109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study

Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Issue and Revision Record Rev Date Originator Checker Approved Description

01 17/03/14

02 08/05/14

03 27/6/14

This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authority of Mott MacDonald being obtained. Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequence of this document being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm his agreement to indemnify Mott MacDonald for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned. To the extent that this report is based on information supplied by other parties, Mott MacDonald accepts no liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client, whether contractual or tortious, stemming from any conclusions based on data supplied by parties other than Mott MacDonald and used by Mott MacDonald in preparing this report.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Report Control Sheet Document issue No. 03 Prepared by Name: Job Title: Date: 27 June 2014

We certify that the content and drawings included within this report have been the subject of an Interdisciplinary Check, undertaken to eliminate areas of discrepancy between disciplines. Integration Review The Team Undertaken by Name Job Title Associate/ Project Associate/ Project Reviewer Reviewer Signature:

CRE Civil Engineering Signature:

CRE Permanent Way Signature:

CRE Signalling Signature:

CRE Operational Planning Signature:

Date: 27 June 2014

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Issue Record Issue No Brief History Of Amendment Date of Issue 01 Draft for NR comment 17 Mar 2014 02 Draft for Stakeholder discussion 8 May 2014 03 For Option Selection 27 June 2014

Distribution List (Hard Copy) Name Organisation Copy No.

Distribution List (NR Internal Projectwise) Name Organisation/Job Title

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 4 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 8 2. INTRODUCTION ...... 14 3. GENERAL ...... 16

3.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUES ...... 16 3.2. KEY REQUIREMENTS ...... 16 3.3. OPERATIONAL BENEFITS AND CONSIDERATIONS ...... 17 3.3.1. General ...... 18 3.3.2. Sectional Appendix ...... 19 3.3.3. Timetable Issues ...... 19 3.3.4. Interface with Other Schemes ...... 20 3.3.5. Information Used in Preparation of This Report ...... 21 3.4. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS ...... 22 3.4.1. Option 1 (169 miles to 170 miles) ...... 22 3.4.2. Option 2 (167 ½ to 168 ¾) ...... 22 3.4.3. Option 3 (166 ¾ to 167 ¾) ...... 23 3.4.4. Option 4 (165 ¾ to 166 ¾) ...... 23 3.4.5. Option 5(i) (165 to 166, including Earle’s Sidings) ...... 23 3.4.6. Option 5(ii) (165 to 166, including Earle’s Sidings) ...... 25 3.4.7. Option 6 (164 ½ to 165 ¼) ...... 25 3.4.8. Option 7 (163 ¼ to 164 ½) ...... 25 3.4.9. Option 8 (162 ½ to 163 ½) ...... 26 3.4.10. Option 8a(i) (162 ¾ to 164 ¼) ...... 26 3.4.11. Option 8a(ii) (162 ¾ to 164 ¼) ...... 27 3.4.12. Option 9 (162 to 162 ¾) ...... 27 3.4.13. Option 10 (161 to 162 ½) ...... 27 3.4.14. Option 10(i): Up loop ...... 28 3.4.15. Option 10(ii): Bi-directional loop between the fast lines ...... 28 3.4.16. Option 10(iii): Up Loop with fast lines crossovers ...... 29 3.4.17. Option 11 (159 ½ to 161) ...... 29 3.4.18. Option 12 (159 ½ to 160 ¾) ...... 29 3.4.19. Shortlisted Options ...... 30 4. ENGINEERING DISCIPLINES ...... 31

4.1. INTRODUCTION ...... 31 4.2. TRACK ...... 31 4.2.1. General ...... 31 4.2.2. Option 5(i) – Earle’s Sidings ...... 31 4.2.3. Option 5(ii) – Earle’s Sidings...... 32 4.2.4. Option 8a(i)- Thornhill ...... 32 4.2.5. Option 8a(ii) – Thornhill ...... 32 4.2.6. Option 10(i) – East of Bamford ...... 33 4.2.7. Option 10(ii) – East of Bamford ...... 33 4.2.8. Option 10(iii) – East of Bamford ...... 34 4.3. CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS ...... 36 4.3.1. Option 5(i): Earle’s Sidings ...... 36 4.3.2. Option 5(ii): Earle’s Sidings...... 37 4.3.3. Option 8a(i): Thornhill ...... 37 4.3.4. Option 8a(ii): Thornhill ...... 38 4.3.5. Option 10(i): East of Bamford ...... 38 4.3.6. Centre line option – Option 10(ii) ...... 39 4.3.7. Up Loop with fast lines crossovers – Option 10(iii) ...... 39 4.3.8. Signal Control – ROC ...... 40 4.4. CIVIL AND STRUCTURES ...... 42 4.4.1. Introduction ...... 42 4.4.2. Option 5(i) – Earle’s Sidings ...... 42 4.4.3. Option 5(ii) – Earle’s Sidings...... 42 4.4.4. Option 8a(i) - Thornhill ...... 42

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 5 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

4.4.5. Option 8a(ii) ...... 43 4.4.6. Option 10(i) – East of Bamford ...... 43 4.4.7. Option 10(ii) – East of Bamford ...... 44 4.4.8. Option 10(iii) – East of Bamford ...... 45 4.5. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING...... 46 4.5.1. Introduction ...... 46 4.5.2. Geology ...... 46 4.5.2.1 Option 5(i) and 5(ii) – Earle’s Sidings ...... 46 4.5.2.2 Option 8a(i) and 8a(ii) - Thornhill ...... 46 4.5.2.3 Option 10(i), 10(ii) & 10(iii) – East of Bamford ...... 46 4.5.3. Earthworks ...... 47 4.5.4. Groundwater ...... 47 4.5.4.1 Options 5(i) and 5(ii) – Earle’s Sidings ...... 47 4.5.4.2 Options 8a(i) and 8a(ii) - Thornhill...... 47 4.5.4.3 Options 10(i), 10(ii) & 10(iii) - East of Bamford ...... 48 4.5.5. Potential Geotechnical Risks ...... 49 4.5.5.1 Excavatability of Rock ...... 49 4.5.5.2 Earthworks Balance ...... 49 4.5.5.3 Existing Stability of Earthworks ...... 49 4.5.5.4 Drainage and Groundwater ...... 49 4.6. ELECTRIFICATION AND PLANT ...... 50 4.6.1. General ...... 50 4.6.2. Signalling Power Supplies ...... 50 4.6.3. Points Heating ...... 50 4.6.4. Platform Power ...... 50 4.6.5. Junction Power ...... 50 4.6.6. Junction Lighting ...... 50 4.6.7. Distribution Network Operator (DNO) Power Supplies...... 50 4.6.8. Telecomms ...... 51 4.6.9. Ancillary Civils ...... 52 4.7. OPERATIONAL PROPERTY (INCL. STATION WORKS) ...... 53 4.7.1. General ...... 53 5. CONSENTS ...... 54

5.1. TRANSPORT & WORKS ACT ...... 54 5.2. PLANNING ACT 2008 ...... 54 5.3. LAND ...... 54 5.4. THE NATIONAL PARK AND CONSERVATION AREA ...... 54 5.5. REQUIRED CONSENTS ...... 54 6. ENVIRONMENT ...... 55

6.1. ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL AND ACTION PLAN ...... 55 6.1.1. Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) ...... 55 6.1.2. Significant Environment Impacts ...... 55 6.1.2.1 Options 5(i) and 5(ii) - Earle’s Sidings ...... 55 6.1.2.2 Option 8a(i) and Option 8a(ii) - Thornhill ...... 56 6.1.2.3 Options 10(i), 10(ii) and 10(iii) – East of Bamford ...... 57 6.1.3. Environment Action Plan ...... 58 6.1.4. Sustainability & Opportunities ...... 58 7. PROGRAMME & CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY ...... 59

7.1. ALL OPTIONS ...... 59 7.2. OPTION 5 – EARLE’S SIDINGS ...... 59 7.3. OPTION 8A – THORNHILL ...... 59 7.4. OPTION 10(I) – EAST OF BAMFORD ...... 60 7.5. OPTION 10(II) – EAST OF BAMFORD ...... 60 7.6. OPTION 10(III) – EAST OF BAMFORD ...... 60 7.7. TRACK ACCESS POINTS ...... 60 8. RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY ...... 62

8.1. JUNCTION LIGHTING ...... 62 8.2. LOCKOUT DEVICES ...... 62 8.3. ACCESS POINTS AND POSITIONS OF SAFETY ...... 62 8.4. SWITCH AND CROSSING (S&C) LAYOUT ARRANGEMENTS ...... 62

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 6 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

8.5. 24 HOUR / SEVEN DAY RAILWAY ...... 62 8.6. MODULAR S&C ...... 62 9. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK ...... 63 10. COST ESTIMATE ...... 64

10.1. COSTS ...... 64 10.1.1. Option 5: Provision of 1089 metre loops on outside of the Up line only ...... 65 10.1.2. Option 8a: Provision of 1089 metre loop on outside of the Up line only ...... 65 10.1.3. Option 10(i): Provision of 1089 metre loop on outside of the Up line only ...... 65 10.1.4. Option 10(ii): Provision of 1089 metre loop between Down and Up lines ...... 65 10.1.5. Option 10(iii): Provision of Up loop (75mph) and fast lines crossovers ...... 65 11. CONSULTATION ...... 66 Appendix A Option Generation and RAG Criteria ...... 67 Appendix B Options Layout Drawing ...... 68 Appendix C Facilities Diagrams...... 69 Appendix D Not Used ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix E Assumptions Register ...... 71 Appendix F Risk & Opportunity Register ...... 72 Appendix G Compliance Matrix ...... 73 Appendix H Published Geological Map Records ...... 79 Appendix I Land Boundary Drawings ...... 82 Appendix J Hope Valley Constructability Report ...... 83 Appendix K Environmental Review ...... 84 Appendix L Consents ...... 88

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 7 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

1. Executive Summary The Northern Hub scheme takes forward the recommendations of the Manchester Hub study (concluded January 2010) and is a programme of interventions that is now being developed and refined for inclusion in Network Rail’s Initial Strategic Business Plan for Control Period Five (CP5). Individual component interventions such as this one are being developed to Governance of Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) stage 2 level to support that submission. This report has been produced in response to the Project Manager’s remit for the ‘Hope Valley New Up Loop’, dated 4 h February 2014 and forms part of the Tranche 3 “South East” section of the Northern Hub GRIP 2 study. This report examines the provision of a passing loop on the Up line between Chinley Junction and Dore Junction. This intervention would allow slower (freight) trains to be passed by faster (passenger) trains. This work is closely related to the interventions planned at Dore. The proposed overtaking facilities are for the regulation of freight trains to and from the Midland Main Line. The interventions at both Dore and the new Up loop will be considered together when identifying the optimum solution. Performance should benefit due to the ability to pass slower trains between Cowburn Tunnel and Totley Tunnel. The Indicative Train Service Specification (ITSS) considered is the Network Rail Configuration State 7ITSS Diagram” Version CS7 ITSS Sub Group 28- Oct-13. This timetable was captured at a point in its development at the start of the GRIP 2 study, as a base line with which to measure the viability of options. The projected future timetable has been used to evaluate the viability of each option and in the criteria for progressing options further. Initially, thirteen options were identified, which were examined in outline. A Sift exercise was undertaken to identify the most advantageous locations. The options generation and RAG rating report included at Appendix A gives full details of the thirteen options and how the sift analysis was undertaken. Three of these options were considered further in terms of track layout, signal positions and provisional earthworks estimates. The three options were then examined in more detail, sub-options generated for bi-directional derivatives and cost estimates produced.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 8 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

The options selected for further investigation are: Option 5(i): Comprising a passing loop in the Up cess between Edale and Hope (adjacent to Hope sidings). Option 5(ii): Comprising an extended passing loop on the Up side, with increased speed turnouts and provision for crossovers to create a Down loop on the Up Fast. This option allows the existing track to remain in position and may provide a bi-directional loop at minimal additional cost. Option 8a(i): Comprising a passing loop in the Up cess between Hope and Bamford. Option 8a(ii) Comprising an extended passing loop on the Up side, with increased speed turnouts and provision for crossovers to create a Down loop on the Up Fast. This option allows the existing track to remain in position and may provide a bi-directional loop at minimal additional cost. Option 10(i): Comprising a passing loop in the Up cess between Bamford and Hathersage. Option 10(ii): Comprising a bi-directional passing loop, central to the Up and Down Lines in the same location as Option 10(i), this option includes track slews and retaining walls to minimise any land purchase. Option 10(iii): Comprising an extended passing loop on the Up side, with increased speed turnouts and provision for crossovers to create a Down loop on the Up Fast. This option allows the existing track to remain in position and may provide a bi-directional loop at minimal additional cost. The outline budget estimates for the favoured options are: Option 5(i): £ 20,525,705 Option 8a(i): £ 17,692,395 Option 10(i): £ 17,371,504 Option 10(ii): £ 49,821,877 Option 10(iii): £ 24,298,828 It is proposed that Options 5(i), 8a(i), 10(i) & 10(iii) be developed into GRIP 3, where a detailed understanding of topography, land ownership and local ecology will need to be developed. All options are considered to interface equally with the single option now developed for Dore Junction. Additionally, the future interface with re- signalling, platform extensions and electrification are to be considered fully as each option progresses into GRIP 3.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 9 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Abbreviations AFC. Anticipated final cost ARD Available reading distance ch. Chain, equal to 22 yards or just over 20 metres. There are 80 chains in a mile. CP4 Control period four, 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2014 CP5 Control period five, 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2019 CRD Combined reading distance CWR Continuous(ly) welded rail DCO Development Consent Order Dn. Down (q.v.) DNO Distribution network operator (for electricity supplies) E&P Electrification and plant EIA Environmental impact assessment ELR Engineers line reference EMGTPA Equivalent million gross tonnes per annum FOC Freight operating company FTN Fixed telephone network G a) Grindleford (signal box) b) Green GRIP Governance to Railway Investment Projects GSM-R Global system for mobile communications – railways IPC Infrastructure Planning Commission Jn. Junction JTI Journey time improvement kV Kilovolts, 1000 volts kVA Kilovolts Amperes, analogous to but not the same as Watts. LOD Lockout device (to inhibit wrong-direction movements on a bi- directional track) MRD Minimum reading distances MRT Minimum reading times mph Miles per hour NESA National electronic sectional appendix NR Network Rail NSIP a) Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects b) National Station Improvement Programme O/B Overbridge OLE Overhead line equipment OROR Outside (the) rules of the route PDNP Peak District National Park PLJI Position light junction indicator PSP Principal supply point PZT Point Zone Telephone R Red RAG Red amber green ROR (the) Rules of the Route ROTP (The Network Rail) Rules of the plan RUS Route Utilisation Strategy S&C Switch and crossing SA Sectional appendix SAC Special area of conservation SAP Strategic Access Planning SB Signal box SP Sprinter (differential) SPA Special protection area

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 10 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

