Sheffield station capacity increase.

[Fishandbananas]

I think it's fairly well known that Sheffield station is nearing capacity, and with the proposal of an OA operator to London, the route to Chesterfield via Barrow hill and potentially a fourth service per hour to Manchester, it's safe to say Sheffield station needs some work.

Firstly I think it would make to most sense if any capacity increases were to occur to do them at the same time as the electrification of the station (as this should happen anyway if current plans continue)

Here's a few ideas of mine, I've got no idea if they're any good or not so I'd love to hear your thoughts aswell

Extension of platform 2c to allow 3 car trains to terminate there, which are commonly used on the Sheffield to Manchester stopper.
A new bay platform similar to platform 7 but on the northern end.
A re-work of the track layout at the Northern end to allow trains to leave platform 4 while a train terminates at platform 5.
There's also enough space to quadruple the track down to Dore and Totley although I don't know how beneficial this would be.

And as a final point there's also the possibility of reopening Sheffield Victoria station, and reinstating the woodhead line, to provide another route to Manchester.

Cheers
Sorry if the format is incorrect this is my first post so don't go too hard on it :P

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jan 2024 ==

I would love to know if anyone has any thoughts / ideas on the subject

 

[Bevan Price]

I think it's fairly well known that Sheffield station is nearing capacity, and with the proposal of an OA operator to London, the route to Chesterfield via Barrow hill and potentially a fourth service per hour to Manchester, it's safe to say Sheffield station needs some work.

Firstly I think it would make to most sense if any capacity increases were to occur to do them at the same time as the electrification of the station (as this should happen anyway if current plans continue)

Here's a few ideas of mine, I've got no idea if they're any good or not so I'd love to hear your thoughts aswell

Extension of platform 2c to allow 3 car trains to terminate there, which are commonly used on the Sheffield to Manchester stopper.
A new bay platform similar to platform 7 but on the northern end.
A re-work of the track layout at the Northern end to allow trains to leave platform 4 while a train terminates at platform 5.
There's also enough space to quadruple the track down to Dore and Totley although I don't know how beneficial this would be.

And as a final point there's also the possibility of reopening Sheffield Victoria station, and reinstating the woodhead line, to provide another route to Manchester.

Cheers
Sorry if the format is incorrect this is my first post so don't go too hard on it :P

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jan 2024 ==

I would love to know if anyone has any thoughts / ideas on the subject

Good ideas, but pity that several have become impossible.
1. A supermarket was built on part of the old alignment between Sheffield and Dore; that would be expensive to buy and demolish.

2. Whilst Sheffield Victoria site might be available, Woodhead Tunnel is not. National Grid was allowed to use it to divert cables that previously ran through the older Woodhead Tunnel. Rerouting those cables would be Very expensive.

 

[Helvellyn]

It wouldn't happen due to cost but I'd look where you could move unit stabling to away from the through roads.

Then rebuilding platforms 2-5 to replace those and the through lines between platforms 1 and 6 to give 4 through platforms.

If you did the OP's suggestion of a North facing bay between 6 and 8 then you'd have Platform 1-6 as through platforms, 7 as a South Bay, new 8 as North Bay and 9 (ex-8) as through platform.

permissive working to also allow all the through platforms to function as A for terminators to/from the North and B for terminators to/from the South.

 

[Harpers Tate]

With no expertise on the matter, I wonder whether fully signalled bi-directional running, routinely used, in the 2-track tunnel at the north might help with Nunnery pathing.

 

[YorksLad12]

Extension of platform 2c to allow 3 car trains to terminate there, which are commonly used on the Sheffield to Manchester stopper.
A new bay platform similar to platform 7 but on the northern end.
A re-work of the track layout at the Northern end to allow trains to leave platform 4 while a train terminates at platform 5.
There's also enough space to quadruple the track down to Dore and Totley although I don't know how beneficial this would be.

Some of these have been thought of - and might even be being worked up into proper proposals somewhere.

