Re-open the Woodhead route

[Metroland]

I came across this petition on the number 10 site

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Woodhead/

 

[Snapper]

I came across this petition on the number 10 site

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Woodhead/

It's a nice, nostalgic pipe-dream. But why reopen it?

It's not as if there are capacity problems on the existing routes over the Pennines (as there are few freights doing the trip nowadays). The industries which used to use the line (coal & steel) are long gone and the traffic evaporated. Any money to reopen it would be better spent on the existing routes (which at least pass through areas where people live!)

 

[Metroland]

All trans-pennine routes suffer from lack of capacity. Transpennine has just had a 40% increase in passengers in three years, Freight is also growing.

We need to be expanding public transport options for a number of reasons. We're transporting a lot more coal about that we used to and there's a lot of congested roads out there full of trucks.

There's some very strange railway enthusiasts on these forums, I noted the reduce the car tax post got more attention and I continually get flack for sticking up for the railways. These things are not just there so people can take the numbers, which some people seem to think they are. The bottom line is we won't get better public transport if people don't use it and even the enthusiasts rally against it. People moan like mad the our government do not want to expand anything, and look what the Europeans have got, yet on this forum in particular people continually think up reasons why we shouldn't be, based on very little expertise on the subject as far as I can see.

I believe a private company wants to re-open it anyway.

http://www.freightonrail.org.uk/HotTopicsAskYourMPtoProtectWoodheadTunnel.htm

http://savethewoodheadtunnel.blogspot.com/

http://www.translinkuk.com/

 

[Kneedown]

There are serious capacity shortages on the Hope Valley route. Plenty of freight uses the route both night and day, mostly to and from the Peak Forest/Buxton areas, and also in and out of Earles. Passenger services operated by Northern, TPE and EMT also regularly catch up with each other causing delays.
The Woodhead route should never have been closed in the first place, it was a very short sighted move, however i think the possibility of reopening it is zilch, seeing as a vast length of it is now a cyclepath/footpath (the lycra clad cycle nazi's would squeem and squeem and squeem!) and there are far more pressing areas where money needs to be spent, ie upgrading existing track, upgrading stock and electrifying the MML.

 

[paul1609]

Err The hope valley line is no where near its potential capacity.
The last time I looked it was a 70 mph line with semaphore signalling and 2 car dmus.

 

[Bonemaster]

There are much more beneficial lines that should be opened up before the Woodhead line is considered, such as the East West Rail link from Cambridge to Oxford which would create a real outer london orbital line for Freight to relieve conjestion to the GEML and the NLL, or the sadly now gone chance of the Cambridge - St Ives - Huntington line

 

[Metroland]

Err The hope valley line is no where near its potential capacity.
The last time I looked it was a 70 mph line with semaphore signalling and 2 car dmus.

It's at Dore tunnel and Stockport there is problems, but more coaches should be added yes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are much more beneficial lines that should be opened up before the Woodhead line is considered, such as the East West Rail link from Cambridge to Oxford which would create a real outer london orbital line for Freight to relieve conjestion to the GEML and the NLL, or the sadly now gone chance of the Cambridge - St Ives - Huntington line

Well I'm for that as well, the consultants that did the report on it were too as are the local MPs. Don't forget though Trans-pennine routes are very loading gauge restricted and currently no trains can travel between East and West ports in that part of the country, with large containers. Woodhead meanwhile has a large loading gauge.

 

[paul1609]

It's at Dore tunnel and Stockport there is problems, but more coaches should be added yes.

I dont really see capacity problems at Stockport are a problem as there are alternative routes in to Manchester.
Out of interest what is the capacity restraint of Totley tunnel?

 

[Metroland]

Long signal sections.

 

[djw1981]

Could they not install IB as on the S&C

 

[Donny Dave]

Err The hope valley line is no where near its potential capacity.
The last time I looked it was a 70 mph line with semaphore signalling and 2 car dmus.