SPT Signal post telephone SRT Sectional running time SSpaM Signal spacing model SSSI Site of special scientific interest SWOT Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats TOC Train operating company (e.g. Trans-Pennine Express) TPE Trans-Pennine Express, a train operating company tph Trains per hour TQ Technical query TWA The Transport and Works Act 1992. U/B Underbridge Y a) Yards b) Yellow

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 11 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Glossary of Terms1 ⅔ / ⅓ Rule A requirement that the ratios of the distance from the preliminary caution signal (double yellow or YY) to the caution signal (single yellow or Y) and the distance from the caution signal (single yellow or Y) to the stop signal (red) should never be greater than 2:1. Absolute A system of signalling that is built around the principle that Block only one train is permitted to enter a “block section” at any signalling time. Trains are offered and accepted between signal boxes and block posts, the acceptance only being given when the correct conditions are met. This communication is by means of block bells using a set of standard bell codes and block instruments. Cf. Track Circuit Block signalling. Car An abbreviation of carriage, a term used when describing the length of passenger trains, i.e. 12-Car. Chain A unit of length equal to 66 feet or 22 yards (20.1168 metres). There are 80 chains in one standard mile Crossover A special piece of track that allows trains to be directed from one track to another. Down In a direction away from London, the local capital, the original Railway Company’s headquarters or towards the highest mileage. Fast On a route with four or more tracks, the more important pair (but not necessarily the fastest pair). Facing Aligned towards the direction from which trains normally approach. The opposite is Trailing. Headway The Technical Headway is the calculated minimum time interval between trains that a signalling system will permit to run entirely under proceed aspects. The Planning Headway in Track Circuit Block areas is the minimum time interval between trains in the same direction for timetable planning purposes. This is calculated by using the technical headway and adding a percentage for performance. The Planning Headway in Absolute Block areas is calculated as the time taken to run between signal boxes plus two minutes for the signaller’s duties. Intermediate A track circuit controlled colour light signal introduced block signal between two Absolute Block signal boxes to reduce the Headway. Junction The amount of time which must be allowed between two margin trains using the same junction but over conflicting routes. Different junction margins may apply to different combinations of routes over the same junction. Junction The last signal which controls trains approaching a signal crossover or turnout. This signal should be less than 800 metres from the junction. Overbraked A situation where the distance between successive signals is too great, such that a driver applying the brakes normally on response to them will come to a stand too early. C.f. Underbraked. Overbridge A bridge that allows passage over the railway.

1 Extracted from ”Ellis’ British Railway Engineering Encyclopaedia”, Iain Ellis

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 12 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Overlap The piece of track beyond a signal that has to be free of trains before a train is allowed to approach the signal. Path A train journey built into a timetable Permissible The maximum speed at which conventional trains may speed safely negotiate a section of track. Plain line Track with no turnouts or crossovers in it. Sixfoot The standard minimum interval between two adjacent tracks on a railway, 1970 mm running edge to running edge. Slow A track of lesser importance than a Fast (qv.) line but which runs alongside a Fast line. The slow line may not be slower than the fast line. Signal The distance provided within a design which allows a driver standback to bring their train to a stand on the approach to a signal and easily observe the aspect. This distance is normally 25 metres. Sprinter A differential permissible speed, indicated by the letters Differential “SP”, which allows low track force passenger trains (such as the 15x family of diesel multiple units) to run at a higher speed then other passenger trains and freight trains. Such differential speeds are written as (say) 40 / 55SP. Tenfoot The wider (3 metre, 10 feet) interval left between pairs of tracks on a four-track route. Track Circuit A signalling system where the line beyond each signal is Block automatically proved clear to the end of the overlap beyond Signalling the next signal using track circuits or axle counters. Trailing Aligned in a direction towards the direction to which trains normally depart. The opposite is Facing (qv.) Turnout A special piece of track that allows trains to be directed to one of two different routes. Underbraked A situation where the distance between successive signals is too short, such that a driver applying the brakes normally on response to them will come to a stand too late. C.f. Overbraked. Underbridge A bridge that allows passage under the railway. Up Moving in a direction towards London, the capital, the original Railway Company’s headquarters or the lowest mileage. xx/11, xx/27 Indicates an hourly service, with timings (in these examples) of 11 and 27 minutes past each hour.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 13 of 96

109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Hathersage Station serves the area adjacent to Hathersage village in Derbyshire National Park. It is located at 160 miles 60 ch. on engineer’s line reference (ELR) MAS. The station is approximately 17.5 kilometres south- west of Sheffield. The station was used by approximately 61,000 passengers in 2012 /132. Bamford Station serves the area adjacent to Bamford village in Derbyshire Peak District. It is located at 162 miles 40 ch. on ELR MAS. The station is approximately 20 kilometres south-west of Sheffield. The station was used by approximately 27,000 passengers in 2012 /133. Hope Station serves the area adjacent to Hope village in Derbyshire Peak District. It is located at 164 miles 24 ch. on ELR MAS. The station is approximately 24 kilometres south-west of Sheffield. The station was used by approximately 51,000 passengers in 2012 /134. The line serving these stations is two-track and controlled by Absolute Block signalling from Grindleford Signal Box (SB). The route contains a number of bends on gradients ranging from 1:100 uphill to 1:100 downhill – The layout is shown in the Options Layout drawing in Appendix B. The line is not currently electrified. Totley Tunnel directly to the east of Grindleford Station is a single bore twin- track 6,230 yard (5.7 kilometre) long tunnel on the former Midland Railway‘s Manchester to Sheffield line. It was completed in 1893, and for many years was the longest mainline railway tunnel in Britain. This pre-feasibility report identifies the options that have been reviewed through the development process undertaken at GRIP 2 to address the problem identified in the next section of this report. During this process Mott MacDonald and Network Rail have worked collaboratively to identify all credible potential options. A requirements review was undertaken at the commencement of the study. Through consultation between Network Rail and Key Stakeholders, additional requirements were developed through the study. Options were reviewed by Operations and Engineering teams to establish their viability and compliance with scope and requirements. A sift process was used to review the options and establish which were to be considered in greater detail at this stage by the Engineering teams. These options were then developed to further assess their feasibility, to enable cost estimates to be generated, and to recommend which should be taken forward for development at the next GRIP stage. This intervention is closely linked to the Dore intervention, which has been developed to GRIP 3 and will integrate with the new Up loop location. It will also be linked to the signal renewal scheme along the Hope Valley line.

2 http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/xls/station_usage_0809.xls 3 http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/xls/station_usage_0809.xls 4 http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/xls/station_usage_0809.xls

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 15 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

3. General

3.1. Description of the Issues At the work package start up meeting between Network Rail and Mott MacDonald it was understood that timetable capacity and day to day regulation issues at the eastern end of the Hope Valley (on to the Midland Main Line) might be resolved with interventions between Chinley Junction and Dore Junction. Options were developed addressing the problem by suggesting alterations in these areas. This initial option generation was informed by the previous GRIP 2 study undertaken for a passing loop at Grindleford which was based on a more onerous timetable; the new timetable permitted a loop as far west as Edale. The purpose of this report is to identify feasible options located between Chinley Junction and Dore West Junction. It should be noted that the findings of the previous report for a loop at Grindleford is no longer being progressed due to third party objections; the new ITSS facilitating a loop location further west. The requirements of the Northern Hub study have been reflected in a Service Specification that is currently being developed by Network Rail. This Service Specification was captured at a point in its development at the start of the GRIP 2 study, as a base line with which to measure the viability of options. This Service Specification is known as “Test Configuration State 7ITSS Diagram, Version CS7” (CCMS No 64211950 & diagram 64211944) ITSS Sub Group 28-Oct-13 (hereinafter the ITSS). The ITSS will be used to evaluate the viability of each option and used as part of the criteria for progressing options further. It should be noted that the ITSS will be further developed as options are selected and refined at a later GRIP stage and their impact on journey times understood and incorporated. The Indicative Scope also forms part of the remit for this work package. This document identifies requirements that may be reflected in the ITSS or may be in addition to it. Both the ITSS and the Indicative Scope requirements have been investigated and are commented upon.

3.2. Key Requirements The key requirements for the study, as stated in the Indicative Scope document and clarified during the study are: § Proposed infrastructure alterations are to accommodate the increased quantum of trains shown in the ITSS; § The level of traffic in the ITSS is: o Each hour – three fast passenger services run via Stockport and Hazel Grove (train two half an hour behind train one and train three only ten minutes behind train two. This creates one - half hour gap and one - twenty minute gap per hour in which to path ; o One stopping local passenger service (Manchester to Sheffield) o Three freight trains in two hours (Chinley to Dore) It should be noted that a light freight will fit in either of the gaps but a heavy freight (2,600 tonnes trailing) will only fit in the half hour gap and consequently will need to be looped when required to run in the twenty minute gap. The local passenger train will only fit in the half hour gap.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 16 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

§ The speed of the turnouts should take into account any signalling approach control and a desire to optimise overall capacity and journey time; § Infrastructure is to support the ITSS; § Standage should be for a 640 metre long freight train, Other requirements are highlighted in the compliance matrix detailed in Appendix G.

3.3. Operational Benefits and Considerations Longer freight trains that run on the Hope Valley Line are currently difficult to plan, and in times of perturbation are very problematic to path. In the up direction (heading east), there is no opportunity for a freight train to be passed between Chinley East Junction and Tapton Junction, (north of Chesterfield and a distance of 26½ miles) or between Chinley East Junction and Queens Road (south of Sheffield and a distance of 22 miles). A freight path has to be planned so as not to delay a following passenger train on the Hope Valley. In order to do this, it is important that it does not stand in the Dore area waiting for a margin to cross the Down Midland Main Line, and that a sufficient margin is available on the Up Midland Main Line to avoid delays to other trains on both roads of the Midland Main Line. The penalty payments for delays caused on the Midland Main Line are significant and must be avoided. The ITSS shows more passenger and freight traffic running in the future. This will make planning a freight service even more difficult as there would be less line capacity to utilise. Perturbed train services in future on either the Hope Valley or the Midland Main Line would increase the likelihood of freight trains standing at Dore West Junction, very quickly delaying following trains and accumulating delay minutes. Provision of a new Up loop, that is long enough to accommodate the longest freight train as specified by the CP4 Peak Forest to Hope Valley Freight Lengthening Scheme will greatly improve the ability of finding freight paths that fit with other services on both the Hope Valley and the Midland Main Line. In times of perturbation, they will also aid service recovery by allowing late running trains to be passed. The report considers the options identified at the option start up meeting with Mott MacDonald and Network Rail. The geographic scope for this work package is limited to the Hope Valley Line between Chinley Junction and Dore West Junction. Chinley Junction had been estimated as the western limit of obtaining adequate advantage to manage the effect of perturbations on Dore Junction, additionally, the trains from Peak Forest will need access to use the loop.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 17 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

3.3.1. General The Manchester Hub Study identifies the need to run more and longer train services on the network for future growth and demand. As part of that aspiration, the planning headways should assume the passenger trains have a maximum length of a two by two-car class 156 for the all-stations passenger trains and two by two-car class 158 and incremental capacity for two by three-car class 185 for the fast and semi-fast services. The freight services considered have a maximum length of 450 metres (to replicate current train lengths), 520 metres (to reflect the Peak Forest to Hope Valley Freight Lengthening Scheme) and 640 metres to reflect the vision for the Strategic Freight Network. (Note, the SFN is based on 750 metre + engine length, however, Hope Valley is limited to 640 metres due to a number of constraints including, but not limited to: gradient, coupler strength and length of the Dore South curve which is recognised in the Programme Specification) At a later GRIP stage a Junction Layout Risk Assessment will be required, and as part of the ITSS development, a performance assessment will need to be carried out using a modelling tool. For this study electrification of the route will only be considered in that the design will not preclude electrification of the route in the future. Track turnouts into and out of the loops will be designed for a speed of 50 mph. This scheme will only consider the signals required to enter and exit the loop with minimal interruption on the main line. This signalling will form part of the wider signal renewal for the line which is currently planned to be installed at the same time as the loop construction. The turn-outs at the end of the loops are designed for a speed of 50 mph to allow trains to accelerate to this speed when departing from the loop. It is recommended that at a further GRIP stage, modelling is used to evaluate optimum turnout speeds of any new infrastructure. The signalling and track will support both the present maximum permissible line speed. Should this scheme be taken forward, careful consideration must be paid to the impact of construction and maintenance on the operational railway. The majority of renewal and maintenance engineering work is currently carried out during possessions at the weekend causing disruption to train services and often involving bus replacement services. The emphasis is to run an un- interrupted train service from Monday to Friday. Network Rail has identified a requirement to meet the demand for freight and passenger services to run at the weekend and is working towards the development of “the seven day railway”. Consequently, engineering interventions developed as part of the Northern Hub scheme will consider this requirement as part of the design and build process to allow less disruptive future maintenance and renewal. A review of the challenges facing construction at the three sites (Options 5, 8a and 10) has been undertaken by Buckingham Group Contracting. Their ‘Hope Valley Constructability Report’ is included in Appendix J.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 18 of 96

109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

§ An all-stations passenger service will operate two hourly from Manchester to Sheffield via Marple which works back with a two hourly Sheffield to Manchester; § Services are mirrored in the opposite direction. For freight services the requirement is for one freight path in one hour and two freight services in alternate hours. This second freight will run in the hour that the through stopping passenger service between Manchester and Sheffield and vice-versa, does not run. The new loop will be designed to accommodate both passenger and freight services and allow a following fast train to pass on a three minute planning headway.

3.3.4. Interface with Other Schemes Many of the Northern Hub work packages interface with this work package, as alterations caused by other work packages to train timings will affect trains involved in this section. This is because faster journey times elsewhere will potentially affect those trains’ presentation times on and off this route. Other work packages that will interface with this work package are: § Core Manchester Performance; § Castlefield Corridor; § Dore Doubling; § Hope Valley JTI (Edgeley Jcn to New Mills South Junction); § Hope Valley Signal renewal; § Ordsall Chord; and, § Bamford Platform extensions. Other schemes that will impact on this work package: § The Freight Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) and the Peak Forest to Hope Valley Freight Lengthening Scheme may interface on this work package.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 20 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

3.3.5. Information Used in Preparation of This Report Discipline Reference Source Description General Indicative Scope Network Rail 109172/3/B v 1.0 for Intervention General Programme Network Rail NR/EE/SPE/00112 Specification Issue A01 General MAS-02 Network Rail 5 mile plans Portal Signalling GED/02/01 eB Grindleford Signalling Plan v.AL1 Operations NW9001 Seq 002 NESA Sectional Appendix Operations 2010 Version 4.3 Network Rail ROTP Operations Configuration Network Rail Indicative Train Service State 7ITSS Specification Diagram” Version CS7 ITSS Sub Group 28-Oct-13 Operations Freight Train Network Rail Freight train loads Load Book

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 21 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

3.4. Possible Solutions The following pages contain a brief description of the 13 practicable options identified by this study. Full details of the options, together with the initial sift exercise based on the Red-Amber-Green rating are contained in the report in Appendix A. It should be noted that initially 12 sites were identified; this was increased to 13 sites when Option 8a was added. Following the initial sift to identify the three optimum sites a number of sub-options were considered to facilitate provision for a bi-directional loop. Two di-directional configurations were considered at the location of Option 10 and one bi-directional configuration was considered at each of the sites for Option 5 and Option 8a. An Options Layout drawing is included in Appendix B, which shows the location of all thirteen options. For ease of reference, a simplified version of the track diagram in included on the following pages for the three shortlisted locations.

