How to make Sheffield Victoria an attractive concept

[IanXC]

I was reading Network Rail's Sheffield Area Strategic Advice Refresh 2022 (available here: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/long-term-planning/) and a few things occurred to me. Background being the following three scenarios:

Scenario A
This scenario presents the potential future baseline service specification. It uses the baseline scenario from the 2019 study and adds the following services:
• 1tph Sheffield Midland to Leeds (via Swinton junction and Wakefield Westgate). This service is expected to start running in May 2023.
• 1tph Sheffield Midland to Manchester. This will release the benefits of the upgrades being delivered on the Hope Valley, although requires additional interventions in the Manchester area as well as in the Sheffield area.
• 1tph Sheffield Midland to London terminuses. Two HS2 services are to serve Sheffield from London Euston as stated in the IRP, and one London St Pancras service is removed.
• 1fpph Hope Valley to West Yorkshire freight path. This increases the daily freight path to hourly through Sheffield Midland station to support forecast growth in the rail freight market.
[Goes on to say this is still probably unworkable due to 15/16tph at Nunnery Main Line Junction]

Scenario B
This scenario builds on Scenario A and presents a potential full Restoring Your Railway scenario, if both the Barrow Hill and Don Valley schemes are progressed in full. The changes from Scenario A are:
• A new station is built at Sheffield Victoria1
• 1tph from Sheffield Victoria to Chesterfield station uses the Barrow Hill line
• 1tph from Stocksbridge to Chesterfield via Sheffield Victoria uses the Barrow Hill line
• The hourly Sheffield Midland to Gainsborough is moved to Sheffield Victoria
[Still 14/15tph at Nunnery Main which it says is high risk, introduces new conflicting moves and reduces utilisation of the new Victoria]

Scenario C
This scenario builds on Scenario A and presents where HS2 services are extended through Sheffield towards Leeds. This necessitates the removal of two local services towards Doncaster and replacement with a tram-train extension from Rotherham Parkgate to Doncaster so that connectivity is retained. It includes a 1tph service to Chesterfield via the Barrow Hill line, and an indicative 1tph to Sheffield Victoria is shown as an option. The changes from Scenario A are:
• HS2 services call at Sheffield and extend northwards towards Leeds
• Sheffield Midland to Doncaster and Sheffield Midland to Adwick services are replaced by an extension of tram-train services from Rotherham Parkgate
• 1tph from Sheffield Midland to Chesterfield station using the Barrow Hill line introduced
[Even with the tram-train intervention this is still 16tph at Nunnery Main, and do we really want to get involved with the intricacies of tram-trains going to Adwick?]

Clearly all the above is written on the basis of the high point pre Covid timetable including separate hourly Doncaster, Adwick and Gainsborough stoppers, on the basis that any future growth is likely to result in looking towards the same service additions I'll also proceed on that basis.

My thinking is, that a Sheffield Victoria that has 1tph Stocksbridge-Victoria-Chesterfield is not going to establish a new city centre station, potentially undermining the connectivity benefits of the Reopening Your Railway scheme; nor does the proposed scheme properly address Nunnery Main Line junction; and potentially involves tram trains being extended to Adwick, mixing them with all kinds of other mainline traffic. Plus if the current idea to run Yorkshire's HS2 services via Sheffield Midland then we're going to need a really big plan, not just some tinkering at the edges.

As a set of alternatives:

• Stocksbridge Reopening Your Railway runs 1tph Stocksbridge-Chesterfield as envisaged
• Barrow Hill Reopening Your Railway runs an additional 1tph Sheffield-Chesterfield as envisaged (although there is a desire for this to be Midland, does 1tph from each really work for passengers?)
• Cleethorpes and Gainsborough Central (if/when reintroduced) operates to/from Victoria
• Adwick (and Doncaster if/when reintroduced) operates via Tinsley to Sheffield, calling at a new heavy rail station at Meadowhall South (removing conflicting moves at Holmes and Nunnery Main junctions, and most use of the single track Holmes chord)
• Option to also run Sheffield-Swinton-Leeds stopper and York services from Victoria too, but this may be challenging on the single line section
• New station at Rotherham Masborough with Sheffield-Scarborough, Liverpool-Cleethorpes and (if/when introduced) the extra Leeds semi fast calling

Then there'd be a meaningful reduction in local services at Sheffield Midland, a meaningful set of services at Sheffield Victoria (hopefully achieving a critical mass), maintains (most?) connectivity, and avoids the complications of tram-trains.

