Woodhead tunnels decision

[PhilipW]

If ever it is planned to electrify the Hope Valley line, I gather there will be a big fuss from the Environmental lobby about the wires wrecking their valley.

Without electrification any capacity improvements may be limited.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If ever it is planned to electrify the Hope Valley line, I gather there will be a big fuss from the Environmental lobby about the wires wrecking their valley.

The spirit of Wordsworth will doubtlessly relocate southwards to imbue the poetical creativity of the Hope Valley latter-day poets.

 

[anme]

I don't see why this project should prevent reinstatement of the Woodhead line. Actually, it should make it easier. Just hang the cables from the roof of the tunnel; get some wire strippers (large); remove the plastic insulation; stick some rails underneath and hey presto! Electrified railway line.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Which locomotive builder produces 400kV powered locomotives and EMU ?

 

[Peter Sarf]

The flash over while entering the tunnel would probably propel the whole train right through the tunnel if done right .

Actually I recall the newer 1950s built tunnel was built because the two older tunnels were a dead loss. It appears that they are that bad that National Grid want to also give up on them now. It follows that since the newer tunnel has been redundant for three decades and will continue to be redundant for the foreseeable future that National Grid might as well use it. Kick them out when the newer tunnel is needed again as at least it might be looked after better in the mean time. Are National Grid paying anything for the privilege btw ?.

 

[chorleyjeff]

The spirit of Wordsworth will doubtlessly relocate southwards to imbue the poetical creativity of the Hope Valley latter-day poets.

Dreamy dawn shots of .... err a cement works comes to mind.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Essentially that cement works, and the Buxton quarries, kept the Hope Valley line in existence and condemned the Woodhead line to closure (as there was no equivalent freight generator on the line).
That and the poor connections in Sheffield.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

This news should put an end to some of the thread fantasy schemes that surface from time to time.

You're surely not saying that the Strategic Steam Reserve in Woodhead Tunnel is a myth?

 

[dggar]

You're surely not saying that the Strategic Steam Reserve in Woodhead Tunnel is a myth?

I thought is was supposed to be in Box tunnel

 

[yorksrob]

I don't see why this project should prevent reinstatement of the Woodhead line.

Sadly you can be certain that the cost of relocating the thing will be included to screw up the cost-benefit ratio of any reopening proposal.

 

[swt_passenger]

Sadly you can be certain that the cost of relocating the thing will be included to screw up the cost-benefit ratio of any reopening proposal.

I thought the DfT just wrote that to re-open the Woodhead route it would easier to provide a new tunnel? Did people miss that bit?

If an additional rail route was ever required between Manchester and Sheffield, it is unlikely that even the modern tunnels would be suitable for re-use and, given advances in tunnelling technology even since 2008 as witnessed by Crossrail, the best solution is most likely to be the construction of a new tunnel.

 

[yorksrob]

I thought the DfT just wrote that to re-open the Woodhead route it would easier to provide a new tunnel? Did people miss that bit?

Oh dear oh dear.

Most railway proposals cost benefit analysis can be set off course by the need to build a missing river crossing, or the need to replace level crossings etc. Are they seriously suggesting that the chances of success of any sort of Woodhead proposal would actually be improved by the need to drive a brand new tunnel through the Pennine rock ?

I fear the DfT have descended into fantasy, most probably to justify their suspect decision making.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The spirit of Wordsworth will doubtlessly relocate southwards to imbue the poetical creativity of the Hope Valley latter-day poets.

I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host of Network Rail catenaries.

With apologies

 

[OxtedL]

I fear the DfT have descended into fantasy, most probably to justify their suspect decision making.

The thought process is clear: disused tunnel not maintained as an active railway tunnel, built to old standards and thus probably needing work to clear for modern freight and electrification clearances = lots and lots and lots of money.

Also, may I ask who exactly it is that you think the Woodhead route would serve that existing routes don't?

 

[YorkshireBear]

The Woodhead's only chance of reopening will come from an incredible up turn in freight across the pennines. IMHO, i don't see it having a purpose otherwise, i would reopen the section to Stocksbridge and maybe Penistone from Sheffield but nothing more.

