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

[evergreenadam]

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.

Stockport did used to have north and south facing bays but there were infilled to create wide island platforms. Perhaps a mistake in hindsight.

 

[Starmill]

Up trains may depart from platform 3 at Stockport, although neither that nor the shunts suggested are at all practical. I also don't think they'd be desirable.

 

[plugwash]

Stockport did used to have north and south facing bays but there were infilled to create wide island platforms. Perhaps a mistake in hindsight.

I recall from discussions in another thread that even when it had south facing bays they were only ever signalled for shunt moves, not for arriving trains.

One of the north-facing bays is still present, is signaled for arriving trains and still sees a passenger train once a week.

 

[edwin_m]

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.

Agreed a third service could go via Marple, which would also avoid the single line at Hazel Grove. However it couldn't then go beyond Piccadilly due to the conflicts created if it had to cross the throat there.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Up trains may depart from platform 3 at Stockport, although neither that nor the shunts suggested are at all practical. I also don't think they'd be desirable.

Unless there has been a fairly recent change I don't believe there is a main aspect signal, i.e. shunts moves only, not passenger departures- and of course undesirable in any most circumstances. .

 

[Starmill]

Unless there has been a fairly recent change I don't believe there is a main aspect signal, i.e. shunts moves only, not passenger departures- and of course undesirable in any most circumstances. .

I have been on a train which actually did this, so perhaps that day there was some special working in place.

 

[cle]

In the case of Stockport, shuttles north or south would in theory be best on the Cheadle Hulme lines. The Chester does this, and I could see future inner services doing so, especially if anything is indeed built towards the staff car park. It's not a major destination in of itself, but could be a bigger regional interchange once its role as a long-distance station evolves with HS2 phase 2B and there is more commuter rail out of Manchester.

 

[jfollows]

Unless there has been a fairly recent change I don't believe there is a main aspect signal, i.e. shunts moves only, not passenger departures- and of course undesirable in any most circumstances. .

I think the plans from 1976 which I posted at #6 are still generally correct, that's to say that things like the centre roads have been removed but the signalling is essentially the same. Open Train Times gives us a picture which reinforced this - no main aspect signal at the up end of platform 3, just a limit of shunt board.

 

[Killingworth]

40 years ago there was one fast service an hour and the stopping service from Sheffield to New Mills was every 2 hours, change for Manchester - and there were some gaps of 3 hours. Users from both ends of the line campaigned very hard to get the regular hourly stopper between Sheffield and Manchester, a campaign that continues as there are still too many skip stops. The fast service was also doubled to 2 tph and ridership has boomed all round.

Currently incoming walkers can start and finish anywhere along the line with a wide choice of routes from and between any of the stations. On days like today many do just that.

Residents living all along the line can commute into Manchester or Sheffield, use any station for leisure or as part of a longer journey. This morning I saw a westbound 3 car 195 leave Dore standing room only. Passengers waiting to board included older people with travel luggage, all ages with walking and cycling gear, a group going on a hen do and a lads day out. Leisure is back to pre-Covid normal. Commuting is not.

Do we need 3 fast trains an hour for capacity? I no longer think we do but they all need to be at least 4, preferably 6, carriages and be reliable. Too often the two we have now aren't. The further they're extended the greater the operational risk.

For that reason the stopper is even more vital and running the different route via Marple avoids any problems through Stockport. When anything goes wrong at the distant ends of either fast route the stopper is a vital back stop. I'd go further and say we need the Piccadilly - News Mills stopper to continue to Sheffield to make a total of 4 trains an hour throughout. Semi-fast from New Mills stopping at some stations such as Chinley, Edale, Hope, and Dore. Any problems west of Manchester would completely wreck the entire fast service.

Hope particularly could offer a park and ride hub for Hope Valley residents going either way, be it for commuting or leisure, and for incoming visitors to roam where they will.

