Manchester - Sheffield passenger Capacity

[The Planner]

Delivering the necessary improvements to run more frequent services Sheffield to Manchester along the current Hope Valley via Hazel Grove/Marple would cost a lot more than my Peak plan.
You'd probably need a tunnel from Chinley or Adswood (with new platforms at Hazel Grove) into Manchester at the very least, and 4 tracks from Dore in to Sheffield at the other end. Not cheap, at all.
Then you still have to wrestle with increasing minerals traffic down the Hope Valley, if you leave it as the only south Transpennine route.

You are always going to be constrained by Totley, but resignalling the lot down to a 3 minute headway would still be immeasurably cheaper.

 

[AlastairFraser]

You are always going to be constrained by Totley, but resignalling the lot down to a 3 minute headway would still be immeasurably cheaper.

Including Stockport/New Mills into Manchester? Doesn't the lack of capacity at Picc or between Stockport and Picc prevent any additional services (or service extensions west of New Mills Central), let alone the restrictions of Totley tunnel?

 

[edwin_m]

Problem is those capacity constraints you mentioned. I'd rather go for a brand new line Man Picc east through the northern Peak District to Sheffield, but that would go massively over budget. If you at least try to segregate the very heavy Manchester to Sheffield passenger flow, from the Liverpool/Manchester to Nottingham and beyond flows, you could release a lot of capacity for Manchester to Sheffield that way.

The Liverpool/Manchester to Nottingham and beyond flows use the same trains as the Sheffield-Manchester, so if you put them on separate trains they would just use more paths. Conversely, if the aim is more capacity per the thread title, there's no real reason why the existing train every 30min couldn't be made much longer - some platform constraints certainly, but nowhere near as difficult as building a new line across the Pennines.

Including Stockport/New Mills into Manchester? Doesn't the lack of capacity at Picc or between Stockport and Picc prevent any additional services (or service extensions west of New Mills Central), let alone the restrictions of Totley tunnel?

How is creating more capacity into Manchester on the existing route going to be more costly than creating a totally new route?

 

[Killingworth]

Delivering the necessary improvements to run more frequent services Sheffield to Manchester along the current Hope Valley via Hazel Grove/Marple would cost a lot more than my Peak plan.
You'd probably need a tunnel from Chinley or Adswood (with new platforms at Hazel Grove) into Manchester at the very least, and 4 tracks from Dore in to Sheffield at the other end. Not cheap, at all.
Then you still have to wrestle with increasing minerals traffic down the Hope Valley, if you leave it as the only south Transpennine route.

Part of electrification of the MML into Sheffield must include a 3rd track down the Sheaf Valley as well as loops to make it 4 for much of the way. That alone won't be cheap but something is being planned already. If Tesco and other businesses between the Archer Road bridges were encouraged to plan a new store partially on stilts above the railway it might work for 4, but there are a lot of bridges to reinstate and other lineside items to be resited to allow it.

Extending the New Mills stoppers into Sheffield is the easiest way to add additional train capacity on the route. No need for any extra paths into Piccadilly or any major extra work along the Hope Valley.

The Hope Valley cement traffic will be winding down before closure in 2042 so that will relieve mineral traffic on the Hope Valley line before any other major construction work is likely to be completed through the Peak. A passenger service signalled passing loop through Earles Sidings must come sooner or later.

 

[HSTEd]

Delivering the necessary improvements to run more frequent services Sheffield to Manchester along the current Hope Valley via Hazel Grove/Marple would cost a lot more than my Peak plan.
You'd probably need a tunnel from Chinley or Adswood (with new platforms at Hazel Grove) into Manchester at the very least, and 4 tracks from Dore in to Sheffield at the other end. Not cheap, at all.

A tunnel from Chinley into Manchester would be ~25km long.
As an example of just how long a distance that is, Glossop is only 33km from Sheffield railway station.
If you build a tunnel like that, the Glossop stopper would beat the Hope Valley 'fast' to Sheffield, easily.

If you want to escape the fundamental limitations of the Hope Valley line (painfully slow, clogged with slow moving aggregates trains), you certainly wouldn't spend money piling more track into that corridor.
If you want underground platforms anywhere, they would likely be in Sheffield.

Then you still have to wrestle with increasing minerals traffic down the Hope Valley, if you leave it as the only south Transpennine route.