It's a 70-100mph line, but with the 2 express service between Sheffield and Manchester each hour, and the local stopper, there isn't much capacity left.

Before Woodhead is reopened, the Hope Valley needs serious investment to increase capacity. The main problem however is the long signal sections between Dore and Chinley. You get stuck behind a freight, and you will suffer a 30 minute delay.

Another problem is the viaduct just to the East of Hazel Grove. It's single track for roughly a mile

 

[Kneedown]

Err The hope valley line is no where near its potential capacity.
The last time I looked it was a 70 mph line with semaphore signalling and 2 car dmus.

Yep, 2 (and 3) car DMU's from three different TOC's, as well as a fair bit of freight, which takes a long time to traverse it as there are a few PSR's. The 2 hourly stopping service also takes a good while between New Mills and Sheffield, and the 142's used on these services are also subject to the lower speed restrictions as they are not classed as Sprinters and therefore cannot take the higher Sprinter differential speeds of up to 90mph. The result is that other, faster trains soon catch up with these slower trains causing delays. This also does not take into account the inevitable delays caused by failures which can block the line for some considerable time.

If you do want to increase capacity on the route, then it is feasible only by resignalling the entire length and making it TCB. As it stands now very little extra capacity is available now without causing all sorts of problems. Just look at the project Rio's when they ran. They had trains queueing up behind them as, being HST's, were limited to 70mph, and that was just one extra service!

I think i know what i'm talking about, i've been a Driver on this route for over 15 years.

 

[Metroland]

Could they not install IB as on the S&C

In a tunnel? Not allowed under group standards I believe. Section is controlled by Sheffield PSB, fringing with Grindleford SB worked under TCB far as I know.

Woodhead could be re-opened for £160 million, which compares to the cost of widening between one set of junctions on the M1 and we could divert a good deal of freight over there, and provide new journey opportunities from North Sheffield and East Manchester. Hadfield - Sheffield in 15 minutes was mentioned. Several schemes have been proposed, two by private freight companies and at least one TOC.

The current scheme is private and requires no public money, just public support.

 

[me123]

My accurate source (ie Simsig ) tells me that Sheffield links woth Grindleford at the end pf the tunnel, as metroland says.

 

[Snapper]

There are serious capacity shortages on the Hope Valley route. Plenty of freight uses the route both night and day, mostly to and from the Peak Forest/Buxton areas, and also in and out of Earles. Passenger services operated by Northern, TPE and EMT also regularly catch up with each other causing delays.
The Woodhead route should never have been closed in the first place, it was a very short sighted move, however i think the possibility of reopening it is zilch, seeing as a vast length of it is now a cyclepath/footpath (the lycra clad cycle nazi's would squeem and squeem and squeem!) and there are far more pressing areas where money needs to be spent, ie upgrading existing track, upgrading stock and electrifying the MML.

But the majority of the freight using the Hope Valley doesn't actually cross the Pennines, it just happens to originate on the route.

You say the Woodhead should never have been closed. Why? It was life expired and the trains could easily be accommodated elsewhere (as history shows - it's closure never caused any problems) So why should it have been kept open?

As for re-opening it, I don't see any compelling case. If the railways were awash with money and had nothing better to do - maybe (but only maybe). Yet there are much more relevent bits of the 21st century railway jigsaw missing which would provide real value for money. The Woodhead fails on any sensible criteria.

 

[paul1609]

In a tunnel? Not allowed under group standards I believe. Section is controlled by Sheffield PSB, fringing with Grindleford SB worked under TCB far as I know.

Woodhead could be re-opened for £160 million, which compares to the cost of widening between one set of junctions on the M1 and we could divert a good deal of freight over there, and provide new journey opportunities from North Sheffield and East Manchester. Hadfield - Sheffield in 15 minutes was mentioned. Several schemes have been proposed, two by private freight companies and at least one TOC.

The current scheme is private and requires no public money, just public support.