I feel like I've missed something here but what do others think of this?

 

[Philip]

It really needs to extend beyond Stocksbridge so that Woodhead can reopen and provide a second (and quicker) route between Manchester and Sheffield, reducing pressure on the Hope Valley. Use the old tunnel which doesn't carry electric wires through it.

 

[zwk500]

It really needs to extend beyond Stocksbridge so that Woodhead can reopen and provide a second (and quicker) route between Manchester and Sheffield, reducing pressure on the Hope Valley. Use the old tunnel which doesn't carry electric wires through it.

The grid cables are now in the new tunnel.

 

[Philip]

The grid cables are now in the new tunnel.

Which means there are two old redundant tunnels just waiting for the rails and the trains to return.

 

[zwk500]

Which means there are two old redundant tunnels just waiting for the rails and the trains to return.

That weren't suitable for 1950s traffic, and are in too bad condition for the National Grid to use. They are in no way 'just waiting' for anything to happen. You would effectively need to backfill them and rebore them out completely. If the railway were to reopen almost certainly the option taken would be to install a new lining in whichever single track tunnel was in better condition and to refurb the 1950s tunnel. But that (together with the other work to rebuild the line from Manchester to Sheffield) is going to cost a similar amount to reworking the Hope Valley to a 3' ETCS headway with OLE.

RYR has pretty much ruled out local trains on the Barrow Hill and Stocksbridge lines, to my understanding, so what is the justification for Victoria? It is important to recognise that something being mentioned as an option in a strategy paper does not mean there is any intent to ever actually do it; they are required for political reasons to include the option in the list. If you got rid of the centre roads at Sheffield and were prepared to sacrifice the middle island you could have a station of 6 or 7 through platforms with some bays next to the concourse. It'd be expensive, as you'd need to rebuild the bridges south of the station, probably put a third track in from Dore to Sheffield and maybe even open out the first few yards of the northern tunnels as well. But it'd be feasible, and far more beneficial.

 

[dosxuk]

That weren't suitable for 1950s traffic, and are in too bad condition for the National Grid to use. They are in no way 'just waiting' for anything to happen. You would effectively need to backfill them and rebore them out completely. If the railway were to reopen almost certainly the option taken would be to install a new lining in whichever single track tunnel was in better condition and to refurb the 1950s tunnel.

While many people seem to believe that the National Grid cables being in the new bore tunnel will prevent it from ever being used for railway purposes again, this is not the case. National Grid stated several times when they announced the project to move* the cables to the new tunnel that if there was a future viable proposal to re-open the route, they would be willing to carry out the work required to refurbish the older tunnels and move* their cables back, freeing up the new tunnel. As for who they expect to pay for that work, I wouldn't like to speculate, but it would likely still be far cheaper than digging a new tunnel on the same alignment.

Personally, I'll be very surprised if in 25 years or so when National Grid need to look at replacing / refurbishing the current cables, there has been any further progress towards reinstating the rail link.

*Everyone says moving the cables, but what they actually mean is installing new cables and then removing the old ones. This is a key reason why National Grid started using the new tunnel - the old tunnels did not have the space to install a new set of cables while the old ones were live, and there was little desire to remove the link completely for the number of years it would take to switch off, remove and replace - especially when there was a nice big tunnel right next door that they already owned and had access to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think a second station in Sheffield city centre would be desirable. Is it not possible to do the work to allow any such reopening to go into Midland? Stocksbridge, as per the thread we had on that a while back, I'd hand over to the trams.

 

[zwk500]

While many people seem to believe that the National Grid cables being in the new bore tunnel will prevent it from ever being used for railway purposes again, this is not the case. National Grid stated several times when they announced the project to move* the cables to the new tunnel that if there was a future viable proposal to re-open the route, they would be willing to carry out the work required to refurbish the older tunnels and move* their cables back, freeing up the new tunnel. As for who they expect to pay for that work, I wouldn't like to speculate, but it would likely still be far cheaper than digging a new tunnel on the same alignment.

Is that not exactly what I said would happen?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 May 2023 ==

I don't think a second station in Sheffield city centre would be desirable. Is it not possible to do the work to allow any such reopening to go into Midland? Stocksbridge, as per the thread we had on that a while back, I'd hand over to the trams.

The issue is Nunnery Main Line Junction. The only real solution to that would be extremely expensive work on the Tunnels at the bottom of the hill. It's technically feasible, but would cost a fortune.

