• 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 - To remodel or not remodel, that is the question

Status
Not open for further replies.

syorksdeano

Member
Joined
7 Jan 2011
Messages
729
Conflicting stories have come out about HS2 in Sheffield according to the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-41277560

Work to bring HS2 to Sheffield could leave commuters facing more than five years of disruption, according to a presentation seen by the BBC.
It claims roads and tram lines around the city's station would have to be moved to integrate the £55.7bn line.
The documents also say a new platform will need to be built.
HS2 say no significant remodelling will be needed, while Network Rail said since the "briefing note" was produced "there have been many discussions".
More stories from across South Yorkshire
It was announced in July that HS2 services would stop in Sheffield rather than at a station near Meadowhall as originally announced.
According to the PowerPoint presentation, provided as part of a Freedom of Information request, the "station footprint would expand beyond current boundary to encroach the tram and road network".
It adds: "Such an outcome is anticipated to drive infrastructure costs and lead to disruption of at least five years, requiring reconfiguration of both tram and road networks."
The documents also suggests that to make way for HS2 one train an hour could be removed from the Dearne Valley line and impact on journey times between Sheffield and Leeds.
Sheffield Midland station was redeveloped as part of £50m project in the mid-2000s that also involved changes to the road network, including the removal of Sheaf Square roundabout.
Map of new HS2 route
A Network Rail spokesperson said: "This document was a briefing note for a working group and was not a completed report, which was produced as part of a dialogue with our stakeholders.
"This note was produced in March and, since then, there have been many discussions. These conversations will continue as we consider how the railway will operate in the future."
A HS2 spokesperson said: "Delivering the benefits of high speed rail to Sheffield Midland station will not require any significant remodelling works.
"The platforms at Sheffield Midland station are already long enough to accommodate HS2 trains and there is capacity on the Midland Mainline, south of Sheffield, to support our proposal of a four-trains-per-hour service."
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
HS2 spokesperson said:
"The platforms at Sheffield Midland station are already long enough to accommodate HS2 trains and there is capacity on the Midland Mainline, south of Sheffield, to support our proposal of a four-trains-per-hour service."

Which completely ignores the relevant question of whether or not the station itself has capacity...

It's almost certain that HS2 will mean the cutting of all the MML "fast" services anyway (can't have them competing; who cares if Loughborough, Leicester and Market Harborough end up with slower journeys), so they'll probably "find" capacity.
 

Cambois

New Member
Joined
15 Sep 2017
Messages
4
Note that there is capacity for 4 HS2 trains an hour to the south of Sheffield. No mention of other operators trains or to the north of Sheffield where there will certainly not be capacity for another 4 trains an hour HS2 or other.

Potentially a cheap solution that will damage local connectivity into HS2
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,916
Location
Nottingham
The documents also suggests that to make way for HS2 one train an hour could be removed from the Dearne Valley line and impact on journey times between Sheffield and Leeds.

That seems OK to me, as HS2 will provide the fastest time between Sheffield and Leeds anyway.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,916
Location
Nottingham
Which completely ignores the relevant question of whether or not the station itself has capacity...

It's almost certain that HS2 will mean the cutting of all the MML "fast" services anyway (can't have them competing; who cares if Loughborough, Leicester and Market Harborough end up with slower journeys), so they'll probably "find" capacity.

I would guess Sheffield would have an hourly service via the MML which would effectively be an extension of one of the current semi-fasts, as it would be catering for intermediate rather than London journeys.

There is still a need for fast London-Leicester trains on the MML and these can also provide a fast service for Loughborough, Derby and Nottingham. Market Harborough would probably have two London trains per hour with one or two intermediate stops each.
 

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
I would guess Sheffield would have an hourly service via the MML which would effectively be an extension of one of the current semi-fasts, as it would be catering for intermediate rather than London journeys.

There is still a need for fast London-Leicester trains on the MML and these can also provide a fast service for Loughborough, Derby and Nottingham. Market Harborough would probably have two London trains per hour with one or two intermediate stops each.

Nottingham will have a HS2 station and it'll be well outside of the city centre. Previously, there was some mention of having some HS2 services terminate at Nottingham (Midland), but with modernisation cancelled, that's extremely unlikely. As a result, current journey times via the MML to/from Nottingham city centre are no slower than the HS2+Tram combination.

For Derby, it'll be similar; around 1hr45 via HS2 with a change in Birmingham vs. 1hr30 direct via the MML.

The only way the HS2 "East Midlands Hub" Nottingham station is viable is by offering faster services than the MML; only providing that to people who happen to live in Western Nottingham and surrounding villages is unlikely to be worthwhile.

The alternative is that there's a frequent connecting service between the Hub and Derby/Nottingham(/Leicester?); the Hub design includes platforms for classic services and such a connecting service is mentioned in consultation documents. No details are given about its speed and frequency, so I'm skeptical about how well it would work. The line through Toton is currently freight-only apart from occasional diversions.

