Would a line from Sheffield to Stocksbridge be viable? And will it happen (even if not viable!)...

[HSTEd]

What about just having a chord near Cricket Inn road?

It has you go in the wrong direction for several minutes but if the tram-train can run non-stop for a while towards stocksbridge the reduced cost of not needing anything fancy might allow it to be worthwhile.

 

[johnnychips]

I know what you mean, and this sounds better than having to run a tram-train to Meadowhall etc as has been suggested. However, what do you do with it when it reaches the city? The current services from Parkgate and Herdings terminating at Cathedral do remarkably well in turning round promptly, but they do occasionally delay trams coming from the north. I don’t think the existing infrastructure could handle anymore from the east.

If you grant that most people in Stocksbridge and Deepcar are going to have to get a bus to either the existing Middlewood tram stop or a new station in Stocksbridge in order to get to the central parts of Sheffield, I really can’t see how the latter could be efficient: I can’t see it being significantly faster, and as well as the massive amount needed to renew the existing infrastructure and build new chords and so on, it would have to run at a similar frequency as the existing single - decks buses, which from my experience are usually from a quarter to seven-eighths full.

 

[traction22]

The tram line by the station is planned to be re routed down pond street past the bus station and form a junction at Fitzalan square and Park Square is to be removed and built on with several new buildings so a new route up Haymarket would work.

Who what where how and why?



Can you post any documentation /news on this. Its passed me by.

I agree that this is quite a civilised debate, and long may that continue on RailUK!

I would just throw a few things in:

- I don’t think you could extend the existing tram from Middlewood along the road. It is very busy, single-carriageway, and the disruption would be horrendous.
- The roads of Deepcar and Stocksbridge housing areas are very steep, yet probably not insurmountable for a tram. But they are not very wide: presently the buses have fun negotiating parked cars on the pavement and often have to wait for oncoming traffic to clear. Once again, I would think construction disruption would be unacceptable and the tram would have to run on a single-direction loop rather than the clockwise and anti-clockwise routes the current tramlink buses take.
- I had a walk past the site of Sheffield Victoria today. It really is too far from the centre to be a walk you don’t have to think about how long it is going to take you, if you see what I mean.
- The train from Penistone to Sheffield is a long drag, but the station in Penistone is also peripheral to the town. If I lived there presently and couldn’t park easily in Sheffield I would drive to Middlewood tram stop and park there.

That’s why I can’t see any tram extensions possible, and why I think any use of the old railway would be very expensive or impractical.

 

[tbtc]

Who what where how and why?



Can you post any documentation /news on this. Its passed me by.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/ps15bn-plan-sheffields-biggest-ever-2445918

The hugely ambitious project would see the closure of Park Square roundabout and Sheaf Street – the dual carriageway that runs in front of the station – would swap places with the tram route that runs behind.

A huge, landscaped pedestrian bridge would link Park Hill with Howard Street

The new tram route would run from Fitzalan Square, along Pond Street, stop outside the station and continue along Suffolk Road to Granville Square

Park Square roundabout and Sheaf Street would become a park and link into the Grey to Green scheme at Victoria Quays, Castlegate and West Bar

So essentially swap the tram and ring road between Park Square and Granville Road - would cost *a lot* of money to do but would make the area nicer - Midland station has been tarted up quite a bit but there's no hiding from the fact that it's the wrong side of the ring road and that the tram link isn't as successful as it should be because it's on the "wrong" side of the station - being able to come out of the station and pass the trams on your way towards Howard Street would make it more attractive (i.e. seeing there was one due in two minutes) - whereas at the moment you're walking in the opposite direction and may then find that you've just missed one - and that's assuming that people even realise that there is a tram because it's Out Of Sight Out Of Mind.

To bring this back on topic, maybe there's an argument that, if the tram line replaces the current four lane road, there'd be scope to put a couple of bay platforms west of the current Platform 1, giving extra capacity at the northern end of the station? Handy for any new services...

 

[Meerkat]

Doing all that work and still leaving the tram an open walk away from the station!!
If they are putting the ring road on the other side of the station can they rebuild the cutting to four track whilst smashing the whole area up?

 

[ohgoditsjames]

Who what where how and why?



Can you post any documentation /news on this. Its passed me by.

The summary document is here

http://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/documents/s38895/Midland Station Development Framework Summary.pdf

 

[Haydn1971]

Need to find the drawing out that I did in 1994 when I worked at SCC and were looking for DfT funding, it wasn’t much different to the plans from 1968/71 for the A61(M) - More here on my website.

http://www.haydnvernals.co.uk/roads/urbanmot.htm

 

[D365]

My pitch would be to use the area at Victoria Station to form a triangle, run a spur down Furnival Road, up Exchange Street, Haymarket, Pond Street, Brown Street, Sylvester Street, Fitzwilliam Gate, Glossop Road, terminate at the Hallamshire. A simple chord near the Tram Depot gives a link to Meadowhall, a chord near Rutland Road could give you a potential route to the Northern General. Limited impact on the current tram, huge new generators of passengers at the two hospitals.

