Hope Valley Capacity Scheme updates

[Mag_seven]

Just a gentle reminder that we should confine our discussion in this thread to details and progress of the actual Hope Valley capacity scheme itself.

Anything speculative in nature should be posted in the speculative ideas section, for example:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/alternative-route-for-freight-trains-to-avoid-the-congested-hope-valley.210741/

 

[Watershed]

The line through Northwich ought to have a spare path too with Northern not running their second service along there.

That's not how it works unfortunately!

 

[Killingworth]

For the record, there was what could have been a nasty accident in Totley Tunnel on 24th May 1971. The derailment of a train of 6 coaches and 3 brake vans traveling at 60mph was nearer the Sheffield end and the locomotive, having broken free of the train, stopped outside the tunnel. It was fully investigated by the Railway Inspectorate (see; https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoE_Totley1971.pdf ) and found to have been caused by a broken rail.

It took over 3 hours before passengers were rescued by a DMU entering from the Sheffield side, an earlier attempt from the west thwarted by the ripped up track. Fortunately the train stayed upright (fairly easy given it was constrained by the tunnel walls), nothing was coming the other way and there were 2 men in the Class 45 loco. The guard went back to Grindleford to report. The second man on the loco walked back to the train while the driver and loco went forward to Dore West box (now gone) to report. No mobile phones then to ensure all knew what was happening, but reception would be zero to very poor now so it probably wouldn't be much better today!

An up thread suggestion that might include cross over points within the tunnel would add more potential dangers than it would be worth. Before and after the tunnel may be more likely, but there are two crossovers now, albeit at the Dore end some way from the tunnel.

 

[Killingworth]

All TOCs (including London Underground?) and a host of interested rail related bodies were sent details of the scheme on 7th October. Between the five files there is an immense amount of detail, including an intended timetable for the work. Those who understand signalling will find lots of interest.

Essentially, after a 3 month work site preparation period January - March 2022 the main 15 month design and build contract should take from April 2022 - June 2023 to completion. So far so good.

However, this all depends on final financing being agreed, and that was anticipated before the end of 2020. My understanding is that contracts can't be let until it is and so far it hasn't been. Last minute government again? Apparently it was signed off by the DfT many weeks ago (about the time these documents were circulated?) but so far HM Treasury hasn't made a decision. As the redoubling at Dore has been kicking around in Network Rail since at least 2005 you might be forgiven for wondering why this is being held back.

Whoever is awarded the contract and sub-contracts will need 12 months to fine tune the way they'll do the work together and get themselves organised. Blockades are already planned in. Without that preparation time the June 2023 completion date becomes harder to achieve. Little details still need to be confirmed and become more likely to get missed, and weather can cause big delays.

Being that hidden backwater route, currently traversed by more stone and cement than passengers, the Hope Valley line seems to have been forgotten.

 

[edwin_m]

Looks like:

• All SP speeds are re-designated as MU but not much change to the actual speeds except as noted
• Hazel Grove remains as a separate box, but surrounding lines get relocated and many signals increased to 4-aspect
• Increase from 40mph to 55mph eastbound and 60mph westbound through Woodsmoor.
• HG Chord increases from 40mph to 45mph.
• Reduced speeds westbound from Cowburn to New Mills South, mostly slower
• No significant change to Cowburn-Earles
• York ROC gets track circuit indications only when trains pass Earles. There can only be one eastbound train between here and Bamford loop, so the ROC will need to ascertain accurately the position of a following train outside its area in order to decide whether to loop that one train.
• Between Bamford/Hope and Grindleford is a fairly conventional 3-aspect scheme.
• Eastbound trains can turn back at Grindleford carrying passengers - may be handy if the tunnel is blocked but not the best of places to transfer to/from buses.
• Some 4-aspect signalling around Totley Tunnel East (box abolished

 

[The Planner]

All TOCs (including London Underground) and a host of interested rail related bodies were sent details of the scheme on 7th October. Between the five attached files there is an immense amount of detail, including an intended timetable for the work. Those who understand signalling will find lots of interest.