New work Recoveries

Alternative Layout: Alternative Layout: New work Recoveries

New work forming part of Track realigned (new alignment not other packages shown for clarity) Option Key

Further technical discussions of the options to be taken forward are given in Section 4; Facilities Diagrams are shown in Appendix C and the Land Boundary drawings in Appendix I.

3.4.1. Option 1 (169 miles to 170 miles) This option is located between the western end of Edale Station and the east end of Cowburn Viaduct. The option would make use of disused track bed adjacent to Edale Station, which would require the demolition of the Edale signal box; this would occur as part of the signal replacement scheme. The option is located within a section of the Peak District National Park considered to be sensitive. The western section of the proposed loop would be in an area of deep cutting which require extensive excavations and widening of three overbridges. The site has limited road access within its length and as a consequence of the extensive earthworks required it is likely that significant environmental impact will result during construction. The position of this option within a sensitive section of the National Park is not considered ideal and should be avoided if possible. Signal sighting is not an issue with this option.

3.4.2. Option 2 (167 ½ to 168 ¾) The straight at 167 ¾ is of adequate length for a turn out, with minimal tolerance on the available length. At the 168 ¾ end, the straight is several hundred metres long and could facilitate remodelling of track configuration if land was made available. This section of track is generally sited on embankment of approximately 3 metres height, with local increases adjacent to a single overbridge. This

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 22 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

option includes one of the highest number of underbridges and culverts (four and ten respectively) which would need to be widened. There is generally good access to the track from local lanes. Sighting of the entrance signal is good, but the exit signal and the parallel signal on the Up line are likely to be obscured by the overbridge adjacent to the Sheffield end of the loop.

3.4.3. Option 3 (166 ¾ to 167 ¾) The straight at 167 ¾ is of adequate length for a turn out, with minimal tolerance on the available length. At the 166 ¾ end, the straight is several hundred metres long and could facilitate remodelling of track configuration if land was made available. This section of track has varied topography, ranging from shallow cutting to 5 metre high embankment. It is likely that cut and fill volumes will be similar, with a net import of material. The section includes two overbridges, no underbridges and six culverts. Access to the site is limited at discreet points, generally from narrow country lanes. The location of this loop includes an area of known low flood risk (at 167 miles 0237y - 0432y) To provide adequate sighting, the entrance signal will require placing some 400 metres from the turnout into the loop. Some vegetation clearance would also be required. The exit signals will have poor sighting due to curvature and an overbridge.

3.4.4. Option 4 (165 ¾ to 166 ¾) Both straights at each end are several hundred metres long and could accommodate re-modelling of the track layout if adequate land is made available. The section of track is generally at grade or on small embankments; this would require a minimal volume of imported fill material to make up a third track. The loop includes one overbridge, two underbridges and six culverts. Significant lengths of this loop are situated immediately adjacent to a main road, making access for construction very simple, with low environmental impact. The entrance signal is likely to be placed a significant distance from the turnout. There are no issues with the exit.

3.4.5. Option 5(i) (165 to 166, including Earle’s Sidings) There are significant lengths of straight track at both ends of this option. Additionally the eastern end of this option is also the eastern end of Earle’s Sidings. As a result of the available length and interaction with the sidings, there are a number of sub-options for the start and finish point. For the purpose of this exercise, the option is considered as a single site. The location of the loop has only been considered as being located in the Up cess, with the existing sidings being retained in their current location; at the current time there is no authority in place to modify the sidings. However, discussions are ongoing between Network Rail, the freight operator, the Quarry owners and the Peak District National Park to review the use of the sidings and consider future changes to layout, consequently an opportunity may exist to modify the sidings and release land to incorporate an alternative loop configuration at a future date.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 23 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Up Loop Up To Hope To Edale Down

Br 39 Br 38 Option 5(i)

The land through this option is generally owned by Network Rail, is at grade and over the majority of its length the loop would make use of existing track bed. Land purchase would be required to the western end of the options, beyond the area currently used for Earle’s sidings. The current sidings are constrained by Overbridge 39 (west end) and Underbridge 38 (east end). It is likely that only one of these would need to be widened (Br 39) to allow a loop to be installed, however, in combination with potential remodelling the siding and quarry access, it may prove necessary to widen overbridge 37 also. Access for construction to this site is reasonable, from a number of country lanes. However, if the sidings are reconfigured the width of available railway land within the existing sidings will significantly reduce any environmental impact during construction. This presents an opportunity and will be dependent upon third party negotiations to remodel the sidings and quarry access. There are no issues with signal sighting associated with this option.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 24 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

3.4.6. Option 5(ii) (165 to 166, including Earle’s Sidings) This option is very similar to Option 5(i) with the toes of the turnout at the east end in the same location. This option adds a Down Loop on the Up Fast by installing two crossovers within the length of the Up Loop. The overall length of the Up loop is then increased to allow longer turnouts. The length of the Down loop is governed by the length of the stopping passenger service; however, the length available is much longer. In order to add the Down line loop, the speed of the Up line turnouts is increased from 50 mph to 75 mph. this would allow an Up train to maintain a speed of 75 mph in the Up loop whilst passing a stationary Down train held on the Up Fast. It should be noted that such a move would only be made in times of exceptional perturbation with agreement of the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) involved. The length of the turnouts at 75 mph, based on standard NR60 units, increases to 206 metres from 117 metres at 50 mph, making the toe to toe length of the Up loop 1267 metres (cf.1089 metres).

At this site, the consequences of the increase in length will be additional associated earthworks and the reconstruction of Overbridge 41 which will require widening to accommodate the increase in track width.

Up Loop Up To Hope To Edale Down

Br 41 Br 39 Br 38 Option 5(ii)

3.4.7. Option 6 (164 ½ to 165 ¼) The straight at 164 ¼ has little tolerance regarding the position of the turnout. At the western end, the loop would interface with the eastern end of Earle’s sidings, possibly creating a conflict with moves into the siding or the Quarry. The topography is general embankment of approximately 5 metres height. This option would require significant volumes of imported fill to widen the embankment. The option includes four underbridges and six culverts which would require widening; there are no overbridges on this section. Road access for construction is reasonable to discreet points along the length of the loop. The entrance signal has no sighting issues. The exit signal will be approached around a curve with sighting obscured by mature trees that are not on Network Rail land.

3.4.8. Option 7 (163 ¼ to 164 ½) The straights at both ends of this option provide a minimal tolerance for the installation of turn outs for the loop. The topography is generally at grade, with small embankments of up to approximately 1 metre. The option includes two overbridges, one underbridge and seven culverts.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 25 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

The option includes installing a loop to the north side of Hope Station. Road access for construction is reasonable to discreet points along the length of the loop. Sighting of the entrance signal will be acceptable but it will be placed close to the turnout with the overlap extended through the points. Sighting of the exit signal is achievable with significant vegetation clearance on the Down side of the line.

3.4.9. Option 8 (162 ½ to 163 ½) The straight at the west end has minimal tolerance, however the east end ties into a long straight, but the location will be limited by the position of Bamford Station. The topography on the section is generally at grade with small embankments. There is one overbridge, two underbridges and seven culverts on the section. One of the underbridges is the steel arch truss Bridge 28 over the River Derwent. Widening of this structure would have significant cost implications. The section of the loop around the River Derwent is a high flood risk area and should be avoided. Road access for construction is reasonable to discreet points along the length of the loop. There are no issues with signal sighting associated with this option.

3.4.10. Option 8a(i) (162 ¾ to 164 ¼) This option has been included to make use of what is thought to be disused track bed. The start and finish of the loop will be placed on the curved track between Options 7 and 8. This is not ideal due to the added complexities associated with track requirements (S&C units on curves are more difficult to install and maintain) and signalling (signal sighting is more likely to be an issue on a curve rather than a straight).

Up Loop Up To Bamford Down To Hope

Br 31 Br 30 Br 29 Option 8a(i)

If development of this option demonstrated it could be delivered on Network Rail owned land, it was considered to be a significant advantage to the project, eliminating the need for a Transport Works Act (TWA) Order. The track is generally at grade and subject to confirming the start and finish points could include three bridges and four culverts. The option would avoid the high flood risk and bridge associated with the River Derwent. Road access for construction is reasonable to discreet points along the length of the loop. Further consideration will need to be given to the start and finish points of the loop to ensure no issues with signal sighting. Option 8a is feasible in signal sighting terms, provided that it is placed as far east as the topography will allow. This places the exit signal on a lengthy straight and the entry signal on

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 26 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

a curve but sighting is achievable with some robust and extensive vegetation clearance.

3.4.11. Option 8a(ii) (162 ¾ to 164 ¼) This option is very similar to Option 8a(i) with the toes of the turnout at the east end in the same location. This option adds a Down loop on the Up Fast by installing two crossovers within the length of the Up loop. The overall length of the Up loop is then increased to allow longer turnouts. The length of Down loop is governed by the length of the stopping passenger service, however, the length available is much longer. In order to add the Down line loop, the speed of the Up line turnouts is increased from 50 mph to 75 mph. This would allow an Up train to maintain a speed of 75 mph in the Up loop whilst passing a stationary Down train held on the Up fast. It should be noted that such a move would only be made in times of exceptional perturbation with agreement of the TOCs involved. The length of the turnouts at 75 mph, based on standard NR60 units, increases to 206 metres from 117 metres at 50 mph, making the toe to toe length of the Up loop 1267 metres (cf.1089 metres).

Up Loop Up To Bamford Down To Hope

Br 31 Br 30 Br 29 Option 8a(ii)

At this site, the consequences of the increase in length will be additional associated earthworks.

3.4.12. Option 9 (162 to 162 ¾) This option would be positioned on a single straight length of track. The track at this point is generally at grade, with no significant earthworks required to construct embankments/cuttings. This option includes one overbridge, one underbridge and three culverts. This option includes passing through Bamford Station, making use of disused track bed over short lengths. Any widening of the track would need to avoid residential and industrial properties through Bamford; this would mean that the widening would need to switch from the north side to the south side, resulting in track realignment over the length. There is also a golf course on the eastern end to the north of the track which should be avoided as any land purchase in that area could be a high risk to the project. Road access for construction is very good. There are no issues with signal sighting associated with this option.

3.4.13. Option 10 (161 to 162 ½) This option would be positioned on a single straight length of track. Due to the length available, there are a number of sub-options available regarding the start and finish position of the loop. The advantage of this option, over

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 27 of 96

109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

3.4.19. Shortlisted Options Following a sift exercise it was concluded that only Options 5, 8a and 10 would be taken forward for further consideration, costing and possible further development at GRIP 3. Options have been sifted in accordance with the sift criteria detailed in Appendix A. The sift criteria have been agreed with Network Rail and key railway industry stakeholders. The matrix produced in the sift meeting is also included within the Appendix A.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 30 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

4. Engineering Disciplines

4.1. Introduction Initial engineering considerations were taken into account in the Option Generation and RAG scoring, this is detailed for all options in the report in Appendix A.

For the three shortlisted options, further detailed reviews of the engineering considerations have been undertaken and the findings recorded below. We have included commentary on the alternative Options 5(ii), 8a(ii), 10(ii) and 10(iii) which allows a provisional assessment of the merits of providing a central bi-directional loop.

4.2. Track

4.2.1. General At the current stage of development, the track design is based on a simplified loop layout, based on a line speed of 50 mph. The length of a standard turnout is assumed as 117 metres for all options. For the purpose of this study, the spacing of tracks has been taken as standard 6’ or 10’. It should be noted that the positions of the existing track shown in the layout drawings in Appendix I is based on existing OS mapping which may contain inaccuracies. The position of the loop track is therefore indicative, enabling comparisons of the options, rather than providing absolute layout. The exact positioning of S&C units is therefore simplified on the land boundary drawings and will be subject to further development at GRIP 3. For provision of a Down Loop on the Up fast, it is assumed that the line speed through the Up Loop would be maintained at 75mph. The length of assumed NR60 turnout is 206 metres, with a standard 10’ separation over the length of the Up loop; the Up and Down lines would remain in their existing positions with a 50 mph crossover at each end of the Down Loop.

4.2.2. Option 5(i) – Earle’s Sidings The loop is located in the Up cess, thereby avoiding any changes to the existing Earle’s Sidings and quarry access. The crossover at the eastern end of Earle’s Sidings is retained and the clearance point remains unaffected. Both ends of the loop have been positioned on straight sections of track, this enables modular S&C units to be used. To allow for 50 mph entry and exit speeds, a distance of 117 metres has been assumed as the toe to toe measurement of the points. This would provide a 6’ clearance from the Up line to the loop. The condition of the existing track, sleepers, track bed and drainage has not been investigated and for the purpose of this study is assumed to be adequate for re-use with no remedial work. The new track formation will be created by widening the existing cutting, it is anticipated that a new cess drain would be provided, with outfalls connected to the existing track drainage. Consent may be necessary from the Environment Agency if the catchment area of the track drainage is increased, this should be established during GRIP 3 or 4 and the need for any attenuation considered as the option is developed.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 31 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

4.2.3. Option 5(ii) – Earle’s Sidings Following the railway stakeholder meeting on 14 May 2014, it was agreed to consider the layout. This was further discussed with the Project Sponsor on 21 May 2014 in order to agree the detail of the configuration. It was agreed that the turnout speed on the Up loop would be increased to 75 mph, enabling an up-fast train to divert on to the loop if a down slow train was held in the bi-directional loop, on the Up fast. It was considered cost prohibitive, with minimal benefit, to provide a turnout speed of 90 mph. Consequently, an Up-fast train would need to reduce speed from 90 mph to 75 mph for the length of the loop, thereby adding approximately 1 minute to its journey time. The speed of the central crossovers, to create the Down loop, was agreed as 50 mph. The base assumption with this option is that the existing fast lines remain in their existing position (subject to minor slews) and do not require any replacement. Due to the increased overall length of the loop, it is necessary to widen Overbridge 41 and provide future OLE clearance. NR60 switches are proposed throughout as they are necessary for the 75 mph turnout on the Up loop. Using the same standard units for the slower 50 mph crossovers will reduce the spares required for maintenance.

