the north end of the station.
Just looked at the satellite; there looks to be plenty of space for such a junction without the need to make it so slow, particularly if the new track was to run parallel to the MML for a while before joining it at the north end of the station.
The MML tracks are canted over, so you'll have to ease the superelevation to have the points in unless you eat into the standage on the south curve. That's capacity hit number 1. You've got two bridges (1 under, 1 over) immediately south of Dore and Totley station that would require complete rebuilding to fit a third track alongside the MML.
My understanding is that the restriction on standing on the curve will be removed as part of the upgrade. Either way, rejigging the southern approach to Sheffield to provide a longer down loop would be a more effective intervention.
As far as electrification is concerned, perhaps a better solution would be electrify and upgrade Ashburys and Guide Bridge to Chinley and then run expresses via Marple with either electric-diesel or (if the technology allows) electric-battery trains; the Manchester-New Mills/Chinley stoppers could use all-electric trains. Leave Chinley-Dore and New Mills South-Hazel Grove unwired as the tunnels would make electrification more difficult; the latter could become a freight-only line as it was in the 70s.
The 'Piccadilly throat' seems to be a bugbear on this forum; yes potentially it's a problem if too may are booked to cross but with other services now removed like Liverpool-Scarborough there should be capacity to path at least one. And why does the service need to come from Liverpool? Liverpool-Sheffield is not a huge market and with good connections at Piccadilly it wouldn't be outrageous to start the expresses from Manchester and make it an easy change there for Liverpool & Stockport passengers. Stockport itself just happens to be on the current route so it makes sense to have the services stop there; it is not essential that direct links are retained. The essential aspect is to improve the Manchester-Sheffield journey and with a speed upgrade it would be quicker via Marple than via Stockport.
Some nice ideas but the lack of land at the bottom of the Sheaf valley means that any extra track essentially comes at the expense of suburban stations… ensuring plenty of capacity for longer distance passengers to whizz past non-stop might not go down so well with the locals. Tricky balance
why does the service need to come from Liverpool? Liverpool-Sheffield is not a huge market and with good connections at Piccadilly it wouldn't be outrageous to start the expresses from Manchester and make it an easy change there for Liverpool & Stockport passengers
It’d be Very difficult, politically, to remove two of the longer distance services from Liverpool, meaning they’d have nothing between the Avanti London service and the TPE Newcastle service
I don’t think it’d bother Sheffield people as much but Liverpool is one of these places (like Bradford) where the politics has to be a consideration
MML Electrification: could it lead to extensions, such as Hope Valley or towards Leeds/Doncaster?
To my mind if/when Sheffield is reached I would do the following extensions -way way way before Hope Valley.
Rolling programme
1. Sheffield - Doncaster
2. Sheffield -Leeds
3. Sheffield to Nottingham
4. Ideally running at the same time Derby -Birmingham and Sheffield to York
But to answer OP directly MML could and should lead to extensions but Hope Valley would be way down the list. Other lower hanging fruit first.
I would even put Nottingham to Newark before Hope Valley.
MML Electrification: could it lead to extensions, such as Hope Valley or towards Leeds/Doncaster?
To my mind if/when Sheffield is reached I would do the following extensions -way way way before Hope Valley.
Rolling programme
1. Sheffield - Doncaster
2. Sheffield -Leeds
3. Sheffield to Nottingham
4. Ideally running at the same time Derby -Birmingham and Sheffield to York
But to answer OP directly MML could and should lead to extensions but Hope Valley would be way down the list. Other lower hanging fruit first.
I would even put Nottingham to Newark before Hope Valley.
Nottingham to Newark suffers from no connection to the ECML to justify it. If Newark to Lincoln was done as well it would heavily justify it though as it would be a diesel island although the passenger numbers aren't as big as the Sheffield to Manchester passengers
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The 'Piccadilly throat' seems to be a bugbear on this forum; yes potentially it's a problem if too may are booked to cross but with other services now removed like Liverpool-Scarborough there should be capacity to path at least one. And why does the service need to come from Liverpool? Liverpool-Sheffield is not a huge market and with good connections at Piccadilly it wouldn't be outrageous to start the expresses from Manchester and make it an easy change there for Liverpool & Stockport passengers. Stockport itself just happens to be on the current route so it makes sense to have the services stop there; it is not essential that direct links are retained. The essential aspect is to improve the Manchester-Sheffield journey and with a speed upgrade it would be quicker via Marple than via Stockport.
