What if Woodhead hadn't closed?

[caradoc]

The Hope Valley route would not have closed due to the major freight customer, then and still today, at Earles Cement Works. And re-electrifying Woodhead would not have eliminated either of its Achilles heels, for passenger traffic being unable to serve Sheffield Midland, and for freight the inefficiency and expense of every train needing (at least) two loco changes.

 

It is indeed a tragedy that Woodhead shut, but in 1981 there was simply not enough traffic for all the Trans-Pennine routes, and in that situation Woodhead was always going to be the one to go.

[dave75]

Allow yourself a minute to reflect on the title of this thread, what if,  its an alternative history.

Maybe BR wasn't so quick to adopt 25 K AC in 1956. The extension of the MSW to Manchester Central and Trafford Park gets built.

 

Then back to your points, Dr Beeching is allowed his way.

 

Hope cement works  is served by a freight only single  track branch from Chinley (like Hindlow) and other Peak District freight locations. Any eastbound traffic travels to Godley Junction.

The direct electrified chord from Victoria to Midland is built in 1965 when the construction and electrification teams are in town linking Tinsley to the MSW system.

 

Im on a roll now ;-)

In 1957 BR tests a 1500 DC (Southend) outer suburban EMU on Manchester- Sheffield services . The successful trial allows the 7 Reddish based EM2 Co-Cos to join the other 20 of the class  at Finsbury Park electric depot for the commencement of 1955 Kings Cross - Doncaster/Leeds 1500 v dc electrification. The 20 mile gap between Rotherwood and Retford is part of the scheme. Sheffield passenger services are concentrated on Kings Cross.

 
After the success of LMS/EE diesel schemes, the West Coast mainline gets a fleet of 65 Deltic locomotives to replace steam locomotives. 

 

 

[Ben B]

Has anyone read the book "Railroaded!  The Battle for Woodhead Pass"?  Picked it up a few years at the SVR I think, from their second-hand bookstall.  The author makes the point that the line had to shut, it was simply not Government policy at the time to support the railways.  With BR having to save money, shutting Woodhead basically gave them a big, obvious closure but in the end didn't save all that much money, as infrastructure at each end remained open.  I gather some reclaimed track from the route went into the Snow Hill tunnel and station in Brum though.

 

The author points out the Woodhead route was earmarked for three uses; electricity cables (actually happened, through the Woodhead tunnel itself), the proposed Manchester-Sheffield Motorway (hasn't happened but rears its head periodically), and the most outlandish, a rumoured proposed nuclear shelter.  I suppose it was in the middle of nowhere, and concrete, and deep, and at the height of the Cruise Missile business in the 80's it might have seemed a plausible rumour, but it seems a bit far-fetched.

 

Interestingly he also mentions in the text another, similar situation, which was the Airedale line in West Yorkshire which he uses to contrast with the situation at Woodhead.  A more suburban route certainly, but also being deliberately run-down in the 80's with the intention to pave over it with a motorway up the valley to Skipton, including the demolition of the mill at Saltaire.  If the Settle-Carlisle and Bentham lines had gone, and no through traffic, it would have been easier to justify shutting it, and certainly the passenger service was run-down.  But with a lot of hard-headed and determined investment by the PTE (seemingly against the interests of the Government/BR judging by some of the articles I've read), electrification (which had to survive on slam-door, hand-me-down stock for quite a while) it's now a ridiculously busy route which until recently had some of the most modern trains operated by Northern.  The planned motorway is now basically a series of linked dual carriageways, the idea of demolishing the listed Salts Mill and Roberts Park, and driving a motorway through the World Heritage Site would be ludicrous (when I worked in Saltaire in 2008-14 the proposal was to tunnel under the village...somehow) and you can see the end of the motorway in Bradford just stops, pointing threateningly at the valley.  Mindyou, every now and again the idea of linking the motorway at Bradford to the one at Colne comes up, and roads out of Bradford are an absolute pig...