And as a final point there's also the possibility of reopening Sheffield Victoria station, and reinstating the woodhead line, to provide another route to Manchester.

Just. Don't.

It wouldn't happen due to cost but I'd look where you could move unit stabling to away from the through roads.

There is some stabling south of the station when, for example, the semi-fasts need to lay over for a couple of hours due to crew shortages. It's not much... but more than Leeds, where they use P0 (and P1 before that).

Then rebuilding platforms 2-5 to replace those and the through lines between platforms 1 and 6 to give 4 through platforms.

Don't forget - Sheffield (like Leeds, and others), is on arches over a river. Also, there's already 5 through platforms, I thought - 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8? So there's 4 through platforms between 1 & 6 already.

permissive working to also allow all the through platforms to function as A for terminators to/from the North and B for terminators to/from the South.

That would useful. The Northern service to Manchester was going from P2 instead of P2C, not sure where it is now but I'm guessing it's too long for P2C. It could, for example, wait in 2A while the Dearne Valley stopper sits on 2B - they leave at the same time, in opposite directions.

 

[Fishandbananas]

That would useful. The Northern service to Manchester was going from P2 instead of P2C, not sure where it is now but I'm guessing it's too long for P2C. It could, for example, wait in 2A while the Dearne Valley stopper sits on 2B - they leave at the same time, in opposite directions.

I use this service fairly regularly (once or twice a week) and for a good while now it's mostly been a 3 car 195 which either terminates at P2, p5 or p7. Platform 2c is only long enough for a 2 car train but an extension could allow the stopper to terminate there.

Just. Don't.

Oh well, it was nice to get my hopes up anyway.

Good ideas, but pity that several have become impossible.
1. A supermarket was built on part of the old alignment between Sheffield and Dore; that would be expensive to buy and demolish.

I'll have to have a lookout when I'm next going to Sheffield. Bit of a shame and quite short sighted (but that's the railways for you, just look at Dore and Totley down the road)

Hopefully if any improvements are implemented they're done at the same time as electrification to minimise disruption long term as well as to reduce costs, but it'll be seen as a higher short term cost in the eyes of policy makers so I shan't get my hopes up.

 

[JJmoogle]

I'll have to have a lookout when I'm next going to Sheffield. Bit of a shame and quite short sighted (but that's the railways for you, just look at Dore and Totley down the road

It's a massive Tesco, You'll see a big sign on it facing the railway, it's on your left if you're coming in Northbound just after you go through a double arched bridge.

It's absolutely mad considering within the area it's situated it could have been designed to not impede future railway reinstatement, although as obsticles go it's certainly not the worst thing to be sitting in a trackbed

 

[Killingworth]

It's a massive Tesco, You'll see a big sign on it facing the railway, it's on your left if you're coming in Northbound just after you go through a double arched bridge.

It's absolutely mad considering within the area it's situated it could have been designed to not impede future railway reinstatement, although as obsticles go it's certainly not the worst thing to be sitting in a trackbed

It's not just the Tesco, that double aeched bridge used to take the other two tracks. There are three other busiesses on the old track bed, Tesco is set a little further back.

HS2 waa being planned as 3 track from Dore into Sheffield. That may still be the electrification plan. Ir will e tight at that point.

 

[Verulamius]

Network Rail published in October 2022 a strategic refresh of their analysis of the Sheffield area given changes in assumptions since 2019 when the previous analysis was published.

Given all the recent changes with HS2 and electrification it makes it quite difficult to make appropriate assumptions regarding future flows.

