To be honest 2 minutes or 3 is neither here nor there- for reliability there needs to be a “0” on the end. Doesn’t help station capacity though!
-
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!
Constant delays around the Sheffield area - what can be done to improve the situation?
- Thread starter Gareth1990
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
A 20 or 30 minute dwell would rather knacker the Lincoln - Leeds journey time (or other intermediate journeys!)
I'm not sure 2/3 minutes is that terrible of an idea if the station was able to cope with the amount of traffic that now flows through it. It generally works okay for Bradford Interchange for instance but there of course the station is not as swamped as Sheffield is.
Going mad with the crayons and magic money tree... Build a new station at Victoria for the Worksop line trains, and divert the London trains there via Barrow Hill. Extend the trams to this new site to aid whichever interchanges wouldn't work at Chesterfield. Or build a station on the meadowhall line near the canal for local trains to interchange with the new Victoria.
Or alternatively do it at Nunnery Square so the tram is already there.
It's madness of course, but would take a lot of traffic off the 2 tracks through the northern approach cuttings.
Or alternatively do it at Nunnery Square so the tram is already there.
It's madness of course, but would take a lot of traffic off the 2 tracks through the northern approach cuttings.
Was thinking of terminators - doh!A 20 or 30 minute dwell would rather knacker the Lincoln - Leeds journey time (or other intermediate journeys!)
I'm not sure 2/3 minutes is that terrible of an idea if the station was able to cope with the amount of traffic that now flows through it. It generally works okay for Bradford Interchange for instance but there of course the station is not as swamped as Sheffield is.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
A bit more on the former ‘grade separation’ south of Sheffield:
Following a quick look at the Signalling Record Society set of maps of the area, from the ‘John Swift Collection’ is is clear to see that there were a lot of closely-spaced boxes and depots south of the station. There would obviously be a lot of moves to and from Millhouses Depot (on the West/Slow Line side) and Heeley Carriage Sidings on the East/Fast Line side.
At Queens Road there was a simple transposition diveunder taking the Down Fast under the Up and Down Slows to shift from ‘paired by use’ to ‘paired by direction’, with the Fasts outside the Slows.
The stub of the diveunder is now the carriage washer and headshunt for accessing the DMU sidings. A feature of operations not much mentioned above is that many shunts to and from the sidings involve a time-consuming ‘Z’ move.
My own take on the situation is that a completely new and enlarged multiple unit stabling facility, away from the station, would do a lot to assist fluidity. This would probably have to be to the North and be accompanied by a full bi-directional working facility between the new depot and the station.
Following a quick look at the Signalling Record Society set of maps of the area, from the ‘John Swift Collection’ is is clear to see that there were a lot of closely-spaced boxes and depots south of the station. There would obviously be a lot of moves to and from Millhouses Depot (on the West/Slow Line side) and Heeley Carriage Sidings on the East/Fast Line side.
At Queens Road there was a simple transposition diveunder taking the Down Fast under the Up and Down Slows to shift from ‘paired by use’ to ‘paired by direction’, with the Fasts outside the Slows.
The stub of the diveunder is now the carriage washer and headshunt for accessing the DMU sidings. A feature of operations not much mentioned above is that many shunts to and from the sidings involve a time-consuming ‘Z’ move.
My own take on the situation is that a completely new and enlarged multiple unit stabling facility, away from the station, would do a lot to assist fluidity. This would probably have to be to the North and be accompanied by a full bi-directional working facility between the new depot and the station.
We had a discussion about some of that a while back - one post in particular I liked: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...n-p6-and-p8-at-sheffield.258877/#post-6535132 - a (ex-)contributor on here who worked Sheffield workstation - simple interventions could make a big difference (quoting him here
Yes there are definitely some short term fixes that could be pursued, but I would not be surprised to see the theoretical capacity freed up being rapidly filled with new services (see Lumo via Retford for one example!)
