Don valley Railway

[choogling 14]

Found this on facebook ,many will find it interesting.

 

I write as Chair of Don Valley Railway Ltd in response to Transport for the North’s (TfN) ‘The Strategic Transport Plan – Draft for Consultation’.

I argue here that the Draft for Consultation should be changed to address the following…

1,The political structure and power needs to be put in place to deliver a democratic, fundable, viable plan.

2, It must get the DfT to acknowledge that there is an equality issue regarding how transport budget holders in Government deal with The North and regions. The South East has Crossrail and Thameslink 1, 2, 3 and we have Pacer trains.

3, Sheffield and Manchester should be acknowledged as Europe’s least well connected neighbouring cities since East and West Berlin. And this document leaves a glaring hole with no viable plans to address the needs of this corridor.

4, There is a mismatch in the aspirations of TfN with reality – how does the fact that the government runs out of money to deliver the East Midland Mainline electrification sit along side these extra plans.

I recommend that prioritising the re-opening of the Woodhead Rail line is the most logical way for TfN to address these issues.

Don Valley Railway Ltd (DVR Ltd) is a company limited by guarantee and a registered charity. The initial aim of (DVR Ltd) is to introduce passenger rail services to the railway line between Sheffield and Stocksbridge which is currently used generally by one freight train a day serving Liberty Steel.

This section of track forms part of the former Woodhead Rail alignment between Sheffield and Manchester. It is our belief that our plans should ideally dovetail with Transport for the North (TfN) objectives of connecting Northern Cities such that the route is considered to for re-instatement offering not only city centre-to-city centre journeys but also high quality commuter links to communities along the line, with the Stocksbridge to Sheffield provision being part of this.

As part of our work Arup have undertaken a feasibility study into the introduction of a simple end-to-end ‘shuttle’ service along the line. We have developed a further yet-to-be-published brief to scheme developers to consider 4 options for development of services along the line. This considers the development of the Sheffield to Deepcar/Stocksbridge section and does not cover possible options for extensions towards Manchester.

These 4 options being :

1, The Shuttle Service – using existing infrastructure to provide a half hourly service between Sheffield Victoria and Deepcar with a single hourly stop at Oughtibridge and a connecting bus service serving the Stocksbridge Deepcar Urban area. In 2015 we estimated the cost of this to be £2.5million (disregarding optimism bias).

2, A Heavy Rail Upgrade – upgrading existing infrastructure to provide a 20 / 30 minute frequency service between Sheffield Nunnery (connecting with Supertram) with stops at Victoria and locations along the line to Stocksbridge. In 2015 we estimated the cost of this to be £20 million (disregarding optimism bias).

3, Extending the Yellow Supertram Route from Middlewood on the edge of Sheffield urban area to Stocksbridge. In 2015 we estimated the cost of this to be £150 million (disregarding optimism bias); and,

4, Creating the Tram-Train service along the whole route via the Eastern side of the Upper Don Valley and linking into the wider Supertram network. In 2015 we estimated the cost of this to be £200 million (disregarding optimism bias).

Further information is available at our web page http://www.donvalleyrailway.org

It is our view that the lesser cost options of these may be developable as free standing schemes but the higher cost options may best be delivered as part of a plan to re-instate the whole ‘Woodhead’ route.

WILL TfN’s PLAN HAPPEN?

The Draft for Consultation spends much time pondering the complexities of developing the Northern Economies but in terms of developing transport links boils down to a few largely speculative interventions.

Looking back at previous attempts to create a cohesive pan-Northern approach to transport infrastructure improvements, it appears likely that this initiative will struggle to gain any capacity to act. The failure of its most recent predecessor’s attempt, Northern Way, illustrates that gaining capacity between the plethora of other fledgling structures such as Metro Mayors alongside existing authorities for transport and local governance may not allow a suitably enabled structure to take the project forward.

Such an organisation may, rather than de-centralise power away from Westminster to a northern authority, do the opposite and centralise local powers away from councils in effect de-democratising decisions being made about transport in The North.

EQUALITY ISSUE

The Draft for Consultation sets out an economic case to the Government for investing in The North. This is not enough. In terms of transport there is an equality issue because assessment frameworks for transport schemes do not adequately deal with what is seen as ‘subsidy’ for Northern rail schemes in a fair way compared with what is seen as ‘investment’ for larger London-based rail schemes. Consequently in recent funding allocations for transport Yorkshire received a tenth of the funding per head of London.

Northern Powerhouse Rail needs to raise this as an equality issue to Government rather than a plea to the treasury for more scraps please, because at the moment northern taxpayers are subsidising high-income long distance South East commuters via the transport budget.

