Hope Valley Capacity Scheme updates

[Killingworth]

If this is going to happen, someone needs to tell Totley and Grindleford boxes that they are shutting. They have heard nothing.

It seems to have been deferred until after this scheme is completed and could be another decade at the present ratec ofv progress. There may eventually be a total resignalling of the line, but the answer I've heard is that apart from new signals controlling the new tracks, the only change is for responsibility for the section from the new Bamford loop to Dore West Junction to be moved to York. That makes sense as that way the Dore Junctions and loop can better work with the Bamford loop.

 

[Bald Rick]

Whilst some tunnels do have stop tunnels within them, they (all?) have special controls to minimise the likelihood of a train being stopped at a signal mid-tunnel. My understanding is that these generally require the first train to have clear signals beyond the tunnel. I'd suggest that this might not be appropriate for at least Totley Tunnel, where trains (including heavy freight trains, albeit on a falling gradient) are routinely stopped at the signal just beyond the tunnel on the Up (with the risk that they'll be unable to restart once the signal is cleared) and there's a station immediately beyond the tunnel on the Down (with the risk that a passenger train will be delayed there). Personally, I consider the possibility of becoming stranded in there for any length of time to be the stuff of nightmares!

Just to confirm that the signals in the Hope Valley tunnels (Disley on the Down, Cowburn on the Down and Totley in both directions) are all distants, as are those in Bradway Tunnel, notably in the midst of a run of four-aspect signals (which suggests to me that there's a particular objection to having stop signals in that specific tunnel at least).

Very good point, I forgot to mention the tunnel controls.

 

[yorksrob]

That’s quite possibly a factor too - the air in the various tunnels can be particularly unpleasant at times with the combination of heavy freight trains, gradients and relative lack of ventilation.

Yes, it can seem a bit fuggy when going through there on a non-air con DMU.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Being on the spot I've just watched two trains going west. At present trains are running within a minute of time.

TPE 185 left Sheffield at 20.10 followed by the Northern 156 stopper at 20.13 (TPE a minute late, Northern a minute early, insignificant), a 3 minute separation.

TPE cleared Dore Station Junction at 20.15 followed by Northern at 20.19. Already a 4 minute separation.

...

Anecdotal evidence - I often timed how long from tunnel entrance to exit. Pacers stopping at Grindleford almost exactly 4 mins end to end, and non-stop trains around 3.5 mins.
And it's pretty rare to be on a stopping train from Sheffield that gets held at the signal before entering the tunnel, even if the TP is late enough that the stoping train gets looped at Heeley.
So I'm not sure an intermediate stop signal in the tunnel would be much help.

 

[Ploughman]

Yes, it can seem a bit fuggy when going through there on a non-air con DMU.

You should try working in there with a couple of old 37's or 56's on a reballast job back in the 90s.

 

[The Planner]

Anecdotal evidence - I often timed how long from tunnel entrance to exit. Pacers stopping at Grindleford almost exactly 4 mins end to end, and non-stop trains around 3.5 mins.
And it's pretty rare to be on a stopping train from Sheffield that gets held at the signal before entering the tunnel, even if the TP is late enough that the stoping train gets looped at Heeley.
So I'm not sure an intermediate stop signal in the tunnel would be much help.

Which is what the SRTs are, Totley Tunnel East to Grindleford is 3.5 for a 185 and 195. 4 minutes for a 158. 4.5 for a 150 and Pacer. Heavier freights are 9 minutes for comparison.

 

[yorksrob]

You should try working in there with a couple of old 37's or 56's on a reballast job back in the 90s.

Sounds quite eye-watering !

 

[Killingworth]

Which is what the SRTs are, Totley Tunnel East to Grindleford is 3.5 for a 185 and 195. 4 minutes for a 158. 4.5 for a 150 and Pacer. Heavier freights are 9 minutes for comparison.

The bigger problem is loaded trains coming out of the Peak. That's why the new loop and dual track is needed.

