Wolvercote Tunnel Proposal

[ChilternHenry]

Anyone know why this tunnel is planned to stay single tracked despite the rest of the line being re doubled, seems so pointless creating a bottle neck when surely all that needs doing is deepening the tunnel and rework the gradients to allow for future electrification? Seems so pointless doing half a job when you may as well throw some money at it whilst there's funding for the project (East West Rail and Chiltern Evergreen 3 part 2) and not leave it for future generations to deal with.

 

[route:oxford]

Anyone know why this tunnel is planned to stay single tracked despite the rest of the line being re doubled, seems so pointless creating a bottle neck when surely all that needs doing is deepening the tunnel and rework the gradients to allow for future electrification? Seems so pointless doing half a job when you may as well throw some money at it whilst there's funding for the project (East West Rail and Chiltern Evergreen 3 part 2) and not leave it for future generations to deal with.

Think of the Bats!!!

 

[The Planner]

I suspect the work and costs involved to widen it under one of the most busiest of the Oxford ring road roundabouts may not stack up. If the single line can deliver the proposed and expected future use then why do it?

 

[yorksrob]

The Tonbridge - Hastings line (which has four short single track sections) shows that the odd stretch of single track needn't be an obstacle to even a fairly intensive service.

And yes - please do think of the bats !

 

[Eagle]

Although it's a bit more intensive than the Hastings line; the eventual frequency will be 4tph each way between Oxford and Bicester.

 

[ChilternHenry]

Although it's a bit more intensive than the Hastings line; the eventual frequency will be 4tph each way between Oxford and Bicester.

And i see that number growing in the future, especially with slow freights being pathed down the route.

 

[theageofthetra]

I was always curious how they operate that Hastings line. It seems very complex with the technology that existed in 85/86 or whenever the Hastings diesels stopped. Does it have unique safety and operating procedures as all the single sections are in tunnels?

 

[yorksrob]

Even then it's no Borough Market Junction.

 

[ChilternHenry]

Even then it's no Borough Market Junction.

god just googled that and it looks like a signalman's nightmare, bet that was fun to manage back in the day

 

[yorksrob]

god just googled that and it looks like a signalman's nightmare, bet that was fun to manage back in the day

Still is - until the new viaduct comes into use at any rate

 

[The Planner]

Assuming a standard Class 4 freight path per hour on top of the 4tph passenger, that is 10tph through the tunnel, so one every 6 minutes if every freight path was used (which is unlikely). There is no reason why you cannot timetable the cross to be elsewhere on the route.

 

[Bald Rick]

Borough Market Jn becomes much easier when the Thameslink trains disappear from Lonfdon Bridge in less than 20 months time.

Hastings line - quite an intricate timetable to make it work.

 

[Eagle]

Assuming a standard Class 4 freight path per hour on top of the 4tph passenger, that is 10tph through the tunnel, so one every 6 minutes if every freight path was used (which is unlikely). There is no reason why you cannot timetable the cross to be elsewhere on the route.

I assume the main freight path would be the (currently hourlyish) Freightliner path from Southampton to various places in the East Midlands, which currently runs via Solihull and Landor Street Junction?

 

[HowardGWR]

Think of the Bats!!!

A simple building with a narrow entrance can be built nearby that would do the bats very nicely and to which they will migrate. Then just make the tunnel bat-unfriendly and they will not even be troubled. It can be done and has been done.

 

[The Planner]

I assume the main freight path would be the (currently hourlyish) Freightliner path from Southampton to various places in the East Midlands, which currently runs via Solihull and Landor Street Junction?

More likely one that goes via Cov and Nuneaton to the WCML, Trafford Park etc..

 

[Eagle]

More likely one that goes via Cov and Nuneaton to the WCML, Trafford Park etc..

Oh look, is that another path via Kenilworth opening up I smell?

 

[mister-sparky]

Although it's a bit more intensive than the Hastings line; the eventual frequency will be 4tph each way between Oxford and Bicester.

There is a single-track tunnel between Tonbridge and High Brooms, that handles 4tph (each direction, so 8tph in total) very easily. so the same level of intensity.

 

[Chris125]

This was discussed earlier this year on a FGW forum where the following passage from the TWA inquiry was quoted. This would appear to confirm that the necessary work for double track through the tunnel (funded by the DfT back in 2010) will be done as part of EG3.

4.103. While the current arrangement is adequate for the needs of the Phase 1 scheme (i.e. it is adequate to operate the proposed half-hourly London Marylebone – Oxford service together with existing levels of freight traffic), it will be necessary to provide a double track railway through the tunnel to cater for the traffic levels likely to materialise as part of the East West Rail Link scheme. There is inadequate headroom within the tunnel to maintain clearance to W8 freight traffic with two tracks at the level of the existing single track. It is also intended to operate W12 gauge freight traffic over the route once the East West Rail Link is completed and to electrify the route using overhead electrification equipment at some future date.

4.104. In order to provide adequate clearance for these proposed future uses, it will be necessary to lower the level of the track within the tunnel and on the approaches to it. This work will be highly disruptive to the railway and requires the closure of the line for several months. In order to avoid disruption to the new London Marylebone – Oxford services within the first few years of operation and to avoid the additional cost of carrying out the works separately at a later date, the Department for Transport has agreed to fund the undertaking of track lowering works through the tunnel in advance of the remainder of the East West Rail Link. These works, which together with works to certain other structures over the railway form Phase 2A of the scheme, will be undertaken during the period the railway is closed for the construction of Phase 1 works.

