Why should wiring Standedge tunnel be "difficult?"

yorksrob · 15 Jul 2018

61653 HTAFC said:
It is said round these parts that in the event of a nuclear holocaust two things would survive: cockroaches and Barry Sheerman, the Labour MP for Huddersfield.

To his credit, I understan

Llanigraham said:
Funnily enough I have read the whole thread, thank you.
They may have been maintained, but not to mainline railway standards.
I am not proposing anything, I am suggesting that the use of these tunnels is not as simple as some people on here think.

Well, obviously not, but its not inconceivable that a service at low speed could use them.

RailUK Forums

61653 HTAFC · 15 Jul 2018

yorksrob said:
To his credit, I understand.

He has apparently done good work with the Education Select Committee, but has done the cube root of diddly-squat that's measurable for Huddersfield despite being the MP since 1979.

MarkyT · 15 Jul 2018

Paul Sidorczuk said:
I am not au fait with actual official future planned use of the tunnels in question, so can someone with detailed knowledge of this be so kind as to assist, as I am medically quite unwell at this moment in time.

I don't believe there has been anything new announced officially yet. The future of the tunnels may start to become clearer after the Secretary of State's Transpennine route modernisation statement that is supposedly imminent. Hope you're feeling better soon.

yorksrob · 15 Jul 2018

61653 HTAFC said:
He has apparently done good work with the Education Select Committee, but has done the cube root of diddly-squat that's measurable for Huddersfield despite being the MP since 1979.

Apologies - I didn't finish my original post. I got involved in a long correspondence with East Coast and Network Rail at one time about getting the last train from Kings Cross to Leeds to call at Wakefield, and one of them mentioned that this was something he supported as well apparently.

staticsteve · 15 Jul 2018

Llanigraham said:
Then why was the electrification between Cardiff and Swansea stopped?
That was blatantly a political decision

Your statement agrees with what I wrote.

Llanigraham · 15 Jul 2018

yorksrob said:
Well, obviously not, but its not inconceivable that a service at low speed could use them.

The engineering requirements are the same, no matter what the speed of the railway is.
And these tunnels have not be surveyed and maintained for RAIL use for 50 years, therefore there will be a very high cost in bringing them up to MODERN standards.

Llanigraham · 15 Jul 2018

AndrewE said:
then please give us the benefit of your superior knowledge: Why should "the use of these tunnels not [be] as simple as some people on here think?" Be specific please.

I know that these tunnels have not been maintained or surveyed for RAIL use for the last 50 years, therefore to bring them into use again will require them to be surveyed and rebuilt to MODERN standards, the standards of today. That, I can assure you, will NOT be cheap or simple.

AndrewE · 15 Jul 2018

Llanigraham said:
I know that these tunnels have not been maintained or surveyed for RAIL use for the last 50 years, therefore to bring them into use again will require them to be surveyed and rebuilt to MODERN standards, the standards of today. That, I can assure you, will NOT be cheap or simple.

So basically you have no idea. It will be inconvenient for the canal people, and you assume that a survey will cost a lot because of the time that has passed since the last trains ran... I can assure you it will be a lot cheaper than surveying a tunnel through which trains currently run! Please tell us how a MODERN tunnel differs from an old one? Lots of old brick-lined tunnels are perfectly fit for service today, and we aren't even talking about a very high line-speed. Granted, some bits might be a bit iffy, but drilling and grouting, maybe a bit of rock-bolting will probabably do the job. Certainly no need to fill with concrete and re-bore! The Pennines are relatively stable, you know, and there are not even any mines underneath.

Llanigraham · 15 Jul 2018

AndrewE said:
So basically you have no idea. It will be inconvenient for the canal people, and you assume that a survey will cost a lot because of the time that has passed since the last trains ran... I can assure you it will be a lot cheaper than surveying a tunnel through which trains currently run! Please tell us how a MODERN tunnel differs from an old one? Lots of old brick-lined tunnels are perfectly fit for service today, and we aren't even talking about a very high line-speed. Granted, some bits might be a bit iffy, but drilling and grouting, maybe a bit of rock-bolting will probabably do the job. Certainly no need to fill with concrete and re-bore! The Pennines are relatively stable, you know, and there are not even any mines underneath.

And my retort to that is what is your expertise in this matter?