GLARING HOLE

The Strategic Transport Plan – Draft for Consultation (Page 46) states:

“If the evidence demonstrates that significant upgrades to the Hope Valley corridor do not look promising in terms of moving towards the transformational outputs, TfN will consider the case for and further assessment of a new line between Manchester and Sheffield”.

Should a new line be created between Sheffield and Manchester, the most realistic route would be via a re-instatement of the Woodhead Rail route on which DVR’s plans lie. It would be welcomed if this option is given more weight. Reading the document it comes across as an option to consider if all else fails.

Sheffield and Manchester are not only Europe’s least well connected neighbouring cities, those connections have benefitted the least from investment over the past 50 years. Rail infrastructure has reduced over this time with what was hailed in 1954 at its opening as Britain’s first all electric intercity line, Woodhead, being closed.

The lack of rail connectivity is in no way compensated by road links. In the 1960’s there were three single carriageway roads between Sheffield and Manchester, the A628, A57 and A625. Now there are only two, as the A625 Mam Tor route has been abandoned (because of subsidence) and it has been replaced by Winnats pass (a single track road).

Compare this with other intercity corridors it is stark how little has resulted to improve this corridor. In comparison take for example the Leeds to Manchester corridor which over the same time has seen the M62 being built and rail services growing from what was 5 direct fast trains per day in the 1950’s to the current (albeit not that fast) 5 trains per hour Transpennine services.

The existing Hope Valley Line has an inter-regional and local passenger and freight services is at capacity. Plans for its upgrade are both limited and have been stricken with delays. Its signalling system pre-date the opening of the now closed Woodhead line.

Acknowledging that the Peak District National Park sits between Sheffield and Manchester, bringing the sometimes conflicting priorities of developing connectivity at the same time as protecting the landscape, we feel that there is a glaring hole in a programme to use improved transport to bring economic benefits where that transport improvement is not in evidence.

Should Fast services between Sheffield and Manchester be moved from the Hope Valley Line to Woodhead, not only would these services be greatly improved, services between Manchester and the East Midlands would be possible and viable to take up any spare capacity released creating additional benefits beyond that between Sheffield and Manchester.

In addition, Woodhead was constructed largely to Berne Gauge and this would aid its reinstatement for container freight which does not easily fit through other northern trans-Pennine tunnels.

MISMATCH OF ASPIRATIONS

It would be highly desirable that TfN promote a plan to open the Woodhead line that offers:

• A high speed inter-city link

• Local connections including a Tram Train linking into Sheffield Supertram and a improvements to the Glossop/Hadfield-Manchester Piccadilly, and,

• Improved freight handling capacity.

However, there is a mismatch of TfN’s aspirations to the financial situation regarding rail. How does developing new aspirations sit alongside more developed schemes being cut at the time that expenditure is due. The Audit Commission recently concluded that the scrapped East Midland Line Electrification did not happen because of lack of available funds.

We are not convinced that TfN has the capacity to deliver these improvements but needs to put the right improvements forward, including reopening Woodhead.

TO SUMMARISE

1, The Hope Valley Rail improvement option fails to adequately address the target of a 30 minute rail journey time between Sheffield and Manchester.

2, Balancing the conservation policies of the Peak District National Park Authority with TfN’s connectivity goals leaves us with an unaffordable road tunnel plan and a very limited list of improvements to road provision on the Sheffield - Manchester corridor that in no way compensate for a reduced rail offer.

3, The giant hole left by inadequate Sheffield to Manchester links renders TfN’s ‘Strategic Transport Plan – Draft for Consultation’ incapable of delivering the city to city connectivity improvements that drive economic growth which are the key to the ethos of TfN’s aspirations. What is the point of TfN if it does not do this?

4, To address this, the document should do more to promote a thorough investigation of the benefits offered by re-opening the Woodhead rail line and should call for a Rail Reinstatement Feasibility Study to (GRIP Stage 3) to be a first priority of TfN rather than it be a vague fall back position as currently.

5, It is our view that this should include commuter routes Glossop-Manchester, Sheffield-Stocksbridge for Tram-Train conversion, and consider all methods for handling freight on the corridor so that communities along the corridor benefit alongside city regions at each end through improved linkages and reduced environmental impact.

6, If not, TfN has no function, it does nothing for this part of The North and should be disbanded or renamed ‘Transport for the M62 corridor', and Sheffield City Region partners should not support it as it does not adequately support them. If it continues as is, it becomes a plan solely for the M62 corridor only, and a plan that does nothing for the rest of The North.

