Fantasy: Major Infrastructure with Zero Chance of being Built

[Mcr Warrior]

Major Infrastructure with Zero Chance of being Built? New twin bore tunnel between Whitehaven and Corkickle, with the various other single track sections in the area also being doubled.

 

[Howardh]

This has long been a thought of mine, because there is land to add platforms 0, -1, -2 etc at Piccadilly.

However, the last time this came up someone posted a plan of the old junction. The lines did not join the two tracks nearest to the viaduct, instead they crossed by diamonds and joined the next pair. The result would be a lot of crossing moves.

Now, you could create a new curve that went to the East of the previous one to allow for the shallower junction. So it is still a plausible line. It is just the current derelict viaduct is in the wrong place.

With my idea of a circle line, how many lines would to have to cross between Ardwick and Picc 14? Eight? More?? Even if the line were plausible it would never happen because of that! But while the curve northbound going directly to Picc 1/2 could be redeveloped (if space at Piccadilly permitted) is there any chance of a south-bound curve so some trains from the north (eg Barrow to the airport) are diverted around Manchester via Victoria to avoid the corridor?

 

[Topological]

With my idea of a circle line, how many lines would to have to cross between Ardwick and Picc 14? Eight? More?? Even if the line were plausible it would never happen because of that! But while the curve northbound going directly to Picc 1/2 could be redeveloped (if space at Piccadilly permitted) is there any chance of a south-bound curve so some trains from the north (eg Barrow to the airport) are diverted around Manchester via Victoria to avoid the corridor?

Whenever I thought about it, I thought in terms of the subsurface lines in London. All trains stopping at all stops (except on the Bolton line since there should be paths to allow trians to skip the stops between Salford Crescent and Bolton. Likewise for Rochdale where there should be capacity for some to be fast Victoria to Rochdale).

There would be (trains through Piccadilly only, services passing through Victoria, such as Chester to Leeds, or Southport to Stalybridge, remain unaltered):

1. Circle - Airport - Piccadilly (13/14) - Oxford Road - Salford Central* (new platforms needed) - Victoria - Piccadilly (East)
2. North East - Airport - Piccadilly (13/14) - Oxford Road - Salford Central - Victoria - Rochdale ->
3. North West 1 - Airport - Picadilly (13/14) - Oxford Road - Salford Crescent - Bolton ->
4. Warrington Central Line - Airport - Piccadilly (13/14) - Oxford Road ->
5. North West 2 - Piccadilly (East) - Victoria - Salford Central - Bolton ->
6. Chat Moss - Piccadilly (East|) - Victoria - Salford Central ->

Lines 2 to 6 behave like the District, Hammersmith and City and Metropolitan lines in London, sharing core sections and branching off.

Like the Circle line now, there would be no circle. The regular interchange opportunities at Piccadilly would provide the necessary connections. A better bridge would be needed from Piccadilly (East) to Piccadilly (13/14), together with a better waiting area above 13/14.

This all works better with fast trains from the North West coming in via the new Liverpool to Manchester line, but otherwise provision within North West 1 is needed for the Scotland train. Blackpool North and the Lake District trains come under either North West 1 or North West 2.

The Atherton line is assumed to go to Tram Train, whilst Southport is another Bolton -> provided for in North West 1 or North West 2.

I left Deansgate out, but that would either be an all trains stop, or a closure depending on what gets done about a West entrance at Oxford Road.

Whilst a line that allowed a true circle would be nice, getting trains up and over the throat of Piccadilly is a major engineering challenge.

An option for a bridge that brings trains from the airport side over to Piccadilly East is plausible, but that would make it more like a giant speech bubble rather than a circle. Trains would be as per Circle, but with an extra Piccadilly (East) - Airport on the end. Of course that would please people who like direct airport trains, but would make the airport line very high frequency.

I assume too that no other services go to the airport. Crewe to the Airport approaches from the South so does not impact on the capacity of the line between Airport and Piccadilly. All that would change there is that the Crewe trains currently continue to Piccadilly main shed, but would no longer do so. The TfW from North Wales would need to terminate somewhere, so could be pathed behind one of the many Airport - Piccadilly 13/14 trains but would be slower due to the metro trains stopping.

 

[Howardh]

Whenever I thought about it, I thought in terms of the subsurface lines in London. All trains stopping at all stops (except on the Bolton line since there should be paths to allow trians to skip the stops between Salford Crescent and Bolton. Likewise for Rochdale where there should be capacity for some to be fast Victoria to Rochdale).

