Woodhead tunnels decision

[high camera]

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/woodhead-tunnels

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So the old tunnels are to be sealed up and forgotten, with National Grid staying permanently in the 1950s one.
If a new line is needed it will be cheaper to build a new tunnel rather than reuse any of the old tunnels.
In the meantime, the Northern Hub upgrades in the Hope Valley will cope.

It's surely ironic that a Yorkshire minister, working for a Secretary of State representing Derbyshire Dales, should have to put the final nail in the coffin.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/woodhead-tunnels

 

[TheGrew]

Seems pretty sensible to me, I imagine if the Woodhead was to re-open it would have 25kv ac for which you might need greater clearance than the existing tunnel.

Another thought though would be whether or not any future trans-pennine route might be built for high speed to 'complete the triangle' linking the two branches of HS2 together.

HS3 Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-York anyone?

 

[HSTEd]

That is probably the final nail in the coffin for the Woodhead route then.

Once you include the cost of running a TBM drive you might as well just build a 'Pennine Base Tunnel' instead.

 

[TheGrew]

Once you include the cost of running a TBM drive you might as well just build a 'Pennine Base Tunnel' instead.

+

Another thought though would be whether or not any future trans-pennine route might be built for high speed to 'complete the triangle' linking the two branches of HS2 together.

=

HS3 Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-York anyone?

Maybe

 

[Mugby]

It's not so many years ago that one franchise bid included a plan to re-open the route.

Wasn't it Arriva?

 

[WatcherZero]

The rumours a couple of months ago was the Government were giving serious thought to reopening Woodhead as a cheaper alternative to planned Northern Hub works. If theyve decided its not worth it then I think we can take they did give the idea a fair hearing and the 'savings' of reusing the tunnels were outweighed by the extra upkeep and modification costs.

 

[yorksrob]

The rumours a couple of months ago was the Government were giving serious thought to reopening Woodhead as a cheaper alternative to planned Northern Hub works. If theyve decided its not worth it then I think we can take they did give the idea a fair hearing and the 'savings' of reusing the tunnels were outweighed by the extra upkeep and modification costs.

I'd have to see evidence before I believed such "rumours" had any foundation I'm afraid.

Big business has been allowed to use its infrastructure in an unsustainable way and as a consequence been allowed to blight any future proposals of using the new tunnel for its original purpose.

The National Grid had been granted the use of the original tunnels on the basis that they would maintain them. They should have been compelled to do this but Government, unsurprisingly chickened out.

 

[edwin_m]

The rumours a couple of months ago was the Government were giving serious thought to reopening Woodhead as a cheaper alternative to planned Northern Hub works. If theyve decided its not worth it then I think we can take they did give the idea a fair hearing and the 'savings' of reusing the tunnels were outweighed by the extra upkeep and modification costs.

I really can't see how anyone (even the Government!) could ever have thought that. Another Manchester-Sheffield route would only have avoided the costs of extra loops on the Hope Valley, with the Hope Valley in its present form still being needed and all other elements of Northern Hub being unchanged.

Against the saving on these loops would be the cost of reinstatement of infrastructure all the way from Hadfield through to Penistone at least, probably onward to Sheffield and some kind of connection to access Sheffield Midland. The only benefit would have been a handful of minutes off fast Manchester-Sheffield trains, which incidentally wouldn't be able to call at Stockport.

In the very long term Woodhead might form part of a new route linking Manchester with both South and West Yorkshire by means of a triangle onto HS2 somewhere east of Barnsley. However this is a fairly remote possibility, given that capacity on both Manchester-Sheffield and Manchester-Leeds could be increased by a factor of several just by lengthening the trains and critical platforms.

 

[tbtc]

Before reaching my decision, I wrote to over 40 MPs representing constituencies both east and west of the Pennines, and received three replies

I'd be interested to know which three were sufficiently interested to reply.

Shame to hear the news, of course, but with most trains from Sheffield to Manchester run by two/three coach DMUs, there's clearly a lot of capacity increases that could come about without needing to reopen the Woodhead line.

I just hope that the Glossop/ Hadfield line doesn't get downgraded to "TramTrains" (as per the Manchester Metrolink thread) as a result of this decision which kills off any hopes of reopening the Woodhead line as a proper railway any time soon.

