Work on Hope Valley line approved

[WatcherZero]

Now this part of the Northern Hub is out of planning hell, how about Piccadilly platforms 15&16 which have been awaiting a TWAO decision for just as long.

 

[edwin_m]

The South Yorkshire conurbation consists of, Sheffield, Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham areas: combined population = 1,365,680 ...services continue to Cleethorpes (40,000), Chesterfield (70,000) and Nottingham (c.330,000)= 1,797,180.
West Yorkshire conurbation: Huddersfield (Kirklees), Wakefield, Leeds, Bradford = 1,991,859 ...services continue to York (198,000), Hull (260,000), Darlo (106,000), Scarborough (52,000) Selby, (14,000), Durham (65,000), Middlesbrough (174,000), Newcastle (576,000) and with a change Sunderland (275,000) = 3,684,196.

Unless you count serving over double the population as comparable, you are mistaken. Sheffield gets 7 carriages per hour, with Leeds services getting 13.5 carriages per hour, with the Leeds services ultimately serving well over double the population. That's before you take into consideration that a 158 carriage has a higher seating density than a 185.

It's perhaps more TfN's view than mine personally, see the NPR documents which indicate a desire for Sheffield-Manchester to have a similar service to Leeds-Manchester. However I think you're stretching a point somewhat to include Bradford in the primary catchment for Manchester-Leeds (at least in respect of today's service) since it is primarily served by the Calder Valley line, and taking it out would make the conurbation populations fairly close. The longer distance services aren't really relevant to TfN's argument as they are focusing on frequency between specific city pairs within their area. I agree they contribute to the viability of the service and indeed that there are good historic reasons why Manchester-Leeds has a better train service. TfN are making the point, with some justification, that Sheffield (and Bradford) shouldn't be left out.

 

[edwin_m]

Between Bamford and Grindleford is strictly speaking the Derwent valley not the Hope Valley.

 

[Jonny]

Between Bamford and Grindleford is strictly speaking the Derwent valley not the Hope Valley.

Ah, but there are several Derwent valleys and only one proper Hope Valley.

 

[snowball]

Now this part of the Northern Hub is out of planning hell, how about Piccadilly platforms 15&16 which have been awaiting a TWAO decision for just as long.

Grayling isn't going to approve that. At least, not until it has been proved to him that his digital railway idea won't provide the capacity.

 

[sheff1]

The South Yorkshire conurbation consists of, Sheffield, Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham areas: combined population = 1,365,680 ...services continue to Cleethorpes (40,000), Chesterfield (70,000) and Nottingham (c.330,000)= 1,797,180.

West Yorkshire conurbation: Huddersfield (Kirklees), Wakefield, Leeds, Bradford = 1,991,859 ...services continue to York (198,000), Hull (260,000), Darlo (106,000), Scarborough (52,000) Selby, (14,000), Durham (65,000), Middlesbrough (174,000), Newcastle (576,000) and with a change Sunderland (275,000) = 3,684,196.

An excellent example of using selective stats to 'prove' a point.

Manchester - Sheffield services continue beyond Nottingham to Grantham, Peterborough, Ely and Norwich. If Sunderland is included because it has one change on the northern route then why not Derby, Leicester and Cambridge for the Hope Valley route?

The fact of the matter is that the current service between Manchester and Sheffield is inadequate for the number of people using it. Whether the service is "worse" than the service between Manchester and Leeds is neither here nor there.

 

[Llandudno]

Population of Chesterfield Borough is just over 100,000
Chesterfield Station is also the main Railhead for:
North East Derbyshire District: Population 99,000
Bolsover District: 75,000
According to Wiki Chesterfield Station has 1.8million passengers per annum

 

[InOban]

Given the populations at either end, the train service between Manchester and Sheffield should be at least as fast and frequent as that between Edinburgh and Glasgow. And that's leaving out the inadequate road connection.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given the populations at either end, the train service between Manchester and Sheffield should be at least as fast and frequent as that between Edinburgh and Glasgow. And that's leaving out the inadequate road connection.

The poor road connection is a reason why the railway could do very well if it played its cards right...which it sadly doesn't, with excessively overcrowded short DMUs instead of trains of a proper length.

