Woodhead revisited: does better frequency hold the key?
Mike Rose and A Oldfield perpetuate the idea that reopening the Woodhead line is the way to achieve a 30-minute rail journey time between the centres of Sheffield and Manchester ( Open Access, RAIL 847).
The simple fact is that the money needed to achieve that aim by any route cannot be justified in the foreseeable future. Current passenger numbers do not justify such expense.
It is not possible to speed up the Hope Valley to achieve a reliable journey time between the two cities of significantly under 45 minutes - we have to accept that basic fact. But saving ten to 15 minutes is less important to most passengers than frequency and reliability of the service. At present, peak hour services are overcrowded, often due to late running of a preceding service delayed earlier in its journey.
Mike Rose floats the idea of a four-platform station at Hope. I would suggest a cheaper and more practical way to assist with congestion would be to relay passing loops on the old trackbed still available on both sides of the line at Grindleford and Edale, to enable a fast train to overtake a stopping service. That would build in greater flexibility.
Another way to ease the rolling line block of stopping trains would be to look at the timetabling of services. By all means have two fast services, but in between have two that skip some stations, to allow an hourly service to all stations and speeding up average Hope Valley section passage times considerably. One of those services to go fast from Chinley, the other slow (as at present) via New Mills.
As for the two fast services an hour, one might be totally non-stop to achieve a sub 45-minute aim.
At present, large numbers of commuters towards Sheffield drive to Stockport. Increasingly the same is happening for Manchester-bound commuters at Dore & Totley. It is certainly conceivable that 40-minute journey times could be achieved between the two cities if starting from Stockport or Dore & Totley. That is increasingly being realised by passengers, so the second fast service should only stop twice.
Resignalling could also make a big difference. Much dates back to when the line was opened in 1893, and consequently the capacity of the line is restricted to six-minute headways through places such as Totley Tunnel.
Two trains are currently timetabled to arrive at Dore & Totley at 0824 and 0827, so it can be done. Further track improvements can be made to improve average line speeds.
We have to look forward realistically. It might make sense to consider one Woodhead bore for a single-track freight-only service, but that wouldn’t take significant freight off the Hope Valley Line. It would also still require removal of the recently installed high-voltage National Grid electricity cables, and threading tracks through land now used for other purposes at both ends. Connectivity to other major routes also needs careful appraisal.
In the meantime, TransPennine Express hopes to operate six-carriage trains by the end of the year, instead of the current three. East Midlands Trains is trying to provide four carriages instead of the two that often operate at present. Very soon Northern will be operating an hourly slow service on weekdays as well as at weekends, albeit with skip stops to avoid freight service congestion.
When all these trains are in place we shall see how much extra revenue can be derived from greater passenger numbers. The route will need them to make even the fourth hourly service economically viable, let alone constructing a hugely expensive new tunnelled route, or resurrecting an old one. But that isn’t going to happen any time soon. Chris Morgan, Sheffield
Messrs Rose and Oldfield are absolutely right about the Woodhead route between Sheffield and Manchester being far superior to the Hope Valley route.
I would go one major step further: the line could also serve Leeds. It would require a new line from about Hazlehead Bridge (between the eastern portal of Woodhead Tunnel at Dunford Bridge and Penistone) to link up with HS2 south of Leeds.
Leeds-Manchester this way would be 49-50 miles, compared with 43 miles via Huddersfield. However, the real prize would be the ability for high-speed trains to operate between Manchester and both Sheffield and Leeds, for the price of about 15 miles of new railway. It would be vastly cheaper than a new line between Manchester and Leeds via Bradford (the tunnelling costs of which would be enormous).
That brings me to the letter from Malcolm Whittaker, who states that the HS2 stations in Manchester and Leeds should not be termini ( RAIL 846). The same applies to the proposed station at Birmingham Curzon Street, which would require a walk or tram ride to reach New Street and Moor Street stations.
Almost 6,000 miles of new highspeed line have been opened in Europe since 1982. Yet not a single new terminal station has been built, because they are cumbersome and slow trains down. One only has to look at terminal stations at Frankfurt, Marseille and Milano Centrale to realise that a terminal station costs a train at least 15 minutes in running time, compared with about six on a through line.
England is destined to have three new termini in just 300 miles, which will be disastrous. Robert H Foster, Skipton
The letters from Mike Rose and A Oldfield regarding the ‘uselessness’ of the Hope Valley route gives an impression that they do not want the recently approved capacity improvement works to take place, because it might then invalidate the case for a new high-speed line.
I’m 100% in agreement that a purpose-built high-speed Manchester to Sheffield line is required, although not essentially to full HS2 specification.
The Hope Valley route is certainly not a suitable candidate, even with large amounts of money spent on it. My understanding is that the planned improvements are not intended as a substitute, rather a relatively quick means of improving the current capacity but not overall speed. They are not cheap, but almost certainly will still be made good use of after any high-speed line is constructed.
The conversion of the existing Woodhead tunnel to road is in my view untenable, but I suspect it would be equally untenable to reopen to rail. The route also has no southbound connection into Sheffield Midland, although when HS2 is complete a southbound link into that further east would serve the long-distance trains, but not those locals serving the West Yorkshire area from which Victoria is entirely disconnected. John H Brook, Chapel-en-le-Frith