Suggestions for improving the Hope Valley route

[quantinghome]

If you don't mind demolishing several villages/small towns and buildnig huge viaducts, cuttings and embankments, yes.

But at that point the engineering and political resources of the tunnel solution start to look reasonable.

The railway wasnt built the way it was because the Victorians were incompetent, it was built because it was essentially forced to follow that route by the terrain.
Our superior earthmoving would allow a purely cost optimised railway to be built to a higher speed profile, but int he middle of a national park, with villages sprouting up around the railway, this becomes rapidly untenable.

Then we add in the cost escalation caused by working on a live railway.

Those are critical issues for sure. But isn't the NPR (HS North now?) plan for Manchester-Sheffield an upgraded Hope Valley line? Presumably we're not just talking about upgrading the existing alignment but major journey time improvements requiring revised alignments in places?

 

[HSTEd]

Those are critical issues for sure. But isn't the NPR (HS North now?) plan for Manchester-Sheffield an upgraded Hope Valley line? Presumably we're not just talking about upgrading the existing alignment but major journey time improvements requiring revised alignments in places?

NPR wants to build Leeds-Manchester.

The hope valley stuff is a bone thrown to Sheffield so they don't make difficulties.
They will be lucky to get the Dore works proposed upthread.

 

[Haydn1971]

This talk of a Hope Valley base tunnel reminds me of the proposal to slam a motorway up the Hope Valley back in the building heyday. Annoyingly I never took a photo of the albeit low detail alignment proposal that I found in a drawer when I worked at Derbyshire CC - The same drawer had options for improvements to the A628 over the top of the Woodhead at Salters Bridge.

 

[unlevel42]

Somebody mentioned it earlier, but could they not just go for a full closure (3 months? 6?) - build the platforms, loops, signalling - anything else like more doubling or even some exploratory future-proofing for wires - if not wires themselves.

How would people get from Sheffield and Manchester?
My normal route(as recommended by the AA and RAC) to the airport by car involves single track roads and cattle grids? Buses which went East along the A57 then North on the M1 West along A628 an M67 and South along the M60 in 2 hours and 25 minutes

I know it needs doing but daytime (anyday) blockades and full closures are not on.
I hope that because Dore station would close-the car park would be needed for construction the plentiful space to the North of Dore would be used.
Increase use of the Barrow Hill line for Chesterfield and the south, All XC services stop at Chesterfield.
Use Chesterfield to split Nottingham Liverpool (and avoiding Sheffield)services when south curve work complete.

I really do hope that lessons have been learnt from the total failure of dealing with the Whaley Bridge incident affected Sheffield so badly.

 

[Ploughman]

Is there no quick build system for providing new platforms.
Surely there must be a Pre Fab option that could be craned in in sections?

 

[HSTEd]

Is there no quick build system for providing new platforms.
Surely there must be a Pre Fab option that could be craned in in sections?

The hard part is positioning the platform so that you get an acceptable step distance for modern standards, whilst reliably avoiding impinging on the loading gauge.

 

[unlevel42]

The hard part is positioning the platform so that you get an acceptable step distance for modern standards, whilst reliably avoiding impinging on the loading gauge.

The new platform 2 at Dore is away from the live lines and the site can be accessed from a public road, can the track and the platform be built first- even used as siding. Apart from "joining up" the most disruptive bit will be extending the south curve towards Totley tunnel. Recently there were sections of the track put in after the new Derby platform rebuilds

 

[Bald Rick]

AKA, don't go anywhere near the Mam Tor beds... I think Cowburn Tunnel is below them so maybe a base tunnel would be OK in that respect.

Interestingly the Lötschberg base tunnel has been partly closed for 6 weeks due to water ingress caused by geological issues. If it can happen there it can certainly happen under the Peak.

 

[Dr Hoo]

<SNIP>

How about a slightly less aggressive base tunnel from vicinityAshburys or Belle Vue to vicinity Dore, with a dog leg to Chinley?
It avoids tearing down half of central Sheffield and Manchester, still slashes the journey time and also slashes journey times to Buxton etc.

I don't quite see the justification for going via Chinley (which is only a village) or the attraction of Buxton (which is only a town of less than 25,000, significantly smaller than (say) Glossop, and is in any event 1,000 feet above sea level). The fact that Buxton had two terminus stations operated by different companies says a lot about its insignificance as a through route in terms of railway geography.

