How to make Sheffield Victoria an attractive concept

[Iskra]

People who want to go the Sheffield might not like that as it's even further away and despite the good connections it holds the stigma of being for the Shopping Centre (Lovingly call Meadowhell by many round here).
The tram connection is seen as slow and people don't overly like a change when commuting due to the impact of delays leading to missed connections.

It works well for me. The main issue is the XC’s not calling there. If they did I would use it a lot more and I suspect many more would too due to the ample free parking and access to the M1.

 

[mike57]

I dont think Sheffield Victoria will ever be considered for heavy rail reopening. Its too far from the city centre, and journeys involving a transfer between Victoria and Midland will be unattractive. Midland station needs more capacity, but Victoria reopening is not the answer. Increasing capacity at Midland will be a very expensive and disruptive task, so I am not sure that it is going to happen. This may in turn put a crimp in a desire to reopen the old line to regular passenger services.

I wonder if south facing bay platforms could be constructed at footbridge level, but even if possible it will not be cheap.

 

[Killingworth]

Simples. Vicroria was built when the only route into Sheffield followed the Don Valley and the Wicker was the railway hub for Sheffield - near the canal basin.. The city centre was never nearby, and Midland in the Sheaf Valley is only a little closer, but is near the vibrant Hallam University main campus.

Victoria restoration is not practical. Improvements at Midland are. In Liverpool we see the Wirral lines run under the city and the Mersey. In Newcastle the more recent Metro runs under the city centre. There's another big city further south that has a very recently opened major railway running undergroind for many miles. The Pennines are riddled with tunnels.

Buikd a new twin track tunnel under Park Hill to the east of Platform 8 with new platforms as required, connecting at Nunnery.. it's an engineering challenge but relatively easy compared with Crossrail?

Just needs drive from SYMCA, TfN, GBR etc - and the Treasury. Ah, I was dreaming again.

 

[zwk500]

Buikd a new twin track tunnel under Park Hill to the east of Platform 8 with new platforms as required, connecting at Nunnery.. it's an engineering challenge but relatively easy compared with Crossrail.

The river Sheaf may have something to say about the engineering challenge....

 

[Iskra]

Is there any point doing anything to 'fix' Sheffield Midland, while the railway either side of it is also a capacity constraint from Dore to Meadowhall? Surely, you have to fix the whole lot or you're just applying a lot of very expensive sticking-plasters.

 

[Bartsimho]

Is there any point doing anything to 'fix' Sheffield Midland, while the railway either side of it is also a capacity constraint from Dore to Meadowhall? Surely, you have to fix the whole lot or you're just applying a lot of very expensive sticking-plasters.

There's another track going in at Dore and while it's a 2 track line between Sheffield and Dore there are no stops on the Midland Main Line between Dronfield and Sheffield so it's everything at a fairly consistent speed.

I also thought that anywhere North of Bedford on the MML doesn't have a lack of paths which could be used by passenger services if wanted. The issue is the station itself not allowing much through running as well as the platform layout itself leaving 4 tracks without a platform when everything wants to stop there.

 

[Iskra]

There's another track going in at Dore and while it's a 2 track line between Sheffield and Dore there are no stops on the Midland Main Line between Dronfield and Sheffield so it's everything at a fairly consistent speed.

I also thought that anywhere North of Bedford on the MML doesn't have a lack of paths which could be used by passenger services if wanted. The issue is the station itself not allowing much through running as well as the platform layout itself leaving 4 tracks without a platform when everything wants to stop there.

There are still conflicting moves and the trains heading to/from the Hope Valley seem fairly glacial on that stretch I'm afraid (although that could currently be related to speed restrictions due to the upgrade works). Trains from Meadowhall also seem slow. This is where a Victoria station for the Darnall trains to terminate would really help at Midland, speeding up journeys on the mainline by avoiding conflicting moves.

Some of these issues could just be solved by a) running longer trains b) running longer trains but less frequently. It's probably much cheaper and less disruptive to invest in rolling stock rather than tinker with existing, ancient infrastructure in confined spaces.

