Raul_Duke
Member
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 397
Sheffield must also be due for a remodel. Very much set up for steam / LHCS, like the old Derby was.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
Sheffield area remodelling: current layout is not fit for purpose
- Thread starter Raul_Duke
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Killingworth
Established Member
Indeed, but that will come from the HS2 budget, including restoring a 3rd track south and west down the Sheaf valley fromDore - dreaming on. Quite how the north and east approaches can be improved is a big challenge but it's long been accepted that any elecrification will require a total remodelling.
Raul_Duke
Member
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 397
The North is constrained by the tunnels/cuttings.
As for the south, bring back the dive-under!!!
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 11,473
Would this to grade separate the Dore junction?
brompton rail
Member
The “dive under” was between Heeley and Midland station. The carriage washer stub line is all that is easily visible. The four tracks between Dore and Sheffield were paired into up/ down fast, and up/down slow. The “dive under allowed fast line access to low number platforms whilst not impeding slow trains. There aren’t four tracks now south of Sheffield.
To install a “dive under” at Dore would not be feasible as it would be filled up by the adjacent River Sheaf which runs next to the railway!
To install a “dive under” at Dore would not be feasible as it would be filled up by the adjacent River Sheaf which runs next to the railway!
Essentially, the design meant that the London lines principally served platforms 1, 6, and 8 and the Manchester lines 2 and 5, thus bringing down trains from London to the North into the long main platform on a level with the station entrance. 1 and 2 were the new through platforms added during the station rebuilding. By the standards and for the services of the time it was a thoroughly well planned and up-to-date layout. And the Midland Railway did have plans to complete the Sheffield-Masbrough quadrupling by dealing with the section between the station and Mill Race Jn.
From google maps quadrupling north out of Sheffield to the junction for the Worksop line wouldn’t be that difficult - empty land, a handful of tatty old buildings, and mainly redundant bridges.
Getting under the A57 might be disruptive, then it looks relatively clear if you are prepared to build a new parallel viaduct for a couple of miles. If you could afford to take the fasts over the top of Meadowhall Interchange then you could have fast lines on the west side straight through from Dore to Rotherham where the slows would peel off to go through Central (I refuse to accept that one supermarket should prevent quadrupling from Dore to Sheffield!!)
Getting under the A57 might be disruptive, then it looks relatively clear if you are prepared to build a new parallel viaduct for a couple of miles. If you could afford to take the fasts over the top of Meadowhall Interchange then you could have fast lines on the west side straight through from Dore to Rotherham where the slows would peel off to go through Central (I refuse to accept that one supermarket should prevent quadrupling from Dore to Sheffield!!)
brompton rail
Member
The line north out of Midland station is in a deep cutting through solid rock. Widening this would be very expensive and disruptive. Beyond the cutting /tunnel the line is on a viaduct. Rebuilding Meadowhall station platforms would be very difficult too to allow set back slow platforms and fast lines. Only 2 (XC) trains (each way) don’t stop at Meadowhall anyway. Holmes Junction (only 2 tracks) where Rotherham Central line (single track) branches off limits movements here.
No expense spared alternatives might include sending some stoppers via Woodburn line to Rotherham Central though past Meadowhall though this would clash with TramTrain services.
Isn’t solid rock easier to deal with in some ways? I assumed that was partly why Norway and Switzerland build so many tunnels.
I was thinking the new fast lines, to the North west of the current lines, would go over Meadowhall Interchange as part of going over the Barnsley lines. I am assuming HS2 won’t be stopping there.
I was thinking the new fast lines, to the North west of the current lines, would go over Meadowhall Interchange as part of going over the Barnsley lines. I am assuming HS2 won’t be stopping there.
tbtc
Veteran Member
I'd like something to be done... but what?
The southern end is simpler. Sort out Dore (the nonsense of a station on a single track chord on an otherwise double track railway, with fast/long distance services tightly pathed might have been acceptable in BR days but it isn't now. Try to squeeze in a third track from Dore through Millhouses/ Heeley into Midland Station (but the proximity of the Sainsburys/ Tesco may limit this at one point). Maybe even go completely Crayonista and ask for electrification of the MML (or is that too unrealistic)?
Midland station itself is a mess. But I don't know how much can be changed (are buildings listed?). Five through platforms, two northern bays and two southern bays (plus four middle roads, despite no passenger services running non-stop!). The station is so congested that EMT used to run some of their London services ECS to Nunnery Junction to sit out of the way because there wasn't sufficient platform capacity.
