Hope Valley Capacity Scheme updates

[yorksrob]

Over the years many machines have been brought in to work on renewals of all types.
Talking here of Tampers and Ballast Cleaners etc.
It has been stated that most of these machines are capable of and are equipped for single line working.
But when it comes down to getting the Method Statement through the planning procedure you find that single line working has disappeared.
Even excavators fitted with slew locks have had to be rejected, reason given on that one was you might get a homicidal digger driver who could burst the slew lock and hit a train on the other road.

And therein lies the problem. A disgruntled digger could access the working railway at any location and cause a problem.

 

[mwmbwls]

Surely the ultimate wet tunnel must be the Severn? If the rigid bar system works well there then won't it work almost anywhere?

The Severn Tunnel will act as a good exemplar. A Furrer and Frey catenary bar system was fitted in 2016. In 2018 some remedial work was required as corrosion was found on some components.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-44690614
No doubt that the lessons learnt there will be read into future projects.
The catenary bar system is integral to Crossrail, whose blank sheet bored tunnel was a much more benign environment. For those interested Cross Rail have published a helpful paper as part of their legacy learning programme that describes the component elements that need to be managed.
https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co...rigid-overhead-catenary-in-crossrail-tunnels/
There remains, however, a significant set of challenges relating to Totley relating to the tunnel lining.
I appreciate understand that batteries may be well be the way forward as part of a bi-mode package but I think that it will need class 88's for the freight..

 

[Killingworth]

Ice is a considerable factor and will remain so unless something is done. Every winter trains are slowed down and/or stopped due to the build up of icicles in the tunnels. Some winters it can be for days even when the snow plough gets through. It wasn't a problem in the steam era when solid locomotives must have just smashed through them, but modern cab design hasn't built in a battering ram mode!

We often overlook what happens in other countries. Norway has done incredibly well from oil and has no shortage of falling water to provide hydro-electricity. They'll tunnel through anywhere and everywhere, even when traffic is very light by British standards. Here's a video from Youtube of the North Cape Tunnel from Takis Travel. It's well above the Arctic Circle and ice is very normal in winter, but they have an answer - roller shutters; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQltA4MTrTI

Other Norwegian tunnels are similarly equipped.

 

[Greybeard33]

It isn't going to happen, but I understand electrification of the Hope Valley line has been considered and the new footbridge at Hathersage West will be designed to that standard, as will the one at Dore station. Last year I spoke to a fellow passenger who said he'd wasted a year of his time planning such a scheme. His comments might be of interest to those looking at North Pennine electrification.

To electrify Hope Valley would need some very lengthy blockades with no easy alternative routes between Sheffield and Manchester. One blockade of about a year might get most of it done but impossible without effectively having to close the Hope Valley cement works, and restrict the quarries at Buxton to having to use westbound routes only. Blockades to electrify Cowburn and Totley tunnels separately would double the time passenger services would be blocked but would allow freight from Hope to escape.

However, bi-modes could be operated if the MML were electrified from Sheffield to Dore for HS2 and then again in the Manchester and north-west area, with easier infill sections over the coming decades.

No, I can't see it happening in my lifetime, and an entirely new line isn't likely any time soon either.

Yet TfN's "emerging vision" for NPR includes a "major upgrade" of the Hope Valley line to deliver "over 30 years" a "step change in rail connectivity" between Sheffield and Manchester. https://transportforthenorth.com/northern-powerhouse-rail/

It is difficult to see how this can be achieved without electrification throughout.

 

[Killingworth]

Yet TfN's "emerging vision" for NPR includes a "major upgrade" of the Hope Valley line to deliver "over 30 years" a "step change in rail connectivity" between Sheffield and Manchester. https://transportforthenorth.com/northern-powerhouse-rail/

It is difficult to see how this can be achieved without electrification throughout.

I may be a little cynical, but setting out visions beyond 10 years is easy, not least because most of the visionaries won't be around to have to deliver the visions. Delivering the plans made 10-20 years ago is the current issue here.

In 30 years time electrification as we know it today will have moved on. Some bright spark may even have discovered how to feed enough current into moving trains to propel them at high speed without needing wires or 3rd rails. I'm not at all sure how a Maglev set-up could cope with the likes of the Hope Valley, Manchester Piccadilly and Waterloo, but I'm sure a better way will eventually be found.

