alex17595
Member
I was attempting to try and save a few quid with my effort. I don't think it will happen anyway really due to duplication unless you could get it to turn right at Wadsley Bridge and orovide coverage in that direction.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should the Stocksbridge Line be saved now for passenger use, before it is too late?
- Thread starter Iskra
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Street Running and 2 bridge reconstructions aren't going to save much money. The Red line indicates a potential viaduct line, however unlikely anything like this is.
mike57
Established Member
Looking at the rail route once you get past Kelham Island there isnt a great deal close to it anyway, most habitation/businesses are on the other side of the River Don. Its one of those routes that everyone thinks should be useful but actually doesn't quite deliver. Hence my original comment, that the route should be protected properly, as circumstances do change. Probably a bike/walking trail in the short term if heavy rail use is finished.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Why do I feel that when the word "viaduct" occurs, it brings to mind project costings of the "eye-watering" financial type.
A viaduct for a tram can be lighter and it's over a relatively accessible sight so project costs wouldn't be of the 'Giving the treasury a heart attack' type but even so doing anything to the Stocksbridge line other than mothballing it is likely to be of the 'not getting past reception' type.
The irony in all of this is that SYPTE have historically had aspirations to run to a train service to Stocksbridge for over 40 years. In the late 70 or early 80s that I saw an exhibition in the city where they showcased all their plans for the SY rail network, including a line to Stocksbridge. It prompted me to ask if it would include Penistone but was met with a glazed look and a 'where is that?' response. Mind you, that was when SYPTE had vision, money and some muscle, these days it cant even come up with money for failing bus routes. Somewhere out there in interweb world is a document they produced at the time but cant find it now.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Unless you had it with a reverse or two separate services including Penistone would mean not quite serving Stocksbridge, the through line goes round the side. Would serve smaller Oughtibridge though.
I'm not sure Penistone would justify trams, it's too small, plus it does have a train service to Sheffield albeit via a slightly roundabout route.
Personally, the only way I see it becoming even vaguely viable, is as part of a wider tram-train scheme, probably linking up to Chesterfield and the eastern suburbs of Sheffield.
With a new set of crayons out, linking the Stocksbridge branch all the way through to Chesterfield, while providing interchange possibilities to the existing tram and rail networks would hopefully generate enough demand to make the investment worthwhile. I've included short ~1km extensions to both the Middlewood and Halfway termini to take the Yellow and Blue routes out to meet the existing heavy rail route in order to make this new route a higher-speed "express tram" service as those living in the outer-reaches of the city would hope for, while still increasing the connectivity for local journeys.
That said, I expect the only real demand for this service to come from the eastern suburbs, particularly the AMP and Waverley stations. Pretty much the entire route towards Stocksbridge runs on the opposite side of the river to the housing that does exist, and once you're past Killamarsh heading towards Chesterfield you're pretty much in open countryside all the way.
This really is one of those proposals that the more you look at it, the less it makes sense!
With a new set of crayons out, linking the Stocksbridge branch all the way through to Chesterfield, while providing interchange possibilities to the existing tram and rail networks would hopefully generate enough demand to make the investment worthwhile. I've included short ~1km extensions to both the Middlewood and Halfway termini to take the Yellow and Blue routes out to meet the existing heavy rail route in order to make this new route a higher-speed "express tram" service as those living in the outer-reaches of the city would hope for, while still increasing the connectivity for local journeys.
That said, I expect the only real demand for this service to come from the eastern suburbs, particularly the AMP and Waverley stations. Pretty much the entire route towards Stocksbridge runs on the opposite side of the river to the housing that does exist, and once you're past Killamarsh heading towards Chesterfield you're pretty much in open countryside all the way.
This really is one of those proposals that the more you look at it, the less it makes sense!
I know, I am from there. This RAIL exhibition was back in the day when the Huddersfield line was threatened with closure throughout and my question to them was 'will Penistone feature in your RAIL plans?'. It was nothing to do with tramlines, but heavy rail. It was a great presentation, lots of studies, plans and network maps, but ultimately it was just that and the plans for the Stocksbridge line went the same way as the plans for the mini tram monorail system, in the bin.