In any 'base tunnel' scenario trying to connect (even indirectly) to what is arguably the highest town in the UK seems to have a poor engineering fit in terms of gradients for a start.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't quite see the justification for going via Chinley (which is only a village) or the attraction of Buxton (which is only a town of less than 25,000, significantly smaller than (say) Glossop, and is in any event 1,000 feet above sea level). The fact that Buxton had two terminus stations operated by different companies says a lot about its insignificance as a through route in terms of railway geography.

Chinley is just a convenient location, the idea being to break the existing alignment in half, so that local trains would run along the existing line to Chinley, then continue to their destination through the tunnel.

Going to Buxton via a modification south of Chapel-en-le-Frith allows substantial lengths of the existing Buxton line to be abandoned or rationalised, since it would terminate with a single track section into Whaley Bridge.

Also, daytrippers

Imagine what will happen if the heart of the national park is made so close to Manchester and Sheffield?
People could start going for a walk in the hills in their lunch hour.

In any 'base tunnel' scenario trying to connect (even indirectly) to what is arguably the highest town in the UK seems to have a poor engineering fit in terms of gradients for a start.

These are not the alps though.
23km from vicinity Ashburys to vicinity Chinley.
Height gain of ~160m, which is about 0.7% average gradient.

Dore tunnel portal to Chinley is approximately ~27km
Height gain is about 60m.
So gradient is about 0.2%

These would be acceptable in the steam era, let alone in an era where the trains through the tunnel will pretty much all have to be electric hauled.

ALso having a central above ground section of a few hundred metres long will simplify the safety case as you wont have to build a midpoint "escape station" for unloading passengers in the tunnel bore.

 

[Dr Hoo]

If you wanted more capacity on the line another option would be to reopen the Buxton Matlock line. Most of the freight traffic could use this route and it would also offer an improved passenger service from the North West to East Midlands (which is very slow at present). This has been disused elseware

I'm not at all sure that 'most' freight traffic would use the Buxton-(Millers Dale)-Matlock route. Over half of the Derbyshire stone and cement trains are* going to terminals in Lancashire, Yorkshire, etc. and would continue to need paths through Chinley or Dore at all times of day. Obviously all cement traffic from Hope has to use the Hope Valley line anyway.

*Pre-COVID

 

[Railwaysceptic]

As the cost of any base tunnel under the Pennines would be astronomical even with exceptionally low interest rates, would it not be more sensible to make it serve two traffic flows - Sheffield and Leeds - and bring it out north of Sheffield? I realise this would immediately awaken the Woodhead fanatics but that's a small price to pay.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not at all sure that 'most' freight traffic would use the Buxton-(Millers Dale)-Matlock route. Over half of the Derbyshire stone and cement trains are* going to terminals in Lancashire, Yorkshire, etc. and would continue to need paths through Chinley or Dore at all times of day. Obviously all cement traffic from Hope has to use the Hope Valley line anyway.

*Pre-COVID

I believe there's a fair bit that heads south. Anything going west only has to use the route for the short distance between east of Chinley and New Mills South. The Hope cement traffic (if going south) would only need to use the route between Earles and Chinley, not all the way to Sheffield. So that just leaves the Yorkshire traffic sharing a large part of the route with the Manchester-Sheffield fasts.

As the cost of any base tunnel under the Pennines would astronomical even with exceptionally low interest rates, would it not be more sensible to make it serve two traffic flows - Sheffield and Leeds - and bring it out north of Sheffield? I realise this would immediately awaken the Woodhead fanatics but that's a small price to pay.

I did some sums on this when HS2 was intended to run just east of Barnsley but even then Manchester-Leeds via Woodhead and a new connecting curve was too slow. However I did note on the map posted somewhere above that the Woodhead route between Manchester and Glossop was very close to the straight line to Sheffield. This has the formation for two extra tracks largely vacant to somewhere east of Guide Bridge, after which it only shares with the Glossop/Hadfield EMUs (and another four-track section could be created at Hattersley if that was a problem). So maybe a tunnel from Glossop area (still outside the National Park) would be more realistic? But it's still very difficult to see how it would access Sheffield other than by tunneling under most of it, so maybe you end up routeing a bit further south and picking up the existing line near Dore anyway. Either way there's also the issue that the deepest valley, which would be the obvious spot for an emergency escape station or short surface section, is mostly underneath reservoirs!

 

[quantinghome]

As the cost of any base tunnel under the Pennines would astronomical even with exceptionally low interest rates, would it not be more sensible to make it serve two traffic flows - Sheffield and Leeds - and bring it out north of Sheffield? I realise this would immediately awaken the Woodhead fanatics but that's a small price to pay.

