Woodhead tunnels decision

[OxtedL]

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)

They are of course reusing the Connaught Tunnel out in the east. A google/ flit through some of the material gives a sense of how much work they feel they need to do to bring a tunnel which only closed in 2006 (although admittedly one built by the Victorians) up to a suitable standard for modern use.

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

We're speculating about a lot of unknowns, as probably is whoever wrote the DfT report, but I don't find it as unbelievable as you that a new tunnel compares favourably to refurbishing an old one. It'll depend heavily on what work needs to be done, of course.

Regardless, what is believable is that a new tunnel on a better alignment could offer much bigger benefits (safety, reduced maintenance, perhaps built to a European compatible gauge etc) than opening the old one.

It starts to come back to the argument I fear we've had before about whether it's more likely for something that is cheap to be built than for something that is expensive but offers juicier benefits. Linking nicely to debates on Uckfield-Lewes. The difference here is that there are reasonably sized communities at either end of Uck-Lew that are currently poorly linked for their proximity, whereas Woodhead doesn't really have that.

And one of the big reasons neither proposal has got all that far is that both routes go through relative wilderness rather than somewhere useful and intermediate. Hence in both cases people turn up and suggest an alternative and more direct new route as an alternative to the slightly obfuscated 'problems' offered as a motivation for re-opening.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

But the (mad) Woodhead scheme is less mad than an off the scale project of major infrastructure. The Sheffield situation isn't ideal, but not IMO insurmountable, perhaps using a platform further East than Victoria and some sort of pedestrian connection.

All the things you mention work, but only to an extent. At some stage, multiple tracks make a difference.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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...

Well, it was DfT who used Crossrail to suggest that building a new tunnel under the pennines was ever going to be remotely feasible, so direct any complaints to them. However , I still believe that this will prove prohibitively expensive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They are of course reusing the Connaught Tunnel out in the east. A google/ flit through some of the material gives a sense of how much work they feel they need to do to bring a tunnel which only closed in 2006 (although admittedly one built by the Victorians) up to a suitable standard for modern use.


We're speculating about a lot of unknowns, as probably is whoever wrote the DfT report, but I don't find it as unbelievable as you that a new tunnel compares favourably to refurbishing an old one. It'll depend heavily on what work needs to be done, of course.

Regardless, what is believable is that a new tunnel on a better alignment could offer much bigger benefits (safety, reduced maintenance, perhaps built to a European compatible gauge etc) than opening the old one.

It starts to come back to the argument I fear we've had before about whether it's more likely for something that is cheap to be built than for something that is expensive but offers juicier benefits. Linking nicely to debates on Uckfield-Lewes. The difference here is that there are reasonably sized communities at either end of Uck-Lew that are currently poorly linked for their proximity, whereas Woodhead doesn't really have that.

And one of the big reasons neither proposal has got all that far is that both routes go through relative wilderness rather than somewhere useful and intermediate. Hence in both cases people turn up and suggest an alternative and more direct new route as an alternative to the slightly obfuscated 'problems' offered as a motivation for re-opening.

You may be right regarding the costs and benefits of retunnelling under the Pennines, you may not. However, as I mentioned in an earlier post, should the Woodhead turn out to be more viable, what I don't want is for such an option to be still born due to poor planning now.

 

[HSTEd]

Let's assume the following:
Twin track tunnel 9.2m in diameter starting on the Glossop/Hadfield line 2km east of Broadbottom, before the line curves northwards into Dinting, it will end between Meadowhall and Chapeltown, on that straight in the middle of the 'S' curve that makes up that section of route.

Total tunnel length comes out at 36.7km, round up to 37km.

Using the HS2 cost and risk model, we find that a tunnel with those characteristics has a price of approximately £45-50m per kilometre, giving us a total cost of £1.85bn.

That might sound like a lot but it has some major benefits.
The travel time between Meadowhall and Broadbottom stations comes out at roughly 12 minutes with properly specced suburban units (top speed of 140-170mph, Class 395 level of powered axles).
Even if the train followed the normal stopping pattern (and acceleration characteristics!) from Manchester Picadilly to Broadbottom we end up with a Manchester-Sheffield journey time on order of 42 minutes.
Which I believe blows the existing journey time away.