The train I illustrated up thread was held in Dore & Totley station before it got a path through Dore Station Junction into Sheffield. It was just clear of Dore West Junction. Soon after it pulled away another freight followed, checked before it could get a path to cross both Dore West and Dore South Junctions.

Those two caused no delays to passenger services but that was partly thanks to normal timetabling with skip stops and current reduced services.

By 2024 the freight going South would go into the new loop. A fully loaded freight having to stop now, or in the new loop, takes an extra minute or two to get restarted on the tight uphill curve into Bradway Tunnel. That bottleneck issue won't be totally removed.

There are thousands of these issues across the network and they prevent easy resolution of delays.

 

[Tomnick]

It seems to have been deferred until after this scheme is completed and could be another decade at the present ratec ofv progress. There may eventually be a total resignalling of the line, but the answer I've heard is that apart from new signals controlling the new tracks, the only change is for responsibility for the section from the new Bamford loop to Dore West Junction to be moved to York. That makes sense as that way the Dore Junctions and loop can better work with the Bamford loop.

Control responsibility or the operation of the signalling itself?

Personally I'll be surprised if the necessary alterations aren't part of a full resignalling east of Earles at least, obviously with due regards for the livelihoods that'll be affected.

 

[WestRiding]

The loop at Bamford would be smack in the middle of the Absolute Block section between Earles and Grindleford. To control a loop there, remote from any signal box, would require a TCB section. So without transfer/resignalling to York, or Earles/Grindleford becoming TCB, i am not sure how it can be accomplished. It should be noted that this has been going to get done for at least the last 18 years, so i dont think it will get done any time soon. The Hope Valley is the poor relation compared to North Transpennine.

 

[Killingworth]

Control responsibility or the operation of the signalling itself?

Personally I'll be surprised if the necessary alterations aren't part of a full resignalling east of Earles at least, obviously with due regards for the livelihoods that'll be affected.

I'd have thought it would include full resignalling but no, just transfer of control. Ever since the first consultations we've had the same response "Wider renewal of signalling along the length of the Hope Valley is not within the scope of this scheme."

We've heard it is in the pencilled in plans when priorities allow it.

Others will know the signalling systems and latest advances a lot better than I do but I gather it's to do with what will work best in fairly remote country valleys and long tunnels and be compatible with what is being introduced at both ends of the route. Plus the variety of locomotives and units operating there that may need to be able to operate across the country with different combinations of signalling systems. But I get lost in the detail to be able to explain this. I'm sure there must be others on here who could. I think it's an aspirational future project to do full resignalling end to end.

Digital in CP10 by 2040? https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Digital-Long-Term-Deployment-Plan.pdf

Nothing on railways is ever as straightforward as it first seems!

 

[Tomnick]

The loop at Bamford would be smack in the middle of the Absolute Block section between Earles and Grindleford. To control a loop there, remote from any signal box, would require a TCB section. So without transfer/resignalling to York, or Earles/Grindleford becoming TCB, i am not sure how it can be accomplished. It should be noted that this has been going to get done for at least the last 18 years, so i dont think it will get done any time soon. The Hope Valley is the poor relation compared to North Transpennine.

I think it’d be possible to do it with a loop on the Up at Bamford (just beyond the existing IBH of course), with extended station limits and probably a small switch panel at Earles. I’ve worked boxes with similar. Whether that’d be justified when it’d probably cost nearly as much as resignalling the lot anyway is another question!

 

[Killingworth]

The Hope Valley is the poor relation compared to North Transpennine.

Those of us close to the line might be forgiven if we suggested it was so poor as to not even being admitted as a relation! Totally forgotten most of the time. Probably because it's operated out of Manchester and doesn't figure in plans from the eastern side of the Pennines. It does figure peripherally in South East Manchester commuting studies.

However, leaving aside the well known delights of the Peak District, there are two restaurants on the Dore & Totley station site and they'd love to be able to welcome more customers coming by rail. Services from New Mills through the outer suburbs into Manchester are half hourly. Services at the eastern end are hourly with a lot of skip stops, one of which is 2 hours 33 minutes in an evening at Dore - about the most useful time for both diners and anyone returning to Sheffield from further afield wanting a connection to nearer home.

