What if Woodhead hadn't closed?

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

As much as I love the MSW to pieces it was never going to last long whilst ever it was an isolated bit of non standard railway passing through nowhere in particular. It's strengths were the freight capabilities, but, numerous engine changes made even that a less than satisfactory way of running a railway.

However, if the LNER had been willing/able to electrify the ECML it would have been a completely different matter!

 

Mike.

[TheSignalEngineer]

18 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

When the Stockbridge bypass was being built there were placards along the M1 advertising something rather ludicrously called the "Liverpool to Skegness trunk road". The M67 hasn't been built because it incoveniently would have to go through the Peak national park.

...and the last road project the Department for Daft Ideas came up  with to protect the Peak National Park would have cost about £3bn.

[62613]

On 14/06/2019 at 16:14, TheSignalEngineer said:

...and the last road project the Department for Daft Ideas came up  with to protect the Peak National Park would have cost about £3bn.

Our MP is has been pushing for a (new) transpennine tunnel for the A628 for a few years now.

[Pandora]

I think there was a tract of land reserved and protected for a planned direct link between Sheffield Victoria and Midland stations,   having travelled behind EM2 and EM1 locos on the route prior to closure of passenger services, I can confirm the ordeal of the tightly timed dash between the two, the breathless  ascent of the ramp   up to Victoria, and how Victoria platform and gate  staff would keep a sharp lookout to give  latecomers the benefit of delaying the departing service to let them board. 

[Pandora]

The line did not warrant the use of loco hauled trains,  , I believe end to end trials  with the emu  M594XX sets were unsuccessful due to overheating of their traction equipment, a four-car DMU  would be adequate (preferably Trans-Pennine sets), I think TP sets were used when Woodhead carried Sunday diversionary services. what was the status of Woodhead Tunnel with regard to diesel haulage through the tunnel?  Was it by derogation such as  the need for diversions due to engineering work on the Hope Valley line?

[astropsidings]

The Woodhead Route would likely have been reopened and operating by now had the Labour government of the 90s-mid 2000s not killed off Central Railways scheme for the reconstruction of the GC (with deviations), connecting with a new line  running under T5 at Heathrow and around the M25 to HS1, linking the North West, East Midlands, as well as Heathrow, into the European high speed rail network (and likely obviating any need for a third runway at Heathrow in the process), as well as transporting an enormous number of  lorries to/from northern France, as the scheme originally conceived, for less than the cost of Crossrail......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ravenser]

2 hours ago, astropsidings said:

The Woodhead Route would likely have been reopened and operating by now had the Labour government of the 90s-mid 2000s not killed off Central Railways scheme for the reconstruction of the GC (with deviations), connecting with a new line  running under T5 at Heathrow and around the M25 to HS1, linking the North West, East Midlands, as well as Heathrow, into the European high speed rail network (and likely obviating any need for a third runway at Heathrow in the process), as well as transporting an enormous number of  lorries to/from northern France, as the scheme originally conceived, for less than the cost of Crossrail......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Central Railways scheme did not need any external assistance to collapse. They had no money to build it.  The reason the costings were less than the cost of Crossrail was that they were developed by Miss Rosy Scenario while she was taking "certain substances".

 

I'm trying to imagine how you get from the GW +GC Jt around W Ruislip to a tunnel under Heathrow and the right round the M25 to Ebbsfleet. Common sense suggests that that section alone would cost roughly the same as CTRL /HS1

[JohnR]

I seem to recall it was killed off in 1996, partly because its costings seemed optimistic. 

[TheSignalEngineer]

17 hours ago, JohnR said:

I seem to recall it was killed off in 1996, partly because its costings seemed optimistic. 

Around the time it killed off I was looking at various capacity and speed improvements E-W across the North. Central Railway figures seemed to have misplaced a decimal point compared with some figures from within the rail projects industry.

[JohnR]

And dont forget, that was before it was discovered that a lot of costings in the rail industry were also optimistic. So if they were low compared to then-current practice....!!!