Thoughts ?

That sounds a bit of a round-and-about route!

If they are putting the ring road on the other side of the station can they rebuild the cutting to four track whilst smashing the whole area up?

One would hope that the resiting of the A61 dual carriageway to the rear of the station would enable this. Perhaps hide an extra platform underneath the embankment?

 

[edwin_m]

One would hope that the resiting of the A61 dual carriageway to the rear of the station would enable this. Perhaps hide an extra platform underneath the embankment?

Is it a dual carriageway in re-built form? The document linked a few posts back seemed to suggest no wider than the current tram tracks, which would also fit with the agenda of reducing road traffic. Buses to the bus station wouldn't need to use it and I think the parking changes would divert some car park journeys too.

If this is so then gouging out a space underneath for a new platform looks a lot more difficult than just replacing the tramline (which I think was previously a road) with a road.

 

[johnnychips]

Is it a dual carriageway in re-built form? The document linked a few posts back seemed to suggest no wider than the current tram tracks, which would also fit with the agenda of reducing road traffic. Buses to the bus station wouldn't need to use it and I think the parking changes would divert some car park journeys too.

If this is so then gouging out a space underneath for a new platform looks a lot more difficult than just replacing the tramline (which I think was previously a road) with a road.

The picture I have seen suggests a dual carriageway with a central barrier. If the pathway is maintained next to the station wall, it is 12m from that to the far edge of the opposite pavement. Is that enough room or would the new road encroach on the open land, which is quite steep? If so, expect some opposition from Park Hill residents, who will also expect access to the station and the city to be equally as easy as now. (Declaration of interest: I am one).

 

[traction22]

What Sheffield Station urgently needs is more access at both ends. It's a massive bottleneck.

 

[backontrack]

It's barely a solution, but maybe the best solution (for now) is a single-platform station at Spital Hill called Sheffield Cobweb Bridge? Perhaps a slightly more convenient location than Victoria.

 

[johnnychips]

It's barely a solution, but maybe the best solution (for now) is a single-platform station at Spital Hill called Sheffield Cobweb Bridge? Perhaps a slightly more convenient location than Victoria.

It’s slightly better than Victoria for accessing the centre, but it may be expensive to build (on a bridge over the river) and you still lose connecting passengers for the main line station

 

[backontrack]

It’s slightly better than Victoria for accessing the centre, but it may be expensive to build (on a bridge over the river) and you still lose connecting passengers for the main line station

I was thinking where the bridge crosses the road, but it'd still be difficult. And you would lose connecting passengers, so you'd probably need to run to Meadowhall anyway. It'd be an improvement, mind.

 

[Iskra]

Local campaigners and the MP for Penistone & Stocksbridge have submitted proposals for a share of the £500m 'Restore Your Railway Fund' to reopen the line to Sheffield. Stops are proposed at Neepsend, Wadsley Bridge and Oughtibridge. 3 Tram-trains an hour proposed heading to Sheffield Victoria or Nunnery Square Park & Ride.

(Source: Branchline News 1350, P42)

Incidentally, I went for a 'lockdown walk' from Oughtibridge to Stocksbridge along this line, here is a photo of the current line for anyone who may be interested:

 

[HST43257]

I can’t see a dedicated thread for this, so here it is. The route from Sheffield to Penistone via Deepcar is part of the old Woodhead route, as most will know. The route from Sheffield to Stocksbridge still exists (albeit on a single line with loops) for the purposes of the steel industry I believe. Deepcar to Penistone is now a cycle path.

Let’s imagine the line is built in some form. What if there was a suburban network in Sheffield, with services out to various heavy rail locations, mainly on the existing network. Similar to an S-Bahn (or a Shef-Bahn). This could be in the form of a Chesterfield to Stocksbridge/Penistone service, with a tram interchange at Nunnery Square. The Worksop (and beyond) service to Sheffield service would still go into Sheffield Midland if capacity allows. The route has already been put against the Altnabreac criteria, getting at least a solid 4.5 out of 5.


My next question is, which route? For me, there’s 4 options:

Option 1: Use the entire Sheffield to Penistone route, serving Stocksbridge through a station the other side of Deepcar. This would mean a 2-3 mile walk for many. A bus could help but not desirable for most commuters.

Option 2: Use the Sheffield to Deepcar section, then use the freight line into Stocksbridge, where the train finishes. Serves Stocksbridge but not one for those with branchphobia.

Option 3: Option 2, but curve off to the right and head on a new alignment of a little under 2 miles towards Penistone, somehow fighting the issue of pretty steep gradients en route.

