Hope Valley Capacity Scheme updates

[Killingworth]

I thought that the various 'Southern' tunnels worked on a 'flying through' basis. I.e. that a train cannot be signalled into the tunnel unless the signal beyond the tunnels is showing a green aspect (so any train in the tunnel is very unlikely to slow or stop in or just beyond it).

The problem with Totley is that there are all sorts of reasons why trains will regularly stop just beyond the tunnel.

Westbound isn't such a problem. Coming east there's a double bottleneck just beyond the tunnel.

The single track section from Dore West to Dore Station Junction through Dore and Totley Station is the one most passengers will note. There have been plans to redouble there for probably 30 years. A late running passenger service (a very frequent event) released into the tunnel at Grindleford will want to go as fast as permitted and it's downhill from not far in. But Dore West Junction will often bring it to a stand. Count down boards warn of the need to be ready to stop to allow a service going the other way and it's an important warning.

It's often not a passenger service but an empty freight that might also be coming round from the northbound MML. That's assuming a preceeding loaded freight has been able to get round the Dore curve!

The two elements of the scheme at Dore should greatly benefit eastbound services, especially combined with the Bamford loop. Westbound is less of a problem as freight trains are normally empties and much lighter. I suspect more cement trains will be routed round the Dore curve than at present as they'll be able to stand on the new loop to wait for a Hope Valley path

 

[HSTEd]

Hoping the train in front can be rescued before the batteries go flat is not an ideal situation. We've had other discussions on these forums about situations where once the load-shedding begins the passengers decide fairly quickly to take matters into their own hands. I can imagine no worse place for an uncontrolled evacuation to happen than a 1+mile tunnel, except a 1+mile tunnel with 3rd rail.

Given the negligible cost of batteries thes days, and of buying new trains, compared to infrastructure work. We could just install huge battery banks on the trains on these duties?

Or withdraw the stone trains or insist on more power on those trains.

Maybe NPR will save us, although ETCS will solve some problems by allowing a freight train to start after a passenger train immediately in any case.

 

[D365]

Or withdraw the stone trains or insist on more power on those trains.

Oh dear oh dear. Maybe time to move over to the Speculative subforum?

 

[Bald Rick]

The railway exists to perform transport functions, it has to realise that it has no god given right to exist or consume billions every year in public subsidy.

Agreed.

The limited headway through the tunnel is simply unacceptable, there is little point expending more money on this line if it cannot be remedied.

Err yes there is. There is little point spending a lot of money on a solution to a Tunnel headway ‘problem’ that isn’t really a problem.

 

[30907]

I thought that the various 'Southern' tunnels worked on a 'flying through' basis. I.e. that a train cannot be signalled into the tunnel unless the signal beyond the tunnels is showing a green aspect (so any train in the tunnel is very unlikely to slow or stop in or just beyond it).

I've certainly been slowed in the tunnel approaching Sydenham Hill. 50 years ago, admittedly, and it was better than having to wait at the tunnel entrance.
Sevenoaks, being longer, might be different.

 

[Jozhua]

"We are stuck here until the train in front moves"
"We could you know.... turn the engines off?"
"No, they must continue to run at all costs!"

It's literally a plotline of Atlas Shrugged!

The railway exists to perform transport functions, it has to realise that it has no god given right to exist or consume billions every year in public subsidy.
It is rapidly being left behind by advances in other areas.

The limited headway through the tunnel is simply unacceptable, there is little point expending more money on this line if it cannot be remedied.

The train will need to provide hotel power, etc. Plus, the issue I'd be most worried about is fire.

I agree that the railway exists to form transport functions, but the idea that it should have to do so completely without public subsidy is a bit silly really. It moves a lot of people very safely with a considerably lower impact on the natural & built environment than road traffic.

All this suggests that the Hope Valley is a strong candidate for being wired (not that it wasn't already) - no fumes in tunnels, better train performance, higher reliability.

Anyone know if the capacity scheme has any passive electrification provision built in? I'm guessing not.

