-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Could Shap and Beattock summits have been bypassed?
- Thread starter LYRobert
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
driver9000
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 4,569
Tunnelling through Shap was ruled out on cost grounds by Joseph Locke and a circuitous route through the Lakes was also rejected. Similarly Locke recommended a route avoiding Beattock via Nithsdale but the landowners in Annandale didn't approve. They wanted the railway to go through their land believing it would increase the value.
TheGrew
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 515
I have wondered if with modern TBMs if a case could be made for a trans-shap base tunnel to improve journey times and freight capacity.
MisterSheeps
Member
Can TBMs cut through granite, which is what you have at 'Shap'? Shap isn't a ridge; if you entered a tunnel around Scotchman's bridge, at 200m OD you next go below that at Gt Strickland, 15km away, traversing moorland exposed to strong wind, rain & snow. In an ideal world, the line would have gone up Longsleddale, under the Gatescarth pass, and down Mardale & the Lowther valley, but said nobility didn't want disturbing by trains & gave the land via Thrimby.
Snow1964
Established Member
TBMs wouldn’t be used for tunnel through granite, it would be blasted, by drilling a hole (actually a ring of holes, roughly around diameter of tunnel) and filling it with modern equivalent of dynamite.
Prior to late 1860s blasting would have been with black powder.
Prior to late 1860s blasting would have been with black powder.
zwk500
Veteran Member
Unfortunately it has far less capacity, goes a very long way around and doesn't get very near Mossend Yard, making it not particularly useful for freight.
waverley47
Member
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 856
For passengers nowadays, probably less than a minute.
For freight nowadays, give it 10-20 minutes or so for each pass, given weight, speed, and new alignment. A freight on average looses about 15 minutes crawling up, but that's a complete average across many different flows. Bulk freight and 750m containers weigh a lot more than empties or cars for example.
Nottingham59
Established Member
I understand Class 88's regularly do the Daventry to Mossend intermodals. How well does an electric locomotives like the 88 (5,400hp) do compared to Class 66 (3000hp) going up Shap and Beattock?
That depends how it is bypassed. But potentially about 5 minutes each, best case.
EllieAquitrain
Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2018
- Messages
- 231
I know this can't be quantified but surely there would be further time benefits from freeing up capacity, particularly through generalised journey time if there's less need for flighting?
The London & North Western obtained powers in 1898 to build an 8¾ mile deviation between Tebay and Shap station. This would have had a one-mile tunnel, and it would have resulted in a gradient of 1:135 rather than 1:75. The existing line in that section was to be abandoned. Nothing was done, and given that the compulsory purchase powers expired after three years, one would assume the act just became worthless unless the company extended the powers. (I've had a quick look at the act, and it seems to have an odd feature in that I couldn't find a section requiring completion of the works within a given time.)
What's really odd is that I've got run of LMS annual reports from 1932 to 1948, and all of these shew in the track-statement a line authorised but not built, "Railway at Shap", exactly the same length as the one planned in 1898! So fgar I haven't been able to find any reference to an LMS rfevival of powers or continuin to extend existing powers or anything like that. Does anyonme know anything about the LMS plans or when (presumably after nationalisation) gthe idea was finally ditched?
Also isn't electrified meaning diesel locos would need to use it
For the time being.
ac6000cw
Established Member
You could speed up the electrically-hauled intermodals (uphill at least) by beefing up the power supply so the pairs of FL 90's could use full power (at present a pair is power restricted to 1.5 times a single 90). The upcoming GBRf cl. 99 bi-modes will speed up their intermodals. DRS and DB have electric traction available, so adjust the track access charges to 'encourage' them to use it as much as possible.
If that isn't enough, then build some long, fast entry & exit dynamic overtaking loops (or even add a 'crawler lane' track on the climbs to run the slower freights on) to help keep the slower stuff out of the way of the fast passenger trains.
If that isn't enough, then build some long, fast entry & exit dynamic overtaking loops (or even add a 'crawler lane' track on the climbs to run the slower freights on) to help keep the slower stuff out of the way of the fast passenger trains.
adamedwards
Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 796
Is there any map of the 1898 deviation available so we could see where it was planned to go? Curious to see if it could be done now or does the M6 get in the way?