Anyway, I've found a plan of the Dore curve/loop. Another plan suggests an optional reverse crossover at the Hope Valley end of the new double track section which might allow bi-directional working through the Dore & Totley platforms. I suspect that sensible option will be ruled out due to the cost of signalling.

If it were arranged that way it would give more options for overtaking. At present when an eastbound Northern slow service is late a TPE service should be right behind. Easy. Hold the Northern in Platform 1, let the TPE power by. Same coming out of Sheffield westbound when a TPE service is delayed coming through from Doncaster. Let the Northern service through to Dore instead of holding in the Heeley loop and allow a wrong side overtaking move there where the slow has to stop anyway.

By signalling in that way a freight going through Sheffield could also be overtaken by a fast passenger service. OK, I suspect that may cause operational safety concerns, and timetabling of trains in the other direction may not always allow such moves to happen, but I'd have thought the installation of two more points and the necessary signalling would be worthwhile.

Page 66 of 194 from Network Rail's Statement of Case, NR16

 

[Killingworth]

I've managed to dig out further information regarding the track layout planned around Dore West, South and Station Junctions together with the doubling through Dore & Totley Station. The following are pages from Network Rail's voluminous Statement of Case at the public inquiry in May 2016, so the material will have been prepared at least 3-4 years go. That's why it's all having to be recalculated in line with changed appraisal criteria, to include engineering and construction, financial budgets, and environmental conflicts with vegetation, humans, and other animals.

To put this in context, the scheme was originally costed at a little over £60m at 2015 prices. Since that time there will have been some savings, but the trend must be up. Maybe nearer £80m at today's prices, or even more?

What isn't clear is how much of the work to be done will fall within this scheme's budget and what may come out of other budgets. It's managed by LNW from Manchester. It includes lengthening the existing loop at Heeley which is totally within the LNE area and no details of that is seen in the public inquiry documentation.

The new Bamford loop is totally within LNW's control. Most of the new Dore loop/chord falls within the current LNE sphere of control, although the new Dore West junction will be in LNW.

This will all change after the works are complete when it seems the LNW/LNE division may move to west of Earle's Sidings where York will take over signalling control from that point. That's a part of the scheme that may be being recast. At one time it seems to have been envisaged that total resignalling of the Hope Valley line would happen about this time. Now it seems it will just be updating what already exists.

A recent comment on the thread about the North Pennine schemes mentioned loops to allow more passing places. This scheme allows two loops. The Bamfordc loop is only useful for eastbound trains. The lengthened Dore chord is the second.

There is, however, a third potential loop. The tracks through Dore & Totley station are being redoubled. There is an optional new crossover between the Twentywell Lane road bridge and the new Dore West Junction. It would be a long bi-directional section if so signalled (this sketch makes it look shorter than it would be), but that might allow overtaking through the station, or a train to come up to Dore and reverse without impeding through traffic too much. Existing Platform 1 is shown as bi-directional in the diagram but it's not clear if that is supposed ti remain so. Whatever, it would, offer additional options for greater flexibility and provide more resilience.

N.B. Even for this modest scheme every single contributor to the inquiry received a very large box of documentation covering masses of intricate details. Together with all comments and answers it was all online. All but the headlines have now died. A few pages have been archived elsewhere. There were many hundreds, almost certainly thousands.

 

[Killingworth]

Was speaking to someone recently who clearly hadn't been paying much attention when travelling on the Hope Valley line. She bemoaned the dilapidated station buildings.

40 years ago they were. Once staffing was withdrawn about 1969 the wooden buildings dating from the opening of the Dore & Chinley railway in 1893/4 became unsustainable. Passenger services weren't a very profitable secondary consideration, the line primarily having been built to carry coal. The only building remaining is what is now the Grindleford Station Cafe. The large shelter on the central platforms at Dore & Totley succumbed to a fire about 1982 and a bus shelter type structure appeared until it was swept away with the platform in 1985 (possibly a victim of Serpel era thinking), as the remaining wooden buildings were at the other stations.

What will arrive at Dore & Totley after the second platform is restored is just one of the little details still to be resolved, and at minimal cost - probably a slightly bigger bus shelter type structure!

Came across this lovely old film from 1954 on Youtube today. Ramblers arriving at Hope from Sheffield. The old wooden buildings are still there. Quick unloading as every compartment has its own door, complete with leather strap to lower the window and open from the outside - and a quick exit before it had stopped. It's not one special excursion. The film seems to be two separate trains as people are joining as well as leaving the train and the shadows have moved on by at least an hour!