Still, the cheap option is to slow down the MML to stop it competing. That means losing the non-stop services between Leicester/Market Harborough and London.
 
Last edited:

DimTim

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2013
Messages
183
Rather the opposite - Grayling suggests the revolutionary bi-modes are going to knock 20 minutes off MML times so Sheffield to St Pancras should be 1hr 45 minutes rather than just over 2 hours now??
No idea how he intends to achieve this.
 

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
Rather the opposite - Grayling suggests the revolutionary bi-modes are going to knock 20 minutes off MML times so Sheffield to St Pancras should be 1hr 45 minutes rather than just over 2 hours now??
No idea how he intends to achieve this.

Well, it'll be electric running for around 45% of the route, so assuming (a big assumption) these magical bi-modes will have the same performance as a 222 off-wires, they'll have to cover the 73 miles between London and Kettering in some 25 minutes at an average speed of approximately 175mph!

If that were possible we wouldn't need HS2.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,097
That seems OK to me, as HS2 will provide the fastest time between Sheffield and Leeds anyway.
But why should HS2 cause a deterioration in existing local and regional/provincial semi-fast services?
 
Last edited:

Cambois

New Member
Joined
15 Sep 2017
Messages
4
Because it is going to take paths on the existing infrastructure around Sheffield which will prevent use by local and regional services.

This is the big problem with HS2 - It has not considered connectivity in the regions. London is getting CrossRail 2 - which is substantially driven by HS2. Birmingham is getting its act together on what it wants - no suggestion about funding it. Manchester is being scaled back by the DfT and the east side has no idea what it wants for local connectivity.

And even if funding and technical resources are available - and these are very big assumptions - we are almost out of time to get the powers to build new infrastructure in time for the opening of HS2.

Unless there is very rapid progress on local connectivity it is all going to end in tears for the northern cities and the beneficiary of HS2 will be London
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,994
Location
Yorks
The beneficiary of HS2 will be London anyway.

I certainly hope the station building at Sheffield is listed.
 

syorksdeano

Member
Joined
7 Jan 2011
Messages
729
The beneficiary of HS2 will be London anyway.

I certainly hope the station building at Sheffield is listed.
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1270904

Grade 2 apparently but when has that ever stopped anyone

Bridges and Platform Bridges
List Entry Summary
This building is listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest.

Name: Sheffield Station and attached Bridges and Platform Bridges
List entry Number: 1270904
Location
SHEFFIELD STATION AND ATTACHED BRIDGES AND PLATFORM BRIDGES, SHEAF STREET
The listed building(s) is/are shown coloured blue on the attached map. Pursuant to s.1 (5A) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the Act’), structures attached to or within the curtilage of the listed building (save those coloured blue on the map) are not to be treated as part of the listed building for the purposes of the Act.
The building may lie within the boundary of more than one authority.
County:
District: Sheffield
District Type: Metropolitan Authority
Parish: Non Civil Parish
National Park: Not applicable to this List entry.
Grade: II
Date first listed: 05-Sep-1975
Date of most recent amendment: 04-Dec-2014
Legacy System Information
The contents of this record have been generated from a legacy data system.
Legacy System: LBS
UID: 456810
Asset Groupings
This list entry does not comprise part of an Asset Grouping. Asset Groupings are not part of the official record but are added later for information.
List entry Description
Summary of Building
A major early C20 railway station, incorporating sections of the earlier late-C19 station which had marked the completion of a new direct line from Sheffield to London via Chesterfield in 1870, completed in 1904-5 to the designs of the company’s architect Charles Trubshaw.
Reasons for Designation
Sheffield Railway Station, completed in 1870, enlarged and remodelled in 1904-5, with further alterations in 1956-7 and remodelled again in 2002, is listed at Grade II for the following principal reasons:

* Historic interest: the station marked the successful completion of the Midland Railway Company's direct line from Sheffield to London and was the largest station complex on the company's network apart from St. Pancras Station in London. The Midland Railway was one of the largest and most influential railway companies of the railway era, and provided the city of Sheffield with a railway station befitting its status as the world's pre-eminent steel-making and manufacturing centre in the late-C19 and early C20;

* Architectural interest: the station retains its character, external masonry detailing and interior decorative finishes of high quality, together with complex structural engineering in the form of the lattice girder construction of the porte-cochere roof and platform canopies;