Not sure where else a "Pennine Base Tunnel" would be suited for though (if not Woodhead) - given that something suitable for Manchester - Sheffield is going to be of little use for Manchester - Leeds.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In the very long term Woodhead might form part of a new route linking Manchester with both South and West Yorkshire by means of a triangle onto HS2 somewhere east of Barnsley. However this is a fairly remote possibility, given that capacity on both Manchester-Sheffield and Manchester-Leeds could be increased by a factor of several just by lengthening the trains and critical platforms

^^what he said^^

(and I say this having watched a Network Rail class 31 and Mk3s going up the old Don Valley line toward Deepcar this morning, presumably on a measuring service, having wondered when the next passenger coaches will grace that route through Deepcar etc)

 

[edwin_m]

Converting Glossop/Hadfield to tram-train wouldn't necessarily prejudice the reinstatement of Woodhead. 25kV electrification would still be used and track would still be to heavy rail standards. The existing signalling would be taken out but most of the boxes have already gone and resignalling would be required anyway for operation of Sheffield trains. Changes to the track layout would mainly be on the Glossop branch which could remain as tramway if trains were restored on the main line.

 

[tbtc]

Converting Glossop/Hadfield to tram-train wouldn't necessarily prejudice the reinstatement of Woodhead. 25kV electrification would still be used and track would still be to heavy rail standards. The existing signalling would be taken out but most of the boxes have already gone and resignalling would be required anyway for operation of Sheffield trains. Changes to the track layout would mainly be on the Glossop branch which could remain as tramway if trains were restored on the main line.

Sorry, didn't explain myself fully, I was meaning that the Glossop line would need a significant frequency increase is downgraded (from 323s to "tram trains"), which would limit the scope for Yorkshire services - especially if we are talking "fast" ones.

 

[edwin_m]

Sorry, didn't explain myself fully, I was meaning that the Glossop line would need a significant frequency increase is downgraded (from 323s to "tram trains"), which would limit the scope for Yorkshire services - especially if we are talking "fast" ones.

The tram-trains would probably only share tracks from Guide Bridge eastwards, and I think there was once a four-track section near Hattersley so possibly scope for some loops. Otherwise it could indeed revert to EMUs.

 

[WatcherZero]

Sorry, didn't explain myself fully, I was meaning that the Glossop line would need a significant frequency increase is downgraded (from 323s to "tram trains"), which would limit the scope for Yorkshire services - especially if we are talking "fast" ones.

Well if they are looking at a unit thats the same size or marginally longer than a double tram in a high capacity seating layout your only talking 100 less seats 1v1 so a 2tph to 10tph frequency increase would be quite a large increase in capacity of circa 200%.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I really can't see how anyone (even the Government!) could ever have thought that. Another Manchester-Sheffield route would only have avoided the costs of extra loops on the Hope Valley, with the Hope Valley in its present form still being needed and all other elements of Northern Hub being unchanged.

Well you might think that, but only a few months ago they consulted all the transport authorities along the route and 40 MP's on those very prospects.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This news should put an end to some of the thread fantasy schemes that surface from time to time.

 

[Peter Sarf]

This news should put an end to some of the thread fantasy schemes that surface from time to time.

Oh I don't know. I am pretty good with a shovel. Might take some time but I am willing to try.

Must say I thought the fate of the route was sealed when I learnt that the National Grid were to use the new (1950s) tunnel about five years ago. As for suitability for 25KvAC perhaps the tunnels were only big enough for the then fashionable 1.5KVDC (not 15KvDC) overhead ?. Were the older tunnels to more generous proportions as I guess the rest of the Great Centrals routes were ?.

 

[yorksrob]

I wonder whether the National Grid will expect to be given another tunnel when they can't be bothered to maintain this one.

 

[edwin_m]

Oh I don't know. I am pretty good with a shovel. Might take some time but I am willing to try.

Must say I thought the fate of the route was sealed when I learnt that the National Grid were to use the new (1950s) tunnel about five years ago. As for suitability for 25KvAC perhaps the tunnels were only big enough for the then fashionable 15KvDC overhead ?. Were the older tunnels to more generous proportions as I guess the rest of the Great Centrals routes were ?.

It's 1.5kV not 15kV (that's the German system!). However I would expect with modern techniques like fixed bar overhead that there wouldn't be a problem with 25kV.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Thanks edwin_m, I keep typing too fast but usually lose the shift key. Missing the dot and did not spot it. Worse still I was going to type 1,500 rather than 1.5K, a missing comma would not have hurt. I will repair that for completenes sake.

You remind me. I seem to remember that when the Liverpool Street lines were converted from 1.5KVdC to 25KVAC but that some parts were run at 6.25KVAC to avoid problems ?. But as you say there is newer technology nowadays - I think I have seen fixed bars under bridges.