4.2.4. Option 8a(i)- Thornhill The loop is located in the Up cess, on the outside radius of the existing curved track. Both ends of this option are placed on existing curved track which means that modular S&C units could not be used. Bespoke S&C units would need to be designed and manufactured at each end, which also introduces a maintenance liability as replacement components would not be stock items. To allow for 50 mph entry and exit speeds, a distance of 117 metres has been assumed as the toe to toe measurement of the points. This would provide a 6’ clearance from the Up line to the loop. The condition of the existing track, sleepers, track bed and drainage has not been investigated and for the purpose of this study is assumed to be adequate for re-use with no remedial work. The new track formation will predominately be created by widening the existing embankment. This will require benching into the existing embankment and is likely to undermine the Up line track influence zone as well as requiring the removal of any cess, or toe of embankment, drainage which may exist. It is anticipated that a new cess, or toe of embankment, drain would be provided, with outfalls connected to the existing track drainage. Consent may be necessary from the Environment Agency if the catchment area of the track drainage is increased, this should be established during GRIP 3 or 4 and the need for any attenuation considered as the option is developed.

4.2.5. Option 8a(ii) – Thornhill Following the railway stakeholder meeting on 14 May 2014, it was agreed to consider the layout. This was further discussed with the Project Sponsor on 21 May 2014 in order to agree the detail of the configuration.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 32 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

It was agreed that the turnout speed on the Up loop would be increased to 75 mph, enabling an up-fast train to divert on to the loop if a down slow train was held in the bi-directional loop, on the Up fast. It was considered cost prohibitive, with minimal benefit, to provide a turnout speed of 90 mph. Consequently, an Up-fast train would need to reduce speed from 90 mph to 75 mph for the length of the loop, thereby adding approximately 1 minute to its journey time. The speed of the central crossovers, to create the Down loop, was agreed as 50 mph. The base assumption with this option is that the existing fast lines remain in their existing position (subject to minor slews) and do not require any replacement. NR60 switches are proposed throughout as they are necessary for the 75 mph turnout on the Up loop. Using the same standard units for the slower 50 mph crossovers will reduce the spares required for maintenance.

4.2.6. Option 10(i) – East of Bamford The loop is provided in the Up cess, within a section of existing straight track over the length of the loop and a significant distance past each end. Both ends of the loop have been positioned on straight sections of track, this enables modular S&C units to be used. To allow for 50 mph entry and exit speeds, a distance of 117 metres has been assumed as the toe to toe measurement of the points. This would provide a 6’ clearance from the Up line to the loop. The condition of the existing track, sleepers, track bed and drainage has not been investigated and for the purpose of this study is assumed to be adequate for re-use with no remedial work. The new track formation will be created by a combination of widening the existing cuttings and embankments. It is anticipated that a new cess drain would be provided, with outfalls connected to the existing track drainage. Consent may be necessary from the Environment Agency if the catchment area of the track drainage is increased, this should be established during GRIP 3 or 4 and the need for any attenuation considered as the option is developed. For the purpose of this study, the existing track are assumed to be as shown on the OS maps, this then shows the new loop very close to the northern land boundary, with significant land available to the south (down side). Should this option be developed further in GRIP 3, based on accurate topographical survey information, consideration should be given to local track slews of the main line, enabling the land purchase to be minimised. Consideration will also need to be given to the track alignment on the approach to the underbridge widening as advantages to construction may be gained by widening the bridges on the down side, rather than the up side.

4.2.7. Option 10(ii) – East of Bamford At the request of the Sponsor, an alternative track layout has been developed on the site of Option 10. This option takes account of the future proofing to provide a passing loop on the Down side, in addition to the remit to provide a loop on the Up side only.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 33 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

This loop has been positioned central to the Up and Down lines, by widening the existing track. For the purpose of this report, given the inherent inaccuracies in the OS mapping, the track widening has simply been orientated about the existing centre line of the tracks. However, it is apparent that there are advantages in slewing the track to the south side to make best use of the available Network Rail land, this would need to be developed further at future GRIP stages. The track layout is shown on the Land Boundary drawing in Appendix I and shows the connection to the Up and Down lines. There is the possibility that only the connection to the Up line is installed initially, but for the purpose of this report, we have costed the connections to both the Up and Down lines. The track layout assumes that a 180 metre signal overlap is provided within the loop and that the position of the main lines remains parallel to the central loop for a distance of 117 metres past the loop. This is consistent with the modular S&C units assumed at this stage, however, it is possible that this could be rationalised and the width of track bed reduced as the design is progressed. A nominal distance of 300 metres has been allowed to make the transition from the existing track, to the widening position. It is possible that this distance may be reduced during more detailed development of the track layout. The constraints to be considered are: providing sufficient clearance at the west end to allow future platform extensions at Bamford station and at the eastern end, limiting the impact on Jaggers Lane Bridge (Overbridge 22). For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that Jaggers Lane Bridge will need to be reconstructed to allow adequate gauge clearance for the increased spacing between the two tracks. Should this option be developed further, consideration should be given to minimising the spacing of the tracks and the distance between the fast lines and the loop. This would have the effect of reducing the length of the transition sections on each end, which may eliminate the need to replace the overbridge Additionally, this option has been developed to show the implications of the permanent works being entirely within the existing Network Rail land boundary. In the absence of accurate topographical information a number of retaining walls are shown on the drawing in Appendix I, however, it is likely that local track slews to centralise the track to the land availability would reduce the need for these walls. As the walls are only shown for indicative costing purposes at this stage, the implications on track design have not been considered.

4.2.8. Option 10(iii) – East of Bamford Following the railway stakeholder meeting on 14 May 2014, it was agreed to consider the layout. This was further discussed with the Project Sponsor on 21 May 2014 in order to agree the detail of the configuration. It was agreed that the turnout speed on the Up loop would be increased to 75 mph, enabling an up-fast train to divert on to the loop if a down slow train was held in the bi-directional loop, on the Up fast. It was considered cost prohibitive, with minimal benefit, to provide a turnout speed of 90 mph. Consequently, an Up-fast train would need to reduce speed from 90 mph to 75 mph for the length of the loop, thereby adding approximately 1 minute to its journey time.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 34 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

The speed of the central crossovers, to create the Down loop, was agreed as 50 mph on the basis that any stopping passenger train entering the loop would be slowing to stop at the signal and once leaving the loop, the train would be stopping at Bamford Station and not accelerate greater than 50 mph. The base assumption with this option is that the existing fast lines remain in their existing position (subject to minor slews) and do not require any replacement. Due to the increased overall length of the loop, it is necessary to provide future OLE clearance at Overbridge 22 (Jaggers Lane); this is provided by ensuring the toes of the new turnout are not closer than 40 metres to the bridge. Future platform extensions at Bamford Station are allowed for on the basis of allowing 40 metres extension to the constructed platform length and an additional 50 metres to allow for signalling. This then sets the limit for the west end of the toes to the Up loop. NR60 switches are proposed throughout as they are necessary for the 75 mph turnout on the Up loop. Using the same standard units for the slower 50 mph crossovers will reduce the spares required for maintenance.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 35 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

4.3. Control and Communications At this stage of development, the signalling implications have been limited to each option’s impact on signal sighting, braking distances and junction signalling arrangements. In each case, there is insufficient braking distance available between the loop entry signal and the parallel signals at the loop exit to implement a standard three-aspect sequence. The possible exception to this is Option 10, where the optimum position of the entry signal is at 101% braking distance from the exit signals. Since NR/L2/SIG/11201 Module D220 recommends a minimum of 10% excess braking for a new design, and this is not easily achievable, this has been discounted at this stage. Therefore the signalling assessment has assumed that the caution signal for the entry signal will be an isolated four-aspect unit, with a flashing yellow aspect provided for junction signalling as the loop entry speed will be 50 mph. Provision of an isolated four-aspect signal is the preferred method of dealing with underbraking (NR/L2/SIG/30009/D220 refers). The alternative is to apply approach release to the loop entry signal when the signal ahead is at danger. The final signalling arrangement will need to take account of the overall resignalling scheme which will include consultation with the TOCs and FOCs and will be subject to further development at future GRIP stages. Minimum reading times (MRTs) and minimum reading distances (MRDs) have been calculated for each signal based on the requirements of Technical Instruction 168 and an assessment of the Available Reading Distance (ARD) has been undertaken using HD Omincom. This means that sighting must be further reviewed when track design is complete due to possible slewing of the track to avoid land purchase. Braking calculations have been undertaken using the Signal Spacing Model (SSpaM). All signal positions are referenced to the Northern Hub project chainage. The proposed signal layouts for each option are shown on the Facilities Diagrams in Appendix C.

4.3.1. Option 5(i): Earle’s Sidings This assessment assumes the loop entry to be at chainage 266900 and the exit at 265800. The topography is 1:100 falling throughout. The sketch of this arrangement is in Appendix C. Exit/exit protecting signal. MRT calculated as 8.7 secs (+0.5 secs for uneven spacing, 0.2 secs for parallel signal) giving MRD of 350 metres @ 90 mph. Only achievable with cutting re-grading, this will be required to construct the loop in any case. Main line signal must be 5.1 metres high so that it is not obscured by a train in the loop. Better sighting can be achieved if the end of the loop is moved east, but this means widening Underbridge 38. Without moving the loop east, the overlap of both signals will run through the turnout, placing an operational restriction on the layout whereby a passenger train following a looped freight cannot be signalled past the entry signal until the freight train is proved to a stand on the loop and the overlap has timed out. The alternative to the operational restriction would be to move the exit of the loop east, although this will impact on the existing crossover east of Underbridge 38 as well as the bridge itself. Another alternative would be to accept a shorter (520 metre) loop.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 36 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Entry signal Must be placed within c. 200 metres of Overbridge 41 to achieve MRD of 304 metres (8 secs @ 85 mph). Optimum position appears to be chainage 267017, giving an ARD of 344 metres. There is very little scope for relocating this signal. Distant signal Required braking to entry signal (including 20% allowance) places this signal at approximately 269012. MRT calculated as 8.5 secs (+0.5 secs for FY aspect) giving MRD of 323 metres. ARD at the specified chainage is 375 metres. This signal is first caution for the exit protecting signal and is 107% overbraked. Excess braking to the entry signal is 37%. Y-R is 35.85% of the total distance which is compliant.

4.3.2. Option 5(ii): Earle’s Sidings The provision of crossovers to allow the Up line to be used as a bi-directional loop requires relocation of the Up loop entry to chainage 267108. This forces relocation of the Up entry signal; the topography dictates that there is no position within 800 metres of the turnout that allows compliant sighting of this signal without the use of a splitting banner. In order to use the optimum position of the Up distant signal (above), it is recommended that the Up entry signal be placed at 267161 with a splitting banner at 267391. This allows for a full 5 seconds sighting on the signal and the banner, with the signal being visible from the banner. The combined reading distance (CRD) is 490 metres against a MRD of 304 metres. Braking from the Up distant is reduced to 129% at Appendix A. Down Exit/exit protecting signal. MRT calculated as 8.2 secs (+0.2 secs for parallel signal) giving MRD of 329 metres @ 90 mph. Achievable by placing signal at chainage 266681 which keeps the overlap clear of the points. Down Entry signal The optimum position for the entry signal is at chainage 265400. This gives an ARD of 360 metres against a MRD of 322 metres. Braking from this signal to the exit signal is 124% at Appendix A, negating the need for an isolated double yellow at the distant. Down Distant signal MRT calculated as 8.5 secs (+0.5 secs for FY) giving MRD of 342 metres @ 90mph. ARD of 355 metres is possible at chainage 263990. Signal spacing gives 129% braking to the entry signal.

4.3.3. Option 8a(i): Thornhill Loop limits are assumed to be chainage 263400 (entry) to 262300. The topography is 1:100 falling easing to 1:330 falling approximately half way along the loop. Exit/exit protecting signal. MRT calculated as 8.2 secs (+0.2 secs for parallel signal) giving MRD of 329 metres @ 90 mph. Achievable only by placing signal at chainage 262424 which places the overlap through the points with the same operational restriction as Option 5. Entry signal

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 37 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

The first place that gives compliant sighting of the entry signal is on the end of the platform at Hope station. However, this places the signal in excess of 800 metres of the loop entry which is not permitted. It also places the distant signal in the vicinity of Earle’s sidings, necessitating significant embankment works to achieve sighting. Therefore, the optimum position for the entry signal is at chainage 263931 with a splitting banner 200 metres on the approach. This gives a CRD of 400 metres against a MRD of 322 metres with 5 second sighting. Vegetation clearance and management will be required to attain and maintain this distance. Distant signal MRT calculated as 8.5 secs (+0.5 secs for FY) giving MRD of 342 metres @ 90mph. ARD of 400 metres is possible at chainage 265789 following the recovery of Earle’s Sidings SB. Signal spacing gives 114% overbraking from the distant to the exit signal, with 15% overbraking distant to entry signal. The spacing is even at 54%/46%.

4.3.4. Option 8a(ii): Thornhill The provision of crossovers to allow the Up line to be used as a bi-directional loop requires relocation of the Up loop entry to chainage 263609. This change, however, does not impact on the signal positions above and there are no changes envisaged to Up direction signals. Down Exit/exit protecting signal. MRT calculated as 8.2 secs (+0.2 secs for parallel signal) giving MRD of 329 metres @ 90mph. An ARD of 400 metres is achievable by placing signal at chainage 263182 which keeps the overlap clear of the points. Down Entry signal The optimum position for the entry signal is at chainage 262116. This gives an ARD of 340 metres against a MRD of 322 metres. Braking from this signal to the exit signal is 98% at Appendix A, necessitating an isolated double yellow at the distant. Down Distant signal MRT calculated as 8.5 secs (+0.5 secs for FY) giving MRD of 342 metres @ 90mph. ARD of 800 metres is possible at chainage 260500. Signal spacing gives 122% braking to the entry signal and 221% to the exit signal. The spacing is compliant at 60%/40%.

4.3.5. Option 10(i): East of Bamford Loop limits are assumed to be 261200 (entry) to 260100. The topography is average 1:200 falling to Bamford station, then 1:120 rising. The signalling sketch is in Appendix C. Exit/exit protecting signal. MRT calculated as 8.2 secs (+0.2 secs for parallel signal) giving MRD of 329 metres @ 90 mph. Placing this signal at chainage 260390 gives an ARD of 800 metres. It should be noted that this is the only option that places the exit signal overlap clear of the exit points, thus removing the operational restriction mentioned above. Entry signal

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 38 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Placed at east end of Bamford station at chainage 261481 gives an ARD of 670 metres against MRD of 322 metres. This is an optimum position: moving the signal closer to the turnout reduces sighting and makes the spacing less even. An alternative position of the signal, on the approach to Overbridge 27 was considered, however, sighting at this location was marginal. Previous experience of consultation with the TOCs and FOCs suggests that they tend to avoid signals placed just before stations; additionally the sighting of the distant signal was less than ideal. Distant signal Placing the distant signal in the same location as existing ES4R signal gives 122% braking to the entry signal but marginal sighting. Placing this signal approx. 173 metres beyond ES4R at chainage 262949 reduced overbraking to 111% but greatly improved sighting to an ARD of 530 metres. Braking to exit signal is 213% but reasonably even at 58%/42%.