Essentially, after a 3 month work site preparation period January - March 2022 the main 15 month design and build contract should take from April 2022 - June 2023 to completion. So far so good.

However, this all depends on final financing being agreed, and that was anticipated before the end of 2020. My understanding is that contracts can't be let until it is and so far it hasn't been. Last minute government again? Apparently it was signed off by the DfT many weeks ago (about the time these documents were circulated?) but so far HM Treasury hasn't made a decision. As the redoubling at Dore has been kicking around in Network Rail since at least 2005 you might be forgiven for wondering why this is being held back.

Whoever is awarded the contract and sub-contracts will need 12 months to fine tune the way they'll do the work together and get themselves organised. Blockades are already planned in. Without that preparation time the June 2023 completion date becomes harder to achieve. Little details still need to be confirmed and become more likely to get missed, and weather can cause big delays.

Being that hidden backwater route, currently traversed by more stone and cement than passengers, the Hope Valley line seems to have been forgotten.

Clearly you have got hold of the Network Change that the industry gets (the ones on the NR site are redacted and do not show all of the info you have put up). London Underground didnt get it, that is just the overall distribution list that then gets cherry picked.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

All SP speeds are re-designated as MU but not much change to the actual speeds except as noted

Whilst any improvement Is welcome I don't see any current benefit of changing SP to MU as EMR class 158s and Northern 15xs can use existing SP speeds and TPE class 185s do not benefit from either SP or MU. Can cl195 take SP speeds?. They were probably not planned for the route when the spec was developed.

 

[edwin_m]

Whilst any improvement Is welcome I don't see any current benefit of changing SP to MU as EMR class 158s and Northern 15xs can use existing SP speeds and TPE class 185s do not benefit from either SP or MU. Can cl195 take SP speeds?. They were probably not planned for the route when the spec was developed.

I seem to recall there's a policy of getting rid of SP speeds whenever anything else is changed. Perhaps a few seconds benefit for the EMUs that terminate at Hazel Grove?

 

[Rail Ranger]

Surely the delay in approving funding is because it is not clear that the scheme will still be required in the post-Covid world. We don't know how well passenger traffic will recover (particularly commuting and business travel). It wouldn't surprise me if there was a complete block on funding approval for such schemes at the moment. The Treasury is currently spending a fortune paying for the day to day operation of the railway.

 

[edwin_m]

Surely the delay in approving funding is because it is not clear that the scheme will still be required in the post-Covid world. We don't know how well passenger traffic will recover (particularly commuting and business travel). It wouldn't surprise me if there was a complete block on funding approval for such schemes at the moment. The Treasury is currently spending a fortune paying for the day to day operation of the railway.

This question comes up on pretty much every thread discussing an enhancement.

In my personal view it's a good bet to take forward. The service between Manchester and Sheffield is far worse than between other comparable city pairs such as Manchester to Leeds, and there is no good road alternative either. It's a relatively minor enhancement compared with even the Huddersfield-Dewsbury upgrades as proposed, which is only part of the package planned for the North Transpennine route. If cuts have to be made then other planned enhancements are more appropriate to target, particularly those focused on increasing London commuter capacity which is more likely to drop permanently. The government's policy of "levelling up" favours redistributing investment northwards.

 

[jfowkes]

The long term trends are climate change, pollution and road congestion. We have to fix those regardless of how work and commuting patterns settle after COVID. For those many, many people who still have to travel, the preference is still for them to travel by the cleanest mode available. In general, on average, that's probably public transport and not private cars.

So yes, capacity enhancements still required.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The long term trends are climate change, pollution and road congestion. We have to fix those regardless of how work and commuting patterns settle after COVID. For those many, many people who still have to travel, the preference is still for them to travel by the cleanest mode available. In general, on average, that's probably public transport and not private cars.

So yes, capacity enhancements still required.

Yep, totally agree. Plus that the situation on the Hope Valley line seems particularly dire with that single track section routinely screwing up reliability and heavily restricting capacity on what is the only route between two pretty important cities as well as an important freight route.

