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

[HSTEd]

HS2 means that the MML no longer serves London-Sheffield or London-Chesterfield (or indeed Chesterfield-Sheffield) in any meaningful way.

Which means the service timetable will be adjusted to take care of that fact.

The remaining Nottingham/Derby-Sheffield passengers will fit in a Sprinter routed via whatever route is available in all likelihood.

That is simply the efficient way of routing demand.
Maybe its slower, maybe it isn't - but why should I the taxpayer squander money running services that duplicate the faster, more efficient, lower operating cost, services on HS2?

 

[Kettledrum]

HS2 means that the MML no longer serves London-Sheffield or London-Chesterfield (or indeed Chesterfield-Sheffield) in any meaningful way.

Which means the service timetable will be adjusted to take care of that fact.

The remaining Nottingham/Derby-Sheffield passengers will fit in a Sprinter routed via whatever route is available in all likelihood.

That is simply the efficient way of routing demand.
Maybe its slower, maybe it isn't - but why should I the taxpayer squander money running services that duplicate the faster, more efficient, lower operating cost, services on HS2?

For passengers travelling from Chesterfield and Sheffield to London, the journey time difference will make using HS2 a no-brainer - particularly as the HS2 trains will use the existing stations, so there's no additional time getting to the HS2 station (like there might be at Toton)

For early morning trains:

Chesterfield - London becomes 1hr 15 minutes (compared with 2hrs 9 mins to 2 hrs 25 on the MML)

Sheffield - London becomes 1 hr 25 minutes (compared with 2 hrs 21 mins to 2 hrs 39 mins on the MML)

The existing services just can't compete on time.

In future, my guess is Sheffield and Chesterfield to Derby will be mainly served by XC as part of much longer routes (one using East-West rail, and one using the existing route to the South West)

Sheffield and Chesterfield to Nottingham served by the Liverpool to Nottingham route

Sheffield and Chesterfield to Leicester will be served by a new XC route that will go on to use the new East-West rail line.

There may or may not continue to be a MML train from Sheffield and Chesterfield to London, but it would stop at all the intermediate stations, so the journey time would be prohibitive. I can't see this being any more than 1 TPH if that.

 

[mallard]

HS2 means that the MML no longer serves London-Sheffield or London-Chesterfield (or indeed Chesterfield-Sheffield) in any meaningful way.

But will still have to serve many other journeys starting/ending at Chesterfield/Sheffield...

The remaining Nottingham/Derby-Sheffield passengers will fit in a Sprinter routed via whatever route is available in all likelihood.

So you're suggesting that all points south of Nottingham/Derby should lose their direct services to South Yorkshire? In addition to cramming all existing passengers in a (one per hour?) positively ancient by the time we're talking about Sprinter?

Nottingham currently has 2tph to Chesterfield/Sheffield (Northern Nottingham-Leeds, EMT Norwich-Liverpool), which are often full as it is... Derby has all the cross-country services in addition to the EMT expresses. We all know how overcrowded cross-country trains are. (While some cross-country passengers may move to HS2, for many long-distance travellers the added hassle of changing trains twice for a marginal time benefit is unlikely to appeal.)

Maybe its slower, maybe it isn't - but why should I the taxpayer squander money running services that duplicate the faster, more efficient, lower operating cost, services on HS2?

Why should the East Midlands lose their fastest connections to major cities just to prop up the business case for a station that's being built in the wrong place (East Midlands Hub)? Why should I the taxpayer squander money on a project that's only going to make services in my area worse?

It's pretty clear that HS2 Phase 2 is really poorly thought out; Sheffield station (and the line north) doesn't have the capacity (and there's been no mention of the fact that more services to/from Sheffield will be needed if it has a faster connection to London than Doncaster), Nottingham/Derby and places south will end up with slower journeys, connections between the East Midlands and Yorkshire are to be broken... Total mess.

Hopefully there'll be a rethink before Phase 2 happens (we've got a decade or so, Phase 1 will obviously go over time/budget as all British infrastructure projects do)... Maybe when we get a transport minister who isn't a complete joke.

 

[tbtc]

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.

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.

Wait, one minute you are complaining about the current Midland Mainline TOC not taking "non-InterCity" services into account... the next you are complaining that HS2 will mean more scope to stop longer distance MML services at places like Loughborough and Bedford?

I've seen this argument before. The current timetable isn't great at journeys like Bedfordshire/ Northamptonshire to Derby/ Nottingham, there's too much obsession with fast trains between big cities... but it's terrible that post-HS2 we'll have scope for putting more stops in at these stations and focussing more on the non-InterCity flows?

I'm sure the people of Leicester will retain non-stop London services and that many of them are looking forward to being able to board a southbound train without it already being full of passengers from Sheffield etc.