 

[zwk500]

Is there any point doing anything to 'fix' Sheffield Midland, while the railway either side of it is also a capacity constraint from Dore to Meadowhall? Surely, you have to fix the whole lot or you're just applying a lot of very expensive sticking-plasters.

This is a very good point - and it's very difficult because we're in an 'After you' situation, so nothing moves.

Of the constraints, rebuilding Sheffield Midland is the one that gives the most value on it's own, and is also the one that needs to happen for all the others to make sense. So I'd say yes. Once you have rebuilt midland then a 3rd track to Dore makes a lot more sense as you can actually get trains in and out of Sheffield to use it. It also make interventions at Nunnery more valuable (although I don't know how you can get the margins much lower without ETCS) and there may be scope for a bit of work on the way out to Meadowhall.

 

[tbtc]

It works well for me. The main issue is the XC’s not calling there. If they did I would use it a lot more and I suspect many more would too due to the ample free parking and access to the M1.

It could be transformational if long distance stuff stopped at Meadowhall.

It’s already a handy hub between various coach services which divert off the M1 to serve it as a kind of “Sheffield Coachway” on routes that previously ran direct up the M1 omitting any stops in South Yorkshire

But, given that the shopping centre opened in September 1990, the station was designed in the darker times of 1980s British Rail, hence a maximum of four coaches per platform, just four platforms and no capacity for longer distance services to overtake stoppers

I’d like to think that if it opened today we’d have four tracks on the Rotherham lines and platforms capable of handling much longer trains, plus a tram station on the south western side rather than having to take the tediously slow route alongside Tinsley Viaduct to reach the station…

…that would allow things like a half hourly London - Sheffield service to run through to Meadowhall/ Barnsley/ Kirkgate/ Leeds in place of the existing semi-fasts…

…but, given the constraints, “we are where we are” etc, it’ll be yet another expensive thing to “fix” if you want to do it properly

 

[Iskra]

It could be transformational if long distance stuff stopped at Meadowhall.

It’s already a handy hub between various coach services which divert off the M1 to serve it as a kind of “Sheffield Coachway” on routes that previously ran direct up the M1 omitting any stops in South Yorkshire

But, given that the shopping centre opened in September 1990, the station was designed in the darker times of 1980s British Rail, hence a maximum of four coaches per platform, just four platforms and no capacity for longer distance services to overtake stoppers

I’d like to think that if it opened today we’d have four tracks on the Rotherham lines and platforms capable of handling much longer trains, plus a tram station on the south western side rather than having to take the tediously slow route alongside Tinsley Viaduct to reach the station…

…that would allow things like a half hourly London - Sheffield service to run through to Meadowhall/ Barnsley/ Kirkgate/ Leeds in place of the existing semi-fasts…

…but, given the constraints, “we are where we are” etc, it’ll be yet another expensive thing to “fix” if you want to do it properly

Agreed. I can't see anything transformational happening with it, but it looks to me like the 'mainline' platforms could both be extended fairly easily if desired. I can understand why Meadowhall doesn't get XC calls, and I don't expect it to happen, I just think it would be useful and popular.

 

[Killingworth]

The river Sheaf may have something to say about the engineering challenge....

The River Sheaf may have something to say but it's 100-400 metres away from such a tunnel which would be on the other higher side of the station. You need to walk through below to indded realise that any remodelling needs to take account of exactly where it is. The original building job took about a year longer than expected, due to the complexity. Bradway Tunnel was completed almost on time.

 

[zwk500]

The River Sheaf may have something to say but it's 100-400 metres away from such a tunnel which would be on the other higher side of the station. You need to walk through below to indded realise that any remodelling needs to take account of exactly where it is. The original building job took about a year longer than expected, due to the complexity. Bradway Tunnel was completed almost on time.

100m isn't very far away given the potential for flooding with a contained channel. Also if you're at a higher level the only viable method is cut-and-cover, at which point is there much value to covering it back over? And you have to manage the risk of causing ground movement below the flats on top of the hill.

 

[Killingworth]

100m isn't very far away given the potential for flooding with a contained channel. Also if you're at a higher level the only viable method is cut-and-cover, at which point is there much value to covering it back over? And you have to manage the risk of causing ground movement below the flats on top of the hill.