 

[IanXC]

RYR has pretty much ruled out local trains on the Barrow Hill and Stocksbridge lines, to my understanding, so what is the justification for Victoria? It is important to recognise that something being mentioned as an option in a strategy paper does not mean there is any intent to ever actually do it; they are required for political reasons to include the option in the list. If you got rid of the centre roads at Sheffield and were prepared to sacrifice the middle island you could have a station of 6 or 7 through platforms with some bays next to the concourse. It'd be expensive, as you'd need to rebuild the bridges south of the station, probably put a third track in from Dore to Sheffield and maybe even open out the first few yards of the northern tunnels as well. But it'd be feasible, and far more beneficial.

Interesting. I had the opposite impression on the Narrow Hill and Stockbridge plans, they were problematic separately, but that putting them together, solving the capacity problem for the Barrow Hill trains not fitting into Sheffield Midland, and that it then looked plausible.

In any case I was working on the same basis as the Network Rail document, if that were to go ahead here's the wider solutions.

 

[zwk500]

Interesting. I had the opposite impression on the Narrow Hill and Stockbridge plans, they were problematic separately, but that putting them together, solving the capacity problem for the Barrow Hill trains not fitting into Sheffield Midland, and that it then looked plausible.

The issue AIUI is that for Barrow Hill, going to Victoria doesn't really help because there is access to the Tram nearby which gives good connectivity to the centre and to Meadowhall (by and large, the two highest demand areas of Sheffield). The issue for Stocksbridge is that the stations just aren't in any reasonable position.

It does feel like there's a mix here of people who are 'only trains can provide', politicians who just want to look like they might be doing something, and the hardcore 'put everything back as it was before Beeching' who are desperately searching for potential problems that might justify their solution of reopening Sheff Vic.

In any case I was working on the same basis as the Network Rail document, if that were to go ahead here's the wider solutions.

Yes, but standard practice for these documents is to consider a wide range of options that vary in likelihood from 'almost certain' to 'absolutely never'.

 

[IanXC]

The issue AIUI is that for Barrow Hill, going to Victoria doesn't really help because there is access to the Tram nearby which gives good connectivity to the centre and to Meadowhall (by and large, the two highest demand areas of Sheffield). The issue for Stocksbridge is that the stations just aren't in any reasonable position.

It does feel like there's a mix here of people who are 'only trains can provide', politicians who just want to look like they might be doing something, and the hardcore 'put everything back as it was before Beeching' who are desperately searching for potential problems that might justify their solution of reopening Sheff Vic.

Yes, but standard practice for these documents is to consider a wide range of options that vary in likelihood from 'almost certain' to 'absolutely never'.

It just seems odd to me that they've looked at a solution which involves Victoria, then failed to suggest, if that (however unlikely it is) were to go ahead, using it to resolve a problem that they specifically leave outstanding in the options they propose.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do tend to think in general having a second city centre station isn't really the optimum solution. I struggle to see, however, in Sheffield's case how all the current and proposed services could be accommodated at Midland, so forcing the question. If you take that as a given then to me, that new station needs a critical mass, so why not also solve the problems of Midland comprehensively?

 

[Bartsimho]

Now looking at things the only way I see it being viable would be if the line connected from Stocksbridge back up to Penistone as there is no justification for effectively a terminus station at Sheffield.
Another question that could be looked at then is how much traffic is there from Lincolnshire into Sheffield and how much desire is there from Huddersfield and Bradford into Sheffield. You could also ask about Huddersfield and Bradford to Derby and Nottingham as well

Any ideas about the Woodhead would have to be looked at separately of how much demand and how much would it cost for the Woodhead to be re-opened.

Now I'd like the Barrow Hill section to be useful for passenger traffic but with the trams extending to halfway there isn't really the population to justify a station along there (unless lots of housing does get built on Staveley Works of which there are plans).

Any Victoria station should probably only be a maximum 4 platform affair with 2 through and a bay facing each direction.

There would need to be a thorough study of how to sort out Nunnery Junction and the platforms at Midland so a comparison of cost to benefit of re-opening Victoria can be properly done.

 

[zwk500]

I struggle to see, however, in Sheffield's case how all the current and proposed services could be accommodated at Midland, so forcing the question.