There would be (trains through Piccadilly only, services passing through Victoria, such as Chester to Leeds, or Southport to Stalybridge, remain unaltered):

1. Circle - Airport - Piccadilly (13/14) - Oxford Road - Salford Central* (new platforms needed) - Victoria - Piccadilly (East)
2. North East - Airport - Piccadilly (13/14) - Oxford Road - Salford Central - Victoria - Rochdale ->
3. North West 1 - Airport - Picadilly (13/14) - Oxford Road - Salford Crescent - Bolton ->
4. Warrington Central Line - Airport - Piccadilly (13/14) - Oxford Road ->
5. North West 2 - Piccadilly (East) - Victoria - Salford Central - Bolton ->
6. Chat Moss - Piccadilly (East|) - Victoria - Salford Central ->

Lines 2 to 6 behave like the District, Hammersmith and City and Metropolitan lines in London, sharing core sections and branching off.

Like the Circle line now, there would be no circle. The regular interchange opportunities at Piccadilly would provide the necessary connections. A better bridge would be needed from Piccadilly (East) to Piccadilly (13/14), together with a better waiting area above 13/14.

This all works better with fast trains from the North West coming in via the new Liverpool to Manchester line, but otherwise provision within North West 1 is needed for the Scotland train. Blackpool North and the Lake District trains come under either North West 1 or North West 2.

The Atherton line is assumed to go to Tram Train, whilst Southport is another Bolton -> provided for in North West 1 or North West 2.

I left Deansgate out, but that would either be an all trains stop, or a closure depending on what gets done about a West entrance at Oxford Road.

Whilst a line that allowed a true circle would be nice, getting trains up and over the throat of Piccadilly is a major engineering challenge.

An option for a bridge that brings trains from the airport side over to Piccadilly East is plausible, but that would make it more like a giant speech bubble rather than a circle. Trains would be as per Circle, but with an extra Piccadilly (East) - Airport on the end. Of course that would please people who like direct airport trains, but would make the airport line very high frequency.

I assume too that no other services go to the airport. Crewe to the Airport approaches from the South so does not impact on the capacity of the line between Airport and Piccadilly. All that would change there is that the Crewe trains currently continue to Piccadilly main shed, but would no longer do so. The TfW from North Wales would need to terminate somewhere, so could be pathed behind one of the many Airport - Piccadilly 13/14 trains but would be slower due to the metro trains stopping.

Interesting and thoughtful, but don't ask me questions later!!

If anything shows just what a mess Manchester is, all started I presume in Victorian times when everything North went to Exchange/Victoria and everything South to central/London rd etc, and never the twain!!!

If I had a choice and unlimited finance, I would go for a large circle line around Greater Manchester linking up all the towns with the airport - the fantasy part; but we certainly needs something to relieve the congestion along the corridor which may be an underground link from that area arouns Salford Crescent, how far down the road is that? Would re-opening Mayfair as a station with the only shuttle service to the airport help - thinking trains from Blackpool/Liverpool etc could terminate at 13/14 (maybe extend to 15 if there's room?) and pax use a moving walkway to the shuttle trains?

Given an unlimited budget yet trying to save money on redeveloping all the lines around Manchester; that's what I'd do, move trains from Salford Crescent underground towards Piccadilly underground terminus, where you then transfer to other platforms or the airport shuttle.

 

[mike57]

If anything shows just what a mess Manchester is

And all the money spent on the Ordsal Chord which sees I think 1tph

The recent history is quite interesting, going back to early 80s Victoria was more important, with Transpennine trains using it, and anything North using it because the Windsor Chord wasnt opened until I think 1988. At this time an effort was then made to concentate everything beyond local services at Piccadilly, and this worked fine at first. TPE north switched to the Guide bridge route, the Staylbridge - Stockport was reduced to a parlimentary. This worked fairly well for some years but I think the undoing was increasing capacity by increasing service frequency rather than train length and an overall increase in rail travel. There were and still are too many 2 and 3 coach units running about in the Manchester area.

So you now have a situation where Castlefield is at capacity, and something big is needed to sort it out. Which definitely falls into the 'Major infrastructure with zero chance of being built' category.