Dore users have an incomplete hourly service into Sheffield taking 8 minutes. I timed that by car yesterday using all possible roads to avoid traffic and it took 20 minutes. I drove back along the bus route and it took almost 40 minutes. The early morning rail service into Sheffield isn't too bad - until the 8.24 is followed by the 9.58. Coming out of Sheffield there's a gap between 12.14 and 14.14, and an even bigger gap between 20.21 and 22.54. There's a big open market for rail to exploit there. 80 years ago there were usually at least 2 or 3 trains each hour to and from Sheffield from Dore. The population around Dore then was probably a quarter of what it is now.

To illustrate why we can't always have what we want I take the current 13.14 stopper out of Sheffield which skip stops Dore and other stations. The main problem seems to be two contingency freight paths from either Toton or Barrow Hill to take empty wagons to Hope Cement Works or the Buxton quarries. These are necessary because there isn't enough siding space near the sites to hold sufficient wagons at times of peak demand. It is extremely rare for either of these paths to be used, but if they are there's no place to hide after leaving Chesterfield. They have to be got clear of the down MML at Dore South Junction and then couldn't avoid running onto the Hope Valley line trough Dore West Junction. That might not be a problem as long at TPE's 13.11 departure from Sheffield is on time and that 13.14 is too. Over the last year that TPE has been quite punctual. The Northern stopper has averaged 3.5 minutes late at Grindleford and that may be the problem - but only if one of the freights actually ran and they very rarely do!

The new Dore loop should solve that potential issue, allowing the empty wagons off the MML to pause and then follow the stopper up the valley. If either, or both, westbound passenger services are late they won't block eastbound services towards Sheffield over the current single line through Dore station, as they do now.

Any new timetable has to take account of hundreds of potential conflicts like these! Network Rail are not keen to add in any further risks. Personally I think allowing that 13.14 to stop at Dore is an acceptable risk as there's enough capacity for a 195 to recover the time taken by New Mills. I'm clearly biased after forgetting it didn't stop and being carried over to Grindleford a couple of times, a mistake quite often made by others. 10 days ago a driver may have got it wrong and stopped. It also catches people out hoping to go up the Hope Valley or to Manchester from Dore.

Roll on December 2023 and May 2024 timetables taking advantage of the extra capacity on this route. It should allow better paths for passengers, limestone and cement .

 

[ffesti]

I sincerely hope that the opportunity is taken to make the new platform at Dore bidirectional, which would allow a lot more flexibility in the area when things are not going according to plan.
Functionally, it could give a second place for Expresses to pass stoppers or freight services in each direction.

Regarding current services, it is noticeable how much busier the EMR services tend to be than the TPE. I don’t know how much is through traffic and how much is the extra 2 carriages on a TPE but the journey is significantly more pleasant on a TPE than EMR, especially when joining at Stockport.

 

[Killingworth]

I sincerely hope that the opportunity is taken to make the new platform at Dore bidirectional, which would allow a lot more flexibility in the area when things are not going according to plan.
Functionally, it could give a second place for Expresses to pass stoppers or freight services in each direction.

Regarding current services, it is noticeable how much busier the EMR services tend to be than the TPE. I don’t know how much is through traffic and how much is the extra 2 carriages on a TPE but the journey is significantly more pleasant on a TPE than EMR, especially when joining at Stockport.

Sadly making the two platforms,or even one, at Dore bi-directional was ruled out years ago. I'd totally agree with the reasoning but Network Rail have been impervious to local input based on real life experience on the trains.