The policy of the local council is a steady reduction in aggregate extraction in the area, and the cement works is counting down to its end in ~18 years.

 

[Killingworth]

A tunnel from Chinley into Manchester would be ~25km long.
As an example of just how long a distance that is, Glossop is only 33km from Sheffield railway station.
If you build a tunnel like that, the Glossop stopper would beat the Hope Valley 'fast' to Sheffield, easily.

If you want to escape the fundamental limitations of the Hope Valley line (painfully slow, clogged with slow moving aggregates trains), you certainly wouldn't spend money piling more track into that corridor.
If you want underground platforms anywhere, they would likely be in Sheffield.


The policy of the local council is a steady reduction in aggregate extraction in the area, and the cement works is counting down to its end in ~18 years.

The PennineLink tunnel railway, all the way from Sheffield to Manchester, with very deep station at Glossop, journey time 20-25 minutes.

Transformational. Think I must have been dreaming.

 

[Nottingham59]

the fundamental limitations of the Hope Valley line (painfully slow, clogged with slow moving aggregates trains

Send the aggregate trains at night. Problem solved.

 

[The Planner]

Send the aggregate trains at night. Problem solved.

They do, you get hemmed in by terminal capacity and which way they have to go at Chinley to send them all at night.

 

[Dr Hoo]

They do, you get hemmed in by terminal capacity and which way they have to go at Chinley to send them all at night.

Plus it would completely destroy the economics of rail freight by not seeking to use assets (besides terminals) on a 24-hour basis. How many times does this have to be pointed out?

 

[Starmill]

FOCs are sometimes given a bung of a few quid to get them to agree to accept rights that aren't what they initially bid for / have previously enjoyed, if that's the obvious way to get a protracted conflict out of everyone's hair. It's generally not much money in the grand scheme of things. Generally they don't really seem to mind that, presumably because a Part J Dispute could often be successful against them if they dug in.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Trying to pick the bones out of this, whilst still keeping on-thread about sheffield-Manchester.

Extension of the Manchester Piccadilly-New Mills Central terminators to Sheffield wouldn't work without major changes elsewhere. Bearing in mind that these call additionally at Ashburys, Belle View, Ryder Brow and Strines they obviously have a longer journey time than the Hope Valley locals that don't call at those stations. Hypothetically emerging at New Mills South Junction is OK in itself but if the train called at all the Hope Valley stations it would then typically take 47 minutes to reach Sheffield. In the process it would be caught up by the EMR Liverpool-Norwich train, which generally takes only 28 minutes non-stop and arrives at xx:34. Eastbound it might be now be possible to loop the Northern train at Bamford but with a further significant extension of journey time. Now that virtually no train is short enough to fit in Platform 2C capacity at Sheffield is really tight. It seems impossible to get the additional Northern train 'in and out' with a minimum dwell.

At the risk of stating the obvious; none of this is anything to do with 'freight'.

Turning to freight on the axis more generally, allowing for the fact that bulk trains (like bulk lorries) are only loaded in one direction there can hardly be any dispute that 2,000+ tonnes of limestone and associated products are generating a lot of economic, environmental and safety benefits if they go by rail compared to sending the traffic by road, especially in an area with no motorways, virtually no dual carriageways and many settlements lacking bypasses. The days of capacity hungry 'pick-up' goods trains stopping frequently to shunt a handful of wagons at wayside stations are long gone.

I don't understand the suggestion that freight track access charges are 'subsidised'. I was under the impression that variable track access charges for all types of train/vehicle are calculated using well-established industry models (even if contractually 'established' by the ORR as part of the Periodic Review cycle). These have become more sophisticated over the years with greater understanding of the effects of speed, axle load, fatigue loading of structures, low-track-force bogies and so on. Similar vehicles will be charged similar amounts, e.g. a Class 68 on a Chiltern passenger train and a Class 68 on an intermodal. Ditto a 4-car parcels EMU and an equivalent 4-car passenger EMU. Obviously the variable charge for a 102-tonne bulk wagon is higher than for a lighter Mark IV passenger coach at similar speeds. All operators generally pay their variable charges (subject to occasional rebates from Network Rail for things like charity events or new freight trials perhaps).

Other charges such as traction current are billed as necessary across all types of operator.