The beneficiary of HS2 will be London anyway

You're keeping up the "improving services from a smaller place to a bigger place is bad when the bigger place is London but fantastic when not London" argument?

You'd laugh if someone suggested that improving services from Normanton to Leeds was a waste of time because it'll only benefit Leeds (and not Normanton)

Either do what was done at Antwerp or double deck a bit of it

I really can't see how you'd double deck Sheffield station, given the space for a flyover (constrained by a steep hill to the east, the river Sheaf running directly underneath the current platforms, the inner ring road to the west, the narrow tunnels to the north), without worrying about practicalities like a footbridge!

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

I don't think there'll be space at Meadowhall (platforms are around six coaches long, on an embankment above the busy road).

Plenty space on the line towards Darnall for long HS2 services to layover though - as the "slow" EMT London services do today.

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.

This is worth repeating.

For example, I get bored of the argument that Toton has poor connections for Derby and Nottingham because there's no shuttle service in 2017 linking the site of the HS2 station with the centres of those conurbations. There doesn't need to be yet. It'd be silly if there were! As long as there's scope to introduce that kind of thing in the future, that's what matters.

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

A cheaper way of doing this would be to abandon Rotherham Central for current trains and run a frequent TramTrain service from Cathedral - IKEA - Meadowhall South - Rotherham Central - Parkgate - Aldwarke - Swinton (Dearne Valley Interchange).

That removes some paths from the current heavy rail route through the existing Meadowhall station, removes the flat crossings at both ends of the current Rotherham loop, means a revamped Swinton station could work as a hub for the Dearne Valley towns, with the equivalent of the current day Sheffield - Hull and Sheffield - Cleethorpes services stopping there.

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.

Why should the East Midlands lose their fastest connections to major cities

The MML isn't exclusively for travel to/from London... but slowing current services down to stop at more intermediate stations is A Bad Thing?

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.

Good points there.

So you're suggesting that all points south of Nottingham/Derby should lose their direct services to South Yorkshire? In addition to cramming all existing passengers in a (one per hour?) positively ancient by the time we're talking about Sprinter?

Nottingham currently has 2tph to Chesterfield/Sheffield (Northern Nottingham-Leeds, EMT Norwich-Liverpool), which are often full as it is...

I very much doubt there'll be 1980s Sprinters running those routes in the 2030s - especially as Northern are building new 195s for their Nottingham - Sheffield service

 

[Cambois]

I suspect that capacity can be created in the existing station without wholesale demolition and rebuilding but the access south needs to go back to 4 tracks and Dore probably needs grade separation. The north access is more difficult, as it is hemmed in by the retaiing walls.

But it probably also needs grade separation for some of the junctions and thw Worksop line completely separated from the Meadowhall lines would be a start.

There is probably a £1b to throw at Sheffield station and approaches to sort it out for HS2 - bet that is not in anybodies budgets. And it needs to start now because it will take to 2033 to get the pwers, and design and build it.

The same will be happening elsewhere - so forget HS3 the next 15 yers in the north will be driven by the needs of HS2.

 

[yorksrob]

You're keeping up the "improving services from a smaller place to a bigger place is bad when the bigger place is London but fantastic when not London" argument?

You'd laugh if someone suggested that improving services from Normanton to Leeds was a waste of time because it'll only benefit Leeds (and not Normanton)

Yes. Normanton is already pretty reliant on larger employment centres such as Leeds and Wakefield. That is not a fate I would want to befall Leeds.

 

[edwin_m]

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?

In this case it makes perfect sense for the MML operator to "compete" with HS2. There will be no HS2 trains terminating at Toton, and more people there going south than north, so any seat filled between London and Toton has a good chance of being empty from there to Leeds or beyond. Carrying people who don't gain any journey time benefit isn't a sensible use of the capacity on the busiest section of HS2. The MML train has to run anyway to serve Nottingham/Derby to Leicester and Leicester to London, so it's just a matter of making it longer to serve the Nottingham/Derby to London market too. Keeping the fast MML service also counteracts the tendency of Toton to suck prosperity out of the centres of Derby and Nottingham.

 

[43074]

Wait, one minute you are complaining about the current Midland Mainline TOC not taking "non-InterCity" services into account... the next you are complaining that HS2 will mean more scope to stop longer distance MML services at places like Loughborough and Bedford?

I've seen this argument before. The current timetable isn't great at journeys like Bedfordshire/ Northamptonshire to Derby/ Nottingham, there's too much obsession with fast trains between big cities... but it's terrible that post-HS2 we'll have scope for putting more stops in at these stations and focussing more on the non-InterCity flows?

