Re-open the Woodhead route

[Mojo]

I'm not against certain reopenings, but as a transport campaigner I know the hurdles you have to go through to do even the simplest of things, and as a realist I know there is currently an extremely limited pot of money for railways, and until that changes reopenings or improvements have to be assessed on a basis of need.

The East to West rail link passes through areas of extreme growth and economic importance, it would offer benefits in reducing road traffic by providing a quicker passenger rail service, and also reduce freight traffic over one of the most congested pieces of railway in the country, which is crying out for more passenger capacity. Money would be far better spent on this, or providing improvements in other regions which suffer from problems.

This comes from the Government's reply to the portisheadrail epetition.

However, the White Paper also states that the 'Government does not envisage changes in the pattern or level of demand large enough in the HLOS period to justify developing or opening new regional lines'.

The Government, therefore, does not include the re-opening lines as a priority. However, local transport authorities can consider whether the re-opening of a line is the best way to meet regional and local transport objectives.

 

[Metroland]

@ snapper I seem to recall posting up the business case, which I didn't put together. You've just given me your unqualified opinion. You and others are objecting to it on gut feeling it might not make a financial return on paper, without qualification, zero reference to CBA or externalities, social inclusion or anything else, plucking figures out of thin air. You just don't happen to think it's a good idea, I happen to think it is. But at least I've provided more facts that you have so far. I have a record of proving facts on this site disputing what many people say from unqualified gut feeling. Even if we do agree with costs are too low, at least I went to the trouble of getting actual signalling, track and other costs from other recent reports. It's the negativity and lack of facts that annoys me.

This is just one scheme, others have looked at it including Central Railways and I believe one of the TOCs - although I'm not sure whether they commissioned a final report.

I seem to recall saying Cross rail passed CBA, but it makes zero sense from the farebox point of view. And people here who are objecting to Woodhead, could apply the same argument to Crossrail and for that matter many other schemes.

And the current route does link North Sheffield, Doncaster, Penistone, and East Manchester is quite the same way, other than by a restrictive route through narrow tunnels. The new link may well allow journey time improvements and an increase in frequency. The bigger tunnel would allow large containers to travel between east and west ports, which they currently cannot do and go by road.

@ Mojo. The government are known for messing up and getting the predictions of everything wrong. All their schemes are based on $50 oil and it's already double that. They (and the Tories) are responsible for making costs much higher, and no doubt many schemes would have got through before they started interfering.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article3129656.ece

'In response to $100 oil, the IEA have said The IEA, which represents rich oil-consuming countries, urged its member governments to do more to curb their use of oil, for example by lowering speed limits for motorists, as crude oil prices hit a fresh all-time high of $100.09 a barrel before falling to $99.18 a barrel, down 44 cents on the day.'

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c2ffaa5c-ba4d-11dc-abcb-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

On the face of that it would make many rail schemes wash their face alone.

 

[Snapper]

Metroland, a number of people have had a look at the 'business case' of the proposed Woodhead route re-opening and pointed out some heroic assumptions on the cost of the scheme. I would add another: The scheme reckons it would save an hour's driving time, but gives no details of how this is achieved. There's no mention of terminal layouts, or plans for connecting either end of the line to the existing road network (things which would surely have an impact on the transit times). In fact, the proposal is light on actual detail - which, as we all know - is where the Devil lies...

As for the routes wider use, this scheme proposes 60mph trains with a 15 minute headway and 'simple signalling' - which doesn't exactly provide any attractive capacity for any other services.

I also note that, despite the assurances of the attractiveness of the scheme from its proposers - it doesn't seem to have persuaded any firm backers. And one would have to wonder why...

 

[Mojo]

I personally don't base transport schemes on how much money they're likely to make as I feel that is a bad way to go about it, for a start transport doesn't make that much profit anyway - compare the big UK transport groups to even medium-sized UK retail chains for example. Secondly, there are other hidden benefits such as economic, social and environmental. Take some key London commuter operators; Southern and Southeastern, for example, both of which are subsidised, but without their services, a huge percentage of people wouldn't be able to get to work in Central London, which would have a huge impact on UK plc.

Rail services should surely be prioritised where they are likely to bring maximum benefit on all three factors, such as Crossrail, East-West link and many urban rail routes. I personally don't think there would be many people benefiting from reopening the Woodhead route, as, say similarly or lower costed items such as the Varsity line and the Portishead line.

 

[Metroland]

@ snapper Well we could go on and on like this, I agree with some of what you are saying as aspects of this particular scheme, but in general I support a number of selective rail re-opening schemes around the country for the reasons I've outlined.