Theres a large scale project needed, which probably starts with a new stabling location for Northern (I seem to recall there is land set aside at Woodhouse?), reinstatement of at least 3 but preferably 4 track from Sheffield to Dore, potentially making use of the previous dive under, realignment of the centre island platform to create a modern station layout without loco runround arrangements and stabling sidings between platforms, plus if Stocksbridge and Barrow Hill lines reopen to passenger traffic the reopening of Victoria and the avoidance of either (and potentially others) needing to serve Sheffield Midland.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Several of the sidings are very short, so even a modest increase in train lengths starts eroding the usefulness of stabling in or near Midland station.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,265
I think the 500m long trench north of the station rather stymies any attempt at a large scale remodelling.
Can't do anything about those flat junctions as far as I can see, and unlike south of the station it doesn't appear the layout has ever been different.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Can't do anything about those flat junctions as far as I can see, and unlike south of the station it doesn't appear the layout has ever been different.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Do we think Sheffield Victoria as a new secondary station for Sheffield would be much more attractive than coupling these two lines to the tram system? I'd lean in favour of the tram being preferable, Victoria is hardly the best located station site in the world.
My main motivation for suggesting Victoria (or Nunnery Square) was to try to remove trains from the trench, as I think 2 tracks through there is all that will ever be possible. Victoria might not be the best located station ever, but it is a bit closer to possible than adding more tracks to the northern approach to the existing station.
py_megapixel
Established Member
I would agree it's not the best location now, but the enormous new residential developments around Kelham / West Bar are extending the city centre outwards in that direction. I imagine in a decade or two Victoria will feel much more central.
There does seem to be a problem, though, in the form of the awful ring road, which would not only constrain the site but also provide a barrier for pedestrians reaching the centre.
mike57
Established Member
I dont think splitting services between 2 stations is the answer it solves one problem but creates a bigger one, where your incoming train arrives at one and your connecting train leaves from the other. The impact on overall journey time can be significant.
To the north of the station is very hemmed in, the two track approach, and the geography. To sort it out properly is going to be prohibitively expensive, to the point where it will probably never happen.
If you are redeveloping the station then the footprint could move south by around 100-150m giving more space at the northern throat for a more efficient track layout with higher approach speeds and maybe an extra north facing bay platform, but thats a significant project.
The only other answer is to reduce the number of trains using the problem section, and the only win I could see would be a complete recast of the Cross Country timetable, which to be fair would address other problems. 1st step would be to buy a full set of 8/9 car units. XC services from York would then either go Doncaster Sheffield Chesterfield or Leeds Wakefield Chesterfield via the Barrow Hill route, alternating and this would also give a needed increase in Cross Country capacity and better journey times for passenger to/from York and North, but only removes 1tph from Sheffield. Leeds and Wakefield to Sheffield passengers would then use Northern services, which would need strengthening = yet more rolling stock
A problem for interchange yes, though how many people use Sheffield to interchange with no alternatives? My never going to happen crayon sandwich did include the possibility of platforms adjacent to the new Victoria station on the meadowhall line for just that scenario.
One central station would be a better solution, but there's nowhere else to put it and there's only ever going to be two tracks on that northern approach, so something has to give somewhere.
On the northern approach, there's only 300m of two-track cutting - and there's nothing of value built on the land which would be needed to widen it to four tracks. Comparing the buildings along there to old maps, there clearly were plans to build it all the way to Nunnery Junction as 4 tracks, as the buildings have been modified to stop at the point the widened cutting would be needed, and there's only lean-to structures on there today.
BorderCollie
Member
Just been reading NPR Phase 1 which states:
Core Elements of Phase 1 Sheffield Station Upgrades
Platform & Infrastructure Capacity: Physical and signal layout modifications inside Sheffield station to accommodate higher footfall and longer carriage formations.
Longer Train Operations: Structural adjustments enabling extended regional commuter and intercity trains to safely load and unload.
Direct Regional Connectivity: Routing modifications designed to feed more direct east-west and north-south paths through the station hub.
Complementary Route Electrification: Simultaneous line electrification between Sheffield and Leeds targeting up to four fast trains per hour.
Hmmmm.