 

[MarkyT]

This question comes up on pretty much every thread discussing an enhancement.

In my personal view it's a good bet to take forward. The service between Manchester and Sheffield is far worse than between other comparable city pairs such as Manchester to Leeds, and there is no good road alternative either. It's a relatively minor enhancement compared with even the Huddersfield-Dewsbury upgrades as proposed, which is only part of the package planned for the North Transpennine route. If cuts have to be made then other planned enhancements are more appropriate to target, particularly those focused on increasing London commuter capacity which is more likely to drop permanently. The government's policy of "levelling up" favours redistributing investment northwards.

Doubling through Dore in particular is important to help flexibility and reliability of the whole southern approach to Sheffield. Having a fairly lengthy single line track section together with a single lead junction onto the MML, with a platform on the single line to boot, is (to put it politely) a highly suboptimal arrangement under any traffic conditions greater than a simple branch shuttle.

 

[Jozhua]

Surely the delay in approving funding is because it is not clear that the scheme will still be required in the post-Covid world. We don't know how well passenger traffic will recover (particularly commuting and business travel). It wouldn't surprise me if there was a complete block on funding approval for such schemes at the moment. The Treasury is currently spending a fortune paying for the day to day operation of the railway.

Ugh, not this again.

COVID isn't forever.

Declines in travel typically coincide with declines in economic activity, don't think we want to be in recession forever.

Cap-ex is not the same as op-ex.

Capital expenditure is a useful tool for boosting the economy after events like this, austerity just serves to drag things out.

The Hope Valley Capacity Scheme is a fantastic, well thought out, well needed scheme with a very good cost-benefit ratio. I think a lot of us who use the route understand how valuable it is, and how much more capacity is desperately needed. The Transpennine Express train lengthening has helped, but extra frequency is needed to help not only capacity, but connections and convenience, something surprisingly lacking on such a vital link between two regions.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree with other posters that even if we were to assume the most pessimistic view of rail travel recovery post pandemic, a fully double track railway between Sheffield and Manchester will be required. This should be the highest priority project.

 

[edwin_m]

I agree with other posters that even if we were to assume the most pessimistic view of rail travel recovery post pandemic, a fully double track railway between Sheffield and Manchester will be required. This should be the highest priority project.

Of course even this scheme doesn't address the other single track section at Hazel Grove. But one single track section is much easier to timetable around than two.

 

[Killingworth]

Of course even this scheme doesn't address the other single track section at Hazel Grove. But one single track section is much easier to timetable around than two.

Especially when there's an alternative route through Marple for the stopping services and some freight. I think Hazel Grove platforms can be operated bi-directionally. That was an option for Dore and Totley but was left out of the final plans. It would have helped.

 

[D365]

The long term trends are climate change, pollution and road congestion. We have to fix those regardless of how work and commuting patterns settle after COVID. For those many, many people who still have to travel, the preference is still for them to travel by the cleanest mode available. In general, on average, that's probably public transport and not private cars.

So yes, capacity enhancements still required.

This needs to be pinned and posted every time someone asks why we are spending any money on the railways at all this decade!

 

[yorksrob]

Of course even this scheme doesn't address the other single track section at Hazel Grove. But one single track section is much easier to timetable around than two.

I must admit, I'd never even noticed that that chord was also single track, however it does add to the case for redoubling through Dore !

 

[Senex]

Especially when there's an alternative route through Marple for the stopping services and some freight. I think Hazel Grove platforms can be operated bi-directionally. That was an option for Dore and Totley but was left out of the final plans. It would have helped.

I've certainly experienced heading north through Hazel Grove off the Midland line and then through the up platform, crossing at the north end. It would be good if that section could be doubled, but how possible is it? Isn't the section of the graveyard up to the embankment of the curve still in use for burials (even if only of ashes)? It's interesting news, though, that the curve may go up from 40 to 45. I'd always assumed that the 40 was a compromise between what might be possible on that radius of curve northbound and how much cant it made sense to have for trains that might be starting from a signal-stop and facing the gradient southbound. It's an interesting design, and I've always been puzzled as to why it was apparently felt more important to keep a double-track route for the Buxton line rather than build two tracks for the curve and and have a single-lead junction for Buxton (and, if there had been the money, do a different layout for the station too, which would have been possible at the time).