The full Norwich to Liverpool service is more a connecting several cities without change rather than an End to End service with it being Norwich-Peterborough-Nottingham-Sheffield-Manchester-Liverpool (Also Thetford, Ely, Grantham, Chesterfield, Stockport, Warrington)
Nottingham to Newark suffers from no connection to the ECML to justify it. If Newark to Lincoln was done as well it would heavily justify it though as it would be a diesel island although the passenger numbers aren't as big as the Sheffield to Manchester passengers
You would wire to Newark East Jn (or whatever it's called) to facilitate the reversal at the minimum, surely. How many trains are extended to Lincoln now, would the traffic make up for the potentially awkward ground conditions and Lincoln level crossings?
The 'Piccadilly throat' seems to be a bugbear on this forum; yes potentially it's a problem if too may are booked to cross but with other services now removed like Liverpool-Scarborough there should be capacity to path at least one. And why does the service need to come from Liverpool? Liverpool-Sheffield is not a huge market and with good connections at Piccadilly it wouldn't be outrageous to start the expresses from Manchester and make it an easy change there for Liverpool & Stockport passengers. Stockport itself just happens to be on the current route so it makes sense to have the services stop there; it is not essential that direct links are retained. The essential aspect is to improve the Manchester-Sheffield journey and with a speed upgrade it would be quicker via Marple than via Stockport.
Its not just a bug bear of the forum, its government policy too. The Ordsall Chord was built to remove services from Piccadilly station throat and it freed up capacity for three additional services into the shed. Any service crossing the station throat means the loss of terminating services. The solution of Liverpool having two Sheffield services via Piccadilly and two Leeds services via Victoria is the most efficient option in a city with a highly congested railway.
Its not just a bug bear of the forum, its government policy too. The Ordsall Chord was built to remove services from Piccadilly station throat and it freed up capacity for three additional services into the shed. Any service crossing the station throat means the loss of terminating services. The solution of Liverpool having two Sheffield services via Piccadilly and two Leeds services via Victoria is the most efficient option in a city with a highly congested railway.
At risk of showing my ignorance ... would it be possible to keep services to and from from the west to the western tracks south of Piccadilly, and those from Sheffield to the eastern side, passengers making their way from one to the other, and no trains across the throat?
Alternatively, and at some expense, to make use of the Mayfield site to 'cut the corner' south of Platforms 13/14, with added platforms to the south of 13/14 at a lower level to cut under the tracks to south of the main train shed to connect into the lines to the south and east? Thence to connect at a rebuilt Oxford Road with widened (and access compliant) platforms, losing the terminating platform if necessary? I'm picturing an 'elevated section' akin to New York?
At risk of showing my ignorance ... would it be possible to keep services to and from from the west to the western tracks south of Piccadilly, and those from Sheffield to the eastern side, passengers making their way from one to the other, and no trains across the throat?
Alternatively, and at some expense, to make use of the Mayfield site to 'cut the corner' south of Platforms 13/14, with added platforms to the south of 13/14 at a lower level to cut under the tracks to south of the main train shed to connect into the lines to the south and east? Thence to connect at a rebuilt Oxford Road with widened (and access compliant) platforms, losing the terminating platform if necessary? I'm picturing an 'elevated section' akin to New York?
Its not services between Stockport and Castlefield corridor that were the biggest problem but the services that crossed the whole station throat i.e. Liverpool to Scarborough via Leeds. The December timetable change removed the last really inefficient service. It was the Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes service which needed to reverse across almost the whole station throat.
The station throat issues are no longer a priority compared with Castlefield and Victoria. All that is required is not doing stupid stuff that (re)creates conflicts. Reintroducing Liverpool to Scarborough via Piccadilly or Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport would fall into that category.