Option 4: Options 1 and 2, with the Worksop (and beyond) services also going this way, or double the service on the Barrow Hill line.

 

[zwk500]

Would this not be a good option for tram-trains, given the frequently cited problems at Sheffield Victoria being in a bad place for serving the city itself? You could take a spur off just east of the triangular junction, curve round to meet the freight branch and have 2 independent single lines. Maybe tram-trains all the way out to stocksbridge would be pushing it.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Penistone is a pretty small place, so even if the alignment was unblocked (the A616 Stocksbridge bypass breaches the route) you'd hard-pushed to make a business case to extend the line that far. Especially given that it is already served by trains to and from Sheffield (albeit via an indirect route via Barnsley).

For Stocksbridge itself, I'd argue that tram-train would be a better option for a number of reasons: Firstly, the housing in Stocksbridge and Deepcar is mostly up the valley sides but the railway is in the bottom- the hill-climbing ability of trams or tram-trains would give the option of terminating closer to the centres of population. Secondly, getting a heavy rail service into Midland station would be tricky and time-consuming (with a reversal required), and there isn't much (if any) capacity for extra services into Midland from the North. A relatively short chord would allow tram-trains to access the existing tram network and serve the city centre.

@zwk500 Surely the whole point of using tram-trains is that you wouldn't need independent lines to keep the trams segregated from the steel trains? If you had two independent lines you could use standard tram vehicles.

 

[MarkyT]

Would this not be a good option for tram-trains, given the frequently cited problems at Sheffield Victoria being in a bad place for serving the city itself? You could take a spur off just east of the triangular junction, curve round to meet the freight branch and have 2 independent single lines. Maybe tram-trains all the way out to stocksbridge would be pushing it.

Another idea could be to create a new link across the valley between the branch and the existing tram network around Hilsborough/Middlewood: Maybe on-street along Leppings Lane from Wadsley Bridge, or via a new dedicated rail bridge over the river further north.

I'm going to reserve judgement on whether routes can be intrinsically 'too long' for tram-trains until I've ridden Cardiff's metro network. I suspect that the environment in that stock will be largely indistinguishable from lighter weight modern MU stock, and just like such MUs there will be options for interior layout of items such as seating and whether toilets are provided etc. Of great interest will be whether the slightly heavier running gear of the tram-train concept will result in a better ride at speed on dedicated track than the standard high floor tram-based stock of Manchester's Metrolink for example. Of course tram-train in Sheffield means low floor to be compatible with stops on the existing city tram network. I've yet to ride the Rotherham operation, something definitely on my post lockdown travel list, but I suspect the distance at higher speed on reserved track is not sufficient to make much of a judgement about ride quality of the Citylinks.

 

[YorksLad12]

Tram or tram-train for me. How you get from Middlewood P&R to the train tracks I know not though; and if there was any money in extending the tram to Deepcar it would have been done by now, if only to head off the people who want to see Penistone to Victoria services revived

 

[zwk500]

Surely the whole point of using tram-trains is that you wouldn't need independent lines to keep the trams segregated from the steel trains? If you had two independent lines you could use standard tram vehicles.

Maybe, it depends on the crashworthiness requirements and different maintenance costs. The point of a tram-train is that you get train speeds (ish) over longer distances that can still street run. There's a few examples in the UK where heavy rail has 2 indepedent single lines, 1 for passenger and 1 for freight mainly in Scotland.

 

[MarkyT]

Maybe, it depends on the crashworthiness requirements and different maintenance costs. The point of a tram-train is that you get train speeds (ish) over longer distances that can still street run. There's a few examples in the UK where heavy rail has 2 indepedent single lines, 1 for passenger and 1 for freight mainly in Scotland.

I'd say keeping the freight and passenger largely separate on their own single lines (with suitable passing loop provision) would be positive for operational performance, although having the capability for light/heavy track sharing at certain critical junction locations could avoid the need for very expensive full grade separation. A freight could then plausibly run at any time with only short margins required for crossing at the tram intersections.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Maybe, it depends on the crashworthiness requirements and different maintenance costs. The point of a tram-train is that you get train speeds (ish) over longer distances that can still street run. There's a few examples in the UK where heavy rail has 2 indepedent single lines, 1 for passenger and 1 for freight mainly in Scotland.

The differing crashworthiness requirements are the key difference between vehicles being classified as tram-trains or trams. Standard tram vehicles can be specified with the ability to run at higher speeds if that is required by the operator, particularly if running on a segregated alignment at those higher speeds. As for which would be the better option for serving Stockbridge it would likely depend on the planned service pattern: segregated single lines would offer less flexibility and capacity, but would reduce the cost per vehicle (though this is probably a lesser factor in Sheffield's case as they already operate suitable vehicles to run on a shared line).