I'm sure the people of Leicester will retain non-stop London services and that many of them are looking forward to being able to board a southbound train without it already being full of passengers from Sheffield etc.

I agree, there will still be demand there for intra-regional journeys between the cities (Leicester - Nottingham/Derby etc), so my reckoning is that the MML intercity service will behave much more like XC voyager routes do at the moment, in that the trains are busy but with people travelling relatively short distances rather than longer end to end journeys (i.e. Sheffield/Chesterfield to London). By the time you've catered for the intra-regional customers, you might as well run through to St Pancras non-stop from Leicester with the same stock, even if the number of cross-Leicester passengers declines significantly with HS2, the churn of passengers (i.e. number of customers boarding and alighting) at Leicester will probably remain relatively high because of the demand it generates itself.

Then consider the need for access North from Bedford/Luton, and that Kettering and Wellingborough are growing rapidly, it should be possible post HS2 to provide good services North from these towns as well - IMO the 2007 timetable would be a good template to use, providing half hourly stopping services to maximise connectivity along the route, combined with half hourly fast services to maintain the journey times from Leicester to London and to retain the frequencies from Leicester to Derby/Nottingham for those customers wishing to travel to those cities and beyond.

 

[HSTEd]

In this case it makes perfect sense for the MML operator to "compete" with HS2. There will be no HS2 trains terminating at Toton, and more people there going south than north, so any seat filled between London and Toton has a good chance of being empty from there to Leeds or beyond. Carrying people who don't gain any journey time benefit isn't a sensible use of the capacity on the busiest section of HS2. The MML train has to run anyway to serve Nottingham/Derby to Leicester and Leicester to London, so it's just a matter of making it longer to serve the Nottingham/Derby to London market too. Keeping the fast MML service also counteracts the tendency of Toton to suck prosperity out of the centres of Derby and Nottingham.

This argument proceeds on the false assumption that there is any need to prevent people travelling on HS2 as far as Toton, or that HS2 has any functional capacity constraint.
There is not.

HS2 has more capacity than the fast services on all three major (MML, ECML and WCML) main lines combined today.

it can run 18 400m formations per hour, many of which can be double deck. [Something like nine or ten at least].

 

[mallard]

Wait, one minute you are complaining about the current Midland Mainline TOC not taking "non-InterCity" services into account... the next you are complaining that HS2 will mean more scope to stop longer distance MML services at places like Loughborough and Bedford?

You're confounding two different problems.

Currently, there are two main stopping patterns on the MML between Leicester and London; (1) non-stop and (2) all stops to Bedford plus Luton Airport Parkway. There are variations of these, of course (most otherwise non-stop Nottingham services call at Market Harborough, some services call at Luton instead of LAP some extra stops at Kettering and Wellingborough in the peaks), but those are the main two.

Since having low passenger numbers at the "East Midland Hub" will, even if it makes some economic sense, be rather bad press for a £50bn new railway line, they'll want to do everything they can to get passengers from Derby/Nottingham to use it. The only way they can do that is by making the MML less attractive. There's no way HS2 can offer competitive overall journey times to most parts of Nottingham, Derby and surrounding areas, so the MML has to be slowed down. That almost certainly means the loss of stopping pattern (1), with all trains instead using the slower pattern (2).

In addition to that, lack of capacity at/around Sheffield will mean that far fewer services will be able to proceed north of Derby/Sheffield, breaking connections between the East Midlands and southern MML and South Yorkshire and points north.

So it's bad news for virtually everyone using the MML outside of South Yorkshire.

I'm sure the people of Leicester will retain non-stop London services and that many of them are looking forward to being able to board a southbound train without it already being full of passengers from Sheffield etc.

The only way that can work is for Leicester to become the main terminus for these non-stop London services. If they continue north then they're competing with HS2 services to the Hub. If they terminate at Leicester, that's breaking connections northwards and means the loss of the fastest London services for Loughborough, Beeston, East Midlands Parkway, etc.

Again, no good news for MML passengers.

For example, I get bored of the argument that Toton has poor connections for Derby and Nottingham because there's no shuttle service in 2017 linking the site of the HS2 station with the centres of those conurbations. There doesn't need to be yet. It'd be silly if there were! As long as there's scope to introduce that kind of thing in the future, that's what matters.

If you stopped "getting bored" and actually paid attention, the problem isn't that there is no service to/through Toton, it's that there doesn't make sense for there to be (which is, of course, why there isn't). There's nowhere logical for such a service to go; Toton is on what's effectively a Derby-avoiding freight line. There's no capacity at Derby or Nottingham for a frequent shuttle, no services (apart from a paltry few Nottingham/Derby terminators) that can be extended there and no service that can be diverted without losing stops or adding significant journey time.