* Completeness: despite a number of phases of alteration and remodelling, the plan of the station, as originally laid out and later remodelled in 1904, remains almost entirely intact, save for the removal of the original engine shed.
History
The Midland Mainline is the outcome of a number of historic construction phases undertaken by different railway companies. The first two phases were carried out simultaneously between 1836 and 1840 by the North Midland Railway and the Midland Counties Railway. The North Midland Railway, which operated between Derby and Chesterfield, was pre-eminently the work of George (1781-1848) and Robert Stephenson (1803-1859) who, along with Brunel, are the most renowned engineers of this pioneering phase of railway development. They worked closely with the railway architect Francis Thompson (1808-95) who designed stations along the line. The less demanding route for the Midland Counties Railway, which ran between Derby and Nottingham to Leicester, was surveyed by Charles Vignoles (1793-1875) who was engineer to a large number of railway projects. These two companies (along with the Birmingham & Derby Junction Railway) did not yield the expected profits, partly because of the fierce competition between them. This led to the three companies merging into the Midland Railway in 1844 which constituted the first large scale railway amalgamation. The next part of the line from Leicester to Bedford was constructed between 1853 and 1857 by the engineer Charles Liddell (c.1813-1894) and specialist railway architect Charles Henry Driver (1832-1900). In 1862 the decision was made to extend the line from Bedford to London which was again the responsibility of Liddell, except for the final fourteen miles into London and the design of the terminus at St Pancras (listed at Grade I) which was undertaken by William Barlow (1812-1902). Additional routes were then added from Chesterfield to Sheffield in 1870, and from Kettering to Corby in 1879. The most important changes to the infrastructure of the Midland Railway were the rebuilding of principal stations such as Sheffield, and the increasing of the line’s capacity, involving the quadrupling of some stretches south of the Trent from the early 1870s to the 1890s.

Sheffield Railway Station, formerly known as Pond Street Station and later Sheffield Midland Station, was built as the Midland Railway Company’s terminus for its new direct route to London via Chesterfield. The route from Chesterfield to Sheffield followed the Drone and Sheaf river valleys northwards, a challenging engineering feat requiring the driving of the 2027- yard long Bradway tunnel at the summit level of the new route, and the provision of a series of substantial new stone road bridges, a tall viaduct at Unstone and a massive masonry-lined embankment alongside the River Sheaf at Heeley. The site for the new station lay to the east of Pond Street, cutting into the eastern slopes of the Sheaf valley, and requiring the construction of a masonry retaining wall which now defines the eastern extent of the station site. Such was the extent of the site that the Town Council insisted that public access be maintained across it for fear that the eastern part of the town would be cut off from the rest of Sheffield. The new station had a two storey Italianate frontage and a twin-arched train shed, and became the second of the Midland Railway Company’s stations in Sheffield, the other being the Midland Railway Station at the Wicker which served the Sheffield and Rotherham Railway; until 1870 this was the only route to London.

In 1904-5, the station was extended and remodelled to the designs of the company’s architect Charles Trubshaw. An ambitious new west frontage range was created around an arcaded porte-cochere, with the former station entrance becoming part of an island platform to the east of a newly-created west platform. The station platforms were connected by two footbridges, the northern one for passengers, the southern one for railway staff. When completed, the new Midland Railway Station became the largest station complex on the company’s network after London’s St Pancras station. In 1956-7, the original train shed was removed, and replaced by platform extensions with canopies. Late-C20 alterations to canopies and to platform buildings took place, together with the provision of new passenger facilities on the island platforms. In 2002, a major refurbishment of the station’s frontage range took place, together with the construction of a new pedestrian footbridge and the creation of a new station approach and public square.

The late-C20 and C21 works to the station site created a number of new buildings, including a glazed entrance to the west platform and a new station shop. A glazed passenger waiting room was built at the middle of the west island platform, and a new building housing a cafe, shop and waiting room was added to the east island platform. The most recent interventions saw the installation of a new ticket office, announcements board and retail and cafe units within the pedestrianised porte-cochere, and the creation of a new passenger footbridge incorporating access stairways, lift shafts and a new station entrance and ticket hall at its eastern end.

Details
Railway Station complex. The station was completed in 1870, remodelled and extended in 1904-5, further altered in 1959 and 1979-8, and remodelled again in 2002.The architect of the original station has not been identified. The remodelling and enlargement of 1904-5 were carried out to the designs of Charles Trubshaw, architect to the Midland Railway Company.

MATERIALS: ashlar and coursed, squared, rock-faced Derbyshire gritstone with ashlar dressings to the C19 buildings on the island platforms, and snecked, pick-faced gritstone with ashlar dressings to the C20 west frontage range and west platform. Cast iron and riveted metal beam canopy and roof structures, and hipped roofs with slated, glazed and C20 sheet coverings.

PLAN: the station complex is aligned north-south, with the principal building range forming the west side of the complex, facing Sheaf Street, This range is linked to the two parallel island platforms to the east by two station bridges, the southern one reaching the eastern platforms, the northern one spanning the full width of the station site. The station platforms extend beyond the station building ranges and associated canopy structures at both ends of the site.