[woodenhead]

There is still a madman who wants to run a ro-ro service between Sheffield and East Manchester on the route of Woodhead - hes quite adamant that lorries would happily pay to use it rather than go around the M62 or over Woodhead.

 

He managed to get himself as admin on the Facebook sites and then trolled anyone who disagreed with him, his activities have since been somewhat curtailed but he still makes the odd post.

[Lemmy282]

Diesel haulage through the tunnel had to be kept to a minimum, remember there were no ventilation shafts and it was lined with Portland cement, which would degrade with the diesel fumes. The difference in levels between the Midland lines and the GC would have meant quite a steep gradient would have resulted for a direct line, plus some engineering difficulties, the connecting line via Nunnery is considerably longer then the distance a direct line would have had to take.

 

Nigel L

[Jim76]

On 01/09/2019 at 08:32, Lemmy282 said:

Diesel haulage through the tunnel had to be kept to a minimum, remember there were no ventilation shafts and it was lined with Portland cement, which would degrade with the diesel fumes. The difference in levels between the Midland lines and the GC would have meant quite a steep gradient would have resulted for a direct line, plus some engineering difficulties, the connecting line via Nunnery is considerably longer then the distance a direct line would have had to take.

 

Nigel L

Hi Nigel, I thought there were two shafts in the new tunnel - a new one and another connected to one of the existing shafts of the old tunnel? Jim

[Gwiwer]

I believe Jim is correct.  The new tunnel has a couple of shafts but perhaps not adequate to support frequent daily diesel operations.  

 

What if Woodhead had stayed open?  How would it connect to today's network?  Sheffield Midland has no direct access and would require trains to reverse at Nunnery Junction and run through Victoria. I actually made that move once but on an engineering works diversion rather than as part of a regular timetabled service.  It would make little sense to have Victoria retained for just one route even if the trains were run through towards Worksop and beyond.  Where would they then go?  The alternative is the long way round still in use today from Penistone via Barnsley with significant time penalty for city-to-city traffic from Manchester to Sheffield.  The Hope Valley would probably be the faster option.  Otherwise we would have to look at bringing freight routes up to passenger standards and running via Wath and Rotherham again at a time penalty and by-passing Barnsley for the sake of maybe only a few minutes.

 

The Manchester end is not so challenging and the traditional platform 1 at Piccadilly for Sheffield trains could probably be used for an hourly service just as it was.

 

What traffic objectives would it serve?  Manchester - Penistone traffic would surely not be sufficient.  Nor Hadfield - Sheffield.  Glossop would be by-passed and continue to rely on the local stopping service.  Would Hadfield - Manchester support a faster service in addition to that?  Calling perhaps only at Guide Bridge.  Again I have my doubts.  

 

Is there scope as part of the bigger picture for longer distance traffic?  Manchester is already a major terminal and interchange.  Sheffield has seen an increase in trains being linked to form (sometimes curious) through services to avoid occupying platforms for extended periods of time but where would a Manchester - Sheffield service be extended to which is not already served by another more populous and probably faster route?  

 

Rail freight is sufficiently precarious and unpredictable that no one flow can be used to justify the retention of such a long route in today's climate unless supported by passenger traffic as well.  The surviving trans-Pennine routes are now crowded and suffer capacity issues but these can be addressed in part by the TOCs running longer trains perhaps less frequently.  Four two-car trains an hour for example might become three four-car trains which releases a path, still offers a walk-up-and-go timetable and adds passenger capacity.  

 

 

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

When Bridgehouses terminus was extended through to become the line to Victoria, imagine a line from there running alongside the Don on Nursery street and Blonk street, picking up the Sheffield canal basin on the way and having a north facing connection at Sheffield Midland. That's my what if scenario for my model of Sheffield Joint.

 

Mike.

[DCB]

If Woodhead and the GC had remained open there would have been no capacity problems to and from Manchester so the grossly inflated ticket prices to reduce the demand in the peaks would have been unnecessary and BR would have found itself carrying more people on more trains for less money. That is madness. Railways are there to make money for their staff and owners not for some neo lefty slug cuddling eco friendly PR nonsense.