 

A different situation to Woodhead given the traffic and local population levels, but interesting to see what happens to a neglected line which has its through services saved and local services developed.  I do wonder what would have happened if the same sort of thing had happened at Woodhead.  I wonder if it would have just been 'temporarily' mothballed when freight traffic fell to low levels, as happened to the South Staffs line through Dudley.  Would we now be sat arguing about how the Woodhead ought to be immediately reopened, the track overgrown and still in place, but the Government wringing their hands and saying it will cost a million pounds a mile to rebuild for the sake of a 158 every two hours?

 

 

[woodenhead]

Woodhead was more than a route from Sheffield to Manchester - it was a freight artery and as that dwindled so did the need for the route - all the freight routes on the East and West of the line succumbed to closure.

 

To keep the line open as a passenger route needs passengers and between Penistone and Hadfield there are only sheep.

 

To get to Sheffield Midland required a chord or a reversal, one expensive the other would not be popular with passengers and would take time.

 

Making the Hope Valley route better remains the best option, it's popular with walkers and locals whilst also service longer distance services too.  Just needs some upgrading to get the best out of it, had MML electrification been still on the cards you can imagine this would be an infill route.

[dave75]

Ben 

 

Ive read the book, and agree with the points you raise. (Think the nuclear bunker was already built in Wiltshire by 1955, ;-))  Also worth a mention is the copy pit line that was closed to passengers in 1965, connecting routes were axed and by 1983 had one freight  train a day. It came back from the dead like Lazurus in 1984 and has grown since then.

 

Once the groupthink in a organisation has decided something must happen , its like turning an oil tanker even if the decision is found to be incorrect  or circumstances change.  

 

In addition to the track, did you know some of the newer Woodhead OHL structures on the Tinsley section were used on the Bed-Pan electrification?

 

As the book also points out the debate around Woodhead and the understanding of the structure and presentation of BRs "facts" saved the Settle and Carlisle.

 

Perhaps we need a thread on "British Rail Railway closure techniques"? :-)

  

 

[Tim Stevens]

The Hope Valley route is plagued with over 7 miles of victorian-age tunnels (Totley, Cowburn, Disley) requiring constant maintenance.  The Woodhead route, with its 1950s tunnel and only one other tunnel (at Thurgoland), wins hands down in engineering terms.  It is a scandalous waste of assets that this relatively modern route was abandoned.  It would be possible to do Manchester - Sheffield in 30-35 minutes via Woodhead, an impossible timing via the Hope Valley.  The absence of intermediate stations (only Penistone) is a distinct advantage, it leaves the way clear for fast trains.

 

We need both routes; Woodhead for fast trains Manchester - Sheffield and eastwards; the Hope Valley for local services.  Freight can be routed either way, depending on origin/destination.  We cannot wait for HS2, we need improved faster Trans-Pennine routes now.  Woodhead could form the backbone of this.  First, reopen the existing route between Manchester and Sheffield; later, construct a "triangle" near Penistone with a new fast link to Leeds.  Ultimately, this would form part of, or connect with, the HS2 line (if/when that ever reaches Yorkshire!)

 

People dismiss the Woodhead route because of poor connections at Sheffield.  It may be feasible to construct a short spur to the Midland route (admittedly at a cost).  Alternatively, provide a new station on the north side of the city, linked into the Supertram network, and/or to Meadowhall.   And use the route via Beighton Jcn and Tapton Jcn to join the Midland line north of Chesterfield.  The Woodhead route points directly east via Worksop to Retford to join the ECML, so there are big opportunities for new fast services.

 

Modelling-wise, I agree that Woodhead offers great possibilities, and I have seen several inspiring layouts.  What makes the route so special is the magnificent scenery and the unique electric locos.

[caradoc]

Manchester/Sheffield in 35 minutes ? Possibly, but only to a rebuilt Sheffield Victoria, which is not exactly handy for the city centre, and has poor bus and no tram connections, nor connection to any other train service; So the trains would have to run through to Midland anyway, requiring as you say either a new rail link, which would not be cheap, at all, or a time-consuming reversal.

 

No intermediate stations other than Penistone ? There are quite a few between Piccadilly and Hadfield ! The local services out of Manchester would seriously hamper any express timing via Woodhead.