Currently westbound TPE services are frequently delayed into Sheffield, this one is taken at random from last Saturday, the 9.11 from Sheffield, but on most days it happens at least once or twice; https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C96831/2021-11-13/detailed#allox_id=0

It left Sheffield 6 minutes late so the 9.14 Northern stopper was allowed out on time, but then held to be overtaken before Dore Station Junction. This practice can't change after the HVCIS work because if it was allowed to proceed the TPE would be on it's heels until Chinley. If the Dore platforms were bi-directional the Northern service could continue to there and hold in the station to allow the TPE to pass, greatly pleasing Dore passengers who would arrive on time far more frequently. It would also please all passengers along the Hope Valley because the delays often don't finish with that TPE train. By waiting for that train the stopper may then have to wait for a gap in MML express traffic in both directions to access the Hope Valley line. The result is that for a 4 mile journey the average stopping train arrives at Dore 2 minutes late, and some a lot more. It's improved since Covid lockdowns too. (Last 100 days statistics here; https://www.recenttraintimes.co.uk/...tAvg=Mea&MetSpr=RT&MxScDu=&MxSvAg=10&MnScCt=2 )

Dore features consistently in the worst 500 stations in the country for punctuality and is often in the worst 100, the other Hope Valley stations in similar positions; https://www.ontimetrains.co.uk/stations/DOR Network Rail seem to be oblivious to this and the fairly easy way to improve it. It would cost too much money and it's now too late to change the scheme anyway is all we hear. It was a highlighted issue at the public inquiry in 2016. Heads and brick walls!

Positively the 13.14 from Sheffield should stop at stations from Dore if the draft December 2022 timetable is confirmed. However, the popular 7.13 commuting service from Piccadilly along the Hope Valley arriving Sheffield at 8.31 may have been omitted! That won't go down well.

 

[mwmbwls]

The IRP overall concept raises a number of issues - that I suspect have not been explored in depth yet.

Page 109 Manchester to Sheffield: rationale and alternatives considered

3.89 The Government's commitment on NPR related only to Manchester-Leeds, but the IRP has also considered Manchester-Sheffield links. Currently, the journey between Sheffield, one of the core cities in the Northern Powerhouse and the centre of the South Yorkshire region, and Manchester, takes 50 minutes, despite the cities being 30 miles apart.

3.90 The Government agrees with Transport for the North that any further future improvements to Manchester–Sheffield would best be based on an upgrade and electrification of the existing Hope Valley Line.

The Proposed Portfolio for the North and Midlands

3.91 The Hope Valley route has also been identified as a potential candidate for electrification by the Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy. Moving heavily loaded freight trains using electric traction would enable journey times to be reduced and make best use of the available network capacity.

Work by Network Rail has shown that – if combined with a connection to the HS2 station at Piccadilly – electrification and upgrade of the existing Hope Valley line between Manchester and Sheffield could give a journey time of between 30 and 35 minutes and support up to four trains per hour (2 via Marple and 2 via Stockport). The scope of interventions that need to be delivered within the Peak District National Park will need careful design to ensure environmental impacts are mitigated and reduced as far as possible.

3.92 The main alternatives that have been considered are:• a new route from Manchester to the HS2 Eastern Leg, capable of serving both Leeds and Sheffield; this has been rejected for the reasons set out in paragraph 2.28 above; and a new alignment focussed on Sheffield to Manchester;this was rejected as likely to have a poor business case and unacceptable impacts on the Peak District National Park.

3.93 Works to improve the Hope Valley line are already underway, including line speed and capacity works, the removal of a bottleneck at Dore, and provision of a freight loop at Bamford. These works could help facilitate a possible future third fast Sheffield to Manchester service each hour.

3.94 Network Rail’s capacity analysis suggests that three NPR trains per hour between Manchester and Sheffield can be operated via the Hope Valley Line with trains continuing to Stockport through targeted investment, using the existing Network Rail station at Manchester Piccadilly.

This would likely require the doubling of the Hazel Grove chord (to enable three trains to be evenly spaced, around every 20 minutes) and restoration of a third line between Dore and Sheffield, although more detailed analysis is needed to confirm this. The infrastructure required onthe Hope Valley route itself is potentially similar if four fast NPR trains are planned. However, operating a fourth train via Stockport into the existing Piccadilly station would require either a major package of interventions on the existing railway or a reduction in other services in the Manchester area.

