How could Sheffield station be improved?

[dosxuk]

Four tracking to the north - ideally up to Meadowhall - and south - all the way to Dore - should be done as a minimum. I don't think the cuttings to the north are actually as much of a problem as some seem to believe, looking at satellite maps there's only one building on the route and that's a tyre shop - from above it looks like the land was already reserved as there's a distinct line in the buildings.

A significant realignment of platforms and tracks to improve platform lengths and approach speeds could be done by getting rid of the stabling facilities. There is significant amounts of space available in Waverly and Tinsley for a proper purpose built facility - much of it on brown field land which will have no development restrictions. There are already some stabling sidings in Brightside that I've not seen used since the days of all-HST operation down to London (where they would lay over between services and wait there after coming off the depot on entry to service).

From my observations, it's feels like it's less the platform utilisation that causes issues at Sheffield but more the poor layout and approach speeds meaning services can't get to and from the platforms. 2C needs a complete rethink though (including down to the number - why is that bay a "C" platform, but the other three bays all have their own number?) - it needs to be able to take 4 car trains at a minimum.

 

[Iskra]

I like that idea although if it was gated then you will loose a useful route across the station from the East, which I can't imagine being too popular with the local population.



To be fair the existing crossing now with Sheaf Sq isn't that bad although I have previously wondered if the road could be lowered into a short tunnel, just long enough to bypass the crossing, although I suspect the underground rivers might prevent that.

Taking the historic/listed bits into consideration, realistically you could only rebuild the East side of the station from 5 to 8. In theory you could potentially remove the two through roads, move the entire island platform over Westwards and construct a new platform upon the Eastern side of the station although that would be a hell of a lot of work. At the end of the day I don't think Sheffield is high on the priority list for rebuilding. I always found it rather good compared to other stations like Leeds which seriously could do with a Reading like rebuild!

As for between platforms 1 & 2 if you could find somewhere else to stable stock, then I would reduce it down to three roads and build platform 1 further out and maybe add a few crossovers in like a Leeds so that could have four flexible turnbacks.

As for the trams I think they should be left where they are, although it could do with a better stop

You could just have a wider walkway with some ticket barriers down each side of it.

 

[Bob figgis]

I think the bigger issue is the section of double track between Nunnery Jn and Mill Race that carries this section of track on a viaduct across the river Don. I’m not sure on the length of this viaduct but it is a rather large lengthy structure. Without expanding this section, adding platforms might not solve capacity constraints of Sheffield.

 

[D365]

I think the bigger issue is the section of double track between Nunnery Jn and Mill Race that carries this section of track on a viaduct across the river Don. I’m not sure on the length of this viaduct but it is a rather large lengthy structure. Without expanding this section, adding platforms might not solve capacity constraints of Sheffield.

Would be a very, very expensive job to add a second pair of tracks.

 

[MCSHF007]

Would be a very, very expensive job to add a second pair of tracks.

Agreed. Pie in the Sky - won't happen.

 

[2192]

Platforms 3/4 are large enough that waiting passengers shouldn’t be a concern. It’s Platform 6 that gets crowded when waiting for a CrossCountry or TransPennine.

But platforms 3 & 4 are north facing bays and won't be used by trains that terminated in sidings at the south of the station, which would call briefly at platform 1 or 2 before going to Leeds, Retford, Doncaster ... So I think there would be passengers on the platform waiting for their train whilst other trains briefly called, and a risk of overcrowding.

 

[Dr Day]

Slightly off the wall and not my local area but to release capacity at Midland could any existing local heavy rail trains operate as tram trains and terminate on the Supertram network instead? Would still need infrastructure but elsewhere- possibly tied up with road closures and tram network extensions?

 

[D365]

But platforms 3 & 4 are north facing bays and won't be used by trains that terminated in sidings at the south of the station, which would call briefly at platform 1 or 2 before going to Leeds, Retford, Doncaster ... So I think there would be passengers on the platform waiting for their train whilst other trains briefly called, and a risk of overcrowding.

Platforms 1 and 2 are also well sized…

Slightly off the wall and not my local area but to release capacity at Midland could any existing local heavy rail trains operate as tram trains and terminate on the Supertram network instead? Would still need infrastructure but elsewhere- possibly tied up with road closures and tram network extensions?

Not enough capacity at Cathedral to turn more trams.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Slightly off the wall and not my local area but to release capacity at Midland could any existing local heavy rail trains operate as tram trains and terminate on the Supertram network instead? Would still need infrastructure but elsewhere- possibly tied up with road closures and tram network extensions?

