HS2 Sheffield

[anti-pacer]

Who's confident HS2 will even go ahead now?

 

[Altnabreac]

The viaduct at Meadowhall would be easier without a station integrated and could also be at a lower level potentially - although that might require some alignment tweaks to avoid the roundabout at J34 South.

There are perhaps more direct and less costly routes to the east of Rotherham, but that would be new territory in terms of route objectors.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also, the Staveley depot spur wouldn't be appropriate as its too far north for Chesterfield.

I wonder if it will actually entail joining the classic network immediately north of Toton. That would be the cheapest way of doing it as there would be no new flying junction involved.

 

[Haydn1971]

I wonder if it will actually entail joining the classic network immediately north of Toton. That would be the cheapest way of doing it as there would be no new flying junction involved.

Hopefully not that far south, but it wouldn't surprise me

 

[Altnabreac]

Hopefully not that far south, but it wouldn't surprise me

A question of careful what you wish for. Sheffield has got what they asked for - sort of. But it may not be a huge improvement.

 

[Haydn1971]

Well, it's a starting point, the makings of a network... There's the possibility to add a HS portion of track later (talking years later), that wasn't going to happen had Meadowhall gone ahead, as there certainly wasn't a need for two stations in Sheffield.

 

[snowball]

Also, the Staveley depot spur wouldn't be appropriate as its too far north for Chesterfield.

Oops, you're right. I had a quick look and imagined a curve to make this junction triangular:

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=438715&Y=373800&A=Y&Z=115

but I failed to notice that that's north, not south, of Chesterfield station.

 

[MarkyT]

All good news I think. I'm assuming a loop from the NE trunk with fast London trains to Leeds and Newcastle bypassing and 'regional' NE - WM services also calling at Sheffield along with slower Leeds - London services. importantly this starts to destroy the (to me) strange myth built up over many years that in order to have 'true' high speed service you need a captive dedicated high speed line all the way to every major destinations. This is not the case anywhere else in Europe where trains often use parts of the classic networks to access major city centres, sometimes sharing tracks with other traffic to an extent, albeit enhanced to improve speed and capacity as neccessary. Obviously in UK we have the issue of GC loading gauge compatibility, but we are forced to build at least some of our new HS fleet as classic compatible anyway to serve the full range of 'off route' destinations desired, so this is not a fundamental technical hurdle. I also argue that there is no capacity difference between CC and captive trains of the same length assuming a single deck configuration with a 2+2 standard class seating layout. The capital cost uplift of CC stock compared to 'standard off the shelf' European models is also likely to be much smaller than many envisage and will mostly consist of the engineering costs of designing and approving a new slightly smaller bodyshell. The overheads of that are best spread over as high a production run of CCs as possible, the actual constructions costs of which should not differ significantly. The CC solution also seems most appropriate for Stafford - Stoke - Macclesfield - Stockport - Manchester as well as the faster route via Crewe, and such solutions applied more widely could start to go somewhere towards convincing the denizens of Liverpool that an improved classic route into the city from Crewe via Runcorn is most defininitely NOT a second class solution. The Chesterfield - Sheffield -Leeds slows could be a split portion cut off fast Leeds/Newcastles at Toton so half hourly London services could be provided whilst making best use of paths on the trunk south of Birmingham.

 

[DimTim]

So as I asked previously why are we building captive stock? Surely costs could be reduced using classic compatible only & we have similar fleet throughout the whole network.

Why are we needing different stock for London - Leeds & London - Newcastle!

 

[Blamethrower]

So as I asked previously why are we building captive stock? Surely costs could be reduced using classic compatible only & we have similar fleet throughout the whole network.

Why are we needing different stock for London - Leeds & London - Newcastle!

Err, future proofing capacity planning?
Buying off-the-shelf products that don't have to be modified to UK gauge being ultimately cheaper?
A flagship product by which to sell to the masses?
Trains with wider seats, more comfort, more facilities

No, let's build a uic gauge track and put voyagers on it.

I guess that is why no-one replied before :roll:

 

[edwin_m]

Hopefully this will end up with connections both north and south of Sheffield so that a classic compatible can in principle divert off to serve Sheffield and continue towards Leeds and York. However the fastest trains to the north will not now stop in South Yorkshire, as the time penalty of doing so will be rather large.

Best case would be if the paths are found for an extra London-Sheffield service continuing to Leeds so as to provide an alternative to today's rather slow and congested link between the two via Hare Park or the even slower one via Barnsley. This could be supplemented by other trains using shorter units similar to class 395s to provide a really good service between the two cities. This would provide one of the principal fast and frequent links between cities sought by Rail North etc at a relatively low cost.

 

[MarkRedon]

Hopefully this will end up with connections both north and south of Sheffield so that a classic compatible can in principle divert off to serve Sheffield and continue towards Leeds and York. However the fastest trains to the north will not now stop in South Yorkshire, as the time penalty of doing so will be rather large.