Even using something like a bi-mode IEP on the route (for instance on Liverpool-Norwich) would reduce the travel time to far less than that, even assuming the train is limited to only 200km/h through the tunnel (so an unmodified IEP) if it was allowed to run non stop, 30 minutes should be doable.

30 minutes for a journey blows the existing Hope Valley route of the water.
And it would be large enough to take any freight train you could ever dream of running on it if you ever wanted to. (Including double stack hi-cube containers).
Even with the modifications to the Glossop/Hadfield line and some electrification on the Penistone/Hallam line to get into Sheffield Midland, you could stand to get change on ~£2bn.

You are going to spend an awful lot of money on Woodhead, so I dont tink it would come out that much cheaper.

 

[yorksrob]

Let's assume the following:
Twin track tunnel 9.2m in diameter starting on the Glossop/Hadfield line 2km east of Broadbottom, before the line curves northwards into Dinting, it will end between Meadowhall and Chapeltown, on that straight in the middle of the 'S' curve that makes up that section of route.

Total tunnel length comes out at 36.7km, round up to 37km.

Using the HS2 cost and risk model, we find that a tunnel with those characteristics has a price of approximately £45-50m per kilometre, giving us a total cost of £1.85bn.

That might sound like a lot but it has some major benefits.
The travel time between Meadowhall and Broadbottom stations comes out at roughly 12 minutes with properly specced suburban units (top speed of 140-170mph, Class 395 level of powered axles).
Even if the train followed the normal stopping pattern (and acceleration characteristics!) from Manchester Picadilly to Broadbottom we end up with a Manchester-Sheffield journey time on order of 42 minutes.
Which I believe blows the existing journey time away.

Even using something like a bi-mode IEP on the route (for instance on Liverpool-Norwich) would reduce the travel time to far less than that, even assuming the train is limited to only 200km/h through the tunnel (so an unmodified IEP) if it was allowed to run non stop, 30 minutes should be doable.

30 minutes for a journey blows the existing Hope Valley route of the water.
And it would be large enough to take any freight train you could ever dream of running on it if you ever wanted to. (Including double stack hi-cube containers).
Even with the modifications to the Glossop/Hadfield line and some electrification on the Penistone/Hallam line to get into Sheffield Midland, you could stand to get change on ~£2bn.

You are going to spend an awful lot of money on Woodhead, so I dont tink it would come out that much cheaper.

Route costs for reopening Uckfield - Lewes and Airdre - Bathgate were £9 and £9.1 million per km respectively according to the 2008 Uckfield - Lewes study:

http://www.uckfield.co.uk/lewes_uckfield_network_rail_final_report.pdf

Admittedly, there will have been some inflation, and double track would cost more, however that's still substantially less than £45 - £50 million km.

I also don't for one moment believe that costs to get Woodhead tunnel back up to scratch will be prohibitive.

 

[beeza1]

I live fairly close to the Woodhead Tunnel,(Dunford Bridge end), and much as I would like to see the line reinstated I don't think there is even a remote chance of it ever being reopened, and I don't think it's anything to do with the tunnels, the route now forms a major part of the "Trans-Pennine Trail" long distance footpath/cycleway and any plans to close the trail would I suspect be met with fierce opposition, not least from The Ramblers Association, who do seem to have friends in very high places.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps we should stop turning track beds over to paths if this is just going to form unnecessary obstacles to reopening.

That said, sustrans appears to have identified alternative routes for the Borders re-opening, so perhaps things aren't so pessimistic.

 

[beeza1]

Perhaps we should stop turning track beds over to paths if this is just going to form unnecessary obstacles to reopening.

Barnsley Council have spent quite a lot of money on the "Trail", it is very popular with walkers, cyclists and horse riders, what was, I think, the site of the sidings at Dunford Bridge is now a nature reserve, I don't know who actually owns the land now, but I suspect it's the council.
Just to side track slightly, when did the last train run through the tunnel? I remember going through the "hole in the fence" to ride our trials bikes down "the line", I guess this would be late 80s or early 90s, naughty I know but great fun all the same.