Not really. One reason the Sheffield tram system uses more street-running than say Manchester or Croydon, is that there weren't really any local suburban branches that could easily be converted. Everything towards Barnsley continues on to Huddersfield or Leeds, everything towards Doncaster has to join or cross the ECML.
One that comes up a lot is the freight-only stub of the Woodhead line to Stocksbridge, which could possibly be adapted for tram-train use. The difficult bit there would be linking into the existing tram network.

 

[edwin_m]

Slightly off the wall and not my local area but to release capacity at Midland could any existing local heavy rail trains operate as tram trains and terminate on the Supertram network instead? Would still need infrastructure but elsewhere- possibly tied up with road closures and tram network extensions?

Not enough capacity at Cathedral to turn more trams.

Not really. One reason the Sheffield tram system uses more street-running than say Manchester or Croydon, is that there weren't really any local suburban branches that could easily be converted. Everything towards Barnsley continues on to Huddersfield or Leeds, everything towards Doncaster has to join or cross the ECML.
One that comes up a lot is the freight-only stub of the Woodhead line to Stocksbridge, which could possibly be adapted for tram-train use. The difficult bit there would be linking into the existing tram network.

The PTE have been looking at tram-train options, partly for this very reason, and in particular the need to get some local services off the rail network to make room for HS2. Options might include running the Doncaster and Dearne Valley locals as tram-trains, joining the tram route in the Meadowhall area. They would stay on the off-street parts of the tram network, but would need some extra infrastructure to terminate and if possible also to serve both the station and the city centre, not currently possible from the Meadowhall direction.

It goes without saying that there is no funding for any of this, and probably impossible to progress now HS2 services through Sheffield are back in limbo - which would also affect the progress of any proposal to upgrade Midland station.

 

[D365]

The PTE have been looking at tram-train options, partly for this very reason, and in particular the need to get some local services off the rail network to make room for HS2. Options might include running the Doncaster and Dearne Valley locals as tram-trains, joining the tram route in the Meadowhall area. They would stay on the off-street parts of the tram network, but would need some extra infrastructure to terminate and if possible also to serve both the station and the city centre, not currently possible from the Meadowhall direction.

It goes without saying that there is no funding for any of this, and probably impossible to progress now HS2 services through Sheffield are back in limbo - which would also affect the progress of any proposal to upgrade Midland station.

The Pond Street diversion would have been ideal for this! Alas...

 

[YorksLad12]

I had one brief chat about the Sheffield Midland Integrated Station Masterplan when I worked in Sheffield, just before I left. The plan then was to effectively swap the tram and road routes around (which I'm sure the Park Hill Flats residents would love).

http://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/documents/s38895/Midland%20Station%20Development%20Framework%20Summary.pdf

For me, the main issues are the constricted approaches from either end. You can fiddle about with the plaforms as much as you like (such as building P1 out over one of the centre roads and creating a P0 bay at either end) but the real problems northbound are between Park Hill and the junction near Sheffield Parkway. Stoppers sometimes get held at Meadowhall so that the fasts can pass - if they could be separated between Meadowhall and Sheffield the same way they are going to be between Huddersfield and Westtown, that might help.

Also, a second footbridge for residents (then the existing one can be gated).

 

[HSTEd]

My understanding is the worst bottleneck is the few hundred meters north of the railway station, through the cutting?
All traffic north packs down to two tracks with flat junctions at both ends (both in the throat and at the north end)0

 

[Killingworth]

It's not too difficult to make modest improvements, but even they'll be massively expensive considering the listed building status and built over the River Sheaf and Porter Brook. A look at OS maps, aerial views and Streetview information is helpful. The council's blueprint is neither more or less practical than others before and still to come.