See; Ramblers Special

Anyway, the potential for trains to the Hope Valley for leisure is great, the most popular day for ramblers being Saturday. Hope would be a good hub for more trains to stop. Transpeak Walks are trying to encourage that using trains, their organised walks programme featuring walks on Saturdays. Oh dear!!

 

[Killingworth]

A classic example to prove the need for this work to go ahead asap. In the plan of the designed work at Dore above you can see the tracks redoubled through the station with optional crossovers at each end of the section, presumably to allow for bi-directional running.

Today the Northern 12.14 stopping service from Sheffield started only 4 minutes late, was held to let the also late preceding TPE service through and arrived at Dore 11 minutes late. Situation so far fairly normal!

But the Northern train then sat there from 12.31 until 13.11. According to Twitter it was congestion. The TPE service was not delaying it. There was nothing due the other way. However an East Midlands Liverpool - Norwich seems to have been held between Totley Tunnel East (12.34) and Dore West Junction (13.17) to wait for it. It was then cancelled at Sheffield. It might have been a points failure at Dore West? It seems more likely that something had gone wrong with the Northern train but there is no evidence for congestion being the cause. That may be fair comment for the next Northern train coming from Manchester which was then delayed.

Whatever the cause of that failure today, if the redoubling had been completed with bi-directional working possible, the marooned train could have been passed in either direction.

Maybe by 2022/3 that may be an option. Until then, if anything goes wrong between Dore West and Dore Station Junctions the entire service on all three TOCs between Sheffield and Manchester is wrecked, with further knock on delays and cancellations to Manchester Airport, Cleethorpes, Liverpool, Nottingham and Norwich.

(Last year there was an incident at about 10.30 one morning at Dore station. It took 3 hours to resolve that. With bi-directional working available on two tracks it should have been possible to resume services an hour or more earlier.)

 

[yorksrob]

Was speaking to someone recently who clearly hadn't been paying much attention when travelling on the Hope Valley line. She bemoaned the dilapidated station buildings.

40 years ago they were. Once staffing was withdrawn about 1969 the wooden buildings dating from the opening of the Dore & Chinley railway in 1893/4 became unsustainable. Passenger services weren't a very profitable secondary consideration, the line primarily having been built to carry coal. The only building remaining is what is now the Grindleford Station Cafe. The large shelter on the central platforms at Dore & Totley succumbed to a fire about 1982 and a bus shelter type structure appeared until it was swept away with the platform in 1985 (possibly a victim of Serpel era thinking), as the remaining wooden buildings were at the other stations.

What will arrive at Dore & Totley after the second platform is restored is just one of the little details still to be resolved, and at minimal cost - probably a slightly bigger bus shelter type structure!

To be fair to her, stations with bus shelters do seem pretty bare and dilapidated (however efficient the bean counters may think they are.)

Came across this lovely old film from 1954 on Youtube today. Ramblers arriving at Hope from Sheffield. The old wooden buildings are still there. Quick unloading as every compartment has its own door, complete with leather strap to lower the window and open from the outside - and a quick exit before it had stopped. It's not one special excursion. The film seems to be two separate trains as people are joining as well as leaving the train and the shadows have moved on by at least an hour!

As a frequent (in the past anyway) user of HAP's, VEP's, DEMU's, EPB's, 308's etc, I can well agree with the benefits of the door to every seating bay. Sadly such carriage layouts are out of fashion these days.

 

[Jozhua]

Am I right in thinking the Hope Valley Line still makes use of semaphores in some areas?

Are these signals just kept for appearance and run behind the scenes by modern technology (aka a servo and modern lighting) or are they still run by cables from a signal box?

 

[Killingworth]

Am I right in thinking the Hope Valley Line still makes use of semaphores in some areas?

Are these signals just kept for appearance and run behind the scenes by modern technology (aka a servo and modern lighting) or are they still run by cables from a signal box?

Some certainly operate in the traditional way by levers, pulleys and cables, like the one beside the overbridge outside Grindleford Station cafe .

It fascinates young children, and some adults, who find it amazing that a man at the other end of the station is pulling a lever to move the wire along the lower side of the opposite platform, across and below the track, and then to another lever at the foot of the signal and finally to the signal arm beside them. But it works.

 

[Jozhua]

Some certainly operate in the traditional way by levers, pulleys and cables, like the one beside the overbridge outside Grindleford Station cafe .