 

[XDM]

On another forum a freight driver says a loop at Bamford will be in the wrong place & "won't work". He makes the excellent point that a 2,200 ton stone train going east has to be heavily braked to keep to 60 mph at Bamford because it had just gone downhill for a while.
At the proposed exit from the loop the line goes sharply uphill. So looping freight at Bamford will destroy the trains' momentum & leave them climbing towards Grindleford at very low speeds. Seems a "lose lose" situation: extra wear & tear & fuel use for the freight & pollution & no benefit for passengers trains behind, because a 2,200 tonfreight crawling up a bank from a stop instead of a 60 mph head start will eat up passenger train capacity.
Seems typical to me of Network Rail, looks good on paper, but is a cheapskate proposal that costs a fortune but delivers next to nothing. Spending 20% more on a loop in the right place at Grindleford would deliver all the benefits, whereas Bamford saves 20%, looks good for the politicians, but does nothing.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Ah, but there are several Derwent valleys and only one proper Hope Valley.

As a local resident I still struggle with the facts that (a) there is no River Hope and (b) the word Hope is derived from an old word that means a (short, dead end) Valley anyway so Hope Valley is a meaningless tautology. The river at Hope is actually the River Noe.
So it is best to think of the route as the Noe Hope Line, which is a completely accurate description.

 

[Spartacus]

It's disappointing to see no mention of improvements between Dore and Sheffield, there's enough pressure on the two track railway as it is.

 

[pemma]

Good news, but what an amazing read. After 120+ pages of the inspector dismissing objections, the whole thing ground to a halt by ONE objection. Fortunately this was sorted "out of court" after the inquiry. Phew!

Sounds like the same thing that happened with the Ordsall Chord.

 

[ricoblade]

It's disappointing to see no mention of improvements between Dore and Sheffield, there's enough pressure on the two track railway as it is.

Quite and doesn't help one of my hopes of seeing local services (train/tram/tram-train) return to the Sheaf Valley.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite and doesn't help one of my hopes of seeing local services (train/tram/tram-train) return to the Sheaf Valley.

I'm not sure that rather than doing anything clever it wouldn't just make sense to stop all services at Dore.

 

[tbtc]

On another forum a freight driver says a loop at Bamford will be in the wrong place & "won't work". He makes the excellent point that a 2,200 ton stone train going east has to be heavily braked to keep to 60 mph at Bamford because it had just gone downhill for a while.
At the proposed exit from the loop the line goes sharply uphill. So looping freight at Bamford will destroy the trains' momentum & leave them climbing towards Grindleford at very low speeds. Seems a "lose lose" situation: extra wear & tear & fuel use for the freight & pollution & no benefit for passengers trains behind, because a 2,200 tonfreight crawling up a bank from a stop instead of a 60 mph head start will eat up passenger train capacity.
Seems typical to me of Network Rail, looks good on paper, but is a cheapskate proposal that costs a fortune but delivers next to nothing. Spending 20% more on a loop in the right place at Grindleford would deliver all the benefits, whereas Bamford saves 20%, looks good for the politicians, but does nothing.

That's a very interesting point.

I didn't appreciate that there was much of a "climb" from Bamford to Grindleford (since the railway is heading south/east down the valley), but that's something to consider.

(Ideally, I'd suggest a freight loop at a station so you could use it for passenger services to be overtaken too, but I don't think the Peak District bods will want any large building projects taking place)

As a local resident I still struggle with the facts that (a) there is no River Hope and (b) the word Hope is derived from an old word that means a (short, dead end) Valley anyway so Hope Valley is a meaningless tautology. The river at Hope is actually the River Noe.
So it is best to think of the route as the Noe Hope Line, which is a completely accurate description.

 

[Domh245]

I didn't appreciate that there was much of a "climb" from Bamford to Grindleford (since the railway is heading south/east down the valley), but that's something to consider.

Bamford to Grindleford is a 43ft rise over about 3.5 miles, so it isn't particularly steep, the issue is the stretch of 120 rising shortly after Bamford before you get to Hathersage (which is followed by a stretch of 200 falling before climbing again before Hathersage). As it is, Bamford - Grindleford is the flattest stretch of line, and if they can get rid of that hump as part of these works, I don't think you'd have been able to do much better.

 

[Domh245]

I suppose it depends on how permanent the restriction is I.e. is it a result of a maintenance backlog or something unresolvable.

