Could we see increased capacity and frequency on the Hope Valley?

[Philip]

In view of the desire for another fast service along the Hope Valley, but with track capacity/signalling currently preventing this, would a skip-stop arrangement between 3 semi-fast services, similar to the Man Airport and Standedge lines, be a good solution for adding more capacity to the Manchester to Sheffield stretch?

The Northern stopper would be cut back and instead run as a shuttle to New Mills Central or Chinley. However, three trains per hour would call at Stockport, then onwards to New Mills South Junction and then each would call at 3 stations between there and Sheffield. Something like:

1. Chinley, Edale, Hope
2. Chinley, Bamford, Dore
3. Hathersage, Grindleford, Dore

These would be the existing TPE and EMR services, with the additional one perhaps operated by Northern to Sheffield only. Class 185s and 195s would be used to ensure rapid acceleration from the stations and minimal station dwell times. The disadvantages of losing the all-stops service, removal of direct trains between Sheffield/Hope Valley and the Marple line and the moderate slowing down of journey times between Manchester and Sheffield would be beset by more capacity for Manchester-Sheffield and Dore and Chinley passengers than at present and a more frequent meaningful service (ie. not including one that takes nearly 2 hours!). Well thought-out ticket planning could allow for permitted connections such as Chinley-Grindleford via Dore or Sheffield.

Are there any major drawbacks to this idea? Would this conflict with the freight path any more than the current services do?

 

[ohgoditsjames]

Am I reading this correctly? You want Dore, Grindleford, Hathersage, Bamford Hope, Edale to no longer be serviced directly from Sheffield and only form one direction back towards Sheffield from the Manchester end?

On a purely selfish note, this would completely kill the Peak District ale trail

 

[Philip]

Am I reading this correctly? You want Dore, Grindleford, Hathersage, Bamford Hope, Edale to no longer be serviced directly from Sheffield and only form one direction back towards Sheffield from the Manchester end?

On a purely selfish note, this would completely kill the Peak District ale trail

No all of those stations would be served by trains in the Sheffield-Manchester direction, but with a skip-stop arrangement between three trains rather than one train calling at all stops.

Regarding the ale trail; the ale trail on the Standedge line didn't stop them from making it skip stop. The idea of this is that it may free up enough capacity for a third (semi-fast) service between Manchester and Sheffield, as well providing more capacity for Dore and Chinley.

 

[RT4038]

More carriages on the existing trains would provide more capacity without increasing the operating costs.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

More carriages on the existing trains would provide more capacity without increasing the operating costs.

Do track access charges, vehicle leasing charges, fuel and maintenance not count as ‘operating costs’?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Do track access charges, vehicle leasing charges, fuel and maintenance not count as ‘operating costs’?

Add in station access charges too .....

 

[nw1]

Does this route need any more fast services? There are already two per hour I think, are any more really needed?

Why not just make the existing fast services longer to increase capacity? I don't really understand this desire to have hyper-frequent services between the northern cities when it disrupts the local stopping service (see the Manchester-Leeds corridor). Moderate-frequency services using longer trains would surely solve overcrowding problems effectively. This route presumably used hauled services of 6-8 carriages in the 80s (before my time; used the route regularly in the mid-late 90s when the stoppers were the domain of 101s and Pacers and the fasts were 2-3 car 158s) so 6-8 car MU formations would surely be possible nowadays.

Separation into proper fasts and local stoppers is IMO the best way to run the service on this sort of line, as the long-distance passengers are not held up by calls at the shacks, and local passengers can do local journeys.

The only stations I have used on this line several times are Edale and Hope so can't comment too much on the others, but for one thing, an all-station stopper permits linear walks from any one local station to any other, which in a national park is a desirable thing.

 

[RT4038]

Do track access charges, vehicle leasing charges, fuel and maintenance not count as ‘operating costs’?

Without the additional operating costs of more drivers/conductors and finding additional paths etc.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Does this route need any more fast services? There are already two per hour I think, are any more really needed?

I think Transport for the North are aiming for 6 fast services as part of NPR!

NPR services are to be 200m long as well!

I don't know how the capacity for this is going to materialize!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think Transport for the North are aiming for 6 fast services as part of NPR!

NPR services are to be 200m long as well!

I don't know how the capacity for this is going to materialize!

By building NPR, a new route. Not stuffing them down the Hope Valley.

 

[cle]

People don't understand that getting folks out of cars and increasing rail commuting in the north means better local services, especially in Manchester which doesn't have the same city rail network mentality as Liverpool or Glasgow. Having 4tph fast to Leeds/Liverpool and 2-3tph fast to Sheffield should be plenty, if they are long trains. It shouldn't be at the expense of growing local ridership, which is much more sustainable towards green goals and congestion reduction.

