New proposal for trans-Pennine road tunnel + reopening Woodhead

[eldomtom2]

Of course these sort of proposals are a dime a dozen, but considering the proposers in this case are a former DfT civil servant and someone involved with HS2 and Sizewell C it seems to be worth taking somewhat seriously.

How the Norway method could revive Peak District road tunnel

Experts say "drill and blast" techniques in Norway could be used, slashing the cost to £2bn.

www.bbc.co.uk

A proposed tunnel linking Manchester and Sheffield through the Peak District could generate billions of pounds in economic benefits and cut journey times by up to 30 minutes, its backers have claimed.

Trans-Pennine Connect, developed by infrastructure group Future Works, would see a 14-mile (22km) dual carriageway built beneath the Derbyshire national park.

The scheme does not yet have government backing, but its promoters said it would remove traffic from some of the park's most environmentally sensitive areas and allow sections of the existing route to be restored to nature.

[...]

The project would also involve moving existing electricity infrastructure, which campaigners have said could clear the way for the restoration of the Woodhead rail route between Manchester and Sheffield.

The idea of a tunnel has been considered before, but concerns over cost have prevented it from progressing.

The project's backers said it could be funded without direct support from Westminster.

Future Works said a previous government assessment estimated a tunnel could cost £10.6bn using conventional UK construction methods, including large tunnel-boring machines.

The group is instead proposing the use of a "drill and blast" tunnelling technique commonly used in Norway.

Supporters of the approach said it relied on smaller specialist teams and the natural strength of the surrounding rock, reducing costs significantly.

The organisation estimates that, based on Scandinavian construction costs, the tunnel could be built for less than £2bn, with savings helping to fund the reinstatement of the Woodhead railway.

They said the tunnel costs could be recouped through tolls over time.

 

[HSTEd]

Even if the tunnel became available for some future railway use, I can't see why you'd reopen it under these circumstances.

If they can dig the road tunnel at reasonable cost, they can probably dig a new rail tunnel on a superior alignment for not much more than lots of surface construction on the Woodhead route.

The old Woodhead alignment isn't really amenable to integration with the modern railway system.

 

[Zomboid]

"reopen" - no, if we're building a new line between Manchester and Sheffield, build a new Woodhead/ Snake base tunnel, fit for 100mph+, not a twisty Victorian alignment.

It's all pie in the sky though.

 

[AndrewE]

someone involved with HS2 and Sizewell C

says it all, really. HS2 might have been ruined by politicians interfering - although the original financial structure and governance was mad. If someone thinks that it is a good idea to build a nuclear power station at sea level on a coast already suffering from erosion (ignoring sea level rising) then their judgement shouldn't be relied on for anything else which will cost the public billions of pounds a year from now on regardless of when or if they ever get it working!

 

[HSTEd]

If someone thinks that it is a good idea to build a nuclear power station at sea level on a coast already suffering from erosion (ignoring sea level rising) then their judgement shouldn't be relied on for anything else which will cost the public billions of pounds a year from now on regardless of when or if they ever get it working!

Sizewell C's position in this respect was far less precarious than the nuclear stations at Dungeness were! In any case, the coast in the area has to be defended because Sizewell A and B will need protecting until well after 2100 in any case. The additional cost of protecting a little more adjacent land is very small.

However, in this case, I question whether the surface route is at all sensible for a railway if tunnels really can be delivered cheaply.

The national park boundary is very close to the buffers at Glossop/Hadfield, it would be miles of surface construction in a national park - and I can't see it happening.

 

[AndrewE]

Sizewell C's position in this respect was far less precarious than the nuclear stations at Dungeness were! In any case, the coast in the area has to be defended because Sizewell A and B will need protecting until well after 2100 in any case. The additional cost of protecting a little more adjacent land is negligible.

I did wonder whether this would be produced as a justification. It's still mad in my view. One closed de-fuelled station, plus one which has had various problems and should have run until 2035 but might now run until 2055 - and has a spent fuel store on site at sea level... what could possibly go wrong? (ref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizewell_nuclear_power_stations#Sizewell_B)

I would rather that the sea-wall engineers "only" had to try to protect a closed down station and another one, rather than a compound twice the area with billions of pounds worth of recent investment sunk(!) into it.

 

[MPW]

Having used stations/metros/railways in Sweden and Finland constructed with this technique, I think it would be crazy not to fully research the idea. With suitable geology it really is a game changer.

