The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 16,130
Needs wholesale re-signalling to get rid of the block sections if you are going to do it properly.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Hope Valley Capacity Scheme updates
- Thread starter Killingworth
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Killingworth
Established Member
The Hope Valley stations have all been surveyed for new TVMs and the wiring has been installed for some of them. Installation supposed to be complete for all in 3rd quarter 2018. Just hope they've tropicalised any facing into the sunshine. The one at Dore is having to be resited to counter that.
Revenue protection is certainly an issue on the line and reflects in the passenger numbers estimated in the ORR's annual reports. I've travelled with a family group of 6 from D & T who didn't get tickets before arriving at Piccadilly and had to go to the ticket office there to arrange them - we could have just walked away. (The combination of railcards, returns, family and child discounts defeated the conductor between 3 stations when she had to break off each time to open and close the doors. She did her best to offer us the best deals. She hadn't got to us until well after New Mills.) I've seen people get as far as Bamford out of Sheffield without being approached. Recently I boarded at Dore for Sheffield and advised the conductor on boarding that the TVM wasn't working and many wouldn't have tickets. He wasn't carrying his ticket machine. He sauntered down the rear carriage, not checking tickets and still without machine, until several people had approached him asking to buy tickets. He sauntered back to get it and did check the rear coach before arrival at Sheffield. But this is a subject for the Northern DOO thread!
Of course the few Northern trains that operate with 4 cars are the delight of those looking for free travel. After leaving Piccadilly there wil be no normal ticket checks in the front unit, or at any station en route. Anyone joining will avoid the rear unit where the conductor will have a very quet time. If 2 x 150/2s were used that might be solved, but so far I've never seen that happen.
Incidentally, Northern are now offering advance fares to Manchester from Dore & Totley. It's one of the anomalies of the line that travelling on the slow stopping services usually costs more than on the fast services.
Killingworth
Established Member
The sections through Totley and Cowburn tunnels, and probably most of the Hope Valley, seems to have remained virtually unchanged since the Dore & Chinley railway was opened in 1893! At least the section from Dore West to Earle's sidings is to be resignalled as part of the HVCS, although how much will actually be changed remains to be seen. Not a lot one suspects.
The time currently allowed to clear the 60 mph limited 3.5 mile Totley tunnel between Grindleford and Totley Tunnel East is at least 5 minutes, another choke point on the line.
Indeed, even the old signal boxes are still going (or at least I think they are?). One wonders whether you could put a signal half-way down the tunnel, or are trains not allowed to stop in the tunnel? It's probably made worse by the stop at Grindleford which I think falls into that block as well.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
Not usually one to quibble with The Planner's informative posts but to be completely clear we Hope Valley travellers need more block sections, not their abolition! "One engine in Hope Valley" operation? No thank you.
Although the ability to get past a stopper around Bamford might be useful during disruption, I’m not convinced that it’ll help the freight situation as you describe. The signalmen over there seem to do a pretty good job of regulating stuff with the limited options available to them already. It’d be difficult to identify a decent margin (other than its booked path!) for a freight onwards from Dore at the time that it leaves Earles or Bamford - a lot can happen in the intervening time. A laden freight getting away from a loop at Bamford will immediately face a harsh rising gradient that, whilst easing, continues through into Totley Tunnel. It’s 15mph, with the attendant approach control arrangements, around the curve at Dore anyway, so any advantage over looping on the approach to Dore West is immediately lost anyway. Far better to get freights there, with somewhere to get them out of the way of following traffic, until a suitable margin exists that they can drop virtually straight into. It is a challenge at the moment, as you say, with no potential to hold them on the curve itself, so there’s often no way to deal with the situations without hammering at least one passenger train.
