D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,195
Unless you (somehow) extend the Purple tram and upgrade it to 5tph, there's no point using Victoria for anything.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Woodhead Tunnel reopening
- Thread starter Philip
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,891
I still maintain that reopening Buxton to Matlock would be a really beneficial route - you could run a local service that would really boost connectivity between the local towns, yet provide a very similar journey time from Derby to Manchester as the existing express journey via Sheffield. Plus it would be a single seat trip!
Plus, it would be great for freight
Wrong on pretty much all of the above and you can add in it would mean the removal of the Monsal Trail which is a well used cycling / walking route.
It would be useless for freight, because freight tends to be slower moving which means it doesn't work well with regular passenger stoppers. And if you did reopen Buxton - Matlock, freight off there then has to go somewhere - either an already congested MML or the already congested routes around / through Manchester.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Maybe people should stop seeing Woodhead as primarily a passenger line from Sheffield to Manchester - my understanding is that significantly more traffic on the route was freight (e.g. from the Dearne Valley via Barnsley) with a few passenger services tacked on - the heavy freight clearly isn't there any more so what would it be opening for? One passenger service per hour?
Seems a bit of a waste opening new lines unless you're going to run something more frequent than that - unless the idea is that all of the Hope Valley "fasts" would somehow be diverted via Woodhead instead, in which case you lose the connectivity at Stockport.
Or, as usual, it's more a case of "re-open it BECAUSE REASONS" (without needing to build a business case)
Are you sure there's space for four tracks all that way?
And you're still sharing the line with Glossop stoppers east of Hyde (bearing in mind that those stoppers may become much more frequent trams/ tram-trains in a few years time)
There's a few things on top of the cutting - I don't think that everyone appreciates just how tight the existing line is between the parkway/ canal etc - plus the height differences that may not be apparent on a map
Victoria would have no capacity trouble, sure, because that'd be the only service there. People baulk at the idea of Birmingham's HS2 station being built right next to Moor Street rather than as part the same station, but seem to be fine with building an isolated station at Sheffield Victoria, a mile away from the Midland station, a fairly dodgy walk too (along the ring road, up the bridge towards the tram junction at Park Hill, not the nicest part of town for strangers and pretty easy to get lost) - Victoria station having no other trains services, ten minutes walk from the nearest tram stop, outside the ring road so not int he city centre - but I guess that people can have a blind spot for Victoria since it was a station in the nineteenth century whilst Curzon Street is a newbuild (albeit slap bang next to Moor Street)
Where would the freight go further south though? Down the busy MML south of Ambergate and through Derby station? Rather than being able to send it down the quieter Erewash and through Toton (where it can sit, undisturbed by passenger services)?
Just feels like we're spending a lot of money to push the problem somewhere else instead (sorry, @AOwen has been faster at typing than I was - and made the same point better!)
...but no faster than some of the current changes available between the four fast Derby - Sheffield trains per hour and the two Sheffield - Manchester services, despite the money you'd be spending on re-opening the Bakewell line.
No major intermediate settlements (Bakewell's population is only a few thousand and the local demand is significantly more for Sheffield/ Chesterfield than all the way to Manchester), no huge demand from Derby to Manchester (the two bus services have been cut - the X1 via Ashbourne scrapped a long time ago and the TP via Bakewell generally doesn't go beyond Buxton) - just because there are two places on a map doesn't mean there's going to be a lot of demand to get between them.
I've said before that the Leamside line gets suggested as something that can serve several problems in theory but once built can only really do one job (it could be a fast alternative to the twisty ECML through Durham or it could be a Metro extension but not both) - same here - one minute the Bakewell line is going to be just used for freight, the next it's going to be fast St Pancras services to Manchester to compete with the WCML - it's going to be single track to accommodate the Mosall Trail but also have plenty of space for passenger trains to overtake freight... it's magic, just as long as you don't think about the inherent contradictions too much!)
Seems a bit of a waste opening new lines unless you're going to run something more frequent than that - unless the idea is that all of the Hope Valley "fasts" would somehow be diverted via Woodhead instead, in which case you lose the connectivity at Stockport.
Or, as usual, it's more a case of "re-open it BECAUSE REASONS" (without needing to build a business case)
Are you sure there's space for four tracks all that way?