 

[py_megapixel]

There are several drawbacks to this idea. Enough in my opinion to make it unworkable.

Firstly it's confusing, messy and precludes shorter journeys without going into the big cities.

Secondly, it involves giving local stops to long-distance services - specifically, a long-distance service which has to contest with the Castlefield corridor. Doing this is what wrecked the reliability of the Manchester Airport line (which the other long-distance service is therefore indirectly affected by) and to some extent also the Alderley Edge stopper.

Thirdly, it seems to leave New Mills Central without its Sheffield service, which makes it pretty pointless as Newtown is faster and more frequent towards Manchester.

Fourthly, there is no capacity for an additional service out of Manchester towards Stockport - unless you're proposing it should replace, and take on the calls of, the Hazel Grove service, which would be even worse because it would also have to go through Castlefield.

 

[30907]

This route presumably used hauled services of 6-8 carriages in the 80s (before my time; used the route regularly in the mid-late 90s when the stoppers were the domain of 101s and Pacers and the fasts were 2-3 car 158s) so 6-8 car MU formations would surely be possible nowadays.

My memory is 3-car DMUs then 4-car (?5) hauled services (apart from the Harwich-Manchester and a couple of Scottish services which were longer - depends on the year a bit!).
But yes - TPE are (at least in theory) running 6 cars and EMR 4 with similar capacity.

 

[Philip]

There are several drawbacks to this idea. Enough in my opinion to make it unworkable.

Firstly it's confusing, messy and precludes shorter journeys without going into the big cities.

Secondly, it involves giving local stops to long-distance services - specifically, a long-distance service which has to contest with the Castlefield corridor. Doing this is what wrecked the reliability of the Manchester Airport line (which the other long-distance service is therefore indirectly affected by) and to some extent also the Alderley Edge stopper.

Thirdly, it seems to leave New Mills Central without its Sheffield service, which makes it pretty pointless as Newtown is faster and more frequent towards Manchester.

Fourthly, there is no capacity for an additional service out of Manchester towards Stockport - unless you're proposing it should replace, and take on the calls of, the Hazel Grove service, which would be even worse because it would also have to go through Castlefield.

The Hazel Grove shuttles will probably be starting from Manchester in the proposed timetable, so Castlefield won't be a problem if extending one of the Hazel Grove shuttles.

New Mills Central leans more towards Marple and Romiley than it does to Sheffield, and the connection between these stations wouldn't be affected, so it would still serve a purpose.

Adding 3 stops to the fast services wouldn't be a huge time penalty, particularly when using fast accelerating DMUs with good door arrangements. Besides there have been calls for Dore to be served regularly by one of the current fast services. It's whether you think a journey time increase of about 10 minutes is outweighed by a more frequent and useful service pattern on the core market of Manchester to Sheffield. The impact on the local stations having a skip-stopping pattern wouldn't be ideal, but on the other hand it may improve overall reliability of the line by removing a very slow service which currently holds up the fast services from time to time.

 

[The Planner]

10 minutes wouldn't be taken lightly.

 

[cle]

And unless bi-modes, Hazel Grove shuttles should be EMU run too.

 

[g22]

If a 3rd fast train per hour is eventually introduced does anyone know whether it would be approx 20 min interval departures from Sheffield or would the current times stay as they are with a 3rd departure fitted in somehow?

 

[adrock1976]

If a 3rd fast train per hour is eventually introduced does anyone know whether it would be approx 20 min interval departures from Sheffield or would the current times stay as they are with a 3rd departure fitted in somehow?

In the other Hope Valley thread somewhere, I have mentioned before that what would be ideal for the third fast is Manchester Pic main shed - Nottingham calling Stockport, Hazel Grove, Chinley (or Romiley, New Mills Central, Chinley), then via Dore South Curve calling Chesterfield, Alfreton, Toton Interchange for HS2 (or Belper, Derby - maybe post HS2), Beeston, Nottingham.

This is taking into consideration the present day Liverpool - Norwich being split and revised to run Liverpool - Hull via Sheffield and Doncaster, with the Liverpool - Cleethorpes via Sheffield, Doncaster, and Scunthorpe providing the existing 30 minute frequency between Manchester Pic and Sheffield.

Also, the dog leg Leeds - Lincoln to be broken at Sheffield, with the Leeds - Sheffield continuing to Nottingham via Alfreton, maintaining the 2tph Sheffield - Nottingham via Alfreton.