 

[Haydn1971]

Never really got the attraction of re opening the Woodhead route over improvements to the Hope Valley Line. For me, the Woodhead goes just as far out of the way as the Hope Valley line, plus doesn't connect with Midland Station - it's always been a dead horse since Sheffield Victoria closed. Anyone aware of the clearance on the Hope Valley tunnels ? Could they carry 25Kv overhead power ?

 

[edwin_m]

You remind me. I seem to remember that when the Liverpool Street lines were converted from 1.5KVdC to 25KVAC but that some parts were run at 6.25KVAC to avoid problems ?. But as you say there is newer technology nowadays - I think I have seen fixed bars under bridges.

This was true - some parts of Glasgow had it too. I think some later research, possibly aided by the absence of steam trains blasting the OLE with water vapour, led to the conclusion that the 6.25kV could be upgraded to 25kV without much work to increase clearances.

 

[Bald Rick]

This was true - some parts of Glasgow had it too. I think some later research, possibly aided by the absence of steam trains blasting the OLE with water vapour, led to the conclusion that the 6.25kV could be upgraded to 25kV without much work to increase clearances.

Another electrification job done on the cheap, good old BR! One of the reasons the GE rewiring job is so difficult is that all the sub-standard clearances at bridges left when 6.25kV was converted to 25kV are having to be corrected. to my certain knowledge these sub-standard clearances have been a contributory factor in at least 3 'wires down' incidents on the GE in the last few years, ie if the clearances had been to standard, they wouldn't have happened.

 

[455driver]

This news should put an end to some of the thread fantasy schemes that surface from time to time.

Na, wheres the fun in that.

Personally I cant see the problem, just fit the train with a pinion, fit racks in between the rails and build a new line over the top!
Should be okay up to about 60mph and adhesion wouldnt be a problem.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Na, wheres the fun in that.

Personally I cant see the problem, just fit the train with a pinion, fit racks in between the rails and build a new line over the top!
Should be okay up to about 60mph and adhesion wouldnt be a problem.

I like your thinking there, after all its not bad really as that's only ten miles an hour slower than the parallel/near M62 motorway. Not that they can even do 60mph in all weathers . Oh and no problem with clearances for the OHLE - bit windy tho.

 

[LowLevel]

I wonder whether the National Grid will expect to be given another tunnel when they can't be bothered to maintain this one.

Having seen the amount of work National Grid have done to maintain the Victorian tunnels over the last few decades myself, and know how much it has cost them and continues to cost per year, I'd be interested to know the basis for your comment?

Not being bothered to maintain them is certainly not correct. They are particularly leaky, prone to subsidence, and left alone will collapse on their own accord at some stage. They've required extremely rigorous maintenance regimes ever since they were built by the MS&LR.

 

[Tomnick]

I wonder whether the National Grid will expect to be given another tunnel when they can't be bothered to maintain this one.

In fairness to National Grid, the old tunnels really are in poor condition despite very substantial efforts to look after them, and access is surely a problem in such a narrow bore - they'd be daft to keep struggling on when there's a more suitable bore adjacent, with apparently little prospect of further railway use in the medium term.

 

[yorksrob]

In fairness to National Grid, the old tunnels really are in poor condition despite very substantial efforts to look after them, and access is surely a problem in such a narrow bore - they'd be daft to keep struggling on when there's a more suitable bore adjacent, with apparently little prospect of further railway use in the medium term.

I disagree. They already have two tunnels to play with. What wpuld they have done if there wasn‘t a third to move in to ?

This is merely sweating the assets to destruction.

 

[edwin_m]

If we load unnecessary costs onto NG they come back to all of us through our electricity bills.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This decision can lead to strange flights of fancy, induced by lack of sleep owing to 24-hour participation on RailUK, upon other energy-cable related matters. Knowing that most of the British energy suppliers are of non-British origin, perhaps we might see the Channel Tunnel also closed to rail travel and a multiplicity of power cables linking Britain to the European mainland installed in its place.

Don't forget..a precedent has already been set..

 

[yorksrob]

If we load unnecessary costs onto NG they come back to all of us through our electricity bills.

Yes, but maintaining the Woodhead tunnels will be a tiny proportion of the renewal costs of the National Grid, all of whose assets, by the way, have been sweated over the last twenty or so years (remember that big power cut in London a few years ago ?), and these costs themselves are only a proportion of the electricity bill we pay.

Is effectively destroying a potential transport corridoor in perpetuity a price worth paying for a small reduction in maintenance costs that may or may not be passed on to the consumer anyway.

I know they all say that using the tunnel in this way won't predjudice any re-opening proposals, but seriously - everyone on this forum knows that this is pure balderdash.