4.3.6. Centre line option – Option 10(ii) Up direction signals as Option 10(i) above. Assessment below refers to Down direction signals. Exit/exit protecting signal. MRT calculated as 8.2 secs (+0.2 secs for parallel signal) giving MRD of 329 metres @ 90 mph. Placing this signal at chainage 260980 gives an ARD of 800 metres.

Entry signal Line curvature limits the positioning of this signal. Placing it at chainage 259490 achieves the MRD of 322m, with 400m possible with vegetation clearance. This comprises mature trees that may not be on NR land. Braking to the exit signal is 17% overbraked in this position: less than ideal but complaint nonetheless and avoids the requirement for an isolated double yellow at the distant. Distant signal The distant signal falls in an area where the line is significantly curved. The optimum position appears to be at chainage 257902. This position gives 23% excess braking to the entry signal, but sighting is only achievable with the removal of several mature trees which appear to be on NR land. The MRD for this signal, like the other distant signals, is 342 metres, with 500 metres ARD following removal of the trees.

4.3.7. Up Loop with fast lines crossovers – Option 10(iii) Up direction signals as Option 10(i) above. Assessment below refers to Down direction signals. Exit/exit protecting signal. MRT calculated as 8.2 secs (+0.2 secs for parallel signal) giving MRD of 329 metres @ 90 mph. Placing this signal at chainage 261002 gives an ARD of 800 metres. Entry signal As Option 10(ii) above. Distant signal As Option 10(ii) above.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 39 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

4.3.8. Signal Control – ROC On Wednesday 28 May 2014, a meeting was held with operations representatives from LNE and LNW routes. The purpose of the discussion was to determine the optimum operational control of the loop options, taking into account the proposed resignalling of the Hope Valley Line and the installation of the ROCs at Manchester and York. The following constraints on signal control of the loop were agreed: a. The entry and exit signals to the loop should be controlled by the same ROC. b. The loop signals should be controlled by the same ROC operating the Dore triangle junctions to provide the maximum operational flexibility in times of perturbation (a key requirement of the project is to maximise flexibility in times of perturbation). c. Dore triangle junctions will be controlled by the York ROC. As a consequence of the agreed constraints, it is clear that it is highly desirable that the control of the new loop is provided by the York ROC. The current boundary between the York and Manchester ROCs lies between Dore and Grindleford, thus it is important to assess the associated changes and risks which result from increasing the extent of the York ROC and the impact on the controlling work station. It should be noted that the ROC buildings at both York and Manchester are well advanced and that work stations will be installed over a number of years. The buildings have been designed on the basis of assumed work station numbers; with each work station being subjected to an ergonomic assessment to provide a degree of certainty to the final ROC layout. It is considered that extending the York ROC workstation to include an additional length of the Hope Valley Line, with the signals associated with the new Up loop would be a low risk in terms on the consequences at the ROC, provided no further signals need to be added. For Option 10 it was agreed that the operation of the loop signals and the signals at Earle’s Sidings did not need to be under the control of the same ROC. Hence, Manchester ROC could control Earle’s Sidings, whilst the Up loop could be controlled at York. For both Options 8a & 5 the proximity of the proposed loop to Earle’s Sidings means that whichever ROC controls the sidings also needs to control the loop. This introduces another risk, as the planned workstation at York may not be capable of dealing the additional workload associated with Earle’s Sidings. Currently it is proposed that Earle’s Sidings are controlled by the Manchester ROC, with the work station covering the majority of the Hope Valley Line, Peak-Buxton Freight Lines and LNW route from Buxton to Hazel Grove. This workstation would have full knowledge of the train movements on the Hope Valley Line and be best placed to release trains from Earle’s Sidings such that timetabled passenger services are not disrupted. The consequences of adding Earle’s Sidings to the workstation at York ROC would require a full ergonomic assessment of the extended work station. Given the high volume of movements at Sheffield Station and Dore triangle, it is reasonable to assume, the additional workload of Earle’s Sidings could result in modifications to the extent of the workstation, or even the need for an additional workstation within the York ROC. The conclusion of the discussion was:

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 40 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Option 5 – this location gives the minimum flexibility to control freight train release from the loop with certainty of routes onto the Midland Main Line in times of perturbation. There is a high risk that the loop and Earle’s Sidings could not easily be controlled from York ROC which would have the impact of significant increase in scheme costs and increased likelihood of passenger train delays as a result of waiting behind freight trains at Dore West Junction. Option 8a – this location gives an improved flexibility to control the certainty of freight trains arriving at Dore West Junction having a clear path on to the Midland Main Line, thus avoiding delays to following passenger services. There is a high risk that the loop and Earle’s Sidings could not easily be controlled from an extended workstation at York ROC, which would have the impact of significant increase in scheme costs. Option 10 – this location gives the maximum flexibility in times of perturbation and offers the highest likelihood that a released freight train would not be held at Dore West Junction awaiting a path on to the Midland Main Line. The risk of adding the loop signals to the workstation at York ROC are much lower than the risk associated with Option 5 and 8a.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 41 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

4.4. Civil and Structures

4.4.1. Introduction In order to estimate the necessary civils and structures works, cross sections were produced (approx. 100 metre centres) based on OS mapping, Marlin and use of Omnicom to establish a simplified land profile. The OS mapped lines representing tracks, ballast shoulder and the Network Rail boundary fence were projected to a nominal horizontal line representing track level. A judgement was taken from desk top information to establish if the side slope was in cutting or embankment. An assumed slope of 1:2 was used for all existing slopes, which correlated well with earthworks records in the area. The existing and proposed track positions were shown on the cross sections, with any new track bed shown with a side slope of 1:1. This enabled an approximation of the extent of any land take, additional cutting or embankment widening to be established. It is important to note that the approximate nature of this exercise only allows for a comparative analysis between the options, rather than producing an absolute estimate of the volume of work. A fully detailed topographical survey will be required to produce accurate cross sections and establish accurate land purchase and earthworks volumes at following GRIP stages.

4.4.2. Option 5(i) – Earle’s Sidings The west end of the loop is positioned to avoid the need for any works to existing Overbridge 41. From this point the existing cutting would require widening. The current single span at Overbridge 39 would need to be widened to accommodate the new track. Further liaison is required with stakeholders to establish any constraints on the appearance of a new or widened structure. For the purpose of cost estimating, we have assumed that the existing bridge would be demolished and a new bridge with adequate span for three track with gauge clearance for overhead electrification would be installed. However, given the location with the Peak District National Park (PDNP), the appearance of the existing bridge may need to be retained. To the east of Overbridge 39 the cutting will need to be widened, with additional width provided to facilitate adequate signal sighting across the chord of the radius. The proposed track alignment assumes that the existing signal box is removed, consistent with the signal replacement scheme planned to be implemented at the same time as the loop construction. The loop is planned to terminate back on to the main line before Underbridge 38, hence no works are planned at Overbridge 38. It should be noted that there is no existing Bridge 40 on the route.

4.4.3. Option 5(ii) – Earle’s Sidings This option includes the same civils aspects as Option 5(i), with an extension at the west end of approximately 200 metres. The 200 metre extension is predominantly in cutting and will require widening Overbridge 41. Due to its construction, it is likely that the existing bridge will need to be demolished and replaced with a new single span structure.

4.4.4. Option 8a(i) - Thornhill Vegetation clearance works would be required in the northern side span of Overbridge 32, this will enable adequate signal sighting to the new loop entrance signal.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 42 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Currently the minimum loop length would place the start of the turnout over Underbridge 31 which is not ideal. If this option is progressed further, consideration will need to be given to moving the start point off the bridge structure, ideally to the east. For the purpose of this cost estimate, we have assumed that Underbridge 31 will need to be widened to accommodate an additional track, with associated work to the northern wing wall. To the east of Underbridge 31, the existing embankment would need to be widened. In the region of the 163 ¼ milepost the new track will be placed outside the existing Network Rail boundary, therefore requiring land purchase using powers gained through a TWA order. Overbridge 30 has an obscured/overgrown side span to the north of the tracks. For the purpose of this report and costing, we have assumed that a new single span bridge with adequate clearance for signal sighting and overhead line electrification would replace the existing. However, given the location within the PDNP it is likely that the appearance of any new bridge would need to be sympathetic to the existing. Alternatively, slewing the new loop further, to make use of the existing side span would require land purchase as the land on either side of the redundant span is outside the Network Rail land boundary. To the east of Overbridge 30 the existing cutting would need to be widened.

4.4.5. Option 8a(ii) This option includes the same civils aspects as Option 8a(i), with an extension at the west end of approximately 200 metres. The 200 metre extension is predominantly on embankment and will require widening Underbridge 31 with associated changes to the adjacent access track and retaining walls.

4.4.6. Option 10(i) – East of Bamford The single direction loop on the Up cess would start approximately 100 metres west of milepost 162 ¼. At this location the embankment would require widening. To the east of milepost 162 ¼ the existing cutting would require widening. Due to the relatively high depth and shallow angle, the width of the Network Rail land at this point is thought to be adequate to allow steepening of the cutting slope within the Network Rail boundary – this will need to be verified through an accurate topographical survey at later GRIP stages. There is a pinch point as the track approaches milepost 162 (section 6 on drawing NHE-109172-2885-00-MAS-DDR-MD-900003). As currently drawn on the OS mapping, the loop track would be very close to the northern land boundary, however, there is significant clearance to the southern boundary. Should this option be developed further, consideration should be given to a track slew towards the southern land boundary. At Underbridge 25, the deck will require widening to accommodate a new third track. It is likely this widening will take place to the north side of the existing bridge where adequate Network Rail land appears to be available – this would need to be verified at following GRIP stages. Between Underbridge 25 and 23, the existing embankment would require widening.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 43 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Local to Underbridge 23, the Network Rail land boundary is reduced to the northern wing wall, however, on the southern side; the land boundary follows the toe of the embankment. As currently shown, it is assumed the loop would require widening of the bridge deck to the north side which would require land purchase over a short length of approximately 100 metres. It may be possible to avoid the need for land purchase if the bridge could be widened on the south side and main line track slewed suitably. This option should be considered in more detail once detailed topographical information is available at later GRIP stages. To the east of Underbridge 23 the existing embankment and then cutting would require widening, however, it is thought that the location of the land boundary may allow local steepening of the slopes to enable construction within Network Rail land. Overbridge 22 is not affected by this proposal. The existing footpath level crossing, known as Hathersage West FPS, is located at 161m 770yds. From recent work undertaken for the JTI study, it is known that the use of the crossing is limited and that the existing decision points are not optimised. Due to the location of the proposed new loop, consideration will need to be given to any changes in the risk profile of this crossing, in particular, the effects of a parked train in the new loop causing confusion for crossing users. It is likely that the crossing will need to be closed and consideration will need to be given to diverting users via the existing local road bridges.

4.4.7. Option 10(ii) – East of Bamford This option has been included as a variation on Option 10 to assist the Project Sponsor to understand the risks and opportunities associated with implementing a bi-directional loop. Whilst developing Option 10(i) it became apparent that a number of local track slews to the south would be advantageous in terms of land purchase. This option makes use of those slews. The track position has been centred on the existing track centre line for the purpose of this study, however, with more accurate topographical information, it may be possible to produce a more detailed track design which makes best use of the Network Rail land boundary and minimises the need for any land purchase. Due to the inherent inaccuracies in the current OS mapping it will be necessary to obtain accurate topographical survey data to enable the option to be developed further. At this stage it is likely that a detailed track alignment could be developed to optimise use of Network Rail land. This option is currently drawn with tracks spaced with a full 10’ spacing on both sides of the central loop. This allows a full length drivers walkway on both sides of the loop. Should this option be progressed further, it is likely that this spacing could be reduced to a standard 6’ over significant sections. The track alignment to widening the main lines has been estimated as 300 metres. A detailed track layout design would be required, based on existing track positions to accurately determine this length, It is likely that should this option be developed further, this length will reduce, particularly if the 10’ spacing of the track can also be reduced. For the purpose of this report, the widening of the track is assumed to start at the east end of the platforms at Bamford Station. This may constrain any future platform extension works to the west end of the station which is constrained by Overbridge 27. Should this option progress into further development, it would be necessary to provide passive provision for any platform extension works when detailing the track layout.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 44 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

The track widening would make use of existing track bed up to the point of the proposed turnouts. A ‘Y’ configuration has been proposed, with a 180 metre signal overlap provided within the loop. The impact of the embankment and cutting widening is identical to Option 10(i) above between milepost 162 ¼ and 161 ¾. For the purpose of this report, we have shown retaining walls on the Network Rail land boundary where the proposed earthwork outlines would otherwise extend outside of NR land. The extent of these walls is only approximate and would need to be developed against accurate topographical data at future GRIP stages if this option is to be progressed. To the east of milepost 161 ¾ the loop ‘Y’ would be installed in a widened cutting, with the two track section then reducing in width to tie into the existing track alignment. It is likely that the span at Overbridge 22 will not be adequate for the widened spacing of the two tracks and for the purpose of this report and costing, we have assumed that the overbridge will need to be demolished and reconstructed as a single span with adequate clearance for signal sighting and future overhead line electrification provision. We have assumed that the Hathersage West FPS is closed and all users are diverted via the new overbridge.

4.4.8. Option 10(iii) – East of Bamford This option includes the same civils aspects as Option 10(i), with an extension at the west end of approximately 200 metres. The 200 metre extension is predominantly on existing embankment and will require minimal works below ballast level. The location of the east end of the turnout will be such that no works are required at Overbridge 22 (Jaggers Lane), including future provision for OLE installation.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 45 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

4.5. Geotechnical Engineering

4.5.1. Introduction The following notes have been prepared to highlight what the potential ground related risks could be with each option. The route of the railway is noted as being on sidelong ground with the Rivers Noe and Derwent shown to be at the bottom of the valleys.

4.5.2. Geology Following a review of published geological maps the ground conditions which can be expected along each option are summarised below. Published geological map records for the three sites of the seven shortlisted options are included in Appendix H. Following a search of the BGS online borehole records there are no historical exploratory holes within close proximity to the four shortlisted loop options.