Core Elements of Phase 1 Sheffield Station Upgrades
Platform & Infrastructure Capacity: Physical and signal layout modifications inside Sheffield station to accommodate higher footfall and longer carriage formations.
Longer Train Operations: Structural adjustments enabling extended regional commuter and intercity trains to safely load and unload.
Direct Regional Connectivity: Routing modifications designed to feed more direct east-west and north-south paths through the station hub.
Complementary Route Electrification: Simultaneous line electrification between Sheffield and Leeds targeting up to four fast trains per hour.
Hmmmm.
fishwomp
Established Member
If we were ranking problems to solve by the impact they're having.. I think it's this:
1. North end platform availability
2. South end platform availability
3. North end number of tracks at throat and approach.
4. South end number of tracks at throat and approach.
Why (1) then (2) not (3) and (4) first? Almost without fail (for me) a southbound terminating unit sits in the tunnel waiting for a platform. If capacity of that track was an issue, the unit shouldn't be sitting there eating 2-3x the capacity of a non-stop run. At the south end, platforms are obviously the issue too - because there's no 'solid rock' excuse for not being 4-track. And yet it's still "red before you get a colour".
Use the platforms better, or increase their number, and you make room for more paths.
How?
Stop using platform 8 for terminating services: use it for southbound through services. Every time an ex-London terminates there, it crosses the throat and no southbounds can leave whilst that's routed.
Ditto platform 1: it's easy to see how screwed up it is:
- a Norwich-Liverpool on platform 1 (eg. 1R60 at 0938) has to block the throat for other arrivals from south while it leaves, but were it at platform 2, 5, or 6, it wouldn't.
- or, an ex-Huddersfield using platform 1 to terminate, blocks all northbounds whilst it threads to platform 1, and it probably waits in the tunnels to get that path in 1 too.. in order to let an XC or TPE head north/east, meanwhile a southbound XC sits blocked behind the Huddersfield whilst it waits for that route and platform ..
in a perfect running day, the current plan might all flow nicely - but Sheffield doesn't have those.
That's XC and TPE, and the NT Leeds-Notts services sorted, no conflicts. 4 trains each way per hour. (8 of the 26 that flow through the northern throat per hour, 8 of the 20 movements for the southern throat).
I'd be interested to see the simulations try that.. and impact of perturbations. I bet it makes things better.
Then physical upgrades:
- platform 2c (the bay) is too short - meaning platform 2 is often used to terminate the Manchesters (can only fit 2-cars but many of those are 3-car), which blocks XC's _current_ favourite platform for northbounds (whilst platform 1 may be empty.. is a 60-second delay waiting for the Manchester to leave late worth doing a platform change late for? .. nope, so the XC gets to see S77 for a bit longer)
Break platform 5 into two halves, a scissor/crossover in the middle Like Cambridge's original through platform. Can now be used two fit two terminators, from either or both directions. Move southbound pointwork and signal (as it makes the platform only 237m compared to northbound 326m).
The current bays like p3 which can fit two services require things to arrive and leave in the correct order. p4 is too short to fit two services now (only 4-car total, and there are a lot of 3-car out there now). a platform 5 scissor like set up wouldn't have that issue.
I bet that these two physical changes get the extra platforms that are needed.. but equally, a platform at the north end of platform 6/7 island has been talked about and would do nicely.. particularly if platform 8 is only used for through services.
1. North end platform availability
2. South end platform availability
3. North end number of tracks at throat and approach.
4. South end number of tracks at throat and approach.
Why (1) then (2) not (3) and (4) first? Almost without fail (for me) a southbound terminating unit sits in the tunnel waiting for a platform. If capacity of that track was an issue, the unit shouldn't be sitting there eating 2-3x the capacity of a non-stop run. At the south end, platforms are obviously the issue too - because there's no 'solid rock' excuse for not being 4-track. And yet it's still "red before you get a colour".
Use the platforms better, or increase their number, and you make room for more paths.
How?
Stop using platform 8 for terminating services: use it for southbound through services. Every time an ex-London terminates there, it crosses the throat and no southbounds can leave whilst that's routed.
