Sheffield station congestion

[londonmidland]

This is nothing new and is well documented on here but I was just wondering if there are any plans in the future to cope with this problem?

This evening I witnessed what could be described as a snowball effect.

A late running Southbound XC service in P8 caused the EMR London service to depart late from P6 (18:56 and 19:02 services respectively)

The 18:51 EMR Nottingham was 20 late, but then further delayed awaiting a path out the station.

This caused delay to the 19:11 TPE Airport service as well as the already late 19:06 NT Nottingham service.

It seems there are various bottlenecks at both the South/West and North ends of the station.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I thought (and I am sure I read somewhere) a remodel would take place of Sheffield Midland at the same time (prior to) sparking it up as part of MML electrification.

 

[Glenn1969]

But they are not electrifying Sheffield until HS2 so I wouldn't hold your breath about when it will happen

 

[Raul_Duke]

This is nothing new and is well documented on here but I was just wondering if there are any plans in the future to cope with this problem?

This evening I witnessed what could be described as a snowball effect.

A late running Southbound XC service in P8 caused the EMR London service to depart late from P6 (18:56 and 19:02 services respectively)

The 18:51 EMR Nottingham was 20 late, but then further delayed awaiting a path out the station.

This caused delay to the 19:11 TPE Airport service as well as the already late 19:06 NT Nottingham service.

It seems there are various bottlenecks at both the South/West and North ends of the station.

They [York ROC] have a morbid fear of letting a London bound EMR in front of a late running XC, even if the EMR is ready to leave and the XC hasn’t got to Nunnery yet. Even when the XC stops at Chesterfield.

So much so that they would rather hold the London for the late running XC even in situations where the XC wouldn’t even catch the two yellows of the EMR.

At a guess it’s to do with trying to get things into Birmingham on time.

But it’s their train-set and they can do what they like.

 

[Halifaxlad]

But they are not electrifying Sheffield until HS2 so I wouldn't hold your breath about when it will happen

Since when is Sheffield being electrified? It's the first I've heard since it got cancelled by Grayling.

 

[fishwomp]

Both ends of the station are a joke for a station with so much traffic 18 go through the south of the station between 5pm and 6pm, and 28 through the northern end.

At both ends there is 2-track for some distance (to the south reducing 3 track to 2 at Heeley), the northern throat has 15mph limit on all lines. Pacer I saw at the weekend had to accelerate on entering platform 4 in order to reach buffer stops.. the formation is good for 4 tracks to the south. The north is unfixable but a 30mph entry speed would work wonders.

 

[Glenn1969]

They aren't until works for HS2 so don't hold your breath on it happening before 2040 !

 

[_toommm_]

And wasn't it a case of only some platforms getting electrified (this was a while ago I read it on here though)?

 

[dosxuk]

Since when is Sheffield being electrified? It's the first I've heard since it got cancelled by Grayling.

I think that's the point - there has long been mooted a much needed rejig as part of the MML electrification, with no need to rush while that plan was plodding along. Now that's been cancelled, those rejig plans have also been abandoned.

But with the likelyhood of HS2 to (nearly) Sheffield being postponed indefinitely, I wonder if we're likely to see a resurrection of the MML electrification plans?

 

[Spartacus]

They [York ROC] have a morbid fear of letting a London bound EMR in front of a late running XC, even if the EMR is ready to leave and the XC hasn’t got to Nunnery yet. Even when the XC stops at Chesterfield.

So much so that they would rather hold the London for the late running XC even in situations where the XC wouldn’t even catch the two yellows of the EMR.

At a guess it’s to do with trying to get things into Birmingham on time.

But it’s their train-set and they can do what they like.

Partly due to long distance performance of the XCs having the potential to affect half the country, but often due to the XC is it's a Scottish service having a Nottingham behind it requiring the XCs platform once it's left, with a TPE behind that. Hold the XC and you have two trains stood waiting access to the station from the North immediately, which would probably then impact the Northern from Adwick, then the one from Gainsborough, then the XC from Newcastle, as well as the Northern stopper to Manchester which would be held to follow the TPE, which would then delay the EMR from Liverpool at Dore. If you hold the EMR only the EMR usually gets delayed as the Northern (which is probably already a few minutes late after been held for the XC at Meadowhall) can slot into the XC's platform after it leaves then won't catch up the EMR South of Sheffield.

Really though Sheffield needs to be No.1 priority once the Heaton Lodge area upgrades are done, 4 tracks South to Dore Station Jn and hopefully something done to the North too, I think the best solution might be a flyover at Meadowhell for services from Barnsley to avoid conflicts then proper 4 track to as close to Attercliffe as possible.

 

[Tomnick]

Partly due to long distance performance of the XCs having the potential to affect half the country, but often due to the XC is it's a Scottish service having a Nottingham behind it requiring the XCs platform once it's left...

Why the tremendous reluctance to use other than the booked platform? I can understand the knock-on effect of doing so in some cases, but if the London is (e.g.) booked off 8 and the XC and Nottingham off 6, why not run the London first and drop the Notts into 8 (opposite side of the same island, of course) if the *only* reason for holding the London is to clear 6 for it more quickly?!