In addition there is a large component of fixed track access charges that is basically funded by DfT (or devolved administrations) and not really relevant to the allocation of individual paths even if it notionally passes through TOC accounts.

It is also worth noting that a significant proportion of 'freight' activity is actually on behalf of the wider railway, mainly benefitting or allowing passenger operations. This includes ballast/engineering trains to support possessions; various network services like railhead treatment, weed killing, de-icing, inspection and patrol purposes; movement of 'dead' passenger stock for delivery, storage, modification, transfer and scrapping; and finally construction of new lines - Crossrail and HS2 tunnel spoil, HS2 construction, East-West Rail, Leven, etc..

 

[HSTEd]

Turning to freight on the axis more generally, allowing for the fact that bulk trains (like bulk lorries) are only loaded in one direction there can hardly be any dispute that 2,000+ tonnes of limestone and associated products are generating a lot of economic, environmental and safety benefits if they go by rail compared to sending the traffic by road, especially in an area with no motorways, virtually no dual carriageways and many settlements lacking bypasses. The days of capacity hungry 'pick-up' goods trains stopping frequently to shunt a handful of wagons at wayside stations are long gone.

Much of this traffic probably wouldn't exist if the railway was not providing highly subsidised means of doing it.
Aggregates is an extremely low value commodity, shipping it long distances by road simply would not be economic.

What would likely happen is quarries would open closer to the users and the tonne-km of aggregate traffic would fall.
The British Geological Survey did extensive studies on this about 15 years ago and concluded that underground mining of aggregate over much of the country was only slightly more expensive than rail shipment from more distant quarries.
If rail wasn't shipping it, the traffic would probably not exist at all, not shift to road.

Or sea shipping from coastal "superquarries" would triumph, depending on how close the destination was to the coast.

EDIT:
The costs are apparently similar for 30 miles by road, 100 miles by rail or 1000 miles by sea.

I don't understand the suggestion that freight track access charges are 'subsidised'. I was under the impression that variable track access charges for all types of train/vehicle are calculated using well-established industry models (even if contractually 'established' by the ORR as part of the Periodic Review cycle). These have become more sophisticated over the years with greater understanding of the effects of speed, axle load, fatigue loading of structures, low-track-force bogies and so on. Similar vehicles will be charged similar amounts, e.g. a Class 68 on a Chiltern passenger train and a Class 68 on an intermodal. Ditto a 4-car parcels EMU and an equivalent 4-car passenger EMU. Obviously the variable charge for a 102-tonne bulk wagon is higher than for a lighter Mark IV passenger coach at similar speeds. All operators generally pay their variable charges (subject to occasional rebates from Network Rail for things like charity events or new freight trials perhaps).

Freight access charges paid to Network Rail (pg184/214) amounted to £53m in the last financial year, up from £11m in the previous year.
Franchised passenger access charges were £2851m and £2221m respectively.

To quote the ORR website:

The ICC for freight services recovers a proportion of Network Rail’s freight fixed costs. It is based on an assessment of what contribution to fixed network costs each freight market segment can bear (‎2.5 for further detail).

IN other words, charges are set based on an assesment of how much money the freight operator can bear to pay. It is not really related to the actual costs incurred as a result of the operation.

The economics of the railfreight industry are such that the charges are very small.

In addition there is a large component of fixed track access charges that is basically funded by DfT (or devolved administrations) and not really relevant to the allocation of individual paths even if it notionally passes through TOC accounts.

I don't think it is reasonable to exclude the £8bn being paid to Network Rail by the state each year from the discussion of costs, although it is not really relevant here.
That money only has to be paid because of a political decision to deliberately low ball access charges to users of the rail network.

EDIT
However, I agree that this is not particularly relevant to the task at hand.
The main reason Manchester Sheffield is so slow and problematic is not really the aggregate trains, although I doubt they help.

 

[Bevan Price]

Trying to pick the bones out of this, whilst still keeping on-thread about sheffield-Manchester.