 

[yorksrob]

Barnsley Council have spent quite a lot of money on the "Trail", it is very popular with walkers, cyclists and horse riders, what was, I think, the site of the sidings at Dunford Bridge is now a nature reserve, I don't know who actually owns the land now, but I suspect it's the council.
Just to side track slightly, when did the last train run through the tunnel? I remember going through the "hole in the fence" to ride our trials bikes down "the line", I guess this would be late 80s or early 90s, naughty I know but great fun all the same.

1981 the last one ran. I think the line may have been mothballed for a bit though.

 

[petersi]

Network rail have a press release about Hope valley improvements
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...il-capacity-on-the-Hope-Valley-line-1eed.aspx

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[RichmondCommu]

1981 the last one ran. I think the line may have been mothballed for a bit though.

An agreement with the Unions meant that track wasn't taken up until a couple years after closure. I'm away from home tonight so can't check but I'm guessing that the track wasn't completely taken up until around 1985.

 

[pablo]

Cheaper option; bore out the 1849 twin bores to GC+ gauge? NG has abandoned in favour of the larger single bore.
Photos suggest twin bores last used 1954 and single bore track lifted 1985.

 

[tbtc]

Cheaper option; bore out the 1849 twin bores to GC+ gauge?

If we are going to create a line from Hadfield to Sheffield Victoria (and new tunnels would need to be built anyway) then a cheaper option may be to build a brand new tunnel from Woodhead to Langsett and then down the "Little Don" valley to serve Stocksbridge and Deepcar (where you'd rejoin the old alignment).

• IIRC there used to be a narrow gauge freight line beyond Stocksbridge to Langsett (something to do with the reservoir construction?)
• it'd be a way of doing it in a much shorter alignment
• you'd serve the town of Stocksbridge (which is bigger than Penistone and wouldn't abstract from the current railway station at Penistone)
• you'd not have to replace any cycle tracks/ nature reserves east of the pennines

(still the same problems about poor connections to Sheffield Midland, still a complete pie-in-the-sky scheme, doesn't satisfy the traditionalists, will never happen, usual disclaimers apply...)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If we are going to create a line from Hadfield to Sheffield Victoria (and new tunnels would need to be built anyway) then a cheaper option may be to build a brand new tunnel from Woodhead to Langsett and then down the "Little Don" valley to serve Stocksbridge and Deepcar (where you'd rejoin the old alignment).

• IIRC there used to be a narrow gauge freight line beyond Stocksbridge to Langsett (something to do with the reservoir construction?)
• it'd be a way of doing it in a much shorter alignment
• you'd serve the town of Stocksbridge (which is bigger than Penistone and wouldn't abstract from the current railway station at Penistone)
• you'd not have to replace any cycle tracks/ nature reserves east of the Pennines

(still the same problems about poor connections to Sheffield Midland, still a complete pie-in-the-sky scheme, doesn't satisfy the traditionalists, will never happen, usual disclaimers apply...)

With regard to Stocksbridge, I was recently reading the history of the Stocksbridge Railway, with the simple wooden single platform (to serve passengers near to the works) that closed 82 years ago. The 2001 town population figure was just under 13,700. In 1913, Sheffield Corporation started work on both the Broomhead and Morehall resevoirs and the Ewden Railway was used to transport goods to the sites and for the removal of the spoil. The standard gauge Langsett Railway company served the steelworks but there was a narrow-gauge railway that had an unusual "coffee-pot" vertical boilered locomotive.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

I just hope that the Glossop/ Hadfield line doesn't get downgraded to "TramTrains" (as per the Manchester Metrolink thread) as a result of this decision which kills off any hopes of reopening the Woodhead line as a proper railway any time soon.

(and I say this having watched a Network Rail class 31 and Mk3s going up the old Don Valley line toward Deepcar this morning, presumably on a measuring service, having wondered when the next passenger coaches will grace that route through Deepcar etc)

I am informed by the Friends Of Glossop Station that the Glossop/Hadfield line is now a community line so Metrolink have not a chance of getting their hands on it.