We shall have to agree to disagree. If I was a complete crack pot we'd be talking about opening the M&GN or Withered arm, which always have a place in the heart of rail enthusiasts. Even I think they should stay closed from a commercial point of view.

I happen to think with the backdrop of congestion, pollution and environmental constraints and social inclusion some schemes have merit, including this one.

Really this is nothing. The Northern way, led by Professor David Begg is promoting high speed links across the Pennines, and woodhead may well fit into that.

'Professor David Begg, Chair of the Northern Way's Transport Compact, said: "These wider economic benefits come about through reducing travel times in city-to-city and business-to-business access.

"They appear not to have been taken into account in the Rail White Paper and are additional to those previously calculated for high-speed rail.

"The economic benefits would arise not just in the North. Around £3.5billion would be in the North, £3.5billion in Greater London and £3billion in the rest of the country.

"As a proportion of the North's economy, however, the impact would be over twice what it would be in the South."

The Northern Way's research highlights that the importance of East-West trans-Pennine services has in the past been undervalued. David Begg said: "The importance of a new high speed trans-Pennine link in addition to a line on each side of the country is very clear.

"There are very worthwhile benefits for the North East and Yorkshire from a high-speed line on the East side of the country and for the North West from a high-speed line on the West side. But, a trans-Pennine link adds more than 40% to the wider economic benefits that we have identified for the North.

"What a trans-Pennine link adds is better region-to-region and better city-to-city connectivity within the North, as well as better connections from the North East to the West Midlands and from the North West to the East side of the country.

"A trans-Pennine link would help create a new economic geography for the North of England and the country as a whole.

"In the last week we have seen the reality of two hour journey times between London and Paris. We know from the recent Rail White Paper that in the coming years the Government will be giving further consideration to new conventional rail line options as a means of dealing with the long term capacity problems on the existing West Coast, East Coast and Midland Main Lines and also across the Pennines. '

http://www.investinmanchester.com/logistics_supplychain-n1908

 

[Snapper]

David Begg makes no mention of the Woodhead route. All he talks about is a general upgrading and speeding up of E-W links. As there are existing lines (which run through centres of population as well as just to and from them) that could be upgraded I'd be very surprised to see him seriously suggest the Woodhead as a plan.

Because, the whole thing about the Woodhead is that its a closed line in the wrong place. Serving sheep - not people, which is why I crack a wry smile at your comment about "social inclusion"..

To be honest, I think that the fixation with this long-closed route is rather odd. It feels like people are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole - and find any way, no matter how inappropriate, to justify its reopening.

The money it would cost can be better spent elsewhere - on rail projects which really would benefit to people.

 

[Metroland]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Hopeless as usual, open mouth before checking facts..

'A political row is brewing over the Sheffield to Manchester Woodhead line, which shadows one of Britain's busiest rail routes and was taken out of service in 1981. The government has approved plans by National Grid to plant electricity cables in a tunnel in the Peak District, which would prevent the line from being reopened, campaigners say.

Graham Stringer, MP for Blackley, Manchester, expects more than 100 parliamentary colleagues to back his early day motion against the move. He said it would be "extremely difficult" to accommodate the millions of extra passengers on the railway by 2030 if disused lines were redeveloped. "If we are going to increase rail capacity we have to reopen lines like the Woodhead tunnel. Without doing that, we cannot reach any of the projections that the government is predicting."

Professor David Begg, of the Northern Way economic development group, said the future of disused rail infrastructure was "critical" in the economic future of the region. "If the Woodhead tunnel is not available it will cost dramatically more to build rail capacity across the Pennines."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/dec/11/transportintheuk.transportpolicy

 

[paul1609]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Hopeless as usual, open mouth before checking facts..

Hmm it seems to me we are begining to lose the plot Metroland.
protecting the route is a bit different to trying to promote a half baked scheme to re-open the line and I'd normally be in favour of protection.
However in this case national Grid are saying that the victorian tunnel now housing the cables are in danger of collapse?
Given so are the local MPs likely to support a scheme to builds miles of pylons accross the national park so that rail reopening is a possibility.
if so I say that is a considerable negative CBA against the rail scheme

 

[Metroland]

*yawn*

 

[djw1981]

Well I suppose it depends what measure you call crackpot, personally I think some of the schemes in Scotland are far more crackpot...

Care to expand?

 

[Metroland]

I think the Waverley route is very marginal, and it's just as well EARL was scrapped with the tram going to the airport, no need for both.