 

If the Hope Valley is retained anyway, as you suggest, then it makes absolute sense now, and did in 1970, to concentrate traffic on this route. I do agree that this route should be improved, and I believe there are indeed plans to do this, eg re-instating the double line junction at Dore.

 

Woodhead was a magnificent railway, I loved visiting places such as Reddish and Wath, and had the privilege (if that is the right word) of being on the last passenger train over the route, in April 1981. However, traffic patterns change and the reasons it closed are as valid now as they were in the past; Any plan to re-open it would involve huge expense, which I am not convinced is justified.

 

[woodenhead]

Actually if you route Penistone to Barnsley you can get direct to Midland, but it would probably negate any service benefits and then have to reverse in Midland to go east - only the EMT services to Nottingham and Norwich would not have to reverse.

 

But you still have to contend with all the services that use the Hadfield - Ardwick tracks (only 2 lines now) plus then the Barnsley services and trains would lose the Stockport stops that pick up a lot of people who travel in from Cheshire and change services to an express East.

 

There is no freight to divert onto Woodhead, the freight that serves Hope Valley comes from Hope Valley.

[Jim76]

As others have mentioned the lines raison d'etre, namely coal traffic has gone. Whether the Woodhead tunnels form part of HSN/NPR/HS3 remains to be seen. The current proposals strike in a north easterly direction from Manchester Airport to Leeds via Manchester and Bradford which probably makes more sense in terms of where the major population centres are. It may make more sense to convert the remaining the stub to Hadfield/Glossop (along with Rosehill/Marple) to Metrolink operation as per the original Light Rail proposals.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Jim76

[Gwiwer]

Jim - good to hear from you again and I hope all is well Downunder.  

 

The Woodhead Route may turn out to be another Waverley Route.  Not quite in the terms of reinstating rail to a vast and poorly-connected largely rural area but in terms of the passionate few believing in its strategic benefits as part of a network and never giving up.  

 

It must be remembered that not only is there no obvious freight available to a re-opened Woodhead route but that whether it serves passenger, freight or both there is also no direct connection to Sheffield (Midland) station at the eastern end.  The once-electrified route was always served from Sheffield Victoria and to reach Midland required - and still would require - an awkward reversal at Nunnery Junction.  There would be little gain in working direct from Penistone to Retford without serving Sheffield and no time saving if such a service had to run via Barnsley to avoid that reversal.  

 

I would dearly love to see railway tunnels brought back into railway use but as Jim says the main reason for the route's existence - coal - has vanished.  Passenger traffic can go via Hope.  So, currently, can freight.  Only if traffic reaches levels where that route is at capacity do we need to investigate alternatives.  I know some trains are crowded but they could also be longer if more rolling stock were available.  Passenger services are not at capacity on the Hope Valley route - rolling stock provision (which is as much in the political arena as whether a route opens or closes) is the problem.  Not every train has to be just 2-3 carriages.  

 

Woodhead and Dunford Bridge would be most unlikely candidates for re-opening based on population size so the only justification for a reinstated passenger service would seem to be if a pressing need arose to move lots of people between Penistone / Barnsley and Manchester.  

 

Sorry - much though I would love to see the route reawakened as a strategic link in the rail network - I just don't think any case can be made for it right now.  

[Northmoor]

The Woodhead Route shares a lot with the other, later post-Beeching closures.  It would be impossible to justify the costs of re-opening them now, but had they survived another 10 years or so, closure probably wouldn't have been justified either.

Most of the successful re-opening campaigns have been for routes/services closed later than 1968 (many of which weren't listed in the 1963 report); this suggests that the original plans were generally made on a sensible economic basis.

[Suzie]

I don't see why a new chord could not be built from the Victoria station site to Midland station. While it will not be free, I don't think it is going to be a huge cost in the grand scale of reopening a whole line. The satellite image does not exactly show the finest real estate in the area! A new chord has just been built in Manchester to do a similar job of getting passengers to the more sensible station.

 

Would it not be possible for Woodhead to be part of a strategic freight route from the east via March, Lincoln and Doncaster to Manchester and Liverpool avoiding London, East Coast and West Coast routes, where a relatively speedy passenger route with few stops would fit in well with non-stop freight for the trip across the Pennines. How much intermodal freight goes from France/Thamesport/Felixstowe/Hull to Manchester/Liverpool/Scotland?