The only reason that the Toton site was selected is because it's cheap; already Network Rail-owned disused railway land. There's already a "hub" for East Midlands regional services; it's called "Nottingham". This new "hub" station is not near any substantial population, not near any existing transport hubs, not on the route of any existing passenger services. It would be no better if it were not be near a railway at all!

Both the people of the East Midlands and potential HS2 users would be better off if there were no East Midlands station. Then there'd be no reason to try to force people to travel via slower routes, no need to cut existing services, faster journeys for Sheffield/Leeds HS2 passengers, no excuses for not modernising the MML (at least as far as Nottingham), etc.

 

[edwin_m]

This argument proceeds on the false assumption that there is any need to prevent people travelling on HS2 as far as Toton, or that HS2 has any functional capacity constraint.
There is not.

HS2 has more capacity than the fast services on all three major (MML, ECML and WCML) main lines combined today.

it can run 18 400m formations per hour, many of which can be double deck. [Something like nine or ten at least].

I'm not suggesting that anyone should be prevented from using HS2, but equally they certainly shouldn't be prevented from using the MML by deliberately downgrading the service. Both options should be available and as attractive to their own markets as reasonably possible. But the markets themselves are separate with only a partial overlap.

 

[edwin_m]

The only way that can work is for Leicester to become the main terminus for these non-stop London services. If they continue north then they're competing with HS2 services to the Hub. If they terminate at Leicester, that's breaking connections northwards and means the loss of the fastest London services for Loughborough, Beeston, East Midlands Parkway, etc.

And Nottingham and Derby, since the journey out to Toton requires good connecting services and as you suggested these are difficult to provide.

Unless the local authorities and LEPs are being particularly dozy I can't imagine the entire region accepting that, especially as terminating in both directions would need remodelling of Leicester as well as Sheffield! Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic but I'd like to think a future Transport Secretary would be a bit more committed to the interests of all the regions than the present incumbent.

 

[HSTEd]

A significant fraction of Nottingham-London traffic will have faster journey times from Toton (people already living on the right side of the city essentially) and will thus go there.

The remaining fraction will recieve a service more suited to the demand pattern and levels seen.

Some portion of the remaining traffic will travel to Toton anyway because it will likely be cheaper than the MML.
At that point the traffic on the Nottingham-London fast intercity trains will probably have reached subeconomic levels.

Moving people on HS2 is cheaper than on conventional trains - so it is in the public's interest that such modal switch be encouraged to the greatest degree possible.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should be prevented from using HS2, but equally they certainly shouldn't be prevented from using the MML by deliberately downgrading the service. Both options should be available and as attractive to their own markets as reasonably possible. But the markets themselves are separate with only a partial overlap.

The partial overlap seems likely to be sufficient to gut the business case for the fast MML trains to Nottingham though.

Even places like Radcliffe on Trent are only 11 minutes further from Toton than Nottingham station by car according to Google Maps [thanks to the Ring Road].
And journey time advantage will make up for that easily.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

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.

Crossrail 2 would still be justified even if HS2 was cancelled. It is being driven by the need to provide relief to the Victoria Line (and to a lesser extent the Northern Line and Piccadilly Line) as well as reducing the load at Liverpool Street and Waterloo stations by providing through journeys into Zone 1. The need to cope with HS2 passengers at Euston certainly makes the argument for Crossrail 2 stronger but it is not reliant on it. By all means stoke the North v South debate if you wish but do please keep your points relevant. And the general outlook will improve at some point when the current muppet of a Transport Secretary moves on.

 

[Kettledrum]

Currently, there are two main stopping patterns on the MML between Leicester and London; (1) non-stop and (2) all stops to Bedford plus Luton Airport Parkway.....

Both the people of the East Midlands and potential HS2 users would be better off if there were no East Midlands station. Then there'd be no reason to try to force people to travel via slower routes, no need to cut existing services, faster journeys for Sheffield/Leeds HS2 passengers, no excuses for not modernising the MML (at least as far as Nottingham), etc.

I found your post rather depressing, until I realised that most of the trains I catch from the East Midlands going south have the slower service pattern (2) anyway.

Then I looked at the amazingly fast new journey times from East Midlands hub to Birmingham (19 mins), Leeds (36 mins) and Sheffield Midland (17 mins). That's a reminder of why HS2 will be such a boost for the East Midlands.

In terms of the impact on Sheffield - yes the fastest train to London will be cut, or changed to one that stops everywhere - and yes the station remodelling needs to happen in preparation for the new services.

 

[edwin_m]

Some portion of the remaining traffic will travel to Toton anyway because it will likely be cheaper than the MML.