I'm no engineer but I can read maps and see how the land lies with my own eyes. I mentioned "in my dreams" but even in them I wouldn't demolish blocks of flats and roads fo a cut and cover route under a well developed rocky hillside. Midland station is built over the Ponds, flat land at the confluence of the River Sheaf and Porter Brook, but is dominated by rocky Park Hill with its large listed complex blocks of flats to the east. Platforms 6, 7 and 8 will have been excavated into that hillside. The line going north and east was tunnelled through the base o it..

Another tunnel is by no means impossible, at a price nothing is, but a delicate challenge requiring a well financed consortium of interested parties with the vision and working in cohesion - back to in my dreams!

 

[dosxuk]

Does anybody know what the purpose of the 4 track canal bridge was, just north of Nunnery Mainline junction - https://goo.gl/maps/451CKsZNPbG2MSec6

IIRC there were discussions about creating two new semi-underground 400m+ platforms at Midland for HS2, to be formed by digging out along the route of the tram and then putting a roof over to reinstate the tramway. Think those plans only called for the closure of P8 during the majority of works, allowing most of the station to continue operating.

 

[Bryson]

An aerial view of Park Hill and the Midland station for those who are not familiar with it. The 2 lines seen running along the edge of the park are for the tram, these are slightly above the level of the station foot bridge. The park (South Street Park) is steeply slopped rising from the tram route to the base of the flats.

 

[Killingworth]

View attachment 135649

An aerial view of Park Hill and the Midland station for those who are not familiar with it. The 2 lines seen running along the edge of the park are for the tram, these are slightly above the level of the station foot bridge. The park (South Street Park) is steeply slopped rising from the tram route to the base of the flats.

Side by side map from National Library of Scotland showing the wider section referred to above in Post 44 was the former Attercliffe Road station, see; https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/sid....38196&lon=-1.45829&layers=10&right=ESRIWorld

Amended to refer to post 44 and add Road after Atttercliffe.

 

[Bryson]

Also Shown on this map from 1903:

https://maps.nls.uk/view/125651209

 

[dosxuk]

Side by side map from National Library of Scotland showing the wider section referred to above in Post 44 was the former Attercliffe Road station

Also Shown on this map from 1903:

Neither map shows the four track span over the canal - which is 200m south of the former Attercliffe Road station - and before an extended section of two track viaduct leading to the embankment the station was constructed on.

 

[zwk500]

Neither map shows the four track span over the canal - which is 200m south of the former Attercliffe Road station - and before an extended section of two track viaduct leading to the embankment the station was constructed on.

Open Railway Map shows loops as being removed from the outside bridges but doesn't have a date. It will probably need somebody to go through the Signalling Record Society archive to work out when they were there and when they were taken out.

 

[Trackman]

Which means there are two old redundant tunnels just waiting for the rails and the trains to return.

They have been filled in so that's not going to happen. One of the contractors doing this was a bit of a crank and took photos of the old signal box - talk about a last minute thing as I don't think a photo ever existed. It does looks glum.

 

[Intercity 225]

I dont think Sheffield Victoria will ever be considered for heavy rail reopening. Its too far from the city centre

Victoria is nowhere near anything, except a couple of hotels, so I'd agree it isn't desireable.

To clarify, I don’t think reopening Victoria as a heavy rail station is a good idea, nor do I think it’s going to happen. Im my view, the only outside possibility it stands of seeing passengers again is if the Supertram is extended to Wadsley Bridge using the Stocksbridge line.

That said, I regularly see comments like the above when it’s reopening is discussed and I must disagree… Victoria isn’t badly located.

The Wicker is the next part of Sheffield that’s due to be gentrified and Castlegate is already well underway in being transformed. Both are on Victoria’s doorstep. In addition, Victoria is far better located for the ever-increasingly popular and trendy Kelham Island than Midland is.

By the time any potential reopening of Victoria would be due to take place the areas immediately surrounding it will be significantly different to how they are today - and for the better.