And you're still sharing the line with Glossop stoppers east of Hyde (bearing in mind that those stoppers may become much more frequent trams/ tram-trains in a few years time)
There's a few things on top of the cutting - I don't think that everyone appreciates just how tight the existing line is between the parkway/ canal etc - plus the height differences that may not be apparent on a map
Victoria would have no capacity trouble, sure, because that'd be the only service there. People baulk at the idea of Birmingham's HS2 station being built right next to Moor Street rather than as part the same station, but seem to be fine with building an isolated station at Sheffield Victoria, a mile away from the Midland station, a fairly dodgy walk too (along the ring road, up the bridge towards the tram junction at Park Hill, not the nicest part of town for strangers and pretty easy to get lost) - Victoria station having no other trains services, ten minutes walk from the nearest tram stop, outside the ring road so not int he city centre - but I guess that people can have a blind spot for Victoria since it was a station in the nineteenth century whilst Curzon Street is a newbuild (albeit slap bang next to Moor Street)
Where would the freight go further south though? Down the busy MML south of Ambergate and through Derby station? Rather than being able to send it down the quieter Erewash and through Toton (where it can sit, undisturbed by passenger services)?
Just feels like we're spending a lot of money to push the problem somewhere else instead (sorry, @AOwen has been faster at typing than I was - and made the same point better!)
...but no faster than some of the current changes available between the four fast Derby - Sheffield trains per hour and the two Sheffield - Manchester services, despite the money you'd be spending on re-opening the Bakewell line.
No major intermediate settlements (Bakewell's population is only a few thousand and the local demand is significantly more for Sheffield/ Chesterfield than all the way to Manchester), no huge demand from Derby to Manchester (the two bus services have been cut - the X1 via Ashbourne scrapped a long time ago and the TP via Bakewell generally doesn't go beyond Buxton) - just because there are two places on a map doesn't mean there's going to be a lot of demand to get between them.
I've said before that the Leamside line gets suggested as something that can serve several problems in theory but once built can only really do one job (it could be a fast alternative to the twisty ECML through Durham or it could be a Metro extension but not both) - same here - one minute the Bakewell line is going to be just used for freight, the next it's going to be fast St Pancras services to Manchester to compete with the WCML - it's going to be single track to accommodate the Mosall Trail but also have plenty of space for passenger trains to overtake freight... it's magic, just as long as you don't think about the inherent contradictions too much!)
Hey 3
Member
Speaking of the Bakewell route(Monsal Dale line), it would also provide a longer diversion to Sheffield without capacity restrictions at either end
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,729
<copy and paste>Diversionary route capability does not make a large dent in a business case</copy and paste>
Hey 3
Member
Yes I know that, in fact it boosts a business case
geordieblue
Member
OT, but Leamside could conceivably be used for both Metro and one or two heavy rail paths each hour, probably freight. You're right in that it can't really speed up the ECML though.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,729
By a very small amount, it won't tip it into "yes, lets build it"
Greybeard33
Established Member
But in order to get to the Erewash Valley, southbound freight from the Hope Valley has to use the 2-track MML from Dore to Chesterfield, which by my count is busier than the line from Ambergate to Derby. Or loop round to the north via Sheffield and Beighton, adding to congestion in Sheffield station.
To head south at Dore, the heavy freights have to cross the two flat junctions at Dore West and Dore South and crawl round the Dore South curve on a steeply rising gradient. Regulation approaching Dore can mean they have to restart uphill through Totley tunnel. See this post for an illustration of the issues:
Southbound cement trains from Hope could head west along the Hope Valley to go round through Peak Forest to Matlock, instead of reversing at Earles Sidings to climb up west to Dore.
Hope Valley stone and cement trains can cause delays on the MML as well as on the Hope Valley line itself. These will be only partly mitigated by the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme. Diversion of this traffic via Matlock could improve punctuality performance far and wide across the North and the Midlands.
tbtc
Veteran Member
A longer diversion to Sheffield ... but from where? Are you talking about services running from London/Birmingham - Derby - Matlock - Bakewell - Buxton - Hope - Sheffield, if the line through Chesterfield is busy?
Much quicker to put people on the M1 on the handful of occasions a year that you can't use the Erewash and the Old Road via Beighton at the same time as the line through Ambergate/ Dronfield is closed.
Or are you talking diversions from somewhere else?
Agreed - and I'd be fine if they treated it like the Pelaw - Sunderland line - with a small amount of heavy rail mixed in amongst the Metro services, probably going at a fairly similar speed to the Metro services - I just get frustrated when a line is suggested as ticking every box (when, in reality, it has to be one thing or the other) - the Bakewell line could be used for slow lumbering freight trains or it could be used for long distance passenger trains but not both
I agree that the route through the Dore chord and Chesterfield is a problem, it's just that any "solution" is more like Whack-A-Mole, it pushes the problem onto another line, creates another bottleneck - and cement from Hope is going to have to use the Hope Valley line in one direction or the other, so it'll still take up paths (the climb up to Edale doesn't feel as bad as the climb out of the valley from Gindleford towards Dore, but you're still going to slow down any 158/185s behind you)
Greybeard33
Established Member
To an extent, I agree. But looking to the future, there are plans for Dore to see both HS2 trains to London and NPR trains to Manchester. High speed passenger and heavy freight across multiple flat junctions is a planner's nightmare. So I think the Hope Valley mole is more in need of whacking than the Derby one.