Some will transfer but I would hope the fares would remain equal and interavailable between Toton, Nottingham via MML and Nottingham via connecting train at Toton. Although HS2 will be cheaper to run per seat, it will have a vast amount of capital spent on it. The business case for HS2 is based on fares being broadly similar to existing. And Leicester won't be happy if its London fare is more expensive than from Toton as well as being a slower journey.

The partial overlap seems likely to be sufficient to gut the business case for the fast MML trains to Nottingham though.

It's only a question of linking London-Leicester and Leicester-Nottingham fast trains which will need to run anyway. In fact it might actually be cheaper to keep the through trains, as Leicester would probably need re-modelling if its through trains terminated back to back.

Even places like Radcliffe on Trent are only 11 minutes further from Toton than Nottingham station by car according to Google Maps [thanks to the Ring Road].
And journey time advantage will make up for that easily.

People from Radcliffe and a wide area south and east of Nottingham who have access to a car probably drive to Grantham for their London trains today, rather than getting into Nottingham and catching a slower train to London (and the Ring Road can be a nightmare at certain times of day). Either way I suggest the abstraction from Nottingham Midland will be fairly small, and balanced by other growth in the meantime - unless the existing service is deliberately crippled.

The other point you are missing is the importance of city centre links for inward business. As I've posted many times on this forum before, Toton is fine for those who live locally, drive and want to visit London. But less good for visitors who will be dumped ten miles out, possibly with a connecting train that ends up taking just as long as if they'd stayed on the MML train and been able to carry on working. The second group are much more important for local prosperity.

 

[IanXC]

A cheaper way of doing this would be to abandon Rotherham Central for current trains and run a frequent TramTrain service from Cathedral - IKEA - Meadowhall South - Rotherham Central - Parkgate - Aldwarke - Swinton (Dearne Valley Interchange).

That removes some paths from the current heavy rail route through the existing Meadowhall station, removes the flat crossings at both ends of the current Rotherham loop, means a revamped Swinton station could work as a hub for the Dearne Valley towns, with the equivalent of the current day Sheffield - Hull and Sheffield - Cleethorpes services stopping there.

Cheaper yes, but it doesn't free up any paths at all through Meadowhall. Unless you are proposing to remove the Leeds and Doncaster stoppers altogether? That cuts a significant number of South Yorkshire settlements off from Sheffield, and leaves some of them with no service whatsoever! I suppose places like Mexbrough and Moorthorpe could require a change at Swinton, but this seems very unsatisfactory.

 

[HSTEd]

Some will transfer but I would hope the fares would remain equal and interavailable between Toton, Nottingham via MML and Nottingham via connecting train at Toton. Although HS2 will be cheaper to run per seat, it will have a vast amount of capital spent on it. The business case for HS2 is based on fares being broadly similar to existing. And Leicester won't be happy if its London fare is more expensive than from Toton as well as being a slower journey.

The capital has to be repaid either way, all that matters is the amount of operating profit (excluding capital) for HS2 will be higher than for the MML, even if the HS2 ticket is significantly cheaper.

The business case for HS2 was based on existing ticket prices to avoid accusations of a premium only service, but it seems reasonable to reward people who take HS2 for using the cheaper to operate service, if for no other reason than to encourage more people to take it. Forcing interavailability of tickets simply uses HS2 to subsidise the MML.

Well if the Leicester service was willing to adopt higher capacity units then its fare could drop.

 

[Chester1]

Crossrail 2 would still be justified even if HS2 was cancelled. It is being driven by the need to provide relief to the Victoria Line (and to a lesser extent the Northern Line and Piccadilly Line) as well as reducing the load at Liverpool Street and Waterloo stations by providing through journeys into Zone 1. The need to cope with HS2 passengers at Euston certainly makes the argument for Crossrail 2 stronger but it is not reliant on it. By all means stoke the North v South debate if you wish but do please keep your points relevant. And the general outlook will improve at some point when the current muppet of a Transport Secretary moves on.

There are other options for dealing with capacity at Euston too. Putting Tring stopping services into Crossrail would remove 4tph from Euston at the cost of £300m. Cross River Tram could be ressurected and DLR extended from Bank to Euston. Even together they wouldn't be enough but they would delay the need for CR2.

 

[AndrewE]

I really can't see how you'd double deck Sheffield station, given the space for a flyover (constrained by a steep hill to the east, the river Sheaf running directly underneath the current platforms, the inner ring road to the west, the narrow tunnels to the north), without worrying about practicalities like a footbridge!

...so go underneath then. Don't tell us "it's expensive," we know that (except that it's not too expensive for London!) but lots of benefits follow on. You keep the existing good station location and rail connections (unlike at Toton,) grade separation and new connections are easily incorporated... It worked at Hamilton Square and the cavern was prepared for another one south of Liverpool Central station.