7, There is a conflict between TfN’s call for more investment in rail and the reality that investment in the north is being curtailed. The Audit Commission recently concluded that the Midland Mainline Electrification was withdrawn because of lack of funds.

8, Perhaps there is a need for realism over rail investment in the North. Perhaps cheaper options like our option of a simple rail shuttle between Sheffield and Deepcar would be a more realistic target for improving rail connectivity in the north than Grand Projets, unless limitations in its approach above are addressed.

But if there is a place for TfN it must include a re-opened Woodhead Rail line to have any credibility.

Don Valley Railway.

https://transportforthenorth.com/…/TfN-Strategic-Plan_draft…

 

donvalleyrailway.org

 

Don Valley Railway | The proposal to re-open a passenger rail link from Stocksbridge to Sheffield

Using the existing track linking Stocksbridge with Sheffield Victoria Station, just one vehicle could provide passengers with a regular, half hourly train service.

 

 

Chris recently shared a post in this group. Learn more about him.

[drolnhoj 15]

I consider myself of reasonable intelligence but the post is far too complicated for me to take in. I guess it is all to do with the upgrade of the rail network but I can't get my head around what you are saying. Maybe a summary would help.

[choogling 14]

I consider myself of reasonable intelligence but the post is far too complicated for me to take in. I guess it is all to do with the upgrade of the rail network but I can't get my head around what you are saying. Maybe a summary would help.

 

I have only past on this post, it was found on face book and I thought it would be interesting to any railway buffs on the forum, a summary was included.

[Annie Bynnol 612]

I have only past on this post, it was found on face book and I thought it would be interesting to any railway buffs on the forum, a summary was included.

 

It was in 2010 that Ove Arup and Partners did an Engineering Feasibility Study on the Don Valley Railway Project.

Please note that the costs refer to an Engineering Feasibility Study and does not include running costs or usage or access to Sheffield station.

The "cheap" option refers to a 30mph service from Deepcar to Oughty Bridge(sic) station Nunnery then reverse to Midland station. Only an hourly service is possible.

[1978 14]

Reinstatement of rail services through any of the existing Woodhead tunnels would not be viable, leaving aside the high voltage electricity grid power lines now running through them. To achieve high speed running two new tunnels would be needed to comply with modern operating and safety regulations. At least 3 reasons for that.

 

After fatal fires in Alpine tunnels (and in the Channel Tunnel) separate tunnels are required with fire resistant access to an independent escape route - under the Channel it's a third smaller tunnel.

 

Two fast trains approaching each other ram a large volume of air that could blast the trains off the tracks when they met. That's part of the reason why there are speed rsetrictions through the Totley and Cowburn tunnels. (There was a derailment in the Totley tunnel in 1971 that wasn't a disaster because nothing was going the other way at the time.)

 

If tunnels are required today they'd need to have a broader profile to accommodate the largest European standard freight trains that might use them and modern electrification wiring..

 

To achieve a 30 minute Sheffield to Manchester centre to centre time someone needs to explain how they'd get fast lines from any tunnels, new or old, into the city centres.

 

The Don Valley Railway should build their case without those tunnels.

[Annie Bynnol 612]

Reinstatement of rail services through any of the existing Woodhead tunnels would not be viable, leaving aside the high voltage electricity grid power lines now running through them. To achieve high speed running two new tunnels would be needed to comply with modern operating and safety regulations. At least 3 reasons for that.

 

After fatal fires in Alpine tunnels (and in the Channel Tunnel) separate tunnels are required with fire resistant access to an independent escape route - under the Channel it's a third smaller tunnel.

 

Two fast trains approaching each other ram a large volume of air that could blast the trains off the tracks when they met. That's part of the reason why there are speed rsetrictions through the Totley and Cowburn tunnels. (There was a derailment in the Totley tunnel in 1971 that wasn't a disaster because nothing was going the other way at the time.)

 

If tunnels are required today they'd need to have a broader profile to accommodate the largest European standard freight trains that might use them and modern electrification wiring..

 

To achieve a 30 minute Sheffield to Manchester centre to centre time someone needs to explain how they'd get fast lines from any tunnels, new or old, into the city centres.

 

The Don Valley Railway should build their case without those tunnels.

 

 

The piston effect of pushing air through tunnels and the combined effect on approaching trains is not the reason for Totley and Cowburn tunnels have speed restrictions.

Moving trains create a low/high pressure waves at both ends, this is amplified in tunnels. This results in a damaging sucking effect on the structure of the tunnel, on trackside equipment and on the train itself.