 

 

 

 

[woodenhead]

6 minutes ago, Suzie said:

I don't see why a new chord could not be built from the Victoria station site to Midland station. While it will not be free, I don't think it is going to be a huge cost in the grand scale of reopening a whole line. The satellite image does not exactly show the finest real estate in the area! A new chord has just been built in Manchester to do a similar job of getting passengers to the more sensible station.

 

Would it not be possible for Woodhead to be part of a strategic freight route from the east via March, Lincoln and Doncaster to Manchester and Liverpool avoiding London, East Coast and West Coast routes, where a relatively speedy passenger route with few stops would fit in well with non-stop freight for the trip across the Pennines. How much intermodal freight goes from France/Thamesport/Felixstowe/Hull to Manchester/Liverpool/Scotland?

Capacity at the Manchester end of Woodhead - those trains would have to thread through Manchester - either across the throat at Piccadilly onto the Deansgate corridor - where they want less not more freight plus one of the main reasons for the new chord in Manchester was to reduce the traffic across the throat.  Victoria is also constrained with no through lines other than heavily occupied platform lines then there is Miles Platting bank to contend with.

 

Crewe is a main hub for intermodal  traffic on the WCML so it would probably also require a major shift in infrastructure and personnel to site that staging appropriate to the Anglo Scottish trains before they traverse Woodhead (hmmm Mottram hasn't been built upon)

[daveyb]

I know it's off topic, but with your reasoning, I don't think the Humber Bridge would ever have been built... it's a huge road bridge from one dying industrial area to another dying industrial area and incomplete links at both ends.

 

I agree with the rest of the post entirely!

[TheSignalEngineer]

2 hours ago, daveyb said:

incomplete links at both ends.

 

A bit like the Denton and Hyde bypass, aka the M67 Manchester to Sheffield motorway. Starts at a half built junction with the M60 and finishes in a field just short of Mottram traffic lights. The bit through Gorton to Mancunian Way never got built although they are currently removing the old railway bridge near Tesco. The unstarted Woodhead section was planned to use the railway trackbed even before the line closed and the Stocksbridge section is still only half its final width.

[Enterprisingwestern]

3 hours ago, daveyb said:

I know it's off topic, but with your reasoning, I don't think the Humber Bridge would ever have been built... it's a huge road bridge from one dying industrial area to another dying industrial area and incomplete links at both ends.

 

I agree with the rest of the post entirely!

 

The Humber Bridge was a purely political structure.

 

Mike.

[PenrithBeacon]

4 hours ago, daveyb said:

I know it's off topic, but with your reasoning, I don't think the Humber Bridge would ever have been built... it's a huge road bridge from one dying industrial area to another dying industrial area and incomplete links at both ends.

 

I agree with the rest of the post entirely!

The Humber bridge was built to improve the infrastructure in the region to assist in future regeneration of its economy. I gather it's been a success. 

I thought the post to which you were replying was most amusing.

Regards

Edited July 7, 2020 by PenrithBeacon

[phil-b259]

39 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

The Humber bridge was built to improve the infrastructure in the region to assist in future regeneration of its economy. I gather it's been a success. 

No it hasn’t - unlike virtually every other toll bridge in the UK (Severn, Forth, WE2 at Dartford) it simply hasn’t generated (and was unlikely to ever do so) enough toll revenue to ever pay off its construction costs (it just about covers ongoing maintenance / operational costs) and had to receive a bail out a few years ago to restructure the debt.

 

The big problem is it only gets used by Immingham to Hull traffic - if you are coming from from the west, north or south then you can avoid the bridge tolls using the M18 and then M180 / M62 corridors to complete your journey without incurring tolls or excessive congestion.

 

By contrast, detouring via Gloucester to avoid the Severn bridge tolls requires using a long stretch of single carriageway so is not as attractive.

 

A high quality dual carriageway or motorway link extending the southern bridge approach to Lincoln and Newark (thus linking in with the dulled A46 from Leicester would greatly improve the Humber Bridges usefulness and pull more traffic into it.