4.5.2.1 Option 5(i) and 5(ii) – Earle’s Sidings Superficial Head and River Terrace Deposits are shown to underlie the route which are subsequently underlain by the Bowland Shale Formation (Mudstone, Siltstone and Sandstone) and the Mam Tor Beds (Siltstone & Sandstone). Based on simplified estimated earthworks profiles from OS mapping, the volume of earthworks has been estimated for comparative purposes for option 5(i) as: Excavations: 13,300m3 Imported fill: 2,600m3

4.5.2.2 Option 8a(i) and 8a(ii) - Thornhill Superficial Head and River Terrace Deposits are shown to underlie the route which are subsequently underlain by the Bowland Shale Formation (Mudstone, Siltstone and Sandstone) and the Mam Tor Beds (Siltstone & Sandstone). Based on simplified estimated earthworks profiles from OS mapping, the volume of earthworks has been estimated for comparative purposes for Option 8a(i) as: Excavations: 5,000m3 Imported fill: 13,000m3

4.5.2.3 Option 10(i), 10(ii) & 10(iii) – East of Bamford Superficial deposits are only shown to underlie the west end of this option. The remainder of the option is shown to be underlain by the Mam Tor Beds (Siltstone & Sandstone). Based on simplified estimated earthworks profiles from OS mapping, the volume of earthworks has been estimated for comparative purposes for option 10(i) as: Excavations: 7,500m3 Imported fill: 12,800m3

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 46 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

4.5.3. Earthworks The following details of earthworks along the various loop options have been taken from a review of the Network Rail earthwork inspection records which was undertaken as part of a JTI assessment of the route previously (December, 2012). It should be noted that where earthwork details such as slope angle and slope height are indicated below these have been taken from Network Rail earthwork inspection records which are based upon visual examination and should therefore be confirmed by review of available topographical survey information. Where no earthwork details are shown this could be areas of track that are either at grade or <3m in height or be a structure i.e. tunnel, viaduct.

4.5.4. Groundwater

Along the route of the works the Environment Agency have classified the River Terrace Deposits as a Secondary A aquifer which are permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers. These are generally aquifers formerly classified as minor aquifers. The Head deposits are shown as being Secondary undifferentiated which are deposits which have previously been designated as both minor and non-aquifers in different locations due to the variable characteristics of the material. Along the route of the works the Environment Agency have classified the Solid strata as a Secondary A aquifer. These are permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers. These are generally aquifers formerly classified as minor aquifers There are no source protection zones within 1 km of the railway line.

4.5.4.1 Options 5(i) and 5(ii) – Earle’s Sidings Mileage Earthwork Condition Details 164 m 1714 yds Soil Embankment/No Varies from Marginal Height of embankment to 165 m 440 yds earthwork details to Serviceable varies between < 3 metres to 4.0 metres with maximum slope angles between 34o to 25o. SSHI varies between 3.9 to 5.0. 165 m 440 yds to Soil Cutting / No Varies from Marginal Earthwork inspection 165 m 1460 yds earthwork details to Serviceable with records not Poor Soil Cutting downloaded for areas between 165 m of cuttings 1320 to 165 m 1430 yds)

4.5.4.2 Options 8a(i) and 8a(ii) - Thornhill Mileage Earthwork Condition Details 162 m 1100 yds Soil Embankment Varies from Marginal Height of embankment to 162 m 1650 to Serviceable varies between 3 to 5 yds metres with maximum slope angles of 38o. SSHI varies between

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 47 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

3.9 to 6.5. 162 m 1650 yds No earthwork details N/A N/A to 163 m 880 yds shown 163 m 880 yds to Soil Embankment on Marginal Height of embankment 163 m 990 yds the Up side is recorded as 4.0 metres with a maximum slope angle of 37o. SSHI is 6.5. 163 m 990 yds to No earthwork details N/A N/A 163 m 1042 yds shown

4.5.4.3 Options 10(i), 10(ii) & 10(iii) - East of Bamford Mileage Earthwork Condition Details 161 m 150 yds to Soil Embankment Varies from Marginal Height of embankment 161 m 440 yds to Serviceable shown to vary between 5.0 to 10.0 metres with maximum slope angles varying between 37o to 40o. SSHI varies between 3.9 to 6.5. 161 m 440 yds to Soil Cutting Varies from Marginal Earthwork inspection 161 m 1210 yds to Serviceable records not downloaded for areas of cuttings 161 m 1210 yds Soil Embankment Varies from Marginal Height of embankment to 162 m to Serviceable shown to vary between <3 metres to 8 metres with maximum slope angles varying between 15o to 38o. SSHI typically between 3.9 to 5.0 however at 161.1210 and 161.1650 yds on the DN line the SSHI is shown to be 9.1 which is border line with a Poor condition slope. 162 m to 162 m Grade N/A N/A 110 yds 162 m 110 yds to Soil Cutting Varies from Marginal Earthwork inspection 162 m 440 yds to Serviceable records not downloaded for areas of cuttings 162 m 440 yds to Grade, Soil Cutting Soil Embankment is Embankment is shown 162 m 880 yds Embankment serviceable as being < 3 metres in height with a maximum slope angle varying between 15o to < 25o

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 48 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

4.5.5. Potential Geotechnical Risks

4.5.5.1 Excavatability of Rock Although the Network Rail earthwork records do not indicate rock cuttings to be present through the three shortlisted loop options the likelihood of encountering rock at shallow depths should not be ruled out particularly within Option 10. Where cuttings are required to be widened within areas of rock the excavatability will need to be assessed following the results of a site specific ground investigation.

4.5.5.2 Earthworks Balance Where embankments are required to be widened this could require a significant amount of imported fill unless this can be offset by excavated material where cuttings need to be widened.

4.5.5.3 Existing Stability of Earthworks In general the existing conditions of the earthworks through the area have varied between Marginal to Serviceable with an area of Poor Soil cutting between 165 m 1320 yds to 165 m 1430 yds (Option 5). Where the proposed loop will lead to tracks being installed closer to the crests of embankment slopes then a stability assessment will need to be undertaken to ensure that the new loop does not have a detrimental effect on the stability of the earthwork.

4.5.5.4 Drainage and Groundwater As part of the previous JTI study which was developed to GRIP 3 AIP in 2013, a review of track quality and the presence of wet beds was undertaken. The comments received from the Track Maintenance Engineer at the time showed limited wet beds on the route with none noted in the areas of the three shortlisted sites. It is recommended that a site walkout, or OMNICOM review, is undertaken of the single option at the next GRIP stage to confirm if any wet beds exist in the area. A review of logged drainage assets on http://web1.adas.co.uk/nr/ has been undertaken. There is limited drainage which would be affected by the proposed loops at any of the three shortlisted sites. The drainage interface identified at this time relates to: § Four chambers in the Up cess adjacent to Thornhill Lane Bridge (Overbridge 30) which is likely to need to be replaced if Option 8a is constructed; § There is a UTX adjacent to Overbridge 39 at Glossop Road. It is not clear if the chambers on the Up cess are outside the Network Rail boundary, or if new construction will be required; § Drainage at Bamford Station is located in the Up platform and extends locally off the end of the platform. This drainage would not be affected by the track layout of a new loop.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 49 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

4.6. Electrification and Plant

4.6.1. General The line is not currently electrified. The remit for this report does not include provision for any electrification, however, there is a long term aspiration to consider this line for electrification, hence any bridges which are modified should include provision for overhead line clearance.

4.6.2. Signalling Power Supplies The route is due to be re signalled at the same time as constructing the new loop. All signalling power supplies are assumed to be laid in trough route in the cess with standard under track crossings as necessary provided for by the new track layout. Any provision for lineside equipment will be considered as part of the signalling replacement project. Given previous studies on the route at Grindleford it may be possible to facilitate the new signals associated with the loop from the existing power supplies, with no need to modify the distribution network operator (DNO) supplies. This will require full investigation once the new signalling layout is developed at future GRIP stages.

4.6.3. Points Heating All points associated with the new loop with require points heaters to be installed. The details for these will need to be developed at future GRIP stages. At this stage of project development, it is prudent to assume that a new DNO supply will be required local to each turnout. This will require a new cabinet on the Network Rail land boundary at each location, with associated foundations and cable route.

4.6.4. Platform Power Not affected.

4.6.5. Junction Power New points motors will be required at each of the new turnouts on the loop. These will require associated cabinets and power supplies. The layout would be simiar to that previoulsy developed for the Grindleford GRIP 3 loop. New DNO supplies wil be required in the vacinity of each turnout.

4.6.6. Junction Lighting Further discussion will be necessary with the maintainer to determine the need for junction lighting at the new loop turnouts. When sizing the power supply at future GRIP stages, the power required for junction lighting should be included in the new supply, allowing for future installation.

4.6.7. Distribution Network Operator (DNO) Power Supplies It may be necessary to provide new DNO power supplies as part of the new signalling layout, or to power points heaters. For the purpose of this report, no information was available; however, the power needs and supply routes will need to be considered at future GRIP stages.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 50 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Option 5(i) and 5(ii) The DNO supply to the turnouts on this option would be reconfigured from the existing Earle’s Siding signal box which would be decommissioned as part of the resignalling works. This supply would be used to feed the eastern turnout. A new DNO supply would be required to the eastern turnout. We currently have no records to show any existing DNO supply in this area, however, there is evidence of supply local to Bridge 42. By placing a DNO cabinet on the boundary adjacent to the bridge, a cable supply and associated cable route (trough) would be necessary over a length of circa 500 metres. Option 8a(i) and 8a(ii) There was no information available during this study to show any existing DNO supplies in the location of this loop. However, there are houses and industrial units in close proximity to both ends of the proposed loop, generally on the Down side. It would therefore appear reasonable to assume that existing supplies could be extended approximately 250 metres to new DNO cabinets close to each turnout. It would also be prudent at this stage to anticipate that under track crossings would be required at each turnout to feed the cable from a DNO cabinet on the Down side, to cabinets on the Up side. Option 10(i) 10(ii) and 10(iii) The west end of the loop is in close proximity to Bamford Station where existing DNO supplies exist. A new cabinet could be installed to allow isolation of the new supply, rather than connect it to the existing station supply. At the east end, there appears to be evidence of a domestic supply at Overbridge 22 (Jaggers Lane Bridge). Subject to further investigation, it appears reasonable to assume that a DNO cabinet could be installed on the boundary fence adjacent to the bridge, which would feed cabinets local to the eastern turnout.

4.6.8. Telecomms Signal post telephone (SPT) New SPT will be required to suit the new signalling arrangements. New point zone telephones (PZT) may be required at each turnout subject to consultation with the local Network Rail operating team at a future GRIP stage. Alterations to telephone concentrators are option dependant dependent on the outcome of the re-signalling design. Fixed telephone network (FTN) Further investigation is required to locate the cable route for the FTN network. If the cable is installed on the Up cess it will need to be moved into a new route to facilitate locating the new loop. Global system for mobile communications – railways (GSM-R) A re-map of the GSM-R system will be necessary to add the loop to the existing data. No GSM-R masts have been identified to date in any of the proposed sites, however, a detailed topographical survey will be necessary at the start of the next GRIP stage and would confirm the location of any infrastructure, including trough route which would need to be diverted.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 51 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Customer information systems (CIS) Not affected.

4.6.9. Ancillary Civils A new cable management route will be required in the cess over the length of the loop. Further investigations will be necessary to determine if the existing cables contain sufficient slack to be diverted into a new route; however, the re-signalling will result in the replacement of the majority of lineside cables. New lineside cabinets will be required for signals and turnouts. At the current time the position and number of these cabinets has not been determined, however, cabinet bases or staging will be required to be built into the supporting slopes at the side of the new Up loop. Drivers walkways will be required to allow a driver of a stopped train to safely access a SPT. The length and positioning of these walkways will need to be agreed with Network Rail at future GRIP stages in conjunction with development of the re-signalling.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 52 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

4.7. Operational Property (incl. station works)

4.7.1. General None of the options require any works at stations. As part of the signal renewals, all the existing signal boxes will be taken out of use. It is therefore assumed that all redundant signal boxes will be demolished. For the purpose of this report, no searches have been made to determine if any signal boxes are listed buildings. This could affect Option 5 and should be considered at the next stage of option development.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 53 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

5. Consents

5.1. Transport & Works Act The Transport and Works Act 1992 is the primary means of authorising railway works which are not covered by permitted development rights. For schemes which require the acquisition of land and Transport and Works Act (TWA) Order is the preferred means of securing the necessary powers. Railway consents are a complex area and detailed examination of individual schemes to confirm the consents process will be required, including seeking specialist legal advice. As an indication the following types of work are likely to need a TWA Order: § Works outside the operational railway boundary; § Works beyond the scope (e.g. lateral and vertical deviation) of the original enabling legislation; § Works requiring the compulsory purchase of land.

5.2. Planning Act 2008 Amendments to the Planning Act which took effect in 2013 reduced the scope of rail projects which require a Development Consent Order. Under the amended Planning Act regime only schemes which involve the construction of a new length of track in excess of 2 km require a Development Consent Order.

5.3. Land Where use or permanent acquisition of land is required, Network Rail will likely seek to acquire the land (or rights over the land) through negotiation. However should it not prove possible to reach agreement with the current landowner, then obtaining powers to compulsorily purchase the land may be required. This may well be through the TWA Order process set out above, which can also be used to obtain consents such as diversion or stopping up of existing rights of way. All the developed options may require land purchase to accommodate new earthworks, bridges or land drainage provision. The detail of the land requirements will require a geotechnical survey and outline design of these arrangements, and this should be undertaken early in GRIP 3.

5.4. The National Park and Conservation Area The site is located within the Peak District National Park (PDNP). Early dialogue with the Peak Park Planning office is recommended.

5.5. Required Consents Further details of the consents process are detailed in Appendix L, together with a detailed breakdown of the consents likely to be required for Options 5(i), 8a(i), 10(i) and 10(ii). The consents required for options 5(ii), 8a(ii) and 10(iii) will be identical, however the extents of land boundaries and extents of bridge works may vary slightly

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 54 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

6. Environment

6.1. Environmental Appraisal and Action Plan A Phase 1 habitat survey and constraints reports have been completed. Further surveys for great crested newts have been commissioned.

6.1.1. Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) If land take is required to deliver the loop then there is the potential that an EIA will be required. A Screening Opinion should be sought under Rule 7 of the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006.Where land-take is not required then an EIA may not be required, however this should be assessed with Town Planning / Environment and a decision made during GRIP 3, particularly as the three shortlisted options are within the Peak District National Park which is a sensitive area. Such an approach will be dependent upon the loop being within the limits and powers of the original act. On this basis Part 11 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 is excluded from EIA development. This will be subject to an assessment.

6.1.2. Significant Environment Impacts The potential significant environment impacts associated with the construction of the loops have been identified for each option proposed to be carried forward to GRIP 3 using a desk-based assessment.

