Standedge tunnel proposed re-openings.

Welshman said:

I remember a lineside photograph where the fast lines were down to 55mph at some point - possibly between Slaithwaite and Marsden.

Is it really possible now to drive through the northernmost Huddersfield tunnel?

Click to expand...

My mistake Gledholt not Hillhouse.

1. I think it would increase passenger capacity between Manchester, Stalybridge & Leeds if we had fewer, but much bigger trains - 3 trains per hour, each with at least 5 or 6 standard class coaches (+ one 1st class if someone really wants it and is prepared to pay high enough 1st class fares). Currently, with 4 fasts per hour, some of these are slower than necessary due to conflicts with local services.

2. Oldham - shame they never gave it a decent service to Huddersfield & Leeds. If a service was ever to be restored, the simplest way might be to reinstate the OA&GB line from OA&GB Junction (Ashton) to Oldham Clegg Street & Glodwick Road, and thence to Greenfield. Expensive snags, though. Cutting at site of Glodwick Road has been in-filled, and I think the viaduct at Park Bridge may have gone. (Shorter than the removed viaduct at Greenfield on the Micklehurst loop, but still expensive to rebuild.) Also, I don't think that Transport for Greater Manchester would want to support rebuilding a line that might take shoppers out of its area and into Yorkshire.

3, Pity also that the Leeds New line via Spen Valley was closed & removed, that could have taken the non-stop trains between Huddersfield & Leeds, but with removed viaducts, parts of M62 on trackbed, and housing built on parts of the line, that is a line that would be almost impossible to reinstate.

Bevan

Bevan Price said:

3, Pity also that the Leeds New line via Spen Valley was closed & removed, that could have taken the non-stop trains between Huddersfield & Leeds, but with removed viaducts, parts of M62 on trackbed, and housing built on parts of the line, that is a line that would be almost impossible to reinstate.

Bevan

Click to expand...

This section of your reply has very major implications of infrastructure regarding the viaduct problem of re-building and you have also noted two further items in particular:-

M62 on trackbed
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There would be so much disruption caused by ANY type of work that would be required, to a major Trans-Pennine motorway link, with the daily loadings that the M62 carries, that strategic planners would look to the cost benefit ratio of (a) keeping the M62 as it is and (b) this railway route. You would find that the scales would tip very heavily in the favour of the M62. Look at all the vested interests who would suddenly appear to decry this scheme, the most vocifeous being the Road Haulage Industry.

Housing built on the line
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If public meetings were to be held where people's houses would be threatened, what do you really envisage would occur? There would be local and national press outrage (especially from the nationals) and the locals councils would see this as an opportunity to curry favour with the residents threatened by the loss of their houses. The local Member of Parliament would see this as an opportunity to raise questions in the house.

Paul Sidorczuk said:

M62 on trackbed

Click to expand...

I think all they did was to fill in one end of the Gildersome Tunnel for fear that it would collapse under the weight of the construction and/or traffic.

http://www.lostrailwayswestyorkshire.co.uk/leeds new line 5.htm

It's the M621 that is built on some of the flying junction:

http://www.lostrailwayswestyorkshire.co.uk/leeds new line 6.htm

Lots of pictures of the tunnel here:

http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=22824

table38 said:

I think all they did was to fill in one end of the Gildersome Tunnel for fear that it would collapse under the weight of the construction and/or traffic.

http://www.lostrailwayswestyorkshire.co.uk/leeds new line 5.htm

Click to expand...

I am well aware what happened with the Gildersome Tunnel and the link you posted is very good in showing its location in respect to the motorway.

Were ever any detailed structural tests carried out after the original infrastructure assessment. I would look to the current vehicle loadings of the motorway as being relevant to this point.

Paul Sidorczuk said:

I am well aware what happened with the Gildersome Tunnel and the link you posted is very good in showing its location in respect to the motorway

Click to expand...

Sorry it was just your use of the word "trackbed" that set off my pedantry alarm

table38 said:

Sorry it was just your use of the word "trackbed" that set off my pedantry alarm

Click to expand...

Not so ..I only used the term that Bevan Price did in the post before mine ....parts of M62 on trackbed"

Still, I am glad to see you are on the ball. It needs someone like you to point out the errors of our ways.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bevan Price said:

2. Oldham - shame they never gave it a decent service to Huddersfield & Leeds. If a service was ever to be restored, the simplest way might be to reinstate the OA&GB line from OA&GB Junction (Ashton) to Oldham Clegg Street & Glodwick Road, and thence to Greenfield. Expensive snags, though. Cutting at site of Glodwick Road has been in-filled, and I think the viaduct at Park Bridge may have gone. (Shorter than the removed viaduct at Greenfield on the Micklehurst loop, but still expensive to rebuild.)

