Manchester - Sheffield passenger Capacity

[Meerkat]

If it were up to me we'd have a grade separated junction at Hazel Grove

Does it need grade separation for an hourly Buxton service?
The viaduct to the south looks pretty high. Build new ones immediately to the south, lower sloping one for Hope Valley, higher and level single track for the freight line, with the freight junction at the east end, and you could have an easier graded double track Hope Valley route.
not cheap obviously.

 

[Killingworth]

Does it need grade separation for an hourly Buxton service?
The viaduct to the south looks pretty high. Build new ones immediately to the south, lower sloping one for Hope Valley, higher and level single track for the freight line, with the freight junction at the east end, and you could have an easier graded double track Hope Valley route.
not cheap obviously.

With £100m to spare and no planning objections to worry about, build a new viaduct across the Goyt valley just northwest of New Mills to link the two lines - in 20 years time! Gradients, the canal, woodland, lots of reasons why not.

 

[Starmill]

Does it need grade separation for an hourly Buxton service?
The viaduct to the south looks pretty high. Build new ones immediately to the south, lower sloping one for Hope Valley, higher and level single track for the freight line, with the freight junction at the east end, and you could have an easier graded double track Hope Valley route.
not cheap obviously.

You're right a double junction on a smoothed gradient would probably be just as good as a grade separated one. Wouldn't really be much cheaper though.

 

[Iskra]

I don't think there's any need for additional services on the route, just the existing services to run at their maximum possible length on weekends and during the traditional commuter peaks. Much cheaper to add additional units on to formations rather than build things. It's good to see the line doing well though. Reliability is always going to be an issue unless you just ran Manchester-Sheffield services and nothing more adventurous. I agree with the OP that the Northern Stoppers are increasingly popular- it's a much more attractive journey post-Pacer/150's.

 

[Killingworth]

I don't think there's any need for additional services on the route, just the existing services to run at their maximum possible length on weekends and during the traditional commuter peaks. Much cheaper to add additional units on to formations rather than build things. It's good to see the line doing well though. Reliability is always going to be an issue unless you just ran Manchester-Sheffield services and nothing more adventurous. I agree with the OP that the Northern Stoppers are increasingly popular- it's a much more attractive journey post-Pacer/150's.

Too right!

Pictured are a pre-Covid, 2019 Saturday morning rammed Pacer at Dore & Totley.

Followed by 2022 when 6 car 195s were tried to cover for missing TPE services. OTT but made a point, that train still had standees in the front half.

Then last Saturday, rammed 195.

All were squeezed into the Pacer, they weren't into the 2 car 195. The following service was 4 car, 150+156 although they're normally 3 car 195. Those left behind were intending to walk or cycle along the Hope Valley. They didn't wait another hour but went and did something else.

 

[Meerkat]

You're right a double junction on a smoothed gradient would probably be just as good as a grade separated one. Wouldn't really be much cheaper though.

I reckon it could be done with no building demolition, easier land acquisition, and far fewer objections than a grade separated junction

 

[Killingworth]

Looks to have been a major signalling issue in the Manchester area yesterday. Not a total failure but few fast trains got through to Sheffield after 17.30. Northern services must have been very busy as they seem to have been operating normally, albeit with one 2 car unit; https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...6/1700-2359?stp=WVSC&show=pax-calls&order=wtt

Seemingly flooding the issue on Thursday morning delaying fast eastbound services again up to an hour or so. Some EMR trains using Dore loop to avoid Sheffield, reinforcing the need for a second back up service that avoids hold ups outside the core Manchester-Sheffield section in both the current fast services..

 

[HSTEd]

I've spent a long time staring at the Hope Valley on Google Earth etc, its a bit of a mess.

We've got two parallel two track lines, both of which are trying to run stopping services.

What about a chord from the line through the middle of Chapel-en-le-Frith to the Buxton line south of the actual Chapel-en-le-Frith station?
That way, we could reopen the station in the centre of town and reroute the Hope Valley stopper onto the Buxton line. The stations on the Buxton line, which seem to be in bigger settlements, gets extra frequency.

It rather leaves Chinley in a bit of a lurch but could ease the timetabling issues if we truncate the service via Romiley/Bredbury to New Mills.