I think this makes sense. But, at the risk of infringing on another thread: what of the presumed triangle junction on a new high-speed line from Manchester to Leeds and to Sheffield? Crayonistas, please enlighten us...

 

[snowball]

I think this makes sense. But, at the risk of infringing on another thread: what of the presumed triangle junction on a new high-speed line from Manchester to Leeds and to Sheffield? Crayonistas, please enlighten us...

The north end of the Sheffield loop seems likely to near Meadowhall, well south of any likely site of the possible triangular junction. Is that what you're asking?

 

[MarkRedon]

Yes, in my incoherent way it is what I was asking. My instinctive dislike of the Meadowhall proposal is that it would further reinforce a two-centre Sheffield. If it is possible to insert a loop through Sheffield Midland with grade separated junctions at north and south ends, and if the north junction can be south of any "HS3" junction, then this seems to me to be an excellent compromise.

It remains to be seen how easy it will be to integrate dedicated 400 m platforms into the very confined Sheffield Midland footprint and at the same time avoid losing existing conventional capacity.

 

[MarkyT]

Yes, in my incoherent way it is what I was asking. My instinctive dislike of the Meadowhall proposal is that it would further reinforce a two-centre Sheffield. If it is possible to insert a loop through Sheffield Midland with grade separated junctions at north and south ends, and if the north junction can be south of any "HS3" junction, then this seems to me to be an excellent compromise.

It remains to be seen how easy it will be to integrate dedicated 400 m platforms into the very confined Sheffield Midland footprint and at the same time avoid losing existing conventional capacity.

Why 400m long? a half length CC unit could split off at Toton for the Chesterfield - Sheffield - Wakefield Parkway - Leeds loop service, whilst the other unit (CC or captive as appropriate) might carried on fast to Leeds or Newcastle (perhaps also calling at Wakefield Parkway. With this concept, 30 minute interval service or even more frequent (in the peaks say) would be easy, whilst making efficient use of the slots on the trunk south of Birmingham.

 

[Haydn1971]

Fitting 400m units would require a huge remodel, but possible - the current terminating platforms would need to be shifted south into the area currently used for unit storage, the train wash and other buildings - that would integrate well with the Granville Road tram stop for stopper services heading north - leave the longer distance stuff in the main station complex - I'd suspect that 200m HS2CC units would be the norm at Sheffield though

 

[snowball]

If it is possible to insert a loop through Sheffield Midland with grade separated junctions at north and south ends, and if the north junction can be south of any "HS3" junction, then this seems to me to be an excellent compromise.

When I saw the first reports yesterday I thought in terms of "inserting a loop". I now think the loop will be almost entirely existing lines between Toton and Meadowhall.

 

[MarkyT]

When I saw the first reports yesterday I thought in terms of "inserting a loop". I now think the loop will be almost entirely existing lines between Toton and Meadowhall.

A physical track connection to the classic network just north of Toton could also allow CC HS services to access Nottingham city centre station via a new south to east chord on to the Radford - Trowell line that could also be used by local Derby - Nottingham trains in order to serve the new Toton hub. Nottingham - Chesterfield local traffic could be diverted to the route via Beeston so as to be able to also serve Toton. For Sheffield, if the divergence from the HS line is at Toton, around four fifths of the route (nearly 200km) would still be on the dedicated HS tracks at full speed, with only the last 50km or so on classic tracks.

 

[Grimsby town]

There will be a link from Sheffield to Leeds via HS2. It's been mentioned for around a year that this will be the case and they are looking to open it before the rest of HS2. I think one service an hour from London is expected to terminate at York so I imagine this could run via Sheffield and the extra service could use one of the Heathrow paths. I don't see much point diverting captive services so that they have to use classic stock.

 

[Haydn1971]

A few thoughts...
- There is scope for a new link from the HS2 mainline to tie into the MML near Tibshelf.
- There is also scope for line speed improvement on the Sheffield loop to provide an intermediate speed in the 125-140mph region in parts.
- The Derby option is one I like also, but would expect this to be a different spur from Toton, not the same loop as the Sheffield loop, as the Sheffield-Derby journey is best served by XC type services
- The Sheffield loop also provides options for XC integration with HS2 lines to the north of Sheffield and onwards onto a 140mph ECML

 

[Senex]

- There is also scope for line speed improvement on the Sheffield loop to provide an intermediate speed in the 125-140mph region in parts.

Which parts of the Sheffield loop might allow 125-mph speeds?

 

[Haydn1971]

Which parts of the Sheffield loop might allow 125-mph speeds?

Clearly, no where currently... We don't know the thinking until the report is out on the 7th July, but should the spur be taken off near Toton, there is a lot of distance between there and Sheffield, where line speed improvements could be done if the economic case stands up.

