My idea for reconfiguration at Sheffield station

[Grumpy]

I'm not sure how feasible it would be to provide bays with level access to the entrance.

Plenty of existing examples eg Newcastle

 

[HSTEd]

Plenty of existing examples eg Newcastle

The approaches to Sheffield are notoriously constrained as it is.
Piling in additional crossing moves is not likely to improve matters.

 

[Grumpy]

Trains are likely to get longer in the future though, and putting all bays on the entrance side forces conflicts between arriving and departing trains.

Trains may (or may not) get longer. If demand doubled there would still be plenty of space-dont forget most of the existing trains are very short.
With regard to conflicts, these exist now. Existing terminal stations on the network seem to cope.

 

[HSTEd]

Trains may (or may not) get longer. If demand doubled there would still be plenty of space-dont forget most of the existing trains are very short.
With regard to conflicts, these exist now. Existing terminal stations on the network seem to cope.

Sheffield's situation is unusually bad though, due to its highly constrained throats and multiple flat junctions.

 

[YorksLad12]

I'm not sure how feasible it would be to provide bays with level access to the entrance.

On the other hand, it seems the problem here would be solved by simply not announcing a platform change to then undo it.

One way - one horrible, horrible way - would be to convert P1, P2 and one of the through roads into bays. You then get level access to ten platforms (1A, 1B, newA, newB, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3, 4, 5). But you lose two through platforms, which costs you some flexibility. In theory, the 1711, 1718 and 1721 through services could all head north from P5, for example. In practice... they never depart at 1711, 1718 and 1721, which is why they're spread over PP1 & 2.

 

[zwk500]

If demand doubled there would still be plenty of space-dont forget most of the existing trains are very short.

The existing north end bays aren't that long, and the trains that terminate from the south tend to be reasonably long so cutting the existing 300m-odd platforms in two with a concourse/walkway in the middle is likely to leave a 100m platform (for a 4-car unit) at the north end and a c. 150m platform at the south end. Not great usage, especially as a through platform would be more flexible, be able to platform share with a greater subdivision length and also be able to offer alternatives through through trains should it be required.

With regard to conflicts, these exist now. Existing terminal stations on the network seem to cope.

the majority of terminal stations are set up to maximise parallel moves across the throat so an inbound train is 'paired' with an outbound train. That's not possible at Sheffield with the current layout, and bloody difficult to achieve without getting rid of at least 2 major bridges either side of the station.

 

[Grumpy]

The existing north end bays aren't that long, and the trains that terminate from the south tend to be reasonably long so cutting the existing 300m-odd platforms in two with a concourse/walkway in the middle is likely to leave a 100m platform (for a 4-car unit) at the north end and a c. 150m platform at the south end. Not great usage, especially as a through platform would be more flexible, be able to platform share with a greater subdivision length and also be able to offer alternatives through through trains should it be required.

Well the platforms are more realistically 330m-ish. How wide's the current footbridge -7 or 8 m?.
Make the walkway 20m, say, and that leaves 310m. I dont see the argument for needing additional "flexibility" if you leave 4 through platforms, when other stations with only 2 platforms handle more through trains

the majority of terminal stations are set up to maximise parallel moves across the throat so an inbound train is 'paired' with an outbound train. That's not possible at Sheffield with the current layout, and bloody difficult to achieve without getting rid of at least 2 major bridges either side of the station.

But you wouldn't retain the current layout. For example there are 4 through tracks that dont have any platforms. In a total redesign you would use the space to provide additional (bay) platforms to reduce/eliminate sets being blocked in and to reduce the present number of instances where trains stand outside the station waiting for a free platform

 

[zwk500]

Well the platforms are more realistically 330m-ish. How wide's the current footbridge -7 or 8 m?. Make the walkway 20m, say, and that leaves 310m.

For bays, take another 10m off that length for each buffer stop.

I dont see the argument for needing additional "flexibility" if you leave 4 through platforms, when other stations with only 2 platforms handle more through trains

Given how regularly disruption spreads through other services at Sheffield, I don't see how you can't provide for flexibility.

But you wouldn't retain the current layout. For example there are 4 through tracks that dont have any platforms. In a total redesign you would use the space to provide additional (bay) platforms to reduce/eliminate sets being blocked in and to reduce the present number of instances where trains stand outside the station waiting for a free platform

Interestingly, I mucked about on a google image and even if you eliminate the non-platform tracks you don't get much space back. However you can do a station with 8x 300m through lines, and what you might do is put the central lines in as bays so there's effectively a big island (Waverley/York style) for passengers.

At the moment you have 5 through platforms and 4 bays (2 South, 2 North). With this layout you could have either 8 through tracks, 6 through tracks with 4 bays (2 North, 2 South) or 4 through tracks with 8 bays (4 north, 4 south).
Unfortunately, as you can see, it does require demolition of all the current platforms and a Reading-level rebuild so it'll never happen. But interesting to see 'what could have been'. (Ignore the layout at each throat, that was idle mucking about and I'm not an engineer so haven't looked at any design standards).

 

[YorksLad12]

At the moment you have 5 through platforms and 4 bays (2 South, 2 North). With this layout you could have either 8 through tracks, 6 through tracks with 4 bays (2 North, 2 South) or 4 through tracks with 8 bays (4 north, 4 south).
Unfortunately, as you can see, it does require demolition of all the current platforms and a Reading-level rebuild so it'll never happen. But interesting to see 'what could have been'. (Ignore the layout at each throat, that was idle mucking about and I'm not an engineer so haven't looked at any design standards).

So... a bit like my horrible, horrible suggestion upthread (but with more demolition)?