Ditto platform 1: it's easy to see how screwed up it is:
- a Norwich-Liverpool on platform 1 (eg. 1R60 at 0938) has to block the throat for other arrivals from south while it leaves, but were it at platform 2, 5, or 6, it wouldn't.
- or, an ex-Huddersfield using platform 1 to terminate, blocks all northbounds whilst it threads to platform 1, and it probably waits in the tunnels to get that path in 1 too.. in order to let an XC or TPE head north/east, meanwhile a southbound XC sits blocked behind the Huddersfield whilst it waits for that route and platform ..
in a perfect running day, the current plan might all flow nicely - but Sheffield doesn't have those.
That's XC and TPE, and the NT Leeds-Notts services sorted, no conflicts. 4 trains each way per hour. (8 of the 26 that flow through the northern throat per hour, 8 of the 20 movements for the southern throat).
I'd be interested to see the simulations try that.. and impact of perturbations. I bet it makes things better.
Then physical upgrades:
- platform 2c (the bay) is too short - meaning platform 2 is often used to terminate the Manchesters (can only fit 2-cars but many of those are 3-car), which blocks XC's _current_ favourite platform for northbounds (whilst platform 1 may be empty.. is a 60-second delay waiting for the Manchester to leave late worth doing a platform change late for? .. nope, so the XC gets to see S77 for a bit longer)
Break platform 5 into two halves, a scissor/crossover in the middle Like Cambridge's original through platform. Can now be used two fit two terminators, from either or both directions. Move southbound pointwork and signal (as it makes the platform only 237m compared to northbound 326m).
The current bays like p3 which can fit two services require things to arrive and leave in the correct order. p4 is too short to fit two services now (only 4-car total, and there are a lot of 3-car out there now). a platform 5 scissor like set up wouldn't have that issue.
I bet that these two physical changes get the extra platforms that are needed.. but equally, a platform at the north end of platform 6/7 island has been talked about and would do nicely.. particularly if platform 8 is only used for through services.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I think there's scope for a package something like:
- Three tracks to Dore, the westernmost being bi-di so that trains towards Manchester don't have to cross the layout at Dore South. This is quite difficult but four tracks is much worse.
- Platform 1 to be primarily used by Hope Valley trains, possibly split into two via a Nottingham-type buildout to the adjacent through road.
- Platform 2 to be primarily used by northbound through trains.
- Platform 8 to be primarily used by southbound through trains.
- Platforms 3-7 to be primarily used for turnbacks, but maintaining/providing bi-directional through capability at 3 and 7 for flexibility. Possibly split by crossovers to the adjacent through roads to accommodate two shorter trains.
- Centre turnback south of the station on a section where space is available for a fourth track, allowing some terminating trains from the north to arrive in P8, run to this turnback then return to P1.
- Move stabling to some other site in the Sheffield area.
I suggest swapping the roles of 1 and 2 on this scenario. You would need to provide a route from the sidings to 2 as part of this, leaving enough of 1 clear for a 240m train, but that seems is doable.
Agree!
Think you could manage without if you do the previous items.
Ideally, yes, South of the station.
Could you risk combining the Hope Valley stopper with the Doncaster, or does that just move the problem from one congested station to another? And/or could you use Dore as turnback from the north?
BorderCollie
Member
Leeds First (2000-01) when four tracks were expanded to six from the south and west cost £165m. That would be £360m in today's money. (And that £165m 2000-01 figure doesn't include platform/infrastructure alterations actually inside the station (another £40m) - just the track and signalling for the approach).
Nottingham track and signalling improvements in 2013 was £100m (£144m today's prices)
Derby 2018 was £198m (£270m today's prices)
Helpful comparisons re costs and priorities maybe?