Click to expand...

This is an interesting one. I suppose the Glodwick Road former station site, being quite near to the Oldham Mumps station that is being converted to Metrolink, with new bus station facilities, would be something similar to Altrincham interchange that has heavy rail, Metrolink and bus facilities. The cutting in the Lees area has been fully in-filled en route to Greenfield.

On the southern part of your route, you are correct about replacement of infrastructure in the Park Bridge area.

Would the reinstatement of this route be viable in terms of capital expenditure as part of a long-term view of strategic transport planning? Why not send a letter to TgGM eliciting their views on this matter?

Nym said:

OK Rant over...

Middleton Jcn - Oldham - Greenfield would be very helpful indeed

Click to expand...

The line from Middleton Junction to Oldham now has a housing estate built over the line foundations.

Please look on the "TRIP REPORTS AND NOSTALGIA" sub-foum on the thread "MIDDLETON JUNCTION TO OLDHAM WERNETH LINE". On 6th June, northernrail made a posting describing a walk that he had made on the bed of this line

Oh, shame, wonder if they could fit a metrolink line down there with parts of it street running, (similar to what would be handy between Bolton and Bury)

Nym said:

Oh, shame, wonder if they could fit a metrolink line down there with parts of it street running, (similar to what would be handy between Bolton and Bury)

Click to expand...

Did you look at the second part of #37, as this covers comment about:-

(1)...The line from Oldham to Greenfield.

(2)...The line from Guide Bridge to Oldham Clegg Street.

You have mentioned both of these in different threads recently.

It's fun for rail nuts like us to have pipe dreams but guys, none of these can or will ever happen.

Oldham has been deemed unworthy of a heavy rail link. If this were not the case, instead of cannibalising the Oldham/Rochdale loop, a Metrolink street tramway would have been constructed as it has to Ashton and the classic line retained for fast services. Oldham/Greenfield is a non-starter and services never went farther than Delph anyway. Similarly, the OAGB Jctn and Middleton Junction schemes would cost millions and benefit relatively few.

Quadding Huddersfield to Standedge. Also mentioned above, this was remodelled, actually in 1979 not the 80s and the speeds lifted. Micklehurst reinstatement. As mentioned earlier, missing viaduct, housing, etc? Modern freight motive power and the dramatic reduction in freight volumes means that pathing is much less of an issue on the Standedge route - but there is a better and totally obvious solution to the TP problem. Electrification of both Standedge and Calder lines.

However, if you've read about all the belly-ache over the tiny, but phenomenally expensive, Todmorden chord that would give Burnley a more direct link to Rochdale and Manchester, how can any of the ideas on here ever stand the remotest chance of consideration in the real world? Especially when our politicians want the vanity of a premium fast link between London and the north that'll ensure that here on the Northern network we're still going to work on Sprinters well into the second quarter of this century.

JohnB57 said:

Oldham has been deemed unworthy of a heavy rail link. If this were not the case, instead of cannibalising the Oldham/Rochdale loop, a Metrolink street tramway would have been constructed as it has to Ashton and the classic line retained for fast services.

However, if you've read about all the belly-ache over the tiny, but phenomenally expensive, Todmorden chord that would give Burnley a more direct link to Rochdale and Manchester, how can any of the ideas ever stand the remotest chance of consideration in the real world? Especially when our politicians want the vanity of a premium fast link between London and the north that'll ensure that here on the Northern network we're still going to work on Sprinters well into the second quarter of this century.

Click to expand...

I would address the point that you make in the first paragraph above by correcting you in your assumption that the Oldham/Rochdale heavy rail loop line as being deemed unworthy of such. You could have made the same comment some years ago with regards to heavy rail lines to both Bury and to Altrincham. The situation is that TfGM has a "Greater Manchester" vision of a Metrolink system that is seen as a "flagship" project and this is the reason why the current extension projects on the Oldham/Rochdale line, the East Manchester Line and the South Manchester line (to East Didsbury and to Manchester Airport) are all in progress at present with future expansions also in the pipeline.

With regard to the comments regarding the Todmorden Chord in your second paragraph, the project is not just existing in the minds of some Railforums UK members as a "fantasy" pipe dream. It is the current number one rail improvement agenda project of Lancashire County Council to improve rail connections from East Lancashire to Manchester alongst a heavy rail line already in existance that takes services from those areas into West Yorkshire over the Caldervale line. You should view the Todmorden Chord project in terms of this.