My only hesitation, which is a big one to be fair, is if the type of rock in the pennies really is as suitable for blasting and strong enough to support its own weight in the way it is in Helsinki and Stockholm (which have essentially the same geology as each other).

So I would say it's certainly worth the money to at least do the bore holes! But I guess no one would agree to spend that money without the potential rewards being billed as truly transformational. And we end up with needing a big pie in the sky project to justify the investigation.

 

[Technologist]

says it all, really. HS2 might have been ruined by politicians interfering - although the original financial structure and governance was mad. If someone thinks that it is a good idea to build a nuclear power station at sea level on a coast already suffering from erosion (ignoring sea level rising) then their judgement shouldn't be relied on for anything else which will cost the public billions of pounds a year from now on regardless of when or if they ever get it working!

Anyone who thinks that support for Sizewell C from an engineering feasibility perspective is a negative for someone's professional competence shouldn't really be listened to either. - Source I'm a nuclear engineer.

Issues like costal erosion are absolute bread and butter for nuclear developers and the regulator, coastal defences for a place like Sizewell will be pennies on the pound costs for something as expensive as Sizewell C. The existing plants haven't seen significant erosion and even if they did constantly maintaining them would be a pennies on the pound cost compared to operating the plant.

Sizewell's own page:

Sizewell and the sea - Sizewell C

Sizewell and the coast In July 2022, the Development Consent Order (DCO) for Sizewell C was approved by the UK Government bringing us closer to delivering reliable, low carbon energy for six million homes across the UK. Since then some questions have been raised about siting the station on the...

www.sizewellc.com

I did wonder whether this would be produced as a justification. It's still mad in my view. One closed de-fuelled station, plus one which has had various problems and should have run until 2035 but might now run until 2055 - and has a spent fuel store on site at sea level... what could possibly go wrong? (ref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizewell_nuclear_power_stations#Sizewell_B)

I would rather that the sea-wall engineers "only" had to try to protect a closed down station and another one, rather than a compound twice the area with billions of pounds worth of recent investment sunk(!) into it.

FFS, Sizewell B is not a used car, 2035 is the end of its initial licenced period. 40 years is just a nice round number that people in the 1960's chose as it was also the typical economic lifetime of a coal plant. It was not an estimate of the useful lifetime of a nuclear plant which is essentially immortal (see Westminster Abbey), some US plants are already licenced to 80 years and regulators are working towards justifying a 100 year licence. Most parts can be changed out over time, the reactor pressure vessel can't be economically moved but radiation damage can be monitored by placing detachable samples in there. There are also means to reset the RPV by annealing it. The reinforced concrete of the plant can't be replaced but unlike a bridge or similar the reactor containment is inside a weather proof building, so again it is functionally immortal see Pantheon in Rome for aging properties of concrete.

If you actually go around a nuclear power plant it is all maintained like a concourse ready classic car.

As regard to the fuel store, can you please elaborate as to what threat you think flooding will be to some spent Pressurised Water Reactor fuel that is stored in a sealed storage cask, that is without the fact that said spent fuel store is protected against a 1 in a 100,000 storm surge.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Of course these sort of proposals are a dime a dozen...

Aren't proposals to build some alternative route between Sheffield and Manchester regularly dusted down every 10 - 15 years or so?

 

[Technologist]

Even if the tunnel became available for some future railway use, I can't see why you'd reopen it under these circumstances.

If they can dig the road tunnel at reasonable cost, they can probably dig a new rail tunnel on a superior alignment for not much more than lots of surface construction on the Woodhead route.

The old Woodhead alignment isn't really amenable to integration with the modern railway system.

I've listened to Michael Dnes being interviewed on this project on the YIMBY podcast. He lead the team that looked at the tunnels when he was a civil servant. Someone mentioned drill and blast at the time but the people they had hired didn't know much about it and everybody assumed TBMs so they never dug into the alternatives.

1: They would be drilling new tunnels for the train, a the moment they are assuming the Woodhead route
2: The rail connection would be used for construction logistics of the tunnels.
3: The routes selected when this was a state project were limited in length due to the need to minimise costly tunnelling, if you can use drill and blast you could still get a very good BCR with much longer tunnels. Ergo they would probably pick a different route with drill and blast.

There is provision to comment, personally I agree that you might as well do a Sheffield Manchester base tunnel and put a Metro through it.