I know from my own experience that the surveying that has been done, and reported by CaRT, has been solely to take into account the use of the tunnel by a Land Rover and for an escape route from the canal tunnel, possibly on foot. If the Pennines are so stable then it is funny that the canal tunnel has suffered movement that has required some rock removal from the bore and the clearances within the tunnel have reduced from when it was first opened, as can be seen form the height gauges at each end. And yes I have been in the tunnel and spoken to the people from CaRT about this, and have friends that have taken their boats through the tunnel. It is lower and narrower now that it was.

You seem to be fixated on the cost of the survey, however that is not what I said. What I said was that the standards for the TUNNEL have changed in the last 50 years and that if it was to be opened it would have to be surveyed to meet CURRENT standards. Tunnels that are still in use by trains have therefore obviously been surveyed continuously and each survey has taken into account the changes that have taken place. I know from comments from P-way about the tunnel I had in my Block Section that the way they did things in and around that tunnel had altered, and were continuously changing.

I have never mentioned filling with concrete, or anything else, and re-boring, so I see no need for that comment.

NorthernSpirit · 15 Jul 2018

snowball said:
Yes but I was replying to NorthernSpirit who didn't suggest using the parallel tunnels.

My idea is having the line quad-tracked between Dewsbury and Marsden. Marsden has four platforms but only three are used, the disused platform is brought back into use as a new platform 2. Platform 1 and the current platform 2 are then closed (the idea is to have a set of fast and slow lines which also removes the quite narrow platform 1). Between Standedge and Marsden the lines would merge from four lines down to two prior to the switchover from overhead cables to an overhead conductor rail through the tunnel before switching back to overhead cable at Diggle.

Plus to retain the canal tunnel you'd need to keep at least one single bore for emergency reasons, which is why I suggested not using them.

DarloRich · 16 Jul 2018

The challenge is one of funding and political will rather than technology.

MarkyT · 16 Jul 2018

NorthernSpirit said:
My idea is having the line quad-tracked between Dewsbury and Marsden. Marsden has four platforms but only three are used, the disused platform is brought back into use as a new platform 2. Platform 1 and the current platform 2 are then closed (the idea is to have a set of fast and slow lines which also removes the quite narrow platform 1). Between Standedge and Marsden the lines would merge from four lines down to two prior to the switchover from overhead cables to an overhead conductor rail through the tunnel before switching back to overhead cable at Diggle.

Plus to retain the canal tunnel you'd need to keep at least one single bore for emergency reasons, which is why I suggested not using them.

One of the single bores retained without rails could form a useful refuge and escape tunnel for the operational railway bores too. Maintenance personnel might use it for accessing the tunnel.

Bertie the bus · 16 Jul 2018

DY444 said:
It's basically just an excuse. Yes tunnels are more difficult than plain open line but they are not especially difficult per se. Viable solutions have been found for every tunnel on all of the electrified routes done previously and a viable solution exists for Standedge. The DfT just doesn't want to do it.

If the final price is close to £2 billion then I think you will find it will be more than just the DfT who don’t want to do it. In fact just about the only people who will want it to be done are opposition politicians point scoring and a small band of rail enthusiasts.

Xenophon PCDGS · 16 Jul 2018

Bertie the bus said:
If the final price is close to £2 billion then I think you will find it will be more than just the DfT who don’t want to do it. In fact just about the only people who will want it to be done are opposition politicians point scoring and a small band of rail enthusiasts.

When the Labour Party were last in power, what were their plans for a possible return to rail use of the tunnels and how far did their deliberations on the matter proceed?

GRALISTAIR · 16 Jul 2018

Paul Sidorczuk said:
When the Labour Party were last in power, what were their plans for a possible return to rail use of the tunnels and how far did their deliberations on the matter proceed?

I don’t want to get political Paul, but in all my life Labour do not do well on infrastructure. Adonis was a breath of fresh air. AFAIK Labour had zero discussions on the tunnels. I do think that Labour were thinking about Transpennine after their big schemes were announced but it was a crayonista moment and afaik no detail research went into it especially the tunnels.

Bertie the bus · 16 Jul 2018

Paul Sidorczuk said:
When the Labour Party were last in power, what were their plans for a possible return to rail use of the tunnels and how far did their deliberations on the matter proceed?

I have no idea. I was referring to Manchester - Leeds electrification which is the main subject of this thread not bringing disused tunnels back into use.