My worries would be clearances in the tunnel, what with victorians being cheap on the loading gauge and all. Although to be fair, I don't think even they were prepared for just how cheap we would be in the future...

Don't modern locos have air-conditioned cabs with filtered air?

My worry would be carbon dioxide & Monoxide, can't really do much about them.

Plus, fire!

Modern tunnels have massive ventilation systems that will push air through at hurricane force speeds to stop people choking to death in a fire. Train tunnels are much safer than road tunnels, but this must still be considered. A modern tunnel of the Dore & Totley's length wanting to carry multiple trains in each direction at any one time could probably do with evacuation shafts, plus a beefy ventilation system.

For now, capacity upgrades and an extra train is absolutely what is needed. Going forward, tunnelling under the Pennines will prove itself a nessecity. Extra space on the MML left from HS2 will help connect the North West & East Midlands via the tunnel. NPR and HS2 may help on some journeys that Hope Currently serves, but probably not as effectively as it should.

 

[WestRiding]

NPR and HS2 may help on some journeys that Hope Currently serves, but probably not as effectively as it should.

Haha. Next joke. HS2 wont be coming anywhere near Sheffield.

 

[Jozhua]

Haha. Next joke. HS2 wont be coming anywhere near Sheffield.

Unfortunately, you might be right. Local politics put pay to that.

Fortunately for me, my end destination is rarely Sheffield, so I'm happy to use HS2 to get where I wanna go!

But I'll avoid saying much more than that, as I want this thread to remain open so we can keep up to date with the capacity upgrades, if indeed they ever happen!

 

[Killingworth]

Unfortunately, you might be right. Local politics put pay to that.

Fortunately for me, my end destination is rarely Sheffield, so I'm happy to use HS2 to get where I wanna go!

But I'll avoid saying much more than that, as I want this thread to remain open so we can keep up to date with the capacity upgrades, if indeed they ever happen!

Hopefully Boris will want to throw another crumb to the North by announcing this scheme has been agreed before Christmas, and that work will begin in January 2022 with completion by June 2023.

The detailed timetable for blockades and plans for the work were sent to TOCs a month ago. Even London Underground and Transport for Wales have been told.

On tunnel ventilation I'd point out that the deepest part is 700 feet below the surface. It's very wet over Totley Moss and that water has always been an issue below ground. Over £1m is currently being spent to improve the drainage and relining work to the deepest air shaft. They've been on site all year.

 

[edwin_m]

Modern tunnels have massive ventilation systems that will push air through at hurricane force speeds to stop people choking to death in a fire. Train tunnels are much safer than road tunnels, but this must still be considered. A modern tunnel of the Dore & Totley's length wanting to carry multiple trains in each direction at any one time could probably do with evacuation shafts, plus a beefy ventilation system.

I'm involved with design of one at present and can confirm that. Ideally you have at least one ventilation shaft between each train and the next one, so that if one train catches fire the fans can be configured to draw the smoke away from both that train and any others nearby. For the same reason long tunnels are usually twin single tracks instead of double.

Many years ago while I was travelling across the USA the train came to a very sudden halt in the Moffat Tunnel* and the lights went out. The conductor came on the PA to say that the driver had been ordered to stop and shut down because the concentration of fumes was above the safe level. We got going again a few minutes later. Asphyxiation and poisoning are genuine hazards in a long tunnel.

*Through the Rockies between Denver and Salt Lake City. If you do one journey on Amtrak this would be my top pick, though the view in the tunnel wasn't great.

 

[Jozhua]

Hopefully Boris will want to throw another crumb to the North by announcing this scheme has been agreed before Christmas, and that work will begin in January 2022 with completion by June 2023.

The detailed timetable for blockades and plans for the work were sent to TOCs a month ago. Even London Underground and Transport for Wales have been told.

On tunnel ventilation I'd point out that the deepest part is 700 feet below the surface. It's very wet over Totley Moss and that water has always been an issue below ground. Over £1m is currently being spent to improve the drainage and relining work to the deepest air shaft. They've been on site all year.