The CLC is high up TfNs electrification preference after the lines currently being upgraded. If its done then bi modes might be introduced depending on future destinations east and south of Sheffield. Electrification of Hazel Grove to Disley Tunnel and Totley tunnel to MML might be worthwhile by that stage.
Talk about shooting in both feet By causing the whole HS2 east side to be reappraised it gave opponents more time to object, added more costs and has left us with continuing uncertainty
Very interesting and illustrates how diversion of attention (and scarce funds) onto questionable Restoring Your Railway proposals complicates more vital improvements to existing well used services. However it's vital this is all considered very soon as any electrification work is likely to determine what else can be done for 50 years.
Drivers eye videos are available down the Sheaf Valley and show how the old 4 track bed has been encroached upon since the 1960s making restoration of a 4 track railway very expensive, requiring restoration of removed bridges, moving lineside equipment and demolishing buildings on the site of the former Millhouses station (which some would optimistically like to reopen). In other words, practically impossible 3 tracks with loops to make 4 in places are probably achievable but will still require more work than many appreciate. Grade separating Dore Station Junction might even be possible - at a very high price!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Before electrification starts on the Hope Valley, it would ease capacity if Dore Station was made into a loop; so a junction off the existing single track just south of the platform to join the MML as it by-passes the station to the east. This would provide an opportunity to hold a stopping service in the loop if a fast train is close behind; likewise a freight. Freight currently booked to use the bottleneck South Curve could instead go via Sheffield and Beighton and use the loop to let anything catching up overtake.
That boat, or anything similar, had probably sailed when the 2018 TWAO was confirmed for the work currently in progress. (The opposing cants of the MML and Hope Valley line make any connection at the south end of the station far too dangerous without a massive reduction in MML line speed )
I might have favoured bi-directional signalling through the Dore station platforms to add options but the installation cost of extra points and signalling, plus future maintenance, and possible slowing of services across those points clearly wasn't considered economic. Likewise creating an entry into the new Dore loop/chord for trains coming towards the Hope Valley from Sheffield. Both these would allow a delayed fast service (usually TPE) to overtake a Northern stopper after it's crossed the MML for the Hope Valley. Currently it's often held at Sheffield, in the Heeley loop, or at Dore Station Junction before reaching the Hope Valley line.
If the old 4 track configuration isn't to be fully used for 4 continuous tracks down the Sheaf Valley(very difficult) some sort of loop north of Dore Station Junction might be possible, but the way the railway crosses the River Sheaf several times, and is crossed by road over bridges makes it more difficult than it may appear - but it needs seriously looking at.
BTW local residents are generally not in favour of Dore & Totley becoming Sheffield South West Parkway due to the traffic being attracted. That is slowly happening. Available parking is already over subscribed with no clear space identified for more. That said commuters for Manchester certainly are in favour and they arrive from across south and west Sheffield as well as out into north Derbyshire.
I don't think that'd be possible given the gradient between Dore and Sheffield - Any grade separation would require an even steeper gradient to pass under or over other tracks.
The MML tracks are canted over, so you'll have to ease the superelevation to have the points in unless you eat into the standage on the south curve. That's capacity hit number 1. You've got two bridges (1 under, 1 over) immediately south of Dore and Totley station that would require complete rebuilding to fit a third track alongside the MML.
My understanding is that the restriction on standing on the curve will be removed as part of the upgrade. Either way, rejigging the southern approach to Sheffield to provide a longer down loop would be a more effective intervention.
I don't think that'd be possible given the gradient between Dore and Sheffield - Any grade separation would require an even steeper gradient to pass under or over other tracks.
You’re right about gradients, but I would have thought that there is enough clear line along the Sheaf Valley to move the Midland tracks inside the Hope Valley tracks.
I see there used to be a dive-under just south of Sheffield Station. Openrailwaymap shows it as "East Bank Tunnel". I don't know if it would be possible, but reinstating that route would be equivalent to grade separating Dore, so I was surprised that it wasn't included in the Sheffield Area Strategic Refresh.
