Re-Opening the disused Standedge tunnels

[PhilipW]

The recently published Manchester Hub strategy proposed re-opening the 2 disused single bore Standedge tunnels thus making the trans Pennine route four tracks between Diggle and Marsden. I am guessing that is a distance of about 5 miles.

My question is "Is there scope for extending the four tracking either west from Diggle or east from Marsden, or were Diggle and Marsden the extent of the original four tracking ?".

If this does come about, it also gives the opportunity for the tunnels to be electrified (in preparation for the whole trans Pennine route) at absolutely no inconvenience to the public. Tunnels 3 and 4 could be be wired as part of their renovation. Once ready, traffic could be moved to them whilst tunnels 1 and 2 are then wired. The 4 tracking then comes into effect once they are all wired. I do hope the government of the day and Network Rail have the foresight to do this.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

Well I'm afraid to say this but you'll never get anywhere in life now that you have used the worst human trait, the trait that is called common sense!
You're doomed!

 

[Ploughman]

This was proposed by Northern and Network a couple of years ago.
It actually involved relaying only one tunnel.
Reason was to enable a stopper to depart Marsden and run west without having to wait for the direct Hudds - Stalybridge to pass through the tunnel.
Due to timings it was very tight.
The other bore was to be retained as a road access as current.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Well, at present, only the northern bore is in use - double tracked.
At both ends of the tunnel, the track reverts to 3 running lines. So there would be some sense in relaying one line in the southern bore - to provide continuity.

But as far as I'm aware, there is only the 2 bores, each wide enough for 2 tracks. By realying one track in the southern bore there would indeed be space, albeit very limited, for road vehicles during a possession.

Any improvement in east-west capacity there would benefit many travellers

 

[Tomnick]

There are three railway bores at Standedge. If either of the disused bores were brought back into use, it'd extend the Up Loop (i.e. towards Manchester) at Marsden through the tunnel - the Down Loop at Diggle is on the other side of the line though, so would be difficult to incorporate to provide 'continuity' as DaveNewcastle suggests. I'm also not sure if there'd be sufficient clearance in the single-line bores to permit electrification.

I believe the four-track formation extended east well beyond Huddersfield, and a pair of lines west ran via an alternative route to Stalybridge. I suppose extending the loop at Marsden would make slightly better use of the capacity in the Up direction, but that'd be fairly pointless without a corresponding improvement in the Down direction!

 

[PhilipW]

Just to re-iterate - the Manchester Hub document does propose re-instating both single bore tunnels which together with the existing double bore tunnel will give 4 tracking between Diggle and Marsden.

If there may be headroom problems in the single bore tunnels for electrification, I hope that the track could be lowered instead to give the necessary headroom. If that is the case, I would also hope that it would be done with the initial reburbishment work to bring the tunnels back into use.

 

[Tomnick]

Sorry, I was reading from Ploughman's post. Relaying both bores would make sense to me, but - if the four-track section was not extended beyond Marsden and Diggle - not without remodelling at either end so that both Down lines would run through the new bore. Otherwise, Down stoppers (or anything else being recessed in the new Slow line) would have to conflict with Up traffic twice - hardly the best use of capacity! Even that would bring its own problems though - if the old bores are gauge-restricted, then freight traffic would be restricted unless some form of reversible signalling was provided over one of the lines in the new bore.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Sorry, too! I did think that the 2 long since abandoned lines were both in the one abandoned bore.
Nevertheless, the arguments for re-laying one line stand. The extension of the 3rd running line at each end of the existing tunnel all the way through must provide a useful increase in capacity. Whether it is an extension of the up- or down- loops, or even a third bi-di line would presumably depend on an analysis of demand.
I've been impressed by the efficient use of a 3rd bi-di line alongside dual main line elsewhere - especially for freight, light and ECS moves and occasionaly for relief by local stoppers.

 

[Spartacus]

I think the sensible idea would be to have the Up lines using the single bore tunnels and the down lines the double track tunnels, eliminating crossing movements.

Of course today there's only double track either side of the tunnels, with an Up loop at Marsden of considerable length and a Down loop at Diggle which isn't much use for anything but passenger trains. I'm not sure how far 4 tracks continued to the West but depending on what you consider the transpennine routes towards Leeds you could consider the line 4 track to Heaton Lodge, Ravensthorpe or even past Wakefield Kirkgate.

For me, 4 tracking between Marsden and Huddersfield would have a major drawback because the line has been slewed over the original formation round the many curves to increase line speed which would be lost with the return of 4 tracks, but quadrupling some or all of Huddersfield - Ravesthorpe would give increased capacity without loss of speed, and maybe a bit of 4 tracking around Diggle which would do the same.

 

[PhilipW]

I think the sensible idea would be to have the Up lines using the single bore tunnels and the down lines the double track tunnels, eliminating crossing movements.