1. For electrification it seems to be necessary to replace the pedestrian overbridges. Incorporating one without direct access to platforms should make gating much easier. The present foot bridge is too narrow.
2. Taxi and drop off parking is chaotic yet there's a large empty site immediately outside the station, formerly BR's Sheaf House, unused. Even if the site is built on the ground floor level could be utilised to make the approach more welcoming.
3. A pedestrian underpass below Sheaf Street (like below St Pancras Road between Kings Cross and St Pancras - although many still cross the road) would make it safer. Increasing the number of services using the bus station would also be sensible, but currently the plan seems to be to close it!
4. Platform reconfiguration, e.g. Platform 1 could become long enough to take two 6 car trains in either direction. Points and signal changes could also permit other platforms to take two trains.
5. The central roads need to be included in arrangements to better access fully extended platform space on 1, 2, 5 and 6.
6. 2 new underground platforms below Park Hill to the east of the station with track through to Nunnery Junction. If anything goes wrong in the northern throat (like a derailed cement train) everything stops.
7. Getting 4 tracks all the to Meadowhall is - tricky! Immediately below, above or to the side all seem expensive. Carry on the tunnel from below Park Hill until the wider section is reached nearing Brightside? ££££
8. 4 tracks from Dore used to exist for about 60 years. Two loops still exist nearing Sheffield, one in each direction. 3 tracks were to be restored for HS2 but 4 would be better - Tescos and a few lesser obstacles for that!
9. If 4 tracks are not restored to Dore at least some additional stabling could be added in the Sheaf Valley. (Maybe it could include a new station, Bramall Lane!)

All in all, it's like the Manchester Piccadilly situation. It would have been much easier to achieve 60 years ago before so much railway land was given up and so many new buildings were built nearby.

 

[Philip]

Once the Dore & Totley Tunnel upgrade is completed, could EMR trains from the Hope Valley call at Dore 'for Sheffield' before making their way south, save the criss-crossing and platform dwell time at Sheffield while the driver changes ends and reverses? This would need a suitable connecting service between Dore and Sheffield; the TPE service and the Nottingham-Leeds could both start calling at Dore, along with the Hope Valley stopper to create a 3tph frequency between Dore and Sheffield (and 3tph between Dore and Manchester).

 

[DelayRepay]

Once the Dore & Totley Tunnel upgrade is completed, could EMR trains from the Hope Valley call at Dore 'for Sheffield' before making their way south, save the criss-crossing and platform dwell time at Sheffield while the driver changes ends and reverses? This would need a suitable connecting service between Dore and Sheffield; the TPE service and the Nottingham-Leeds could both start calling at Dore, along with the Hope Valley stopper to create a 3tph frequency between Dore and Sheffield (and 3tph between Dore and Manchester).

I don't think having to change trains at Dore would be popular with passengers though.

 

[D365]

I don't think having to change trains at Dore would be popular with passengers though.

Absolutely not.

 

[zwk500]

Once the Dore & Totley Tunnel upgrade is completed, could EMR trains from the Hope Valley call at Dore 'for Sheffield' before making their way south, save the criss-crossing and platform dwell time at Sheffield while the driver changes ends and reverses? This would need a suitable connecting service between Dore and Sheffield; the TPE service and the Nottingham-Leeds could both start calling at Dore, along with the Hope Valley stopper to create a 3tph frequency between Dore and Sheffield (and 3tph between Dore and Manchester).

AIUI Dore station will not be gaining platforms on the other 2 sides of the triangle. The South curve is heavily used for regulating freight, so stopping a passenger service there will make it much harder to fit freight paths in for Buxton. Stopping trains on the main MML would eat up a lot of capacity. In addition Dore is a long way from Sheffield city centre and has no tram connection (no idea what buses are like) so in the event of disruption to the connecting services you would need to divert the EMR services to go via Sheffield which will cause no end of delays.

 

[Philip]

AIUI Dore station will not be gaining platforms on the other 2 sides of the triangle. The South curve is heavily used for regulating freight, so stopping a passenger service there will make it much harder to fit freight paths in for Buxton. Stopping trains on the main MML would eat up a lot of capacity. In addition Dore is a long way from Sheffield city centre and has no tram connection (no idea what buses are like) so in the event of disruption to the connecting services you would need to divert the EMR services to go via Sheffield which will cause no end of delays.

I was thinking more along the lines of stopping at the existing place and then shunting back onto the MML north curve to head towards Chesterfield (assuming the upgrade will provide a junction/points to make this possible).

If stopping the EMR at Dore isn't an option, perhaps it may be better for it to take the south curve and miss out Sheffield/Dore altogether and replace with a fast Manchester-Sheffield shuttle which doesn't interfere with the through platforms at Sheffield, or double the length of the existing TPE service. I think that removing the Sheffield reversal on the Norwich-Liverpool would potentially free up enough capacity at the station to allow an extra London service to start/terminate there.

 

[zwk500]

I was thinking more along the lines of stopping at the existing place and then shunting back onto the MML north curve to head towards Chesterfield (assuming the upgrade will provide a junction/points to make this possible).