 

[mallard]

Then I looked at the amazingly fast new journey times from East Midlands hub to Birmingham (19 mins), Leeds (36 mins) and Sheffield Midland (17 mins). That's a reminder of why HS2 will be such a boost for the East Midlands.

That sounds great until you add the time of getting from a significant population centre to the hub and a comfortable connection time...

The current journey time on the Tram from the centre of Nottingham to Toton Lane is around 40 minutes. If we count a 10 minute connection between the Tram and HS2 as "comfortable" (that's a bit tight for my liking, but still; also assuming that Toton Lane to EMH takes no extra time), that makes it 1hr9 to Birmingham, 1hr26 to Leeds and 1hr7 to Sheffield.

Current journey times are 1hr14 to Birmingham, 1hr44 to Leeds (including a change at Sheffield) and 57m to Sheffield, so only Leeds is significantly faster (and that's a service currently operated by a 2-car Sprinter that goes via Barnsley, so hardly the busiest, nor is it hard to accelerate on current infrastructure...).

To be really worthwhile, a connecting shuttle would have to make the journey regularly in well under 20 minutes. Do-able (it's only about 7 miles), but it would have to run non-stop through Attenborough and Beeston (presumably there'd be a second, "stopping" shuttle for them) and significant capacity increases in the area to achieve it.

For Derby, it's pretty much a lost cause; it's 40m to Birmingham, 1hr17 to Leeds and 30m to Sheffield. Even a 15-minute shuttle service plus a 10 minute connection time makes HS2 uncompetitive.

 

[HSTEd]

That sounds great until you add the time of getting from a significant population centre to the hub and a comfortable connection time...

The current journey time on the Tram from the centre of Nottingham to Toton Lane is around 40 minutes. If we count a 10 minute connection between the Tram and HS2 as "comfortable" (that's a bit tight for my liking, but still; also assuming that Toton Lane to EMH takes no extra time), that makes it 1hr9 to Birmingham, 1hr26 to Leeds and 1hr7 to Sheffield.

Current journey times are 1hr14 to Birmingham, 1hr44 to Leeds (including a change at Sheffield) and 57m to Sheffield, so only Leeds is significantly faster (and that's a service currently operated by a 2-car Sprinter that goes via Barnsley, so hardly the busiest, nor is it hard to accelerate on current infrastructure...).

To be really worthwhile, a connecting shuttle would have to make the journey regularly in well under 20 minutes. Do-able (it's only about 7 miles), but it would have to run non-stop through Attenborough and Beeston (presumably there'd be a second, "stopping" shuttle for them) and significant capacity increases in the area to achieve it.

For Derby, it's pretty much a lost cause; it's 40m to Birmingham, 1hr17 to Leeds and 30m to Sheffield. Even a 15-minute shuttle service plus a 10 minute connection time makes HS2 uncompetitive.

Assuming the entire population of Nottingham lives in an Apartment building across the road from Midland station, this is a reasonable assesment.
Places like Clifton and Long Eaton are far from villages, and it seems likely that anyone with a car in outer Nottingham (and indeed orbital bus routes would probably be establishd for those without) would simply go direct to Toton.

Indeed people in Beeston would likely just take the tram to Toton rather than taking it into the centre. (12 minutes to Toton Lane versus 19 to Midland station).

A lot of these comments portray Toton as if it is a station in a beet field - it most certainly is not.
Its surrounded by housing.

Long Eaton alone apparently has a population of over 35,000.

We have far more paths available on this leg of HS2 so I imagine there would be several trains an hour running between Leeds and Birmingham, better than XC can manage anyway.

 

[mallard]

Assuming the entire population of Nottingham lives in an Apartment building across the road from Midland station, this is a reasonable assesment.

Nope. The tram time is taken from the city center, not the station. Add 5 minutes or so from the station. Of course I'm assuming that most of the population of Nottingham live closer to the center than the western edge. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Places like Clifton and Long Eaton are far from villages, and it seems likely that anyone with a car in outer Nottingham (and indeed orbital bus routes would probably be establishd for those without) would simply go direct to Toton.

Clifton is on a different branch of the tram network and would have to travel via Nottingham station and the city centre to get to Toton! The lack of crossings over the Trent means that even the shortest road route is via Wilford and the fastest route (via the M1) takes over 20 minutes (non-stop; a bus with stops would be far slower), compared to about 15 to Nottingham station. A proper orbital bus route serving the Hub station would require a large investment in new roads.

Long Eaton (and Beeston, which is on the correct branch of the tram network) is more sensible, but they're both relatively small towns. Even once you include Stapleford, the nearby Wollaton area of Nottingham and Toton itself, that's still a tiny catchment area/population for a new high-speed rail station.