 

Another analogy might be the Ashford to Folkestone section of the M20. When built as a D3 motorway it was underused (no channel tunnel plus the single carriageway A20 being needed to bridge the gap to Maidstone and onwards to Dover) and traffic levels technically didn’t warrant anything more than D2. Fast forward a decade or two and these two gaps being filled plus the arrival of the channel tunnel transformed traffic levels.

 

In summery, isolated bits of high class infrastructure rarely do well - they need to be part of a wider network. Yes the Woodhead route might well have had some excellent plus points (electrification, no intermediate stations / need for local stoppers, etc) but it’s isolation from the rest of the electrified rail network meant those assists actually became liabilities.

Edited July 7, 2020 by phil-b259

[PenrithBeacon]

39 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

No it hasn’t - unlike virtually every other toll bridge in the UK (Severn, Forth, WE2 at Dartford) it simply hasn’t generated (and was unlikely to ever do so) enough toll revenue to ever pay off its construction costs (it just about covers ongoing maintenance / operational costs) and had to receive a bail out a few years ago to restructure the debt.

 

The big problem is it only gets used by Immingham to Hull traffic - if you are coming from from the west, north or south then you can avoid the bridge tolls using the M18 and then M180 / M62 corridors to complete your journey without incurring tolls or excessive congestion.

 

By contrast, detouring via Gloucester to avoid the Severn bridge tolls requires using a long stretch of single carriageway so is not as attractive.

 

A high quality dual carriageway or motorway link extending the southern bridge approach to Lincoln and Newark (thus linking in with the dulled A46 from Leicester would greatly improve the Humber Bridges usefulness and pull more traffic into it.

 

Another analogy might be the Ashford to Folkestone section of the M20. When built as a D3 motorway it was underused (no channel tunnel plus the single carriageway A20 being needed to bridge the gap to Maidstone and onwards to Dover) and traffic levels technically didn’t warrant anything more than D2. Fast forward a decade or two and these two gaps being filled plus the arrival of the channel tunnel transformed traffic levels.

 

In summery, isolated bits of high class infrastructure rarely do well - they need to be part of a wider network. Yes the Woodhead route might well have had some excellent plus points (electrification, no intermediate stations / need for local stoppers, etc) but it’s isolation from the rest of the electrified rail network meant those assists actually became liabilities.

Clearly my sources differ from yours on the Humber Bridge. Putting aside the completely unnecessary requirement that the bridge makes a profit it is a successful piece of infrastructure.

Concerning the Woodhead route, my understanding is that the infrastructure was in need of replacement and the coal traffic disappeared. It didn't therefore have a purpose anymore and the Sheffield to Manchester through services could be provided via the Hope Valley line.

There are plenty of cross Pennine railways still, the Woodhead route was the obvious one to close. There are better, less expensive, ways of providing rail services across the country than the Woodhead route.

Regards

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Clearly my sources differ from yours on the Humber Bridge. Putting aside the completely unnecessary requirement that the bridge makes a profit it is a successful piece of infrastructure.

 

The Humber Bridge is a PRIVATE Road which is NOT funded by general taxation

 

It and many others have only been built because the Government of the day believed they could get back the large cost of construction by the charging of Tolls with the infrastructure only reverting to Government ownership once the construction debts have been cleared.

 

You may agree or disagree with this strategy (noting that the Scottish Government decided to buy out all the remaining contracts on their bridges at significant cost to remove tolls some years ago) but the fact remains that the definition of 'successful' for such infrastructure explicitly includes that it generate enough toll revenue within the time frame envisaged by the original enabling acts of parament.