In what possible way is this better than running to Sheffield and reversing? Even if the signalling permits it, which I'm not sure the post-upgrade will, you'll be blocking the Down Main to Sheffield for 4 minutes per reversal as the driver needs to either make his/her way through all the punters of clamber down to a trackside path. Oh, and I'm fairly certain going Dore-Reverse-Chesterfield won't be possible with the track layout intended.

If stopping the EMR at Dore isn't an option, perhaps it may be better for it to take the south curve and miss out Sheffield/Dore altogether and replace with a fast Manchester-Sheffield shuttle, or double the capacity of the existing TPE service.

Even running the passenger service over the South Curve will stuff freight up. Manchester-Sheffield is a big market, losing the direct connection is just spaffing away revenue.

I think that removing the Sheffield reversal on the Norwich-Liverpool would potentially free up enough capacity at the station to allow an extra London service to start/terminate there.

It won't. The EMR service is in the station for 4-6 minutes, the London train would need 20-30.

 

[Falcon1200]

I don't think having to change trains at Dore would be popular with passengers though.

Definitely not. Sheffield is far too important a destination, both in itself and for connections to other routes, for trains to miss it out, despite the time penalty.

 

[edwin_m]

All in all, it's like the Manchester Piccadilly situation. It would have been much easier to achieve 60 years ago before so much railway land was given up and so many new buildings were built nearby.

Leaving Piccadilly aside, was the railway footprint of Midland station significantly different 60 years ago? I would have thought any railway land given up would have been in places like Victoria and Nunnery, which aren't much use for a city centre station.

 

[DelayRepay]

If stopping the EMR at Dore isn't an option, perhaps it may be better for it to take the south curve and miss out Sheffield/Dore altogether and replace with a fast Manchester-Sheffield shuttle which doesn't interfere with the through platforms at Sheffield, or double the length of the existing TPE service. I think that removing the Sheffield reversal on the Norwich-Liverpool would potentially free up enough capacity at the station to allow an extra London service to start/terminate there.

I thought this thread was about improvements? When I've used the Norwich-Liverpool service, a huge proportion of passengers have either boarded or alighted at Sheffield. They would not see having to change at Dore, or missing Sheffield all together, as an improvement.

What would happen is that a large number of passengers would transfer to other services, because they want to go to Sheffield. This would simply cause over-crowding on other services.

 

[Philip]

I thought this thread was about improvements? When I've used the Norwich-Liverpool service, a huge proportion of passengers have either boarded or alighted at Sheffield. They would not see having to change at Dore, or missing Sheffield all together, as an improvement.

What would happen is that a large number of passengers would transfer to other services, because they want to go to Sheffield. This would simply cause over-crowding on other services.

Sheffield needs more London services and yes the Manchester services are important but there could be a more efficient use of paths for these than the EMR service. Ideally all Manchester services should either use the through platforms and not terminate in these, or terminate in the west-facing bay platform (or both).

In what possible way is this better than running to Sheffield and reversing? Even if the signalling permits it, which I'm not sure the post-upgrade will, you'll be blocking the Down Main to Sheffield for 4 minutes per reversal as the driver needs to either make his/her way through all the punters of clamber down to a trackside path. Oh, and I'm fairly certain going Dore-Reverse-Chesterfield won't be possible with the track layout intended.

Even running the passenger service over the South Curve will stuff freight up. Manchester-Sheffield is a big market, losing the direct connection is just spaffing away revenue.

It won't. The EMR service is in the station for 4-6 minutes, the London train would need 20-30.

On the latter point, surely 20-30 minutes is excessive? I would say 10 minutes is enough for a quick clean/clear up if a more thorough clean of the train is done at St Pancras.

 

[Falcon1200]

Sheffield needs more London services

Does Sheffield actually need more than the current two London trains per hour, which is as much, if not more, than many other large cities get, eg Leeds (2tph), Liverpool (1tph) ?

On the latter point, surely 20-30 minutes is excessive? I would say 10 minutes is enough for a quick clean/clear up if a more thorough clean of the train is done at St Pancras.

A 10-minute turnround for long distance services guarantees unreliability.

 

[zwk500]

On the latter point, surely 20-30 minutes is excessive? I would say 10 minutes is enough for a quick clean/clear up if a more thorough clean of the train is done at St Pancras.

1. St Pancras is under more pressure for platform space than Sheffield.
2. I'd like to see you do a full sweep and wipedown of a 7 car 222 in 10 minutes after 2 hours journey that left it in a state you'd expect when you boarded it.