6.1.2.1 Options 5(i) and 5(ii) - Earle’s Sidings Option 5 is located at and around Earle’s Sidings, Hope. The site is located within the PDNP and so the impact on the landscape and the setting of the National Park will need to be considered in the design process. Within 2 km of the site, there are two designated sites. The Hallam Barn Grasslands Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located approximately 1.6 km south-east of the site, designated as it is a nationally-important site for its lowland unimproved neutral grassland. Approximately 2 km south of the scheme is the South Lee meadows SSSI, designated for its lowland meadows. There is an area of Ancient Woodland within 2 km of the site - Backside Wood is located approximately 1.7 km north of the Option 5(i) site and approximately 1.5 km north of the Option 5(ii) site. Bridges and mature trees along this stretch could have the potential for use by roosting bats. Ecology surveys would need to be undertaken to assess this, and the potential for any other protected or invasive species at this site. The site does not lie within an area designated as Flood Zones 2 or 3, however, the site passes at its closest 120 metres east of an area of Flood Zone 3 (1% risk of flooding per year) associated with the River Noe. The site is located in an area at risk of flooding from reservoirs. Superficial deposits at the site are designated as Secondary (undifferentiated) aquifer. The bedrock is designated as a Secondary A aquifer.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 55 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

The Grade I listed Church of St. Peter is located approximately 750 metres south of the site. There are 29 Grade II listed features within 2 km of the site, the closest of which is approximately 220 metres west of the site on Edale Road. The Hope Conservation Area is located approximately 200 metres west of the site at the closest point, with the site generally well screened from the Conservation Area, although there may be some potential visual intrusion possible to some of the properties in the Conservation Area on the east side of Edale Road. There are four Scheduled Monuments within 2 km of the site, the closest being the Hope Motte located approximately 700 metres south of the site.

6.1.2.2 Option 8a(i) and Option 8a(ii) - Thornhill Option 8a is located between Hope railway station and where the line crosses the River Derwent to the east. The site is located within the PDNP and so the impact on the landscape and the setting of the National Park will need to be considered in the design process. Within 2 km of the site, there are six designated sites. The Hallam Barn Grasslands SSSI is located approximately 270m north of the site, designated as it is a nationally-important site for its lowland unimproved neutral grassland. Approximately 1.4 km south-west of Option 8a(i), and approximately 1.2 km south-west of Option 8a(ii), is the South Lee meadows SSSI, designated for its lowland meadows. Approximately 410 metres south- east of the site is the River Derwent at Hathersage SSSI, designated due to the physical river features, and approximately 1.6 km north of the site is the Eastern Peak District Moors SSSI, designated for its geological features and moorland habitat and species. Approximately 1.6km north of the site is the South Pennine Moors Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Peak District Moors (South Pennine Moors Phase 1) Special Protection Area (SPA). Bridges and mature trees along this stretch could have the potential for use by roosting bats. Ecology surveys would need to be undertaken to assess this, and the potential for any other protected or invasive species at this site. At its closest, the scheme is located approximately 150 metres north of the River Noe and associated areas of Flood Zones 2 and 3. The site is at risk of flooding from reservoirs. Superficial deposits at the site are designated as Secondary (undifferentiated) aquifer. The bedrock is designated as a Secondary A aquifer. There is an area of historic landfill adjacent to the north side of the site which comprises the Derbyshire County Council Waste Disposal Site, which first accepted inert, industrial, commercial, household and liquids/sludge waste in 1977. Within 2 km there are 43 Grade II listed features. There are also two Grade II* listed features and the Grade I listed St. Peter’s Church in Hope, located approximately 1.3 km west of the site. The Hope Conservation Area is located approximately 1.1 km to the west of the site; the site is not visible from this Conservation Area. The site also is as close as 125 metres south of the Bamford Conservation Area, and the site would be visible where the Conservation Area crosses the railway line to the east of the site. However, elsewhere the site is screened from the Conservation Area, and so there is not considered likely to be a significant impact upon the Conservation Area.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 56 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

There are eighteen Scheduled Monuments within 2 km of the site, the closest of which is the Navio Roman fort and vicus, located approximately 350 metres south of the site.

6.1.2.3 Options 10(i), 10(ii) and 10(iii) – East of Bamford Option 10(i) 10(ii) and 10(iii) are located between Bamford Station and Hathersage Station. The site is located within the PDNP and so the impact on the landscape and the setting of the National Park will need to be considered in the design process. Within 2 km of the sites there are five designated sites. The River Derwent at Hathersage SSSI is located approximately 125 metres south of the site, afforded protection due to the physical characteristics of the river. Approximately 1.5 km north of the sites is the Eastern Peak Moors SSSI designated for its geological features and moorland habitat and species. Approximately 1.9 km south of the sites is the Abney and Bretton Cloughs SSSI, afforded protection due to its geology and woodland habitats. Approximately 1.5 km north of the sites is the South Pennine Moors SAC and the Peak District Moors (South Pennine Moors Phase 1) SPA. Bridges and mature trees along this stretch could have the potential for use by roosting bats. Ecology surveys would need to be undertaken to assess this, and the potential for any other protected or invasive species at this site. At its closest, the sites are located approximately 150 metres north of the River Derwent and associated areas of Flood Zones 2 and 3. The sites are at risk of flooding from reservoirs. The bedrock is designated as a Secondary A aquifer. The Option 10(i) site is approximately 720 metres west of the Hathersage Conservation Area, and approximately 330 metres east of the Bamford Conservation Area. There is not considered to be a likely impact on the Conservation Areas from visual intrusion as there is screening between the site and the Conservation Areas which would prevent significant visual intrusion from the scheme. Within 2 km there are 62 Grade II listed features. There are also six Grade II* listed features and the Grade I listed Church of St. Michael and All Angels, located approximately 1.2 km north-east of the site. There are nine Scheduled Monuments within 2 km of the site, the closest of which is the Camp Green Ringwork, located approximately 1.5 km north-east of the site.

The Option 10(ii) site is located approximately 250 metres west of the Hathersage Conservation Area, and approximately 270 metres east of the Bamford Conservation Area. There is not considered to be a likely impact on the Conservation Areas from visual intrusion as there is screening between the site and the Conservation Areas which would prevent significant visual intrusion from the scheme. Within 2 km there are 74 Grade II listed features. There are also six Grade II* listed features and the Grade I listed Church of St. Michael and All Angels, located approximately 1.2 km north-east of the site. There are twelve Scheduled Monuments within 2 km of the site, the closest of which is the Camp Green Ringwork, located approximately 1.5 km north-east of the site.

The Option 10(iii) site is located approximately 720 metres west of the Hathersage Conservation Area and approximately 270 metres east of the Bamford Conservation Area. There is not considered to be a likely impact on the Conservation Areas from visual intrusion as there is screening between

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 57 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

the site and the Conservation Areas which would prevent significant visual intrusion from the scheme. Within 2 km there are 64 Grade II listed features. There are also six Grade II* listed features and the Grade I listed Church of St. Michael and All Angels, located approximately 1.2 km north-east of the site. There are ten Scheduled Monuments within 2 km of the site, the closest of which is the Camp Green Ringwork, located approximately 1.5 km north- east of the site.

6.1.3. Environment Action Plan An Environment Action Plan will need to be developed to detail the actions required to manage the significant environment impacts which have been outlined above. The Environment Action Plan will be updated as the scheme progresses.

6.1.4. Sustainability & Opportunities The Environment Appraisal will need to assess potential opportunities to deliver a sustainable project in compliance with Network Rail’s sustainability policy. A sustainability assessment and objectives to deliver sustainability will be developed during GRIP 3. It will be necessary to not only consider sustainability criteria within the design process of the scheme in GRIP 3-5, but also record what actions have been taken and what design decisions have been made which are of benefit to sustainability. This can then be issued to Network Rail and used as part of any future sustainability assessment (such as CEEQUAL). The design is to consider ways to minimise waste production, and will look at potential ways to reduce embedded carbon and carbon emissions associated with the scheme. Passenger and stakeholder satisfaction will be considered during GRIP 3-5, such as through designs which will minimise passenger disruption or reduce negative effects upon other stakeholders. Diversity and inclusion will be at the heart of this.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 58 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

7. Programme & Construction Methodology

7.1. All Options This report only considers the construction implications of installing the passing loop. It does not include any consideration of installing the signalling which will be replaced at the same time and will need to be considered as part of the signalling renewal strategy. Once a single option is developed, the construction methodology and track access will need to be established in detail. We would recommend this is progressed early in GRIP 3 so that construction methodology is embedded in the design solutions (maximising Safety by Design principles). At this stage of development, traditional construction methods are envisaged, such as the use of excavators for earthworks and mobile crane lifts to install new bridge structures. A detailed study of construction access related to the three sites was undertaken by Buckingham Group Contracting and is included in Appendix J.

7.2. Option 5 – Earle’s Sidings Access will be required to reconstruct Overbridge 38. This is a road bridge and road access for delivery of materials and installation of new bridge decks is considered adequate, subject to detailed verification of construction methodology at later GRIP stages. The impact on road closures and diversions would require further development at future GRIP stages, along with any services which may be contained within the bridge deck. Access will be required to the Up cess to undertake earthworks. Depending on the exact extent of the earthworks and nature of construction, it may be possible to construct these works from the lineside with minimal disruption to train movements as the majority of earthworks is associated with widening existing cuttings and therefore the track influence zone will not be affected. It is likely that haul roads will need to be constructed on third party land in order to gain access to the cutting slopes if the impact on train movements is to be minimised. Alternatively, excavators could be placed track side and use works trains to remove spoil from site if a track blockade is made available. There will be a need to co-ordinate the demolition of the signal box at Earle’s Sidings with the construction of the new track.

7.3. Option 8a – Thornhill Road access exists to provide ready access to the northern wing walls on Underbridge 31. These could be delivered pre cast and lifted into place or constructed in situ. This access track could also be used to gain plant access for the earthwork along the line. Embankment widening is likely to include some reinforced earth solution in order to minimise any land purchase. We would anticipate that benching works to widen the embankment would impact the track influence zone and some disruption to services would result unless these could be programmed during overnight possessions or a blockade. This will need to be reviewed and considered in relation to additional land purchase if this option is developed beyond GRIP 3.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 59 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Works to Overbridge 30 are assumed to require a complete reconstruction at this stage, this may be rationalised at future stages of design. There is ready road access to this location to enable delivery of a new deck and locations for crane standage. The impact on road closures and diversions would require further development at future GRIP stages, along with any services which may be contained within the bridge deck.

7.4. Option 10(i) – East of Bamford Access will be required to widen Underbridges 24 and 23. Both these sites have road access from the south side, with the current widening shown on the north side. This would suggest that crane lifts from the south side of the track will be required; however, there is the opportunity to develop the design with the widening on the south side at later GRIP stages. Generally the earthworks requirements are changes to wide embankments and cuttings. This work could either be undertaken by working from adjacent land with minimal impact on train movements, or from the line side, making use of works trains if possession arrangements allow. The possession and access strategy should be developed at later GRIP stages if this option is progressed further. The track access point at project chainage 260,000m (161.55miles) is adjacent to the east end of the site and could be used as a road – rail access.

7.5. Option 10(ii) – East of Bamford Construction for this option is similar to Option 10(i) above, with the added reconstruction of Overbridge 22. This bridge provides an alternative road access to Hathersage. Road access to both sides of the bridge is good. It is probable that the road could be closed, making use of existing roads to provide a diversion route (i.e. no temporary bridge required). Network Rail own significant land adjacent to the bridge, thus it is likely that current standard industry bridge replacement techniques could be used to replace the bridge.

7.6. Option 10(iii) – East of Bamford Access for this option will be identical to Option 10(i), with additional works to be undertaken closer to Bamford Station. At this time it is not known in the central crossovers will be installed, or passive provision made for future installation. At the time of installation it will be necessary to close the Up and Down lines to rail traffic, hence, it may be advantageous to install these after installation of the Up loop, which could act as a diversion. Additionally, if the central

7.7. Track Access Points Subject to ongoing discussions with Network Rail and the maintainer, it is likely that vehicle track access points will be required to be provided in close proximity to the new turnouts at each end of the new loop. Option 5 The western access would be developed from the access road at Bridge 41 which is in close proximity to the turnout. The access point would be created as part of the construction access works, however, some land purchase or right of access may be required.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 60 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

The eastern access would be developed from the access road at Bridge 38 which is in close proximity to the turnout. The access point would be created as part of the construction access works, however, some land purchase or right of access may be required. Option 8a The western access would be developed from the access road at Bridge 31 which is in close proximity to the turnout. The access point would be created as part of the construction access works which would lie within existing Network Rail land. The eastern access would be developed from the access road at Bridge 29 which is in close proximity to the turnout. The access point would be created as part of the construction access works, however, some land purchase or right of access may be required. Option 10(i), 10(ii) and 10(iii) The western access would be developed from the access road at Bamford Station which is in close proximity to the turnout. The access point would be created as part of the construction access works which would lie within existing Network Rail land. The eastern access would be developed from the access road at Bridge 22 which is in close proximity to the turnout. The access point would be created as part of the construction access works, however, some land purchase or right of access may be required. Alternatively, the existing access east of Bridge 22 could be retained and used.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 61 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

8. Reliability and Maintainability

8.1. Junction Lighting Consideration should be given to the provision of Junction Lighting at all significant concentrations of switch and crossing layouts, and to arranging those layouts in such a way as to minimise the amount of lighting required.

8.2. Lockout Devices The provision of lockout devices (LOD) should be considered for all lines under this intervention.

8.3. Access Points and Positions of Safety Existing access points have been retained. New access points will be created adjacent to the new S&C to facilitate maintenance. Where possible, these new access points will make of the haul roads installed to facilitate construction, alternatively, existing access points will be utilises.

8.4. Switch and Crossing (S&C) Layout Arrangements New S&C has been arranged, as far as possible, to allow its installation, maintenance and removal as single isolated units (e.g. one turnout, one crossover) and preferably as modular units, providing at least a 40 metre plain line section between layouts and limiting long bearers to a maximum of two lines’ span. Maintenance intensive layouts such as scissors, tandems and switch diamonds have been avoided. Commonality of components (switches, crossings, sleeper type) should be maximised during GRIP3.

8.5. 24 Hour / seven day Railway Consideration has been given to optimising the layouts to support the continued running of train services whilst parts of the layouts are under possession or are affected by faults or maintenance.

8.6. Modular S&C Wherever possible, modular S&C should be considered to reduce the impact on operational railway during installation and aid construction. This has been incorporated in Option 5, 10(i) and 10(ii). Due to track curvature on both ends of Option 8a it will not be possible to make use of modular S&C. For Option 10(iii), the increase in speed of the turnouts on the Up loop, result in the use of NR60 standard units. The speed of the central crossovers is lower and has been assumed as 50 mph for the purpose of this report. In order minimise the number of maintenance spares required, it has been assumed that all points will be built up of standard NR60 units.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 62 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

9. Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Work It is recommended that Options 5(i), 5(ii), 8a(i), 8a(ii), 10(i), 10(ii) and 10(iii) are taken into GRIP 3 for further consideration. Early understanding of any likely ecological issues will need to be addressed following the Phase 1 ecology surveys to identify the possible presence of any protection species such as bats, badgers, newts etc. Topographical surveys should be progressed at the 3 sites to allow detailed track design, earthworks and retaining structures to be sized. This will facilitate an accurate layout plan of the four options to be considered and valued. It will also enable an accurate assessment of the scale of any land purchase, both for temporary works access and permanent works. Early liaison with Planning Authorities is recommended to ensure any issues are identified early and any aesthetic requirements for bridges and retaining structures are developed as early as possible. Future development of the loop solutions will need to be progressed in parallel with the signal renewals design. Once a single option is selected at the early stages of GRIP 3, a detailed assessment of the timetable should be undertaken to ensure the location of the loop provides all the required functionality. Discussions should be progressed to maximise the potential opportunity at Earle’s Sidings to rationalise and remodel the sidings and quarry access to enable this project to make best use of existing railway land which may become redundant in the short term. Land ownership searches should be undertaken to identify the land owners for all land adjacent to the railway. This will facilitate access for topographical and geotechnical surveys as well as informing construction site access.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 63 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

10. Cost Estimate Cost estimates have been calculated based on scheme sketches and preliminary design available to date. These allow a comparison between the options, but are not sufficiently detailed to give reliable total cost estimates at this stage of the project.