 

[HSTEd]

Oh dear oh dear.

Most railway proposals cost benefit analysis can be set off course by the need to build a missing river crossing, or the need to replace level crossings etc. Are they seriously suggesting that the chances of success of any sort of Woodhead proposal would actually be improved by the need to drive a brand new tunnel through the Pennine rock ?

I fear the DfT have descended into fantasy, most probably to justify their suspect decision making.

Yes, since the Woodhead Route reopening would likely be as an express passenger route, as freight can easily go via Hope Valley.

Passengers want high speed, hence a new tunnel would enable 140mph+ running all the way through the Pennines.

Hence 'Pennine Base Tunnel', incidentally such a tunnel would keep the gradient down, improving freight operations if you chose to run any.

 

[pablo]

I seem to recall that, even though electrified, it wasn't a particularly fast route. Too curvaceous. Base tunnel best idea, if ever.
BTW Rob, what has NG done to you?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes, since the Woodhead Route reopening would likely be as an express passenger route, as freight can easily go via Hope Valley. Passengers want high speed, hence a new tunnel would enable 140mph+ running all the way through the Pennines. Hence 'Pennine Base Tunnel', incidentally such a tunnel would keep the gradient down, improving freight operations if you chose to run any.

If such a new tunnel was bored, would there be any geological differences to those encountered when the very long Totley tunnel near to Grindleford was being excavated ?

 

[YorkshireBear]

If such a new tunnel was bored, would there be any geological differences to those encountered when the very long Totley tunnel near to Grindleford was being excavated ?

Considering how local geology can be! I would say it will probably be different!

 

[yorksrob]

The thought process is clear: disused tunnel not maintained as an active railway tunnel, built to old standards and thus probably needing work to clear for modern freight and electrification clearances = lots and lots and lots of money.

A clear thought process but not a logical one. It would suggest that a trans pennine scheme involving the expense of blasting a new tunnel through the pennine hills would be more likely to get past the cost-benefit analysis than repairing and kitting out an existing tunnel. I don't think that this would be anything like the case even with a leaky brick Victorian tunnel, let alone a relatively new concrete lined one built in the fifties for electric trains.

I've debated the Uckfield - Lewes line with yourself often enough, so I know very well that you're aware of the cost implications of even minor infrastructure construction.

Also, may I ask who exactly it is that you think the Woodhead route would serve that existing routes don't?

The relatively poor connections between Manchester and South Yorkshire often surface and the woodhead route often gets mooted as a possible solution by councils and other lobyists, so the issue is a live one.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A host of Network Rail cateneries. With apologies

catenaries (with apologies).

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, since the Woodhead Route reopening would likely be as an express passenger route, as freight can easily go via Hope Valley.

Passengers want high speed, hence a new tunnel would enable 140mph+ running all the way through the Pennines.

Hence 'Pennine Base Tunnel', incidentally such a tunnel would keep the gradient down, improving freight operations if you chose to run any.

Yeah, but it's not going to happen. No one will pay for it.

At the very most, I could see potential re-opening of the Woodhead as an extra pair of tracks, possibly geared to faster journey times to avoid Hope Valley stoppers and freight, but Government paying to build an even longer base tunnel through the Pennines ?

No chance.

The very fact that they regard the huge investment of Crossrail as an equivalent scale of project says that that is not going to happen. It's just a bone thrown to railway campaigners in the North.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I seem to recall that, even though electrified, it wasn't a particularly fast route. Too curvaceous. Base tunnel best idea, if ever.
BTW Rob, what has NG done to you?

It's not longer than the existing route, and it does avoid settlement and Potentially Hope Valley freights. If the need arises for extra tracks, it's the line of least resistance.

As for NG, Nothing, except for blocking all future (viable) Woodhead proposals.

 

[HSTEd]

Yeah, but it's not going to happen. No one will pay for it.

Perhaps not, but it has a higher BCR than Woodhead reopening by a huge margin.

At the very most, I could see potential re-opening of the Woodhead as an extra pair of tracks, possibly geared to faster journey times to avoid Hope Valley stoppers and freight, but Government paying to build an even longer base tunnel through the Pennines ?