That was an initial idea but seems to have been dropped in favour of a more direct Manchester-Leeds route. Although it may be all up in the air again given the formation of HS North who have a remit to pull together HS2 phase2b and NPR into a combined overall plan (no bad thing). However any consideration of a new tunnel coming out between Leeds and Sheffield will mean:

1. a(nother) re-routing of HS2 between Sheffield and Leeds, which is currently too far east for this to be practical, and
2. abandoning any idea of serving Bradford.

 

[furnessvale]

I'm not at all sure that 'most' freight traffic would use the Buxton-(Millers Dale)-Matlock route. Over half of the Derbyshire stone and cement trains are* going to terminals in Lancashire, Yorkshire, etc. and would continue to need paths through Chinley or Dore at all times of day. Obviously all cement traffic from Hope has to use the Hope Valley line anyway.

*Pre-COVID

Currently, 17 out of 52 terminals served by freight from the Peak District can be described as North East or North West of the quarries and needing to use the Hope Valley line.

The other 35 would all benefit from a direct access to the south avoiding a trip north first and/or the congestion of the existing route.

Of course this does not take into account tonnages to each depot which could vary, nor does it allow for gains in traffic from road that a more direct access to the south would facilitate.

 

[HSTEd]

It would probably be cheaper to build a ropeway conveyer to a convenient railhead further south than to spend money on a brand new freight only railway for a relative handful of trains per day.

 

[edwin_m]

It would probably be cheaper to build a ropeway conveyer to a convenient railhead further south than to spend money on a brand new freight only railway for a relative handful of trains per day.

Maybe, but:

• It's probably more like one train an hour if all the flows are taken together.
• The nearest convenient railheads are many tens of miles away (eg Castle Donington). That's one heck of a ropeway.
• A closer railhead would have to be built from scratch, and the railway serving it drastically improved.
• An aerial ropeway through the National Park probably isn't going to be acceptable.
• Although a railway does have some degree of impact, it could also carry some passenger service and therefore improve sustainable access into the Park.

 

[furnessvale]

It would probably be cheaper to build a ropeway conveyer to a convenient railhead further south than to spend money on a brand new freight only railway for a relative handful of trains per day.

An absolute minimum of 5 loaded and 5 return empty trains per day would benefit. Some days the number can rise to 8-10 each way a day. As stated above, this does not include extra traffic won from road by virtue of more efficient rail working.

Reopening proposals include joint use with both local and regional passenger services.

 

[Dr Hoo]

An absolute minimum of 5 loaded and 5 return empty trains per day would benefit. Some days the number can rise to 8-10 each way a day. As stated above, this does not include extra traffic won from road by virtue of more efficient rail working.

Reopening proposals include joint use with both local and regional passenger services.

Having done some fairly detailed analysis recently (pre-COVID) the situation is quite complicated with lots of 'alternative destination/"Y" paths' and trains that run 'as required/"Q" paths', supposedly 'regular/permanent' paths that are nevertheless regularly 'cancelled' because of no traffic (rather than railway failures, flooding or whatever), etc. Obviously patterns of demand for construction materials depend on the general state of the economy, capacity at other potential sources (e.g. the Mendips or Leicestershire), particular major projects and so forth.

I wouldn't disagree that 5-10 potential diversions via Matlock might be plausible but this would still leave the majority of freight traffic needing to use the Hope Valley line at some point. Hence the reduction would still not free up regular (i.e. in an hourly cycle) paths via the Hope Valley for additional or faster passenger trains.

Any re-opening of the Matlock route would have to be justified on its own merits, not because it 'solved' the Hope Valley challenges.

 

[furnessvale]

Having done some fairly detailed analysis recently (pre-COVID) the situation is quite complicated with lots of 'alternative destination/"Y" paths' and trains that run 'as required/"Q" paths', supposedly 'regular/permanent' paths that are nevertheless regularly 'cancelled' because of no traffic (rather than railway failures, flooding or whatever), etc. Obviously patterns of demand for construction materials depend on the general state of the economy, capacity at other potential sources (e.g. the Mendips or Leicestershire), particular major projects and so forth.

I wouldn't disagree that 5-10 potential diversions via Matlock might be plausible but this would still leave the majority of freight traffic needing to use the Hope Valley line at some point. Hence the reduction would still not free up regular (i.e. in an hourly cycle) paths via the Hope Valley for additional or faster passenger trains.