Killingworth
Established Member
The eastbound freight loop was originally to be at Grindleford but was pushed back by various opposition interests and late discovery of constructional difficulties that Network Rail hadn't taken sufficiently into account. At the public inquiry the Bamford loop was then contested as being largely irrelevant because it's so close to Earles Sidings. However trains from Peak Forest are most likely to use it as they start further back towards Chinley, the site of another intended loop that got dropped from the original HVCS proposals after the first round of consultations when the requirement for 4 fast paths per hour was reduced to 3.
The Dore loop may not be long enough for the longest trains, so some may be limited by that constraint.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Couldn't that in principle be fixed by just extending the loop a bit, either towards the Hope Valley or towards Chesterfield - running the extension it as a new single track alongside the existing tracks?
Incidentally (and somewhat ironically for this discussion) Google maps actually shows the loop with a freight train on it! That train is pretty long (I'm guessing just over 30 wagons) but clearly (just) fits on the loop, and I be surprised if the longest trains were much longer than that, so I'd surmise that you wouldn't need to extend the loop by very much to fit all trains on it.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
Quite possibly the Earles-Walsall cement train, which I often see tucked tightly onto Dore South Curve. (It is slightly confusing to refer to it as a 'loop' in relation to this thread which is also about 'proper' loops at Bamford, etc.)
Surely the point is that many cement and stone trains are 'restricted' in length so as to fit the current infrastructure despite haulage capability and coupling strength allowing operation of longer and heavier trains. So ironically more trains have to run to shift the same tonnage, thus exacerbating the capacity problems. Some trains are already longer than the Dore South Curve and when one of those has to wait to get out onto the main line it can cause real chaos as passenger trains are baulked in all directions.
Greybeard33
Established Member
As well as the eastwards freight, there are now regular aggregate trains westwards from the quarries. These run via Hazel Grove High Level and Northenden, then on the Mid-Cheshire to Hartford, where they turn north on the WCML.
Freightliner workings are from Tunstead to Garston, Merseyside, and to Hardendale Quarry, Shap, while DB Cargo has workings from Peak Forest to Dallam, Warrington.
These must add to congestion around Chinley.
Freightliner workings are from Tunstead to Garston, Merseyside, and to Hardendale Quarry, Shap, while DB Cargo has workings from Peak Forest to Dallam, Warrington.
These must add to congestion around Chinley.
Killingworth
Established Member
It's something to do with the safety clearances at either end of the train, but no, the loop can't be extended in the deep cutting towards Chesterfield, or towards the Hope Valley due to the bridge carrying West View Lane and the flats immediately beside it. Residents are annoyed enough about the loop already. It was accepted at the public inquiry that the longest trains operating wouldn't fit in, but I think they may be running at night. See after construction picture, plan from the public inquiry and how it looks now.
Last edited:
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 16,130
I meant the absolute block, Im not sure why you thought I would make it worse...Not usually one to quibble with The Planner's informative posts but to be completely clear we Hope Valley travellers need more block sections, not their abolition! "One engine in Hope Valley" operation? No thank you.
OK I see it's an extension of the south chord, with about 600m standage as far as I can tell. I was thinking about a 'right turn lane' between the Totley tunnel and the West View Lane bridge, thus:
Killingworth
Established Member
Interestingly if you follow that Google map north to the station you'll see the car park is full with 4 cars parked out of marked bays, but not one in the 7 disabled bays. Probably pictured about 11.00 from the shadows. That's normal with up to 100 cars for rail users parked on surrounding roads and spare land.
Killingworth
Established Member
Um, that would leave freights fouling the crossing in both directions. I'd have wanted them to extend the loop alongside the track out of Sheffield from the Twentywell Lane over bridge to allow for overtaking there. That might also allow the holding of stock from a passenger service running up to terminate at Dore before returning in the Sheffield direction. The land beside the junction is flat, although part is earmarked for a sub-station for eventual electrification of the MML.