From my understanding of the layout of the tunnels too, that seems an entirely sensible proposal as both the single bore tunnels lie to the south of the double bore tunnel now in us.

Having a twin track tunnel with both tracks being used for trains in the same direction would be fairly unusual, if not very unusual or even unique. I cannnot see any reason against it.

Does anyone know how the tracks and tunnels were orgainised when all four were in use? I presume there were in pairs - up/down fast and up/down slow with there being no need for crossing movements at either end of the tunnels as the 4-track layout continued for some distance in each direction.

 

[Welshman]

They were paired by use, with the fast lines utilising the single-track bores and the slow the double.
Fourtracking existed from Stalybridge almost to Leeds, by using the Micklehurst loop west of Stanedge, and the Leeds New Line avoiding Mirfield, from Bradley to Farnley.
Pairing now by direction would be unusual, but not unique, as Hadley North and South tunnels out of King's Cross use the same system. It does seem odd, though, roaring through those tunnels on the right-hand track when travelling fast by an East Coast express!

 

[PhilipW]

Some interesting information. Thanks.

The Micklehurst loop ran to the south of the existing line through Uppermill. If the Up/Down Fasts ran through the two single bore tunnels (which are the southerly bores), do I take it then that the Micklehurst loop was also the Up/Down Fast lines.

If so, it is interesting that BR closed the Fast tracks and kept the Slow tracks. Have you any knowledge of why the (presumably slower) Uppermill route was chosen over the Micklehurst route to keep ?

 

[Welshman]

Some interesting information. Thanks.

The Micklehurst loop ran to the south of the existing line through Uppermill. If the Up/Down Fasts ran through the two single bore tunnels (which are the southerly bores), do I take it then that the Micklehurst loop was also the Up/Down Fast lines.

If so, it is interesting that BR closed the Fast tracks and kept the Slow tracks. Have you any knowledge of why the (presumably slower) Uppermill route was chosen over the Micklehurst route to keep ?

Yes, indeed. But Uppermill was on the Micklehurst loop, and traffic on that loop was sparse by my time[early 1960's - yes, I'm as ancient as that!], and Uppermill and Friezland had already been closed, so I suppose not needing 4 tracks by then, BR kept the other line instead, as Greenfield and Mossley were still open [and still are.]
As far as one being slower/faster than the other, I don't think there was very much in it, as I remember.

 

[PhilipW]

Welshman, Thanks for that information. I did know that Uppermill was on the Micklehurst loop and should have said Mossley or Greenfield instead. Thanks for correcting me.

In an early post, you mentioned about the Leeds New Line effectively giving 4 tracks around Mirfield and onwards to Leeds. This is an area I know little about. Can you clarify a bit what the Leeds New Line is/was and where it ran to/from. Thanks

 

[Spartacus]

There's quite a bit of info on here: http://www.lostrailwayswestyorkshire.co.uk/routes west yorkshire.htm

Basically it diverged at Heaton Lodge Jn then via Heckmondwike & Cleckheaton the proceeded 'over the top' at Gomersall the joined the old route at Farnley Jn.

 

[Welshman]

Indeed, it was a steeply-graded, heavily curved line, built by the LNWR to avoid congestion around Mirfield and Dewsbury.
I believe it was known by enginemen as "The Big Dipper" as it was not an easy line to work, and BR closed it in 1964, when the Mirfield route was becoming less congested.
I made one or two runs over it on the "Trans-Pennine" dmus, introduced in 1961, when generally, most services non-stop between Leeds and Huddersfield went that way, but there was little time-saving due to its difficulties.
The dive-under at the remodelled Heaton Lodge Junction now utilises part of the formation at the Huddersfield end, and I believe the formation at the Leeds end around Farnley is now covered by the M621 motorway. Such is "progress"

 

[Spartacus]

From what I can gather the only bit that's totally covered by motorway is the Huddersfield end of Gildersome Tunnel, the rest would probably have just skirted the motorway. Now there's some housing built on the line near both Heckmondwike in a cutting and Birstall on top of a filled in cutting.

 

[Nym]

Still, fourtracking through the tunnels is a damned good idea, if it's possible, four track all the way to stalybridge (or god forbid victoria) wouldn't go amiss, they should be considering wiring now, by wiring the tunnels when the're re-constructed, and to be sure it wouldn't be that hard to have bi-directional signalling on each tunnel, with appropriate junctions, if nothing else it would provide an overtaking opertunity for TPE over the stoppers, without a stopping service having to hold in a station (one with loops) waiting for the TPE to pass, then it could have the new lines rated at a full 100mph, thus reducing journey times between Manchester and Leeds within the current rolling stock, or god forbid, making it a 110mph track and just being lazy and having Cl90 + Mk3A stock running the route allongside the TPE stock, would be much more comfotable, enviromentally friendly, and is already sodding there!