The Waverley route's value was always going through to Carlisle. I'm not against it, but I'm just amazed it was approved in it's current form. I would have though something like Matlock-Buxton would have made more sense, or East-West rail.

 

[paul1609]

*yawn*

I take it you've run out of constructive argument then.

 

[Metroland]

Well as you did long ago, why not?

 

[djw1981]

The issue I see is that teh Woodhead business case is built on hauliers using it. has there been a major buy in from major hauliers on those routes that they would use it? Otherwise the white elephant risk is there.

Rather like the logical arguement that the Channel Tunnel would see a large modal shift in trans-channel traffic from ferry to rail. This has happened with hauled lorries, but less so with full modal shift onto freight trains.

I is a nice idea, but being a freight line does not attract as much attention from PTE / DfT and the DfT Rail Freight strategy does not give much money for large scale projects like this, which is a shame. Some high level buy in by local development agencies and regional transport organisations would boost the project.

 

[Kneedown]

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.

The majority of freight traffic does indeed originate on the route, from Peak Forest where it joins the route at Chinley, and also from Earles Sidings near Castleton where it joins the route directly, however this reduces capacity on the route far more than if a freight train was merely passing along with a clear run. Think about it, imagine a long 2000ton freight joining at Chinley. Once that train hits the main line, it is travelling at 15mph until the last wagon is clear of the junction, and then accelerating that weight, uphill if headed towards Edale (Where there is also a 40mph PSR at the far end of Cowburn tunnel, neccessitating slowing down and re-accelerating once clear of that!) If the train joins the main line at Earles then the situation is even worse, due to the fact that once the loco joins the main line, the rest of the train is still in the sidings and therefore must not exceed 5mph until the rear of the train is clear of the sidings. So as you see, once a freight train enters the main line, then delays to passenger trains soon follow.
As i've said previously, i've been driving along this route for many years now, and i can safely say that it's an everyday occurance to catch up with the train in front, whether it's a freight or a local stopping service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

I've never said it should be re-opened, the track and signals are gone and covered in tarmac!
The money needed to put everything back in place would be far better spent elsewhere, on electrification, track upgrades......... and decent rolling stock for EMT Connect!
But thats all for another thread!

Regards,
Kneedown.

 

[Snapper]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Hopeless as usual, open mouth before checking facts..

'A political row is brewing over the Sheffield to Manchester Woodhead line, which shadows one of Britain's busiest rail routes and was taken out of service in 1981. The government has approved plans by National Grid to plant electricity cables in a tunnel in the Peak District, which would prevent the line from being reopened, campaigners say.

Graham Stringer, MP for Blackley, Manchester, expects more than 100 parliamentary colleagues to back his early day motion against the move. He said it would be "extremely difficult" to accommodate the millions of extra passengers on the railway by 2030 if disused lines were redeveloped. "If we are going to increase rail capacity we have to reopen lines like the Woodhead tunnel. Without doing that, we cannot reach any of the projections that the government is predicting."

Professor David Begg, of the Northern Way economic development group, said the future of disused rail infrastructure was "critical" in the economic future of the region. "If the Woodhead tunnel is not available it will cost dramatically more to build rail capacity across the Pennines."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/dec/11/transportintheuk.transportpolicy

A political 'row' - hardly. One MP with an early-day motion hardly makes the earth move...

And David Begg makes the point that routes like the Woodhead should be preserved for possible future use. He doesn't say it should be reopened now.

I still don't see a compelling argument for that route to be reopened under present conditions. Not when there's plenty that can be done to increase capacity on the existing routes.

 

[yorkie]

So, say we upgrade the Hope valley route. How long would it need to be closed to completely replace the signalling and provide additional loops etc? What would the compensation costs be?

And what if you then wanted to increase speeds to match the timings of the Woodhead route, how much would that cost?

Remember that the 'SP' speeds are only used by the 158s operated by Central! the 185s maintain the schedules by burning more fuel accelerating quicker, a rather unenvironmentally friendly option. Interesting that TPE can introduce one of the most appaulingly wasteful trains in the world, and then turn a few engines off because they realise it's grossly overpowered and then have the cheek to claim credit for saving fuel. Unbelievable...!

In 50 years, we've gone backwards.

What's the fuel consumption per passenger of an EM2 + say, 7 coaches compared to a 185 I wonder?!

 

[Snapper]

In 50 years, we've gone backwards.

What's the fuel consumption per passenger of an EM2 + say, 7 coaches compared to a 185 I wonder?!