Last edited:
That's going to cost a hell of a lot more than even the wildest suggestions on this thread.
More than the cost of wiring up the line all the way to Stocksbridge for trams, plus big old viaducts?
When I looked on Google maps (thats a desktop study I can get a RYR grant for innit?) its 300m of unused/underused land and at least half the bridges aren't really needed.
I accept the blockade to do it might cost a bob or two.....
It really needs doing.
There seems to be a lot of focus on trying to connect the line to Stocksbridge up to the existing tram or rail system, but this seems to be a bit cart before the horse. This is only going to remotely seem justified if a service exists and is being used.
Why not instead as an interim solution just run a frequent connecting bus between a new Victoria station, the city centre, and Midland?
Why not instead as an interim solution just run a frequent connecting bus between a new Victoria station, the city centre, and Midland?
Yes, you've got the listed flats up on the hill and the ring road immediately to the west. I'm pretty sure they're more tunnels with roads on top than Bridges.
Killingworth
Established Member
Totally agree. The engineering required is enormous, but so would be the benefits for travel from and through Sheffield to the north and east. Tunnel under, bridge over it's challenging. Who knows, a bridge or tunnel could be twisted round to link to the Stocksbridge/Penistone line - but I'm 99.9% certain I won't live to see it!
Yes, Sheffield Midland is built on arches above the River Sheaf! Then there's the River Don and canal.
There is zero justification for having a new Victoria station, or for letting the idea drive any ideas or plans. The location, as it was when it was open, is not remotely near to the commercial heart of the city. You can justifiably scoop people up at the start of the journey by bus, car, taxi, bike, walking, but you cant then dump them at a destination that requires another mode onwards and expect the plan to succeed unless it is already established or traffic/city policy demands it. Midland station isnt ideally located either, but it is at least next to the Interchange, Hallam University and in a pleasant area of town and very importantly offers onward connections to the rest of the world.
Killingworth
Established Member
Although the bus 'Interchange' is a bit of a misnomer as very few Sheffield bus routes now run from it and it's days appear to be numbered!
Because nobody actually want's to go to Victoria station, other than a handful of enthusiasts pining for times past. The only reason it comes up in these discussions as a serious point is that it's going to be even harder to connect the Stocksbridge branch to Midland station than rebuild platforms at Victoria.
If you were running a frequent connecting bus, you'd just run it into the actual City Centre, like the one that currently exists.
There's actually not all that much in the way of widening the tracks, with only one building on the land required, and that's not currently in use. There's only two proper roads involved, and one of them has a bus gate in one direction so see's relatively little traffic. The biggest problem would be the amount of time you'd have to close the entire northern access to do the works required (and the cost of said works, obviously).
You'll need more width than that to construct it, as well as the buildings on the edge of the cutting will need getting rid of. And a kink that sharp at the north end is undesirable at best.
Iskra
Established Member
Posts like this aren’t particularly helpful; confidently stating that a station in an urban area in a major city has zero demand, is just ‘fake news.’ There is always going to be at least some demand, even if you don’t think it’s enough. Otherwise lets close down Merseyrail, half the Glasgow rail network, Nexus etc…
you, and many others, are so desperately trying to reopen Victoria station at all costs, including diverting Worksop services into it to further justify it (to hell with connections to the rest of the rail network), that it is overshadowing all reason now.
Iskra
Established Member
You are entirely misquoting me, I was extremely clear that I was being speculative about Worksop services. I think a simple Victoria station is more deliverable than a new chord, as the line is there and a concrete platform is all that is required. If you think a bit of concrete is beyond reason, you are welcome to believe that but I don’t agree with you
ok, lets agree to disagree, shame we cant ask any residents of Stocksbridge and Deepcar whether the Wicker is an acceptable destination to be put off when most of them would have had to drive/walk/bus/taxi/cycle at the start of their journeyYou are entirely misquoting me, I was extremely clear that I was being speculative about Worksop services. I think a simple Victoria station is more deliverable than a new chord, as the line is there and a concrete platform is all that is required. If you think a bit of concrete is beyond reason, you are welcome to believe that but I don’t agree with you
Iskra
Established Member
If only someone had done a study and put a case together…
This is getting rather old now but.....If only someone had done a study and put a case together…
Feasibility Study | Don Valley Railway
donvalleyrailway.org
Their cost estimates were somewhat optimistic!