Last edited:
That clarifies things, thanks. I too had understood it to mean a new loop adjacent to (or between) the existing running lines between Totley Tunnel and Dore West Jn. Extending the south curve itself would be even better. I’m not sure what restrictions are currently placed on its use, but the minimal distance available beyond the signals at each end must make it a pain to use in practice (so, even if a train from the Valley would fit inside clear, there’d have to be a margin on the Down Main from Chesterfield, which would foul the overlap, to just to be able to signal it onto the curve).
Absolute Block itself isn’t too much of a constraint currently? Other than at the extremities of the route, the problem isn’t that trains can’t get close enough together, it’s that expresses catch up with stoppers and freights. A quick fix there would be IB sections in both directions between Chinley and Edale, and between Grindleford and Totley Tunnel East, if stop signals in the long tunnels are acceptable. Between Edale and Grindleford, sections are short and things keep moving pretty well as things stand.
Absolute Block itself isn’t too much of a constraint currently? Other than at the extremities of the route, the problem isn’t that trains can’t get close enough together, it’s that expresses catch up with stoppers and freights. A quick fix there would be IB sections in both directions between Chinley and Edale, and between Grindleford and Totley Tunnel East, if stop signals in the long tunnels are acceptable. Between Edale and Grindleford, sections are short and things keep moving pretty well as things stand.
With a maximum speed of 15mph on the chord, clear overlaps at either end can be as short as 50m, which appears to be the case at the south junction today.
That land has also struck me as the only available place for an expansion of Dore's car park, which would be needed in many of the more ambitious proposals on here (although I reckon all three could be accomodated with a bit of engineering). I assume the land is owned by Network rail, they must be saving it for something as it would fetch a fair bit for development otherwise!
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,963
Providing you aren't doing it in Gerrards Cross :P
As for car Parking at Dore Station would it not be easier to double deck (triple deck?) on the exisitng site rather than find more land for parking?
Panel photos (and Simsig!) suggest that the overlap at both ends covers the first track circuit in advance of the signal, in both cases taking it out over the junction.
Why do anything? If we are going to do something (anything) worthwhile about reducing CO2 emissions then people are going to have to get used to the idea of walking, cycling or getting a bus to their station. Dore, Dorridge or Dorking, we have to de-carbonise. I'm sure it's no coincidence that obesity and diabetes have ramped up since we (some people anyway) learned to expect central heating and never leaving the house other than by car.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
Whilst being in sympathy with the underlying point about sustainable and environmentally friendly access to railheads have you ever actually been to Dore (or other stations along the Hope Valley line)?
The fact that the current Dore car park is full from early in the morning leads to a lot of 'nuisance' parking in the local area. Many people are driving from nearby hilly rural areas where the gradients, narrow winding roads, lack of street lighting or pavements and absence of regular bus services make alternatives to cars/lifts/taxis infeasible.
Last edited:
https://www.simsig.co.uk/Media/Wiki...field/sheffield-modern-signal-number-plan.pdf
This suggests you are correct. With the chord so short today perhaps the overlap arrangements are an encouragement to set a route right through for most trains to avoid hanging back over the junction to rear, but I'm sure it's a pain when they want to stick something short like a tamper in there. I wonder if that is something that could be improved upon with the lengthening work being carried out.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/49068127@N06/8644048352
...suggests that there's actually quite a bit less than 50m available to the fouling point, so presumably the signal would have to be moved back (which, in turn, might present some problems - not insurmountable - with the proximity to the short tunnel on the curve). Either way, the ability to get one onto the curve to stand to await a forward path, in either direction, without interfering with traffic at the far end is surely an essential part of any lengthening work, and indeed one of the most beneficial parts of the whole scheme!
...suggests that there's actually quite a bit less than 50m available to the fouling point, so presumably the signal would have to be moved back (which, in turn, might present some problems - not insurmountable - with the proximity to the short tunnel on the curve). Either way, the ability to get one onto the curve to stand to await a forward path, in either direction, without interfering with traffic at the far end is surely an essential part of any lengthening work, and indeed one of the most beneficial parts of the whole scheme!