I'm not sure what you'd get for £160 m. The costs of extending a heritage line I'm involved in were costed at just under £2m per mile about 3 years ago. That was for a very basic single track with a couple of level crossings and a passing loop and no signalman token working. A lot of the work was to be done by volunteers.
The cost of reinstating Uckfield to Lewes as a basic single track railway 8 miles long is put at £50 million +/- 20% in the latest report.

 

[Metroland]

It's in the proposal, which is was compiled by consultants
Faber Maunsell and MDS Transmodal.

The £169m costing includes staff, stock the lot. The cost of re-opening to route is £109 million.
Don't forget it's still pretty much intact, and modern track laying machines can get track down that the rate of 1-2km per day.

http://www.translinkuk.com/proposal/Translink Proposal Feb 06 - Original.pdf

 

[djw1981]

They thought similar for A-B in scotland too, but found that cycle path 'ripping up' and replacement with track took longer than estimated.

That report is only for the freight route and as I read it would have it operated as a private network almost. Also with freight trains every 10 minutes, would there be the capacity for a passenger service. Their own report claims it could allow 2 trains an hour, 18 hours a day. Thus any delay on the current NR infrastructure could lead to a train losing its path.

 

[Metroland]

Regarding the exact timetable details, I have no idea as it doesn't specify them. They ought to include passenger trains as it would help the case.

As for costs, and most things I quote on this forum, I am repeating facts I have gathered from credible sources. Some people seem to think there is no case for things but they need to back that up with credible sources to, else this forum comes across like a bunch of negative so and sos or just out to shoot the messenger.

 

[Snapper]

Regarding the exact timetable details, I have no idea as it doesn't specify them. They ought to include passenger trains as it would help the case.

As for costs, and most things I quote on this forum, I am repeating facts I have gathered from credible sources. Some people seem to think there is no case for things but they need to back that up with credible sources to, else this forum comes across like a bunch of negative so and sos or just out to shoot the messenger.

Hardly negative - just realistic.

The Woodhead crosses an area of countryside with bugger-all inhabitants (and no stations), so it's hardly going to be a passenger magnet, is it?

It was built to carry freight that no longer exists - either on the railways or on any other form of transport. The traffic simply isn't there any more. And, even if there was suddenly a new trans-Pennine freight flow - the existing lines could absorb it.

The only recent proposal has been to re-open it as a way of taking wagons off the M62 on piggyback vehicles. But even this is highly dubious. The Pennines are hardly the sort of barrier the channel is, and the Woodhead is no channel tunnel. Quite why wagons are expected to queue to use it (and thus make it pay) is beyond me, as any time saving will be negated by the queuing and getting on and off.

As I said before, it's just an unrealistic pipe-dream. The money would be far better spent re-opening lines that still have a strategic use - such as the old MR route via Bakewell, which could shorten the journey for freight that actually exists and still uses the railways - stone from Peak Forest to places like Hitchin, Peterbrough and Acton

 

[Metroland]

I think consultants looked at the Peak line, and concluded it wasn't a goer - for now. As much as I'd like to see that open.

While it's true there is nothing in the middle on the Woodhead route (not withstanding suburbs) I would except there to be some agglomeration benefits of such a link between Sheffield and Manchester. I quote one study

'There is ample evidence from Europe that the most prosperous city regions are those with premier quality public transport services. The existing rail transport links between the eight city regions in the north are limited; in some cases there are no direct services at all and those that do exist are often slow with few immediate plans to significantly improve access times and reliability. Examples of sub-standard linkages include Manchester/Leeds, Manchester/Sheffield, Tees Valley/Newcastle and Newcastle/Manchester. For example, Newcastle is half as far from Manchester as it is from London but rail journey times are virtually identical. Timetabled journey speeds from London are twice those between northern cities. However, it is not only speed but also reliability of the transport systems that will make them excellent. Work carried out by McQuaid, Greig, Smyth and Cooper (2004) noted that whether a delivery takes 8 hours or 5 hours is relatively unimportant. The key consideration is that the firm can rely on the fact that the journey will take 8 hours so that it can be factored into the logistics chain. This is an area of increasing importance. Venables (2004) states that uncertainty in deliveries can disrupt production and can force producers to order components before demand and cost uncertainties are known. Given the polycentric nature of the Northern Way, faster and more reliable links between the eight city regions would widen labour markets, widen markets, and improve the efficiency of supply chains. The Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS), at Newcastle University, quote experience from the Randstad in the Netherlands where a group of cities has benefited from improved transport links to create what is effectively a major urban conglomeration. CURDS argue that improved transport links could lead to a re-alignment of the economic geography of the North. '