JohnB57 said:

Quadding Huddersfield to Standedge. Also mentioned above, this was remodelled, actually in 1979 not the 80s and the speeds lifted. Micklehurst reinstatement. As mentioned earlier, missing viaduct, housing, etc? Modern freight motive power and the dramatic reduction in freight volumes means that pathing is much less of an issue on the Standedge route - but there is a better and totally obvious solution to the TP problem. Electrification of both Standedge and Calder lines.

Click to expand...

1) Need I mention that Network Rail are investigating the re-opening of the disused sandledge tunnels.
2) The Micklehurst loop doesn't have any housing built on it's trackbed, if the remainder of it is reserved for future rail use now, then it can be re-instated when it is needed.

Remember what the asperations for cross pennine links are, as stated in the Northern Hub:

4tph Fast between Victoria and East of Leeds
2tph Semi-Fast from Piccadilly to Leeds via Guide Bridge (Pic - (GB) - Staly - Hudds - Dews - Leeds City)

One may also safely assume that there is still a massive increase in demand for stopping services allong the route, and if there where service improvments and station re-openings this demand would only increase further, especially in the Saddleworth commuter belt, due to the quality of roads.

So one may further assume...

2tph all stations.

Now, with 4 platforms at Stalybridge, fast through lines (the fasts' first stop will be Huddersfeild, semi fasts will call) and 2tph all stations to either Victoria or Piccadilly. You can see why as much 4 track as possible will be needed.

The Calder Valley will be seeing (If I'm remembering right) 4tph to Todmorden, and 3tph to Leeds, possibly increased to 5 and 4tph.

Vic - Todmorden - Burnley - Blackburn
Vic - Todmorden - Halifax - Bradford Interchange - Leeds 2tph
Vic - Todmorden - Brighouse - Dewsbury - Leeds
And I'm sure I've seen...
Vic - Todmorden - Brighouse - Huddersfeild
mentioned.

Now... As the fast services will be running from Victoria there will be the option of running them via the Calder Valley, but, this route is slightly slower, and it would currently mean a reversal at Bradford Interchange.

However,

If everything east of the tunnels is 4 track, and more platforms provided at Stalybridge, and the line is electrified between Leeds and Manchester (with onward electrification of course, but this is mainly so the stoppers can be electric) then it should be possible to just maybe slot the stoppers between the fasts between the East Portal and Stalybridge. Life would be much easyer with 4 track and the Micklehurst route open again though. It would also provide some much needed redundancy, and the chance to start again with some new stations on the Miklehurst route, that is much closer to some of the town centres.

With regard to the Todmorden Chord that I referred to in my previous posting, an £8.8 million bid for funding this project has now been made by Burnley Council, backed by Lancashire Council, for monies made available by the Government in the second round of RGF bidding.

Network Rail say that they are "advising" both Burnley Council and Lancashire County Council and that they view the Todmorden Chord as a "priority" scheme.

I've been musing over the idea of re-opening the Micklehurst loop in order to increase capacity between Leeds and Manchester.

The three tunnels are still in place but filled in at one or other (or both) ends. In fact its tricky to find any evidence of the Royal George tunnel at all.

However the biggest problems are likely to be the missing viaducts (Knowl Street in Stalybridge, Micklehurst, and Chew Brook in Friezland) and the NIMBYism of new and pre-existing housing who wouldn't want a "new" railway at the end of their gardens.

Which gave me an idea for an even crazier and more unlikely solution...

Extend the Metrolink from Ashton to Stalybridge, and then on to Diggle, basically to replace the current Mossley/Greenfield stopping service and free up some paths on the existing line.

I'm not suggesting running trams all the way to Huddersfield, but its more straight-forward to re-quadruple that bit, so the Slathwaite/Marsden stoppers would run through to Diggle for a tram interchange.

It may not be necessary to replace the viaducts as trams can run down to road level etc.

The current Mossley station is near enough to Micklehurst, a new station in Friezland would be of more use than the one in Greenfield and you could have a new station slap bang in the middle of Uppermill.

To combat the NIMBYism, people may be happier with a tram rather than a full-size train rattling past their back windows (although I'd prefer a proper railway if it was me )

Seems like an obvious solution to me... which usually means I've forgotten a few important considerations...

table38 said:

I've been musing over the idea of re-opening the Micklehurst loop in order to increase capacity between Leeds and Manchester.
Which gave me an idea for an even crazier and more unlikely solution...