The Indian restaurant used to be called Delhi Junction, now the Rajdhani with historic local railway pictures featured around the walls. At the other end of the car park is the Summer House which is pressing ahead with a major redevolpment with a railway theme. See what's apparently to go on the roof, looks like a sleeping carriage - from Yorkshire Live

Once the current crisis can be put behind us, and the HVCS completed, we might finally get back to the sort of services we had hereabouts until the Beeching era cuts. And that will help through travellers and freight as well.

 

[Killingworth]

As proof that this scheme has been kicking around a long time, Network Rail was consulting Sheffield Council Planners in 2005; https://planningapps.sheffield.gov....ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=IJO6SVNYKB000

Local MP Olivia Haigh submitted a written parliamentary question just before the lock down and got an answer that has now been tempered with the caveat that tenders may be delayed, either in submission or consideration, if not both; https://www.parliament.uk/business/...ts/written-question/Commons/2020-03-16/30209/

Unsurprisingly she didn't get a date for completion but it has been well known locally that the original target date of 2018 has been sliding inexorably backwards and was most recently late autumn/winter 2023. It seems COVID-19 will be the latest reason for further delay. 2024 looks increasingly possible

 

[WestRiding]

Its been confirmed. Totley and Grindleford will close and control will transfer to Sheffield Work Station at York ROC, meaning Sheffield WS will fringe with Earles, and control the new loop at Bamford.

 

[Elecman]

Its been confirmed. Totley and Grindleford will close and control will transfer to Sheffield Work Station at York ROC, meaning Sheffield WS will fringe with Earles, and control the new loop at Bamford.

I thought Earle’s closed as well?

 

[Killingworth]

I thought Earle’s closed as well?

Unless there's been a recent change Earle's stays because of all the movements there. However the new Bamford loop gets contolled from York as it needs to be well co-ordinated with the Dore loop/chord (and the Heeley loop where work is due on signalling to increase the useable length) for longer trains to feed north or south to/from the Midland Mainline.

 

[WestRiding]

Earles is defo staying.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Before anyone touches Earles (which is indeed the Sheffield Panel fringe, or hopefully will be) can someone please get DfT to agree pay for including installing the missing facing crossover at the Edale end? Thanks.

 

[Killingworth]

Before anyone touches Earles (which is indeed the Sheffield Panel fringe, or hopefully will be) can someone please get DfT to agree pay for including installing the missing facing crossover at the Edale end? Thanks.

Not part of the present scheme to which nothing, even options within the scheme, can apparently now be added.

It is indeed the missing link that gums up capacity on both tracks for far too long. Any movement arriving from the west from Chinley through the Cowburn Tunnel to enter Earles has to pass the sidings and then reverse across the westbound track at the east end to get into them.

Very, very few train loads for Earles are pathed to arrive from the west. There's an infrequent coal train that comes from South Wales that has caused issues on maybe a couple of occasions I've heard of, largely due to it arriving outside its allocated time window to dodge between passenger services.

Light engine movements from the Buxton quarries or elswhere to the west regularly assemble there before setting off in multiples of up to 4 for servicing. They get out of the way a lot more quickly, but it still requires allowing 10-15 minutes from approaching Earles to being safely in the sidings. That's quite a chunk out of available passenger paths.

This scheme isn't enough on it's own to achieve as much extra capacity as is needed and could be achieved. An Earles west crossover would add extra pathing options and and resignalling should make tightening up of timetables easier.

A thought comes to me. Somebody should be proposing reopening the lifted two tracks down the Sheaf valley from Dore into Sheffield. They were removed in the Beeching era and the DfT may have a pot of funds to restore his cuts. Oops, I'm digressing! For another day.

 

[Dr Hoo]

A thought comes to me. Somebody should be proposing reopening the lifted two tracks down the Sheaf valley from Dore into Sheffield. They were removed in the Beeching era and the DfT may have a pot of funds to restore his cuts. Oops, I'm digressing! For another day.