As I mentioned, There is width within the existing Sheffield Midland footprint for 3 islands to give 6x250m platforms, with space for some shorter bays on the west side. You would likely need to open out the bridges at the southern end to ease the track alignment and it involves demolishing the central island outright, but the idea that we should reopen a second station with all its costs and complexities to spare a moderately fancy canopy and some attractive brickwork is symptomatic of the malaise affecting anything aimed at economic growth in the UK right now.
Capacity crunches at the South end could be solved with an Up & Down slow as far as Dore, the space for which does largely exist. Nunnery Main Line junction is the trickier problem to solve. There isn't space for a third track, and adding one would involve horrendously expensive engineering given the bridges, roads and flats in close proximity. However faster pointwork is certainly possible, and installing full reversible crossovers so the two lines into Sheffield Midland could be used at optimal flexibility may unlock just enough to squeeze the services in.

If you take that as a given then to me, that new station needs a critical mass, so why not also solve the problems of Midland comprehensively?

But it's a critical mass of demand not services that you need.

 

[YorksLad12]

It really needs to extend beyond Stocksbridge so that Woodhead can reopen and provide a second (and quicker) route between Manchester and Sheffield, reducing pressure on the Hope Valley. Use the old tunnel which doesn't carry electric wires through it.

I think I mentioned "mission creep" before. "We could reopen the Barrow Hill line to passengers" plus "We could run trains to Stocksbridge" becomes "We could reopen Victoria" and then "We could reopen Woodhead". I relatively cheap project suddenly gains HS2 finance proportions

I don't think a second station in Sheffield city centre would be desirable. Is it not possible to do the work to allow any such reopening to go into Midland? Stocksbridge, as per the thread we had on that a while back, I'd hand over to the trams.

Victoria is nowhere near anything, except a couple of hotels, so I'd agree it isn't desireable. If the assumption that everyone on those two routes wants to go to "Sheffield", why do we have cross-Sheffield services so that people can go to Meadowhall? If there had ever been a rail connection from Midland to the Victoria area, fine; but there wasn't, sadly.

It just seems odd to me that they've looked at a solution which involves Victoria, then failed to suggest, if that (however unlikely it is) were to go ahead, using it to resolve a problem that they specifically leave outstanding in the options they propose.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do tend to think in general having a second city centre station isn't really the optimum solution. I struggle to see, however, in Sheffield's case how all the current and proposed services could be accommodated at Midland, so forcing the question. If you take that as a given then to me, that new station needs a critical mass, so why not also solve the problems of Midland comprehensively?

Neither is near the city *centre*, but Midland is the closer of the two. A project to expand Midland, irrespective of the mythical HS2, should have been developed by now, as there must be some interventions that can be done regardless, at both station throats (and, perhaps, finding somewhere else to stable stock so that the centre roads can be utilised to add a couple of platforms. Who owns what looks like derelict land at Nunnery, north of the Supertram base?).

 

[zwk500]

and, perhaps, finding somewhere else to stable stock so that the centre roads can be utilised to add a couple of platforms. Who owns what looks like derelict land at Nunnery, north of the Supertram base?).

The issue with stabling anywhere other than Midland station is the ECS moves taking passenger slots. As I've mentioned, there's space for 3 Islands on the eastern half and bays on the west that would give you 6 or 7 through platforms (which could also use end-working to function as bays) and that would ease a lot of the stabling issues. However that requires tearing up the existing P2-5 island and so won't get past heritage people (and will give budget people and timetable planners serious concerns).

 

[tbtc]

You’d have to spend huge sums to make Sheffield Midland fit for the twenty first Century but it’d be Better value for money than fiddling about with Victoria - but if you do open Victoria then I agree about the “Critical Mass” needed, do it properly or don’t bother - you’d need at least two services an hour to each of Chesterfield/ Worksop/ Chesterfield

No point faffing about with just hourly services on new branches, if you’re going to the expense of upgrading lines and building new stations then hardly anyone is going to trek from central Sheffield to a station over at Victoria for the sake of a short distance journey to Beighton/ Oughtabridge/ Woodhouse

But then, as I’ve said before, the old Woodhead alignment towards Deepcar and the Old Road towards chesterfield are fairly pointless unless you do them both

Doubt anything will change any time soon though

It really needs to extend beyond Stocksbridge so that Woodhead can reopen and provide a second (and quicker) route between Manchester and Sheffield

Bearing in mind that it currently takes EMUs half an hour to cover the dozen miles from Dining to Piccadilly, how fast do you intend the journey from Sheffield to Dining to be to provide a competitive journey time to Manchester?

