Hope Valley Capacity Scheme updates

[furnessvale]

I struggle to believe the claim you quote here. A double lead junction would still have four point ends, but some would carry less traffic and/or be operated less frequently. Capacity is also maximised if trains in opposite directions on the same route are scheduled to pass on the junction, which can't happen for the diverging route on a single lead.

A major consideration was the need to eliminate the once ubiquitous 1 in 8 diamond crossing. Following several incidents involving the 1-Co bogie fitted under 40s etc, 1 in 8 diamonds were deemed unsafe and had to be either changed to 1 in 7.5 diamonds, 1 in 8 switch diamonds or single lead junctions. Single lead junctions won on initial and ongoing maintenance costs.

 

[Killingworth]

A major consideration was the need to eliminate the once ubiquitous 1 in 8 diamond crossing. Following several incidents involving the 1-Co bogie fitted under 40s etc, 1 in 8 diamonds were deemed unsafe and had to be either changed to 1 in 7.5 diamonds, 1 in 8 switch diamonds or single lead junctions. Single lead junctions won on initial and ongoing maintenance costs.

The rationalisation at Dore was part of an ongoing slimming down of the railway to better reflect rapidly shrinking passenger and freight volumes. In the 60s and 70s the decline was looking terninal.

Around 1900 the original 2 tracks from Dore into Sheffield werre doubled with pairs of fast and slow tracks. There were many tracks limked to them, including 5 sidings used to hold coaching stock at Dore. The work in 1985 allowed slewing of tracks and recall it was going to save about a minute between Dronfield and Sheffield with only 2 tracks once again down the Sheaf valley..

Why single through Dore? Looked at now it seems mad. Today there are 3 passenger ttrains per hour in each direction plus more volumes of cement and limestone aggregate than the coal traffic that orginally justifird the line. In 1985 there was only one fast passenger service each hour and a stopper to New Mills or Chinley every 2 or 3 hours. It wasn't congested.

We know now that 1985 was about the time passenger railway fortunes turned.

 

[Chester1]

The rationalisation at Dore was part of an ongoing slimming down of the railway to better reflect rapidly shrinking passenger and freight volumes. In the 60s and 70s the decline was looking terninal.

Around 1900 the original 2 tracks from Dore into Sheffield werre doubled with pairs of fast and slow tracks. There were many tracks limked to them, including 5 sidings used to hold coaching stock at Dore. The work in 1985 allowed slewing of tracks and recall it was going to save about a minute between Dronfield and Sheffield with only 2 tracks once again down the Sheaf valley..

Why single through Dore? Looked at now it seems mad. Today there are 3 passenger ttrains per hour in each direction plus more volumes of cement and limestone aggregate than the coal traffic that orginally justifird the line. In 1985 there was only one fast passenger service each hour and a stopper to New Mills or Chinley every 2 or 3 hours. It wasn't congested.

We know now that 1985 was about the time passenger railway fortunes turned.

What was the rationale for redoubling Dore over doubling the Hazel Grove chord? Is the latter not a significant capacity constraint?

 

[ABB125]

What was the rationale for redoubling Dore over doubling the Hazel Grove chord? Is the latter not a significant capacity constraint?

More freight at the Dore end, and fewer places to regulate the freight too? At the Hazel Grove end, I believe there are some freight only lines that can probably be used to an extent (my knowledge of the railway geography and operations in the area isn't great, so I may be wrong!). Also, the Northern stopper turns off around Furness Vale, so there's one fewer passenger train to worry about.

Plus I'm led to believe that the track geometry required for double track at Hazel Grove would be "challenging" or perhaps even "adventurous" (even more so than at Dore).

 

[Mugby]

Wasn't there a modest increase in the crossover speed at Dore Station Junction when it became single lead in the 1980s?

I seem to remember that, from Sheffield, trains for Manchester used to cross over at about 30mph and it was raised 50mph (or something like that)

 

[Chester1]

Wasn't there a modest increase in the crossover speed at Dore Station Junction when it became single lead in the 1980s?

I seem to remember that, from Sheffield, trains for Manchester used to cross over at about 30mph and it was raised 50mph (or something like that)

Sounds a bit like the TRU. Reducing from 4 to 2 tracks enabled speed increases and reinstating without losing those benefits isn't cheap.