Extension of the Manchester Piccadilly-New Mills Central terminators to Sheffield wouldn't work without major changes elsewhere. Bearing in mind that these call additionally at Ashburys, Belle View, Ryder Brow and Strines they obviously have a longer journey time than the Hope Valley locals that don't call at those stations. Hypothetically emerging at New Mills South Junction is OK in itself but if the train called at all the Hope Valley stations it would then typically take 47 minutes to reach Sheffield. In the process it would be caught up by the EMR Liverpool-Norwich train, which generally takes only 28 minutes non-stop and arrives at xx:34. Eastbound it might be now be possible to loop the Northern train at Bamford but with a further significant extension of journey time. Now that virtually no train is short enough to fit in Platform 2C capacity at Sheffield is really tight. It seems impossible to get the additional Northern train 'in and out' with a minimum dwell.

Does an "extended New Mills" service really need to serve all the intermediate stations on the Hope Valley line ? Perhaps calling only at Chinley & Dore would be "adequate". And to solve any "turnround" problems at Sheffield, could it be linked to another service, e.g. Sheffield / Hull ?

 

[Killingworth]

Does an "extended New Mills" service really need to serve all the intermediate stations on the Hope Valley line ? Perhaps calling only at Chinley & Dore would be "adequate". And to solve any "turnround" problems at Sheffield, could it be linked to another service, e.g. Sheffield / Hull ?

Don't extend another service beyond Manchester or Sheffield. That adds potential delays from wherever it may come from - and go to.

It would have to skip stop from New Mills to and from Sheffield. Stopping at Dore and then maybe 2 or even 3 other stations depending on available paths. At weekends Edale might be more favoured. Skips shouldn't necessarily be the same ones each hour.

It may only take one extra unit to achieve this, but that one unit running all day every day may need the back up of 5 or 6 more drivers and similar numbers of conductors to man it. Training, sickness and other things require that level of cover for 7 day services for most of the 24 hour day - and it costs.

 

[AlastairFraser]

there's no real reason why the existing train every 30min couldn't be made much longer - some platform constraints certainly, but nowhere near as difficult as building a new line across the Pennines.

Shortage of DMUs and a commitment not to build any more pure DMUs as part of the decarbonisation plan will make this difficult.

How is creating more capacity into Manchester on the existing route going to be more costly than creating a totally new route?

Well, the existing 4 track formation from Stockport into Piccadilly is pretty much full.
If you wanted to add tracks, you'd have to widen Stockport Viaduct, rebuild Heaton Chapel + Levenshulme stations, add more tracks Slade Ln to Picc (including grade separation). Not cheap.

Part of electrification of the MML into Sheffield must include a 3rd track down the Sheaf Valley as well as loops to make it 4 for much of the way. That alone won't be cheap but something is being planned already. If Tesco and other businesses between the Archer Road bridges were encouraged to plan a new store partially on stilts above the railway it might work for 4, but there are a lot of bridges to reinstate and other lineside items to be resited to allow it.

Oh OK, didn't know this. So that will help with capacity at the Sheffield end.

Extending the New Mills stoppers into Sheffield is the easiest way to add additional train capacity on the route. No need for any extra paths into Piccadilly or any major extra work along the Hope Valley.

It doesn't offer a viable intercity service at all, what would be the point of that alone? It takes 34 mins from Man Picc to New Mills as it is.

A tunnel from Chinley into Manchester would be ~25km long.
As an example of just how long a distance that is, Glossop is only 33km from Sheffield railway station.
If you build a tunnel like that, the Glossop stopper would beat the Hope Valley 'fast' to Sheffield, easily.

If you want to escape the fundamental limitations of the Hope Valley line (painfully slow, clogged with slow moving aggregates trains), you certainly wouldn't spend money piling more track into that corridor.
If you want underground platforms anywhere, they would likely be in Sheffield.

That would cost a ridiculous amount of money, and we just don't have that kind of money to throw around at the moment, without even electrification on the existing line. Buxton to Matlock will cost a lot less to reopen.

The policy of the local council is a steady reduction in aggregate extraction in the area, and the cement works is counting down to its end in ~18 years.

I highly doubt aggregate extraction will actually end in the High Peak any time soon, I worked there for 4 years and the amount of jobs that rely on the quarries is insane. Their policy may be to wind down the plant at Hope/Castleton perhaps, but I can't see the stone quarries closing any time soon at all.

Much of this traffic probably wouldn't exist if the railway was not providing highly subsidised means of doing it.
Aggregates is an extremely low value commodity, shipping it long distances by road simply would not be economic.