Any re-opening of the Matlock route would have to be justified on its own merits, not because it 'solved' the Hope Valley challenges.

I too have done detailed analysis of freight traffic in the Peak District which is why I can confidently state what I mentioned above. I am not in a position to expand any further on this at present.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I wasn't really disagreeing with you, Furnessvale. It would seem that our Matlock analyses reached a similar conclusion.

By no means all of the 35 'southern' terminals were receiving regular Peak District traffic pre-COVID. Hence all the Y, Q and 'cancelled' slots.

I full understand why Tarmac, CEMEX, Breedon, DB Cargo, Freightliner Heavy Haul, GBRf, etc. 'maintain' slots that may not actually be used for various periods of time.

 

[HSTEd]

An absolute minimum of 5 loaded and 5 return empty trains per day would benefit. Some days the number can rise to 8-10 each way a day. As stated above, this does not include extra traffic won from road by virtue of more efficient rail working.

Ten trains per day is still nothing.

Reopening proposals include joint use with both local and regional passenger services.

Passenger flows from Matlock to Chinley?
There doesn't really seem to be much reason to run passenger trains via that route.
It doesn't seem likely to be drastically faster than the via Sheffield route, or even running via Crewe.

 

[Halifaxlad]

That was an initial idea but seems to have been dropped in favour of a more direct Manchester-Leeds route. Although it may be all up in the air again given the formation of HS North who have a remit to pull together HS2 phase2b and NPR into a combined overall plan (no bad thing). However any consideration of a new tunnel coming out between Leeds and Sheffield will mean:

1. a(nother) re-routing of HS2 between Sheffield and Leeds, which is currently too far east for this to be practical, and
2. abandoning any idea of serving Bradford.

I don't see why HS2 is currently too far East for this to be practical as it passes directly over the line from Worksop adjacent to the M1. If you had the HS2 connection here then you could serve Midland & Victoria if a new tunneled route was created. By the looks of things, it looks like consideration is being given to reopening Victoria anyway to serve a passenger service on the Stocksbridge Line.



It would be quicker too, as you wouldn't necessarily need to head through Chesterfield when on route to Sheffield. Although I would keep the junction onto HS2 below Chesterfield so that you could send Sheffield & Chesterfield services around in a giant loop. Maybe move it a little Soutwards below Pinxton.

As for NPHR to and from Leeds, they're would appear to be ample room for a Northern Chord.

 

[quantinghome]

As for NPHR to and from Leeds, they're would appear to be ample room for a Northern Chord.

Are you suggesting that Manchester-Leeds NPR services would be routed via Sheffield?

 

[Halifaxlad]

Are you suggesting that Manchester-Leeds NPR services would be routed via Sheffield?

Most certainly Not!

 

[quantinghome]

Most certainly Not!

OK, I think there's a misunderstanding. I wasn't looking at Sheffield's connection with HS2, I was replying to Railwaysceptics' post about the idea of building a new tunnel from Manchester through the Pennines which would come out somewhere between Sheffield and Leeds and serve as the transpennine route for both. This was an idea under consideration for NPR, and it would have connected with HS2 via a triangular junction to connect both cities. The problem with this is that you need to build a lot more railway to meet up with HS2 now it is routed further east than originally planned. And it wouldn't serve Bradford.

 

[Halifaxlad]

OK, I think there's a misunderstanding. I wasn't looking at Sheffield's connection with HS2, I was replying to Railwaysceptics' post about the idea of building a new tunnel from Manchester through the Pennines which would come out somewhere between Sheffield and Leeds and serve as the transpennine route for both. This was an idea under consideration for NPR, and it would have connected with HS2 via a triangular junction to connect both cities. The problem with this is that you need to build a lot more railway to meet up with HS2 now it is routed further east than originally planned. And it wouldn't serve Bradford.

Thanks for clarifying that.

I seen that idea a few places on the net and I not the slightest bit supportive of it.

Very much support a dedicated new route, although expensive if a new connection to the ECML at Doncaster could be made, either via HS2 and a new line adjacent to the M18 then it could be justified .

As this then could be an alternative route from Liverpool & Manchester to Hull that bypasses Leeds. Also if a small new section of line was relayed between Glasshoughton and Methley Junction you could potentially send all NPHR Sheffield services from Leeds via Doncaster.

Needless to say I got my crayons out to help explain this one!

Sign in - Google Accounts

www.google.com

For those who don't have a Google account as it appears that now you can't view links without one. Here is the additional chords refereed to above.



The necessary chord at Methley to avoid reversing at Castleford!