The permanent land take is based on the existing 4 track wide cuttings which is about 1/3 of the length of the section. Of course the construction would require more space, and several of the adjacent buildings look like they're likely to fall down in a stiff breeze - but I don't see either of those as particularly large issues. It certainly looks to me like the original plan was for it to be 4 tracks wide continuously based on the building construction and land usage, but just never finished.
There is enough space to smooth out any major kink - and currently many trains are crawling from signal to signal in this section, so having a modest speed limit is unlikely to cause any capacity issues.
njamescouk
Member
- Joined
- 8 Apr 2017
- Messages
- 189
the local MP, who has connections with the Fox Valley people, tried to get something off the ground a while ago. might have been a levelling up scheme, can't remember now. it didn't go anywhere, the whole thing was just Tories making a noise about spending money.
re. onward to penistone - the Stocksbridge bypass is a 20 - 30 foot wall of concrete slap bang across the trackbed. it bridges a little track at the side of it though.
re. possible usage. middlewood park and ride always seems pretty full, obviously stocksbridge would have a smaller catchment, but penistone - stocksbridge park and ride - Sheffield could be better than penistone - Barnsley - Sheffield.
re. onward to penistone - the Stocksbridge bypass is a 20 - 30 foot wall of concrete slap bang across the trackbed. it bridges a little track at the side of it though.
re. possible usage. middlewood park and ride always seems pretty full, obviously stocksbridge would have a smaller catchment, but penistone - stocksbridge park and ride - Sheffield could be better than penistone - Barnsley - Sheffield.
Last edited:
Killingworth
Established Member
It would be interesting to know how well the work is progressing on the Strategic Outline Business Case to the Restoring Your Railway Fund. Presumably all the points raised here will form part of that study. Media comment came late last year like the Yorkshire Post suggested South Yorkshire Mayor Oliver Coppard was behind it, see; https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/bus...orkshire-and-restore-passenger-trains-3935833 I suspect his suport will go as far as seeing the results of the study. Any extra money for public transport in South Yorkshire might be better spent on saving failing bus services.
Suggestions in some quarters for a half hourly service to Stocksbridge seem wildly optimistic given that the existing Don Valley stations between Sheffield and Doncaster only receive an hourly 2 car service. Restoring that to half hourly might be as much as we can currently contemplate.
Suggestions in some quarters for a half hourly service to Stocksbridge seem wildly optimistic given that the existing Don Valley stations between Sheffield and Doncaster only receive an hourly 2 car service. Restoring that to half hourly might be as much as we can currently contemplate.
Last edited:
Here's an alternative Sheffield chord concept connecting the Stocksbridge line to the existing tram network. This could be pure light rail if no future freight was envisaged, or usable by tram-train vehicles if freight capability retention was desired. Stocksbridge services from the north could then turn left at the tram delta junction to reach the Sheffield Midland stop or turn right into the city centre. The new connection is fairly short, around 300m, all on a light viaduct structure flying over the A61 junction, without any conflict with road traffic. Tightest curvature is around 80m radius. A station could be provided in the Victoria area, although it would only need to be a simple low-platform tramstop arrangement.
Iskra
Established Member
More opinion dressed as fact. It was (and is) a sincere attempt, that is still on going as documented earlier in this thread. It is also supported by the Labour mayor and on his website (so enjoys cross-party support) and featured in a South Yorkshire strategic transport vision which I think was also shared on here pre-pandemic.
In terms of catchment, the business case for the Fox Valley RP put it at around 260,000 (2015 figure) I believe from memory of being involved with that project (it might still be online somewhere). I’m not sure how that was calculated, but considering it was used to attract (and win) EU funding, you’d assume it had a degree of veracity. Plenty said the retail park would be a flop too, but they have been left eating their words as the car park regularly becomes full and it causes traffic chaos around the area now at peak times.
Using the current line would also help relieve the A61 which is often congested as the main Northern access to the M1, if park and ride facilities were provided at Oughtibridge and Wadsley Bridge.
- Status