What would likely happen is quarries would open closer to the users and the tonne-km of aggregate traffic would fall.
The British Geological Survey did extensive studies on this about 15 years ago and concluded that underground mining of aggregate over much of the country was only slightly more expensive than rail shipment from more distant quarries.
If rail wasn't shipping it, the traffic would probably not exist at all, not shift to road.

Or sea shipping from coastal "superquarries" would triumph, depending on how close the destination was to the coast.

And you are going to get planning permission for loads of smaller quarries across the country?! Really?

 

[HSTEd]

That would cost a ridiculous amount of money, and we just don't have that kind of money to throw around at the moment, without even electrification on the existing line. Buxton to Matlock will cost a lot less to reopen.

And provide far less, as any trains head away from the traffic centres on the existing alignment to wander through empty moorland.
It would be a subsidy pit.
A new alignment would actually have a chance of increasing industry income faster than costs, BUxton-Matlock has no chance of doing that.

The alignment would destroy a major tourist attraction, cost the best part of a billion pounds and require large ongoing operational subsidies.

And you are going to get planning permission for loads of smaller quarries across the country?! Really?

They would be underground quarries, as described in the linked report.
Those would have much less trouble gaining planning permission than surface workings.

The bulk of planning permissions for quarries in the high peak are extinguished in (or before) 2042, gaining new ones will be essentially impossible.

 

[AlastairFraser]

And provide far less, as any trains head away from the traffic centres on the existing alignment to wander through empty moorland.
It would be a subsidy pit.
A new alignment would actually have a chance of increasing industry income faster than costs, BUxton-Matlock has no chance of doing that.

The alignment would destroy a major tourist attraction, cost the best part of a billion pounds and require large ongoing operational subsidies.

A major tourist attraction? The railway would bring more people into towns like Bakewell and connect the larger High Peak settlements into services from the south to make day trips to north Derbyshire a lot easier, so it would pay its way much better than the Monsal Trail does. It's not empty either - there was over 170k at the last census in the High Peak and Derbyshire Dales boroughs combined.

They would be underground quarries, as described in the linked report.
Those would have much less trouble gaining planning permission than surface workings.

The bulk of planning permissions for quarries in the high peak are extinguished in 2042, gaining new ones will be essentially impossible.

"Much less trouble" I highly doubt it lol
Companies like Tarmac who have a good existing relationship with the PDNP and local government will find it a lot easier to gain extended permission than a series of new quarries distributed in lots of different areas will.

 

[Meerkat]

They would be underground quarries, as described in the linked report.
Those would have much less trouble gaining planning permission than surface workings.

Do you know where the suggested underground quarries are?

 

[Nottingham59]

They would be underground quarries, as described in the linked report.

So you want to do deep pit mining for stone, instead of opencast?

 

[Killingworth]

The bulk of planning permissions for quarries in the high peak are extinguished in (or before) 2042, gaining new ones will be essentially impossible.

Planning permissions in the Peak District National Park itself expire in 2042. Most of the quarries around Buxton were carefully excluded from the National Park when it was set up and still have access to stone they'll be able to extract for many years after that. Of course by then a lot may have changed. Some quarries own, or have access to, more stone within the PDNP if planning permission could be agreed.

Which reminds me that the just about finished Hope Valley railway work started in serious planning by Railtrack over 25 years ago.

Reconstruction of the still operational Northumberland line for passenger service serves as a further reminder that rebuilding an entire line through the Peak District is a very expensive proposition. It would not bring relief in the lifetime of many who propose it, but there are other threads for discussing that.

In the short term there is indeed a serious issue of lack of rolling stock. Sending 6 coach 185s trundling from Doncaster to Cleethorpes all day at speeds mostly limited to 55 mph is hardly economic. Splitting them anywhere is operationally challenging, as was found when they did that to go to the Airport. Failed EMR splits at Nottingham may result in 2 car trains through the Sheffield - Manchester core.

I note Thameslink 12 coach trains all day between Cambridge and Brighton. What's needed is acceptance that for long periods of the day much fresh air has to be carried, particularly at the ends of routes, to satisfy peak denands.

Building rolling stock for that won't solve the capacity issues within 10-15 years either!

 

[yorksrob]

Planning permissions in the Peak District National Park itself expire in 2042. Most of the quarries around Buxton were carefully excluded from the National Park when it was set up and still have access to stone they'll be able to extract for many years after that. Of course by then a lot may have changed. Some quarries own, or have access to, more stone within the PDNP if planning permission could be agreed.