I thought that they were a victim of the "Surplus Track Capacity [hasty elimination] Grants" under the 1968 Transport Act. Perhaps there should be a 'Reversing Raymond/Castle Fund' too?

 

[Revaulx]

I thought that they were a victim of the "Surplus Track Capacity [hasty elimination] Grants" under the 1968 Transport Act. Perhaps there should be a 'Reversing Raymond/Castle Fund' too?

Yup. I remember them being lifted in the early 70s and it seemed fat headed then.

 

[mwmbwls]

A thought comes to me. Somebody should be proposing reopening the lifted two tracks down the Sheaf valley from Dore into Sheffield. They were removed in the Beeching era and the DfT may have a pot of funds to restore his cuts. Oops, I'm digressing! For another day.

Including the drop you off at the front door underpass?

 

[Killingworth]

I understand tenders went in on schedule and are now being considered to the timetable for the planned 2023 completion. Interested parties are being seen on site checking details.

 

[Killingworth]

I thought that they were a victim of the "Surplus Track Capacity [hasty elimination] Grants" under the 1968 Transport Act. Perhaps there should be a 'Reversing Raymond/Castle Fund' too?

Technical point which may escape the notice of those considering the present reversal of Beeching cuts proposals. 1968 was very soon after Beeching's 1963 and 1965 reports and thinking was still very much in the same vein of cutting everything back.

Section 40 of The Transport Act 1968 said;

40 Grants pending elimination of surplus track and signalling equipment

(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may, for each of the five years beginning with 1969, make to the Railways Board a grant towards the expenditure of the Board in respect of track and signalling equipment which is in that year in the possession of the Board but which is in that year, or is likely within those five years to become, surplus to their requirements.

(2)The amount of any grant under this section shall be determined by the Minister after consultation with the Railways Board, and the amount of the grant for each of the said years shall be so determined before 1st January 1969 in such manner that—

(a)the amount for each year after the first is less than that for the preceding year ; and

(b)the aggregate amount of the grants does not exceed £50 million.

(3)Any grant under this section shall be made on such terms and conditions as the Minister may determine.

(4)The approval of the Treasury shall be required for the making of any grant under this section and for any determination of the Minister under subsection (2) or (3) thereof.

(5)The report of the Railways Board under section 27(8) of the Act of 1962 for any year in respect of which a grant is made to the Board under this section shall include a statement of the amount of that grant.

 

[WestRiding]

How it will look on the Signalling.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Technical point which may escape the notice of those considering the present reversal of Beeching cuts proposals. 1968 was very soon after Beeching's 1963 and 1965 reports and thinking was still very much in the same vein of cutting everything back.

More even than that. By 1968 Stewart Joy was a major adviser to Barbara Castle. He later became Chief Economist at British Railways. Mr. Joy had examined railway track costs in detail - via a doctorial thesis at the LSE - and had concluded that Dr. Beeching had to some extent missed the point. Mr. Joy believed far bigger financial savings could be achieved by track rationalisation of main lines than by closing down branch lines, and that consequently in most cases four tracks should be reduced to twin tracks and many twins tracks should be singled. This assessment underpinned much of the Transport Act of 1968.

 

[backfire22m3]

How it will look on the Signalling.

Thanks for this - very interesting. Forgive my ignorance, but does this show resignalling of the line from Earles to Dore, or is it simply recontrol to York ROC? Apologies if this is obvious to some! Many thanks.

 

[Tomnick]

Thanks for this - very interesting. Forgive my ignorance, but does this show resignalling of the line from Earles to Dore, or is it simply recontrol to York ROC? Apologies if this is obvious to some! Many thanks.

Complete resignalling, including the replacement of the semaphore signalling at Grindleford.

 

[backfire22m3]

Complete resignalling, including the replacement of the semaphore signalling at Grindleford.

Thank you. I hadn’t realised this was included as part of the capacity scheme, but having now read through this fascinating thread it seems that the resignalling and recontrol was a necessary requirement for the works at Dore and Bamford.