Future Of Erewash Valley/Electrification

[Jozhua]

Hello,
Thought I'd start a new thread branching off of the MML electrification regarding Erewash Valley & how we believe it could best fit in with plans for the rail network in the area?

I'll respond to a few people in my next post.

Cheers!

Would it? Comparatively few MML services actually go up it.

So the upgrades should focus on the route via Ambergate, surely?

Why would you switch the Fast and Slows around? There's already a slow on the eastern side, and at Trent the High Level lines are on the east. What really needs sorting out is the Toton/Trent area, as you have the Slow lines on the east side but DB's depot on the west. If the Erewash is to get busier between Trent and Trowell jns then these crossing moves will become problematic. A Flyover allowing High Level trains to get towards Castle Donnington would be wonderful.

The route via Ambergate is very constrained in terms of anything such as quad-tracking. One of the big issues is connectivity for intermediate towns such as Duffield/Belper northwards to Sheffield. At the moment, a pretty mediocre service is provided by the Matlock service stopping, which is often very capacity constrained in rush hour. Another stopping service northwards to Sheffield might mess the whole thing up. Of course, with original HS2 plans bypassing the whole thing, many more services would have been able to stop at Belper, improving regional connectivity.

All two of them an hour?

I imagine the 2TPH London-Sheffield service could just be replaced by 2TPH of HS2 service, with the existing service cut back to Derby and possibly a London-Leicester-Nottingham-Sheffield which might even continue to Leeds using the current Northern path. This wouldn't increase the number of trains on any section except EM Parkway to Derby.

The issue isn't necessarily that those HS2 services can't be accommodated, it's just that they can't be accommodated whilst improving local connectivity at the same time. It is likely that to continue to provide the promised journey time benefits, local stopping services will be further constrained.

The main issue seems to be congestion around the Trent Triangle. Some years ago, it took a lot of shifting the timetable around to allow 4tph between Nottingham and Derby. (The 4tph were to Birmingham x2, Crewe, Matlock). I don't think they could have found space for a fifth.

The IRP says that if HS2 is to join the MML south of East Midlands Parkway, then it would be necessary to grade-separate the flows from Nottingham to Derby and MML/HS2 to Nottingham. To do that around Trent Triangle would be very expensive. (Discussed here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-and-capacity-through-trent-junctions.225009/ )

So I fully expect that DfT/HS2 will ignore the IRP recommendation and leave Trent Triangle as it is, as a constraint to rail growth in the East Midlands for another generation.

IRP has brought us back to express services battling it out with local, regional and freight...brilliant.

It seems like a fraction of those 4tph between Nottingham and Derby actually seem to run these days - last year it seemed to be about 1tph, now it seems to be 2/3tph depending on the day. Of course there is the painful 10mph speed limit when heading towards Long Eaton. Long Eaton station is also going to be a mess of stopping and express services battling it out, unless they find a way to quad track it...

 

[Bald Rick]

I really don’t see what you are getting at.

There’s no proposals by the rail industry to increase the local service that I’m aware of.

The Ambergate line can easily accommodate what is proposed for it. There will be no need to constrain local services further.

Similarly on the Erewash Valley. What additional services are you expecting?

 

[edwin_m]

Hello,
Thought I'd start a new thread branching off of the MML electrification regarding Erewash Valley & how we believe it could best fit in with plans for the rail network in the area?

I'll respond to a few people in my next post.

Cheers!


The route via Ambergate is very constrained in terms of anything such as quad-tracking. One of the big issues is connectivity for intermediate towns such as Duffield/Belper northwards to Sheffield. At the moment, a pretty mediocre service is provided by the Matlock service stopping, which is often very capacity constrained in rush hour. Another stopping service northwards to Sheffield might mess the whole thing up. Of course, with original HS2 plans bypassing the whole thing, many more services would have been able to stop at Belper, improving regional connectivity.


The issue isn't necessarily that those HS2 services can't be accommodated, it's just that they can't be accommodated whilst improving local connectivity at the same time. It is likely that to continue to provide the promised journey time benefits, local stopping services will be further constrained.

IRP has brought us back to express services battling it out with local, regional and freight...brilliant.

It seems like a fraction of those 4tph between Nottingham and Derby actually seem to run these days - last year it seemed to be about 1tph, now it seems to be 2/3tph depending on the day. Of course there is the painful 10mph speed limit when heading towards Long Eaton. Long Eaton station is also going to be a mess of stopping and express services battling it out, unless they find a way to quad track it...

