Jump to content
 

Re-open Woodhead


wobblybob

Recommended Posts

I'll transfer this over to the Woodhead section.

 

part of the campaign rests on getting NGT to repair the old tunnel to route the cables back through there. That's unlikely to happen I'd say and the benefit per mile isn't likely to draw much funding for a re-opening.

 

IMHO a preserved operation from Dinting or Glossop to Woodhead would have been an interesting proposition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Better still, Glossop to Dinting, re-open the Dinting museum & shed (still there), up to Woodhead & use one (or both) of the OLD tunnels, maybe down to Penistone & Sheffield Vic. (Great Central, L&Y section !!).

 

Pix taken 2002.

 

post-6884-0-67908000-1306357507_thumb.jpg

 

post-6884-0-92057600-1306357533_thumb.jpg

 

Lets have a new-build "Pom-Pom" while we're at it !!!!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

A few issues with that, I believe the Dinting site has been sold off for development and whilst there are precedents for running preserved lines next to Network Rail lines I don't think any are OHLE electrified.

 

Any preserved line would have to begin at Hadfield in the manner of Peak Rail at Matlock with run round facilities where the old yard was.

 

Finally, there would be the little matter of sharing the route up to Woodhead with the Trans Pennine Trail, the route out of Hadfield was only two tracks IIRC opening out in the Longdendale Valley before hitting the encroachment on the route of the National Grid at Woodhead itself where the line would have to end. The old tunnels would be unusable, if the National Grid didn't want them then it's going to cost a fair packet to make them usable by a locomotive.

 

The Trans Pennine Trail is two tracks in places, one for walkers/bikes and a second as a bridleway so putting in a railway track would mean combining those into a single track which I think could be done but there will be H&S types who might not like horses being so close to humans and I don't know if horse riders like stone based trails. At Crowden they have also infilled which has created a very big hill across the permanent way, this would be significant to alter to let trains through again as there is a route to maintain onto National Trust land at the point so a bridge would be required for that road.

 

Enough negatives as these days it is possible to rebuild a steam locomotive around a single original whistle.

 

When I have been up at Woodhead to cycle on a sunny day you cannot park up there for all the visitors - there is the steep hill down to the station with a big drop at the side, a small car park with no proper surface and it can all be completely filled with cars. It's a lovely area to walk or cycle in, so putting in a line from Hadfield would take cars off the road and also let people without cars access another part of the Peak District. Maybe it would be the sort of preserved line better suited to diesel traction, a DMU shuttle between Hadfield and Woodhead would be ideal - but whether it could pay is another thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it would be the sort of preserved line better suited to diesel traction, a DMU shuttle between Hadfield and Woodhead would be ideal - but whether it could pay is another thing.

Whereas the DMU is the commonsense way of getting travellers from A to B, it would take a a steam shuttle to get people off the road and onto rail. In otherwords, the railway journey becomes part of the Woodhead experience. In the publics mind the DMU is merely one of todays trains whereas steam is history even though most people only remember electric traction up there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

The engineering issues are not a problem. If a new HS2 can be carried through 13 miles of new tunnel, a little infill and HT Grid cables are small fry. Biggest prob. is political will.

The transport connections between Manchester and Sheffield are poor to say the least. As a truck driver I sometimes traverse the A628 over Woodhead and it's not a good route. The line through Totley is not ideal whereas the Woodhead route is well engineered and graded.(well was)

With a spur from Sheffield Midland the route could see a new lease of life but I don't see Londoncentric Government stumping up the cash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The engineering issues are not a problem. If a new HS2 can be carried through 13 miles of new tunnel, a little infill and HT Grid cables are small fry. Biggest prob. is political will.

The transport connections between Manchester and Sheffield are poor to say the least. As a truck driver I sometimes traverse the A628 over Woodhead and it's not a good route. The line through Totley is not ideal whereas the Woodhead route is well engineered and graded.(well was)

With a spur from Sheffield Midland the route could see a new lease of life but I don't see Londoncentric Government stumping up the cash.

The Northern Powerhouse initiative already has trans-Pennine transport links high on the agenda, a new tunnel is one of the proposals and the momentum for this is gathering, the interim feasibility report can be found here

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trans-pennine-tunnel-strategic-study-interim-report

 

The benefit of a new tunnel is it provides a solution which is best suited to todays problems and in business terms, would be more cost effective than re-opening a route which doesn't necessarily meet all the current requirements, connectivity at both ends of Woodhead would require major works to provide efficient through links for both passenger and freight and would still be limited in capacity by the two tracks. A new tunnel would offer the possibility of a road, rail or multi-modal route and with much greater capacity. additionally it can be constructed to meet the interconnectivity requirements at both ends with minimal environmental impact. The initial feasibility concentrated on a road tunnel but this has now widened to look at all possibilities. A decision to pursue the proposal could come by late 2016, what form it eventually takes, or indeed when, is still open to debate and a project of this magnitude will no doubt be debated and have to jump through all manner of hurdles before construction can even start.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Question is, which route is the most cost effective whilst serving the needs of the Public. Connecting Manchester to Leeds/Bradford, areas of greatest population concentration, might favour the Standedge Route but still leaves Sheffield in the cold.

Surely wisdom would favour, as you say a new combined Road/rail link, with perhaps the reopening and improvement of Woodhead to serve Sheffield if another route were to be chosen.

 

If you look at the topography of Woodhead and it's approaches the M67 stops short at Hyde so could be extended, bypassing Mottram which local residents are campaigning for.

From there the route would face difficult topography alongside Longdendale but a new tunnel could be driven, akin to Hindhead, to reach the Don Valley. The railway trackbed already exists so could be opened relatively cheaply especially if considered as part of HS2.

 

Since the document highlights (from my very brief look) the need to connect Sheffield to Manchester, in terms of cost, the Woodhead route does need to be considered.

 

The biggest problem is always going to be Politics, whjch will drag the process along slowly whilst seeing costs rise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The Question is, which route is the most cost effective whilst serving the needs of the Public. Connecting Manchester to Leeds/Bradford, areas of greatest population concentration, might favour the Standedge Route but still leaves Sheffield in the cold.

Surely wisdom would favour, as you say a new combined Road/rail link, with perhaps the reopening and improvement of Woodhead to serve Sheffield if another route were to be chosen.

 

If you look at the topography of Woodhead and it's approaches the M67 stops short at Hyde so could be extended, bypassing Mottram which local residents are campaigning for.

From there the route would face difficult topography alongside Longdendale but a new tunnel could be driven, akin to Hindhead, to reach the Don Valley. The railway trackbed already exists so could be opened relatively cheaply especially if considered as part of HS2.

 

Since the document highlights (from my very brief look) the need to connect Sheffield to Manchester, in terms of cost, the Woodhead route does need to be considered.

 

The biggest problem is always going to be Politics, whjch will drag the process along slowly whilst seeing costs rise. 

Politics, NIMBYs, Swampys and the rest have been dragging the Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle Bypass out for forty years or more. One of the reasons for the Ministry of Whatreveritwascalledatthetime wanted to get rid of the railway was to make it easier to complete the M67 between the Mancunian Way and Tinsley. 

One proposal was to use the route of what is now proposed as the Glossop Spur to Woolley Bridge, the old Waterside Branch to below Hadfield, skirt round below Padfield and climb to join the Woodhead trackbed near Vale House. The Woodhead Tunnel was to be used in one direction and a new road between Woodhead to Dunford Bridge in the other. The tunnel would be used in each direction alternately in the event of bad weather. Much of the proposed route in urban areas has since been built on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...