 

[Greybeard33]

Especially when there's an alternative route through Marple for the stopping services and some freight. I think Hazel Grove platforms can be operated bi-directionally. That was an option for Dore and Totley but was left out of the final plans. It would have helped.

And the Hazel Grove single track is shorter and does not have a platform on it. Plus it is several miles from the double junction with the WCML at Edgeley, giving more scope for regulation.

Altogether a lower priority for doubling.

 

[Tomnick]

I've certainly experienced heading north through Hazel Grove off the Midland line and then through the up platform, crossing at the north end. It would be good if that section could be doubled, but how possible is it? Isn't the section of the graveyard up to the embankment of the curve still in use for burials (even if only of ashes)? It's interesting news, though, that the curve may go up from 40 to 45. I'd always assumed that the 40 was a compromise between what might be possible on that radius of curve northbound and how much cant it made sense to have for trains that might be starting from a signal-stop and facing the gradient southbound. It's an interesting design, and I've always been puzzled as to why it was apparently felt more important to keep a double-track route for the Buxton line rather than build two tracks for the curve and and have a single-lead junction for Buxton (and, if there had been the money, do a different layout for the station too, which would have been possible at the time).

In the Down direction (off the Midland line), the chord line drops away sharply almost immediately off the end of the viaduct, before curving away from the original alignment of the former Up line, whereas the adjacent single line to Northenden has to keep the level of the original formation for the bridge over the LNW. I suspect that'd be a big problem. The chord line is currently 30mph in the Down direction, which I guess is as much about braking distance from the signal on the chord as it is anything else.

Of course even this scheme doesn't address the other single track section at Hazel Grove. But one single track section is much easier to timetable around than two.

The single line section at Dore does, of course, have more trains passing over it, including two in quick succession on a regular basis (i.e. when the local passenger or freight comes off the Hope Valley on the Up with an express right behind it, and v.v. on the Down) and the dwell time at the station itself to take into account. The south curve's an additional nightmare on top of that, with nowhere to stand a freight of any length to wait for a decent margin forward.

I think Hazel Grove platforms can be operated bi-directionally.

They can, and it is occasionally useful, but the situation there is rather different to that at Dore with a number of services terminating there and shunting to/from the sidings. There's no access from Buxton to the Up platform, so if an ex-Buxton service is running late, it might conflict with an originating service that's instead put into the Up platform as a consequence, in turn getting in the way of something to Buxton or towards the Hope Valley which can be put around it using the Down platform in the Up direction. You don't have that problem at Dore (for now at least!) so any use would really be limited to impromptu regulating use during disruption.

 

[MarkyT]

In the Down direction (off the Midland line), the chord line drops away sharply almost immediately off the end of the viaduct, before curving away from the original alignment of the former Up line, whereas the adjacent single line to Northenden has to keep the level of the original formation for the bridge over the LNW. I suspect that'd be a big problem. The chord line is currently 30mph in the Down direction, which I guess is as much about braking distance from the signal on the chord as it is anything else.

The geometry looks challenging! One way of making room for a second track would be to close the Northenden line, but I guess it's a useful way to keep some freights out of Stockport and central Manchester so that may not be popular! An alternative might be a second new single track chord, diverging from the LNW immediately south of the intersection bridge, climbing and crossing Macclesfield Rd, Buxton Rd and the P&R car park, then joining the Midland on the embankment to the east of the viaduct (Disclaimer: Purely speculative, some non-residential demolition may be required, other alignments may be available, no diagrams prepared or published).

 

[21C101]

Seeing various comments re don't do this, reopen Matlock to Buxton instead. That might happen in a few decades but this upgrade is needed now.

I agree though that there is a lot of latent Manchester to East Midlands demand, suppressed by lack of direct services and long waits at Sheffield after watching the previous Manchester train pass you going the other way north of Dore.