You identify lack of through services between the Derwent Valley and Yorkshire as a problem, yes it's a service gap but hardly the biggest issue in the East Midlands. You appear to be suggesting one of two solutions:

• Restore the original HS2 alignment, which would certainly help with local services. But it is probably a net disbenefit to the region since it removes high speed service from Nottingham and Derby in favour of Toton, which really isn't a good alternative and would also require a whole range of new or diverted local services to connect it to places people actually want to be.
• Keep HS2 to East Midlands Parkway as now proposed, but send the Sheffield trains via the Erewash and therefore avoid Derby. I have a feeling most local interests would regard the loss of high speed service to Derby as a big sacrifice to allow better Derwent Valley local services.

I agree the Trent triangle is going to be a constraint into the future unless there is some drastic re-modelling, but I think this would be aimed more at increasing capacity between Leicester (and HS2), Derby and Nottingham. You could send more trains up the Erewash today via the High Level lines with relatively little extra conflict if the market was there, as there may be for say a Leicester-Parkway-Ilkeston-Mansfield HS2 feeder service in the future. Trying to send more trains than that up the Erewash strikes me as complicating any improvement at Trent for no real benefit.

This might change if the study that's supposed to be going on recommends the Erewash as a route for Leeds trains, but as I responded on the other thread I struggle to see how that would deliver any benefit. Any route that way is barely if at all going to be quicker than the ECML and raises a host of capacity problems further north.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I know TDNS is officially dead but the route is electrified in that document.

 

[CdBrux]

For those of us less aware on terminology can someone supply a map of the area highlighting which line is the Erewash valley line?

 

[59CosG95]

For those of us less aware on terminology can someone supply a map of the area highlighting which line is the Erewash valley line?

The Erewash Valley is the line in red.


In a perfect scheme, the route from Trowell Jn (starting south of Ilkeston Jn, and running to Nottingham) would also be included for wiring; all services running towards Chesterfield/Sheffield and beyond from Notts run via this route.

 

[Bartsimho]

I was thinking could you create better service in the area by fixing some timetabling issues.
You have 2tph which run Nottingham to Sheffield along the Erewash valley and these are the only trains that serve Ilkeston and even then the EMR service doesn't like to stop there so it's 1tph each direction.

How about Lincoln - Matlock 1tph (Semi Fast), Nottingham - Lincoln (Stopper), Existing Leicester - Lincoln (Semi-Fast), Existing Leicester - Grimsby (Semi-Fast), Nottingham - Derby 1tph, Derby - Worksop/Lincoln via Erewash Valley and Mansfield 1tph, Derby - Sheffield via Erewash Valley 1tph, Existing Nottingham - Sheffield 2tph services (1 to Liverpool and 1 to Leeds).

Try and improve the Line Speed as that would help capacity due to less time on the actual line.

 

[Jozhua]

I really don’t see what you are getting at.

There’s no proposals by the rail industry to increase the local service that I’m aware of.

The Ambergate line can easily accommodate what is proposed for it. There will be no need to constrain local services further.

Similarly on the Erewash Valley. What additional services are you expecting?

Really there should at least be one train per hour towards Sheffield that stops at Belper, alongside the Matlock train.

The Long Eaton - Derby section theoretically will have to handle XC services going from Birmingham northwards via Derby too, so that's 2xTPH at least more than what it currently carries.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Long Eaton - Derby section theoretically will have to handle XC services going from Birmingham northwards via Derby too, so that's 2xTPH at least more than what it currently carries.

What XC services are those?

 

[Jozhua]

What XC services are those?

It will be the two that presently run through Birmingham to Edinburgh/Aberdeen.

HS2 was intended to provide some relief to XC, so presumably those two services will utilise the HS2 infrastructure.

 

[Bald Rick]

so presumably those two services will utilise the HS2 infrastructure.

ah, ‘presumably’

‘Cross Country’ trains from the south west to the north east won’t be using HS2. Not least because there’s no connection between HS2 and the conventional network for passenger services in Birmingham.

In any event, it would cause Burton and Tamworth to lose service, and it would barely be any quicker to Derby.

 

[zwk500]

It will be the two that presently run through Birmingham to Edinburgh/Aberdeen.

HS2 was intended to provide some relief to XC, so presumably those two services will utilise the HS2 infrastructure.

HS2 provides relief to XC by removing passengers, not accepting trains. Under the original proposals, XC wouldn't be able to access HS2 without dropping Leeds, and even then would need to dive off at Chesterfield and still run via Ambergate to reach King's Norton.