But looking more closely, it wouldn't eliminate that many conflicts. In the NPR ITSS, the 1tph Nottingham-Barnsley-Leeds service has to cross the Manchester-Rotherham TPE and the Freight path. And a crossover might help a Nottingham-Manchester service avoid a Manchester-Nottingham. But that's all, I think. Most of the through routes run from Chesterfield towards Rotherham. Other services from north and south terminate at Sheffield, so I don't think they need de-conflicting at Dore.
I see there used to be a dive-under just south of Sheffield Station. Openrailwaymap shows it as "East Bank Tunnel". I don't know if it would be possible, but reinstating that route would be equivalent to grade separating Dore, so I was surprised that it wasn't included in the Sheffield Area Strategic Refresh.
But looking more closely, it wouldn't eliminate that many conflicts. In the NPR ITSS, the 1tph Nottingham-Barnsley-Leeds service has to cross the Manchester-Rotherham TPE and the Freight path. And a crossover might help a Nottingham-Manchester service avoid a Manchester-Nottingham. But that's all, I think. Most of the through routes run from Chesterfield towards Rotherham. Other services from north and south terminate at Sheffield, so I don't think they need de-conflicting at Dore.
We're potentially off into speculation of many kinds.
The East Bank tunnel track took trains from Platform 1 under the face of the station to reappear as the fast track going south - now occupied by the (unused?) carriage wash road. That might help the reversing Liverpool - Norwich service but little else. To be useful for the Hope Valley lines such a tunnel would need to run from the south bound tracks out of the station, east side Platforms 6-8, nearer Dore Station Junction to cross below the MML northbound track. It's a possibility but not really practical, unless billions are going spare.
The gradient out of Sheffield doesn't seem much in a car or as a passenger on a train or bus. I used to run from the Dore area to near Meadowhall once a week. I tried running back after a day's work- just twice! It's harder going than it looks.
Looking at the diagram above one simplistic thought comes to mind, and immediately would have to be cast aside. There are two reversing moves per hour, one to the north the other to the south. Eliminating them both might improve operations around Sheffield. Run Liverpool - Norwich to Lincoln. Run Norwich - Liverpool to Leeds. Problems then come from elsewhere. Lincoln loses through service to Leeds. Nottingham and East Anglia lose direct service to Manchester and Liverpool. 4 car trains wouldn't fit into P 17 at Leeds and other snags. Bin that idea!
Looking at the diagram above one simplistic thought comes to mind, and immediately would have to be cast aside. There are two reversing moves per hour, one to the north the other to the south. Eliminating them both might improve operations around Sheffield. Run Liverpool - Norwich to Lincoln. Run Norwich - Liverpool to Leeds. Problems then come from elsewhere. Lincoln loses through service to Leeds. Nottingham and East Anglia lose direct service to Manchester and Liverpool. 4 car trains wouldn't fit into P 17 at Leeds and other snags. Bin that idea!
If you want to be mad but increase journey times a bit to eliminate a reversing move there is the Barrow Hill to Darnall section to loop into Sheffield from the North.
I don't think any splitting at Sheffield would be popular as there seems to be a decent Nottingham-Manchester flow which very much enjoys the lack of a change at Sheffield.
I have a feeling it'd be cheaper to demolish the central island, build a new island 2 tracks further over, then build a side platform with North and South bays on the west side. Straighten the through routes and concentrate terminating trains on the west side, especially if you get 3/4 tracks on the southern approach. Would need the southern overbridges being rebuilt though, which isn't cheap.
I have a feeling it'd be cheaper to demolish the central island, build a new island 2 tracks further over, then build a side platform with North and South bays on the west side. Straighten the through routes and concentrate terminating trains on the west side, especially if you get 3/4 tracks on the southern approach. Would need the southern overbridges being rebuilt though, which isn't cheap.
Bearing in mind that Sheffield Midland was built on stone arches where the River Sheaf is joined by the Porter Brook in an area called the Ponds because that's what it had been. (The station took almost a year longer than Bradway Tunnel for that reason.)
3 southbound tracks plus possible loops is the best that's likely to be achieved. The listed building nature of the station complicates matters too.