Hopefully our Lord and saviour Boris will. It stands to reason to turn some of this OPEX borrowing to CAPEX investment and create something concrete from it. Will bring less of a headache when it comes time to pay back for this whole mess.

I will say, being wet doesn't matter so much when oil and the like is involved! I'm sure you've heard the stories of lakes and oceans literally on fire, as oil just floats on the top and still has acess to oxygen.

But yeah, working on the old tunnel is very difficult, so a new bore would probably be in order in the future. If so, a new alignment stands to sensible reason.

I'm involved with design of one at present and can confirm that. Ideally you have at least one ventilation shaft between each train and the next one, so that if one train catches fire the fans can be configured to draw the smoke away from both that train and any others nearby. For the same reason long tunnels are usually twin single tracks instead of double.

Many years ago while I was travelling across the USA the train came to a very sudden halt in the Moffat Tunnel* and the lights went out. The conductor came on the PA to say that the driver had been ordered to stop and shut down because the concentration of fumes was above the safe level. We got going again a few minutes later. Asphyxiation and poisoning are genuine hazards in a long tunnel.

*Through the Rockies between Denver and Salt Lake City. If you do one journey on Amtrak this would be my top pick, though the view in the tunnel wasn't great.

Haha! Thanks, I knew I am right about some things

Yeah, these old Victorian tunnels were fantastic feats of engineering, but only really running with a mixture of grandfather rights and some heavy asterisks. This isn't all bad, Network Rail makes sure they're structurally sound, etc, but when it comes to doing stuff like having multiple passenger trains running through at once, it becomes a bit dodgy safety wise, especially if they are all burning dinasour bones!

Not suprised to hear about that in America, those trains probably aren't the cleanest burners as it is...

 

[MichaelAMW]

I thought this thread has been telling us that the issue with the Hope Valley was pathing and junctions, not the headway through Totley Tunnel. When there is a queue for the tunnel it's that issue that causes it - presumably with a Bamford loop, which also lets you get up freights across the down line at Earles in a convenient gap even if they can't get through to Dore, a longer Dore Curve and double-track Dore station the problem is hugely eased.

As for those Southern Region tunnels with signals, I believe I read on here, from someone who knows more that me, that there are controls on (some of?) those signals, such that you can't let a train into the tunnel towards the red unless the train beyond that red has a proceed aspect in front of it, i.e. the circumstances have to be that the train causing the red inside the tunnel is very likely to get out of the way quickly - I've had a look at some of the relevant signalling notices and this is helped by the tunnel being a bit further along the line than normal signal spacing would determine.

 

[WestRiding]

In my experience as a Signaller, I have had a few tunnels on my areas. Morley Tunnel has a Signal in it, but its not capable of showing a red. Bradway Tunnel has a signal in it, but again, not capable of showing a red. They are just Distants/Repeaters that are there so that drivers are not unnecessarily feeling their way throught to tunnel on a Single Yellow expecting a Red at the next signal. They allow trains to open up if the next section becomes free after entering the tunnel. Not saying Stop signals dont exist in a tunnel of any meaningful length, especially innthe middle, but i have personally never worked such a set up.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, tunnels with stop signals in them have ‘tunnel controls’ that only permit a route to be set into the tunnel if a train in section has a route set out, and in some cases proven to have moved.

These controls are not only used for tunnels. IIRC similar arrangements are in place between Marston Green and Lea Hall so that a train can never be signalled to a stand in normal operation under the immediate approach to Birmingham Airport’s Runway.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, tunnels with stop signals in them have ‘tunnel controls’ that only permit a route to be set into the tunnel if a train in section has a route set out, and in some cases proven to have moved.

Would this include very long tunnels like those on HS1?

 

[Bald Rick]

Would this include very long tunnels like those on HS1?

That’s a good question. On HS1 the tunnels all have an access walkway and escape shafts, so in theory trains should be able to follow in. However, I have looked at this for work reasons, and it is very rare to see more than two trains in the same Tunnel at the same time, and I have only ever seen two in a tunnel when the forward one has a route set out.