Through the "core" section of the route, it is a flat 70mph throughout on the Westbound track, and for all of the Eastbound track, apart from a stretch of 40mph around the Edale end of Cowburn Tunnel, just as you head into the long falling gradient towards Bamford. There are sprinter differentials that get up as high as 90mph, but in terms of HST vs 185 those are irrelevant. The only other major speed restriction is stretch of 50mph in both directions between Chinley East and North Junctions, but that again applies to all stock. It would be interesting to see why there is that stretch of 40mph that I mention

 

[quantinghome]

Given the populations at either end, the train service between Manchester and Sheffield should be at least as fast and frequent as that between Edinburgh and Glasgow. And that's leaving out the inadequate road connection.

I would think it's more to do with the populations in between than at either end. The reason Edinburgh-Glasgow (and Leeds-Manchester for that matter) have more frequent services, and on multiple routes, is that there are large population centres in between them which support large commuting flows. By contrast, there is a relatively sparse population between Manchester and Sheffield.

 

[XDM]

Bamford to Grindleford is a 43ft rise over about 3.5 miles, so it isn't particularly steep, the issue is the stretch of 120 rising shortly after Bamford before you get to Hathersage (which is followed by a stretch of 200 falling before climbing again before Hathersage). As it is, Bamford - Grindleford is the flattest stretch of line, and if they can get rid of that hump as part of these works, I don't think you'd have been able to do much better.

The gradient chart is very helpful. It does bear out exactly what the freight driver says. The fall to Bamford going east is huge, so 2,200 ton freights will built up a lot of momentum, all to be dissipated stopping in the planned Bamford loop. After the loop the 1 in 200 down, after an uphill gradient, is very short compared to the up hill climb all the way to Grindleford.
I still agree with the driver that the proposed Bamford loop will not work. I am sure it is an expensive & pointless token from NR.
Better not to build the Bamford loop at all, even better, put it at Grindleford where it will work well.

 

[yorksrob]

Through the "core" section of the route, it is a flat 70mph throughout on the Westbound track, and for all of the Eastbound track, apart from a stretch of 40mph around the Edale end of Cowburn Tunnel, just as you head into the long falling gradient towards Bamford. There are sprinter differentials that get up as high as 90mph, but in terms of HST vs 185 those are irrelevant. The only other major speed restriction is stretch of 50mph in both directions between Chinley East and North Junctions, but that again applies to all stock. It would be interesting to see why there is that stretch of 40mph that I mention

That's interesting. It's one of the few lines where I've noticed the change in gradient as a passenger (going west through one of the long tunnels (not Totley)).

 

[Dr Hoo]

The gradient chart is very helpful. It does bear out exactly what the freight driver says. The fall to Bamford going east is huge, so 2,200 ton freights will built up a lot of momentum, all to be dissipated stopping in the planned Bamford loop. After the loop the 1 in 200 down, after an uphill gradient, is very short compared to the up hill climb all the way to Grindleford.
I still agree with the driver that the proposed Bamford loop will not work. I am sure it is an expensive & pointless token from NR.
Better not to build the Bamford loop at all, even better, put it at Grindleford where it will work well.

It depends what you mean by 'work'. A heavy freight from Peak Forest will have had to start from its origin against a 1 in 90 so the easier gradients in the Hope Valley clearly won't prevent anything from getting away from a stop. Eastbound trains can get held waiting entry to Cowburn Tunnel on a 1 in 100 already.

The critical capacity problem on the Hope Valley is that freights have to negotiate a variety of single line sections and/or busy junctions on tight curves while getting on and off it, often in the face of their brethren attempting similar movements in the opposite direction. It is only possible to stitch available bits of path together by holding a train 'somewhere' between them.

If you read all of the documentation associated with the Hope Valley improvements (which runs to well over 1,000 pages!) it can be easily understood that a loop at Grindleford was a non starter for a variety of reasons, including National Trust land ownership, ancient woodland (great in autumn!), proximity of residential property, curvature inhibiting pointwork and construction access difficulties as well as simple cost.

An eastbound loop at Bamford may not be ideal but it is far better than not having one at all. I cannot imagine an experienced freight driver having difficulty in using it effectively.

 

[Domh245]

It depends what you mean by 'work'. A heavy freight from Peak Forest will have had to start from its origin against a 1 in 90 so the easier gradients in the Hope Valley clearly won't prevent anything from getting away from a stop. Eastbound trains can get held waiting entry to Cowburn Tunnel on a 1 in 100 already.