 

[Killingworth]

If a 3rd fast train per hour is eventually introduced does anyone know whether it would be approx 20 min interval departures from Sheffield or would the current times stay as they are with a 3rd departure fitted in somehow?

Simply, no.

With an intended half hourly service soon to be introduced from Sheffield to Liverpool that would be difficult. The Liverpool - Nottingham/Norwich also forms part of the half hourly service between Sheffield and Nottingham.

Which is partly why I've introduced the idea of an extended stopper from New Mills which would require no extra path into Piccadilly but would still need to be threaded into Sheffield. Maybe fitting in stops at either Chinley, Hope and/or Dore. It wouldn't be so vulnerable to distant delays and could still provide quicker journeys than waiting for the next fast service, especially when delayed.

You have to be a user of the route to understand how poor timekeeping pre-Covid had become. When planning faster timetables they need to be more achievable and robust.

 

[cle]

In the other Hope Valley thread somewhere, I have mentioned before that what would be ideal for the third fast is Manchester Pic main shed - Nottingham calling Stockport, Hazel Grove, Chinley (or Romiley, New Mills Central, Chinley), then via Dore South Curve calling Chesterfield, Alfreton, Toton Interchange for HS2 (or Belper, Derby - maybe post HS2), Beeston, Nottingham.

This is taking into consideration the present day Liverpool - Norwich being split and revised to run Liverpool - Hull via Sheffield and Doncaster, with the Liverpool - Cleethorpes via Sheffield, Doncaster, and Scunthorpe providing the existing 30 minute frequency between Manchester Pic and Sheffield.

Also, the dog leg Leeds - Lincoln to be broken at Sheffield, with the Leeds - Sheffield continuing to Nottingham via Alfreton, maintaining the 2tph Sheffield - Nottingham via Alfreton.

But that isn't happening re the Liverpool. It is Liverpool-Nottingham (+ Derby-Norwich) - nothing is planned for Hull. And Cleethorpes on the other side.

I think it's fair to say we don't need to plan for Toton either right now, if ever.

 

[Jozhua]

Eventually I'd like to see a service that heads straight towards Nottingham/Derbyshire because that would be a significant time saving for us. Even if it was once every two hours, just a fast service available to hop on and get to Manchester in a good time.

The extra hourly service will also make for more options in terms of connections, which should improve journey times too, as well as generally reducing the amount of time you're waiting on the platforms.

 

[Killingworth]

Thanks Killingworth!

Reliability is important, so I'm glad to hear that is improving too. Eventually I'd like to see a service that heads straight towards Nottingham/Derbyshire because that would be a significant time saving for us. Even if it was once every two hours, just a fast service available to hop on and get to Manchester in a good time.

The extra hourly service will also make for more options in terms of connections, which should improve journey times too, as well as generally reducing the amount of time you're waiting on the platforms.

Network Rail won't consider any new paths in the Manchester area until the new service pattern has bedded in. Even then bringing extra regular trains through to Chinley by either route will be challenging .

However the biggest issue for a service that would bypass Sheffield via the new Dore loop and curve is that it's designed to hold freight services moving between the Hope Valley and the MML Those movements are a major impediment to current services.

It's not only the trains that run but those that are pathed to run to cover variable freight demand. Less than half of those actually run but passenger services can't ignore them.

As an example, the 13.14 stopping train from Sheffield skip stops to get out of the way of two potential workings of empty wagons from either Barrow Hilll or Toton to Hope or Buxton. Those trains may have run once or twice this year. More passengers have caught that 13.14 and found it sail through Dore without stopping and had to return from Grindleford! (It did stop last Thursday, probably because the driver also assumed it should Nobody got off or on.)

I'd discount one proposal that the mainline platforms at Dore should be rebuilt to allow restoration of junction station interchanges between Hope Valley and MML services.

 

[evergreenadam]

Poor service reliabilty and lack of train capacity overcome the benefit of a fast advertised timetable, particularly when you find your train doesn't run at all, is very late, or totally full when it arrives. Currently the biggest problem is that EMR don't have the rolling stock and crews to operate their full regular hourly service 7 days a week and with 4 carriages. Fortunately TPE are providing their half of the fast service with 6 cars on most of their hourly trains.

Northern's hourly stopping service may take 25 minutes longer end to end but is increasingly popular, especially now Pacers have gone and 195s more than keep to their timings. Check out comparitive single fares for the three on a Saturday morning to see another reason why they're so busy. Any significant problem on the other two can throw the load to them, and quite often does.