More freight at the Dore end, and fewer places to regulate the freight too? At the Hazel Grove end, I believe there are some freight only lines that can probably be used to an extent (my knowledge of the railway geography and operations in the area isn't great, so I may be wrong!). Also, the Northern stopper turns off around Furness Vale, so there's one fewer passenger train to worry about.

Plus I'm led to believe that the track geometry required for double track at Hazel Grove would be "challenging" or perhaps even "adventurous" (even more so than at Dore).

Yes you will be right. Less freight and one fewer passenger trains at Hazel Grove must offset that the single section is longer.

 

[plugwash]

my knowledge of the railway geography and operations in the area isn't great

My understanding is that at the Western end of the hope valley line you have three options.

1. The route to marple via New Mills central
2. The route to Hazel grove via the Chord.
3. Continuing westward from Hazel grove on a single track freight only line. This line essentially bypasses Manchester and Stockport and merges with the line from Stockport to Altrincham.

It looks like the junction has a waiting bay for trains to wait out of the way of passenger trains for the single line

Was the Hazel Grove chord ever more than single track? Given that it was built as part of a british rail rationalisation effort I kinda doubt it.

 

[snowball]

Was the Hazel Grove chord ever more than single track? Given that it was built as part of a british rail rationalisation effort I kinda doubt it.

No, it was always single track. I remember looking at its west end (its junction with the Buxton line) from an overbridge around the time it was opened in 1985. The chord was single track, while the Buxton line remained double track; but the junction seemed to be designed so that trains coming on or off the chord would be able to do so at higher speed than those remaining on the Buxton line.

 

[edwin_m]

My understanding is that at the Western end of the hope valley line you have three options.

1. The route to marple via New Mills central
2. The route to Hazel grove via the Chord.
3. Continuing westward from Hazel grove on a single track freight only line. This line essentially bypasses Manchester and Stockport and merges with the line from Stockport to Altrincham.

It looks like the junction has a waiting bay for trains to wait out of the way of passenger trains for the single line

Was the Hazel Grove chord ever more than single track? Given that it was built as part of a british rail rationalisation effort I kinda doubt it.

They had to take a piece of a churchyard, presumably including re-interments etc, so there would have been more pressure than usual to minimise the land take.

 

[Geeves]

Was the Hazel Grove chord ever more than single track? Given that it was built as part of a british rail rationalisation effort I kinda doubt it.

Surprisingly for the time the Hazel Grove chord actually increased flexibility as the only way to access Sheffield once the Woodhead Line closed was via Romiley

They had to raise the Down Buxton Line so that the chord could gain enough height in the short section to gain access to the previously freight only lines that cross the Buxton line on a bridge as well as crossing over Macclesfield Road. Its actually a very clever piece of engineering!

 

[GardenRail]

I struggle to believe the claim you quote here. A double lead junction would still have four point ends, but some would carry less traffic and/or be operated less frequently. Capacity is also maximised if trains in opposite directions on the same route are scheduled to pass on the junction, which can't happen for the diverging route on a single lead.

Sorry about that. Happened all over the place. Masborough, Mexborough, Aldwarke, just to save on costs. Less S&C to maintain, with the associated Signalling etc.

More freight at the Dore end, and fewer places to regulate the freight too? At the Hazel Grove end, I believe there are some freight only lines that can probably be used to an extent (my knowledge of the railway geography and operations in the area isn't great, so I may be wrong!). Also, the Northern stopper turns off around Furness Vale, so there's one fewer passenger train to worry about.

Plus I'm led to believe that the track geometry required for double track at Hazel Grove would be "challenging" or perhaps even "adventurous" (even more so than at Dore).

Yep. It's quite an art getting a freight train through Sheffield without knocking the station. Once past Healey Loop, they've got to go at least as far as Earles, but their loop can't fit every train in, so Sheffield often has to regulate as far as Chinley. Another single lead junction. If they at Chinley have committed to something coming off the quarries, it creates chaos back down the valley, because there's nowhere for the Peak Forest train from Sheffield Stn direction (example). To sum up, the whole Hope Valley is a shambles.