The critical capacity problem on the Hope Valley is that freights have to negotiate a variety of single line sections and/or busy junctions on tight curves while getting on and off it, often in the face of their brethren attempting similar movements in the opposite direction. It is only possible to stitch available bits of path together by holding a train 'somewhere' between them.

If you read all of the documentation associated with the Hope Valley improvements (which runs to well over 1,000 pages!) it can be easily understood that a loop at Grindleford was a non starter for a variety of reasons, including National Trust land ownership, ancient woodland (great in autumn!), proximity of residential property, curvature inhibiting pointwork and construction access difficulties as well as simple cost.

An eastbound loop at Bamford may not be ideal but it is far better than not having one at all. I cannot imagine an experienced freight driver having difficulty in using it effectively.

Just to add to this very good post, it is worth noting that between the 'Bamford Hump' and Grindleford, there is a total of about a mile where the track is climbing at 1:200, the rest of the distance is level or at 1:1000, so again, it is hardly taxing. I've also just done a quick bit of measuring things out on a map and comparing to the drawing that NR have on this page - the summit of that 1:120 rising section occurs about 1.4km from Bamford station, near Jagger's Lane Overbridge - whilst the end of the passing loop occurs just before Jagger's Lane Overbridge - so it's not as if the driver is going straight into one long climb - after one train length (approx) they'll be on a falling gradient and after that on a reasonably gentle climb.

Additionally, I've not seen it mentioned, but I would presume that the line will be resignalled in addition to these works, seeing as they would have to put signals in to accommodate the loop, and the new line at Dore - so they might as well go the whole hog. That alone (eliminating some of the super long block sections) should improve the capacity of the line.

 

[TheBigD]

Deleted

 

[YorkshireBear]

I worked the route as a guard from 2003 to 2008, and rarely experinced overcrowding or standing except on a few trains like 1730ish ex Nottingham, or at the Norwich end when Norwich City were playing at home, or the Norwich-Liverpool Street route is affected by engineering work.... Occasional disruption on other routes also saw occasional overcrowding...

Since 2012 I see the trains go by the 'box, sometimes at slow speeds and rarely witness any crowding... Most trains are lightly loaded...

I really don't get why people persist with the idea that the eastern end of the route has overcrowding problems... It hasn't for at least the last 15 years...

The 3 and 4 car formations in the latter days of Central Trains revolved around getting capacity on the western end of the route as Central Trains did not attach/detach at Nottingham, instead running the whole formation to/from Norwich for operational convenience ...

What experience have you had since 2008?

 

[TheBigD]

Deleted

 

[XDM]

Just to add to this very good post, it is worth noting that between the 'Bamford Hump' and Grindleford, there is a total of about a mile where the track is climbing at 1:200, the rest of the distance is level or at 1:1000, so again, it is hardly taxing. I've also just done a quick bit of measuring things out on a map and comparing to the drawing that NR have on this page - the summit of that 1:120 rising section occurs about 1.4km from Bamford station, near Jagger's Lane Overbridge - whilst the end of the passing loop occurs just before Jagger's Lane Overbridge - so it's not as if the driver is going straight into one long climb - after one train length (approx) they'll be on a falling gradient and after that on a reasonably gentle climb.

Thanks Domh245 for you thoughtful reply. I apologise to Dr Hoo for not making my post clear.
I was quoting from a freight driver who said the loop would not "work" for the 2,500 ton stone trains on the line that would be forced into the loop & then once the train had been overtaken have to make a standing start facing a long uphill gradient.
By "work" we did not mean the stone train would stall. We meant it would lose so much time up the long gradient from its standing start that the next passenger train would be delayed behind it more than if the freight had been allowed to pass Bamford at 60 mph with enough momentum to keep up the bank at a decent speed.
I asked my nephew, who is doing university mechanics, to do some sums. He had to make assumptions so the following could be 20% either way. He reckons the 2,500 tonne freight train, if unchecked at
Bamford & so with a 60 mph run at the bank will get to the east side of Grindleford station 5 minutes 30 secs faster( + the stationary time a diverted train would incur in the loop) than if held in the Bamford loop. So the loop will cost the freight operator 330 secs running time + 6 minutes idling in the loop & the wear & tear of 25 100 ton wagons braking from 60 to 0 mph down hill. Also 20 extra litres of diesel from idling & then climbing a mostly adverse gradient from zero mph & the co2 & sulphur that involves.
And the looping will be of no value because the freight will occupy the running line to Grindleford for so long that it delays the next passenger train. I maintain the freight driver's view that the proposed Bamford loop is pointless, & I go beyond & based on the math say it has negative value. A useful Grindleford loop would have been approved by the inspector if Network Rail had explained it is the only place it could be put, despite the curve & the minor woodland take.