Is it feasible to reopen the station - no. But is it badly located - also no.

 

[Iskra]

To clarify, I don’t think reopening Victoria as a heavy rail station is a good idea, nor do I think it’s going to happen. Im my view, the only outside possibility it stands of seeing passengers again is if the Supertram is extended to Wadsley Bridge using the Stocksbridge line.

That said, I regularly see comments like the above when it’s reopening is discussed and I must disagree… Victoria isn’t badly located.

The Wicker is the next part of Sheffield that’s due to be gentrified and Castlegate is already well underway in being transformed. Both are on Victoria’s doorstep. In addition, Victoria is far better located for the ever-increasingly popular and trendy Kelham Island than Midland is.

By the time any potential reopening of Victoria would be due to take place the areas immediately surrounding it will be significantly different to how they are today - and for the better.

Is it feasible to reopen the station - no. But is it badly located - also no.

Agreed, and a redeveloped station would act as development multiplier for the area and pull the city centre towards it.

If Midland was centrally located, I’d understand the argument against Victoria based on it not being centrally located…

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think it would only be a good site if it came with a development plan in the surrounding area. More houses at Kiverton and Shireoaks and maybe between Eckington and Killamarsh. Office development by the Victoria Quays as regeneration. At least a connection to Penistone after Stocksbridge if not the Woodhead itself (making it the primary Sheffield station for Bradford and Huddersfield (It might make it even for Leeds as well via Dewsbury as the services from Midland have to go Methley Junction or Moorthorpe).

You're introducing a lot of "mission creep" there. For an increase in services from Huddersfield (or beyond there from Bradford) you need to redouble some or all of the line between Huddersfield and Penistone, and you're removing the Huddersfield to Barnsley link. Then for services from Bradford you'd have to cross over the fast lines somewhere between Bradley and Springwood junctions. Making that route the principal one for Leeds to Sheffield probably isn't the best idea either, as slow as the Moorthorpe and Darton lines are they'll be quicker than going via Huddersfield even with the additional capacity and speed of TRU.

If there's significant untapped demand for direct Bradford to Sheffield that would justify spending on infrastructure, the Horbury/Crigglestone curve would be far cheaper and offer comparable if not better journey times than going via Huddersfield and Penistone.

 

[Philip]

You're introducing a lot of "mission creep" there. For an increase in services from Huddersfield (or beyond there from Bradford) you need to redouble some or all of the line between Huddersfield and Penistone, and you're removing the Huddersfield to Barnsley link. Then for services from Bradford you'd have to cross over the fast lines somewhere between Bradley and Springwood junctions. Making that route the principal one for Leeds to Sheffield probably isn't the best idea either, as slow as the Moorthorpe and Darton lines are they'll be quicker than going via Huddersfield even with the additional capacity and speed of TRU.

If there's significant untapped demand for direct Bradford to Sheffield that would justify spending on infrastructure, the Horbury/Crigglestone curve would be far cheaper and offer comparable if not better journey times than going via Huddersfield and Penistone.

It sounds like the Huddersfield-Penistone-Barnsley service is inadequate as it is, so spending the money on re-doubling, higher line speed and a possible new connection into Sheffield would be good both for users of the line in its existing form and to improve journeys between Huddersfield and Sheffield.

If Sheffield Victoria was to become a station again, could it not be re-located and built from new to the south-east of the old site - so somewhere close to the point where the Woodhouse line crosses the Midland line to the north east of Sheffield Station?

Alternatively, is there room for a new NW-SW chord between the old Victoria site and to the south west of Nunnery Junction, built on a gradient viaduct? This wouldn't involve reopening or rebuilding Victoria but would provide a link between Stocksbridge and Sheffield Midland Station.

 

[zwk500]

It sounds like the Huddersfield-Penistone-Barnsley service is inadequate as it is, so spending the money on re-doubling, higher line speed and a possible new connection into Sheffield would be good both for users of the line in its existing form and to improve journeys between Huddersfield and Sheffield.

But would it improve journeys if they have a slower route that misses out Meadowhall and leaves them in a less convenient location for onwards travel?