Indeed people in Beeston would likely just take the tram to Toton rather than taking it into the centre. (12 minutes to Toton Lane versus 19 to Midland station).

You're forgetting that Beeston has its own station on the MML and is served by cross-country services, so there's no need to go to Nottingham... For people in the Western area of the town and near a tram stop, yes, going to EMH might offer a faster journey to Birmingham or London than the MML/XC routes. The area where it makes sense for Sheffield or Leeds is likely larger.

A lot of these comments portray Toton as if it is a station in a beet field - it most certainly is not.
Its surrounded by housing.

It's not really "surrounded"; there's a "triangle" formed with Long Eaton, Toton village and Stapleford, but I'll concede that by 2040 or so when we're actually likely to see this happen (I doubt Phase 1 will be ready before 2027 and the route to Manchester is highly likely to be completed before any work starts on the Leeds branch; add in the usual cost and time overruns and 2033 is wildly optimistic), there's a good chance that the "gaps" will have closed.

Long Eaton alone apparently has a population of over 35,000.

Even if the entire area is urbanised, we're talking, optimistically, 100,000 people for whom HS2 via EMH will be preferable to the MML. Still by a long way the smallest population to have a HS2 station.

Considering that the rest of the population of the Nottingham area (>350,000), Derby (~250,000) and surrounding/connecting areas (probably at least another 250,000) and probably, to some extent, Leicester (~400,000) stand to lose out, that's not really a very good deal. Obviously all populations will increase somewhat by the time HS2 is built.

 

[158756]

Assuming the entire population of Nottingham lives in an Apartment building across the road from Midland station, this is a reasonable assesment.
Places like Clifton and Long Eaton are far from villages, and it seems likely that anyone with a car in outer Nottingham (and indeed orbital bus routes would probably be establishd for those without) would simply go direct to Toton.

Indeed people in Beeston would likely just take the tram to Toton rather than taking it into the centre. (12 minutes to Toton Lane versus 19 to Midland station).

A lot of these comments portray Toton as if it is a station in a beet field - it most certainly is not.
Its surrounded by housing.

Long Eaton alone apparently has a population of over 35,000.

All this is well and good when we're considering HS2 as a London commuter line, but HS2 can only carry a very small fraction of the population of Nottingham, Derby and surrounding areas to work in London. Nottingham and Derby need to be successful for the health of the region's economy and for HS2's claims of benefiting the regions to come true. If business is repulsed by Nottingham being accessed by a lengthy connection or Dave's decrepit cabs from Toton or a deliberately hobbled MML it will be a disaster for the region, regardless of how full the 07:30 from the dormitory town of Toton is.

Run a good service from the 'Hub' by all means, but it needs to be easy to access long distance services from the urban centres, whether by good links to Toton or the MML depending on the situation, and the whole thing should be planned to benefit the regional economy rather than sacrificing it for the cause of HS2's passenger numbers as some posts here seem to suggest.

Personally I think the journey times are such that a frequent link from Toton to Derby and Nottingham would work, assuming some classic services survive, but someone needs to provide substantial funding for it to work well. This should be a HS2 cost and the practicalities should be worked out and presented in advance of spending billions on the line through Toton. It'll probably end up with arguments over funding and the local councils struggling to run an hourly 50 year old sprinter.

 

[NotATrainspott]

That sounds great until you add the time of getting from a significant population centre to the hub and a comfortable connection time...

The current journey time on the Tram from the centre of Nottingham to Toton Lane is around 40 minutes. If we count a 10 minute connection between the Tram and HS2 as "comfortable" (that's a bit tight for my liking, but still; also assuming that Toton Lane to EMH takes no extra time), that makes it 1hr9 to Birmingham, 1hr26 to Leeds and 1hr7 to Sheffield.

Current journey times are 1hr14 to Birmingham, 1hr44 to Leeds (including a change at Sheffield) and 57m to Sheffield, so only Leeds is significantly faster (and that's a service currently operated by a 2-car Sprinter that goes via Barnsley, so hardly the busiest, nor is it hard to accelerate on current infrastructure...).

To be really worthwhile, a connecting shuttle would have to make the journey regularly in well under 20 minutes. Do-able (it's only about 7 miles), but it would have to run non-stop through Attenborough and Beeston (presumably there'd be a second, "stopping" shuttle for them) and significant capacity increases in the area to achieve it.

For Derby, it's pretty much a lost cause; it's 40m to Birmingham, 1hr17 to Leeds and 30m to Sheffield. Even a 15-minute shuttle service plus a 10 minute connection time makes HS2 uncompetitive.