The intent of this new company is that they will develop the route and eventually seek major financing from pension funds and similar. They would then build this project and lease it to the state, with the developer essentially spending their own money there is a much better alignment of incentives on the cost front than HS2.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2026 ==

Aren't proposals to build some alternative route between Sheffield and Manchester regularly dusted down every 10 - 15 years or so?

I think the financing route and ownership here are something a little different, they aren't proposing that somebody else should do this, they are proposing to raise finance and do it themselves.

 

[Cowley]

Obviously we don’t mind a bit of thread drift in the speculative section, but we’d appreciate it if the thread could stay reasonably on topic please.

Some of the stuff about Sizewell C is relevant, but please start a new thread if you wish to discuss anything that isn’t related to Woodhead.

I thank you.

 

[eldomtom2]

The intent of this new company is that they will develop the route and eventually seek major financing from pension funds and similar. They would then build this project and lease it to the state, with the developer essentially spending their own money there is a much better alignment of incentives on the cost front than HS2.

But they would be spending their own money with the intent that the state would pay them back, and there wouldn't be much willingness to invest unless the state paying them back was a guarantee. Unless the plan is to at least partially make money from tolls.

 

[AndrewE]

3: The routes selected when this was a state project were limited in length due to the need to minimise costly tunnelling, if you can use drill and blast you could still get a very good BCR with much longer tunnels. Ergo they would probably pick a different route with drill and blast.

I suspect that the choice of drill and blast vs TBMs depends on lots of things...

The Pennines generally aren't particularly hard rock (cf. some of the igneous or metamorphic stuff in the alps) although not as easy to tunnel through as chalk. TBMs can go through the hardest rock, but at a price...
If there was lots of broken rock areas I think TBM would gain as it can drill and grout ahead then install support rings at the back of its tube bit.
If you have a long tunnel to do then the big up-front investment in a TBM is probably better justified as after the start you just keep it running for longer.
If the ground is good all the way and it's not too long a tunnel then I suspect the lower start-up costs of Drill and Blast will come into play.

 

[Technologist]

But they would be spending their own money with the intent that the state would pay them back, and there wouldn't be much willingness to invest unless the state paying them back was a guarantee. Unless the plan is to at least partially make money from tolls.

I think the intent is to either collect tolls or for the investors to get paid per vehicle usage.

Actually it might be an interesting way to do fund roads. Work out a benefit per user for a bunch of schemes set a minimum BCR for these schemes, let developers bid against these schemes. Private investors build it and get paid per user.

 

[JamesT]

I think the intent is to either collect tolls or for the investors to get paid per vehicle usage.

Actually it might be an interesting way to do fund roads. Work out a benefit per user for a bunch of schemes set a minimum BCR for these schemes, let developers bid against these schemes. Private investors build it and get paid per user.

That’s PFI and has been used on UK roads for some time. Those signs on the M40 where it says “Maintained by UK Highways for National Highways” is an example. The private company is let a concession and paid a ‘shadow toll’ for vehicles using it.

 

[William3000]

Even if the tunnel became available for some future railway use, I can't see why you'd reopen it under these circumstances.

If they can dig the road tunnel at reasonable cost, they can probably dig a new rail tunnel on a superior alignment for not much more than lots of surface construction on the Woodhead route.

The old Woodhead alignment isn't really amenable to integration with the modern railway system.

Roads can have much steeper inclines than railways though.

 

[Acathater]

So what is new about drilling and blasting? Weren't most of the Victorian tunnels built that way?

 

[Halifaxlad]

Does a new Transpennine tunnel have to be linked to Woodhead ?

The most direct route to Manchester from Sheffield is the A57 not the A616 & A628.

Here's my suggestion for a new Transpennine tunnel or rather two Transpennine tunnels.

 

[AndrewE]

So what is new about drilling and blasting? Weren't most of the Victorian tunnels built that way?

at a significant cost in money and of lives...

 

[Halifaxlad]

at a significant cost in money and of lives...

Didn't they do most of it by hand ?

How many lives have been lost through drilling and blasting since 2000 ?

I'm sure it's a lot less or none with all the safeguard and procedures that are in place these days!

 

[AndrewE]

Didn't they do most of it by hand ?

How many lives have been lost through drilling and blasting since 2000 ?

I'm sure it's a lot less or none with all the safeguard and procedures that are in place these days!

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel#Construction for one example...