None of this is impossible to resolve if the will and cash is there. Difficult but a lot easier than resolving the greater congestion at the northern end where creating a 3rd, let alone a 4th, track is far more challenging. So far I haven't seen a serious, and reasonably affordable, plan to do that. A tunnel parallel with Platform 8 leading to Nunnery Junction? A somewhat challenging engineering project.
This is a bit of a millstone around the neck of Sheffield Midland station. Sure, the buildings are nice and historic, but the current layout of the station with so many non-platform lines is a very inefficient use of the limited space dating back to the days of everything being hauled, much of it freight. Of course the river underneath the station would make correcting this difficult, and you'd need to find a replacement stabling location... but the space could be much better used with the right will and investment.
I see there used to be a dive-under just south of Sheffield Station. Openrailwaymap shows it as "East Bank Tunnel". I don't know if it would be possible, but reinstating that route would be equivalent to grade separating Dore, so I was surprised that it wasn't included in the Sheffield Area Strategic Refresh.
But looking more closely, it wouldn't eliminate that many conflicts. In the NPR ITSS, the 1tph Nottingham-Barnsley-Leeds service has to cross the Manchester-Rotherham TPE and the Freight path. And a crossover might help a Nottingham-Manchester service avoid a Manchester-Nottingham. But that's all, I think. Most of the through routes run from Chesterfield towards Rotherham. Other services from north and south terminate at Sheffield, so I don't think they need de-conflicting at Dore.
I recall using that tunnel when going from St Pancras to Sheffield for an interview at Sheffield University in 1966 (and returning via Retford to KX). Wondering whether it would meet today's clearance standards- maybe like tunnels on Euston approaches?
Looking at the diagram above one simplistic thought comes to mind, and immediately would have to be cast aside. There are two reversing moves per hour, one to the north the other to the south. Eliminating them both might improve operations around Sheffield. Run Liverpool - Norwich to Lincoln. Run Norwich - Liverpool to Leeds. Problems then come from elsewhere. Lincoln loses through service to Leeds. Nottingham and East Anglia lose direct service to Manchester and Liverpool. 4 car trains wouldn't fit into P 17 at Leeds and other snags. Bin that idea!
I'm off to Lincoln next month, from Leeds. I'll be going via Doncaster as it's faster, even with a change. Plus, the Lincoln-Sheffield sections gets cancelled a lot at the moment, didn't want to take that chance! Norwich-Sheffield-Leeds would probably only be two cars anyway as it's two services smushed together in the same way the current Leeds-Sheffield-Lincoln/Nottingham services are.
No - that was one I did find, but I was looking for something from 2018. It's the one that suggests sending traffic via the current tram route east of the station, while diverting trams to run on the road to the west (among other things). Think it's a Network Rail document. I'll have a copy somewhere
Any luck with locating this? I produced a few [very high-level] slides on this topic in 2019, but can’t remember if I ever cited the document in question.
Any luck with locating this? I produced a few [very high-level] slides on this topic in 2019, but can’t remember if I ever cited the document in question.
I'm beginning to think I've misremembered, or conflated a couple of reports. There was the consultancy report with the map of the A61 diverting via the current tram route and the tram diverting via Flat Street and Pond Street, calling at the bus interchange rather than the rail station. Sheaf Street was to be partly pedestrianised! I still don't see how everythig reconnects at the northern end though, so it doesn't feel like something happeneing anytime soon with a simple swapping of road use.
Not sure whether this has been mentioned in a previous post, sorry if it has, when I worked Project Rio, many years ago of course, the Hope Valley had areas of non mobile coverage because, we were told, permission wouldn't be given for horrible ugly masts to be put up, if this is still relevant today would they even consider having tons of overheads and associated steel being put up in the National Park?
Not sure whether this has been mentioned in a previous post, sorry if it has, when I worked Project Rio, many years ago of course, the Hope Valley had areas of non mobile coverage because, we were told, permission wouldn't be given for horrible ugly masts to be put up, if this is still relevant today would they even consider having tons of overheads and associated steel being put up in the National Park?
Mobile masts are generally put on more prominent hills though, although yes it would be a problem, especially where the line is on a viaduct or embankment.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