 

[HSTEd]

That’s a good question. On HS1 the tunnels all have an access walkway and escape shafts, so in theory trains should be able to follow in. However, I have looked at this for work reasons, and it is very rare to see more than two trains in the same Tunnel at the same time, and I have only ever seen two in a tunnel when the forward one has a route set out.

This sounds like one of these "engineering good practice" and risk assesment exercise questions

 

[172345]

I'm involved with design of one at present and can confirm that. Ideally you have at least one ventilation shaft between each train and the next one, so that if one train catches fire the fans can be configured to draw the smoke away from both that train and any others nearby. For the same reason long tunnels are usually twin single tracks instead of double.

Many years ago while I was travelling across the USA the train came to a very sudden halt in the Moffat Tunnel* and the lights went out. The conductor came on the PA to say that the driver had been ordered to stop and shut down because the concentration of fumes was above the safe level. We got going again a few minutes later. Asphyxiation and poisoning are genuine hazards in a long tunnel.

*Through the Rockies between Denver and Salt Lake City. If you do one journey on Amtrak this would be my top pick, though the view in the tunnel wasn't great.

When you drive through Totley tunnel with a heavy stone train and the 66 is getting hammered in notch 8 you can taste the fumes! The same can also be said about Dove Holes tunnel.

 

[edwin_m]

Would this include very long tunnels like those on HS1?

That’s a good question. On HS1 the tunnels all have an access walkway and escape shafts, so in theory trains should be able to follow in. However, I have looked at this for work reasons, and it is very rare to see more than two trains in the same Tunnel at the same time, and I have only ever seen two in a tunnel when the forward one has a route set out.

The critical thing is often the ventilation shafts. As I mentioned above, if there is a ventilation shaft in between two trains then the fans can be operated to ensure that smoke from a fire on one of them doesn't reach the other, so there is only one train in need of urgent evacuation. This was certainly the case with Crossrail when I was involved in the early days, and is probably still true as built. The Channel Tunnel achieves something similar by use of the service tunnel to supply fresh air. The braking distances from the speeds allowed on HS1 and HS2 probably mean that the minimum spacing between trains in normal operation is longer than the distance between shafts anyway.

In all these cases the signaling and electrification is probably also sectioned so that the second train isn't affected by any infrastructure damage from the incident and can be reversed out safely. All these are reasons why it's a bad idea to have trains stacked up closely behind an incident even in a modern tunnel with fire separation between the tracks and state-of-the-art evacuation, ventilation and fire life safety provision. All the more so for a Victorian tunnel with none of the above.

 

[Philip]

On the subject of ventilation shafts, why does the shorter Disley tunnel have loads but Cowburn only one and Totley about four?

I know Disley has a lot because you can see flashes of light every few seconds, not the case with the other two.

If freight continue to be a problem for the eastern Hope Valley line, can the freight bound for the MML not just be diverted via Cheadle Heath, Middlewich and Crewe so it can reach the MML via the Crewe-Derby line?

 

[Bald Rick]

A very long way round, and would need to find paths on the single line at Alsager, and reverse somewhere north if Derby.

If it gets to Crewe, most of it could just go down the WCML.

 

[Dr Hoo]

On the subject of ventilation shafts, why does the shorter Disley tunnel have loads but Cowburn only one and Totley about four?

I know Disley has a lot because you can see flashes of light every few seconds, not the case with the other two.

If freight continue to be a problem for the eastern Hope Valley line, can the freight bound for the MML not just be diverted via Cheadle Heath, Middlewich and Crewe so it can reach the MML via the Crewe-Derby line?

A lot of bits of single line via Altrincham and Middlewich; and some weight restrictions too, I've been led to understand. Not very helpful for long, heavy freights.

Slightly off-thread but I remember chuckling on my first ever trip through Disley Tunnel (after the Hazel Grove Chord opened). As we plunged into the bore a little child nearby earnestly piped up, "Mummy, why have they turned the dark on outside?".

 

[Killingworth]

On the subject of ventilation shafts, why does the shorter Disley tunnel have loads but Cowburn only one and Totley about four?

I know Disley has a lot because you can see flashes of light every few seconds, not the case with the other two.