At the moment, we have the a standard off-peak pattern of thirteen departures at the north end...
But it's a bit more complicated than that because the silly Leeds - Lincoln service reverses at the north end and the Norwich - Liverpool reverses at the south end. So you have
There are two southern bays, although the shortest one (the quirkily numbered 2c) is going to be to short to take more than two carriages (now that Pacers are finally going) and the other one (which just about takes a 5 coach 222 at times) may struggle to accommodate a 5 coach 804?
The seven services from the north that terminate have the difficulty of the single lead into the two northern bays and the painfully slow approach speeds. If I can get my crayons out, it'd be much more efficient to run them through to a terminus south of the city so they can lay over there, but I can't see that happening.
Oh, and you can't have anything laying over in platform 1 very long as that's the only access to the Northern refuelling facilities at the southern end.
Maybe you could cut a hunk out of platform 8b to accommodate a three/four coach unit in a bay platform? It'd mean knocking the old stand-alone building down (between the northern end of 6/8) but the track through 8 looks like it could be better skewed against the wall (of the embankment that the tram runs on), so it feels to my untrained eye that there may be space for a terminating platform there whilst keeping sufficient platform face at 8 to accommodate a ten coach 804 if need be?
Generally though, it's an inadequate station located on the wrong side of the ring road, built directly above the River Sheaf, with a steep hill to the east (and the aforementioned A61 to the east), there are severe limits to how you can remodel it. Ideally, I'd like to have three sets of island platforms instead of the two sets that we currently have (the middle roads are wasted space and the two current "islands" are fairly inefficiently laid out.
(and that's without trying to "solve" the mess of the single track Holmes Chord, the various flat junctions north of Sheffield, finding space for HS2 services to lay over at Midland, dealing with the horrendously slow climb from Midland to the Attercliffe viaduct...)
The southern end is simpler. Sort out Dore (the nonsense of a station on a single track chord on an otherwise double track railway, with fast/long distance services tightly pathed might have been acceptable in BR days but it isn't now. Try to squeeze in a third track from Dore through Millhouses/ Heeley into Midland Station (but the proximity of the Sainsburys/ Tesco may limit this at one point). Maybe even go completely Crayonista and ask for electrification of the MML (or is that too unrealistic)?
Midland station itself is a mess. But I don't know how much can be changed (are buildings listed?). Five through platforms, two northern bays and two southern bays (plus four middle roads, despite no passenger services running non-stop!). The station is so congested that EMT used to run some of their London services ECS to Nunnery Junction to sit out of the way because there wasn't sufficient platform capacity.
At the moment, we have the a standard off-peak pattern of thirteen departures at the north end...
- Barnsley: Four/ hour
- Moorthorpe: Two/ hour (plus irregular York service)
- Doncaster: Five/ hour
- Worksop: Two/ hour
- Chesterfield: Six/ hour
- Hope: Three/ hour
But it's a bit more complicated than that because the silly Leeds - Lincoln service reverses at the north end and the Norwich - Liverpool reverses at the south end. So you have
- 7x north terminating services (Huddersfield, Leeds via Castleford, Leeds via Moorthorpe, Adwick, Doncaster, Hull, Retford)
- 4x north-south services (XC x2, TPE x1 and Northern x1)
- 2x north - north services (the Leeds - Lincoln mentioned above)
- 2x south - south services (the Norwich - Liverpool mentioned above)
- 3x south terminating services (both Londons plus the Hope Valley stopper)
There are two southern bays, although the shortest one (the quirkily numbered 2c) is going to be to short to take more than two carriages (now that Pacers are finally going) and the other one (which just about takes a 5 coach 222 at times) may struggle to accommodate a 5 coach 804?
The seven services from the north that terminate have the difficulty of the single lead into the two northern bays and the painfully slow approach speeds. If I can get my crayons out, it'd be much more efficient to run them through to a terminus south of the city so they can lay over there, but I can't see that happening.
Oh, and you can't have anything laying over in platform 1 very long as that's the only access to the Northern refuelling facilities at the southern end.
Maybe you could cut a hunk out of platform 8b to accommodate a three/four coach unit in a bay platform? It'd mean knocking the old stand-alone building down (between the northern end of 6/8) but the track through 8 looks like it could be better skewed against the wall (of the embankment that the tram runs on), so it feels to my untrained eye that there may be space for a terminating platform there whilst keeping sufficient platform face at 8 to accommodate a ten coach 804 if need be?