3.95 The feasibility of a connection from the Hope Valley line to the HS2 station at Manchester Piccadilly has also been explored. This could use a section of the Marple Line, and then join the Leeds approach line to the new Manchester Piccadilly station. Strategically, this would have benefits in terms of faster journey times from Sheffield to Manchester, Manchester Airport, Warrington and Liverpool, and could allow a 4tph fast service between Sheffield and Manchester: two via Stockport and two via the Marple route. This would also mean some long-distance NPR services would not need to use the Castlefield corridor. However, costs for the initial designs of the Marpleconnector appear high, raising challenges in terms of affordability and value for money; and there are potential conflicts with Transport for Greater Manchester’s longer[1]term ambitions to extend Metrolink services onto the Marple line.

3.96 Recent work has suggested there may be potential to significantly reduce the cost of options so far considered.

Any future development work will therefore focus on an upgrade of the Hope Valley route, including capacity and the Proposed Portfolio for the North and Midlands line speed improvements, and route electrification; and an assessment of whether there is a case for moving from three to four trains per hour taking account of demand, costs, and service options at the Manchester end of the corridor. As noted above, the Government has identified a core pipeline of schemes and any further schemes will be subject to affordability, delivering commitments on time and to budget, and complementary investments being made

I would draw your attention to paragraph 3.91 concerning the potential electrification of the Hope Valley Line and in particular freight traffic. There are a number of devils lurking in the details. Where would freight electrification have to start - the new reversing sidings in Buxton, Great Rocks? How will electrification be impacted by Dove Holes, Cowburn and Totley Tunnels tendency to be damp - overhead bar catenary c.f. the Severn Tunnel? Which routes north of Sheffield will need to be electrified?. Likewise which routes south Sheffield - Derby is already in the frame but will freight still run by Toton - In which case could HS2 be extended from EMA to Sheffield?

 

[edwin_m]

I would draw your attention to paragraph 3.91 concerning the potential electrification of the Hope Valley Line and in particular freight traffic. There are a number of devils lurking in the details. Where would freight electrification have to start - the new reversing sidings in Buxton, Great Rocks? How will electrification be impacted by Dove Holes, Cowburn and Totley Tunnels tendency to be damp - overhead bar catenary c.f. the Severn Tunnel? Which routes north of Sheffield will need to be electrified?. Likewise which routes south Sheffield - Derby is already in the frame but will freight still run by Toton - In which case could HS2 be extended from EMA to Sheffield?

Like a number of things in the IRP, this seems to be a thought that has been thrown in without full consideration of the wider impacts.

Last mile diesel/battery could be part of the mix, or there may be enough traffic to justify a self-powered shunting locomotive to push things through the loading hoppers. And there will be some solution for the tunnels, hopefully learning any lessons from the Severn, which now seems to be operating moreorless reliably.

The onward routeing of electric freight is probably the biggest gap, but if there is widespread freight electrification Chesterfield to Toton probably becomes essential. Even if it isn't, electric haulage may allow more freight to run via Derby - a section (at least north of Derby itself) that probably doesn't see any extra passenger trains under IRP.

 

[21C101]

Sooner or later there will be no room to send Stoce trsins to the south either via the Hope Valley or the line from Dore to Clay Cross, and another way south will be needed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Nov 2021 ==

Like a number of things in the IRP, this seems to be a thought that has been thrown in without full consideration of the wider impacts.

Last mile diesel/battery could be part of the mix, or there may be enough traffic to justify a self-powered shunting locomotive to push things through the loading hoppers. And there will be some solution for the tunnels, hopefully learning any lessons from the Severn, which now seems to be operating moreorless reliably.

The onward routeing of electric freight is probably the biggest gap, but if there is widespread freight electrification Chesterfield to Toton probably becomes essential. Even if it isn't, electric haulage may allow more freight to run via Derby - a section (at least north of Derby itself) that probably doesn't see any extra passenger trains under IRP.