EXTERIORS: the entrance frontage to the station complex is comprised of a long range of linked buildings, the most prominent of which is the central porte-cochere. Its west elevation is formed of an arcade of twelve elliptical arches with voussoirs and keyblocks. The arches, all now glazed, rise from buttressed piers with ogee-domed finials. Above, a series of coped gables, that to the sixth bay from the north end bearing the Wyvern crest of the Midland Railway Company. The sixth bay and both end bays have smaller double-arched openings supported on square central piers. At each end of the porte-cochere are massive terminal buttresses, each with a near-circular moulded plinth and three ogee-shaped domes. The gables to these bays incorporate ashlar roundels, with a clock in the north end roundel and a floral motif in that to the south end.

Set back beyond the north end wall of the porte-cochere are the former station master’s house, refreshment room and first class dining room, now refurbished for use as a public house and brewery. The former house is of two storeys and five bays, bays two and five advanced, with pedimented gables above three-light first floor windows. Below, there are two, tall semi-circular arch-headed windows to each bay. The central bay has identical fenestration whilst the outer bays have single-light upper floor windows. Sash frames are retained in the upper floor openings; the ground floor windows have modern replacement frames.

Extending from the north end of the house is a curved, four-bay single storey range, the bays defined by pilasters. Three of the four bays have tall, semi-circular arched openings with ashlar surrounds. The north end bay has no openings, whilst the other bays each have three openings, two to the penultimate bay at the north end now infilled or originally blind. At the north end of this range is a wide-arched cart entrance, the arch detailing matching that of the porte-cochere arcade.

At the south end of the porte-cochere is a recessed arcade of nine semi-circular arches forming the front wall of part of the west platform building, formerly used as a parcels facility. The arches have wooden screens, some glazed, with glazing bar overlights. The frontage is covered by a C20 multi-gabled glazed canopy, supported on three octagonal columns, each with a massive ogee-shaped cast-iron guard to its base. Further south is an attached range of service buildings, terminating at a small single-storey former station fitters’ workshop, below a pitched roof incorporating two substantial stone stacks. Both front and rear elevations retain window openings with glazing bar frames.

The arcaded east wall of the porte-cochere forms the entrance elevation to the station facilities. The arcade is formed of paired semi-circular arches incorporating decorative metal grilles, with the exception of the wide main entrance arch which is aligned with the sixth bay of the porte-cochere. This arch has a metal grille and carved foliage decoration to its spandrels incorporating the lettering ‘MR’ on each side. Above the arch head is a deep decorated frieze with carved foliage, and at its centre, a Wyvern crest set within an arch-headed panel. Above the arcade arches is a series of masonry gables, each with a roundel with a floral within its apex. The full extent of the arcade is obscured by C20 and C21 additions and alterations to create additional passenger facilities within the porte-cochere.

The series of pitched roofs to the porte-cochere are carried on riveted metal lattice girders carried on short stone columns rising from moulded corbels. The girders are linked by slim, arched, metal trusses incorporating decorative ironwork to the spandrels.

Beyond the arcade is the station west platform, which has a single storey platform building and an attached canopy. The long platform elevation of the building is formed of twenty bays, almost all with paired semi-circular arches infilled with glazed screens of various designs, some of which appear to retain original joinery detailing. Some bays to the central part of the building have been altered or obscured by C20 and C21 additions, and the installation of the C21 passenger footbridge, but is otherwise substantially intact. A deep, cantilevered canopy extends from the building’s east elevation to cover most of the west platform. The canopy is formed of a parallel series of shallow-pitched roofs carried on lattice girders. These extend from the arcade piers of the platform building and are linked by shallow-arched metal trusses, beyond which extend sloping end sections supporting a decorative valance. The sequence of arches and canopy bays is interrupted by the two station bridges, and by openings associated with them. The southern bridge extends from the east elevation and is carried on deep, rectangular cast-iron columns. Further north, the sequence of arches is interrupted by a wide opening beneath a deep metal beam. The construction of the C21 north footbridge required the adaptation of the canopy structure at this point.

On the west island platform are buildings which formed part of the entrance range of the original station, is a single storey building occupying the southern part of the platform beyond the C21 footbridge, which can be distinguished from the C20 phase of development by its coursed masonry and Italianate detailing. The west elevation has a series of door and window openings with flat heads set below bracketed cornices. The north elevation has a deep eaves cornice and a series of door and window openings, the latter with bracketed cornices; the door openings have moulded segmental-arched heads incorporating overlights. Some windows retain margin light sash frames. The building also retains a number of stone chimney stacks, The multi-gabled canopy to the west elevation is formed of lattice girders carried on riverted uprights set into shallow channels in the masonry walling of the platform building. The cantilevered girders are supported by deep brackets with decorative ironwork to the spandrels. The canopy is interrupted by the south footbridge, which is supported by four deep rectangular cast-iron columns. The flat-roofed canopy on the east side is of late-C20 date, and is carried on tapered octagonal columns.