Noting that Manchester, Stockport, Macc, Stoke takes 36 minutes and Stoke to Derby takes 51 minutes for a sprinter with four stops.

If a portion of the EMT semi fast Sheffield service was to join/split at Derby that would give you a St Pancras, Leicester, Loughborough, EMP, Derby, Uttoxeter, Longton, Stoke, Macc, Stockport, Manchester, that would give a journey time of:

London to Derby 1h 38
Derby 5 mins
Derby to Stoke with 2 stops and linespeed upgrade. 40m
Stoke to Manc 36 mins.

Total Journey time Lon Manc 2h 59m.

Might need HS2 to free up paths north of Stoke but probably more useful and more potential than going via Matlock.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The geometry looks challenging! One way of making room for a second track would be to close the Northenden line, but I guess it's a useful way to keep some freights out of Stockport and central Manchester so that may not be popular! An alternative might be a second new single track chord, diverging from the LNW immediately south of the intersection bridge, climbing and crossing Macclesfield Rd, Buxton Rd and the P&R car park, then joining the Midland on the embankment to the east of the viaduct (Disclaimer: Purely speculative, some non-residential demolition may be required, other alignments may be available, no diagrams prepared or published).

I just had a look at the map. That looks like a lot of demolition.

On further looking at the map, I suspect that if it became essential to double that chord, then, the two least bad options would be to take a sliver of land from the cemetery so you can just double where the chord is, or shift the freight line (the Northenden line?) a few metres South so you have more room to double the chord in-place. The latter option would require building a new bridge to take the freight line over the Buxton line so would be pretty expensive. But I suspect still cheaper than any other plausible option that doesn't involve taking over a bit of the cemetery.

Unless that single track chord becomes absolutely impossible to schedule around, I would imagine doubling it is going to easily fall into the too-expensive/complicated-for-the-benefit-gained box

 

[21C101]

I just had a look at the map. That looks like a lot of demolition.

On further looking at the map, I suspect that if it became essential to double that chord, then, the two least bad options would be to take a sliver of land from the cemetery so you can just double where the chord is, or shift the freight line (the Northenden line?) a few metres South so you have more room to double the chord in-place. The latter option would require building a new bridge to take the freight line over the Buxton line so would be pretty expensive. But I suspect still cheaper than any other plausible option that doesn't involve taking over a bit of the cemetery.

Unless that single track chord becomes absolutely impossible to schedule around, I would imagine doubling it is going to easily fall into the too-expensive/complicated-for-the-benefit-gained box

It isn't that long so it would seem to be a bit of an extravagance.

I think it was that Hazel Grove chord that was the final nail in the coffin for Woodhead.

With the Hope Valley gaining a fast route into Manchester and linking Stockport to Sheffield too, Woodhead is never going to be needed or be a desirable route.

 

[Killingworth]

The pandemic's effect on passenger services may reduce the need for an early 3rd fast passenger service but the fundamental issue is capacity to run slower moving train loads of heavy limestone from the quarries near Buxton and cement from Hope. That also requires paths for light engines going for servicing and and coal to Hope. Because siding capacity is limited at both Buxton quarries and the cement works empty wagons may be held in reserve at Toton or Barrow Hill.

These two pictures show a train of empty wagons back in May, stopped below the Twentywell Lane road bridge at Dore. It had come from the west side but there wasn't space at Buxton so it had come all the way along the Hope Valley and was going to drag through Sheffield and round to Barrow Hill. It was halted in the station platform and stretched almost as far back as Dore West Junction. It stood there for 5-10 minutes during which time a loaded stone train followed and took the Dore curve to head south. At this time a reduced passenger timetable was operating on all routes so this track block wasn't a problem.

Once there was a clear northbound route through Sheffield the train moved off, helped by the downhill gradient. That is a stronger factor for loaded trains that may soon be held in the Bamford loop. The drawback of that is it's on an uphill gradient and it's distance from the MML with the 5-6 minute separation demanded by Totley Tunnel.