I would have thought Derby to Sheffield would have at least one extra an hour (two an hour to Euston via HS2 and one to St Pancras).

 

[edwin_m]

I would have thought Derby to Sheffield would have at least one extra an hour (two an hour to Euston via HS2 and one to St Pancras).

That may be right - who knows?

 

[Killingworth]

Freight is the missing factor in so much popular media attention to rail. Electrifying Totley, Cowburn, Disley and Dove Holes tunnels with approach tracks and yards doesn't catch the public's attention as much as HS2. A difficult proposition.

However, longer passenger trains can add a lot more capacity using the same paths. I visit family in the south and travelling there I see trains twice as long as currently use the Hope Valley route. Platform length is an obvious difficulty but 6 coach fasts and 4 coach stoppers can operate now. In the shorter term that's the best approach, with the stopping service to New Mills extended in some form to Sheffield to make 4 services an hour - which is possibly hinted in the IRP. If anything goes wrong west of Manchester (or through Stockport and Hazel Grove) the capacity through Marple will be in great demand!

More signalling and timetabling refinements can effectively add capacity.

Currently the fastest journeys for the 42 miles westbound between Sheffield and Piccadilly take 52 minutes, and eastbound 49 minutes. 4 trains an hour should be possible by end of 2023 as that's part of the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme's business case. 30-35 minutes sounds reasonable when thinking ECML and WCML speeds, but this route is a long way from that, be it via Marple or Stockport.

The IRP is supremely optimistic, and suitably vague, about that. 40 minutes best time maybe by 2040?

3.91 The Hope Valley route has also been identified as a potential candidate for electrification by the Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy. Moving heavily loaded freight trains using electric traction would enable journey times to be reduced and make best use of the available network capacity. Work by Network Rail has shown that – if combined with a connection to the HS2 station at Piccadilly – electrification and upgrade of the existing Hope Valley line between Manchester and Sheffield could give a journey time of between 30 and 35 minutes and support up to four trains per hour (2 via Marple and 2 via Stockport). The scope of interventions that need to be delivered within the Peak District National Park will need careful design to ensure environmental impacts are mitigated and reduced as far as possible.

 

[Philip]

Would it be better to extend one of the Northern Hazel Grove services to Sheffield, perhaps picking up a couple of stops east of Chinley mentioned up thread (Hope and Dore?), whilst diverting either the EMR or the TPE via Marple, perhaps calling at New Mills and Marple?

On the flipside it would mean replacing an EMU with a DMU until electrification, although this won't be so much of a loss because the Hazel Grove will be originating from Piccadilly rather than Blackpool by the time any changes happen. However, surely it would be a better use of an additional path if the extra service was at least a semi-fast, rather than effectively having two stopping trains and two fast trains per hour on the line? The present New Mills shuttle is a stopping service and extending this to Sheffield would still mean having two 'Hope Valley stoppers' even if one of them missed out Bamford, Hathersage and Grindleford.

 

[Killingworth]

Would it be better to extend one of the Northern Hazel Grove services to Sheffield, perhaps picking up a couple of stops east of Chinley mentioned up thread (Hope and Dore?), whilst diverting either the EMR or the TPE via Marple, perhaps calling at New Mills and Marple?

On the flipside it would mean replacing an EMU with a DMU until electrification, although this won't be so much of a loss because the Hazel Grove will be originating from Piccadilly rather than Blackpool by the time any changes happen. However, surely it would be a better use of an additional path if the extra service was at least a semi-fast, rather than effectively having two stopping trains and two fast trains per hour on the line? The present New Mills shuttle is a stopping service and extending this to Sheffield would still mean having two 'Hope Valley stoppers' even if one of them missed out Bamford, Hathersage and Grindleford.

Lat's see what can be safely planned for 2024 when the HV scheme is certain to be complete and all the other planned December 2022 changes for Manchester have been implemented and are seen to be working. I suspect they'll need some further fine tuning.