Beyond the end of the platform building is the C21 footbridge and access stairs onto the platforms They are located amidst a rectangular grid of earlier latticed girders, some rectangular, some with a segmental upper beams, which span the entire platform island, and which appear to represent alterations to accommodate different phases of canopy construction. The southern six-bay section of this area, interrupted by the footbridge, follows the gabled form of the southern canopy; its girders with makers plates which read ‘EASTWOOD AND SWINGLER LIMITED. MAKERS, LONDON AND DERBY.’ The northern section terminates above the end of a central two-track access into the centre of the island platform, the end girder faced with vertical boarding and a decorative valance. Beyond this area, the north end of the platform divides into two sections. Their late-C20 canopy roofs are carried on central arcades of riveted columns with decorative side brackets supporting later cantilevered steel beams. At the south end of the platform is a small single-storey service building, remodelled during the C21. It has a single side wall stack, coped gables and, on the east side, two window openings with glazing bar frames. To the left is a doorway with a glazing bar overlight, and further left are four narrow windows and a doorway in the south gable.

The east island platform retains a much-altered single storey building which formed part of the 1870 station. A number of windows with bracketed cornices survive in the west wall, but much of the building has been heavily modified to accommodate the C21 footbridge and associated access stairways. The C21 south footbridge terminates at the east platform, and, at the north end there is a single storey service building with a pitched roof and three chimney stacks, thought to date to the late-C19. At the north end of the platform, the northernmost end of the platform canopy is supported by a number of slender cast-iron columns with short in-line brackets to the column heads, a design replicated nowhere else in the station complex. These columns are included in the listing.

Throughout the station complex there are a number of late-C20 and C21 buildings and structures added incrementally or as part of campaigns of renewal and remodelling.

INTERIORS: most of the station buildings have undergone several phases of adaptation and renewal, with the consequential replacement of original fixtures and fittings. The principal interior survivals form part of the early C20 station extension. Above the access stairs to the C21 footbridge, and access to the west platform. are three bays of coved plaster ceilings, originally part of the early C20 station ticket office. At the north end of the west frontage range, the interiors of the west platform refreshment room and the first class dining room are the most complete survivals forming part of the public house and brewery. The former refreshment room, now the main bar area, has a patterned, glazed tile dado and frieze and a three-bay coved ceiling with skylights. The original bar counter and panelled back bar with mirrors and clock have been re-sited against the back wall of the room. The former first class dining room has Rococo-style tiling and semi-circular wall panels and mirrors. The arches have cartouches, and the panels have faience heads as keystones. There is an elaborate Rococo-style fireplace and partially-glazed ceiling panels which incorporate console brackets to the plastered beams. The upper floor of this range has not been refurbished.

Pursuant to s.1 (5A) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, it is declared that: the east island platform building and canopy: all post-1957 canopies: C21 extensions to buildings: C20 and C21 overbridges: C20 and C21 platform signage and metal seating are not of special architectural or historic interest and are excluded from the listing.
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,994
Location
Yorks
That's good to know, although as you say, grade 2 doesn't always guarantee survival.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,457
So what are the alternatives to remodelling Sheffield Midland?
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,097
Either do what was done at Antwerp or double deck a bit of it. As has been said, Listing does not really protect buildings. I thought Rugby roof was nice and was surprised that it was destroyed.
 

Kettledrum

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2010
Messages
790
So what are the alternatives to remodelling Sheffield Midland?

One idea previously mooted on these forums was for the HS2 trains to stop at Sheffield Midland before continuing to Sheffield Meadowhall where they would actually terminate. I'm not sure what paths there might be to do this between Sheffield Midland and Sheffield Meadowhall, but they wouldn't be high speed ones.

The theory being is that this would minimise the time a High Speed train was sitting in a platform at Sheffield Midland - and terminated trains take longer to turn around than a quick stop to drop off and pick up passengers. There might be more platform capacity and space elsewhere with the existing Meadowhall infrastructure to accommodate a terminated train.

If some passengers also got on and off Sheffield Meadowhall, this would reduce slightly the extra passenger handling capacity needed at Sheffield Midland.

Not sure at all whether any official consideration was given to this idea - but I wondered if it might be cheaper than extensive rebuilding of Sheffield Midland.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,457
For one thing, I imagine that would require complete four-tracking between (at least) Midland and Meadowhall.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,722
Aren't there no intermediate stops between Midland and Meadowhall?

So doesn't that mean that the line could potentially cope with 18-24tph if required?
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,224
Nottingham will have a HS2 station and it'll be well outside of the city centre. Previously, there was some mention of having some HS2 services terminate at Nottingham (Midland), but with modernisation cancelled, that's extremely unlikely. As a result, current journey times via the MML to/from Nottingham city centre are no slower than the HS2+Tram combination.