It fascinates young children, and some adults, who find it amazing that a man at the other end of the station is pulling a lever to move the wire along the lower side of the opposite platform, across and below the track, and then to another lever at the foot of the signal and finally to the signal arm beside them. But it works.

I've noticed staff coming in and out of some of the traditional signal boxes, especially on the Buxton line. Am I right in thinking some of these still manned? I'm guessing by what you've said they are.

I've always been quite a railway nerd but to find out that these traditional signal boxes are still manned will be news to me!

 

[TheBigD]

A classic example to prove the need for this work to go ahead asap. In the plan of the designed work at Dore above you can see the tracks redoubled through the station with optional crossovers at each end of the section, presumably to allow for bi-directional running.

Today the Northern 12.14 stopping service from Sheffield started only 4 minutes late, was held to let the also late preceding TPE service through and arrived at Dore 11 minutes late. Situation so far fairly normal!

But the Northern train then sat there from 12.31 until 13.11. According to Twitter it was congestion. The TPE service was not delaying it. There was nothing due the other way. However an East Midlands Liverpool - Norwich seems to have been held between Totley Tunnel East (12.34) and Dore West Junction (13.17) to wait for it. It was then cancelled at Sheffield. It might have been a points failure at Dore West? It seems more likely that something had gone wrong with the Northern train but there is no evidence for congestion being the cause. That may be fair comment for the next Northern train coming from Manchester which was then delayed.

Whatever the cause of that failure today, if the redoubling had been completed with bi-directional working possible, the marooned train could have been passed in either direction.

Maybe by 2022/3 that may be an option. Until then, if anything goes wrong between Dore West and Dore Station Junctions the entire service on all three TOCs between Sheffield and Manchester is wrecked, with further knock on delays and cancellations to Manchester Airport, Cleethorpes, Liverpool, Nottingham and Norwich.

(Last year there was an incident at about 10.30 one morning at Dore station. It took 3 hours to resolve that. With bi-directional working available on two tracks it should have been possible to resume services an hour or more earlier.)

1052 Liverpool - Norwich had a SPAD (signal passed at danger) in the Dore area, hence the knock on delays whilst it was dealt with.

 

[Killingworth]

I've noticed staff coming in and out of some of the traditional signal boxes, especially on the Buxton line. Am I right in thinking some of these still manned? I'm guessing by what you've said they are.

I've always been quite a railway nerd but to find out that these traditional signal boxes are still manned will be news to me![/QUOTE

One day the signalling will be modernised, possibly from Sheffield to Earles Sidings as part of the Scheme, although present suggestion is that all that will change is for the section from Dore West to Earles is transferred to be controlled from York rather than as currently from Manchester.

 

[Killingworth]

1052 Liverpool - Norwich had a SPAD (signal passed at danger) in the Dore area, hence the knock on delays whilst it was dealt with.

Must have been the one protecting Dore West Junction as he should have waited there for the stopper to clear the single line section. There's a note on East Midland's Twitter feed of that train reversing towards Manchester! The sooner this scheme gets built the better. Singling has proved a totally stupid idea. The EMT driver may have done wrong, but we should never have had this configuration dumped on us in 1985. It was recognised as a mistake almost immediately and plans have existed to put it right since before 2005.

 

[Leyland155]

Am I right in thinking the Hope Valley Line still makes use of semaphores in some areas?

Are these signals just kept for appearance and run behind the scenes by modern technology (aka a servo and modern lighting) or are they still run by cables from a signal box?

Whilst re-signalling schemes have reduced the number significantly over recent years, there are still plenty of manual boxes in operation around the country. For instance, a train travelling from Manchester Piccadilly to Sheffield via Stockport will come under the control of 12 lineside signal boxes during its journey! Although a few of these use more modern systems, the majority are still lever operated.

 

[MarkyT]

Am I right in thinking the Hope Valley Line still makes use of semaphores in some areas?

Are these signals just kept for appearance and run behind the scenes by modern technology (aka a servo and modern lighting) or are they still run by cables from a signal box?