 

[ChrisHogan]

Why the tremendous reluctance to use other than the booked platform? I can understand the knock-on effect of doing so in some cases, but if the London is (e.g.) booked off 8 and the XC and Nottingham off 6, why not run the London first and drop the Notts into 8 (opposite side of the same island, of course) if the *only* reason for holding the London is to clear 6 for it more quickly?!

This seems to be a problem in many locations, preferring to delay rather than replatform. Another example, with the December timetable, is Swindon. It needs a little forethought to give the station time to move intending passengers.

 

[Spartacus]

Why the tremendous reluctance to use other than the booked platform? I can understand the knock-on effect of doing so in some cases, but if the London is (e.g.) booked off 8 and the XC and Nottingham off 6, why not run the London first and drop the Notts into 8 (opposite side of the same island, of course) if the *only* reason for holding the London is to clear 6 for it more quickly?!

Because of the overlap at the South end the XC would be delayed further while the Nottingham arrived, or you'd still have the Nottingham stood North of the station waiting for the XC to depart triggering the whole chain of delays anyway. Having the Nottingham and TPEs swap platforms at late notice would at least bring the possibility of delay either boarding, or people not noticing and ending up on the wrong train and having to get off again. To quote Men in Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Someone's bound to muck up.

Why bother risking it all? Take the 1356 & 1400 departures from Sheffield yesterday, EMR held 3 minutes for a 5 late XC, no mess at Sheffield, XC back on time from Derby London Road and EMR at Airport Parkway having being only 1 late at Humberstone Road (suggesting something else happened after there).

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C74677/2020-01-21/detailed
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C68146/2020-01-21/detailed

Hold the XC and the least you'd be delaying was the Cardiff and Crewe services from Derby LNW Jn to follow it, which would probably delay the next NE/SW XC service which is booked right behind the Cardiff coming into New Street. Three late arrivals in New Street vice zero. I'm not going to look at possible knock on delays there but I don't fancy the chances.

 

[WestRiding]

If only working Sheffield Station was as easy as some on here think. Signalmen dont just change platforms without agreement from station staff, which isnt that often because of having to move passengers. There is also official Regulating Policies that Signalmen have to work to. Generally, keep the cross country moving if it is in by a certain time. Other restrictions too can contribute; If a train is leaving 7, then a train cannot arrive on 6. If a train is arriving on 7, then you cannot run into 6 or 8 from the North, all due to overlaps. Once a train has arrived on 6 from the North, there is a 2 min time out before trains can leave 7, because the overlap needs to die, by which time, the train in 6 is probably TRSing. Its not as simple as the public and/or drivers think.

 

[SilentGrade]

Am I right in thinking that what Sheffield needs is something a-la Derby? Major remodel and re-signalling for modern traffic flows.

Any operators able to shed any light?

 

[Meerkat]

Am I right in thinking that what Sheffield needs is something a-la Derby? Major remodel and re-signalling for modern traffic flows.

Any operators able to shed any light?

Presumably they are holding off for HS2. But that is so far away now they really should just build it ‘for HS2’ which can’t be that much more than the minimum rebuild it needs

 

[WestRiding]

Lots of simple solutions exist. We need a Main Aspect starter on the North of platform 6, allowing passenger trains to use it from the South, like platform 8, but which would also allow trains to depart 6 going North. We need S139 to be able to start trains on main aspect too, rather than position light, sending trains through the cross over in Nunnery, or towards Woodburn. Not everything needs major re-model. Maybe also a bay platform up near the North of P8 like there used to be.

Need 4 lines to the south, as far as Dore, and 4 lines from Attercliffe to Aldwarke, like it used to be.

 

[tbtc]

If only working Sheffield Station was as easy as some on here think. Signalmen dont just change platforms without agreement from station staff, which isnt that often because of having to move passengers. There is also official Regulating Policies that Signalmen have to work to. Generally, keep the cross country moving if it is in by a certain time. Other restrictions too can contribute; If a train is leaving 7, then a train cannot arrive on 6. If a train is arriving on 7, then you cannot run into 6 or 8 from the North, all due to overlaps. Once a train has arrived on 6 from the North, there is a 2 min time out before trains can leave 7, because the overlap needs to die, by which time, the train in 6 is probably TRSing. Its not as simple as the public and/or drivers think.

Lots of simple solutions exist. We need a Main Aspect starter on the North of platform 6, allowing passenger trains to use it from the South, like platform 8, but which would also allow trains to depart 6 going North. We need S139 to be able to start trains on main aspect too, rather than position light, sending trains through the cross over in Nunnery, or towards Woodburn. Not everything needs major re-model. Maybe also a bay platform up near the North of P8 like there used to be.

Need 4 lines to the south, as far as Dore, and 4 lines from Attercliffe to Aldwarke, like it used to be.