Generally though, it's an inadequate station located on the wrong side of the ring road, built directly above the River Sheaf, with a steep hill to the east (and the aforementioned A61 to the east), there are severe limits to how you can remodel it. Ideally, I'd like to have three sets of island platforms instead of the two sets that we currently have (the middle roads are wasted space and the two current "islands" are fairly inefficiently laid out.
(and that's without trying to "solve" the mess of the single track Holmes Chord, the various flat junctions north of Sheffield, finding space for HS2 services to lay over at Midland, dealing with the horrendously slow climb from Midland to the Attercliffe viaduct...)
Wiki (unsourced) reckons HS2 will need a new platform and tram changes, implying carving a new platform out of the East wall.
How long will HS2 trains be - ie will they fit in platforms 1 and 2? Would seem better to have HS2 from the south arriving in 1 for easier passenger exit.
If you keep locals on the East side you could build a new fuelling/stabling site on the Sheffield council Olive Grove Depot less than a mile south of the station
How long will HS2 trains be - ie will they fit in platforms 1 and 2? Would seem better to have HS2 from the south arriving in 1 for easier passenger exit.
If you keep locals on the East side you could build a new fuelling/stabling site on the Sheffield council Olive Grove Depot less than a mile south of the station
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,745
Is any of the Sheffield platform complex listed?
If not it would likely be better to demolish the entire thing.
As to HS2, although the CC trainsets are only 200m it would likely be better to provide at least one 400m platform if at all possible.
If not it would likely be better to demolish the entire thing.
As to HS2, although the CC trainsets are only 200m it would likely be better to provide at least one 400m platform if at all possible.
As a passenger, I find Sheffield Midland quite a good station to use - plenty of cover and facilities, and nothing too out of the way and difficult to get to (with perhaps the exception of the bay platform used by the Hope Valley stopper.
If there is a shortage of platform space, would it be worthwhile doing something similar to the work done at Gravesend recently. You could turn platform one into fairly long North/South facing bay platforms, and in the centre extend it out to give level access to a new long through platform on the site of where the down through line currently is (with the up through becoming the platform line).
On my ideal world wish list would be excavating the short pinch point in the cutting to the north of the station to enable two separate double tracks to the North and Nunnery junction. Also, Quadrouple track to Dore.
If there is a shortage of platform space, would it be worthwhile doing something similar to the work done at Gravesend recently. You could turn platform one into fairly long North/South facing bay platforms, and in the centre extend it out to give level access to a new long through platform on the site of where the down through line currently is (with the up through becoming the platform line).
On my ideal world wish list would be excavating the short pinch point in the cutting to the north of the station to enable two separate double tracks to the North and Nunnery junction. Also, Quadrouple track to Dore.
There was a bay the the northern end of 8 — that's why it's further from the wall at that end.
The priority must be additional facilities to terminate trains at the North end, not least because of the additional Moorthorpe route service that is planned, so some variant on yorksrob's suggestion looks best.
Are the canopies on 1 and 2 listed - they look classic Midland to me, and if they are, it might be difficult to put a canopied platform down the middle - maybe play around with the roads between 5/6 instead, as the canopies are plainer? But that's a minor issue.
As to the south end, it looks to me as the south bay 7 could be extended with modest remodelling of the layout; 2c can be ignored.
I suppose you could run the Hope Valley stopper through to Doncaster or Retford to reduce the number of terminating workings, but that would be marginal.
And there must be spare railway land away from the station for a decent stabling and fuelling facility?
Are the canopies on 1 and 2 listed - they look classic Midland to me, and if they are, it might be difficult to put a canopied platform down the middle - maybe play around with the roads between 5/6 instead, as the canopies are plainer? But that's a minor issue.
As to the south end, it looks to me as the south bay 7 could be extended with modest remodelling of the layout; 2c can be ignored.
I suppose you could run the Hope Valley stopper through to Doncaster or Retford to reduce the number of terminating workings, but that would be marginal.
And there must be spare railway land away from the station for a decent stabling and fuelling facility?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Splitting P1 would create two bays of about 4-car length. But taking up one through line doesn't create enough space for a platform up against the other through line, even if it would only be a one-sided island with a fence down the back. Moving the P2 platform edge eastwards to widen this gap would probably destroy one of the north end bays, and P2 isn't especially wide anyway for a major city station. Similar issues would arise in trying to use the other through lines between 5 and 6.