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/regional-long-term-planning/Eastern/Sheffield%20Area%20Strategic%20Advice%20Refresh%202022.pdf

Capacity analysis completed for the 2019 strategic advice noted that the Growth ITSS, which had 15 trains per hour (tph) north of Sheffield Midland and 11tph south of Sheffield Midland, had a track utilisation of 98% through the study area, which is likely to be impossible to timetable. The HS2 and NPR ITSSs had utilisation over 100% of the existing infrastructure, which means they can’t be accommodated, even theoretically. The strategic advice identified that timetable changes could be made, such as rerouting a Cross Country services away from Sheffield Midland and using
the Barrow Hill line, which links Chesterfield in the south to Rotherham in the north, but this is impractical as it severely impacts on connectivity and passenger capacity, impacts on freight traffic that uses this route and only reduced utilisation from 98% to 95% if one service bypasses calling at Sheffield Midland.
The report identified a number of interventions that could improve capacity and performance in the area to accommodate the additional services planned, which can be seen in Figure 7, subject to further development work. Capacity analysis work completed indicated that if all the recommended interventions listed were delivered for the Growth scenario, for example, the capacity utilisation would be 84%. This value does not guarantee that a reliable timetable could be built as it assumes there are no restrictions elsewhere for when a train comes into the study area. As Sheffield and the surrounding areas are such constrained areas, a reliable timetable is still likely to not be able to be designed or lead to poor performance resilience if introduced.

Figure 7: Interventions identified to support the 2019 ITSSs

Recommendations
It is this report’s firm recommendation that further development work at Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) stage and beyond is progressed so that a clear future baseline for Sheffield’s train services is identified and interventions developed to support this over the next thirty years.
This report makes a number of subordinate recommendations that may form part of further development work at SOBC stage or beyond, as appropriate:
1. It’s recommended that the SOBC explores whether one or a combination of the following options are the most beneficial for the Sheffield area:
• The interventions recommended in the 2019 Sheffield Area strategic advice
• The extension of the tram-train network
• The building of a new station at Sheffield Victoria
• The development of new options identified in subsequent workstreams
2. It’s recommended that the SOBC investigates whether the three tracking of the line south of Sheffield Midland provides sufficient capacity for planned future services.
3. It's recommended that this progression to SOBC stage is done quickly, so that it can provide certainty to the industry and start to inform other workstreams that are ongoing or soon to be starting.
• In particular, the Midland Main Line electrification programme has a design-freeze date of 2025 and with a potential delivery date in the early 2030s.
• Further development stages should be looking to inform the electrification programme with more certainty of a preferred layout of Sheffield Midland and the route to the south, and looking to identify potential synergies in delivery.
4. It’s recommended that opportunities are sought to deliver other programs, such as the electrification of the network north of Sheffield and delivery of ETCS, to increase the performance of the network and benefits, whilst minimising disruption to rail users.
5. It’s recommended that certainty is given whether a new station is necessary at Sheffield Victoria to support the area, and if so a connectivity study is undertaken as part of the SOBC to identify what potential impact this might have on passenger flows and demand.
6. It’s recommended that the Department for Transport depots and stabling strategy incorporates the findings of the 2020 Depots and Stabling strategic advice.

 

[Fishandbananas]

Network Rail published in October 2022 a strategic refresh of their analysis of the Sheffield area given changes in assumptions since 2019 when the previous analysis was published.]

Thank you for this information I hadn't seen it before. Will be interesting to see how much of this is implemented, and how much will be sidelined due to budget cuts. Only time will tell I guess.

What does it mean by "6 car capability" at Sheffield midland in the table you provided. Evidently the station regularly gets trains longer than 6 cars.

 

[Verulamius]

Thank you for this information I hadn't seen it before. Will be interesting to see how much of this is implemented, and how much will be sidelined due to budget cuts. Only time will tell I guess.

What does it mean by "6 car capability" at Sheffield midland in the table you provided. Evidently the station regularly gets trains longer than 6 cars.

The report summarised the 2019 interventions. I think that the 6-car capability refers to lengthing platforms at other stations in the area.