Very interesting - e.g. I wasn't aware that you can't head north from platform six

The biggest two solveable problems (IMHO) are chord at Dore (a station on a single track chord, so the line from Sheffield to Manchester and the line from Manchester to Sheffield are blocked whenever a DMU stops there in either direction) and the capacity for terminating services at the northern end - either sort out the single lead into 3/4 and the painfully slow approach speeds or build a bay at the side of 8 (as you suggested).

I don't think that there's much more can be done with the through platforms due to the "listed" status (but maybe more crossovers at mid points would be handy, since the vast vast majority of services through Sheffield are only two/three/four/five coaches long

 

[WestRiding]

Very interesting - e.g. I wasn't aware that you can't head north from platform six

The biggest two solveable problems (IMHO) are chord at Dore (a station on a single track chord, so the line from Sheffield to Manchester and the line from Manchester to Sheffield are blocked whenever a DMU stops there in either direction) and the capacity for terminating services at the northern end - either sort out the single lead into 3/4 and the painfully slow approach speeds or build a bay at the side of 8 (as you suggested).

I don't think that there's much more can be done with the through platforms due to the "listed" status (but maybe more crossovers at mid points would be handy, since the vast vast majority of services through Sheffield are only two/three/four/five coaches long

You can only depart 6 North on Ground Position Lights, not allowed for passenger traffic unless an emergancy. Happy to help. Same with 8 too.

 

[Horizon22]

If only working Sheffield Station was as easy as some on here think. Signalmen dont just change platforms without agreement from station staff, which isnt that often because of having to move passengers. There is also official Regulating Policies that Signalmen have to work to.

With enough warning and communication it is perfectly possible. Good audible announcement and CIS updates go a long way to making this easier for passengers. The intention should be to reduce delay overall which I appreciate can be tricky if your service is travelling over 100+ miles.

 

[WestRiding]

With enough warning and communication it is perfectly possible. Good audible announcement and CIS updates go a long way to making this easier for passengers. The intention should be to reduce delay overall which I appreciate can be tricky if your service is travelling over 100+ miles.

You should apply for a job in the signal box, you would clearly do a better job than the people who have done it for 20+ years

 

[AnkleBoots]

Its not as simple as the public and/or drivers think.

That's the beauty of this forum, that we can all learn about the hidden complexities of things.

 

[WestRiding]

They [York ROC] have a morbid fear of letting a London bound EMR in front of a late running XC, even if the EMR is ready to leave and the XC hasn’t got to Nunnery yet. Even when the XC stops at Chesterfield.

No. We dont. It is the regulating policy. Agreed with Cross Country, EMT, and NR.

 

[Raul_Duke]

No. We dont. It is the regulating policy. Agreed with Cross Country, EMT, and NR.

Alright, calm down it was light-hearted. Like I said, I guessed it was something to do with Birmingham.

I would say that the regular move of going off P2 south on a single yellow to a red less than a trains length away with no AWS but hidden by a bridge is a massive SPAD risk though. That certainly wants sorting in a remodel.

 

[WestRiding]

Alright, calm down it was light-hearted. Like I said, I guessed it was something to do with Birmingham.

I would say that the regular move of going off P2 south on a single yellow to a red less than a trains length away with no AWS but hidden by a bridge is a massive SPAD risk though. That certainly wants sorting in a remodel.

Its not a problem, means a flexible station layout, as two trains can depart south at the same time. A yellow is a correct aspect and a driver, along with their route knowledge should be ok. S84 is not a regualr spad signal, and has only been SPAD twice since 2006.

 

[SilentGrade]

I would say that the regular move of going off P2 south on a single yellow to a red less than a trains length away with no AWS but hidden by a bridge is a massive SPAD risk though. That certainly wants sorting in a remodel.

but drivers are still shown a correct sequence and should be aware of the approaching signal?

 

[Raul_Duke]

but drivers are still shown a correct sequence and should be aware of the approaching signal?

Yes you are, and in pretty much all SPAD’s you’re given the correct sequence. And yes with route knowledge you should be ok even without AWS.

But it is a bigger risk than normal which would be better gotten rid of if possible, it’s very poorly sighted with no magnet at a time when 99% of the time you’re opening up to pull away.

And no, a driver shouldn’t pass it, same as we should never be given a wrong route

 

[WestRiding]

but drivers are still shown a correct sequence and should be aware of the approaching signal?

Absolutely, there is no problem with the signal sighting, and from a drivers vantage point, it is fine. Single Yellow is the clue, with the route knowledge.

 

[WestRiding]

​

Yes you are, and in pretty much all SPAD’s you’re given the correct sequence. And yes with route knowledge you should be ok even without AWS.

But it is a bigger risk than normal which would be better gotten rid of if possible, it’s very poorly sighted with no magnet at a time when 99% of the time you’re opening up to pull away.

And no, a driver shouldn’t pass it, same as we should never be given a wrong route

No AWS but does have TPWS and suitable overlap.

 

[Raul_Duke]

Absolutely, there is no problem with the signal sighting, and from a drivers vantage point, it is fine. Single Yellow is the clue, with the route knowledge.

Ok bobby.