The stopping timetable could probably be tightened a little with 195s. TPE's heavyweight 185 timings could also be improved if they could fully use their 100mph speed capability, but with RA5 they're limited to 80, whereas EMR's lighter 158s seem to be RA2 and can run to their maximum 90. A mess!

Apparently significant parts of the Hope Valley line, probably almost all of it, would require heavier rails, better sleepers and trackbed work to make it suitable to run 185s faster. Running at 100 through the long, wet and old Totley, Cowburn and Disley tunnels seems an unlikely prospect. Further signalling improvements west of Bamford are supposed to be happening but will probably take a decade or more. None of this is part of the current scheme but needs to be given greater priority.

The franchise tendering process has led to TOCs making bids that are very difficult to operate reliably. That has contributed to this situation - but there must be another thread for that!

Making service frequency enhancement promises that they can’t/don’t then deliver is another problem - see Greater Anglia.

 

[Killingworth]

Making service frequency enhancement promises that they can’t/don’t then deliver is another problem - see Greater Anglia.

Which is why we probably won't hear any firm details of a third fast (or any extra) Manchester - Sheffield service for quite some time. The original plan for 4 was wildly over optimistic.

 

[cle]

If they can intensify the inner services on the Manchester end, then 3 fast and 1-2 slow-er should be just plenty. Assuming they are all 4 cars minimum in future, hopefully longer. Hopefully Dore will enable some better pathing and passing.

 

[Jozhua]

Network Rail won't consider any new paths in the Manchester area until the new service pattern has bedded in. Even then bringing extra regular trains through to Chinley by either route will be challenging .

However the biggest issue for a service that would bypass Sheffield via the new Dore loop and curve is that it's designed to hold freight services moving between the Hope Valley and the MML Those movements are a major impediment to current services.

It's not only the trains that run but those that are pathed to run to cover variable freight demand. Less than half of those actually run but passenger services can't ignore them.

As an example, the 13.14 stopping train from Sheffield skip stops to get out of the way of two potential workings of empty wagons from either Barrow Hilll or Toton to Hope or Buxton. Those trains may have run once or twice this year. More passengers have caught that 13.14 and found it sail through Dore without stopping and had to return from Grindleford! (It did stop last Thursday, probably because the driver also assumed it should Nobody got off or on.)

I'd discount one proposal that the mainline platforms at Dore should be rebuilt to allow restoration of junction station interchanges between Hope Valley and MML services.

Perhaps just run the extra one as a shuttle from Stockport? Plenty frequent service between Stockport and Manchester, although that extra time for changing may wipe out journey time improvements...

Either way, the scheme should improve reliability and it will always be a chicken and egg situation in terms of which comes first...

Eventually things will get better in terms of capacity to Manchester due to HS2 moving those 2 XC and 2 WCML services per hour to the new Piccadilly low level. Once NPR comes online that should eliminate the need for trains crossing the Ordsall Chord and hopefully allow for it to finally be demolished.

 

[plugwash]

Aside from the extra change on some journeys being unappealing to passengers, there is also the issue that Stockport isn't really set up for that. Afaict if a train arrives from the south and wants to reverse it has to drop in platfrom 3 or maybe 4, then reverse on the up fast line on the viaduct back into platform 1 or 2 to pick up for it's return journey.

 

[edwin_m]

Aside from the extra change on some journeys being unappealing to passengers, there is also the issue that Stockport isn't really set up for that. Afaict if a train arrives from the south and wants to reverse it has to drop in platfrom 3 or maybe 4, then reverse on the up fast line on the viaduct back into platform 1 or 2 to pick up for it's return journey.

Indeed, this probably won't work unless and until the long-term aspiration actually happens, of making Edgeley Junctions to Slade Lane "paired by use".

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Aside from the extra change on some journeys being unappealing to passengers, there is also the issue that Stockport isn't really set up for that. Afaict if a train arrives from the south and wants to reverse it has to drop in platfrom 3 or maybe 4, then reverse on the up fast line on the viaduct back into platform 1 or 2 to pick up for it's return journey.

I think the more frequently used shunt is northwards to Heaton Norris then back on the up to platform 0,1 or 2.

I agree, a chnge would be unattractive to many passengers

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

I don't get the obsession with all Sheffield service having to serve Stockport, when there is spare capacity available via Marple. Reconfiguration of Stockport to Piccadilly to 'pair by use' poses significant problems for serving Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme, unless there is major reconstruction to relocate the up platforms. The handy cross-platform interchange at Stockport between fast and slow services would also be lost. The capacity problem is going to go away in any case, when (and if) HS2 is built.