 

[furnessvale]

The rationalisation at Dore was part of an ongoing slimming down of the railway to better reflect rapidly shrinking passenger and freight volumes. In the 60s and 70s the decline was looking terninal.

Around 1900 the original 2 tracks from Dore into Sheffield werre doubled with pairs of fast and slow tracks. There were many tracks limked to them, including 5 sidings used to hold coaching stock at Dore. The work in 1985 allowed slewing of tracks and recall it was going to save about a minute between Dronfield and Sheffield with only 2 tracks once again down the Sheaf valley..

Why single through Dore? Looked at now it seems mad. Today there are 3 passenger ttrains per hour in each direction plus more volumes of cement and limestone aggregate than the coal traffic that orginally justifird the line. In 1985 there was only one fast passenger service each hour and a stopper to New Mills or Chinley every 2 or 3 hours. It wasn't congested.

We know now that 1985 was about the time passenger railway fortunes turned.

Yes, I was answering the question of the rationalisation of many junctions nationwide, rather than Dore in particular.

 

[Starmill]

Wasn't the reduction in station buildings also enabled by the single tracking through the station in Dore?

 

[yorksrob]

More freight at the Dore end, and fewer places to regulate the freight too? At the Hazel Grove end, I believe there are some freight only lines that can probably be used to an extent (my knowledge of the railway geography and operations in the area isn't great, so I may be wrong!). Also, the Northern stopper turns off around Furness Vale, so there's one fewer passenger train to worry about.

Plus I'm led to believe that the track geometry required for double track at Hazel Grove would be "challenging" or perhaps even "adventurous" (even more so than at Dore).

Also, the Hazel Grove chord doesn't have a station on it.

 

[507020]

I digress but this saga gets worse. The Hope Valley scheme is now bigger than just redoubling at Dore. It grew by 2013 into a plan to provide 2 extra hourly fast paths between Sheffield and Manchester.

By 2015 it was realised that couldn't happen due to congestion into both Manchester and Sheffield and the scope was reduced to only one extra fast path. Delivery is imminent and it has dawned that even one extra hourly path is problematic. Why? Partly removal of those two tracks from Dore into Sheffield.

So, just to be clear, is the current work not expected to produce any additional passenger paths to the 3 that already run? It only improves freight capacity?

Rationalisation, and single lead junctions are cheaper to maintain. Short sighted penny pinching at the time.

May I suggest that a single lead junction through a platform, with no way to bypass it even for freight is irrational?

A major consideration was the need to eliminate the once ubiquitous 1 in 8 diamond crossing. Following several incidents involving the 1-Co bogie fitted under 40s etc, 1 in 8 diamonds were deemed unsafe and had to be either changed to 1 in 7.5 diamonds, 1 in 8 switch diamonds or single lead junctions. Single lead junctions won on initial and ongoing maintenance costs.

How could they be unsafe if they were ubiquitous and no issues were encountered until the introduction of the Class 40 Diesel? Was it never considered that the Class 40 bogie design was unsafe if it was was incompatible with a common feature of the infrastructure?

Are single lead junctions not also unsafe, since they introduced for the first time a serious risk of head on collisions between trains travelling in opposite directions over the same piece of single track, when compared to the previous flank protected double junctions?

Wasn't there a modest increase in the crossover speed at Dore Station Junction when it became single lead in the 1980s?

I seem to remember that, from Sheffield, trains for Manchester used to cross over at about 30mph and it was raised 50mph (or something like that)

Yes you will be right. Less freight and one fewer passenger trains at Hazel Grove must offset that the single section is longer.

No one has mentioned the former 4 track section at the other end between Chinley and New Mills. The segregated routes were Piccadilly - Sheffield and Manchester Central - Derby with the fast lines on the north side of the formation, no problem for Hope Valley trains but other movements required crossing at ridiculously low speeds, however that is preferable to the current capacity constraints.

Surprisingly for the time the Hazel Grove chord actually increased flexibility as the only way to access Sheffield once the Woodhead Line closed was via Romiley

They had to raise the Down Buxton Line so that the chord could gain enough height in the short section to gain access to the previously freight only lines that cross the Buxton line on a bridge as well as crossing over Macclesfield Road. Its actually a very clever piece of engineering!