61653 HTAFC · 16 Jul 2018

Surely the best compromise with regard to the disused bores would be as follows:

Refurbish the disused bore that isn't currently used for emergency access, relay temporary track through it (unelectrified) and give access for both up and down trains.
Introduce a temporary timetable with single-line working through the temporary tunnel while the twin bore is electrified using overhead conductor rail. Other services diverted via Calder Valley.
Once the main bore is done, the reopened single bore becomes a bi-directional freight/relief line, electrified if funding and space allows.
4-tracking for a mile or two either side of the tunnel, with Marsden station being completely rebuilt with accessible platforms only on the loop/slow lines.
The current emergency access bore stays as is, for both emergency and maintenance access for the active canal and rail tunnels.

DY444 · 16 Jul 2018

Bertie the bus said:
If the final price is close to £2 billion then I think you will find it will be more than just the DfT who don’t want to do it. In fact just about the only people who will want it to be done are opposition politicians point scoring and a small band of rail enthusiasts.

If someone says that the final price for electrifying a 3 mile tunnel is going to be £2bn then they either don't want to do the job, or they are totally and utterly incompetent, or both

Bertie the bus · 16 Jul 2018

I repeat, I wasn't referring to a tunnel. The original post in this thread states:

AndrewE said:
We are told there might be an announcement on the trans-pennine infrastructure front soon, and that it will probably not be pleasant reading.

The £2 billion cost is the high estimate for electrifying Manchester - Leeds and if this is the finalised cost there will be virtually no support for the project.

AndrewE · 16 Jul 2018

Llanigraham said:
And my retort to that is what is your expertise in this matter?.

I have worked in quite a few project teams with all sorts of engineers on lots of very different jobs.... You still haven't produced a single reason why it can't be done, apart from the inconvenience to the canal tunnel users.

I know from my own experience that the surveying that has been done, and reported by CaRT, has been solely to take into account the use of the tunnel by a Land Rover and for an escape route from the canal tunnel, possibly on foot. If the Pennines are so stable then it is funny that the canal tunnel has suffered movement that has required some rock removal from the bore and the clearances within the tunnel have reduced from when it was first opened, as can be seen form the height gauges at each end. And yes I have been in the tunnel and spoken to the people from CaRT about this, and have friends that have taken their boats through the tunnel. It is lower and narrower now that it was.

so what? Most underground excavations shrink if they are not reinforced, it's why railway tunnels are usually lined... The canal tunnel is so old that it wasn't lined. It shouldn't be an obstacle to reopening an adjacaent railway tunnel.

You seem to be fixated on the cost of the survey, however that is not what I said..

You introduced the cost of a survey as a problem: I simply said it will be easier than doing one in a live railway tunnel..

What I said was that the standards for the TUNNEL have changed in the last 50 years and that if it was to be opened it would have to be surveyed to meet CURRENT standards. Tunnels that are still in use by trains have therefore obviously been surveyed continuously and each survey has taken into account the changes that have taken place. I know from comments from P-way about the tunnel I had in my Block Section that the way they did things in and around that tunnel had altered, and were continuously changing..

I have never mentioned filling with concrete, or anything else, and re-boring, so I see no need for that comment.

No, I did, to point out that there are now lots of techniques available to allow us to refurbish tunnels (and even strengthen them) if necessary. What is cost-effective depends on how much we need the infrastructure asset, of course.
Are you by any chance worried that the canal link might be lost? I have always loved canals, and think that a workable solution might be to put slab-track in the single bore nearest the canal, so that trains can be stopped for a pedestrian evacuation if needed. I trust that the C&RT will pay the delay repay charges for obstructing an active railway line for a couple of hours? Maybe NR will leave a gap in the summer timetable so that a landrover can drive through at 2 mph with the narrow-boat convoy...

Llanigraham · 16 Jul 2018

That was working so well until the last couple of sentences!
Do you know how much slab track costs by any chance?

DY444 · 17 Jul 2018

Bertie the bus said:
I repeat, I wasn't referring to a tunnel. The original post in this thread states:

The £2 billion cost is the high estimate for electrifying Manchester - Leeds and if this is the finalised cost there will be virtually no support for the project.

Well when you posted the £2bn stuff you quoted my post about Standedge Tunnel (which based on its title is what the thread is supposed to be about) so I therefore assumed that's what you were talking about. I must send my mind reading module off for an overhaul.

Why should wiring Standedge tunnel be "difficult?"

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member