I think to create an extra long platform within the existing footprint would involve demolition of one set of island buildings to replace that island with a narrower one, so as to widen the space occupied by two through tracks enough to make a one-sided island against the remaining through track.
I think the North end of the station isn't an issue. However, it's right that the gap between platforms 1 and 2 narrows at the South end. If the short bay platform were eliminated, the South end of p2 could be remodelled to enable space for the new through platform and the longer south facing bay where 1 is.
markymark2000
On Moderation
4 tracking from Meadowhall down to Brightside Loop should be ok but would that have much benefit really?
Would it help things if the headshunt at Sheffield North junction linked to both the lines rather than was a headshunt? It would add slightly more flexibility as then signals and points might unlock a little quicker.
South of Sheffield Station to Heely could be 4 tracked easily it looks.
The obvious of Dore needs doing as well.
Would it help things if the headshunt at Sheffield North junction linked to both the lines rather than was a headshunt? It would add slightly more flexibility as then signals and points might unlock a little quicker.
South of Sheffield Station to Heely could be 4 tracked easily it looks.
The obvious of Dore needs doing as well.
North end remodelled, by removing single lead into 3 & 4, extending headshunt to make a running line, bi directional working through to Nunnery Jct, new north Bay between 6 & 8( yes would need to demolish building)and increased approach speeds for through lines would be a start!
I’ve been using Sheffield station daily for 17 years, it was only recently that I first saw that headhunt used.
I know when they relayed the points at the north end a few years ago they were replaced like for like because otherwise they would have to have resignalled, yet the headshunt off platform one hasn’t been used for decades.
I know when they relayed the points at the north end a few years ago they were replaced like for like because otherwise they would have to have resignalled, yet the headshunt off platform one hasn’t been used for decades.
The track is that rusty and worn out, I doubt it would even activate the track circuits
It would more than likely need some metal zig-zaps akin to what's on Platform 3 and 4 for it to be used.
eastwestdivide
Established Member
On the subject of listed buildings, the reference list is here: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/
This shows "Sheffield Station and attached Bridges and Platform Bridges" as Grade II listed (there are three grades - see below**)
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1270904
BUT, the fact of being listed doesn't prevent changes from happening - you just have more hoops to jump through.
** From that website
This shows "Sheffield Station and attached Bridges and Platform Bridges" as Grade II listed (there are three grades - see below**)
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1270904
BUT, the fact of being listed doesn't prevent changes from happening - you just have more hoops to jump through.
** From that website
and
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,745
It is extremely unlikely the council would grant permission for their wholesale demolition.
Interesting that the Council is insistent HS2 is accommodated in Sheffield Midland! Something will have to give if HS2 is to be routed to Sheffield.
The east island is already 385m long over its furthest ramp extremities and the west island is only marginally shorter. With road bridge reconstruction to the south, which may be necessary anyway for electrification, and (obviously) complete track layout remodelling at that end, some platforms at least could plausibly be extended to 400 m without affecting the existing canopies and buildings significantly. The platforms might not be dead straight throughout, but could be perfectly serviceable for a full-length HS2 train formed of classic compatible stock nonetheless. Chesterfield platforms could similarly be extended at the south end in a very straight manner along the existing track alignment after removal of the sidings there.
Last edited:
brompton rail
Member
Probably not going to a problem, as given the cost escalation to over £100bn HS2 is unlikely to get much beyond Birmingham and a link into WCML. Anyway east - west connectivity is much more important to the North of England than getting to London quicker.
tbtc
Veteran Member
That's an interesting idea - if all "local" services could run through to terminate there (even if no station opened, just a maintenance facility) then that would free up a lot of platform space - given the numbers of Huddersfield/ Leeds/ Adwick/ Doncaster/ Retford services terminating each hour. Nice
I didn't know that - interesting!
It's frustrating that we have five very long platform faces when so many of the services at Sheffield are only two/three coaches long - other than the hourly "fast" London service (7x23m) and a couple of XC HSTs per day, most services could fit into a typical bay platform at a typical station!
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,745
Can we arrange any Victoria-style "scissor" shenanigans?
Just pointing out for the umpteenth time that HS2 is NOT about getting to London quicker !
If you quadruple to the new depot and northern use the east island (double stacking every other train) then long distance has free access from the south to 1,2, and 5.
The old depot site can be sold to raise funds.
- Status