EDIT:
Realised its not actually clear what I'm proposing - I want to reroute the Hope Valley stopper to travel via the centre of Chapel-en-le-Frith and Whaley Bridge rather than CHinley.

 

[Dr Hoo]

So you’re proposing deleting the Hope Valley stopper through the, err, Hope Valley and sending it to Buxton via a new link (with ‘heroic’ gradients) instead?

Where do the wayside stations fit into this master plan?

 

[HSTEd]

So you’re proposing deleting the Hope Valley stopper through the, err, Hope Valley and sending it to Buxton via a new link (with ‘heroic’ gradients) instead?

No, I'm proposing to send it down the Buxton line until a point south of the existing Chapel en le Frith station, then put a chord to put it back onto the Hope Valley line via the triangle east of Chinley station

Where do the wayside stations fit into this master plan?

The only one that is actually bypasses is Chinley, although New Mills Central would de-facto become a terminus.

 

[Dr Hoo]

No, I'm proposing to send it down the Buxton line until a point south of the existing Chapel en le Frith station, then put a chord to put it back onto the Hope Valley line via the triangle east of Chinley station

The only one that is actually bypasses is Chinley, although New Mills Central would de-facto become a terminus.

Ah! Because the existing Chapel en le Frith station is on an almost exactly east <> west orientation the concept of 'south' wasn't very helpful but I think that I've got it now.

Do you realise that the L&NW Buxton line is around 100 feet higher up than the old Midland line at the site of your proposed chord? The original Peak Forest Tramway didn't build a cable-balanced incline at Chapel en le Frith in the 18th century for fun.

Chapel en le Frith has a typical 49-minute journey from Manchester Piccadilly, via the very congested corridor to Stockport. But if it was all built and the heavy/long freight trains that often stand on the single line Chinley East Chord could somehow be got out of the way you'll be looking at getting to Chinley East in around 55 minutes from Manchester. The current Hope Valley stoppers get there in about 38 minutes, so that's busted out all the turnarounds and paths in a big way. Meanwhile Chinley, a rapidly-growing settlement with a population well over 3,000 now (more than any of the Hope Valley villages) is effectively abandoned. But at least Chapel now has more services, albeit split between two stations a considerable distance and height apart. A bit like Gainsborough but at least the latter is as flat as a pancake.

 

[HSTEd]

Do you realise that the L&NW Buxton line is around 100 feet higher up than the old Midland line at the site of your proposed chord? The original Peak Forest Tramway didn't build a cable-balanced incline at Chapel en le Frith in the 18th century for fun.

Yes, the difference in height is significant, but there doesn't appear to be much to get in the way of the chord. So if it needs to be long it can be made long, at the end of the day we aren't limited to the performance of low performance steamers any more!

Chapel en le Frith has a typical 49-minute journey from Manchester Piccadilly, via the very congested corridor to Stockport. But if it was all built and the heavy/long freight trains that often stand on the single line Chinley East Chord could somehow be got out of the way you'll be looking at getting to Chinley East in around 55 minutes from Manchester. The current Hope Valley stoppers get there in about 38 minutes, so that's busted out all the turnarounds and paths in a big way.

Well yes, you'd have to recast the timetable from scratch to make this happen.

Meanwhile Chinley, a rapidly-growing settlement with a population well over 3,000 now (more than any of the Hope Valley villages) is effectively abandoned. But at least Chapel now has more services, albeit split between two stations a considerable distance and height apart. A bit like Gainsborough but at least the latter is as flat as a pancake.

Well Whaley Bridge alone still manages to beat Chinley for passenger numbers.
We get more services to Disley, Furness Vale (not that I imagine it would matter much!), Whaley Bridge and Chapel.

I doubt that Chinley would end up completely abandoned, given that it is picking up "fast" path stops with fair regularity these days.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Yes, the difference in height is significant, but there doesn't appear to be much to get in the way of the chord. So if it needs to be long it can be made long, at the end of the day we aren't limited to the performance of low performance steamers any more!


Well yes, you'd have to recast the timetable from scratch to make this happen.

Well Whaley Bridge alone still manages to beat Chinley for passenger numbers.
We get more services to Disley, Furness Vale (not that I imagine it would matter much!), Whaley Bridge and Chapel.