I'm still hopeful of a loop off further north near Tibshelf hooking into Chesterfield, Sheffield and Meadowhall, rejoining north of Meadowhall... That would facilitate a semi fast commuter service from say Nottingham-Toton-Chesterfield-Sheffield-Meadowhall-Wakefield Parkway-Leeds. Wakefield/Barnsley Parkway type station has also been mentioned with the Sheffield loop plan. This is starting to sound less like a single route and more like the start of a system thankfully

 

[Senex]

Clearly, no where currently... We don't know the thinking until the report is out on the 7th July, but should the spur be taken off near Toton, there is a lot of distance between there and Sheffield, where line speed improvements could be done if the economic case stands up.

If you came off at Tibshelf you'd join the Erewash Valley line somewhere between Doe Hill and Dansmoor. So the first problem would be a major re-alignment at Clay Cross to get anything above the 70 the curve allows today. There's certainly then a fine alignment through Chesterfield to the point where the North Midland Line and the Chesterfield & Sheffield Line part company, but I thought the latter had been pushed just about as far as it would go to get the present 90 as far as Dore South, where the curve to Dore Station and beyond would need another major re-alignment to get above today's speeds. No problems then with the few miles down into Sheffield, though it could get complicated if re-quadding were desired. We all know about the problems about getting through Sheffield itself and out as far as Grimesthorpe Jn, but shortly after that you're all being well linking back into the high-speed route. I do wonder whether you could get any really worthwhile 125 sections except at unjustifiable cost, nice though it would be.

 

[HSTEd]

This is a bad decision in my opinion.

It will result in far fewer HS2 trains stopping in the vicinity of Sheffield and will also force use of short classic compatible sets on every train that wants to stops there.
Its a major step backwards, for some minor savings.

 

[Haydn1971]

So the first problem would be....

All civil engineering is a problem, it's a balance of cost vs benefit, at this stage, we haven't a clue what's proposed, but even upping line speeds by a small margin is always possible. Let's not get into the ifs buts and maybes at this stage as we haven't a clue until the 7th July as to what is being suggested - for all we know it could be a triangle junction at Catcliffe and the HS2CC running through Sheffield and terminating at Chesterfield - mad as that might seem !

 

[edwin_m]

All civil engineering is a problem, it's a balance of cost vs benefit, at this stage, we haven't a clue what's proposed, but even upping line speeds by a small margin is always possible. Let's not get into the ifs buts and maybes at this stage as we haven't a clue until the 7th July as to what is being suggested - for all we know it could be a triangle junction at Catcliffe and the HS2CC running through Sheffield and terminating at Chesterfield - mad as that might seem !

The line between Clay Cross and Sheffield was looked at not too many years ago as part of the Cross Country upgrade, with quite a few improvements made. So it's likely there isn't much scope for to do more without getting into some major realignments.

 

[MarkyT]

It will result in far fewer HS2 trains stopping in the vicinity of Sheffield

There were always going to be trains going fast through Meadowhall so this is far from being a foregone conclusion.

and will also force use of short classic compatible sets on every train that wants to stops there.

Not a problem if enough CCs are ordered. Short trains can be split and joined at Toton with portions going elsewhere to make best use of the paths south thereof.

Its a major step backwards, for some minor savings.

It achieves the much desired city centre station, and whilst Meadowhall had adequate good local and regional connections, Sheffield Midland is even better in this respect. The only downside is possibly car access from the broader region, but I would expect some road and parking improvements will be proposed around the station and the better integration with local public transport should encourage more people to use that to access High Speed services anyway.

 

[HSTEd]

There were always going to be trains going fast through Meadowhall so this is far from being a foregone conclusion.

Yes, but you could have had six or more trains per hour at Meadowhall, you will be lucky to get two an hour at the Midland station.

Not a problem if enough CCs are ordered. Short trains can be split and joined at Toton with portions going elsewhere to make best use of the paths south thereof.

Its still a major operational constraint - no captive sets can ever call at Sheffield, which is going to cause all sorts of problems for timetabling, especially if we actually end up needing lots of capacity.

 

[Senex]

The line between Clay Cross and Sheffield was looked at not too many years ago as part of the Cross Country upgrade, with quite a few improvements made. So it's likely there isn't much scope for to do more without getting into some major realignments.

Exactly so!

 

[snowball]

Tom Ingall has just been on Look North (Yorkshire) again saying he understands that HS2 East's main route will after all go east of Rotherham and so not via Meadowhall.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Tom Ingall has just been on Look North (Yorkshire) again saying he understands that HS2 East's main route will after all go east of Rotherham and so not via Meadowhall.

I must confess I do not agree with that. Very poor decision in my eyes if we have abandoned that.

South Yorkshire will be very poorly served by a Sheffield City Centre only station.