Altfish
Member
My bad, I thought there were two tracks towards Manchester, the second omitting the platform
Note how far to the left that signal is to gain as much sighting as possible on approach through the tunnel. Perhaps some kind of trapping arrangement at that end leading to a short swinging overlap spur at that end, terminating in a friction buffer stop could manage the junction risk, remembering that following a SPAD it could be a head-on collision with fast well loaded passenger traffic, including HS2 trains in the future, although the signal might have to move back a bit to make space for the additional turnout. There's no gradient to speak of on the chord. A tunnel signal might be mounted on the wall inside the portal, with the track shifted over a little to the inside of the former double track curve to make room if neccessary.
Killingworth
Established Member
Earlier I mentioned that a feasibility study had been made into restoring the mainline platforms at Dore. That envisaged substantial extra parking provision. Two options were suggested, both already mentioned here. Costings were vague. Adding two extra decks to the current car park would just about cope with demand for the 2 platform station and it's services anticipated after completion of the HVCS! One extra deck would be full by the end of September if word got round that it was available now.
What is locally known as the railway triangle is not flat. It's spoil dumped during the building of Bradway tunnel and the Twentywell cutting leading up to it. The land is owned by Sheffield City Council and managed by their Parks and Open Spaces department. They let part of it to Network Rail for rail maintenance purposes, a nice little earner. More of that area is to be used by Network Rail as their principal construction site during the planned works at Dore (although half of the works are in Bradway). Some levelling is likely and the illustrations in the material for the public inquiry show a flat area left at the end, just right for - a car park! However, parking is NOT part of Network Rail's remit and they made that very clear at the inquiry.
That was identified in the feasibility study as a possible site for a large car park, almost 500? It would be easy to excavate if even more space was ever demanded.
Snags? For both options, opposition to more local traffic. Opposition to any encroachment into the green visual and natural environment around the station. Cost. At present SYPTE have a free park and ride policy. They may want to do one of these options, but where's the money? For the triangle option access raises road safety concerns.
The effect of charging would be to push parking further from the station on public roads - and Manchester bound commuters would be more likely to pay. At least there'd be space for those staying a few days/weeks while away on business or pleasure trips from Manchester Airport, a growing practice.
Artist's impression of now, from public inquiry.
Artist's impression immediately after works completed.
Artist's impresion after nature has started to reclaim the plot.
Last edited:
Killingworth
Established Member
For those who have mentioned a possible third platform at Dore here's the plan for the second platform as submitted to the public inquiry. Sorry I didn't copy absolutely every plan available. Unfortunately it's almost certainly too late to get Network Rail to change anything much, especially if it needs more money! However, a little careful positioning might have got a third platform alongside the mainline, rejoining the westbound line at the south end of the station to make a loop. The old island platform was wide enough for a large shelter including a W H Smith's shop.
At the north end there used to be quite a major junction with signal box. A line off the westbound track just south of Dore station junction would only require one set of points to bring a track up to the north end of the planned platform 2. See an extract from an old OS map of that area.
Here's a less detailed view, also showing where 5 sidings were used to store empty coaching stock for summer special trains.
At the north end there used to be quite a major junction with signal box. A line off the westbound track just south of Dore station junction would only require one set of points to bring a track up to the north end of the planned platform 2. See an extract from an old OS map of that area.
Here's a less detailed view, also showing where 5 sidings were used to store empty coaching stock for summer special trains.
Last edited:
Thanks for that - I didn’t know it was owned by SCC. A car park there would be feasible, even a double or triple decked one would be doable with excavation without the eyesore (and strong local opposition) that would arise from attempting to add a deck to the present one. It would however need probably two sets of traffic lights installing, and perhaps even a full reworking of the Twentywell Lane junction - it’s bad enough as it is!
Thanks for finding those! I would imagine a 4-car platform for turning round sprinters could be squeezed in with maybe a little re-alignment, although there are few actual plans beyond this forum at the moment I don’t think.