 

[edwin_m]

The differing crashworthiness requirements are the key difference between vehicles being classified as tram-trains or trams. Standard tram vehicles can be specified with the ability to run at higher speeds if that is required by the operator, particularly if running on a segregated alignment at those higher speeds. As for which would be the better option for serving Stockbridge it would likely depend on the planned service pattern: segregated single lines would offer less flexibility and capacity, but would reduce the cost per vehicle (though this is probably a lesser factor in Sheffield's case as they already operate suitable vehicles to run on a shared line).

The higher speed may need a higher-spec set of running gear for the tram, which would incur some of the extra costs of a tram-train.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The higher speed may need a higher-spec set of running gear for the tram, which would incur some of the extra costs of a tram-train.

Of course, as with anything a higher spec will lead to a higher price. My point was that if a tramway had a requirement for running at 75mph or so but had no shared infrastructure with heavy rail, they wouldn't necessarily be restricted to ordering tram-train vehicles if a manufacturer was prepared to meet their requirements with a conventional tram.

 

[D365]

I'd say keeping the freight and passenger largely separate on their own single lines (with suitable passing loop provision) would be positive for operational performance, although having the capability for light/heavy track sharing at certain critical junction locations could avoid the need for very expensive full grade separation. A freight could then plausibly run at any time with only short margins required for crossing at the tram intersections.

Tyne & Wear Metro would have to disagree with you there

 

[30907]

Three relevant threads in this sub-forum in the last year or so (I haven't gone back further!):

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...r-no-progress-made.209529/page-2#post-4796798

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...sion-to-light-rail-lines.205054/#post-4606148

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...even-if-not-viable.199491/page-2#post-4539310

 

[SuperNova]

It's quite embarrassing that Huddersfield to Sheffield takes significantly longer now than it did in the 70's and 80's, so any sort of improvement in that journey time would be extremely welcome.

Penistone is a pretty small place, so even if the alignment was unblocked (the A616 Stocksbridge bypass breaches the route) you'd hard-pushed to make a business case to extend the line that far. Especially given that it is already served by trains to and from Sheffield (albeit via an indirect route via Barnsley).

Penistone has circa 25k population. I wouldn't say that's small.

 

[Martin23230]

It should be mentioned that Sheffield to Stocksbridge via Deepcar was one of the routes submitted by the Sheffield City Region to the Restoring Your Railways fund last year, and it was rejected.

However Sheffield to Chesterfield via Barrow Hill was chosen to move onto the next stage. So that rather suggests that, if anything, the priority is first for the Barrow Hill route and then possibly extending services up the Don Valley line in the future. Indeed you can read the Barrow Hill application here, which mentions the other proposal three times:

Another component of the restoration scheme will be to upgrade the existing freight link from Nunnery Square towards the Sheffield Victoria station site, thus enabling potential onward connections on the Don Valley line

It was widely recognised that Sheffield Midland is close to capacity and that the arrival of HS2/NPR would place additional demands at the station. Opening up both the Barrow Hill line and Don Valley line could therefore present an opportunity to create a new “Sheffield Hub” at either Nunnery Square or Sheffield Victoria where services could allow Sheffield-bound passengers to alight.

The reinstatement of the Barrow Hill line will help to retain this level of service at a local and regional level, offering onward connections to Nottingham and Huddersfield (see separate bid for Don Valley Line).

So it's clear restoring services on the Don Valley line is definitely on the agenda (sadly SCR haven't made that report public, presumably because they still want to resubmit it in the future). However first the aim is to reopen stations on the Barrow Hill line and get a service from Chesterfield through to Nunnery Square and eventually on to Victoria. Then maybe there will be a case for continuing up the Don Valley line to Stocksbridge/Penistone/Huddersfield.

Three relevant threads in this sub-forum in the last year or so (I haven't gone back further!):

More relevant is this one from just over a year ago: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...and-will-it-happen-even-if-not-viable.199491/. tbtc goes into great depth about the problems with restoring services to Stocksbridge, it's well worth a read.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's quite embarrassing that Huddersfield to Sheffield takes significantly longer now than it did in the 70's and 80's, so any sort of improvement in that journey time would be extremely welcome.

Penistone has circa 25k population. I wouldn't say that's small.

25k? Obviously I could have googled that and didn't, but if I had I'm not sure I'd have believed it! I'd have thought 7-8k tops. I do wonder how large the area is that is considered Penistone in order to arrive at that figure. See also the population figure for Bradford, which includes places as distant as Keighley.

The Huddersfield to Sheffield service takes so long largely because of the awkward dogleg to Barnsley, but then on the plus side it now also serves Meadowhall, and terminates at the correct station in Sheffield without the crew having to change ends away from a platform.