If freight continue to be a problem for the eastern Hope Valley line, can the freight bound for the MML not just be diverted via Cheadle Heath, Middlewich and Crewe so it can reach the MML via the Crewe-Derby line?

Because the Totley and Cowburn Tunnels are a lot deeper under ground*.

The first profile is for Totley Tunnel by Ted Hancock and Steve Huson from Ted's excellent book, "The Hope Valley Line - Dore to Chinley". This shows the 5 shafts and makes clear that 4 of them are to the eastern side. At the time the tunnel was being built all the land above the western end was owned by the Duke of Rutland as a grouse moor. He resisted a a shaft and any surface work on on his land. Exactly how that 5th shaft near the summit got built is a long story for another thread. 127 years later this is what we have to work with today.

The second profile is taken from the engineers report and shows the tracks in Totley Tunnel are 767 feet below the summit, and the summit at Cowburn is 845 feet below the summit.

Any freight running west out of the Hope Valley and Buxton usually goes via Guide Bridge and then swings south, quite a long detour through congested tracks. The way junctions and remaining tracks are configured there's not another practical way. If there was I'm sure it would be being used.

* Nearby Bradway Tunnel on the MML had 8 air shafts in a much shorter distance, but one was turned into a cutting leaving only 7, but they're not as deep and under farm land, not moorland.

 

[M60lad]

Whereabouts are the air shafts situated for Totley Tunnel?

 

[Whistler40145]

Could the Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich be rerouted?

If it has to call at Sheffield, an alternative route would be Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Wakefield Kirkgate to Sheffield or completely avoiding Sheffield and Chesterfield by either a route via Runcorn, Crewe, Stoke-on-Trent to Derby and then Nottingham

 

[edwin_m]

Could the Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich be rerouted?

If it has to call at Sheffield, an alternative route would be Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Wakefield Kirkgate to Sheffield or completely avoiding Sheffield and Chesterfield by either a route via Runcorn, Crewe, Stoke-on-Trent to Derby and then Nottingham

Sheffield to Manchester via Huddersfield would be incredibly slow - any train taking that route would be overtaken.

Quite apart from the difficulties getting across the cramped layout at Crewe, that route would only serve Liverpool-Nottingham (and anywhere east of Nottingham if it still continued beyond) which on its own would have very few passengers. Nor would it gather many other passengers on the way that couldn't be transported on other services instead. The intermediate calls such as Manchester and Sheffield are essential for filling the train, and replacement trains would be needed to maintain connectivity.

 

[Whistler40145]

If passenger trains aren't suitable for rerouting, then freight has to be looked at

 

[Philip]

If passenger trains aren't suitable for rerouting, then freight has to be looked at

My suggestion above involves a fair section on freight only lines anyway...Middlewich, Cheadle Heath. The line through Northwich ought to have a spare path too with Northern not running their second service along there. There should be paths between New Mills and Hazel Grove too.

 

[Killingworth]

If passenger trains aren't suitable for rerouting, then freight has to be looked at

It has been, over the last 20 years, and resulted in this scheme because there is no cost effective alternative. That has been very carefully considered. At the end of 2024, after a year to bed down the new configuration, we shall see what is then required. By then passenger loadings will have stabilised at a new lower level and the demand for limestone products may also have changed.

Doing anything more without that evidence would be a diversion of effort from far more pressing railway problems.

Incidentally, the freight capacity issue is sometimes overplayed. Do an all day search on RTT for Dore West Junction and you'll see that booked freight paths are not all used. I've looked often enough to say that there won't be a day when more than half have run. The current problems centre around that junction whenever any train in the vicinity is unable to keep exactly to its booked path. The idea is to remove as much as possible of that bottleneck and from there to Dore Station Junction.

 

[Whistler40145]

My suggestion above involves a fair section on freight only lines anyway...Middlewich, Cheadle Heath. The line through Northwich ought to have a spare path too with Northern not running their second service along there. There should be paths between New Mills and Hazel Grove too.

The only problem could be a lack of capacity around Northenden Junction, presumably is single track?