Chris

 

[edwin_m]

Does that mean that two tracks will be put in from the start, or will one track be put in at a lower level to allow another one to be laid alongside it at a later date?

 

[Chris125]

Does that mean that two tracks will be put in from the start, or will one track be put in at a lower level to allow another one to be laid alongside it at a later date?

From what's been said the intention is to do necessary work in one go, indeed another post in that thread mentions the blockade being extended from 9-12 months to 18-24 following EWR's go-ahead. Confirmation will probably have to wait for the Judicial Review however.

Chris

 

[swt_passenger]

The quote from the TWA application implies that if the original EG3 proposals were to have carried on without EWR, the single track would probably have been installed on one side of the lowered track bed through the tunnel.

That's the only logical explanation of the line above starting 'in order to avoid future disruption...' It would have been foolish to re-install a single track down the centre of the tunnel and then move it again later for doubling.

Therefore as just pointed out above, the situation the original questioner is asking about doesn't really ever arise.

 

[The Planner]

Have acquired some scheme plans for this and Wolvercot tunnel is going to be doubled, however, the last section from there to Oxford North (approx 1 mile) is still single initially.

 

[IrishDave]

I seem to remember that the motivation behind not doubling the track through Wolvercote tunnel in the first place was that, for similar amounts of money, you could either have double track through the tunnel, or you could have W10 gauge clearance for 9' 6" containers but only on a single track. The latter was deemed more important. I can try and dig out the source if you want?

If, as The Planner says, it is to be double track now, I presume that will involve spending rather more money to have both tracks cleared for W10 gauge - spending which wasn't justified by Evergreen 3 alone, but now that EWR is approved it's worth it.

 

[swt_passenger]

I seem to remember that the motivation behind not doubling the track through Wolvercote tunnel in the first place was that, for similar amounts of money, you could either have double track through the tunnel, or you could have W10 gauge clearance for 9' 6" containers but only on a single track. The latter was deemed more important. I can try and dig out the source if you want?

If, as The Planner says, it is to be double track now, I presume that will involve spending rather more money to have both tracks cleared for W10 gauge - spending which wasn't justified by Evergreen 3 alone, but now that EWR is approved it's worth it.

However the DfT confirmed the tunnel work would be funded well before EWR was ever publicly confirmed. Chiltern's prior negotiations would presumably have been on the basis that the tunnel work wasn't for their own benefit, so why should they pay. DfT did the sensible thing and chipped in, I expect because even then they saw EWR as more likely than not.

 

[Chris125]

However the DfT confirmed the tunnel work would be funded well before EWR was ever publicly confirmed. Chiltern's prior negotiations would presumably have been on the basis that the tunnel work wasn't for their own benefit, so why should they pay. DfT did the sensible thing and chipped in, I expect because even then they saw EWR as more likely than not.

I believe the DfT stumped up the extra cash for double track with clearance for W12 and electrification back in 2010.

There's quite a lot of detail if people are interested in the TWA application, including the then proposed track layouts both with and without EWR.

Chris

 

[HowardGWR]

I believe the DfT stumped up the extra cash for double track with clearance for W12 and electrification back in 2010.

There's quite a lot of detail if people are interested in the TWA application, including the then proposed track layouts both with and without EWR.

Chris

Very interesting Chris125. On the bats, I read that the Inspector advised that the Chiltern proposal to turn the lights on every time a train was due, was not ever proven to work anywhere, so he concluded that, as things stood, it could not be said that it would. I don't know what the SoS Decision Letter said, but you or others may have that one. It seems to me that, dual or single through the tunnel, Natural England will require a licence at some stage, and as things stand, they will not grant it.

Any more recent info anyone? My post above referred to a 'rehousing' project that did work by building a suitable habitat nearby. But to work here the tunnel has to be rendered unusable thereafter by the creatures, probably, for instance, by it being lit all the time.

 

[swt_passenger]

Natural England have said they will grant a licence - it's covered in the decision letter on DfT's website:

The Secretary of State considers that, on the basis of Natural England’s evidence reported by the Inspector, there is no reason to believe that Natural England would not grant a licence for those works or that such a decision would be amenable to successful challenge on judicial review grounds.

and:

In response to the November 2011 letter Chiltern and Natural England informed the Secretary of State about progress since the inquiry had closed on agreeing measures to protect bats and great crested newts. In the light of this, the Department confirmed in its letter of 24 January 2012 (“the January 2012 letter”) that the Secretary of State was minded to make the Order and give the planning direction,

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9305/twa-20121017a.pdf

You really need to read the whole SofS letter, but the 'bats agreement' between Chiltern and Natural England came after the enquiry. I think confusion also reigned at one time because Natural England don't actually provide/publish the licence until after the planning permission (or deemed planning permission in the case of a TWA Order) has actually been made.

 

[HowardGWR]

Natural England have said they will grant a licence - it's covered in the decision letter on DfT's website:


and:



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9305/twa-20121017a.pdf

You really need to read the whole SofS letter, but the 'bats agreement' between Chiltern and Natural England came after the enquiry. I think confusion also reigned at one time because Natural England don't actually provide/publish the licence until after the planning permission (or deemed planning permission in the case of a TWA Order) has actually been made.

It sounds OK, thanks very much SWT-passenger. I was only going by what Chris125 provided. Thank you both.

AIUI, we await the JR outcome, but I don't know what grounds that was brought on. We must remember that just because a SoS decides something, it doesn't mean he /she will get away with it. Ask Theresa May.