Why should wiring Standedge tunnel be "difficult?"

[Llanigraham]

I love the simplistic ideas that they can just reroute to and rewire a tunnel that hasn't been used for over 50 years.
It would need full structural assessment, plus numerous other inspections, plus persuading CaRT that they can relinquish their contraact for it's use, which could mean that the canal tunnel might have to be closed, as that is the only escape route if something went wrong.
I know that before CaRT started to use it with their Land Rover it had to be inspected and Risk Assessed first, and their requirements are far lower.

 

[AndrewE]

The tunnel isn't the only issue with wiring the route: another tricky area is the houses just West of Mossley station which have quite small backyards/terraces very close to the line and at a particularly awkward height based on the height the contact wire would be at. It could still be wired (a neutral section could be a solution, if one can be placed that close to a station) but would be very awkward with regard to the railway's neighbours.

I had forgotten that bit... It's an access path with house doors and windows directly off it. Maybe put a fine-mesh wire mesh fence up to the level of the highest window along the railway boundary? Or, given that the houses are on the downhill side of the lines, perhaps move the downhill platform uphill a few hundred metres so that stoppers can pull away before coasting?
It's got nothing to do with why Standedge Tunnel might be difficult to wire, though!

 

[Jonny]

This seems to imply that there are several geological faults: http://www.forgottenrelics.co.uk/tunnels/standedge.html which may prove to be a complicating factor.

The construction of this tunnel was commenced in 1845 and completed in 1848 at a cost of £201,608. Its length is 3 miles 62 yards and the contractor was Mr Nicholson. It has an average width of 14 feet 6 inches at rail level, height above rail level being 17 feet 6 inches and its original construction was a stone arch with side walls. The formation through which it passes is the shales and rocks of the coal measures in which there are some ‘main faults’ and several subsidiary ones. Where these latter occur, the shale and rocks are very much distorted and shattered.

The original contour of the tunnel is in many places distorted, the crown of the arch being forced up. On opening out at these places, cavities were found over the crown and the rock very much shattered and drawn. Behind the side walls the shale was very compact. Portions were taken down and rebuilt. The stone arch at the crown varied from 10-22 inches thick (in three rings) and the side walls 22-27 inches, the face work being 10 inches thick. A defective length of 117 yards was rebuilt in 1894 at an actual cost of £4,589, or £39 4s per linear yard.

 

[yorksrob]

10 and 12-coach trains would be wonderful, and might even accommodate long-distance demand if they ran twice an hour splitting at the outer ends. However there is also the need for stoppers (and semi-fasts) both sides of and through the Pennines.

We're running six trains an hour- a mish-mash of fast and semi-fast services, which suggest four expresses are quite doable. Four twelve carriage trains is a lot of capacity.

 

[AndrewE]

This seems to imply that there are several geological faults: http://www.forgottenrelics.co.uk/tunnels/standedge.html which may prove to be a complicating factor.

Thanks for that interesting link (especially the ventilation details) but I'm sure that the ground conditions are nothing that mining or tunnelling engineers can't cope with. I suspect drilling and grouting was unknown when the last repairs were made. The brickwork in the single bores was being repointed bit by bit 10 or 15 years ago, as I believe they were identified as a strategic resource that Railtrack was legally obliged to maintain in "useable" condition.

 

[AndrewE]

We're running six trains an hour- a mish-mash of fast and semi-fast services, which suggest four expresses are quite doable. Four twelve carriage trains is a lot of capacity.

...but the timetable isn't working, and the new stopping pattern is a disaster as far as the established passenger base is concerned! Expresses 3 times an hour would be adequate if they had enough capacity and had suitable destinations. I am mindful that local users and people needing semi-fasts need to be fitted in reliably too.

 

[yorksrob]

...but the timetable isn't working, and the new stopping pattern is a disaster as far as the established passenger base is concerned! Expresses 3 times an hour would be adequate if they had enough capacity and had suitable destinations. I am mindful that local users and people needing semi-fasts need to be fitted in reliably too.

But the new timetable is based on six fast/semi-fastv TPE's an hour, which is controversial as to whether its sustainable or not

 

[AndrewE]

I love the simplistic ideas that they can just reroute to and rewire a tunnel that hasn't been used for over 50 years.
It would need full structural assessment, plus numerous other inspections, plus persuading CaRT that they can relinquish their contraact for it's use, which could mean that the canal tunnel might have to be closed, as that is the only escape route if something went wrong.
I know that before CaRT started to use it with their Land Rover it had to be inspected and Risk Assessed first, and their requirements are far lower.

The tunnels have been maintained for 50 years... and did you read the last sentence of the very first post? J(F)DI! We need an electrified high-capacity railway across the north. UK can't afford new bores between Stalybridge and Huddersfield (or Littleborough and Halifax) - choose your own route - as we're not serving London, so we'll have to upgrade and make the best use of what we have. What would you solution be?

 

[staticsteve]

UK can't afford new bores between Stalybridge and Huddersfield (or Littleborough and Halifax)

It's not the case that the UK can't afford it. It's a political choice not to spend money.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's not the case that the UK can't afford it. It's a political choice not to spend money.

Not quite.
NR's recent track record of costing and delivering electrification projects is not exactly stellar is it?
DfT will want to be doubly sure NR can deliver what it says is needed, and that it won't have to be redone/abandoned by NPR when it comes.
We nearly had TP wires but no increase in capacity or journey times.
We already have the wrong layout at Stalybridge.