Which reminds me that the just about finished Hope Valley railway work started in serious planning by Railtrack over 25 years ago.

Reconstruction of the still operational Northumberland line for passenger service serves as a further reminder that rebuilding an entire line through the Peak District is a very expensive proposition. It would not bring relief in the lifetime of many who propose it, but there are other threads for discussing that.

In the short term there is indeed a serious issue of lack of rolling stock. Sending 6 coach 185s trundling from Doncaster to Cleethorpes all day at speeds mostly limited to 55 mph is hardly economic. Splitting them anywhere is operationally challenging, as was found when they did that to go to the Airport. Failed EMR splits at Nottingham may result in 2 car trains through the Sheffield - Manchester core.

I note Thameslink 12 coach trains all day between Cambridge and Brighton. What's needed is acceptance that for long periods of the day much fresh air has to be carried, particularly at the ends of routes, to satisfy peak denands.

Building rolling stock for that won't solve the capacity issues within 10-15 years either!

Brighton and Cambridge are both very important destinations in their own rights, so the twelve carriage thameslink trains aren't carting fresh air anyway.

Personally, I think operators need to get over their fears of splitting services. It's the only way of using capacity through the core, and rolling stock efficiently.

Yes, it is true, some portions might miss their slot and end up with short forms through the core - but we regularly get services through the trans pennine core booked as single unit services anyway, so it would probably be better to tackle that before worrying about splitting and joining trains.

 

[HSTEd]

Do you know where the suggested underground quarries are?

Several locations were proposed in the study, pretty much in all directions within about 50 miles of the M25. (Although the report is more general it uses the South East of England as a case study).

The lowest cost location was Chitty borehole near Canterbury in the Kent Coalfield. It was expected to be about 30% more expensive delivered than a Leicestershire superquarry, which sounds like a lot but it was about £3/tonne. Without aggregates on rail it would certainly be cheaper than shipping from Leicestershire, Somerset or Derbyshire into London.
There were also sites near Reading (Sonning Eye) and a couple of locations near Bicester, but potentially dozens of locations are available.

The resource at Chitty alone is apparently enormous, the seam of suitable rock is apparently up to 250m thick!

However this is all rather peripheral to the topic so I suggest we just park it.

 

[yorksrob]

The resource at Chitty alone is apparently enormous, the seam of suitable rock is apparently up to 250m thick!

However this is all rather peripheral to the topic so I suggest we just park it.

Would they need to reopen the rest of the East Kent Railway to serve it, I wonder !

 

[edwin_m]

Shortage of DMUs and a commitment not to build any more pure DMUs as part of the decarbonisation plan will make this difficult.

Either building some bi-modes instead or electrifying the Hope Valley would be less difficult than suggested re-opening via Bakewell or building a totally new route.

 

[Killingworth]

Either building some bi-modes instead or electrifying the Hope Valley would be less difficult than suggested re-opening via Bakewell or building a totally new route.

The new Northern rolling stock probably won't be fully deployed before 2035, at best, similar for TPE, EMR unknown but probably within 15 years. Some form of bimodes with battery backup will be operating by 2040. Even that long timescale is probably quicker than getting restitution of the line via Bakewell through planning let alone constructed and operational.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Several locations were proposed in the study, pretty much in all directions within about 50 miles of the M25. (Although the report is more general it uses the South East of England as a case study).

The lowest cost location was Chitty borehole near Canterbury in the Kent Coalfield. It was expected to be about 30% more expensive delivered than a Leicestershire superquarry, which sounds like a lot but it was about £3/tonne. Without aggregates on rail it would certainly be cheaper than shipping from Leicestershire, Somerset or Derbyshire into London.
There were also sites near Reading (Sonning Eye) and a couple of locations near Bicester, but potentially dozens of locations are available.

The resource at Chitty alone is apparently enormous, the seam of suitable rock is apparently up to 250m thick!

However this is all rather peripheral to the topic so I suggest we just park it.

Sonning Eye?! South Oxfordshire won't even permit the 3rd Thames Bridge to be built, let alone another quarry. You're also up against the legal might of George and Amal Clooney who live there, along with numerous other celebrities.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2024 ==

Either building some bi-modes instead or electrifying the Hope Valley would be less difficult than suggested re-opening via Bakewell or building a totally new route.