Unless of course NPR is routed via Woodhead!
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,914
A reopened Chinley-Matlock line would enable many freights to/from Hope cement to approach or depart from the works in a clockwise movement. This would immediately free up the eastbound main line from many moves which currently block both lines as they weave across. Not a game changer but just another little cog in the wheel.
The Hope Valley is set to become a major player in Northern Powerhouse Rail plans. It will eventually need some serious relieving of freight activity.
Hey 3
Member
Yes, it can be used for that, but also in times of trouble on the Hope Valley Line, beacause they can run to Ambergate and use Ambergate North Curve
Dr Hoo
Established Member
Nice try but there are typically only three 'southbound' cement trains per day - to Dagenham, Theale and Walsall - and one of these usually operates at night.
Killingworth
Established Member
Woodhead is not going to be reopened for all the very logical reasons that are repeatedly given.
In other threads on this subject I've suggested that the only way we can achieve a seriously fast passenger service between Manchester and Sheffield is a tunnel, end to end. It could deviate slightly to provide a deep station at Glossop but otherwise nonstop in a time of 25 minutes, if not less.
However, the cost would be....... extremely high. Current passenger loadings don't justify it. Increased numbers by 2050 (the earliest we'd be likely to see it open) might, but who'd bet on that?
We're stuck with improving the Hope Valley line and 40 minutes on that will be very challenging. Regular users 12 months ago would have setlled for 50 minutes, as long as they all kept to time. Very many didn't. Any thoughts of going lower than 50 need to be tempered with the realities of the slow stretches approaching Sheffield and through Stockport into Piccadilly. The forthcoming Hope Valley Scheme will make a small difference at the Sheffield end.
There are other threads about the Peak route between Ambergate and Buxton. Fuller appraisal of that might be better left until we see how passenger loadings have recovered in 2 or 3 years time.
After 2023/4 we should see the benefits of the Hope Valley Scheme in action. Currently many of the booked freight paths go unused. We don't know whether a 3rd fast passenger service will be introduced and whether it will run every hour, where it may stop and from where to where. By then electrification of the MML and Hope Valley may be seen as more necessary. Add bi-mode freight and passenger traction through unelectrified tunnels and freight yards and the speeds of all traffic can be increased.
By 2040 a 45 minute passenger timing between Sheffield and Manchester may possibly be achieved. Combine that with 4 tph of 6 carriage trains and likely capacity should be achieved with room to spare. If not, increase length to 8!
Still a lot cheaper than reopening Woodhead or the Peak route.
Perish the thought, but by 2050 environmental concerns may have restricted further exploitation of the limestone reserves in the Peak District, and demand for freight paths!
In other threads on this subject I've suggested that the only way we can achieve a seriously fast passenger service between Manchester and Sheffield is a tunnel, end to end. It could deviate slightly to provide a deep station at Glossop but otherwise nonstop in a time of 25 minutes, if not less.
However, the cost would be....... extremely high. Current passenger loadings don't justify it. Increased numbers by 2050 (the earliest we'd be likely to see it open) might, but who'd bet on that?
We're stuck with improving the Hope Valley line and 40 minutes on that will be very challenging. Regular users 12 months ago would have setlled for 50 minutes, as long as they all kept to time. Very many didn't. Any thoughts of going lower than 50 need to be tempered with the realities of the slow stretches approaching Sheffield and through Stockport into Piccadilly. The forthcoming Hope Valley Scheme will make a small difference at the Sheffield end.
There are other threads about the Peak route between Ambergate and Buxton. Fuller appraisal of that might be better left until we see how passenger loadings have recovered in 2 or 3 years time.
After 2023/4 we should see the benefits of the Hope Valley Scheme in action. Currently many of the booked freight paths go unused. We don't know whether a 3rd fast passenger service will be introduced and whether it will run every hour, where it may stop and from where to where. By then electrification of the MML and Hope Valley may be seen as more necessary. Add bi-mode freight and passenger traction through unelectrified tunnels and freight yards and the speeds of all traffic can be increased.
By 2040 a 45 minute passenger timing between Sheffield and Manchester may possibly be achieved. Combine that with 4 tph of 6 carriage trains and likely capacity should be achieved with room to spare. If not, increase length to 8!
Still a lot cheaper than reopening Woodhead or the Peak route.
Perish the thought, but by 2050 environmental concerns may have restricted further exploitation of the limestone reserves in the Peak District, and demand for freight paths!
Last edited:
- Status