Electrically and pneumatically actuated semaphores have been around for a century or more but are very rare today, possibly extinct on NR. Most semaphores surviving remain in that form because they are operated from a local lever box and mechanical operation by pull wire avoids much electrical complexity, but there are also many colour lights that are operated by lever frames. 'Long pulls' starting with distant signals were often the first to be converted to colour light and many smaller 'break section' boxes were also able to close to be replaced by colour light IBS (Intermediate Block Section) signalling incorporating track circuits for train detection. Colour light signals first appeared on UK main lines in the 1920s but were not widespread until after WW2. London Underground had used them earlier, as they were particularly suitable for viewing in narrow tunnels. Semaphores traditionally had oil lamps, but most if not all have been converted to electric lighting. LED modules are available to replace oil and earlier electric lighting. For example: http://www.unipartdorman.co.uk/assets/semaphore_signal.pdf

 

[Bevan Price]

1052 Liverpool - Norwich had a SPAD (signal passed at danger) in the Dore area, hence the knock on delays whilst it was dealt with.

That service was being worked by three Class 153s. It was announced at Liverpool as a "substitute" train with no reservations, and passengers for beyond Nottingham were told that they would need to change there to another train. In the event, RTT indicates that it got no further than Sheffield.

 

[Jozhua]

Whilst re-signalling schemes have reduced the number significantly over recent years, there are still plenty of manual boxes in operation around the country. For instance, a train travelling from Manchester Piccadilly to Sheffield via Stockport will come under the control of 12 lineside signal boxes during its journey! Although a few of these use more modern systems, the majority are still lever operated.

All of this sounds awfully expensive to operate! I How many staff does Network Rail have to employ in order to operate these older signalling systems around tha Hope Valley Line/Manchester compared to when they are operated from a central location...

This effect is probably compounded by lines with relatively small amounts of traffic, eg. The Buxton Line.

Also, what are the line speeds like on the Hope Valley Line, I've heard they're around 75mph which doesn't sound awfully high for an intercity link!

 

[MarkyT]

All of this sounds awfully expensive to operate! I How many staff does Network Rail have to employ in order to operate these older signalling systems around tha Hope Valley Line/Manchester compared to when they are operated from a central location... This effect is probably compounded by lines with relatively small amounts of traffic, eg. The Buxton Line.

You're quite correct that operating a line like this with small boxes every few miles is expensive in manpower, but resignalling is also expensive in capital terms so it's often difficult to build a business case and there's only so much the industry can do within resource and cash constraints. Often major main lines have gone through several generations of equipment, with associated control centralisation, while secondary routes struggle on with their older installations over the same period, albeit with small scale improvements implemented where required to meet modern safety standards, and periodic spot renewals of individual components. Complete system renewals are typically carried out on a notional 40 year asset lifecycle basis, but often simple older installations are actually almost indefinitely 'life extendable' if well maintained, and subject to a robust condition assessment process. The same cannot always be said for more modern systems.

Also, what are the line speeds like on the Hope Valley Line, I've heard they're around 75mph which doesn't sound awfully high for an intercity link!

There are some sections with 90mph capability. See Sectional Appendix pages as follows.
From: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/indus...anies/national-electronic-sectional-appendix/

 

[Killingworth]

That service was being worked by three Class 153s. It was announced at Liverpool as a "substitute" train with no reservations, and passengers for beyond Nottingham were told that they would need to change there to another train. In the event, RTT indicates that it got no further than Sheffield.

One way or another it's going to have cost EMT heavily for that train. Delay repay and knock on delays to two Northern services, an EMT in the opposite direction and TPEs too. That's just on the Hope Valley line. I've heard it was a cramped train to start with and passengers were already rather unhappy, not least a young man stranded within 5 minutes walk of his home.

Apparently there are count down boards to the likely passed signal. But this incident is unlikely to have ocurred if the line had never been singled in 1985, or redoubled when first mooted, at least as early as 2005.

 

[Greybeard33]

Apparently there are count down boards to the likely passed signal. But this incident is unlikely to have ocurred if the line had never been singled in 1985, or redoubled when first mooted, at least as early as 2005.

So how will redoubling reduce the SPAD risk? Is the signal in question to be resited, or are you just anticipating it will be at Danger less frequently?

 

[Killingworth]

So how will redoubling reduce the SPAD risk? Is the signal in question to be resited, or are you just anticipating it will be at Danger less frequently?

The signalling will all have to be reconfigured in that area for the final layout once confirmed. Any signal in that area will be less likely to be at red for a single section that doesn't exist, but it could still be at red to protect any new crossovers. Overall there should be far fewer red holdups but more patchng options would require more signalling.

 

[edwin_m]

Also, what are the line speeds like on the Hope Valley Line, I've heard they're around 75mph which doesn't sound awfully high for an intercity link!