It does feel like there's a mix here of people who are 'only trains can provide', politicians who just want to look like they might be doing something, and the hardcore 'put everything back as it was before Beeching' who are desperately searching for potential problems that might justify their solution of reopening Sheff Vic

Agreed!

All troublesome attitudes

 

[Philip]

Bearing in mind that it currently takes EMUs half an hour to cover the dozen miles from Dining to Piccadilly, how fast do you intend the journey from Sheffield to Dining to be to provide a competitive journey time to Manchester?

Those trains stop at every station between Hadfield and Manchester; a reopened Woodhead would carry fast services between Manchester and Sheffield, calling only at Penistone and Stocksbridge; the whole journey would probably take about 50 minutes. Much of the Woodhead line is a footpath and the 'new' tunnel would not need major structural work (aside from transferring the wires back to the old tunnel), if the line did reopen.

 

[tbtc]

Those trains stop at every station between Hadfield and Manchester; a reopened Woodhead would carry fast services between Manchester and Sheffield, calling only at Penistone and Stocksbridge; the whole journey would probably take about 50 minutes. Much of the Woodhead line is a footpath and the 'new' tunnel would not need major structural work (aside from transferring the wires back to the old tunnel), if the line did reopen.

I’m not suggesting the Sheffield services stop (much) west of the Pennines, I’m pointing out that a two track line with such slow half hourly stoppers on it isn’t conducive to “fast” services. One minor delay and you’ll be stuck behind a 323 for half an hour

Plus there’s the issue of whether a five minute saving (your suggested fifty versus the current fifty five minutes average via the Hope Valley) is worth schlepping all the way from central Sheffield to Victoria for, most people would lose more than five minutes getting to a reopened station, negating any improvement in the journey time once on board

Woodhead is a perennial distraction, a Solution In Need Of A Problem

 

[zwk500]

Those trains stop at every station between Hadfield and Manchester; a reopened Woodhead would carry fast services between Manchester and Sheffield, calling only at Penistone and Stocksbridge; the whole journey would probably take about 50 minutes.

Is there the capacity in Manchester for this?

Much of the Woodhead line is a footpath and the 'new' tunnel would not need major structural work (aside from transferring the wires back to the old tunnel), if the line did reopen.

I wouldn't be so confident that the standard of maintenance for a tunnel carrying power cables is the same as the standard of maintenance for a tunnel carrying 100mph Intercity trains.

 

[daodao]

The great pity is that in the 1960s it wasn't considered feasible or affordable (and probably still isn't) to build a link from Sheffield Midland to the site of Sheffield Victoria station to enable the electrified Woodhead line passenger service to run directly into Sheffield Midland.

Apart from rebuilding Sheffield Midland station as @zwk500 proposes, the only mitigation that I can think off to reduce the demand for services into this station, is that if 3 fast trains per hour are considered desirable to Manchester via the Hope Valley line, 1 tph bypasses Sheffield via the Dore SW curve and runs directly from Manchester to Nottingham. Re-opening Sheffield Victoria is a ridiculous idea.

 

[MarkyT]

You would likely need to open out the bridges at the southern end to ease the track alignment...

These bridges might need reconstruction anyway to accommodate overhead wiring if that ever gets to Sheffield. The alternative of lowering the trackbed to obtain clearance might be a little more difficult with the river Sheaf flowing in caverns below the station!

 

[zwk500]

These bridges might need reconstruction anyway to accommodate overhead wiring if that ever gets to Sheffield. The alternative of lowering the trackbed to obtain clearance might be a little more difficult with the river Sheaf flowing in caverns below the station!

Indeed - although I wonder if the OLE could be accommodated with Slab track and careful registration, given the low speed into the station.

 

[YorksLad12]

The great pity is that in the 1960s it wasn't considered feasible or affordable (and probably still isn't) to build a link from Sheffield Midland to the site of Sheffield Victoria station to enable the electrified Woodhead line passenger service to run directly into Sheffield Midland.

Apart from rebuilding Sheffield Midland station as @zwk500 proposes, the only mitigation that I can think off to reduce the demand for services into this station, is that if 3 fast trains per hour are considered desirable to Manchester via the Hope Valley line, 1 tph bypasses Sheffield via the Dore SW curve and runs directly from Manchester to Nottingham. Re-opening Sheffield Victoria is a ridiculous idea.