For Derby, it'll be similar; around 1hr45 via HS2 with a change in Birmingham vs. 1hr30 direct via the MML.

The only way the HS2 "East Midlands Hub" Nottingham station is viable is by offering faster services than the MML; only providing that to people who happen to live in Western Nottingham and surrounding villages is unlikely to be worthwhile.

The alternative is that there's a frequent connecting service between the Hub and Derby/Nottingham(/Leicester?); the Hub design includes platforms for classic services and such a connecting service is mentioned in consultation documents. No details are given about its speed and frequency, so I'm skeptical about how well it would work. The line through Toton is currently freight-only apart from occasional diversions.

Still, the cheap option is to slow down the MML to stop it competing. That means losing the non-stop services between Leicester/Market Harborough and London.

There has never been significant discussion of terminating HS2 services at Nottingham. A spur was one of the options considered in the Phase 2 route selection process but it was rejected for a variety of good reasons.

The MML operator won't be competing with HS2, because it's only going to be able to do what the DfT asks it to do. When the Government is spending money on HS2 for certain benefits to be delivered, there is no reason why it would also allow other entities it controls to undermine that work. The MML operator will be forced to concentrate service provision on the places which don't benefit directly from HS2 - that's a major part of the benefit of HS2 in the first place. Leicester will still need fast InterCity services to London, so there's not an incredible amount of difficulty in having them run to Nottingham and Derby. There's not much need for them to run much further north, given that Chesterfield and Sheffield will have direct HS2 services instead.

Because it is going to take paths on the existing infrastructure around Sheffield which will prevent use by local and regional services.

This is the big problem with HS2 - It has not considered connectivity in the regions. London is getting CrossRail 2 - which is substantially driven by HS2. Birmingham is getting its act together on what it wants - no suggestion about funding it. Manchester is being scaled back by the DfT and the east side has no idea what it wants for local connectivity.

And even if funding and technical resources are available - and these are very big assumptions - we are almost out of time to get the powers to build new infrastructure in time for the opening of HS2.

Unless there is very rapid progress on local connectivity it is all going to end in tears for the northern cities and the beneficiary of HS2 will be London

No. What you have to realise is that all of this applies in 2033. The sorts of regional connectivity issues you're describing do not require a 20 year gestation period to be implemented, unlike HS2 or Crossrail 2. That's why they haven't really been discussed right now. When people whinge about the fact that Pacers still exist they totally miss this point. By 2033 significant amounts of post-privatisation rolling stock (e.g. early 170s) will be ready for scrap. NR's plans only really run up to 2024, leaving basically a decade to deliver most of the classic line improvements necessary to make the most of HS2 before it arrives. Things like the Derby-Nottingham shuttle might be nice to have now but they're not investment priorities just yet, and would most certainly have to wait for the classic line infrastructure through Toton to be sorted before they were really feasible.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,457
Aren't there no intermediate stops between Midland and Meadowhall?

So doesn't that mean that the line could potentially cope with 18-24tph if required?

Not likely when all of the existing services are diesel...
 

Kettledrum

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2010
Messages
790
What you have to realise is that all of this applies in 2033. The sorts of regional connectivity issues you're describing do not require a 20 year gestation period to be implemented, unlike HS2 or Crossrail.

Yes they do require a 20 year gestation period based on our woeful record in England. Perhaps Scotland is slightly better.

Connectivity for HS2 in Birmingham needs the camp hill chords built, to connect two lines to Moor Street, additional local stations built on the line from Tamworth, a new turnaround platform built at Tamworth or Burton, possibly the Sutton Park freight line opened to local passenger traffic and more. These will have taken a lot more than 20 years to get actioned. It also needs tram network extensions that have been in the planning for decades.

Similarly how long will East West Rail have taken?

Connectivity for Toton ideally also needs a former freight line in Nottinghamshire re-opened to passenger traffic, as well as tram network extensions.

Sheffield needs work too. How long has it taken to get the MML re-wiring done (or not done)? - and the wiring south and north of Sheffield is a pre-requisite for HS2 trains to reach Sheffield, and possibly beyond to Meadowhall.

The sad reality is we are really poor at planning ahead. We can see what the opportunities that there are, but unlike the Chinese in particular, we take 20 years to get even small schemes off the ground.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,722
Not likely when all of the existing services are diesel...

Im not sure why the fact that the trains are diesel is a dealstopping issue - it just means all the other trains have to run at the performance curve of a pacer in the mean time!
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,457
Im not sure why the fact that the trains are diesel is a dealstopping issue - it just means all the other trains have to run at the performance curve of a pacer in the mean time!

Which ends up becoming costly in terms of rolling stock resources...
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,722
Which ends up becoming costly in terms of rolling stock resources...