 

[Howardh]

And all the money spent on the Ordsal Chord which sees I think 1tph

The recent history is quite interesting, going back to early 80s Victoria was more important, with Transpennine trains using it, and anything North using it because the Windsor Chord wasnt opened until I think 1988. At this time an effort was then made to concentate everything beyond local services at Piccadilly, and this worked fine at first. TPE north switched to the Guide bridge route, the Staylbridge - Stockport was reduced to a parlimentary. This worked fairly well for some years but I think the undoing was increasing capacity by increasing service frequency rather than train length and an overall increase in rail travel. There were and still are too many 2 and 3 coach units running about in the Manchester area.

So you now have a situation where Castlefield is at capacity, and something big is needed to sort it out. Which definitely falls into the 'Major infrastructure with zero chance of being built' category.

Backs up my plan to take trains round the eastern side out of the way! Don't think it's "zero" it has to be done, although I can't imagine what will emerge; might not even be around to see it (but may have to put up with the disruption in the years before!!!)

 

[cle]

And all the money spent on the Ordsal Chord which sees I think 1tph

The recent history is quite interesting, going back to early 80s Victoria was more important, with Transpennine trains using it, and anything North using it because the Windsor Chord wasnt opened until I think 1988. At this time an effort was then made to concentate everything beyond local services at Piccadilly, and this worked fine at first. TPE north switched to the Guide bridge route, the Staylbridge - Stockport was reduced to a parlimentary. This worked fairly well for some years but I think the undoing was increasing capacity by increasing service frequency rather than train length and an overall increase in rail travel. There were and still are too many 2 and 3 coach units running about in the Manchester area.

So you now have a situation where Castlefield is at capacity, and something big is needed to sort it out. Which definitely falls into the 'Major infrastructure with zero chance of being built' category.

Things on the north side are improving - paired by 'turnbacks' at Stalybridge and Rochdale, the additional ones at Victoria and Salford Central - the wires to Wigan (Rochdale needed next) - all of these are pairing services to minimize conflicts. Hopefully the next steps will be to be able to increase to 3tph or 4tph during peaks... and increase commuting ridership.

Lines which enjoy more than one route should have a lot of intensification on them - e.g. all of the stops between Victoria and Rochdale which in theory could have more calls, if warranted.

Castlefield and the south side is a real mess. I would 'Met' the CLC line to Warrington Central and remove that from contention - would go to a slow but steady 12tph. Warrington itself would have several fasts to Victoria from Bank Quay, more could be added (the peak extras per above!)

If you did the Met to Glossop, you gain some paths but that is probably the best used 'traditional rail commuter line' into Piccadilly - and likely the most NIMBY - you might do better removing some of these very infrequent 2 car locals to Marple and such instead onto the tram and redirecting towards Hope Valley or additional paths towards Stoke/Crewe, even semi-fast ones (e.g. the Curzon St via Stone idea many have)

 

[daodao]

Interesting and thoughtful, but don't ask me questions later!!

If anything shows just what a mess Manchester is, all started I presume in Victorian times when everything North went to Exchange/Victoria and everything South to central/London rd etc, and never the twain!!!

...

Historically, portions of London trains were detached at:

• Chinley, to run via Bredbury and the Phillip's Park line to Blackburn, calling at Manchester Victoria, Bolton Trinity Street and Darwen; and
• Stockport Edgeley, to run via Droylsden to Colne, calling at Manchester Victoria, Bolton Trinity Street and selected stations in East Lancashire.

 

[mike57]

Backs up my plan to take trains round the eastern side out of the way! Don't think it's "zero" it has to be done, although I can't imagine what will emerge; might not even be around to see it (but may have to put up with the disruption in the years before!!!)

I think the problem is we have lost the ability to have a vision of what we want. The likely outcome of the Ordsal chord (White elephant unless you do other upgrades) were widely predicted on here and no doubt in other places. To be honest its common sense. The bean counters pare everything down to cheapest 'will just do' solutions, which later end up not 'just doing' instead causing ongoing problem in years to come (4 car 185s anyone).

Couple that with all the talk of HS2 reaching Manchester and NPR which is now also firmly in the zero chance in the foreseeable future category and you end up with a situation where nothing is done. I think the practice of breaking each scheme down into small chunks and looking at BCR of each bit, then plenty of hand ringing and binning the whole lot, as well money wasted on endless 'studies', its all part of the state that we are currently in. Railways are a national infrastructure and a national asset and the current way of doing things doesn't seem to reflect that. Different country, different politics, but China have a plan, the grid of high speed lines being one them, and they get on and build them.