Somewhere is a pile of pdfs I keep finding on the interweb there's a Sheffield/South Yorkshire publication from the early 1970s which suggested an underground loop between Midland and Victoria, I think with a stop near City Hall. A Sheffield equivalent of Picc-Vic. If I can work out how to extract the two relevant pages I'll update this post with them.

 

[zwk500]

Somewhere is a pile of pdfs I keep finding on the interweb there's a Sheffield/South Yorkshire publication from the early 1970s which suggested an underground loop between Midland and Victoria, I think with a stop near City Hall. A Sheffield equivalent of Picc-Vic. If I can work out how to extract the two relevant pages I'll update this post with them.

https://tools.pdf24.org/en/split-pdf PDF24 is a great suite of free tools for your PDF manipulation needs.

 

[Bartsimho]

I think it would only be a good site if it came with a development plan in the surrounding area. More houses at Kiverton and Shireoaks and maybe between Eckington and Killamarsh. Office development by the Victoria Quays as regeneration. At least a connection to Penistone after Stocksbridge if not the Woodhead itself (making it the primary Sheffield station for Bradford and Huddersfield (It might make it even for Leeds as well via Dewsbury as the services from Midland have to go Methley Junction or Moorthorpe).

 

[HSTEd]

Fixing Sheffield Midland is going to cost some astronomical amount of money, not really sure how to do it without huge disruption either.

Perhaps emphasising the development of an alternate railway station somewhere nearby with good transport links to the Sheffield area might be a good idea.

For example... Meadowhall.

 

[Bartsimho]

Fixing Sheffield Midland is going to cost some astronomical amount of money, not really sure how to do it without huge disruption either.

Perhaps emphasising the development of an alternate railway station somewhere nearby with good transport links to the Sheffield area might be a good idea.

For example... Meadowhall.

People who want to go the Sheffield might not like that as it's even further away and despite the good connections it holds the stigma of being for the Shopping Centre (Lovingly call Meadowhell by many round here).
The tram connection is seen as slow and people don't overly like a change when commuting due to the impact of delays leading to missed connections.

 

[tbtc]

Based on the “old” timetable of the following services at the north end of Sheffield station

4x Chapletown (two terminating, one to Nottingham, one to Lincoln)
2x Dearne (one terminating, one to Birmingham)
5x Doncaster (three terminating, one to Manchester, one to Birmingham)
2x Darnall (one terminating, one to Leeds)

…And chopping the Leeds-Lincoln in two, since it’s more about operational convenience and three units being insufficient to run an hourly Sheffield-Lincoln…

…you’ve potentially got nine services terminating at the north end, and only two bay platforms which share a single lead, plus Platform One which is needed for access to the fuelling/depot at the southern end.

There are four other through platforms but not all signalled in each direction (and needed for the longer distance through trains)

I’m repeating myself from other threads, so apologies, but if rebuilding Midland is too expensive then I’d suggest that the only option would be to extend the terminating services through to the south of Sheffield, to turn back sidings or even platforms at Heeley/ Millhouses/ Dore

That way trains would only occupy platforms at Midland for a couple of minutes at a time (much like proposals to run services from the west if Leeds through to Micklefield or wherever)

Maybe there’d even be space there for them to recharge their batteries…

 

[fishwomp]

Fixing Sheffield Midland is going to cost some astronomical amount of money, not really sure how to do it without huge disruption either.

Perhaps emphasising the development of an alternate railway station somewhere nearby with good transport links to the Sheffield area might be a good idea.

For example... Meadowhall.

Feels like everything on the railway costs an astronomical amount to change - but blasting out the cutting as far as Nunnery Mainline Jct looks less than many other projects.. . You could go further and open up until Attercliffe Road, then add extra width to the viaduct, that'd help but the Nunnery Jct stretch may be sufficient.

Changing the platforms to per one of the previous posts would be a clear win, what is currently there is failing. I don't remember the last time I arrived in from the South on an XC and wasn't held up waiting for a platform.

 

[HSTEd]

Feels like everything on the railway costs an astronomical amount to change - but blasting out the cutting as far as Nunnery Mainline Jct looks less than many other projects.. . You could go further and open up until Attercliffe Road, then add extra width to the viaduct, that'd help but the Nunnery Jct stretch may be sufficient.

That would require massive disruption to surface roads and either a months-to-years long total closure of the railway through the cutting or years of working around rail services with massive service disruptions.

The cost would be truly astronomical!