Both tunnels are very old and are not regarded as being in a good state of repair. The poor state of the structure and trackside infrastructure (and rolling stock) are the reasons for the reduced line speed.

Modern(ized) twin tracked single bore tunnels with modern rolling stock can have much higher line speeds e.g. the Severn tunnel. The Gotthard Base tunnel is the longest and deepest in the world does not have a separate escape tunnel.

[1978 14]

The piston effect of pushing air through tunnels and the combined effect on approaching trains is not the reason for Totley and Cowburn tunnels have speed restrictions.

Moving trains create a low/high pressure waves at both ends, this is amplified in tunnels. This results in a damaging sucking effect on the structure of the tunnel, on trackside equipment and on the train itself.

Both tunnels are very old and are not regarded as being in a good state of repair. The poor state of the structure and trackside infrastructure (and rolling stock) are the reasons for the reduced line speed.

Modern(ized) twin tracked single bore tunnels with modern rolling stock can have much higher line speeds e.g. the Severn tunnel. The Gotthard Base tunnel is the longest and deepest in the world does not have a separate escape tunnel.

 

Pardon me, I didn't say it had to be a 3rd tunnel, but as with the Gotthard Base there need to be twin tunnels with connecting escape routes that can be isolated between them; https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/references/case-studies/gotthard-base-tunnel.html

 

Fires in long single bore Alpine tunnels have resulted in multiple fatalities.

 

As fas as I know the Severn Tunnel is still restricted to 70 mph, the suction issue being relieved by a small parallel bore.

Edited April 25, 2018 by 1978

[choogling 14]

given the very short length of the tunnel how long would a speed limit extend the journey time?

[Guest busdriver1]

given the very short length of the tunnel how long would a speed limit extend the journey time?

 

Minimally, but a very good scaremongering tactic.

[1978 14]

Minimally, but a very good scaremongering tactic.

 

It's not speed through any old or new Woodhead tunnel that would slow services between Sheffield and Manchester as much as the lines from the tunnel mouths into the city centres. Where would they go at a sufficiently high speed, at affordable construction cost and without being blocked by protests of many pressure groups? A 30 minute aspiration will be very hard to achieve in the foreseeable future.

 

However, the Don Valley Railway doesn't need that route to be restored or reconstructed to make a service there viable. It may be better without it. Construction of stations and provision of services may be the easy part. Funding will be hard. Proof of both need and likely use is vital. Where from, where to and how many would use it, as well as the location of stations related to current housing and feeding transport routes will be critical.

 

Victoria isn't at the obvious throbbing heart of the city in the early 21st century. Running a train through to Meadowhall sounds a good idea, but the current tracks make that impossible and having to reverse into Midland, another option that has been suggested, would add time delays and congestion into the equation. Stations up the valley need to have a drawing destination to serve. Can Victoria be that?

[Guest busdriver1]

It's not speed through any old or new Woodhead tunnel that would slow services between Sheffield and Manchester as much as the lines from the tunnel mouths into the city centres. Where would they go at a sufficiently high speed, at affordable construction cost and without being blocked by protests of many pressure groups? A 30 minute aspiration will be very hard to achieve in the foreseeable future.

 

However, the Don Valley Railway doesn't need that route to be restored or reconstructed to make a service there viable. It may be better without it. Construction of stations and provision of services may be the easy part. Funding will be hard. Proof of both need and likely use is vital. Where from, where to and how many would use it, as well as the location of stations related to current housing and feeding transport routes will be critical.

 

Victoria isn't at the obvious throbbing heart of the city in the early 21st century. Running a train through to Meadowhall sounds a good idea, but the current tracks make that impossible and having to reverse into Midland, another option that has been suggested, would add time delays and congestion into the equation. Stations up the valley need to have a drawing destination to serve. Can Victoria be that?

 

I agree with all of that. Sounds like a good place to trial something new like a tram/train. With a feeder bus (Replace the current tram feeder service with a local one to stations along the route?) and a park and ride site and off we go. I am sure a connection could be made with the current tram system somewhere.

[Andy C 86]

I think there needs to be acceptance that the Woodhead tunnels aren't ever going to reopen to trains and the days of the Stocksbridge railway being a main line are history.

 

There is certainly potential to use the line for a fast commuter link into the City Centre though, given the various housing and commercial development taking place.

 

As mentioned by busdriver1 the option most talked about is a tram-train scheme, assuming the Rotherham pilot is successful, offering an extension of the Supertram network via the Don Valley line with a link bus and park & ride provided somewhere at the Stocksbridge end of the line. A curve could be constructed in the Nunnery Square area to connect the railway to the tramway.