I have noticed the line towards Buxton goes over a hill at the bottom of the Hazel Grove chord. It may have been a clever piece of engineering for the time and it may have appeared that there was a larger programme of investment in the Hope Valley given the works at Dore and Totley, but how long were the railways expected to stay in 1980s condition exactly? Also, is it wise to have Hope Valley services consuming paths between Piccadilly and Stockport?

 

[Chester1]

So, just to be clear, is the current work not expected to produce any additional passenger paths to the 3 that already run? It only improves freight capacity?

It creates capacity for a third fast service and this was part of the business case. Its not going to be introduced for the forseeable future because of covid changes in passenger numbers.

I have noticed the line towards Buxton goes over a hill at the bottom of the Hazel Grove chord. It may have been a clever piece of engineering for the time and it may have appeared that there was a larger programme of investment in the Hope Valley given the works at Dore and Totley, but how long were the railways expected to stay in 1980s condition exactly? Also, is it wise to have Hope Valley services consuming paths between Piccadilly and Stockport?

Its a tricky issue because Stockport is a popular interchange but as you say they take up paths between Piccadilly and Stockport. I think the third express service, if it ever happens will go via Reddish at least for a several years. If HS2 actually reaches Piccadilly then the paths through Stockport won't be an issue.

 

[snowball]

They had to take a piece of a churchyard, presumably including re-interments etc, so there would have been more pressure than usual to minimise the land take.

Perhaps that's why they got the Bishop of Chester to perform the opening ceremony!

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps that's why they got the Bishop of Chester to perform the opening ceremony!

I'm pretty sure it was. I seem to remember a report of the speech including various ecclesiastical terms ending with "-chord".

 

[snowball]

I'm pretty sure it was. I seem to remember a report of the speech including various ecclesiastical terms ending with "-chord".

I saw a similar report, perhaps the same one.

 

[furnessvale]

How could they be unsafe if they were ubiquitous and no issues were encountered until the introduction of the Class 40 Diesel? Was it never considered that the Class 40 bogie design was unsafe if it was was incompatible with a common feature of the infrastructure?

The pony truck on a 1-Co bogie was found to have a desire to go down the wrong side of an obtuse crossing of 1 in 8 but was fine on a 1 in 7.5. Several options had to be considered.

1. Permanently ban all 1-Co bogies from 1 in 8 crossings. Difficult given the number of both items in service.

2. Fit raised check rails on the obtuse crossings. Impossible at the time due to the centre drivers on 9Fs being flangeless. Post 9F, raised check rails are a common sight on BR.

3. Use a combination of switch diamonds, 1 in 7.5 crossings or single lead junctions, a temporary ban on 1-Co bogies at locations to be converted and a permanent ban at other locations where 1-Co bogies were less common.

Option 3 was deemed the best overall answer.

 

[Starmill]

So, just to be clear, is the current work not expected to produce any additional passenger paths to the 3 that already run? It only improves freight capacity?

It does more than just that though. It enables a full hourly service to stop at every station which hasn't been possible until now, and it will also allow some pathing time to be taken out of schedules once completed. Thirty seconds off the time between Stockport and Hazel Grove may also be achievable.

 

[The exile]

May I suggest that a single lead junction through a platform, with no way to bypass it even for freight is irrational?



Are single lead junctions not also unsafe, since they introduced for the first time a serious risk of head on collisions between trains travelling in opposite directions over the same piece of single track, when compared to the previous flank protected double junctions?

but how long were the railways expected to stay in 1980s condition exactly? Also, is it wise to have Hope Valley services consuming paths between Piccadilly and Stockport?

1. Isn’t hindsight a wonderful thing?

2. Indeed - I think the collision at Bellgrove (1991?) taught that lesson.

3. For ever… or get worse. “Managed decline” was the order of the day.

 

[Killingworth]

It does more than just that though. It enables a full hourly service to stop at every station which hasn't been possible until now, and it will also allow some pathing time to be taken out of schedules once completed. Thirty seconds off the time between Stockport and Hazel Grove may also be achievable.