I doubt that Chinley would end up completely abandoned, given that it is picking up "fast" path stops with fair regularity these days.

So, a long chord on a sloping site, but at least it isn't in the Peak district National Park area (just).

And a total timetable recast for Manchester and Sheffield. OK.

Somehow I wasn't amazed that Whaley Bridge, which historically is three times the size of Chinley, has bigger passenger numbers. But Chinley is growing proportionately quite rapidly.

I suppose that in impeccable RailUK Forums literality Chinley is indeed picking up 'fast' path stops with fair regularity these days. Such regularity that they've been the same for years. Since Transpennine dropped its single westbound call in the late morning peak the EMR service continues: One early morning 'stopper' westbound in lieu of Northern, one morning peak westbound, two evening peaks eastbound and the final eastbound stopper in lieu of Northern again.

The whole picture across the Hope Valley has been distorted for years. It kept the pacers until the end, COVID, endless strikes, long spells of engineering blocks, some of the worst performance on the network because of its position in the middle of longer distance fast services and growing freight, and current Sunday staff unavailability. Adding to these factors in suppression of underlying demand at Chinley in particular are a tiny and invariably full car park, access to the island platform via a step-only footbridge and being unstaffed. The platforms are only cleared for 4-car formations, which means awkward SDO arrangements for 6-car trains.

Let's try and deal with these problems first.

 

[daodao]

Sheffield suffers from its position in that railways passed it by both north to south and east to west.

Only since the run-down and demise of the ex-GCR lines other than the eastbound service to Worksop and Lincoln that has been diverted into Sheffield Midland station. The Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway (as per its title) did not bypass Sheffield.

 

[Killingworth]

To inject some facts into the debate, here are recent ORR passenger numbers for Hope Valley stations. Leisure is doing very nicely for incoming passengers at stations from Edale to Grindleford.

At Dore, Chinley and New Mills leisure will also be up but nowhere near enough so far to make up for lost commuters. The final column in the table shows the average number of passengers getting both on and off each stopping train. More stop at Dore than at Edale.

Lots of commuters leave Dore and large parties of incoming walkers arrive at Edale. Naturally average numbers of passengers per train are highest at Piccadilly and Sheffield but that contrast between the users of stations like Dore and Edale poses challenges for both timetablers and marketeers.


New Mills gets more stopping services into Manchester, half hourly for much of the day., Dore gets 6 morning fast services to Manchester Monday-Saturday and similar coming back in the evenings.

 

[Killingworth]

To update the story now the ORR figures for 2023-4 are out. Unfortunately it's not yet possible to strip out numbers between stations so data for the fast services of EMR and TPE are unknown.

The Northern stopping route has got busier out of Sheffield and along the Hope Valley due to increased leisure use. All stations are seeing good growth up to Edale. That's not repeated from Chinley into Manchester where the drop in commuting still dominates the market - it also has an effect at Dore where many are commuting into Manchester on TPE and EMR.

The overall loss of commuting and business traffic must be a major factor in the continued drop in numbers at Piccadilly, and to a lesser extent at Sheffield. The lost numbers on the west side at Marple, Romiley and smaller stations are not fully made up by the gains to the east.

All the east side stations are growing numbers well with Grindleford, Hathersage, Bamford, Hope, and Edale all registering all time record annual totals in 2023-4 and all on strong upward trajectories.





There was an interesting reason for this 10.43 westbound 4 car EMR service running as empty coaching stock from Sheffield to Liverpool yesterday;

This service was cancelled between Sheffield and Liverpool Lime Street due to disorder (VA). https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C61483/2024-11-23/detailed

The following 3 car TransPennine was delayed at Sheffield, probably also due to a degree of disorder. The 3 car Northern after that arrived late at Dore. The conductor eventually got all aboard his sardine can of a train, not in comfort, but they'll all have got there. Any passengers waiting to board at Grindleford, Hathersage, Bamford or Hope may have got on if any got off.

With 195s instead of Pacers, an almost clock face hourly stopping service now calling at all stations (no longer any skips) the train is popular.