One thing that could do with being fixed is the approach to P4, which is via P3, pretty much. It also confuses people waiting for the Lincoln-Leeds service on P3 when the Leeds-Lincoln service seemingly approaches, then shifts over to P4...

 

[Topological]

For bays, take another 10m off that length for each buffer stop.

Given how regularly disruption spreads through other services at Sheffield, I don't see how you can't provide for flexibility.

Interestingly, I mucked about on a google image and even if you eliminate the non-platform tracks you don't get much space back. However you can do a station with 8x 300m through lines, and what you might do is put the central lines in as bays so there's effectively a big island (Waverley/York style) for passengers.
View attachment 165033
At the moment you have 5 through platforms and 4 bays (2 South, 2 North). With this layout you could have either 8 through tracks, 6 through tracks with 4 bays (2 North, 2 South) or 4 through tracks with 8 bays (4 north, 4 south).
Unfortunately, as you can see, it does require demolition of all the current platforms and a Reading-level rebuild so it'll never happen. But interesting to see 'what could have been'. (Ignore the layout at each throat, that was idle mucking about and I'm not an engineer so haven't looked at any design standards).

This is what needs doing, the railway should not be a museum.

I suspect you would lose some of the length of platforms 2 and 3 on the right for the necessary points though. Especially since terminating trains will need to be able to arrive on one line and leave on the other.

Provision is better on the left so the London, Hope Valley Stopper, and Liverpool-Norwich trains will be ok.

 

[zwk500]

So... a bit like my horrible, horrible suggestion upthread (but with more demolition)?

There's a reason I've shown them as through lines, it's infinitely preferable the bay numbers were provided to show that for all that money you don't really gain very much.

One thing that could do with being fixed is the approach to P4, which is via P3, pretty much. It also confuses people waiting for the Lincoln-Leeds service on P3 when the Leeds-Lincoln service seemingly approaches, then shifts over to P4...

there are space and alignment constraints that limit the available options there.

This is what needs doing, the railway should not be a museum.

The railway is also not a source if limitless money. For all the disruption and expense you gain quite a limited amount.

I suspect you would lose some of the length of platforms 2 and 3 on the right for the necessary points though. Especially since terminating trains will need to be able to arrive on one line and leave on the other.

Provision is better on the left so the London, Hope Valley Stopper, and Liverpool-Norwich trains will be ok.

As I mentioned, the throats are largely just what was there fiddled with. If you were proceeding with 8 platforms you'd reconfigure the throats completely, especially as it would likely come.woth a 3rd track from Dore.

 

[Topological]

There's a reason I've shown them as through lines, it's infinitely preferable the bay numbers were provided to show that for all that money you don't really gain very much.

there are space and alignment constraints that limit the available options there.

The railway is also not a source if limitless money. For all the disruption and expense you gain quite a limited amount.

As I mentioned, the throats are largely just what was there fiddled with. If you were proceeding with 8 platforms you'd reconfigure the throats completely, especially as it would likely come.woth a 3rd track from Dore.

Presumably, any plan to reorganise Sheffield could be done in stages, starting with 1 and 2 plus the buildings on the 2-5 island. Long Christmas closures would then be sufficient to handle throat changes (a la the recent Kings Cross work).

No doubting there is not the money, but then this is in speculative

 

[D365]

The railway is also not a source if limitless money. For all the disruption and expense you gain quite a limited amount.

I'm a proponent of tunneling a new Platform 9 under South Street...

 

[Meerkat]

I would put the money toward replacing the bridges toward the south, and quadrupling north to Nunnery, so that the throats could be made faster and far more flexible.

 

[zwk500]

I would put the money toward replacing the bridges toward the south, and quadrupling north to Nunnery, so that the throats could be made faster and far more flexible.

How much money? The Shrewsbury Road bridge is rather solid covered way arch structures, I would be astonished if the present political-financial climate allowed them to even entertain the idea of demolishing them.

 

[YorksLad12]

I'm a proponent of tunneling a new Platform 9 under South Street...

Well... you could fit in a P9 next to P8. It would have to be done similar to P0 at Doncaster... and there wouldn't be that much 'p' to it, either. But Google Maps things you could squeeze 100m in there, if you shift the cabinets.

I would put the money toward replacing the bridges toward the south, and quadrupling north to Nunnery, so that the throats could be made faster and far more flexible.

The footbridge has long been slated for renewal and turning into a foot- and cycle-way.

I'd probably start in the middle, and work my way out. The track layout south of the station seems... odd to my eyes. A more flexible layout, allowing access to more platforms, plus bidi and mid-platform signalling should help a bit. Then start on the heavy stuff.

 

[Meerkat]

How much money? The Shrewsbury Road bridge is rather solid covered way arch structures, I would be astonished if the present political-financial climate allowed them to even entertain the idea of demolishing them.

Lots! Probably chock full of utilities, and it looks like Granville Street might lean on it!
Might need to replace the one to the south too, and move the lines east a bit to prop up the wall.
Its such a cramped site, with steep gradients - there is no room to change the road layout and/or create space for development.
It would really free up the space to greatly improve the south end of the station, and might get traffic off that bit of the tram.

 

[zwk500]

Lots! Probably chock full of utilities, and it looks like Granville Street might lean on it!
Might need to replace the one to the south too, and move the lines east a bit to prop up the wall.
Its such a cramped site, with steep gradients - there is no room to change the road layout and/or create space for development.
It would really free up the space to greatly improve the south end of the station, and might get traffic off that bit of the tram.

Oh, apologies, I misread your initial post as 'I would put money on' the bridges. My mistake!

However, as mentioned, there's not the money to do anything with either the platforms or bridges in the current climate.