 

[staticsteve]

Not quite.
NR's recent track record of costing and delivering electrification projects is not exactly stellar is it?
DfT will want to be doubly sure NR can deliver what it says is needed, and that it won't have to be redone/abandoned by NPR when it comes.
We nearly had TP wires but no increase in capacity or journey times.
We already have the wrong layout at Stalybridge.

Ah, yes, I understand where you're coming from.

I didn't mean to suggest spending the money would be the right thing to do in this situation. I simply meant that the UK is wealthy enough (in theory) to carry out electrification of key rail lines.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

It's not the case that the UK can't afford it. It's a political choice not to spend money.

It was a political choice to spend the money on HS2 instead of a massive rebuild of a trans-Pennine route. And which MPs voted in favour of HS2? That's right, those Northern and Midland MPs who didn't do their railway homework. Only a handful of MPs voted against the two HS2 bills.

 

[HowardGWR]

It was a political choice to spend the money on HS2 instead of a massive rebuild of a trans-Pennine route. And which MPs voted in favour of HS2? That's right, those Northern and Midland MPs who didn't do their railway homework. Only a handful of MPs voted against the two HS2 bills.

Ah, yes, but HS2 will enable them to get to their constituencies quicker and they only spend part of a weekend there before scuttling back to Westminster or their family home in one of the leafy home counties.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How many of these referred-to MP's are still likely to be representing their constituencies by the time that HS2 is both finally fully constructed with services in operation?

The term "leafy" often used as a term to describe areas of affluence is somewhat not truly descriptive on how comparitive matters in the Northern areas actually are and gives credence to the belief of some that these Northern areas are aboreally challenged as was the case after those sent by William the Conqueror to carry out "The Harrying of the North".

 

[staticsteve]

It was a political choice to spend the money on HS2 instead of a massive rebuild of a trans-Pennine route.

I disagree with this line of thinking. The UK could afford to fund both of these projects if it wishes to.

One doesn't have to be the expense of the other.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I disagree with this line of thinking. The UK could afford to fund both of these projects if it wishes to.

One doesn't have to be the expense of the other.

Or they could ignore both projects and add more to the NHS funding.

 

[Overspeed110]

Or they could ignore both projects and add more the NHS funding.

Well said!

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Doesn't the Severn Tunnel have a conductor rail running along the top of it, if so why not do the same for Standedge?

Simply put you run the overhead cables as far as the Standege visitor centre / overhead weir where the conductor rail takes over as far as Diggle where the overhead cables then take over again... basically every tunnel along the route gets the "Severn Tunnel Treatment".

Should the sparks effect take place then I can see Brighouse being used as a calling point for most TPE services west via Summit, the stopper would probably go as far as Marsden and turn back there using the more westerly end of platform 3 (because of the position of the signal).

 

[snowball]

Doesn't the Severn Tunnel have a conductor rail running along the top of it,

Yes but it required a long closure of the tunnel.

 

[superkev]

Well said!

Or they could introduce a windfall tax like ,£200k a week footballers and other fat cats.

 

[dviner]

Not quite.
NR's recent track record of costing and delivering electrification projects is not exactly stellar is it?

Maybe one for the "controversial opinions" thread, but if NR had more electrification projects, then they might get better at costing and delivering...

 

[AndrewE]

Yes but it required a long closure of the tunnel.

Yes, but the Severn Tunnel didn't have the luxury of 2 (almost) unused tunnels alongside, together with the need for a step-change increase in capacity already acknowledged.

 

[MarkyT]

One way of rebuilding the tunnel might be as follows:

1. Temporarily close the canal tunnel to public.
2. Refurbish the structures of both single track bores.
3. Install track and electrification equipment to permanent standard in one of these.
4. Install track for temporary use in the other single track tunnel.
5. Connect tracks at both ends of single bore tunnels, divert services and close double track bore.
6. Refurbish double track tunnel structure, relay track and install electrification equipment.
7. Configure track and junctions at either end to bring double track bore back into use and remove track from 'temporary' single track bore.
8. Restore temporary single track bore to use as maintenance and emergency access for rail and canal tunnels.
9. Reopen canal tunnel to public boats.

This would deliver a three track layout, which might also be extended either side of the tunnel.

 

[snowball]

Yes, but the Severn Tunnel didn't have the luxury of 2 (almost) unused tunnels alongside, together with the need for a step-change increase in capacity already acknowledged.

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

 

[Llanigraham]

The tunnels have been maintained for 50 years... and did you read the last sentence of the very first post? J(F)DI! We need an electrified high-capacity railway across the north. UK can't afford new bores between Stalybridge and Huddersfield (or Littleborough and Halifax) - choose your own route - as we're not serving London, so we'll have to upgrade and make the best use of what we have. What would you solution be?

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.

 

[Llanigraham]

Ah, yes, I understand where you're coming from.

I didn't mean to suggest spending the money would be the right thing to do in this situation. I simply meant that the UK is wealthy enough (in theory) to carry out electrification of key rail lines.

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

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe one for the "controversial opinions" thread, but if NR had more electrification projects, then they might get better at costing and delivering...

Particularly if they had the same team working on consecutive projects.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

How many of these referred-to MP's are still likely to be representing their constituencies by the time that HS2 is both finally fully constructed with services in operation?

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.

 

[AndrewE]

I am not proposing anything, I am suggesting that the use of these tunnels is not as simple as some people on here think.

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.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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.