There's no practical bus route from Sheffield or the Hope Valley into Manchester. Edale had no bus service during the time frame of these statistics. There are fairly frequent buses from the other Hope Valley stations into Sheffield but they all take twice as long as a train.

There are 3 bus routes from Dore & Totley station into Sheffield giving up to 6 buses an hour in the summer months (97, 98 and 218) - taking about 30 minutes if not cancelled or held up in traffic. Cars take just as long. It's 7 or 8 minutes by train and increasingly preferred - when they run.

The infrequency of the buses and the traffic congestion they and cars encounter make an open goal for reliable and frequent train services.

I confidently predict that east side stations will be recording even higher figures in 2024-5, only held back by the far too numerous, and very late notice cancellations.

Of course a second hourly stopping service would help greatly, not least to act as back stop when the fast services get delayed or cancelled west of Manchester or east and south of Sheffield. Dream on?

 

[yorksrob]

It's good to see Edale's new clockface timetable boosting the numbers.

It seems strange that it got skipped in the first place, given that it seems to have been one of the better used stations throughout the period.

 

[Dr Hoo]

It's good to see Edale's new clockface timetable boosting the numbers.

It seems strange that it got skipped in the first place, given that it seems to have been one of the better used stations throughout the period.

Edale had the lowest local population along the Hope Valley and doesn’t really act as a railhead for anywhere else ( compared with Hope for Castleton or Bamford’s bus links). It’s use tends to be inbound weekend or seasonal hikers rather than all-year weekday commuting, college, shopping, etc. journeys.

 

[yorksrob]

Edale had the lowest local population along the Hope Valley and doesn’t really act as a railhead for anywhere else ( compared with Hope for Castleton or Bamford’s bus links). It’s use tends to be inbound weekend or seasonal hikers rather than all-year weekday commuting, college, shopping, etc. journeys.

Maybe so, but passengers is passengers !

I guess the railway can't afford to be so sniffy about leisure passengers these days.

 

[Killingworth]

It's good to see Edale's new clockface timetable boosting the numbers.

It seems strange that it got skipped in the first place, given that it seems to have been one of the better used stations throughout the period.

Edale is a conundrum. The southern end of the Pennine Way.

Trains can load with groups of 30 or more with backpacks or nobody at all. The hardy don't get put off by weather but the hours of winter darkness certainly have an effect. I've seen a carriage full of Spanish students disgorge there. I've also seen a single Edale student heading into college in Sheffield on the earliest train. I've heard of young Edale residents having to be rescued by parental cars when the last train out of Manchester has been cancelled. Timetabling for this is challenging.

On summer weekends some farmers do quite nicely from charging £6 a day for parking in their fields. Possibly more lucrative than sheep! The Edale valley in particular is gridlocked with cars on sunny days as is much of the Peak District.

There's a lot more rail traffic to be gained, but it needs both reliability and capacity to get people out of cars. The infrastructure is now there along the Hope Valley. It seems the TOCs haven't enough carriages. Manning them on sunny Sundays... is problematic.

Through traffic, end to end, is another story.

 

[yorksrob]

Edale is a conundrum. The southern end of the Pennine Way.

Trains can load with groups of 30 or more with backpacks or nobody at all. The hardy don't get put off by weather but the hours of winter darkness certainly have an effect. I've seen a carriage full of Spanish students disgorge there. I've also seen a single Edale student heading into college in Sheffield on the earliest train. I've heard of young Edale residents having to be rescued by parental cars when the last train out of Manchester has been cancelled. Timetabling for this is challenging.

On summer weekends some farmers do quite nicely from charging £6 a day for parking in their fields. Possibly more lucrative than sheep! The Edale valley in particular is gridlocked with cars on sunny days as is much of the Peak District.

There's a lot more rail traffic to be gained, but it needs both reliability and capacity to get people out of cars. The infrastructure is now there along the Hope Valley. It seems the TOCs haven't enough carriages. Manning them on sunny Sundays... is problematic.

Through traffic, end to end, is another story.

Yes, I've been caught up in the successive cancellations at times.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Yes, the difference in height is significant, but there doesn't appear to be much to get in the way of the chord. So if it needs to be long it can be made long, at the end of the day we aren't limited to the performance of low performance steamers any more!