Interventions identified
The capacity analysis makes recommendations for the Sheffield Midland station area. The short-term ‘no regrets’ workstream has progressed several of these to improve capability and performance in the short term. If these are progressed, then further analysis will need to be undertaken to understand whether any additional interventions will be required to support long-term service aspirations.
For all scenarios, platform lengthening was required at Meadowhall station (and six others not in this report’s scope) so that longer trains can be used to cater for demand. Currently all platforms are 105m so can only fully accommodate a 4x24m long train. Selective Door Opening can be utilised, but can cause operational risks, is less convenient for passengers and could lead to overcrowding at Meadowhall during busy periods.
All scenarios recommend grade separating Wincobank junction (pictured) to deconflict moves from Barnsley and towards Rotherham. This would have considerable capacity and performance benefits, but would be a major intervention and likely lead to the rebuilding of part of Meadowhall Interchange station, which would be expensive and disruptive. Further development work could identify whether a smaller intervention is possible.
The capacity analysis also identifies a need for headway reductions between Holmes junction (between Rotherham and Meadowhall) and Dore Station junction. Headways are the minimum amount of time between trains passing a certain point and while headway reductions can lead to capacity increases, there are many factors that need to be considered, such as signal spacing and different performance characteristics of rolling stock. Insufficient headways can lead to poor performance as trains catch each other up. This would similarly be the case for the identified reduction in the junction margin time at Nunnery Main Line junction.
Aside from this junction margin reduction, there were no other interventions identified for Nunnery Main Line junction and any significant increase in capability would be exceptionally difficult due to the current alignment being through cutting and under properties. Nunnery Main Line junction is likely to be the main constraint on the amount of services north of Sheffield, so if additional services are desired then existing services need to be reduced, rerouted or an intervention like the tram-train extension is required.

 

[Fishandbananas]

The report summarised the 2019 interventions. I think that the 6-car capability refers to lengthing platforms at other stations in the area.

That makes far more sense, thank you. I believe most if not all of the platforms on the hope valley line (including Dore) is being extended to 6 cars so part of the plan is going ahead (at least indirectly)

 

[fishwomp]

There was a good thread back in December on some of these proposals, and with insight from a Sheffield signaller:

New platform between P6 and P8 at Sheffield?

I read recently of the idea of opening a bay platform between platforms 6 and 8 on the north east side of Sheffield. That would mean fewer conflicts for a Lincoln service. I don't know if there'd be an issue with the rather nice little cottage like buildings on that platform though.. Most times...

www.railforums.co.uk

In the grand scheme of things, reducing its size of a supermarket by 20ft in one direction - is small change to the railway. To be honest, store space is often over-sized for today's supermarkets (they have been trying to shrink the big ones due to less focus on home electricals in recent years) - so a reduction may be welcomed if someone else like the railway were paying.

The Hope Valley Upgrade is supposed to be £145M.. shifting a single wall back and associated metalwork in a supermarket can hardly be significant against that..

 

[Fishandbananas]

There was a good thread back in December on some of these proposals, and with insight from a Sheffield signaller:

Thanks for linking this thread, I wasn't aware of it and it was an interesting read.
Over at platform 8 it's an interesting idea to make a bay platform splitting it in two, which I think would be very useful along with another bay platform similar to p7 on the northern end. Lovely insight from the signaller as well.

 

[Meerkat]

1. A supermarket was built on part of the old alignment between Sheffield and Dore; that would be expensive to buy and demolish.

I can't believe that this is always presented as a showstopper - its just a tin shed with a limited life span. Supermarkets are knocking them about for different layouts all the time.
With the changes in retailing some of the big sheds are struggling to be filled and might be happy to take some cash to reduce the size, or even a complete redevelopment/move.
I still think they need to bite the bullet and quadruple from the throat to Nunnery. It might not be easy because its in a walled cutting*, but there is nothing in the way that doesn't look ripe for redevelopment, and most of the bridges are redundant or could be replaced with footbridges **
It would open up capacity for local services round the north of Sheffield, an interchange with the tram at Nunnery Square, and a big space for stabling or even a depot opposite.
* or does the wall make it easier as you can build a new wall behind it then excavate, reducing line closures?
** just get on with it before some muppet comes along and lists it all!