But a full hourly stopping service has been running since last year thanks to use of 195s instrad of Pacers

 

[childwallblues]

So, just to be clear, is the current work not expected to produce any additional passenger paths to the 3 that already run? It only improves freight capacity?

May I suggest that a single lead junction through a platform, with no way to bypass it even for freight is irrational?

How could they be unsafe if they were ubiquitous and no issues were encountered until the introduction of the Class 40 Diesel? Was it never considered that the Class 40 bogie design was unsafe if it was was incompatible with a common feature of the infrastructure?

Are single lead junctions not also unsafe, since they introduced for the first time a serious risk of head on collisions between trains travelling in opposite directions over the same piece of single track, when compared to the previous flank protected double junctions?


No one has mentioned the former 4 track section at the other end between Chinley and New Mills. The segregated routes were Piccadilly - Sheffield and Manchester Central - Derby with the fast lines on the north side of the formation, no problem for Hope Valley trains but other movements required crossing at ridiculously low speeds, however that is preferable to the current capacity constraints.

I have noticed the line towards Buxton goes over a hill at the bottom of the Hazel Grove chord. It may have been a clever piece of engineering for the time and it may have appeared that there was a larger programme of investment in the Hope Valley given the works at Dore and Totley, but how long were the railways expected to stay in 1980s condition exactly? Also, is it wise to have Hope Valley services consuming paths between Piccadilly and Stockport?

The only other way that Hope Valley services could go is via Reddish. Then you would have two express services per hour crossing the throat at Piccadilly to access Platform 14. The NRW/CLE-LIV services seem to use the slow lines anyway.

 

[Mag_seven]

Just a gentle reminder that this thread is for Hope Valley Capacity Scheme updates i.e. updates on the actual scheme itself.

If anyone wants to discuss anything else then do please start a new thread elsewhere or find a more appropriate existing one (if its an old thread that has been locked we can unlock it if you contact us)

 

[Justin Smith]

Not sure if this has been mentioned "up thread" but, apparently, the Hope Valley cement works is due to shut in 2042 :

https://my.engaged.space/hope/#home

 

[Killingworth]

Not sure if this has been mentioned "up thread" but, apparently, the Hope Valley cement works is due to shut in 2042 :

https://my.engaged.space/hope/#home

Probably not although it's been quite well known in the Hope Valley and Peak District National Park for .any years that the licences to quarry would expire in 2042 and would not be extended.

The National Park authority is opposed to any new quarrying within tbeir boundaries so Breedon are planning well ahead.

The Peak Park boundaries were carefully drawn to exclude quarries in the Buxtoon area where existing licences will allow quarrying for very much longer, not sure of dates but some maybe up to 70 years?

 

[furnessvale]

Probably not although it's been quite well known in the Hope Valley and Peak District National Park for .any years that the licences to quarry would expire in 2042 and would not be extended.

The National Park authority is opposed to any new quarrying within tbeir boundaries so Breedon are planning well ahead.

The Peak Park boundaries were carefully drawn to exclude quarries in the Buxtoon area where existing licences will allow quarrying for very much longer, not sure of dates but some maybe up to 70 years?

If the country NEEDS cement from Hope in 2042, I believe the National Park Authority will be overruled by central government, especially as this is an existing site, not new development. Even without that, Breedon has invested £millions in the plant and has recently authorised £millions more, including importing Welsh slate waste by rail.

 

[Killingworth]

If the country NEEDS cement from Hope in 2042, I believe the National Park Authority will be overruled by central government, especially as this is an existing site, not new development. Even without that, Breedon has invested £millions in the plant and has recently authorised £millions more, including importing Welsh slate waste by rail.

Previously they quarried shale on site but that's now woked out. The current quarrying will continue up to the sitr boundary to provide material until 2042 when it too will be worked out. The plant itself would then be redundant. The current consultation is about reclaiming and restoring the site within the Peak Park's conservation ideals.

In 10-20 years things may change but currently I've heard nothing to suggezt that the plant itself could be retained to process limestone brought round from the Buxton area quarries. That would require a better rail link in from the west - currently they have to reverse in blocking both tracks.

 

[Viscount702]

Any news on progress