Disley Tunnel

[Philip]

I've always wondered why this tunnel is so enormous; it is a good bit over 2 miles long, but it doesn't seem to go under much of a hill from what I've seen of the area. I know the whole area is high up (as in High Lane, Higher Poynton) but compared to the mountains on the other side of the Goyt Valley the area around Disley and High Lane doesn't look very hilly. What's more odd is that the LNWR Buxton line runs fairly close in parallel but passes through a very short tunnel and is in a cutting the rest of the way. Anyone know how deep Disley tunnel gets? Were there other reasons for building such a long tunnel like land ownership issues?

 

[bunnahabhain]

By going through the tunnel as is you get a very straight route and avoid the need to cross the valley at inconvenient locations on a long viaduct.

 

[HowardGWR]

I am glad someone replied to this. I don't know the area. Which services use it, as I see there are two other routes besides, to get round the hill? If one lives in Chapel-en-le-Frith, which is the best way to get to Manchester? Via Disley tunnel looks the quickest, but perhaps that's freight only?

 

[DarloRich]

No - there is passenger use - Disley Tunnel is on the Hope Valley Line between Sheffield and Manchester

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The 'Disley cut-off' line and tunnel was late on the scene, not opening until 1902, to give the Midland fast and direct access to Manchester Central from New Mills via Cheadle Heath. The old route via Romiley and Stockport Tiviot Dale was slow and congested, hindering express traffic. The LNW had already taken the best route through Disley, whilst subsequent urban ribbon development meant that a long tunnel was the only practical option. The line was famously used by the 'Blue Pullman' , calling at Cheadle Heath for Stockport, ceasing on electrification of the WCML. Passenger closure came in 1967 but continued to be used most notably for the Tunstead - Northwich limestone trains. Rejeuvenation came in 1986 with the construction of the Hazel Grove Chord enabling fast Manchester to Sheffield trains on the Hope Valley route to run via Stockport instead of Marple.

 

[HowardGWR]

No - there is passenger use - Disley Tunnel is on the Hope Valley Line between Sheffield and Manchester

Ah thanks, so the Hope Valley ones don't go via Marple I assume -or perhaps some do?

Update -just seen Sir Felix Pole's reply (crossed with mine), thanks. An Edwardian cut-off not built by GWR /GC then. I wonder how many there were.

 

[mtbox]

Stoppers go via marple, also tpe/emt have late night/early morning routings via marple for route retention purposes

 

[button_boxer]

Hope Valley stoppers go via New Mills and Marple, the fast trains turn off between Chinley and New Mills, through Disley tunnel, and then use the single track chord just southeast of Hazel Grove to join the Buxton line into Stockport.

 

[Philip]

Thanks for the replies. I guess it must go under a hill of some kind, there just doesn't seem to be much of one when compared to Cowburn or Totley for instance. Slightly surprised that electrification of the West Coast line forced the complete withdrawal of Midland services between Manchester and London and subsequently the lifting of much of the track on the route. It would have been a good alternative to get to London direct from Manchester.

 

[yorksrob]

Thanks for the replies. I guess it must go under a hill of some kind, there just doesn't seem to be much of one when compared to Cowburn or Totley for instance. Slightly surprised that electrification of the West Coast line forced the complete withdrawal of Midland services between Manchester and London and subsequently the lifting of much of the track on the route. It would have been a good alternative to get to London direct from Manchester.

Yes, there were a lot of "surprising" decisions taken during the closure programme

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, there were a lot of "surprising" decisions taken during the closure programme

Once electrified, the WCML was a good deal faster than the MML between London and Manchester, and not surprisingly BR wanted to maximise the benefits of the money spent on electrification. Much the same applied to the GWR route to Birmingham.

This does of course conveniently ignore the fact that not everyone wants to travel to London.

 

[eMeS]

... The line was famously used by the 'Blue Pullman' , calling at Cheadle Heath for Stockport, ceasing on electrification of the WCML. Passenger closure came in 1967 ...

The Midland Pullman must be the poshest train I've travelled on. It was in 1962 when I lived in Cheadle, and had just completed two weeks of job interviews in London, so I treated myself on the journey home.