 

[dosxuk]

In the grand scheme of things, reducing its size of a supermarket by 20ft in one direction - is small change to the railway. To be honest, store space is often over-sized for today's supermarkets (they have been trying to shrink the big ones due to less focus on home electricals in recent years) - so a reduction may be welcomed if someone else like the railway were paying.

The Hope Valley Upgrade is supposed to be £145M.. shifting a single wall back and associated metalwork in a supermarket can hardly be significant against that..

You don't need to move it by 20ft, you probably wouldn't even need to move it at all. The only issue the supermarket presents is if you wanted to use the former track bed under the Archer Road (south) bridge, which has the western arch sited sufficiently from the eastern (in use) arch to allow for platforms. A new single span bridge would provide the space needed. Between Tesco and Sainsbury's, the railway corridor is approx 20m between boundaries - larger than the 17m they have for four tracks near Chesterfield.

I think the myth that Tesco prevents four tracking comes from it being built on the former alignment, not that there isn't enough space for it. Sure, it'll mean you can't rebuild Millhouses station, but that's not on the cards anyway. In this image from Wikipedia you can see how far back from the existing tracks Tesco is.

 

[Fishandbananas]

Ok now the question is would quadruple track to Dore be the best spending of money or would other upgrade to Sheffield station take priority?

 

[JJmoogle]

Sorting out the station for what's currently there(maybe with a little bit of the easier track reinstatement to the south of it) undoubtedly takes precedent, currently it's a mess, especially the bays now being too short requring the termination of services on through lines.

 

[Meerkat]

Is the first bridge to the south ok for electrification?
Looks like demolishing that and replacing with wider spans would free Up more options for a better throat and longer platforms. Really need some canopies for the southern end though!

 

[fishwomp]

Ok now the question is would quadruple track to Dore be the best spending of money or would other upgrade to Sheffield station take priority?

@GardenRail suggested some simple signalling interventions in the other Sheffield thread referred to above: making platform 6 and 8 capable of having a northbound departure for example.

Track speed through the station is pretty low, which just adds to the time sectons are occupied.

As it is, four-tracking either north or south would probably just deliver you to a red signal south of the station to wait at sooner because the platform would not be free, so not that much help.

 

[JKF]

It's a massive Tesco, You'll see a big sign on it facing the railway, it's on your left if you're coming in Northbound just after you go through a double arched bridge.

It's absolutely mad considering within the area it's situated it could have been designed to not impede future railway reinstatement, although as obsticles go it's certainly not the worst thing to be sitting in a trackbed

I can only imagine the opportunities that would be presented to railway development should Tesco ever go bust. They seem to be the absolute worst for building on former railway land. Let’s hope Lidl/Aldi etc. keep chipping away at their profits!

Is it not possible to squeeze four tracks through this gap using retaining walls? Is it embankment or cutting here? I guess hugely disruptive and costly, difficult to do while the railway is still in situ.

 

[fishwomp]

I can only imagine the opportunities that would be presented to railway development should Tesco ever go bust. They seem to be the absolute worst for building on former railway land. Let’s hope Lidl/Aldi etc. keep chipping away at their profits!

So, the railway didn't choose to sell the land to the supermarket then?

What do you think happens to its assets when a company goes bust? Do you think a) it reverts to someone who sold it to them some time ago, b) it gets sold on to another organisation, one that might choose housing or other purpose if not another supermarket or shopping centre.

 

[JKF]

So, the railway didn't choose to sell the land to the supermarket then?

What do you think happens to its assets when a company goes bust? Do you think a) it reverts to someone who sold it to them some time ago, b) it gets sold on to another organisation, one that might choose housing or other purpose if not another supermarket or shopping centre.

The latter of course, but in the event of site redevelopment it presents an opportunity through the planning process to perhaps recover lost alignments for re-use.