If Sheffield Victoria was to become a station again, could it not be re-located and built from new to the south-east of the old site - so somewhere close to the point where the Woodhouse line crosses the Midland line to the north east of Sheffield Station?

Not without acquiring a lot of the industrial properties around there, and given the nature of those businesses once you've kicked them out you've started the clock counting down to them shutting up shop altogether. Losing a bucketload of jobs of that type would offset a fair proportion of the social benefit the lime might be claimed to have.

Alternatively, is there room for a new NW-SW chord between the old Victoria site and to the south west of Nunnery Junction, built on a gradient viaduct? This wouldn't involve reopening or rebuilding Victoria but would provide a link between Stocksbridge and Sheffield Midland Station.

No.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It sounds like the Huddersfield-Penistone-Barnsley service is inadequate as it is, so spending the money on re-doubling, higher line speed and a possible new connection into Sheffield would be good both for users of the line in its existing form and to improve journeys between Huddersfield and Sheffield.

If Sheffield Victoria was to become a station again, could it not be re-located and built from new to the south-east of the old site - so somewhere close to the point where the Woodhouse line crosses the Midland line to the north east of Sheffield Station?

Alternatively, is there room for a new NW-SW chord between the old Victoria site and to the south west of Nunnery Junction, built on a gradient viaduct? This wouldn't involve reopening or rebuilding Victoria but would provide a link between Stocksbridge and Sheffield Midland Station.

One of the issues with the Penistone line is the "dogleg" from Penistone to Barnsley which increases the distance and journey time. Whether the loss of that connectivity for the sake of a faster end to end journey would be worth it, I'm not sure.
However redoubling the whole line would possibly reduce speeds on some sections, as some curves have been eased by using the full width of the formation. It might be worth starting a separate thread for (speculative) solutions to the issues of the route.

 

[Philip]

But would it improve journeys if they have a slower route that misses out Meadowhall and leaves them in a less convenient location for onwards travel?

I find it hard to believe that the Huddersfield-Sheffield journey time would be slower on the direct route through Stocksbridge, than the long way round via Barnsley and Meadowhall, regardless of line speeds.

Is the site of Sheffield Victoria really that inconvenient for the city or even for transferring to Midland or getting the Supertram? A lot of people keep saying this but it's hardly completely out of the city centre - a 15 minute walk to the area around the Crucible theatre,or a 20 minute walk to Midland isn't that bad.

 

[Philip]

"Walk" is the key word here. And even if you assume everyone is able bodied, does that mean they won't have luggage, or be making transfers?

You'd still have these problems even if it was only a 5-10 minute walk. None of the Manchester Stations are within a 5 minute walk of each other, but people still interchange between them.

 

[geordieblue]

You'd still have those problems even if it was only a 5-10 minute walk. None of the Manchester Stations are within a 5 minute walk of each other, but people still interchange between them.

And a lot of money and political thought has been expended in joining them up. See Metrolink, Ordsall Chord, free city bus etc… Plonking down a new Victoria won’t be enough in of itself, high-quality intermediate transport to Midland will be needed too, but that’ll hugely raise the cost of reopening.

 

[zwk500]

I find it hard to believe that the Huddersfield-Sheffield journey time would be slower on the direct route through Stocksbridge, than the long way round via Barnsley and Meadowhall, regardless of line speeds.

Depends where in Sheffield you're heading for of course

Is the site of Sheffield Victoria really that inconvenient for the city or even for transferring to Midland or getting the Supertram? A lot of people keep saying this but it's hardly completely out of the city centre - a 15 minute walk to the area around the Crucible theatre,or a 20 minute walk to Midland isn't that bad.

It depends what 'that' quantifies to. The nearest Supertram stop is actually walking away from the city. You also have to the ring road regardless of which direction you're heading. The main part of Sheffield City centre is south of the tram line, so yes Victoria is further, is it too far? For some. The key question is 'is it too far for too many people' which you would only find out with a very extensive passenger survey, but that costs a shedload of money so isn't worth doing unless rebuilding Vic is a viable proposition, which at the moment it isn't really because there's nowhere serious for trains to go to the west.