 

[Ash Bridge]

The Midland Pullman must be the poshest train I've travelled on. It was in 1962 when I lived in Cheadle, and had just completed two weeks of job interviews in London, so I treated myself on the journey home.

That's interesting, I realise it's a long time ago now, but do you have recollections of seat comfort, ride quality, performance etc.? I believe that ride quality was supposedly it's Achilles heel?

 

[eMeS]

Sorry no; I had little to compare it with. As far as I can remember, the meal didn't disappoint.

 

[HowardGWR]

That's interesting, I realise it's a long time ago now, but do you have recollections of seat comfort, ride quality, performance etc.? I believe that ride quality was supposedly it's Achilles heel?

I can remember getting the BP from Bristol TM (second class). I was seated in the power car compartment and the ride was shocking. The hot cup of coffee was lethally spilling and the silver rattled incessantly. I moved down to another car and it was no better.

 

[TheKnightWho]

As the government seems to (finally) be recognising that London isn't the be-all-and-end-all of transport in this country along with further capacity issues, we may at some point begin see these sorts of old routes reopened.

It's true that the parts that were closed on the old Midland route to Scotland were (mostly) those that served the fewest places (the Settle-Carlisle line just about managed to survive) although that does in many ways make them the easiest to reopen due to the fewest constraints by building on the alignments etc. However, it's the through routes between big places that would really see the benefits. Having to change at Sheffield for the MML rather than having through trains to Derby and beyond is ridiculous, for example.

 

[Bald Rick]

Having to change at Sheffield for the MML rather than having through trains to Derby and beyond is ridiculous, for example.

If there was a sufficiently large market for direct Derby to Manchester trains, I'm sure an open access operator or even incumbent TOC would have proposed such a service via Dore South curve.

 

[yorksrob]

If there was a sufficiently large market for direct Derby to Manchester trains, I'm sure an open access operator or even incumbent TOC would have proposed such a service via Dore South curve.

Wouldn't the known capacity issues on the Hope Valley route have precluded this ?

 

[edwin_m]

Wouldn't the known capacity issues on the Hope Valley route have precluded this ?

Northern Hub will increase the capacity by doubling the singled section at Dore and adding some overtaking loops somewhere (I think - details seem to have changed several times). Re-signalling would also give some benefit by shortening the long block sections. All this would be far cheaper than re-opening Buxton/Chinley to Matlock, which would therefore have to be justified by shorter through journey times and/or benefits to places on the route.

 

[yorksrob]

Northern Hub will increase the capacity by doubling the singled section at Dore and adding some overtaking loops somewhere (I think - details seem to have changed several times). Re-signalling would also give some benefit by shortening the long block sections. All this would be far cheaper than re-opening Buxton/Chinley to Matlock, which would therefore have to be justified by shorter through journey times and/or benefits to places on the route.

But the point made was that if there was a potential market for direct services towards Derby, someone would have proposed an open access operation using the Dore curve. Clearly this wouldn't have been possible while the Hope valley was full.

Or to look at it from another angle, if NR didn't blow a load of money building loops and shortening block sections on the Hope Valley, they could put it towards the cost of reopening the main line and have extra capacity, even shorter journey times from the North West to the East Midlands and new local transport opportunities.

 

[Viscount702]

Northern Hub will increase the capacity by doubling the singled section at Dore and adding some overtaking loops somewhere (I think - details seem to have changed several times). Re-signalling would also give some benefit by shortening the long block sections. All this would be far cheaper than re-opening Buxton/Chinley to Matlock, which would therefore have to be justified by shorter through journey times and/or benefits to places on the route.

I am not sure how much capacity increase there will be. Under the Hub it should have allowed for 4 fast trains as well as stoppers and freight. The latest consultation states the scope has changed and only three fast trains can be provided at best.

Under the current proposals Dore is still proposed to be doubled. The Dore south curve is to be to be extended however I still have no idea how this provides a passing facility and will increase capacity. The loops at Grindleford have gone. They are looking at other places but nothing certain. Also I have no idea if anything is now proposed for Chinley. There was to be a passing/turnback facility and platform improvements but there is now no longer any mention of these works whatsoeverin any NR plans.