 

[Neptune]

Sheffield needs more London services and yes the Manchester services are important but there could be a more efficient use of paths for these than the EMR service. Ideally all Manchester services should either use the through platforms and not terminate in these, or terminate in the west-facing bay platform (or both).

Sheffield needs more London services than, say, Leeds? Really?

At the expense of a busy cross country service connecting Liverpool, Manchester, the East Midlands and East Anglia to the South Yorkshire region where you’re prepared to dump people at Dore and then perform a path reducing, time consuming reversal on a busy mainline which would probably kill off any plans of a 3rd London path in any case and probably more trains besides.

One of the funnier ones I’ve heard recently.

On the latter point, surely 20-30 minutes is excessive? I would say 10 minutes is enough for a quick clean/clear up if a more thorough clean of the train is done at St Pancras.

The essence of this is that people travelling south don’t deserve as clean or tidy a train as those travelling north. Nice.

 

[Killingworth]

Leaving Piccadilly aside, was the railway footprint of Midland station significantly different 60 years ago? I would have thought any railway land given up would have been in places like Victoria and Nunnery, which aren't much use for a city centre station.

I have older more detailed maps of the Sheaf Valley somewhere but this extract from the 1956 6 inches to mile map may help to remind of the tunnel that went across from Platform 1 to the up mainline south. One footbridge across the station was removed about 40/50 years ago and the other is now closed. Since this map the Polytechnic's Dyson House and British Rail's Sheaf House have been built and demolished where the sidings are shown in front of the station.

Further south is the site of the former Millhouses depot, now a Tesco superstore and (lightly used) park and ride car park. Just north of Dore there used to be 5 carriage sidings, to the east of the mainline facing south.

Restoring Dore Platforms 3 and 4 is no longer practical given the greater intensity of current mainline faster services than prevailed in the 1950s. It has been suggested that trains could turn off the mainline immediately after Twentywell Lane road overbridge, swinging across to reuse the original pre-1900 alignment into Platforms 1 and 2. Looks easy on a map, but not between pairs of curved tracks canted in opposite directions with minimum line speeds of 50mph!

One of the benefits of restoring Platforms 3 and 4 in a feasibility study before the current scheme got under way was the cross platform interchange possibilities between the MML and Hope Valley line to Manchester. The potential savings were far outweighed by the drawbacks for all services whether every mainline train stopped or just one or two per hour. Better to have more reliable and frequent services inter-changing at a central hub - which brings us back to Sheffield.

That's where more platform capacity is needed so stations like Dore can at least have a half hourly service taking 7 minutes into the hub. Currently it's not even hourly at some times of the day. It's only 4 miles but takes 30 minutes by bus on a good day. Curiously more passengers may be going to Manchester from Dore, 38 miles away, because our Great British railway system offers better services in that direction - and many residents to the South-West side of Sheffield have discovered that!

 

[Harpers Tate]

From a civil engineering perspective, I suspect that the quickest, easiest improvement to the northern 2-track tunnel (which realistically can't be widened) might be to resignal both lines for full bi-directional running. How much benefit this would achieve, in terms of improving pathing over Nunnery Jct., I can't say, and it would certainly require a rethink of how platforms are deployed i.e. to avoid crossover conflicts as far as possible. I don't remember whether there is a crossover on the Meadowhall side of Nunnery e.g. to allow an incoming service to go "wrong line" past Nunnery, but I believe the existing pointwork would allow a Darnall bound service to exit the station "wrong line".

In terms of actually expanding the station's capacity which is stretched at times (if the number of times something has to stop and wait for a platform and/or conflicting movement, often for many minutes, thus obstructing an entire route, is anything to go by) then I'd propose the only way to go about it would be to contruct an entire second level above the existing. It might most easily serve anything from or to the south, and might offer an opportunity for a high level track towards Darnall, if not also towards Meadowhall. It would clearly need a huge amount of concrete!

 

[yorksrob]

Does Sheffield actually need more than the current two London trains per hour, which is as much, if not more, than many other large cities get, eg Leeds (2tph), Liverpool (1tph) ?



A 10-minute turnround for long distance services guarantees unreliability.

It could do with the two London trains being full length.

With regard to the Northern throat, if you look at the cutting between there and Nunnery junction, the vast majority is built to take four tracks, with various rusting sidings and dead ends occupying the spare space.

The section of cutting constrained to two tracks is very short, so it might be worth opening that out a bit to the west and separating out the Meadowhall/GC routes.