 

[ricoblade]

I'm not sure that rather than doing anything clever it wouldn't just make sense to stop all services at Dore.

That's not the (maybe unclear) point I was trying to make. As @tbtc says below, I have always wanted the Sheaf Valley stations to re-open (Heeley, Millhouses, Abbeydale) and maybe additional new ones and I'm sure it would need extra track between The Mid and Dore to make this work.

 

[IanXC]

Can I reindeers this is an Infrastructure thread entitled "Work on Hope Valley line approved". Can we please try to remain on topic!

 

[Domh245]

Thanks Domh245 for you thoughtful reply. I apologise to Dr Hoo for not making my post clear.
I was quoting from a freight driver who said the loop would not "work" for the 2,500 ton stone trains on the line that would be forced into the loop & then once the train had been overtaken have to make a standing start facing a long uphill gradient.
By "work" we did not mean the stone train would stall. We meant it would lose so much time up the long gradient from its standing start that the next passenger train would be delayed behind it more than if the freight had been allowed to pass Bamford at 60 mph with enough momentum to keep up the bank at a decent speed.
I asked my nephew, who is doing university mechanics, to do some sums. He had to make assumptions so the following could be 20% either way. He reckons the 2,500 tonne freight train, if unchecked at
Bamford & so with a 60 mph run at the bank will get to the east side of Grindleford station 5 minutes 30 secs faster( + the stationary time a diverted train would incur in the loop) than if held in the Bamford loop. So the loop will cost the freight operator 330 secs running time + 6 minutes idling in the loop & the wear & tear of 25 100 ton wagons braking from 60 to 0 mph down hill. Also 20 extra litres of diesel from idling & then climbing a mostly adverse gradient from zero mph & the co2 & sulphur that involves.
And the looping will be of no value because the freight will occupy the running line to Grindleford for so long that it delays the next passenger train. I maintain the freight driver's view that the proposed Bamford loop is pointless, & I go beyond & based on the math say it has negative value. A useful Grindleford loop would have been approved by the inspector if Network Rail had explained it is the only place it could be put, despite the curve & the minor woodland take.

The problem is that whilst Bamford may not be the ideal place for a loop, you really would struggle to do any better. Whilst a loop between Grindleford and Hathersage would be more favourable in terms of gradients, adding the track either way (either the loop taking over the current Up line and building a new Down line, or just building new track for the loop) would involve considerably more earthworks - and thus be at a greater cost. Compare the contours and earthworks symbols currently for the two stretches of line (the red markers being approximate start/end points for the planned loop at Bamford, and an equivalent between Hathersage and Grindleford). I'm also not convinced that the minor woodland take would be as easy as you suggest, given that it is ancient woodland.

- larger version

- larger version

As for the modelling that your nephew has done, I'm not particularly inclined to try and verify it mathematically, but I've done the next best thing which is "fire up Train Simulator, load up that attempt at building the hope valley line that you did a while back, and send a train over it" - I managed to go from the end of the Bamford loop to Grindleford (with a 66 hauling a 2550 ton load and crawling out of the loop at 15mph) in 7 minutes and 30 seconds, and had almost hit 40mph - which I would say is reasonable given that they are currently timed to do it in 5 minutes, or an average speed of 43.5 mph. Obviously that neglects the need to slow to a stop beforehand and I probably broke just about every professional driving policy that exists on that run, but I would suggest that your nephew's estimates were probably leaning more towards overestimates than underestimates. I certainly don't think that we'll be approaching the sort of frequencies that mean that the additional time lost through slowing down for and accelerating away from the loop will result in the train behind being checked down slow enough to start picking up large delays.

It is also worth considering what the Bamford loop will achieve - if every train they were sending along the route were to be forced to use it and loose time, they'd probably be unhappy, but if it were allowing them to run additional trains (and get additional income) - they probably won't mind the additional fuel, which will probably be far less than that used by any lorries taken off the roads by that additional service.