 

[paul1609]

It's in the proposal, which is was compiled by consultants
Faber Maunsell and MDS Transmodal.

The £169m costing includes staff, stock the lot. The cost of re-opening to route is £109 million.
Don't forget it's still pretty much intact, and modern track laying machines can get track down that the rate of 1-2km per day.

http://www.translinkuk.com/proposal/Translink Proposal Feb 06 - Original.pdf

Re-opening for £109 million is pure fantasy, theyve allowed £10 million for signalling a 50 mile line to passenger standards. I'd suggest that something pushing £500-£700 million would be more realistic and that would not include improvements needed to network rail at either end.

 

[Metroland]

Well that’s just plucking figures out of thin air. The current cost of 30 miles worth of double track CWR with ballast and laid is around £30 million in 2003 prices, so let’s say £35 million. A solid state interlocking with associated signals around £4 million at 2003 prices and a set of points £400,000. You would probably need 3 SSIs at most, and more signals and westcad control. So I agree 10 million is on the lowish side, £30-40 million is more like it. Maybe around 20 sets of points at £10 million. The route is in good condition, being refurbished in the 50s and disused only since the 80s, and would probably cost £20-30 million for ground work. Comparable schemes are Skipton-Colne @ £60million for 12 miles, East-West Rail at around £110 million for 35 miles, although some of this is single.

It’s probably on the lowish side, but not far off. I would say no more than £200 million.

PS it's more like 30 miles from Hadfield-Sheffield, 17 miles from NR at Hadfield to NR Penistone.

 

[djw1981]

http://www.waverleyrailwayproject.co.uk/qanda.php

35 miles for £174m (half single track, half double) or a route closed in 1969 (only 13 years prior to Woodhead)

Also, what about the cost of moving and rerouting all the high voltage electricity cables and gas / water pipes which were laid through woodhead tunnels. the railway will have to CPO and then pay national Grid to remove and re-route them. Should they choose to use pylons, this will lead to a public enquiry etc....and cost and delay

 

[Callufrax]

http://www.waverleyrailwayproject.co.uk/qanda.php

35 miles for £174m (half single track, half double) or a route closed in 1969 (only 13 years prior to Woodhead)

Also, what about the cost of moving and rerouting all the high voltage electricity cables and gas / water pipes which were laid through woodhead tunnels. the railway will have to CPO and then pay national Grid to remove and re-route them. Should they choose to use pylons, this will lead to a public enquiry etc....and cost and delay

I thought the cables ran through the old tunnels, rather than (currently) the new one?

 

[yorkie]

I thought the cables ran through the old tunnels, rather than (currently) the new one?

Correct, but there is an application to move them into the new tunnels - which must be objeted to, as that would kill off any chance of re-opening.

 

[Metroland]

Wrong again. The High voltage cables go through the Victorian tunnel, which has been disused since the 1950s when the new tunnel was built. Yorkie is correct in that the new cables might threaten reinstatement.

The Waverely route is entirely different and it is much worse condition than Woodhead and requires extensive rebuilding.

Some people make out this stuff is relatively expensive. As it has been pointed out, this is the current cost of widening a few miles of the M1, with probably less benefits. The entire rail system costs £10 billion to run, although high by historic standards (compared to £3 billion with BR), and the bus/tram/metro system £6 billion around about £266 per head combined. 58% of car journeys are less than 5 miles, most of which could be done by walking and cycling. Which helps to explain why both have fallen a lot since the war, indeed 34% of mechanised journeys were by bike.