Then to take the case of the route we were discussing, I don't know if its protected in anyway, but you can imagine a developer getting hold of it, building over it and it moves from the 'cant afford it today' pile to the 'never' pile.

In an ideal world we would have plans for a Manchester 'ring' railway, with plans to grade separate junctions including approaches to Piccadilly, and expansion at Piccadilly, with Victoria just being a stop on the ring. We also had the old Mayfield station, but I believe that site has now been sold. You decide what you want the end result to look like, and then fund it for long enough that the work can proceed stage by stage. But this is getting off topic...

 

[Topological]

I think the problem is we have lost the ability to have a vision of what we want. The likely outcome of the Ordsal chord (White elephant unless you do other upgrades) were widely predicted on here and no doubt in other places. To be honest its common sense. The bean counters pare everything down to cheapest 'will just do' solutions, which later end up not 'just doing' instead causing ongoing problem in years to come (4 car 185s anyone).

Couple that with all the talk of HS2 reaching Manchester and NPR which is now also firmly in the zero chance in the foreseeable future category and you end up with a situation where nothing is done. I think the practice of breaking each scheme down into small chunks and looking at BCR of each bit, then plenty of hand ringing and binning the whole lot, as well money wasted on endless 'studies', its all part of the state that we are currently in. Railways are a national infrastructure and a national asset and the current way of doing things doesn't seem to reflect that. Different country, different politics, but China have a plan, the grid of high speed lines being one them, and they get on and build them.

Then to take the case of the route we were discussing, I don't know if its protected in anyway, but you can imagine a developer getting hold of it, building over it and it moves from the 'cant afford it today' pile to the 'never' pile.

In an ideal world we would have plans for a Manchester 'ring' railway, with plans to grade separate junctions including approaches to Piccadilly, and expansion at Piccadilly, with Victoria just being a stop on the ring. We also had the old Mayfield station, but I believe that site has now been sold. You decide what you want the end result to look like, and then fund it for long enough that the work can proceed stage by stage. But this is getting off topic...

Mayfield was not a lot of use. It is on the Airport side of the formation and could have been used for an airport shuttle. More trains could have been diverted via Styal and then approached Mayfield platforms but that means missing Stockport. Trains coming in through Styal would also eat up capacity on the line to the airport and negate opportunities for local services on the line. However, it was limited use for much else.

Much more use at Piccadilly is the land for 15 and 16, which is still available.

The biggest scope for expansion is on the East of the shed, that is where HS2 is still lightly pencilled to go. Selling land on the East side would be shortsighted.

Whether preservation could be placed on an alignment for a Phillips Park to Piccadilly East curve (similar to the Blind Lane Curve but not exactly) is open for discussion. At the moment it is the plans for HS2 that sever that possibility.

 

[mike57]

could have been used for an airport shuttle.

Could the triangle of space between 13 and 11, where the cab rank is, be built over to provide a couple (or more) west facing bays? at least one or two long enough to take a 5 car 800/397 or 6 car 185

If so then I would terminate most of long distance airport terminators at Piccadilly and run a pretty much self contained airport shuttle, with a mix of fasts and stoppers. Not sure of the capacity but say 4 - 5 fasts per hour, clock face, with 2 slows per hour setting off as soon as the fast has 'got away' I dont think the next fast would catch it up then.

I also think that 'HS2' plans stopping some smaller scale improvements is not helpful. HS2 reaching Manchester has to be many decades away, its going to take at least a generation for the bad teste left by the current HS2 project to dissipate to the point where politicians would be willing to consider HSR again, and then probably another 10 years before boots on the ground, and then 10-15 years to construct.

 

[The Ham]

That does not apply to the debt interest, much of which is paid to overseas investors

About 25% of government debt is held by overseas investors, which about the same amount that the Bank of England holds.

Quite a lot of government debt is held by British organisations (banks, pension companies and the like) or directly by the public (premium bonds or other NS&I savings).

UK National Debt - Economics Help

What national debt is and why important. Latest figures on National Debt and can we pay for the increased borrowing?

www.economicshelp.org

Overseas investors own about 28% of UK gilts (2022).
The Asset Purchase Facility is purchases by the Bank of England as part of quantitive easing. This accounts for 26% of gilt holdings.

 

[Magdalia]

About 25% of government debt is held by overseas investors, which about the same amount that the Bank of England holds.