Note that some of the speeds quoted by MarkyT are marked SP. Sprinter units including 158s can use the higher speeds but others including freight and significantly also 185 units have to use the lower speeds. I believe the time saving from the higher performance of the 185 is pretty much cancelled out on this route by having to run more slowly.

So how will redoubling reduce the SPAD risk? Is the signal in question to be resited, or are you just anticipating it will be at Danger less frequently?

The signalling will all have to be reconfigured in that area for the final layout once confirmed. Any signal in that area will be less likely to be at red for a single section that doesn't exist, but it could still be at red to protect any new crossovers. Overall there should be far fewer red holdups but more patchng options would require more signalling.

Also "Risk" includes seriousness of consequence as well as probability of it happening. The existing signal leads to a single line so a SPAD could result in head-on collision. With the proposed layout that consequence is made much less likely or perhaps eliminated entirely, depending on the details of overlaps and flank protection provided.

 

[Greybeard33]

Also "Risk" includes seriousness of consequence as well as probability of it happening. The existing signal leads to a single line so a SPAD could result in head-on collision. With the proposed layout that consequence is made much less likely or perhaps eliminated entirely, depending on the details of overlaps and flank protection provided.

My bad - I meant probability of a SPAD, not risk. A SPAD is likely to cause disruption, regardless of the seriousness of the potential consequences.

 

[Jozhua]

Note that some of the speeds quoted by MarkyT are marked SP. Sprinter units including 158s can use the higher speeds but others including freight and significantly also 185 units have to use the lower speeds. I believe the time saving from the higher performance of the 185 is pretty much cancelled out on this route by having to run more slowly.

Is this due to the 185's having higher weight?

 

[MarkyT]

Is this due to the 185's having higher weight?

No doubt overall weight is an issue, but the particular bogie and suspension and transmission details may also be relevant, with factors such as unsprung weight and stiffness at play. I recall around the time the 185s were being delivered, the similar SWT electric Desiros were criticised for being particularly hard on the track, and the HEX cl. 332 units, partly by Siemens, I believe also had notoriously heavy and stiff running gear. Seems to be a 'feature' of these early privatisation era European-derived EMU designs.

 

[Killingworth]

My bad - I meant probability of a SPAD, not risk. A SPAD is likely to cause disruption, regardless of the seriousness of the potential consequences.

When this recent SPAD is investigated a factor that might be relevant is the point at which control transfers from Manchester to York. That is illustrated in the diagram linked above showing the change immediately west of Dore West Junction.

Exactly how that could be relevant is unknown to me, but last year a TPE and Northern train's codes were transposed on transfer leading to the TPE for Cleethorpes being set into terminal Platform 2C at Sheffield and the Northern into Platform 1.

Plannd transfer of control to west of Earles Sidings may recognise the operational difficulties that can arise around this area.

 

[Tomnick]

When this recent SPAD is investigated a factor that might be relevant is the point at which control transfers from Manchester to York. That is illustrated in the diagram linked above showing the change immediately west of Dore West Junction.

Exactly how that could be relevant is unknown to me, but last year a TPE and Northern train's codes were transposed on transfer leading to the TPE for Cleethorpes being set into terminal Platform 2C at Sheffield and the Northern into Platform 1.

Plannd transfer of control to west of Earles Sidings may recognise the operational difficulties that can arise around this area.

It’s only the overseeing Control function that’s in Manchester. Descriptions for trains approaching York’s area of control (the signalling function) are entered manually by Totley Tunnel East SB, and the regional boundary makes no difference to that process or their ability to put the wrong description in. The ARS (automatic route setting) system in York does rely on that train description being entered and presumably relies on it being entered at the proper time to make its “regulating” decisions (it’s perfectly capable of making a mess of that entirely on its own though).

 

[Killingworth]

Following last Friday's SPAD near Dore, when the single line was blocked in both directions for about 40-45 minutes, this morning the TPE 8.08 from Sheffield arrived almost 3 minutes late at Dore at 8.15. Not too bad. It set forward and almost immediately came to a halt until 8.29 on the single line through the station, no reason apparent. This delayed Northern and East Midlands eastbound services once again.

The fact that the earlier TPE 7.09 seems to have had only 3 instead of 6 carriages, East Midlands had a 2 car instead of 4 on the eastbound evening peak hour service, when the normal alternative 6 car TPE was again only 3, leaves users of this line a bit.... cheesed off. The redoubling can't come soon enough to at least remove the bottleneck section. A few platform extensions and the retention of some elderly rolling stock to provide trains to travel on wouldn't come amiss either.