Nowadays, we spend over £180 billion on a highly polluting, congested, accident prone truck and car system, £3-5000 each on average, which has mostly replaced walking and cycling, but also bus and train.

Now what is wrong with shifting some of that back to public transport, and relieving some of the congestion and environmental problems and benefiting people that can't afford cars, especially in north Sheffield and East Manchester where just 58% of people own cars? Not really much is it? But it's amazing on a forum that is supposed to be sympathetic to having a better rail system, how many excuses we can think of not to do that isn't it especially with all the environmental and energy and congestion problems we have. I wouldn't mind if people got their facts right, but clearly they are discussing things without even knowing actual costs or route length.

If you want to be lap dogs of the automotive and oil industries - the latter of which is 88% owned by foreign governments, the majority not friendly to this country, you carry on.

 

[paul1609]

http://www.waverleyrailwayproject.co.uk/qanda.php

35 miles for £174m (half single track, half double) or a route closed in 1969 (only 13 years prior to Woodhead)

Isnt that to run a half hourly sprinter though? The woodhead tunnel plan sees 15 min freight shuttles plus intermodal freight plus 2 tph passenger. The infrastructure for that would be much more expensive. If the enhanced route is only 35 miles long as Metroland points out you also need considerable road improvements to get the lorries to the trains and big transfer depots. None of which seems to be included in the costs.
Even if you used Metrolands £200m for the infrastructure costs (nearly twice the plans £109m the scheme doesnt make a financial return.)

This proposal is to be honest a joke. What worries me is that these crackpot schemes are undermining any rail investment schemes whatsoever.

 

[Metroland]

Even if it didn't make a financial return on paper, it should be supported in relieving congestion and pollution through a national park, and the the positive externalities which new transport routes bring.

Well I suppose it depends what measure you call crackpot, personally I think some of the schemes in Scotland are far more crackpot, even Cross rail with it's £15 billion costs - mostly tunnelling - is bordering on that from a farebox point of view. But there are a lot of benefits connecting the city and West end to the West of London and Heathrow on a more direct service.

 

[Snapper]

I think consultants looked at the Peak line, and concluded it wasn't a goer - for now. As much as I'd like to see that open.

While it's true there is nothing in the middle on the Woodhead route (not withstanding suburbs) I would except there to be some agglomeration benefits of such a link between Sheffield and Manchester.'

- but there already IS such a link (which does serve other communities). So investing money in that, rather than frittering it away on and extra route with no added benefit hardly fits the criteria.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Even if it didn't make a financial return on paper, it should be supported in relieving congestion and pollution through a national park, and the the positive externalities which new transport routes bring.

Well I suppose it depends what measure you call crackpot, personally I think some of the schemes in Scotland are far more crackpot, even Cross rail with it's £15 billion costs - mostly tunnelling - is bordering on that from a farebox point of view. But there are a lot of benefits connecting the city and West end to the West of London and Heathrow on a more direct service.

Why is the Woodhead seen as so important, apart from its totemic value to enthusiasts?

As has been pointed out, there isn't a bottomless pit of money, so what is available has to be spent wisely, not just blown on dream schemes.

Crossrail, for example, has undergone rigorous Cost Benefit Analysis, and passed. So much so that the hard-nosed burghers of the City of London have been persuaded to cough-up some of their own cash.

I notice they have singularly failed to do so with the Woodhead 'pipe-dream'
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Even if it didn't make a financial return on paper, it should be supported in relieving congestion and pollution through a national park, and the the positive externalities which new transport routes bring.

"Positive externalities"...

It's a nice phrase, but what exactly does it mean in the context of the Woodhead route?

New transport routes work best where they have a purpose. And this isn't a new one, it's reopening one which closed for a reason - history had rendered it surplus to requirements (which is where it remains). There has been no build-up of population along the line (unless you count sheep), no new towns, industries, or anything...