Yes but even a Pacer can run Midland to Meadowhall in a short period of time relative to the required turnaround period for long distance trains [something like 6 minutes each way].

If your objective is to run trains through to Meadowhall save platform capacity at Sheffield it seems reasonable.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,249
Location
Torbay
Ahem! Surely Pacers will have all gone by the time any HS2 trains arrive at Sheffield :) The other big advantage of running through to Meadowhall is you get the parkway facility with its excellent road connectivity (and it's non shabby local bus and tram integration) AS WELL as the city centre penetration of Sheffield Midland. With multi platform stations at both Midland and Meadowhiill and no intermediate local stations, 20 trains per hour per direction should be perfectly reasonable, especially if signalled 'digitally' in the future as a high capacity corridor with a compromise speed suitable for all traffic, as is likely. The distance is so short HS2 and other IC type traffic will not be able to get up to any significant speed anyway. At least some of Sheffield Midland's platforms are nearly 400m long already and, if two were dedicated to HS2 and other long distance expresses, others might be split using midway crossovers to create more through capacity for shorter local and regional services. Some track remodelling will be required undoubtedly, overbridges rebuilt for wires etc but I think this will all be achievable within the existing railway boundaries and without a major reconstruction of the station buildings. The work can also be combined with routine track and signalling renewals for optimum cost benefit and minimal disruption. Note platform extensions at the south end of Chesterfield station also appear to be plausible to achieve 400m for HS2 calls.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,916
Location
Nottingham
It appears the announced HS2 work includes electrification onward from Sheffield to a new connection off the Swinton and Knottingley back onto HS2, probably also allowing Leeds services on the classic line to go electric. So some HS2 services at Sheffield could pass through and continue to Leeds or York, and the others could be extended to turn back at Meadowhall. This would probably be worthwhile if it avoided a major re-modelling of Sheffield.

If an extra long through platform was necessary then I wonder if the rather wide platform 5 and its canopy (not part of the original station) could be narrowed by a few metres and the stabling tracks between 5 and 6 replaced by one through track with a single-sided platform.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,338
I think Sheffield is eminently solvable. It requires a Reading scale scheme, but with a few significant interventions I think the infrastructure would be able to (reliably) cope with the service proposed.

The really key part, and the expensive part, create a four track formation from Sheffield station throat at Granville Street to Nunnery Mainline Junction. I don't believe this has ever existed, for a key part the existing route is in a deep cutting, however this is broadly under and around a collection of inner ring road routes, rather than being among city centre buildings etc.

Redouble the Tinsley route from Woodburn Junction to Tinsley East Junction - I believe this formation was originally 4 track, and whilst the SuperTram route uses half of it, where there are tram stops there appears to generally be land available if all of the formation can be slewed in places. Potential to open a heavy rail Meadowhall South station.

Remodel Aldwarke Junction to provide a 2 track route from Meadowhall to Swinton, and an entirely independent 2 track route from Rotherham Central to Mexborough. This is in fact a very short stretch, and there is plenty of land available. An alternative would be to 4 track the longer route from Aldwarke to Swinton, however a 'Swinton South' could be provided on the Thrybergh route which would potentially be a very short interchange with the existing station.

At the end of this, we'd have:

- a dedicated route from platforms 6, 8 (and a reinstated north end bay in that island), towards Lincoln, and Doncaster via Rotherham. Allowing for 2tph Sheffield-Doncaster stoppers and 1tph Crosscountry to be diverted away from Meadowhall, and potentially also 1tph Sheffield-Hull express and 1tph Manchester-Cleethorpes.
- we've then gained 3-5 paths per hour via Meadowhall, for potentially HS2 London services, NPR Sheffield-Leeds services, and other new services.

Should even further capacity be required it really is the Granville Street to Nunnery Mainline section which is the pinch point, the route from there to Meadowhall has variously been alongside Mill Race yard, 4 track, and Brightside station - so it would also be possible to draw out a separate Sheffield-Barnsley route from the Sheffield-Moorthorpe route.

(For all of the above there would of course be much more conventional layout improvements required between Sheffield and Dore.)
 

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
The MML operator won't be competing with HS2, because it's only going to be able to do what the DfT asks it to do. When the Government is spending money on HS2 for certain benefits to be delivered, there is no reason why it would also allow other entities it controls to undermine that work.

Exactly my point. In order to stop the MML operator from competing with HS2, the MML has to be slowed down. Otherwise the East Midlands Hub station is completely pointless. Why would a person travelling to/from Nottingham or Derby use HS2 when the MML has a faster overall journey time and is much more convenient?

The MML operator will be forced to concentrate service provision on the places which don't benefit directly from HS2 - that's a major part of the benefit of HS2 in the first place.