 

Its a fact that most Bridges (or tunnels) built under this model have been able to achieve this aim within the original time frame. The Humber Bridge by contrast has (IIRC) had the agreements extend 3 times now because tolling revenue is insufficient to pay off the construction debts as legislation demands

 

Its a bit like saying the Channel Tunnel is a success - on the face of things it might seem so, but if you look more closely at it the details are rather different and the overall picture far more variable

 

Is it a 'success' at growing railfreight? NO

Was it a 'success' for those who were encouraged to buy shares to finance it? NO

Was it a 'success' in terms of the amount of construction debt incurred in building it? NO

Its it a 'success' in terms of being able to pay off the construction debt? NO

 

Yes, the Humber bridge may be more reliable than the ferry service it replaced and facilitate quicker bank to bank journeys and in that respect its a success - but in truth how could it be otherwise? Strategically however the presence of high quality roads on BOTH banks of the Humber (it might be a different story if the M180 did not exist and all traffic for Immingham used the M62 / A63 and the Humber Bridge) plus the lack of strategic north / south flows means that local 'success' has not been enough to make it a 'success' financially nor indeed as part of the wider national road network.

 

[Allegheny1600]

47 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Its a bit like saying the Channel Tunnel is a success - on the face of things it might seem so, but if you look more closely at it the details are rather different and the overall picture far more variable

 

Is it a 'success' at growing railfreight? NO

Was it a 'success' for those who were encouraged to buy shares to finance it? NO

Was it a 'success' in terms of the amount of construction debt incurred in building it? NO

Its it a 'success' in terms of being able to pay off the construction debt? NO

As someone who inherited some shares, I have to agree!

Having used it numerous times, I still have faith it will ultimately pay for itself*.

 

Back to Woodhead, IF it AND the London extension had remained open, I wonder whether the 1500v DC electrification could have been usefully extended?

After all, the French have successfully used both 25Kv AC and 1500v DC systems for many years, even developing dual voltage locos to use both systems.

Cheers,

John

 

*Ignoring what may come after next January, of course (the B word).

[PenrithBeacon]

I think that you cannot judge the success of any piece of infrastructure by the narrow view if whether it, in isolation, makes a profit. It is the network that matters not a small part of it.

The investors in this bridge thought differently and they have come a cropper. Their problem, they took the risk. I think that this bridge should be taken back into public ownership but the company that owns it should be allowed to fail first. Then the taxpayer can step in and get in the firesale. No more subsidiaries for private enterprise, they should stand or fall on their own merits.

Cheers

[Michael Edge]

1 hour ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Clearly my sources differ from yours on the Humber Bridge. Putting aside the completely unnecessary requirement that the bridge makes a profit it is a successful piece of infrastructure.

Concerning the Woodhead route, my understanding is that the infrastructure was in need of replacement and the coal traffic disappeared. It didn't therefore have a purpose anymore and the Sheffield to Manchester through services could be provided via the Hope Valley line.

There are plenty of cross Pennine railways still, the Woodhead route was the obvious one to close. There are better, less expensive, ways of providing rail services across the country than the Woodhead route.

Regards

The closure proposal was partly based on the stated necessity to replace all the overhead wiring, this was a blatant lie, amply demonstrated if you look at the OLE west of Hadfield. Apart from the insulators it's all the original wiring so this could easily have been done for the rest of the route.

The Humber bridge is a very nice bridge but it has never seen very much traffic.

[PenrithBeacon]

I thought it was the need to actually replace the tunnel which was held to be in a poor condition. I believe the geology in that part of the Pennines is pretty difficult and there were issues in maintaining it with corrosive water etc.

Whatever, it's closed and nobody seems to notice much of a difference excepting those who have a bee in their bonnets.

There are three routes from Manchester to Yorkshire still and it seems to be enough for the traffic presenting itself.

Cheers

[jonny777]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

No it hasn’t - unlike virtually every other toll bridge in the UK (Severn, Forth, WE2 at Dartford) it simply hasn’t generated (and was unlikely to ever do so) enough toll revenue to ever pay off its construction costs (it just about covers ongoing maintenance / operational costs) and had to receive a bail out a few years ago to restructure the debt.

 

The big problem is it only gets used by Immingham to Hull traffic - if you are coming from from the west, north or south then you can avoid the bridge tolls using the M18 and then M180 / M62 corridors to complete your journey without incurring tolls or excessive congestion.

 

By contrast, detouring via Gloucester to avoid the Severn bridge tolls requires using a long stretch of single carriageway so is not as attractive.

 

 

 

 

In the past, maybe. 

 

There are now no tolls on the Severn Bridge.