Nine workers died during construction; one in the Amsteg section, two in the Sedrun section, and three each in the southernmost Faido and Giornico sections.[52]

Date	Nationality	Details
8 June 2000	German	Hit by a boring bar that fell 700 m (2,300 ft).[53]
12 March 2002	South African	Buried by excavation material.[54]
3 April 2003	German	Hit by a rock.[55]
11 September 2003	Austrian	Crushed by a toppling cable drum.[56][57]
21 January 2005	Italian (1) Italian (1)	Hit in a mine train collision.[58][59]
23 November 2006	German	Crushed by a mine train.[60]
24 June 2010	German	Catapulted from an inspection train.[61]
16 July 2012	Italian	Fell from a scaffold.[62]

​

so at least 3 in the actual digging of just this tunnel...

 

[snowball]

So what is new about drilling and blasting? Weren't most of the Victorian tunnels built that way?

Nothing new as far as I can see. Drill and blast has been used much more recently than Victorian times. For example it was used for the hard rock sections of the new tunnels for the westbound carriageway of the A55 in North Wales in the late 1980s and early 90s. It's TBMs that are relatively newfangled.

 

[HSTEd]

Roads can have much steeper inclines than railways though.

Yes, I don't mean necessarily building a new railway tunnel on the same alignment as any road tunnel, but simply building a new drill and blast railway tunnel on an appropriate alignment.

If it can make a highway tunnel affordable it can make a new railway tunnel more affordable than trying to resurrect Woodhead - which is probably not a particularly useful alignment in the modern day anyway.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The advantage of a Woodhead Road Tunnel is that the approaches to Manchester and Sheffield are sorted - the Mottram Bypass (extension of the M67) is under construction and from the Stocksbridge Bypass it is a clear run to the southbound M1. It is also the shortest crossing of the National Park. You could also provide a link to the northbound M1 at Dodworth (Barnsley) to relieve the M62.

Anything south of Woodhead, however, you have the problem of unimproved roads to get out of the urban areas.

 

[SargeNpton]

This story got a bit of publicity last month...

£2bn High Peak tunnel proposed - Place Midlands

A 14-mile tunnel under the Peak District could take up to 20,000 vehicles per year off the road in the national park, according to a group of infrastructure experts backing the scheme.

www.placemidlands.co.uk

A 14-mile tunnel under the Peak District could take up to 20,000 vehicles per year off the road in the national park, according to a group of infrastructure experts backing the scheme.

Newly created Future Works Infrastructure has said it could deliver a dual-carriageway beneath the Peak District to connect Manchester with Sheffield for a fraction of what government had priced a similar scheme.

The co-creators of Future Works are said to be: Michael Dnes, the former head of road investment strategy at the Department for Transport, and Alex Griffiths, head of project management for Heathrow Airport’s expansion.

Despite them having a law firm representing them, I can't find any website for the company, nor any reference to it on the internet other than in the press release that has been repeated on various news sites.

As they don't seem to have any funding for this scheme, or any official backing, are they just a couple of road crayonistas?

 

[alistairlees]

This story got a bit of publicity last month...

£2bn High Peak tunnel proposed - Place Midlands

A 14-mile tunnel under the Peak District could take up to 20,000 vehicles per year off the road in the national park, according to a group of infrastructure experts backing the scheme.

www.placemidlands.co.uk

The co-creators of Future Works are said to be: Michael Dnes, the former head of road investment strategy at the Department for Transport, and Alex Griffiths, head of project management for Heathrow Airport’s expansion.

Despite them having a law firm representing them, I can't find any website for the company, nor any reference to it on the internet other than in the press release that has been repeated on various news sites.

As they don't seem to have any funding for this scheme, or any official backing, are they just a couple of road crayonistas?

The website is referenced in the article you linked to: https://transpennineconnect.com/

 

[Bald Rick]

Crayons. Sorry.

 

[Technologist]

Crayons. Sorry.

They are slightly more advanced than that as they are coming from the background of actually planning this route when they were in government and they also have a business model and enough name recognition that I knew who they were before they proposed it.

They are flying a kite but they aren’t just hoping that government adopts their idea and funds it for them.

 

[Acathater]

"20,000 vehicles per year"
That's 54.7 vehicles a day. What is the point?

 

[Bald Rick]

They are flying a kite but they aren’t just hoping that government adopts their idea and funds it for them.

No one is going to finance it, let alone fund it.