Nottingham59
Established Member
Near Shap Summit itself, the M6 diverges away from the railway line, so I don't think that would be an issue.
Image clipped from https://en-gb.topographic-map.com/maps/b9/England/
MisterSheeps
Member
If it is only a mile long tunnel it would have to be further west, by the Birk Beck, passing close to Shap Wells hotel and emerging near the quarry works ... nearer to water courses when storm Desmond gave this area (gauge at Wet Sleddale) 13 inches of rain in 24 hours may not be wise! Not the deviation mentioned above (post 13), but the attached is of interest.
Journey time and generalised journey time are different concepts, albeit related. However GJT improvements here would be limited only to those travelling exclusively north of Preston.
EllieAquitrain
Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2018
- Messages
- 231
Oh yes I'm aware of that, I should've elaborated more on what I meant, sorry! And thanks for the answer
ac6000cw
Established Member
In this post on the 'class 93' thread - https://railforums.co.uk/threads/class-93-tri-mode-loco.210779/post-5763708 - I did this rough calculation:
A Class 66 has about half the 'power at rail' of an 88 or 93, so the 'balancing speed' will be about half of that - around 20 mph (in ideal, theoretical, conditions). The upcoming class 99 will be 6MW (8050 hp) rating on six axles, so in theory could haul the same train at around 60 mph or more up the climbs. Note the 'power limited' pairs of FL 90s currently in use on the route work out to be about 5.4 MW, so the performance of those should give you a rough idea of what the 99 should be capable of.
I haven't seen a map, but there will be an "overview" map with the deposited QS plans, both in the county record office and in the House of Lords record office. These maps were usually done on 1" OS. The scheme got quite a bit of newspaper coverage at the time, and one of the papers did say that the new alignment was not actually going to go very far from the old. The idea seems to have been to diverge to the west immediately north of Tebay station, cross under the existing line at Scout Green, and then re-join a short re-alignment of the existing line at Shap station.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,360
Can hard rock TBMs not bore through granite?
Whilst they have been less common historically such machines are starting to be used more extensively - presumably now that cutter technology limitations have been overcome.
However I'd suggest the primary benefit of a Shap or Beattock Base tunnel would be dramatic reductions in the ruling gradient, allowing low power freight trains to get out of the way more rapidly.
What's the book? It looks interesting (and pretty substantial too).
Didn’t HS2 propose some interventions for North of Golborne on the WCML that could be used for lowering the London-Scotland time to under 3 hours? Would those include details of likely tunnelling, or would it not have progressed to that stage?
MisterSheeps
Member
Sorry! The Kendal & Windermere Railway, Robert Western, Oakwood Press. ISBN 978 0 85361 721 1
ac6000cw
Established Member
Surely the much cheaper solution - even if GBR bought then leased new electric locos to the FOCs for free - is to just put a lot more (electric) power on the trains?
Thanks — I'm going to have to get that!
Incidentally, it seems that the LNW also looked at another possible improvement in the area in the summer of 1897, though this one didn't get to the stage of being prepared for parlliament. "The other route which the company have in view is to leave the main line at Burton and Holme, and go by way of Kendal and Windermere, joining the main line at Lowther Viaduct in Lowther Park, near Penrith. The latter route would also be best so far as it gave Kendal and Windermere a direct run to Scotland, avoiding the change and wait at Oxenholme." I think we've certainly heard of that route before, in the debates of 60 years earlier!
Last edited:
Nottingham59
Established Member
That's the obvious first step. With the advent of the 6MW Class 99, the supply certainly needs beefing up to allow two or three of these flighted one after another, up these gradients. From openinframap, there are grid supply points at Shap and Beattock summits, fed by 132kV and 400kV substations so plenty of power available locally.
So beef up the supply, and give the FoC's 10-year notice that they need to increase the power-to-weight ratio of any daytime trains over these hills.
- Status