Extend the Metrolink from Ashton to Stalybridge, and then on to Diggle, basically to replace the current Mossley/Greenfield stopping service and free up some paths on the existing line. I'm not suggesting running trams all the way to Huddersfield, but its more straight-forward to re-quadruple that bit, so the Slathwaite/Marsden stoppers would run through to Diggle for a tram interchange.

Seems like an obvious solution to me... which usually means I've forgotten a few important considerations...

Click to expand...

Would the cost of the budget requirement to finance this project be one of those "few important considerations" as TfGM has to source its capital from Government for the existing project work. TfGM have already planned for future extensions to the Manchester Metrolink system, but the East Manchester line is programmed to reach Ashton under Lyne, where it will become a transport hub for the Tameside area. The passenger loadings from Ashton under Lyne to Diggle surely cannot justify the total cost of your proposed Metrolink extension, whereas a good regular bus service can provide such a service.

Paul Sidorczuk said:

The passenger loadings from Ashton under Lyne to Diggle surely cannot justify the total cost of your proposed Metrolink extension, whereas a good regular bus service can provide such a service.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's a problem when they appear to have found the money to build an expensive tram line down Ashton New Road which already has a good regular bus service

table38 said:

I'm not sure that's a problem when they appear to have found the money to build an expensive tram line down Ashton New Road which already has a good regular bus service

Click to expand...

That line is already part of the current programme that funding from Government was already granted acceptance. Please refer to my previous posting which refers to the East Manchester line. It will be going to Droylsden first, then the second stage will see the completion to Ashton under Lyne. Stage openings are also scheduled on the South Manchester line and the Oldham/Rochdale line.

Have a look at the Future Metrolink section on the TfGM website for full information.

Sorry, now I'm confused as to whether you think funding would, or wouldn't be a problem!

Problems with idea of trams to Diggle
1) TIME - A tram is likely to take over an hour into Manchester rather than the 25/30 minutes from current stations. Having to changing at Stalybridge would not save much time compared with staying on a tram. Who would use it?
2) The path problem on the line is the block signalling through the tunnels which having trains not stopping at Mossley and Greenfield would not help.
3) COST - Metrolink tram fares are higher than train fares so what advantage would it be to passengers to pay extra?
4) Somewhere Network Rail has played with the idea of trains running through to Diggle or Uppermill via the Micklehurst loop which would enable more trains per hour to Manchester, but that was for about 2025 onwards.

MarkAshmore said:

Problems with idea of trams to Diggle
1) TIME - A tram is likely to take over an hour into Manchester rather than the 25/30 minutes from current stations. Having to changing at Stalybridge would not save much time compared with staying on a tram. Who would use it?

Click to expand...

A good point, and one which has been made about the tram service to Eccles, Oldham and the Airport!

Anyway my crazy proposal was merely about using Trams (which I'm not a fan of by the way!) instead of heavy rail in order to reduce the cost of reinstating the Micklehurst loop.

MarkAshmore said:

2) The path problem on the line is the block signalling through the tunnels which having trains not stopping at Mossley and Greenfield would not help.

Click to expand...

OK we were talking about re-quadding the whole line from Huddersfield to Stalybridge. If we got the old tunnels back too, taking the stopping trains off the existing line might help.

MarkAshmore said:

3) COST - Metrolink tram fares are higher than train fares so what advantage would it be to passengers to pay extra?

Click to expand...

Agreed... I'm sure the residents of Oldham, Altrincham and Bury feel the same!

MarkAshmore said:

4) Somewhere Network Rail has played with the idea of trains running through to Diggle or Uppermill via the Micklehurst loop which would enable more trains per hour to Manchester, but that was for about 2025 onwards.

Click to expand...

OK my idea was just to reduce the cost by not having to reinstate the viaducts.

Also I still think the biggest problem is going to be local objection. This might be mitigated by a sexy new light-rail solution!

Anyway I can't see it happening in my life time... which is a shame because I won't be around to say "I told you so"

table38 said:

Sorry, now I'm confused as to whether you think funding would, or wouldn't be a problem!

Click to expand...

Under the current financial climate, any new project such as Ashton under Lyne to Diggle would have to fall into the future funding project allocation that TfGM already has for the planned expansion of the system once the current four routes are completed, such as the planned extension to Stockport. I am not such a forward looking financial expert (nor I expect anyone is) to forecast what may be the plans for the Government capital allocation from 2016 onwards.