Bi-modes are better value, yes. Electrification of the Hope Valley wouldn't provide much added capacity, so I can't see it passing a cost benefit analysis.

 

[Trainman40083]

So you want to do deep pit mining for stone, instead of opencast?

Having seen them blow up a hillside, to get the limestone and put it through a crushing plant, deep pit mining would be "interesting" to say the least. Might be like fracking, ona mega scale

 

[Manutd1999]

Extension of the Manchester Piccadilly-New Mills Central terminators to Sheffield wouldn't work without major changes elsewhere. Bearing in mind that these call additionally at Ashburys, Belle View, Ryder Brow and Strines they obviously have a longer journey time than the Hope Valley locals that don't call at those stations. Hypothetically emerging at New Mills South Junction is OK in itself but if the train called at all the Hope Valley stations it would then typically take 47 minutes to reach Sheffield. In the process it would be caught up by the EMR Liverpool-Norwich train, which generally takes only 28 minutes non-stop and arrives at xx:34.

But it could run semi-fast, perhaps calling at only 1-2 stops along the Hope valley? That would give you a nice balanced service at roughly half-hourly intervals, one all stops to New Mills then semi-fast, the other semi-fast to New Mills then all stops.


As a solution to the capacity and reliability issues, could the Cleethorpes train be cut back to Doncaster? That would reduce interaction with the ECML to aid reliability and would create a better economic case to run this service with 6-cars 185s. An additional Sheffield-Cleethorpes service could be considered if connections to Sheffield are deemend to be important enough, or just run a more regular Doncaster-Cleethorpes shuttle.

 

[Killingworth]

But it could run semi-fast, perhaps calling at only 1-2 stops along the Hope valley? That would give you a nice balanced service at roughly half-hourly intervals, one all stops to New Mills then semi-fast, the other semi-fast to New Mills then all stops.


As a solution to the capacity and reliability issues, could the Cleethorpes train be cut back to Doncaster? That would reduce interaction with the ECML to aid reliability and would create a better economic case to run this service with 6-cars 185s. An additional Sheffield-Cleethorpes service could be considered if connections to Sheffield are deemend to be important enough, or just run a more regular Doncaster-Cleethorpes shuttle.

The difficulty with the Manchester-Sheffield service is that it's a small part of the two fast routes. Neither normally requires 6 coaches east of Sheffield. EMR splitting at Nottingham seems to work faily well but has it's drawbacks. TPE splitting at Piccadilly for the Airport was problematic. Splitting regularly at Sheffield or Doncaster is operationally challenging. However terminating at Doncaster with a new service from Sheffield to Cleethorpes doesn't solve crossing the ECML and would create uproar on South Humberside.

Both 'fast' routes are not very fast for much of their journeys - 55mph beyond Doncaster doesn't need all 185's potential.

The delays and issues outside the central core would be similar for any 3rd fast service going to places like Blackpool or Leicester - as was suggested in earlier days.

Currently there aren't enough carriages to satisfy everyone and still allow for servicing, refurbishment and any unplanned events. Adding more coaches to any fast services requires several more units, exactly how many in total depends on how many diagrams are beefed up.

Extending that New Mills stopper with limited stops to Sheffield would only require one unit and crew to man it (extending the fasts shouldn't need more crew). I know, it might require an extra 5 or more crews to cover all the times that one extra unit was working.

The current stopper coincides in Sheffield with the TPE services in both direction. An extended New Mills stopper could do the same with the EMR services.

Where to stop east of New Mills? It would need to avoid freight paths. It could use the Bamford loop. Dore would be an obvious choice to provide a much needed half hourly service there. Edale would be good at weekends.

But the current Northern elephants in the room are shortage of units and inability to operate existing weekend trains.

Extra capacity is certainly needed. On Saturday I caught Northern's 3 coach 2S77 1014 Sheffield to Manchester Piccadilly at Dore. It arrived 5 minutes late after being held to allow the preceding 3 coach TPE through. Both were totally rammed full. I took a 6 coach TPE back. I was very lucky to find a seat, last one, back against the driver's cab. Many were standing all the way.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course, TPE would have a lot more full length trains if the previous Government hadn't got rid of the mk5's.