Well yes, you'd have to recast the timetable from scratch to make this happen.

Well Whaley Bridge alone still manages to beat Chinley for passenger numbers.
We get more services to Disley, Furness Vale (not that I imagine it would matter much!), Whaley Bridge and Chapel.

I doubt that Chinley would end up completely abandoned, given that it is picking up "fast" path stops with fair regularity these days.

If you wanted better services on the Buxton line, you'd be better off reopening Buxton - Matlock with new platforms on the northern curve at Buxton station, rerouting the Liverpool - Norwich via Buxton and Derby (semi-fast, stops at Hazel Grove, Buxton, Matlock and Derby between Stockport and Nottingham), and extending the Nottingham - Matlock/Man Picc - Buxton as a 2tph through stopper.

You'd probably want to reopen Darley Dale and Bakewell stations between Buxton - Matlock.

This would help grow commuter and leisure traffic on both halves of the new Peak District line, and you'd be able to introduce new separate services Sheffield - Nottingham on the MML.
Plus an extension of the Northern New Mills stopper through to Sheffield, and a Hazel Grove stop on the TPE.

Problem is - the walkers will hold up any Buxton-Matlock reopening for years, and something else is needed in the meantime. I suggest lengthening of all EMR Liverpool - Norwich services (outside of early mornings/late evenings) to 6 car, same with TPE, and longer units for the most busy Northern services.

 

[daodao]

I suggest lengthening of all EMR Liverpool - Norwich services (outside of early mornings/late evenings) to 6 car, same with TPE, and longer units for the most busy Northern services.

Lengthening overloaded short passenger trains is the only practical answer, given the rail infrastructure constraints. The difficulty in increasing train service frequency via Hazel Grove is primarily due to the capacity restrictions through Stockport Edgeley, not capacity east of Hazel Grove. Re-opening the line via Millers Dale to Matlock is completely unrealistic, even in the long-term, and won't solve the key capacity constraints in the Manchester area, since the old Midland mainline via Heaton Mersey and the Woodhead route have been permanently closed to all rail traffic.

 

[edwin_m]

Re-opening the line via Millers Dale to Matlock is completely unrealistic, even in the long-term, and won't solve the key capacity constraints in the Manchester area, since the old Midland mainline via Heaton Mersey and the Woodhead route have been permanently closed to all rail traffic.

Nor does it solve the Manchester-Sheffield capacity issue, which is far more pressing* than anything between Manchester and Derby/Nottingham.

*Literally in some cases.

 

[daodao]

Nor does it solve the Manchester-Sheffield capacity issue

Why does lengthening trains between Manchester and Sheffield, as I suggested, not help solve the Manchester-Sheffield capacity issue?

 

[edwin_m]

Why does lengthening trains between Manchester and Sheffield, as I suggested, not help solve the Manchester-Sheffield capacity issue?

I was responding to the last sentence in your post. I've trimmed the quote.

 

[Killingworth]

If you wanted better services on the Buxton line, you'd be better off reopening Buxton - Matlock with new platforms on the northern curve at Buxton station, rerouting the Liverpool - Norwich via Buxton and Derby (semi-fast, stops at Hazel Grove, Buxton, Matlock and Derby between Stockport and Nottingham), and extending the Nottingham - Matlock/Man Picc - Buxton as a 2tph through stopper.

You'd probably want to reopen Darley Dale and Bakewell stations between Buxton - Matlock.

This would help grow commuter and leisure traffic on both halves of the new Peak District line, and you'd be able to introduce new separate services Sheffield - Nottingham on the MML.
Plus an extension of the Northern New Mills stopper through to Sheffield, and a Hazel Grove stop on the TPE.

Problem is - the walkers will hold up any Buxton-Matlock reopening for years, and something else is needed in the meantime. I suggest lengthening of all EMR Liverpool - Norwich services (outside of early mornings/late evenings) to 6 car, same with TPE, and longer units for the most busy Northern services.

Final two paragraphs nail it. It's going to be hard enough to achieve that any time soon due to rolling stock shortages. Meanwhile crush loaded trains will continue whenever one or more operators is unable to run a service. When they all run to time at full length it's usually OK.