Which means adding stops to services (at those places which don't benefit directly from HS2), slowing them down. I'm sure Kettering and Wellingborough will welcome increased service frequency, but for Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway, Beeston, Long Eaton, Derby, Nottingham and stations that connect via these (e.g. the Matlock branch, Robin Hood Line and Erewash Valley Line) it means slower journeys to/from London.

Leicester will still need fast InterCity services to London, so there's not an incredible amount of difficulty in having them run to Nottingham and Derby. There's not much need for them to run much further north, given that Chesterfield and Sheffield will have direct HS2 services instead.

If there are fast services between Leicester and London, continuing to Derby and Nottingham, then they're competing with HS2. You already said (and I agree) that the government won't allow that. Thus, those services will be slowed down.

You're also forgetting (just like the current MML operator...) that the MML isn't exclusively for travel to/from London. People travelling from Leicester to Sheffield, Bedford to Chesterfield, etc. most definitely need MML services going beyond Derby/Nottingham.
 
Last edited:

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,224
Exactly my point. In order to stop the MML operator from competing with HS2, the MML has to be slowed down. Otherwise the East Midlands Hub station is completely pointless. Why would a person travelling to/from Nottingham or Derby use HS2 when the MML has a faster overall journey time and is much more convenient?



Which means adding stops to services (at those places which don't benefit directly from HS2), slowing them down. I'm sure Kettering and Wellingborough will welcome increased service frequency, but for Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway, Beeston, Long Eaton, Derby, Nottingham and stations that connect via these (e.g. the Matlock branch, Robin Hood Line and Erewash Valley Line) it means slower journeys to/from London.



If there are fast services between Leicester and London, continuing to Derby and Nottingham, then they're competing with HS2. You already said (and I agree) that the government won't allow that. Thus, those services will be slowed down.

You're also forgetting (just like the current MML operator...) that the MML isn't exclusively for travel to/from London. People travelling from Leicester to Sheffield, Bedford to Chesterfield, etc. most definitely need MML services going beyond Derby/Nottingham.

What you'll see is that the MML 'fast' timetable will be optimised on serving Leicester. Designing a timetable is about maximising benefit (normally represented as ticket revenue), with additional stops adding more passengers and ticket revenue in one sense but then reducing the attractiveness for longer-distance travellers, and thus that revenue. Add in capacity constraints as well (it's better to fill a seat with a longer-distance traveller than it is a shorter-distance one) and you get a complex optimisation problem. With HS2, the equilibrium point will shift because South Yorkshire passengers will no longer consider using the line to get to London, as will some Derby/Nottingham ones (remember that not everyone is within easy reach of those two stations). Leicester's services may well end up being slightly slower as more calls can be added without reducing revenue, while there will be far more capacity available for its passengers.

Without these London passengers, the equilibrium will also shift in favour of non-London services that are even more useful for connectivity purposes. For instance, you could replace a Sheffield to London path with a service that heads onto East-West Rail and runs down via Oxford to the south coast or to the west.
 

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
What you'll see is that the MML 'fast' timetable will be optimised on serving Leicester. Designing a timetable is about maximising benefit (normally represented as ticket revenue), with additional stops adding more passengers and ticket revenue in one sense but then reducing the attractiveness for longer-distance travellers, and thus that revenue. Add in capacity constraints as well (it's better to fill a seat with a longer-distance traveller than it is a shorter-distance one) and you get a complex optimisation problem. With HS2, the equilibrium point will shift because South Yorkshire passengers will no longer consider using the line to get to London, as will some Derby/Nottingham ones (remember that not everyone is within easy reach of those two stations). Leicester's services may well end up being slightly slower as more calls can be added without reducing revenue, while there will be far more capacity available for its passengers.

Without these London passengers, the equilibrium will also shift in favour of non-London services that are even more useful for connectivity purposes. For instance, you could replace a Sheffield to London path with a service that heads onto East-West Rail and runs down via Oxford to the south coast or to the west.

So basically, underneath all that politician-style waffle, you're agreeing that HS2 Phase 2 will almost certainly result in slower journey times to/from London for the majority of people in the East Midlands?

I'm not sure how some bizarre faux-cross-country service to the south coast avoiding Birmingham would be "even more useful" than decent connections to major cities...

What would make more sense is if the "East Midlands Hub" actually operated as an actual "Hub" for regional services, but that would have required it be built in a place where regional services actually exist, such as the rejected-on-cost-grounds option of citing it at East Midlands Parkway. I suppose a few Derby/Nottingham terminating services could be extended to it... If the government can handle the "optics" of having (by that time) decrepit Sprinters (or maybe slightly less decrepit second-hand Turbostars) on adjacent platforms to their shiny new toys. Since the upcoming Derby track remodelling makes no provision for any extra regional services, it's very unlikely that connections to the "Hub" will be better than one-per-hour from each direction.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top