Last edited:
fishwomp
Established Member
There were sidings at Nunnery and a DMU depot at Darnall in the not too distant past.. Brightside has plenty of railway owned space, but I'd prefer that to be used to make 4-track again - with turnouts to the Barnsley branch nearer Sheffield, higher speed, and thereby reduce occupancy of the mainline.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,265
It should be feasible for both the Stocksbridge line and the line via Barrow Hill to connect to the Supertram system. The former could connect near the site of old Victoria station or out near at Middlewood tram stop. The latter could connect at the tram depot site. That buys you those destinations without necessarily diluting the connections available at the existing central station. Plus a tram solution would allow better access to the core of the city centre from such places.
My own crayonista plan would be to use the stocksbridge branch as a jumping off point for tram/tram train to Penistone, and take over the Penistone line. It would be time competitive with the existing route even if you use the existing tram line to Middlewood and removes another path or two from the north end of Sheffield. Barnsley-Penistone would be the core of a Barnsley segment of the combined South Yorkshire system.
The Midland company obtained powers in 1901 for widening between Sheffield and Attercliffe. But there was then a time when money was tight for all the railway companies and then there was a war. The work never got done.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I assume the sidings are abolished so access to them isn't an issue. The reason I suggested 2 for northbound through trains was because sending them into 1 puts them into conflict with Hope Valley and partly destroys the benefit of keeping them separate on the third track.
Martin23230
Member
For what it's worth, I've always strongly disagreed with the idea that the Barrow Hill and Don Valley lines should be reopened as tram-train services, as opposed to just a (relatively) simple heavy-rail service. I do worry that the push to do so from the SYMCA is partially just because the trams under their control unlike the trains, although if the devolution ideas for the Bee Network and West Midlands go ahead perhaps this wouldn't be a problem and SYMCA could just run this as part of a "South Yorkshire Metro".
As a baseline, consider if the line(s) were to reopened as heavy rail with a simple Chesterfield-Stocksbridge metro service. As well as sourcing a couple of DMUs to run it, you would be including:
- Somewhere in the region of 16 stations, of which 13 are new/"reopened" (all based on the Restoring Your Railway applications, with some slight editorialising of names):
- Chesterfield (existing)
- Whittington (new)
- Barrow Hill for Staveley (new)
- Renishaw for Eckington (new)
- Killamarsh (new)
- Beighton (new)
- Woodhouse (existing)
- Waverley (new, but already planned to be built as part of a separate scheme)
- Darnall (existing)
- Nunnery Square Interchange / Sheffield Parkway (new)
- Sheffield Victoria (new)
- Bridgehouses / Neepsend (new)
- Wadsley Bridge for Hillsborough (new)
- Oughtibridge (new)
- Deepcar (new)
- Stocksbridge Fox Valley (new)
- Associated track work, restoration of the now unused sections of the Stocksbridge line, signalling etc.
Now consider if you wanted to reopen it as a tram-train service. You would still need all of the above (as the new Magna station has shown, tram-train stations on lines still used by freight and other services have to be built to heavy rail standards, up to and including a footbridge with lifts, so assuming that's still the case for the Barrow Hill line all of those new stations would essentially be the same) plus:
- Full electrification of the entire line (an insane proposal on its own considering the difficulty of getting wires into Sheffield Midland!), or at least enough for some theoretical battery tram system
- An entire new fleet of tram-trains
- Rebuilding at least one platform at Chesterfield for low-floor tram height
- Either adding low-floor extensions to the existing Woodhouse and Darnall platforms (as at Rotherham Central), or rebuilding them fully as low floor (meaning Sheffield-Lincoln services can no longer call there)
- A connection somewhere around Nunnery Square that would allow services from both the Victoria and Darnall directions to join the existing tram tracks, potentially grade-separated so as not to interfere with the existing lines
- A new tram depot, not only to hold all the new tram-trains but potentially to replace any space lost at Nunnery Square when building the above connection and interchange station
The only advantage of going for a tram-train service (and I'll admit it's a major one) is the ability to join the existing tram network and therefore head directly into Sheffield city centre. But I don't think the extraordinary amount of extra cost and complexity it would add makes sense compared to a good interchange at Nunnery Square where anyone heading into Sheffield could change onto the existing tram line. Plus as mentioned the Victoria / Wicker / Kelham Island / Neepsend areas are increasingly being developed and spreading the city centre north anyway.