That's less of an issue with trains heading south that will be able to shelter in the Dore loop to await an opportunity to cross northbound traffic and slot in to go south. However it is a steep uphill gradient round the tight 90 degree Dore curve and into Bradway Tunnel, currently limited to 15 mph - and produces a lot of squeeling wheels! That limit is supposed to increase to 20 mph.

Others have pointed out that York will have a limited view of trains approaching from the west (but presumably much better than today) in order to decide which may need to be looped. However getting eastbound freight traffic released from Buxton and Earles across the westbound traffic flow will be easier.

It was probably a mistake, but the documentation for the Public Inquiry included a diagram showing an option for bi-directional working between Dore Station and Dore West Junctions. If that were to exist the train shown below could have sat there for some time without totally blocking all other traffic in both directions. It would be in a much better position to take advantage of a gap in MML northbound traffic than if held at Bamford.

It would also make it possible for a Northern stopping service to move forward and across the MML into Dore station to await being overtaken by the often late preceding TPE service! Last but not least it might allow an additional service to run up to Dore and back into Sheffield rather than having to proceed further along the route where loadings are much lower.


Another bottleneck that isn't currently going to be resolved is entering and leaving the Hope Valley line or the Buxton quarries to head west and south. The route normally used involves a big detour north up to Guide Bridge before heading south through Denton. Relatively few trains go that way. One that currently does is coal bound for Earles from Cwmbargoed Opencast Colliery. To enter Earles Sidings it has to stop and reverse across westbound traffic.

This is the train last Tuesday; https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/H11101/2020-12-21/detailed What exactly went wrong is difficult to follow, but it has been suggested that there wasn't a driver available at some point.



Whatever, the Northern stopping service was held behind it until the route was cleared; https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P28844/2020-12-22/detailed#allox_id=0 That particular service has the best punctuality record into Sheffield of any on the line, but this particular coal train has caused delays before. The coal finally arrived at Earles almost 2 hours late, being passed at Edale by the Northern service, by then on its way back to Manchester! Reversing long freight trains across the westbound traffic could be eliminated by a crossover west of Earles, or signalling one track bi-diectionally through Cowburn Tunnel. But these ideas should have been incorporated into the planning 5-10 years ago. It's far too late now.

In a letter to TOCs in October Network Rail said "The Secretary of State finally announced his decision to support the TWAO for this scheme in February 2018. Whilst there are a number of conditions that constrain the construction process, the TWAO does effectively provide planning approval for the works that it covers. It does, however, also introduce a significant limitation on the ability to make changes to the scheme: any changes to the geographic scope, for instance, would very probably require a further TWAO submission, which would introduce a significant delay as well as a substantial cost.

Funding for the scheme was paused in 2016 as part of the Hendy review, but has become available in CP6. Network Rail is now working with the DfT with a view to achieving “Decision to Deliver” by December 2020, enabling a contract for the works to be let in January 2021."

Maybe we'll hear that Decision announced very soon.

 

[Greybeard33]

Another bottleneck that isn't currently going to be resolved is entering and leaving the Hope Valley line or the Buxton quarries to head west and south. The route normally used involves a big detour north up to Guide Bridge before heading south through Denton. Relatively few trains go that way. One that currently does is coal bound for Earles from Cwmbargoed Opencast Colliery. To enter Earles Sidings it has to stop and reverse across westbound traffic.

Freights from Crewe do not need to go via Stockport and Guide Bridge. The more usual route is via Sandbach, Middlewich, Northwich, Altrincham, Northenden and Hazel Grove to Chinley.

That particular train is scheduled early in the morning, so presumably there is a WCML path available via Stockport.

 

[Tomnick]

I just had a look at the map. That looks like a lot of demolition.

On further looking at the map, I suspect that if it became essential to double that chord, then, the two least bad options would be to take a sliver of land from the cemetery so you can just double where the chord is, or shift the freight line (the Northenden line?) a few metres South so you have more room to double the chord in-place. The latter option would require building a new bridge to take the freight line over the Buxton line so would be pretty expensive. But I suspect still cheaper than any other plausible option that doesn't involve taking over a bit of the cemetery.