A nice thought, but one that ignores other economic factors, such as the fact that the OLE was life-expired on the Woodhead and needed major investment, had bespoke locomotives which needed their own works (Reddish) and that the route wasn't earning its keep. Factor in those costs and the picture would look rather different...

 

[Metroland]

Yes and no. The OHL from Manchester to Hadfield and Glossop was converted to 25kv AC. With relatively modest investment there was no reason the rest of the line couldn't have been converted.

http://therailwaystationgallery.fotopic.net/p40563593.html

I completely disagree about sheep. The line runs though substantial parts of North Sheffield and East Manchester which has an incredibly long journey round via the Hope valley or no services at all. Penistone has a very indirect sevice to Sheffield and so on. It is currently around 2 hours from East Manchester to Sheffield centre. That time could have been cut to 40 mins or less. It's all about relative timings, which could have lead to a number of agglomeration benefits.

It seems like the objectors have a number of simplistic farebox based arguments against any proposal. Transport schemes are not approved on that basis. Interestingly, even now, they don't get brownie points for reducing negative externalities from other modes, it's mainly based on relative timings and to an extent, safety benefits. The peak district has some of the most dangerous roads in the country, especially during the winter when many are impassable.

Things are a lot different from 1981 when the route was closed. (The track wasn't lifted until 1986 btw). Sure some of the coal and a lot of the steel traffic has gone. But there is a need to accommodate bigger intermodal containers, there's a need to reduce the amount of cars and trucks in the peak district national park, our most popular natural recreational space. Heck the Swiss are building several tunnels around the length of the channel tunnel to protect theirs!

Okay, here is my summary of the benefits; it’s really up to people now to weigh it up in their own minds whether it’s a good idea. If you do think it's a good idea, please sign the petition.


1. Huge journey time savings between East Manchester and North Sheffield, Barnsley, Penistone, Dearn Valley, Glossop.
2. A route for large intermodal containers and extra freight. Currently it is impossible to cross the Pennines with large containers.
3. Extra trains between Manchester and Sheffield via alterative routes. This could enable other operators in future to operate Manchester to London trains via Sheffield.
4. A potential reduction of cars and Lorries in the Peak district, with a reduction in accidents, pollution and congestion. Provides a viable alternative on many routes for people to leave their cars at home. Currently East Manchester to Sheffield is over 2 hours, this could be potentially reduced to less than 40 minutes. If Crowden station was re-opened it would provide another access to Britain’s most popular long distance path – the Pennine way.
5. A potential piggy back service for trucks across the Pennines, this would have benefits: A reduction in trucks across the Peak helps protect Britain’s most popular national park. Indeed, the Peak district is one of the most visited regions in the world, with over 30 million visits per annum.
6. Help tackle the biggest problems of the 21st century. Climate Change and Energy security.
7. Provides agglomeration benefits, and opens up employment opportunities. Opens up new rail freight flow possibilities across the Pennines.
8. Provides a new public transport service in areas of low car ownership. Helps the huge student population in Manchester and Sheffield.
9. Provides a diversionary route
10. Provides an additional route which is better to withstand poor weather, which affects so many Pennine roads.

 

[Nick W]

I definitely think it's a good idea. The line is actually perfect for railway operation.

One service could stop at a few stops to pick up people in suburban Manchester areas where the road is probably no more than 40mph, then zoom the full train along at 100mph intercity speeds, and drop off at Barnsley, Meadow-hall and Sheffield.

Other services would run non-stop from Manchester to Sheffield, as part of the existing TPE "intercity" services as well as freight en-route, relieving capacity for stoppers services on the Hope Valley line, as well as the freights starting on that line.

Just remember the Hope Valley route was supposed to be closed not the Woodhead route. Sadly political pressure lead to the older indirect route being kept open for tourist purposes.

 

[Mojo]

But how important is the Woodhead route given that other rail services are also asking to be reopened. Manchester and Sheffield already have a large tramway and heavy rail network - it might not serve areas this line does - but they have already had a large share of the transport "pot" over the past 20 years. Neither the former Greater Manchester nor the former South Yorkshire counties are particularly congested when compared to other UK urban areas.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Neither the former Greater Manchester nor the former South Yorkshire counties are particularly congested when compared to other UK urban areas.

The congestion in both is horrendous

 

[paul1609]

So, say we upgrade the Hope valley route. How long would it need to be closed to completely replace the signalling and provide additional loops etc? What would the compensation costs be?

And what if you then wanted to increase speeds to match the timings of the Woodhead route, how much would that cost?