A contributory factor is 3 operators with TPE operating 185s, EMR running 158s and 170s with Northern normally operating 195s but can be 150, 156 or 158.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Lengthening overloaded short passenger trains is the only practical answer, given the rail infrastructure constraints. The difficulty in increasing train service frequency via Hazel Grove is primarily due to the capacity restrictions through Stockport Edgeley, not capacity east of Hazel Grove. Re-opening the line via Millers Dale to Matlock is completely unrealistic, even in the long-term, and won't solve the key capacity constraints in the Manchester area, since the old Midland mainline via Heaton Mersey and the Woodhead route have been permanently closed to all rail traffic.

Problem is those capacity constraints you mentioned. I'd rather go for a brand new line Man Picc east through the northern Peak District to Sheffield, but that would go massively over budget. If you at least try to segregate the very heavy Manchester to Sheffield passenger flow, from the Liverpool/Manchester to Nottingham and beyond flows, you could release a lot of capacity for Manchester to Sheffield that way.

Final two paragraphs nail it. It's going to be hard enough to achieve that any time soon due to rolling stock shortages. Meanwhile crush loaded trains will continue whenever one or more operators is unable to run a service. When they all run to time at full length it's usually OK.

A contributory factor is 3 operators with TPE operating 185s, EMR running 158s and 170s with Northern normally operating 195s but can be 150, 156 or 158.

The Northern 195 capacity increase is probably the easiest to sort in the medium term, if TfGM get on with tram-train to Marple Rose Hill or Merseyrail end up extending from Ormskirk, and of course Northern are due to receive a new fleet to replace their motley collection of Sprinters some time soon anyway.

As for EMR, maybe they could be given TfW's 158s, instead of GWR (now that GWR have the 175s and a fleet tender out for a partial non-Intercity replacement I believe.)
They obviously won't be in service for more than 15-20 years longer at most, but they may provide a useful stopgap.

For TPE, yes it has been mentioned why providing a full length 185 South Route service may be difficult - however isn't there a plan to introduce electric TPE commuter services once TPRU stages are completed? I know that the whole project is taking a while, but surely some 185s could be freed up by this move in the next 5 years?

 

[HSTEd]

If you wanted better services on the Buxton line, you'd be better off reopening Buxton - Matlock with new platforms on the northern curve at Buxton station, rerouting the Liverpool - Norwich via Buxton and Derby (semi-fast, stops at Hazel Grove, Buxton, Matlock and Derby between Stockport and Nottingham), and extending the Nottingham - Matlock/Man Picc - Buxton as a 2tph through stopper.

You'd probably want to reopen Darley Dale and Bakewell stations between Buxton - Matlock.

This would help grow commuter and leisure traffic on both halves of the new Peak District line, and you'd be able to introduce new separate services Sheffield - Nottingham on the MML.
Plus an extension of the Northern New Mills stopper through to Sheffield, and a Hazel Grove stop on the TPE.

Problem is - the walkers will hold up any Buxton-Matlock reopening for years, and something else is needed in the meantime.

That's going to cost an awful lot of money and political capital, and result in major increases in ongoing costs, because we will have to run more way more trains on way more track.

We need to more efficiently exploit the track we have, not add even more inefficient track. I don't think reopening miles of track through the literal desert of the High Peak really does.
If the Victorians hadn't driven that line through there, I don't think anyone would ever propose it today.

 

[AlastairFraser]

That's going to cost an awful lot of money and political capital, and result in major increases in ongoing costs, because we will have to run more way more trains on way more track.

We need to more efficiently exploit the track we have, not add even more inefficient track. I don't think reopening miles of track through the literal desert of the High Peak really does.
If the Victorians hadn't driven that line through there, I don't think anyone would ever propose it today.

Delivering the necessary improvements to run more frequent services Sheffield to Manchester along the current Hope Valley via Hazel Grove/Marple would cost a lot more than my Peak plan.
You'd probably need a tunnel from Chinley or Adswood (with new platforms at Hazel Grove) into Manchester at the very least, and 4 tracks from Dore in to Sheffield at the other end. Not cheap, at all.
Then you still have to wrestle with increasing minerals traffic down the Hope Valley, if you leave it as the only south Transpennine route.