10.1. Costs The cost range for Option 5(i), 8a(i) and 10(i) all lie within 11% of the average estimate of the three options, however, Option 5(i) is almost 20% higher than the average of Option 8a(i) and 10(i). Options 10(ii) and 10(iii) show the difference in cost for providing different configurations of bi-directional loops. The extra over cost to Option 10(i) is: 40% for Option 10(ii), 187% for option 10(ii) The cost of Option 10(iii) provides a comparison with Option 10(i) to enable an ‘extra over’ cost to be estimated for the Down Loop. The cost of equivalent loop for Options 5(ii) and 8a(ii) has not been calculated, however, by inspection the total cost will be similar for earthworks, track and signalling, with an additional allowance on Option 5(ii) required for the reconstruction of Overbridge 41. The signalling costs associated with Options 5(i), 8a(i) and 10(i) are similar, with an additional banner repeater included for in Option 8a(i). Options 10(ii) and 10(iii) includes for double the number of signals due to the inclusion of the Down line. No costs are included on any of the options associated with reconfiguring any control at the local signal boxes or ROC. It has been assumed that those costs will be funded by the resignalling scheme and will not alter significantly as a result of adding the new loop. E&P cost are four times higher for Option 10(ii) and three time higher for Option 10(iii) compared with the single direction loop options as a consequence of the increase in the number of point ends to create the bi- directional loop. The track costs associated with Options 5(i), 8a(i) and 10(i) are very similar and reflect the installation of identical turnouts and a new length of single track to construct the loop. It should be noted that the maintenance costs associated with the turnouts for Option 8a(i) and 8a(ii) will be significantly greater as they are not standard, readily available units. The track cost for Option 10(ii) is significantly greater (over four times); this is a result of an increase in the number of switches to create the bi-directional loop, combined with the need to replace both existing tracks over an extended length of the loop. This is required as the slews of the existing track will be too great to reuse the existing track and sleepers. The Track cost for Option 10(iii) accounts for the increased length of plain line in the loop, additional crossovers and higher speed rating of the Up loop tunrouts. Telecoms costs for Option 10(ii) and 10(iii) is approximately double the cost of the three other options, this is consequence of the additional signals on the Down side.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 64 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Structures costs include for works to bridges and retaining walls. Option 10(i) and 10(iii) are the cheapest of the seven options as they avoid the need to reconstruct any overbridges; only two underbridges require widening on the north side. Options 5(i) and 8a(i) require a similar amount of structures works, while Option 10(ii) is significantly more expensive (approx. four times). Option 10(ii) will require the complete reconstruction and widening of Jaggers Lane Bridge. Also, the bi-directional track requires a wider track formation to be created than with any of the other three options. To minimise works outside of the existing Network Rail boundary, a number of retaining walls have been included. This additional cost being offset by savings in land purchase and reduced risk of land purchase. General civils costs include for general site clearance, earthworks, lineside fencing and haul roads. The total costs associated with Options 5(i), 8a(i) and 10(i) are generally dominated by the excavations in rock and disposal of non- hazardous material. It should be noted that the high cost rate associated with disposal of non-hazardous material (ie topsoil) assumes that material has to be taken to tip and is not sieved and sold. The volume of earthworks for Option 10(ii) accounts for work on both sides of the railway, however, the cost is reduced from double of Option 10(i) by including retaining walls.

10.1.1. Option 5: Provision of 1089 metre loops on outside of the Up line only AFC £ 20,525,705

10.1.2. Option 8a: Provision of 1089 metre loop on outside of the Up line only AFC £ 17,692,395

10.1.3. Option 10(i): Provision of 1089 metre loop on outside of the Up line only AFC £ 17,371,504

10.1.4. Option 10(ii): Provision of 1089 metre loop between Down and Up lines AFC £ 49,821,877

10.1.5. Option 10(iii): Provision of Up loop (75mph) and fast lines crossovers AFC £ 24,298,828

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 65 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

11. Consultation The following were consulted during the development of this report:

Name Organisation Job Title

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 66 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Appendix A Option Generation and RAG Criteria

Option generation and RAG Criteria report: 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000002

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Appendix B Options Layout Drawing

Facilities layout Drawing: 109172-P2-EMD-SKT-MML-000001.pdf

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 68 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Appendix C Facilities Diagrams

Option 5(i): 109172-P2-EMD-SKT-MML-000002.pdf Option 5(ii): 109172-P2-EMD-SKT-MML-000007.pdf Option 8a(i): 109172-P2-EMD-SKT-MML-000003.pdf Option 8a(ii): 109172-P2-EMD-SKT-MML-000008.pdf Option 10(i): 109172-P2-EMD-SKT-MML-000004.pdf Option 10(ii): 109172-P2-EMD-SKT-MML-000004.pdf Option 10(iii): 109172-P2-EMD-SKT-MML-000006.pdf

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 69 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Appendix D Cost Estimates

019172-P2-CES-BOQ-MML-000001.pdf

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 70 of 96

109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Appendix I Land Boundary Drawings

Option 5(i): 109172-P2-ETR-DRG-MML-000001.pdf Option 5(ii): 109172-P2-ETR-DRG-MML-000011.pdf Option 8a(i): 109172-P2-ETR-DRG-MML-000002.pdf Option 8a(ii): 109172-P2-ETR-DRG-MML-000013.pdf Option 10(i): 109172-P2-ETR-DRG-MML-000003.pdf Option 10(ii): 109172-P2-ETR-DRG-MML-000004.pdf Option 10(iii): 109172-P2-ETR-DRG-MML-000009.pdf

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 82 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Appendix J Hope Valley Constructability Report (By Buckingham Group Contracting)

019172-P2-MCP-REP-MML-000001.PDF

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 83 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Appendix K Environmental Review

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 84 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

K.1 Ecology and Biodiversity

K.1.1 Designated Sites

Peak District National Park All options fall within the Peak District National Park (PDNP) so that in terms of any selected option, all would face equally detailed attention from the relevant stakeholders. Affected: All options

Edale SSSI Edale is a designated Special Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI) that abuts the railway only on the northern side between mileages 169m 1753y and 170m 0083y. This is the focus of the generally identified sensitive area in the PDNP between 169m and beyond the limits of Option 1 past 170m. Any construction route or temporary works area in or adjacent to Edale SSSI would be questioned by Natural England (NE) and the PDNP and likely result in relatively detailed mitigation. Affected: Option 1

River Derwent SSSI The River Derwent SSSI runs adjacent to the railway generally between mileages 160m 1561y and 162m 0861y, an average of 250 metres from the railway in the valley to the south. There is a named watercourse (Hood Brook) that at 161m 0094y culverts the railway before meandering towards the SSSI approximately 400 metres distance. Additionally there are other culverts as follows that go underneath the railway and make their way into the River Derwent in the SSSI at the following mileages: § 161m 1262y (300m distance) § 161m 1655y (250m distance) § 162m 0503y (250m distance)

Access requirements and works on the railway in between the general mileages of 160m 1561y to 162m 0861y will be of interest to NE and the PDNP in proximity to the River Derwent SSSI with particular attention paid to ensuring that any polluting matter is not allowed to enter the SSSI. The focus of this risk occurs at the specific mileages stated where any pollution from works will directly enter a watercourse that drains into the Edale SSSI. Affected options: 9, 10, 11 and 12 (note the developed Option 10(i), (ii) and (iii) do not encroach into this area)

K.1.2 Protected Species There are no protected species issues that are identified as favouring one option over another. Ecology surveys to date have eliminated any requirement for great crested newt licences.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 85 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Badger activity is noted across all potential sites and would likely result in a licence requirement for this species. In general the least impact on ecology and biodiversity is considered to be between Hope (162.5m) and Bamford Station (164.25m). Favoured options: 7, 8 and 8A.

K.2 Water Resources

K.2.1 Extended Flood Plain There is one area of designated flood zone 3 that extends beyond the width of a watercourse that is adjacent to the railway. This flood zone is located between mileages 162m 1048y and 1599y. Any access or works in this area would require detailed consultation with the Environment Agency (EA) and likely specific mitigation required in the detail of design. Affected options: 8, 8A and 9

K.2.2 Other river crossings flood zone 3 Other river crossings where the EA would likely require detailed consultation as flood zone 3 is designated to the width of the watercourse are as follows: § 161m 0017y to 0121y (Option 10 – although outside the developed shortlisted options) § 166m 0212y to 0416y (Option 4) § 167m 0237y to 0432y (Option 3) § At 168m 1721y (no option at this specific mileage)

K.3 Communities

K.3.1 General vicinity of the works Across the options it is notably relatively rural with the following areas noted as having communities adjacent to the railway: § 160m 0910y to 161y 0616y Hathersage (Options 11 and 12) § 166m 0210y to 166m 0412y remote residential (Option 4) § 167m 1212y to 167m 1572y remote residential (Option 2 and 3) § 169m 0039y to 169m 0364y Edale Station (Option 1) § 169m 1260y to 169m1681y remote residential (Option 1)

It is preferred to select an option which impacts the least on local communities but clearly this is manageable given appropriate public liaison and robust environmental management plans such as traffic, noise and vibration and nuisance.

This information is useful in combining with the mileages identified as difficult to access between 167m and 170m. On that basis the least favoured options would be Options 1, 2 and 3.

Affected options: 1, 2, 3, 4, 11 and 12

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 86 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

K.4 Townscape

K.4.1 Peak District National Park (PDNP) All options are located within the PDNP. On this basis the PDNP would take an interest in the visual intrusion of any proposed works for all the options.

K.4.2 Hathersage Conservation Area Hathersage Conservation Area is adjacent to the railway just at mileage 161m 0120y. The visual intrusion of the project would be an issue both in construction and in the final design particularly in this area. Affected options: potentially 10 and 11 (note the developed Option 10(i), (ii) and (iii) do not encroach into this area)

K.5 Favoured Options for Environment

K.5.1 Absence of identified significant impacts On the basis of the overall review, Options 5 and 10(i), (ii) or (iii) are the most favoured in considering environmental impact as they are the options with least risk as identified above. Option 8a is least favoured option as it would draw interest from the EA as it is located in flood zone 3. However, given the ecology and biodiversity assessment identifies that it lies in an area which is likely to be most favoured by the PDNP.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 87 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Appendix L Consents

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 88 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

L.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, development requires planning permission where it involves the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land. Certain exceptions to when planning permission must be sought exist.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) sets out classes of development for which a grant of planning permission is automatically given, subject to certain constraints, including in some cases the requirement for Prior Approval of the local planning authority.

In the GPDO, Network Rail has rights described under Schedule 2 parts 11 and 17 either where land has been otherwise designated for specific works (part 11) or works are entirely within Network Rail’s operational land (part 17).

In every case, the project team must consult with Network Rail’s town planning team to establish the specific rights under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and what, if any, planning consents are required. Please note that even where works are considered to be permitted development, it is often the case that prior approvals are required.

Where works are considered permitted development, it may still be necessary to seek an EIA screening opinion of the local planning authority.

In the case of larger scale works including the construction or alteration of track outside of Network Rail’s ownership boundary, separate consenting procedures exist under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Planning Act 2008.

L.2 Planning Act 2008

Where railway development will include the construction or alteration of a continuous stretch of track of more than 2km outside the railway boundary, authorisation is required under the under the Planning Act 2008 for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). The application is made to the Planning Inspectorate for a Development Consent Order (DCO).

Additional consents such as for diversion or stopping up of existing rights of way can be secured as part of the DCO application process.

In the event that the works are to be approved under the DCO application process, a screening opinion for EIA should be secured from the Planning Inspectorate.

Schemes which consist of or include the construction or alteration of a section of railway track of 2km or less, or which do not involve track work at all, will be excluded from the DCO process and will follow alternative planning procedures, requiring authorisation by planning permission and or a Transport & Works Act (TWA) order.

L.3 Transport & Works Act

An application for a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) is made under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to the Secretary of State for Transport.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 89 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

The application is to authorise and grant powers to develop any new railway or tramway scheme, excluding nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs, see above).

Where authorisation of a TWAO is sought, Network Rail may also secure deemed planning consent under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Additional consents such as for diversion or stopping up of existing rights of way can be secured as part of the TWAO application process.

In the event that the works are to be approved under the TWAO application process, a screening opinion for EIA should be secured from the Transport and Works Act Unit at the Department for Transport.

L.4 Land

Where use or permanent acquisition of land is required, Network Rail will seek to acquire the land (or rights over the land) through negotiation.

However should it not prove possible to reach agreement with the current landowner, then obtaining powers to compulsorily purchase the land can be secured. Compulsory acquisition powers can be secured under the DCO or TWAO process set out above.

The detail of the land requirements for the three preferred option sites will require a geotechnical survey and outline design to inform GRIP 3.

L.5 Local Planning Authority

The three preferred option sites are entirely located within the Peak District National Park boundary. The National Park authority is also the local planning authority. Early dialogue with the planning department will be carried out as part of any consents procedure.

L.6 Local Highway Authority

The three preferred option sites are entirely located within the boundary of Derbyshire County Council which is the local highway authority. Early dialogue with the County Council will be carried out as part of any consents procedure.

L.7 Options and consents requirements

The following tables highlight the potential consents requirements for works under consideration. The notes are presented on the basis that all works are within Network Rail operational land.

Where works fall outside of NR land but do not constitute works to create track over 2km entirely outside NR land, consent under the Transport and Works Act 1992 may be necessary.

In the event that an application for a TWAO, it will be possible to incorporate related highway consents and temporary works on third party land as appropriate.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 90 of 96 109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

On review of the land boundary drawings for the options, it would appear that the TWAO application would be primarily be for earthworks and construction phase works (possible exception, option 5, section 14 to 15 shown on drawing 109172- P2-ETR-DRG-MML-000001 Revision P01.01). A full and detailed review of Network Rail’s landownership boundary must be carried out at the earliest opportunity to confirm the exact boundary locations to inform the consents strategy.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 91 of 96

109172 Northern Hub GRIP 2 Study Date: 27 June 2014 Hope Valley Up Loop 109172-P2-EMD-REP-MML-000003

Haul roads on third party May be possible to secure Temporary works. land prior approval of the Will need confirmation that the planning authority if land works are within the limits of agreement can be secured. deviation.

Permanent track access TBA

Public rights of way TBA

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. Page 96 of 96