Finally when did MML Electrification become part of the Hub (which incidentally I increasingly think is bit by bit being eroded and may well sink if the Ordsall Chord doesn't get the go ahead)

 

[Joseph_Locke]

The Dore south curve is to be to be extended however I still have no idea how this provides a passing facility and will increase capacity.

By making it long enough (between Dore South and Dore West) to actually stand a train on clear of both junctions. This means that trains do not have to stand on the HV or MML waiting a clear path on the other route.

 

[edwin_m]

But the point made was that if there was a potential market for direct services towards Derby, someone would have proposed an open access operation using the Dore curve. Clearly this wouldn't have been possible while the Hope valley was full.

There probably is a market for direct services towards Derby, as this is being put forward as a service that could use the extra capacity on the Hope Valley.

 

[mtbox]

I am not sure how much capacity increase there will be. Under the Hub it should have allowed for 4 fast trains as well as stoppers and freight. The latest consultation states the scope has changed and only three fast trains can be provided at best.

Under the current proposals Dore is still proposed to be doubled. The Dore south curve is to be to be extended however I still have no idea how this provides a passing facility and will increase capacity. The loops at Grindleford have gone. They are looking at other places but nothing certain. Also I have no idea if anything is now proposed for Chinley. There was to be a passing/turnback facility and platform improvements but there is now no longer any mention of these works whatsoeverin any NR plans.

Finally when did MML Electrification become part of the Hub (which incidentally I increasingly think is bit by bit being eroded and may well sink if the Ordsall Chord doesn't get the go ahead)

The loop is going to be built on the east side of Bamford between the station and Jaggers lane overbridge. All other proposed sites have been rejected. NR are to submit the application for the TWOA order later this year.

 

[Viscount702]

The loop is going to be built on the east side of Bamford between the station and Jaggers lane overbridge. All other proposed sites have been rejected. NR are to submit the application for the TWOA order later this year.

That is only out for consultation at present - could go the way of Grindleford.

Also there appears to be no proposal for a west bound loop which there ought to be.

Also to pick up on Joseph's post above yes the extended loop will allow a train to stand clear of both lines but that does not provided the same function as a loop as was originally proposed at Grindleford which would have allowed passing.

I also take Joseph's lack of comment on Chinley to mean that whatever was to be done there has been dropped.

 

[bunnahabhain]

The westbound loops are provided at Heeley and Earles Sidings. There is no current eastbound loop.

 

[Viscount702]

The westbound loops are provided at Heeley and Earles Sidings. There is no current eastbound loop.

It is my understanding that these can only be used by freight and not passenger trains.

 

[Tomnick]

Heeley can be used by passenger trains, not Earles though. By the time the stopping passenger has gone away at the latter, though, it might as well run to New Mills South anyway - it'd only put a couple of extra minutes into whatever's behind.

 

[Viscount702]

Heeley can be used by passenger trains, not Earles though. By the time the stopping passenger has gone away at the latter, though, it might as well run to New Mills South anyway - it'd only put a couple of extra minutes into whatever's behind.

Thanks for that.

If you are trying to increase capacity then you would be looking to eliminate these extra minutes where possible.

Also your reference to New Mills South would again suggest that nothing is going to be done at Chinley. Am I correct.

 

[Tomnick]

I've no idea what's proposed at Chinley - just commenting on the current situation. Although a few minutes here and there can help to provide valuable extra paths, I don't think that planning to recess the stopper would help much, unless a much longer 'dynamic' loop between and including two stations was provided - it'd put too much time into its already slow journey, and not really do much to make the plan more resilient overall. A loop midway (around Bamford) would help in disruption, but I'm not sure whether it's justified. My understanding is that the proposed loops are designed with freight in mind, making it easier to path them in the gaps between fasts that aren't occupied by a stopper (and maybe even sneaking out behind the stopper with enough time to recess before the fast catches up). Extending the South Curve at Dore would help tremendously - it seems that some freights are necessarily very tightly timed around there, and once it's on the move towards Dore from either direction, it really has to be kept running with little opportunity for regulation, even if that puts it on an impossible margin in front of a fast passenger.