Unless that single track chord becomes absolutely impossible to schedule around, I would imagine doubling it is going to easily fall into the too-expensive/complicated-for-the-benefit-gained box

Neither of those options really deal with the problem presented by the proximity to the viaduct though - the relative levels of the two lines have to start diverging pretty much right on the end of the viaduct to get the chord line down before the station (and then only by introducting an awkward-looking 'ski jump' on the Up Buxton line!). I think you've got it spot on with your last comment

These two pictures show a train of empty wagons back in May, stopped below the Twentywell Lane road bridge at Dore. It had come from the west side but there wasn't space at Buxton so it had come all the way along the Hope Valley and was going to drag through Sheffield and round to Barrow Hill. It was halted in the station platform and stretched almost as far back as Dore West Junction. It stood there for 5-10 minutes during which time a loaded stone train followed and took the Dore curve to head south. At this time a reduced passenger timetable was operating on all routes so this track block wasn't a problem.

I think it's worth looking at the Down Passenger Loop at Heeley. That's the only other place to recess a freight train before Sheffield station itself (where there's nowhere to recess any but the shortest freight trains). The problem is that any terminating/reversing passenger train needing to access platform 7 or 8 has to go through the DPL. Personally I think it'd make much more sense to use the existing Down Main to stand freights out of the way, but there's a significant time penalty for trains routed via the DPL because of the restrictive approach control (even though the turnout itself is 40mph). I'd suggest that that'd be a relatively quick and easy win! I've watched (with my head in my hands) as the signalman's got himself in a real knot thanks to, apparently, a schedule error - a freight train with no immediate path to run out of the north end, followed by my Liverpool - Norwich, followed by a London train bound for platform 7. The freight went onto the DPL. I went along the Main into platform 2. The freight then had to be dropped into the station - platform 5 - to wait for a suitable margin (quite possibly its booked path) to make way for the London. Its back end was still hanging over most of the pointwork though, so the Norwich was blocked in platform 2. Life would've been so much easier if the freight had been run down the main and both passengers through the DPL!

 

[Killingworth]

I think it's worth looking at the Down Passenger Loop at Heeley. That's the only other place to recess a freight train before Sheffield station itself (where there's nowhere to recess any but the shortest freight trains). The problem is that any terminating/reversing passenger train needing to access platform 7 or 8 has to go through the DPL. Personally I think it'd make much more sense to use the existing Down Main to stand freights out of the way, but there's a significant time penalty for trains routed via the DPL because of the restrictive approach control (even though the turnout itself is 40mph). I'd suggest that that'd be a relatively quick and easy win! I've watched (with my head in my hands) as the signalman's got himself in a real knot thanks to, apparently, a schedule error - a freight train with no immediate path to run out of the north end, followed by my Liverpool - Norwich, followed by a London train bound for platform 7. The freight went onto the DPL. I went along the Main into platform 2. The freight then had to be dropped into the station - platform 5 - to wait for a suitable margin (quite possibly its booked path) to make way for the London. Its back end was still hanging over most of the pointwork though, so the Norwich was blocked in platform 2. Life would've been so much easier if the freight had been run down the main and both passengers through the DPL!

However, HS2 envisaged adding a third track from Dore into Sheffield. Back in 1900 they had a similar Sheaf Valley capacity issue and quadrupled the tracks from Dore into Sheffield, only for them to be ripped out again in the 1970s. That was compounded in 1985 when the track though Dore & Totley station to the Hope Valley was reduced to a single line and platform.

The Up Loop at Heeley is being resignalled to allow it to take longer freight trains. That won't help with delayed TPE services causing Northern's to be held back - sometimes for long enough to cause knock on delay to the following EMR Norwich-Liverpool by the time it gets towards Edale.

Restoring 4 tracks isn't possible without immense expense, but adding more triple track for additional looping would be relatively easy. Sadly points and signalling complexities add far more cost than many appreciate. That was the reason given at the Inquiry for not proceeding with the option of bi-directional running through Dore and Totley station - and it wasn't in the brief the project design team had been given.