And looking further ahead, turning the lines over to tram-trains also kills off any further potential of expansion either north (to Penistone/Huddersfield) or south (towards Derby or Nottingham), unless you also want to add electrification and low-floor platforms to all those stations as well. And (going back to the point of this thread), reopening Victoria could offer opportunities to divert some more "metro" services away from Midland to free up space there, for instance towards Lincoln, or Doncaster (via Tinsley and Rotherham Central).
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,265
The electrification would be at 750Vdc, so the costs of 25kV installations into Sheffield Midland probably aren't that relevant in cost terms.
Clearances for 750Vdc installations are essentially contact, and neither the route via Darnall or the line to Stocksbridge (which is, to my understanding, essentially closed) are ever likely to justify 25kV electrification anyway.
If the line to Stocksbridge is closed, the stations in that direction probably don't need footbridges or anything like that.
Even a delay of a handful of minutes is likely to kill your competitive edge against existing transport modes. These are quite short journeys <1hr, so even a few minutes can make a significant difference. As a result, I personally don't see an interchange as being particularly viable.
Electrification for a single 870kW tram train at 750vDC is far from the same as even a "lightweight" mainline electrification scheme, and conversion to tram style stations would allow rebuilds without footbridges or any of that sort of thing, so I don't think it would be that expensive compared to an extensive modernisation for heavy rail use. (EDIT: This is for the line towards Penistone, don't envisage an extension south on the MML)
Last edited:
Not necessarily. According to the never incorrect Wikipedia the 399s are capable of 25kV, and even if not that kind of thing is hardly beyond humanity to create.
It would make sense should Sheffield ever actually get electrified to use 25kV on any national rail sections that the tram train uses. Wonder what spec the Rotherham section was built to actually. Obviously operates at 750, but clearances, insulators etc
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,265
I believe that, yes, they are capable of this, but the existing tram train electrification (although designed to enable a future energisation at 25kV) is electrified at 750vDC.
I'm not sure why you'd pay for a 25kV installation if the only thing using it was dual voltage tram trains though!
Well hopefully the Sheffield area will get proper electrification whilst most of us are still breathing!
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,265
Well, although we might hope that a 25kV electrification island in the vicinity of Sheffield will eventually be created, I'm not sure we should depend on it!
I don't think electrification of the route via Barrow Hill is ever going to be justified in the era of electrodiesels and battery-electric trains. It only seems to carry a handful of passenger trains outside of disruption, and since continuous electrification of the Midland seems to be definitely dead, seems unlikely it would be justifiable on a diversionary basis.
At most, I could see a 25kV electrification line wanting the section between the Supertram depot and the junction east of Woodhouse, and that's only ~7 route kilometres.
Worst case we have to cut down the 750Vdc electrification and install 25kV from scratch, but the cost of that (probably £50m or something) discounted into a possible future seems pretty minor compared to the cost of spending it now, just in case.
Presumably you'd have one platform at Chesterfield electrified with 750V. As far as I can see the last crossover between the two pairs of lines heading northbound out of the station is only ~850m north of the platform ends in any case. So the reelectrification cost there is likely to be very minor if 25kV ever does arrive.
A hypothetical extension over the Penistone line would just need a 25kV-750Vdc voltage break in the approach to Huddersfield, positioned wherever is convenient.
Surely people haven't already forgotten the notoriously high eventual cost of the tram-train electrification, which was said to be because the dual voltage/current capability required new designs and new design standards for everything. So there can be no doubt that the capability is there.
Last edited:
YorksLad12
Established Member
I think you could probably fit a third track in between Cricket Inn Road and the station throat if those large diameter pipes were moved somewhere!
It was built to 25kV, running at 750DC. It's one of the reasons that the project was two years late and four times over budget; Network rail changed the spec halfway through, just in case electrification happened. The Class 399s are dual voltage, but will be long gone by the time 25kV electrification takes place anywhere near Rotherham.