The tram was never designed to get people out to Toton quickly. It was designed, quite reasonably for the time, as a standard suburban and park-and-ride route into the city centre and employment areas like NG2. It will not be the premier way of getting out to the East Midlands Hub from the city centre. The reason the tram extension is discussed right now is down to its sheer obviousness - there's basically no need for any normal discussion about it, given that it needs just a kilometre or so of extra track to reach a high profile transport hub.

HS2 Ltd are planning to provide four full-length platforms on the classic line. They have an obligation to design the station, and to arrange for any classic line changes required for the HS2 service to run (e.g. shifting freight routes around to make room for the high speed line). They don't have any obligation to start planning an urban/regional rail system for the East Midlands. The best and really only way that can be delivered is by local governments working with the DfT or any devolved transport bodies. They now know that Toton will be a major hub for transport across the region, so they can plan the network accordingly. The exact shape of the network may though be influenced by other, more local concerns. For instance, if there's local plans for significant housing developments, then they may choose to include heavy rail in the design (like how Shawfair on the Borders Railway will be at the core of a new Edinburgh suburb). If HS2 Ltd had to design all of this today, they would inevitably miss out on things like these and for very little gain. There's not an incredible amount of cross-over between what HS2 Ltd are doing and what a regional transport operator would need to think about. At most, the East Midlands would be getting some new chords, stations and extra wiring to add on top of the MML InterCity wires.

A heavy rail shuttle service is pretty much guaranteed to happen. Remember when I said that the MML InterCity service would be slowed down? This can be alongside a general metro-ification of the rail network, where a much higher frequency of stopping services makes it impossible for the current InterCity service to run at the speed it does. MML services could run fast enough to Leicester and then take on a regional stopping pattern on their way through Derby and Nottingham, calling at smaller stations like Beeston. Because HS2 has dealt with the long distance high speed services, there's an easy business case for opening extra stations on the existing two-track railway as long distance passengers won't be slowed down as a result. HS2 then also increases the benefit you can have from building that metro network, as there will be lots of passenger demand to get out to Toton for onward connections, as there will be from Toton into Derby and Nottingham city centres. Usefully, both cities have through stations, meaning that they require minimal investment to deliver a cross-city urban rail service.

 

[DimTim]

...so go underneath then. Don't tell us "it's expensive," we know that (except that it's not too expensive for London!) but lots of benefits follow on. You keep the existing good station location and rail connections (unlike at Toton,) grade separation and new connections are easily incorporated... It worked at Hamilton Square and the cavern was prepared for another one south of Liverpool Central station.

I cannot see this being feasible. Sheffield station has flooded frequently from the river Sheaf which as stated previously flows under the station.

Grade separation at Dore was overcome in the past by the dive under south of Sheffield station where the northbound Dronfield 'main' remained on the east side of the 4 track formation with the up line but was then routed into platforms 1&2 via the dive under allowing Hope Valley trains into higher numbered platforms.

 

[_toommm_]

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.)

The track between Meadowhall and Swinton (not via Rotherham) is already a triple-track setup, between Holmes Jn and Masbrough Jn, albeit massively overgrown and not currently used. If the old Rotherham Masbrough platforms were to be removed, then the track between Meadowhall and Swinton could easily be a quad track.

From Swinton, there could be two HS lines, and two local stopper/freight lines. Points at Aldwarke Jn for the branch to Rotherham, and the track as i said before at Rotherham Masbrough Stn is already triple/quad (with the freight line to Chesterfield). That freight line to Chesterfield also provides an alternate route avoiding Sheffield, just in case.

 

[DanTrain]

The two previous posts seem to point out the obvious solution here, which seems to me to be to 4-track from Dore to Swinton. Given much of this was 4-tracked in the past, it can't be all that hard to do, possibly with the exception of the Sheffield throats (N&S). This would increase capacity into the station, and allow HS2 trains up to Meadowhall and beyond for a turn round.

Also, if more work was done on the north throat at Sheffield, there's no reason why HS2 trains couldn't be moved onto the Darnall lines, where there is more space to turn them around, before returning to Sheffield. Coupled with slight remodeling to add 1 or 2 extra platforms (including more bays so 1 can be used as a full through platform), this should deal with the problems.

 

[D365]

...so go underneath then. Don't tell us "it's expensive," we know that (except that it's not too expensive for London!) but lots of benefits follow on.

Yeah, uh, there's the small problem of a river underneath.

... possibly with the exception of the Sheffield throats (N&S).

Why are the throats seen as such a problem? There's two pairs of two-track tunnels either side.

 

[DanTrain]

Why are the throats seen as such a problem? There are two pairs of two-track tunnels either side.

So there are, my bad - although this quickly narrows to the North when the Darnall lines leave. Southern throat would need remodeling, but you are right that there is room for 4 tracks (possibly minus the train wash presently there)