That's right in terms of where the interest payments go, but it is the active traders who are buying and selling that set the long term interest rates. The Bank of England holding has to be disregarded here because they are not buying and selling. They don't want to increase their holding any further, that would be more quantitative easing, and can't sell for two reasons. The first is that selling would be "quantitative tightening", the second is that, from the active market participants' perspective, Bank of England sales increase bond supply, like new issues. Bank of England sales would drive prices down and yields up.

So for active participation in the gilts market overseas investors are 38% of the market. Furthermore, the UK banks are international traders and are affected by the same market pressures as the overseas investors.

Quite a lot of government debt is held by British organisations (banks, pension companies and the like)

As for UK pension funds, the impact on them of falling gilt prices resulting from market fear of large amounts of new issues was well demonstrated in autumn 2022. They can get into a position where they need to sell into a falling market, which only makes matters worse.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Bank of England holding has to be disregarded here because they are not buying and selling.

They don't want to increase their holding any further, that would be more quantitative easing, and can't sell for two reasons. The first is that selling would be "quantitative tightening", the second is that, from the active market participants' perspective, Bank of England sales increase bond supply, like new issues. Bank of England sales would drive prices down and yields up.

The BoE are selling and have been for over two years. So far they have sold down well over £200bn of the £875bn UK sovereign debt bought during the financial crisis (Quantitative Easing), so yes they are deploying Quantiative Tightening. Quietly!

The September Monetary Policy Committee is expected to continue this with another £75bn to be sold. (I can’t find the reference for this, but I read it in a paper from the BoE).

 

[Magdalia]

Quietly!

Thanks, you are listening very carefully! I need to pay more attention to the Monetary Policy Committee.

So far they have sold down well over £200bn of the £875bn UK sovereign debt bought during the financial crisis (Quantitative Easing), so yes they are deploying Quantiatiev Tightening.

But there is still a long way to go, and it is going to be slow progress. While it is happening, and other things being equal, what the Bank are doing does make it more difficult for the government to issue new debt, especially anything beyond what is in the Chancellor's fiscal rules.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks, you are listening very carefully! I need to pay more attention to the Monetary Policy Committee.

But there is still a long way to go, and it is going to be slow progress. While it is happening, and other things being equal, what the Bank are doing does make it more difficult for the government to issue new debt, especially anything beyond what is in the Chancellor's fiscal rules.

It’s a balance between paying it back to create headroom for any more fiscal shocks (another Financial crisis or Covid, anybody?) and the cost of paying it back. The BoE is actively selling back the debt, as opposed to ‘just’ paying back creditors when the gilts mature. This costs us taxpayers money - quite considerable sums - due to they way it affects interest rates and debt swap rates (well beyond my pay grade). However it is in effect an insurance policy against future fiscal turbulence, and what that might cost if Government had to borrow big and quick.

 

[The Ham]

Although, the issue is the lack of capacity beyond the LTC (for example through Kent) and so either you've got to build more roads (as there's already issues - see operation stack, which would have to happen more often if more traffic can get into Kent).

Here's a story about the issues within Dover, the LTC is only going to mean more traffic is able to get there:

Dover 'chaos' is 'like herding cats', Kent council boss says

Politicians have called for those in charge of calming Dover traffic to "get their act together".

www.bbc.co.uk

Toby Howe, highways and transportation strategic manager for Kent County Council and part of the Kent and Medway Resilience Forum, said issues were caused by tourist traffic pouring into an already full Port of Dover, causing backlogs.

He told BBC Radio Kent: "Tourist traffic is causing huge chaos in the town. It's like herding cats.

"Until the government finds a solution to hold and manage the traffic, we in Kent and Dover are going to suffer."

Responding to suggestions that a lorry park should be created on the site of the Sevington Inland Border Facility, Mr Howe said the plan would "create a huge bottleneck" and would not stop tourist traffic issues.

A Department for Transport spokesperson said: "We recognise the impact Operation Brock has on residents, which is why we're working closely with partners to improve safety, reduce local impacts and develop longer-term traffic management solutions.

 

[zwk500]

Here's a story about the issues within Dover, the LTC is only going to mean more traffic is able to get there:

Dover 'chaos' is 'like herding cats', Kent council boss says

Politicians have called for those in charge of calming Dover traffic to "get their act together".

www.bbc.co.uk

Agreed, the channel crossings are always going to be a bottleneck due to borders and customs unless we build a motorway tunnel (good luck with that!) and join at least EFTA. But that doesn't mean the LTC won't help relieve pressure on the only crossing east of the Woolwich ferry for outer London and both sides of the Thames Estuary.