As for the Deepcar service, it would be rather good to connect the line back up at Penistone and have a Sheffield Midland - Deepcar - Penistone - Huddersfield service

 

[YorkshireBear]

I am informed by the Friends Of Glossop Station that the Glossop/Hadfield line is now a community line so Metrolink have not a chance of getting their hands on it.

As for the Deepcar service, it would be rather good to connect the line back up at Penistone and have a Sheffield Midland - Deepcar - Penistone - Huddersfield service

That is what i think has to be the next goal for anyone wanting to reopen the Woodhead. Deepcar/Stocksbridge then Penistone. Huddersfield and Sheffield really could do with better rail links, although there is a danger that this would easily be achieved with the reinstatement of Horbury curve (South to West). Still Penistone has been sold short and Deepcar/Stocksbridge certainly would use a rail link.

My preferred solution to Sheffield is open Victoria as a two platform station and then also open something with more platforms, terminating facilities and tram connection etc at nunnery square.

Manchester deals with two stations, no reason Sheffield can't.

 

[IKBrunel]

Perhaps we should stop turning track beds over to paths if this is just going to form unnecessary obstacles to reopening.

That said, sustrans appears to have identified alternative routes for the Borders re-opening, so perhaps things aren't so pessimistic.

Indeed, I think one of the benefits of the National Cycle Network (NCN) is that it does preserve trackbeds & civils which would otherwise decay/get built on/ploughed up etc.

It's a lot easier to reroute a 2.5m wide shared bridlepath than it is to find a new alignment for a railway. I would have thought if part of the NCN did need to be used to reopen a line then the onus would be on the promoter of that rail project to develop a new NCN alignment in consultation with Sustrans, etc.

I think to use the NCN as a reason to object to new rail schemes would be a bit myopic, since it would give other groups an excuse to oppose other disused lines being designated to the NCN in the future. There are plenty of lines which are very much disused & not currently used for NCN or anything else apart from ecology.

(I have an interest here as a volunteer ranger for Sustrans, the promoter of the NCN..)

 

[tbtc]

I am informed by the Friends Of Glossop Station that the Glossop/Hadfield line is now a community line so Metrolink have not a chance of getting their hands on it

Seems nobody told Transport for Greater Manchester:

http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/capital_projects_and_policy_agenda_papers_8_11_13.pdf

At its meeting of 10 February 2012, TfGMC requested the development of a tram-train strategy for Greater Manchester and at a meeting of the GMCA on 29 June 2012 (report entitled “City Deal: Future Transport Prioritisation”), it was agreed that the following potential tram-train routes would be investigated:

 Manchester – Bredbury – Marple
 Manchester – Glossop
 Manchester – Atherton – Wigan
 Manchester – Sale - Altrincham – Hale/Knutsford
 Manchester – East Didsbury – Hazel Grove
 Stockport – Altrincham.

(link from jcollins' thread about "tram trains")

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed, I think one of the benefits of the National Cycle Network (NCN) is that it does preserve trackbeds & civils which would otherwise decay/get built on/ploughed up etc.

It's a lot easier to reroute a 2.5m wide shared bridlepath than it is to find a new alignment for a railway. I would have thought if part of the NCN did need to be used to reopen a line then the onus would be on the promoter of that rail project to develop a new NCN alignment in consultation with Sustrans, etc.

I think to use the NCN as a reason to object to new rail schemes would be a bit myopic, since it would give other groups an excuse to oppose other disused lines being designated to the NCN in the future. There are plenty of lines which are very much disused & not currently used for NCN or anything else apart from ecology.

(I have an interest here as a volunteer ranger for Sustrans, the promoter of the NCN..)

A very reassuring and sensible post.

 

[455driver]

I think to use the NCN as a reason to object to new rail schemes would be a bit myopic, since it would give other groups an excuse to oppose other disused lines being designated to the NCN in the future. There are plenty of lines which are very much disused & not currently used for NCN or anything else apart from ecology.

(I have an interest here as a volunteer ranger for Sustrans, the promoter of the NCN..)

Wasnt there a case a number of years ago when Sustrans were asked to sell part of a cycle route back to Network Rail/Railtrack and Sustrans wanted full market value for the land despite buying it for the obligatory £1 a few years previously?