Remember that the 'SP' speeds are only used by the 158s operated by Central! the 185s maintain the schedules by burning more fuel accelerating quicker, a rather unenvironmentally friendly option. Interesting that TPE can introduce one of the most appaulingly wasteful trains in the world, and then turn a few engines off because they realise it's grossly overpowered and then have the cheek to claim credit for saving fuel. Unbelievable...!

In 50 years, we've gone backwards.

What's the fuel consumption per passenger of an EM2 + say, 7 coaches compared to a 185 I wonder?!

I'm not actually convinced that the Woodhead Route would be any quicker.
In the last few years of operation the semi-fast service took 58 to 60 mins compared to 52 mins for todays TPE via Stockport. Whilst you would expect some improvement with a modern 25 Kv emu that would also be true of the Hope Valley Route.

I think the problem with the Woodhead Route and timings is with the Layout of the Hadfield to Manchester Section.

I think that if there are priorities for the Transpennine route i'd like to see the Huddersfield Route electrified first, Leeds Manchester seems to me to have a lot more potential than any Sheffield-Manchester route for attracting customers from the M62.

Personally I take the view that Leeds York and the MML from Bedford to Sheffield should take priority over any Transpennine route.

 

[Donny Dave]

I definitely think it's a good idea. The line is actually perfect for railway operation.

One service could stop at a few stops to pick up people in suburban Manchester areas where the road is probably no more than 40mph, then zoom the full train along at 100mph intercity speeds, and drop off at Barnsley, Meadow-hall and Sheffield.

Then you have the problem of the set having to reverse at Sheffield, meaning that passengers for Doncaster, Scunthorpe, Grimsby and Cleethorpes would have no reduction in journey time. Where's the beneifit there?

Also, you cut out a direct link between Stockport and Sheffield (assuming you want EMT to go via Woodhead as well). There is quite a few passengers (each way) that use that link. So my second question is....

Would you like to see them have an increased journey time of over an hour compared to the 45 minutes or so today?

Before Woodhead is considered for re-opening, The Hope Valley needs an upgrade first (I did say this earlier in the topic).

New signalling, passing loops and higher line speeds. This will increase capacity, and cut journey times, possibly negating the need for Woodhead to be re-opened.

 

[Nick W]

Then you have the problem of the set having to reverse at Sheffield, meaning that passengers for Doncaster, Scunthorpe, Grimsby and Cleethorpes would have no reduction in journey time. Where's the beneifit there?

Reliability, plus the opportunity for trains from Manchester to the South to not have to reverse at Derby via Stoke

Also, you cut out a direct link between Stockport and Sheffield (assuming you want EMT to go via Woodhead as well). There is quite a few passengers (each way) that use that link. So my second question is....

Would you like to see them have an increased journey time of over an hour compared to the 45 minutes or so today?

No I'd just run addition services rather than just shifting the same overcrowded services round the network.

 

[Mojo]

The congestion in both is horrendous

It may be, but in comparison to the rest of the country, Greater Manchester has one of the highest peak traffic speeds, and what used to be South Yorkshire, which is quite close to the bottom, doesn't make it into the bottom three.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Try Stockport to Manchester Picadilly or Chesterfield to Sheffield

 

[Metroland]

It may be, but in comparison to the rest of the country, Greater Manchester has one of the highest peak traffic speeds, and what used to be South Yorkshire, which is quite close to the bottom, doesn't make it into the bottom three.

Hate to disagree with you Mojo, but according to this list Manchester is the 4th most congested city in Europe in terms of average speed. Bristol is not far behind

Sheffield is however, relatively congestion free.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/9071019.006/europes-slowest-cities-list-published

Yet another proposal for re-opening here:

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk...objectid=20331942&siteid=50002-name_page.html

 

[Mojo]

Hate to disagree with you Mojo, but according to this list Manchester is the 4th most congested city in Europe in terms of average speed. Bristol is not far behind

Sheffield is however, relatively congestion free.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/9071019.006/europes-slowest-cities-list-published

The DfT's figures don't seem to say anything like that at all. From that it seems that traffic in Bristol has got significantly quicker since 2004 and Sheffield even isn't on the chart!

Our own figures, taken from a variety of sources including ANPR cameras, satellite tracking and figures from First buses seem to suggest the opposite. I can't begin to imagine how it can be a fair test to get stats from GPS alone in a 16 sq mi radius from the City Centre only, especially when you consider it was taken over a short space in the period of the year where travel patterns are at their most random!

 

[Guinness]

My official verdict of the thread:

Manchester traffic is crap. Crappier at Peak Time.




Continue!