 

[The Ham]

Agreed, the channel crossings are always going to be a bottleneck due to borders and customs unless we build a motorway tunnel (good luck with that!) and join at least EFTA. But that doesn't mean the LTC won't help relieve pressure on the only crossing east of the Woolwich ferry for outer London and both sides of the Thames Estuary.

However there's other capacity issues within Kent too.

Also, one of the trains for the LTC is often said to be because of the amount of goods passing through Dover, as the story proves how is the LTC going to help with that if the capacity constraint is the channel crossings?

 

[zwk500]

However there's other capacity issues within Kent too.

Also, one of the trains for the LTC is often said to be because of the amount of goods passing through Dover, as the story proves how is the LTC going to help with that if the capacity constraint is the channel crossings?

Part 1 of this is that there's lots of constraints and they can't all be solved simultaneously. Part 2 of that is there's spare capacity at the Channel Tunnel to increase shuttles if the vehicle processing times can be kept low, either through technological help or getting a customs agreement with the EU (e.g. EEA or EFTA).

 

[quantinghome]

A direct North-East to Lancashire line is obviously never going to be built, but is a likely winner of the "sounds bonkers but might actually make sense" award. I don't think there is a pair of major conurbations in Great Britain connected by such an indirect route.

 

[Peter Wilde]

Think the responses here are insufficiently ambitious, given the wording of the thread.

I’d cite instead the idea of a transatlantic high-speed rail tunnel, to get rid of all those pesky flights.

Could be built as a moored, submerged tube at just sufficient depth to avoid wave action. And extruded from a giant 3D printer on the shoreline, using carbon composites (surely the little hiccup with OceanGate's Titan submersible was just a teething problem, as with all emerging tech?).

And no doubt there would be enough entrepreneurial billionaires willing to fund the thing by buying tickets on the first test trains!

 

[CMS1]

Ok, what about London to Edinburgh high speed via the sea - no land purchases, earthworks or bat tunnels required!

 

[AndrewE]

Think the responses here are insufficiently ambitious, given the wording of the thread. I’d cite instead the idea of a transatlantic high-speed rail tunnel, to get rid of all those pesky flights.

Could be built as a moored, submerged tube at just sufficient depth to avoid wave action. And extruded from a giant 3D printer on the shoreline, using carbon composites (surely the little hiccup with OceanGate's Titan submersible was just a teething problem, as with all emerging tech?).

That submersible was pushing the limits of what tech can do. Yours is far too sensible and could even be built! Think of the value of submarine-proof internet cabling - assuming the bad actors wouldn't dare to breach it with a dozen passenger trains in it...

And no doubt there would be enough entrepreneurial billionaires willing to fund the thing by buying tickets on the first test trains!

Musk could probably fund it himself!

 

[quantinghome]

An interesting ambitious-but-not-possible-for-obvious-reasons project would be a Europe-China high speed line. There's no major technical challenge, just politics. With a 350kph capable line you could do Berlin-Beijing in around 30 hours, which is fine for a sleeper train.

 

[snookertam]

The Oft mentioned Glasgow metro. Plenty of studies, plans, announcements. I will be amazed if a spade is ever put in the ground in connection with this proposal.

Meanwhile every new road proposal in the city and its surrounds will sail through to completion.

 

[nr758123]

Definitely zero chance of that. The Werrington diveunder makes it superfluous, and there is the small matter of Whitemoor prison being in the way.

HMP Whitemoor is a category A high security prison housing around 500 of the UK's most dangerous members of the prison population. It is a big site, part of which is on the alignment of the March-Spalding line. Whether it is physically possible is irrelevant, there is zero chance of the line being reinstated because of the location and status of the prison.

Put a tunnel underneath the prison. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[D6130]

Put a tunnel underneath the prison. What could possibly go wrong?

Being in the middle of the Fens, it would probably fill-up with water pretty quickly!

 

[fishwomp]

Put a tunnel underneath the prison. What could possibly go wrong?

Construction would take too long - it'd not be one tunnel. You'd have to dig three tunnels, Tom, Dick and Harry, and lose the soil in the exercise yard, or someone would need to smuggle a TBM in inside a cake.

 

[D6130]

Construction would take too long - it'd not be one tunnel. You'd have to dig three tunnels, Tom, Dick and Harry, and lose the soil in the exercise yard, or someone would need to smuggle a TBM in inside a cake.

Like!