It was all sorted rather quickly though when NR/RT told them they would do the same to Sustrans in future.

 

[RichmondCommu]

My preferred solution to Sheffield is open Victoria as a two platform station and then also open something with more platforms, terminating facilities and tram connection etc at nunnery square.

Manchester deals with two stations, no reason Sheffield can't.

Just out of interest, is there anything left of the original Sheffield Victoria?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I seem to recall it was all wooden and on a viaduct. Cannot believe it would still survive. Thats an old memory from a railtour with a peak (44?) from St Pancras to Manchester via Woodhead bakvie Hope (?). Was it Peak Farewell tour late 1970s, I went for the 76s at Reddish.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just out of interest, is there anything left of the original Sheffield Victoria?

There was talk of the trackbed there being protected for a possible future expansion of the Sheffield Supertram.

 

[yorksrob]

Seems nobody told Transport for Greater Manchester:

http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/capital_projects_and_policy_agenda_papers_8_11_13.pdf



(link from jcollins' thread about "tram trains")

TfGM Empire building.

 

[LowLevel]

Just out of interest, is there anything left of the original Sheffield Victoria?

I think the platforms are still there with a single line through for Deepcar. The GCR war memorial was saved too, a regular pilgrimage site for railwaymen and buffs!

 

[W230]

Just out of interest, is there anything left of the original Sheffield Victoria?

Nope. Just the old Victoria Station Hotel, which is now a Holiday Inn.

 

[HSTEd]

Manchester deals with two stations, no reason Sheffield can't.

Manchester has been trying to overcome the massive connectivity issues caused by having two major stations on different routes for years.

The idea that you would deliberately cause this in Sheffield is... worrying.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

That is what i think has to be the next goal for anyone wanting to reopen the Woodhead. Deepcar/Stocksbridge then Penistone. Huddersfield and Sheffield really could do with better rail links, although there is a danger that this would easily be achieved with the reinstatement of Horbury curve (South to West). Still Penistone has been sold short and Deepcar/Stocksbridge certainly would use a rail link.

My preferred solution to Sheffield is open Victoria as a two platform station and then also open something with more platforms, terminating facilities and tram connection etc at nunnery square.

Manchester deals with two stations, no reason Sheffield can't.

Spot On !

Seems nobody told Transport for Greater Manchester:

http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/capital_projects_and_policy_agenda_papers_8_11_13.pdf



(link from jcollins' thread about "tram trains")

A chap I know from the Friends Of Glossop Station has e-mailed me this about the Woodhead Tunnel story, yet again the FoGS are against any form of their line becoming part of Metrolink

"I saw the story reported locally, not with a great amount of high profile though. Like you say its a dead duck in our lifetime I reckon. Which is a shame. The Northern Hub is going to be the real deal and much of my companies resources are likely to be put into ensuring its success. Already the signal boxes on the Hope Valley are having their closure dates brought forward to 2018 because of it."

Just out of interest, is there anything left of the original Sheffield Victoria?

There was talk of the trackbed there being protected for a possible future expansion of the Sheffield Supertram.

I think the platforms are still there with a single line through for Deepcar. The GCR war memorial was saved too, a regular pilgrimage site for railwaymen and buffs!

Nope. Just the old Victoria Station Hotel, which is now a Holiday Inn.

Most of Sheffield Victoria Station is now the car park for the Hoilday Inn ( ex Royal Victoria Station Hotel ) the platform edge of platform 5 is still there, it would not be to hard as Yorkshire Bear said to pop up a 2 platform station on the site.

If the Woodhead Route reopening is now dead in the water then South Yorkshire PTE need to maybe look at making the Sheffield Victoria - Deepcar/Stocksbridge line part of the tram network ?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/donvalleyrailway/5698901094/

 

[WatcherZero]

Seems nobody told Transport for Greater Manchester:

http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/capital_projects_and_policy_agenda_papers_8_11_13.pdf



(link from jcollins' thread about "tram trains")

Isnt Woodhead about 3 miles Northeast of Glossop? If anything doesnt the possibility of the line no longer continuing east of Glossop/Hadfield increase the schemes validity as it no longer needs to be reserved for possible main line reinstatement?