And what is that going to achieve compared to say electrifying the Hope Valley line to get the stoppers moving faster?

 

[tbtc]

The relatively poor connections between Manchester and South Yorkshire often surface and the woodhead route often gets mooted as a possible solution by councils and other lobyists, so the issue is a live one.

As I said earlier, most services from Manchester to South Yorkshire are only two/three coaches long, so there's plenty scope to extend them (since Sheffield, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly can all cope with Intercity length trains).

There's also talk of an extra train an hour from Manchester to Sheffield due to the "Northern" Hub works.

Sounds a lot simpler than reopening Woodhead.

Oh dear oh dear.

Most railway proposals cost benefit analysis can be set off course by the need to build a missing river crossing, or the need to replace level crossings etc. Are they seriously suggesting that the chances of success of any sort of Woodhead proposal would actually be improved by the need to drive a brand new tunnel through the Pennine rock ?

I fear the DfT have descended into fantasy, most probably to justify their suspect decision making.

I read it as it'd be cheaper/ simpler to start from scratch (in terms of building a tunnel) than to try to convert the existing tunnels).

Not that surprising, really - there are plenty of other schemes where they've bored a new tunnel or alignment as its cheaper/ simpler to do (e.g. Crossrail doesn't use any existing tunnels under London AIUI - its all new AFAIK)

 

[YorkshireBear]

The cost and scale of Crossrail is irrelevant, as a like for like being in London is twice as expensive, but then to consider the lack of any real utilities deep underneath the pennine hills and it is even less relevant.

Also see the HSTEd comment two below...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

catenaries (with apologies).

Poetic license employed....well, that's my excuse..

Blessed are the spell-checkers, for they shall give forth lexicological truth.

 

[HSTEd]

Reference to Crossrail:

I don't think they need a billion pound railway station under the Pennines (see Totenham Court Road)

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps not, but it has a higher BCR than Woodhead reopening by a huge margin.



And what is that going to achieve compared to say electrifying the Hope Valley line to get the stoppers moving faster?

I‘d like to see a comparison between those two BCR‘s, however, the cost of building vast new infrastructure under the hills.

With regard to electrification, I‘m not oblivious to it‘s benefits, but it doveroesn‘t allow expresses to overtake stoppers or freight. Lops allow this to an extent, but timetabling complexities make a clear run far more resilient and effective.

 

[HSTEd]

I‘d like to see a comparison between those two BCR‘s, however, the cost of building vast new infrastructure under the hills.

With regard to electrification, I‘m not oblivious to it‘s benefits, but it doveroesn‘t allow expresses to overtake stoppers or freight. Lops allow this to an extent, but timetabling complexities make a clear run far more resilient and effective.

Reducing the transit time of the stopper does however allow more time in the hour where a "clear run" is available.

You can flight trains to take advantage of this time.

It is going to be far cheaper than a mad scheme to reopen the Woodhead line, which involves providing a brand new station at Sheffield that will not be connected to the existing one.

 

[yorksrob]

As I said earlier, most services from Manchester to South Yorkshire are only two/three coaches long, so there's plenty scope to extend them (since Sheffield, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly can all cope with Intercity length trains).

There's also talk of an extra train an hour from Manchester to Sheffield due to the "Northern" Hub works.

Sounds a lot simpler than reopening Woodhead.



I read it as it'd be cheaper/ simpler to start from scratch (in terms of building a tunnel) than to try to convert the existing tunnels).

Not that surprising, really - there are plenty of other schemes where they've bored a new tunnel or alignment as its cheaper/ simpler to do (e.g. Crossrail doesn't use any existing tunnels under London AIUI - its all new AFAIK)

I do take your point regarding longer trains, which, incidentally is why I far prefer the Peak route scheme as a way of releiving the Hope Valley (which obviously needs relieving, otherwise there wouldn't be schemes for loops etc) because the potential connectivity gains are much greater.

That said, I still don't want to see potentially innovative schemes for using the Woodhead corridoor stifled because of bad planning now.