I really like the idea of seeing 800s and maybe 92s on intermodal  freights climbing to Woodhead but its just too simplistic for our politicians to grasp as its outside the M25 on a different planet to planet Westminster.

[woodenhead]

Manchester is crowded, the route from Piccadilly to Guide Bridge is only two lines now and it supports several routes  including Trans Pennine service, ECS moves to Ardwick, Rose Hill, New Mills services plus the Hadfield stoppers and some limited freight movements.

 

Express services to Sheffield are handled by Liverpool to Norwich services, but what benefit of diverting via Woodhead - there is nowhere else for them to stop - Penistone is hardly a destination and they would then miss out Stockport which is an interchange of sorts.

 

Woodhead simply lost it's reason for passenger services once the London extension closed, it lost it's freight when it was clear that other routes had capacity and the world was changing.

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

I'm not dismissing your premise Woodenhead, but the thing that is lacking is commitment and a medium/long term transport strategy for the country.

If the MSW still existed then capacity could/would/should have been found to make it a going concern. Missing out Stockport may not be such a bad thing for some trains if it shortened the travel times between the more important centres of population on the route.

At least om my version of the Sheffield area I can do what the powers that be never considered doing!

 

Mike.

[woodenhead]

4 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

I'm not dismissing your premise Woodenhead, but the thing that is lacking is commitment and a medium/long term transport strategy for the country.

If the MSW still existed then capacity could/would/should have been found to make it a going concern. Missing out Stockport may not be such a bad thing for some trains if it shortened the travel times between the more important centres of population on the route.

At least om my version of the Sheffield area I can do what the powers that be never considered doing!

 

Mike.

I would never have closed the GCR - it served London so why did it need to go.

[Derek 19B]

Quote

When Bridgehouses terminus was extended through to become the line to Victoria, imagine a line from there running alongside the Don on Nursery street and Blonk street, picking up the Sheffield canal basin on the way and having a north facing connection at Sheffield Midland. That's my what if scenario for my model of Sheffield Joint.

 

Mike.

 

 

I like the idea of trains running along Blonk street, but this would leave you facing south at Midland Station . To face north a lot of tunneling would be required Sheffield is built on seven hills . Also there is a small difference in height about 30 - 40 ft to bridgehouses.

To access Midland you could have come off the GC where the tunnel to wicker good was and build a bridge across Spital hill acros wicker goods then join the Midland as it cross the river don.   

The Woodhead was doomed once the Passenger service was withdrawn to make it freight only. It was the best way to travel to the wet side of the country

 

Derek 19B

 

[MarkC]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

I would never have closed the GCR - it served London so why did it need to go.

Because it duplicated the Midland for the most part, passed through few centres of population (at the time) south of Rugby until approaching Aylesbury, and as the last one in was always going to be the first candidate for closure. Remember, in the 1960s the railway network was in a state of 'managed decline' as traffic levels fell, and that was before Beeching.

 

Oh, and being put under the control of the LMR made the choice between the Midland and GC route a bit of a no-brainer, if some stories are to be believed. (Ditto the Somerset & Dorset, once that moved to WR control rather than LMR - but that;s another story...).

 

Mark

[cheesysmith]

The difference in height between the GC and the midland lines is not so great, not with the power of modern diesels . And if you had the bridge where the parkway crosses the lines from nunnery without the centre pile you could run a curve, say 25mph, to give direct access. The curve now would not be a problem as there is no Victoria station to get In the way. Even if you take into account the slowing over the viaduct at dinting the woodhead line would allow almost continuous 100mph for the 185s, unlike the hope valley where they are limited to 70mph.

[Enterprisingwestern]

2 hours ago, Derek 19B said:

 

 

I like the idea of trains running along Blonk street, but this would leave you facing south at Midland Station . To face north a lot of tunneling would be required Sheffield is built on seven hills . Also there is a small difference in height about 30 - 40 ft to bridgehouses.

To access Midland you could have come off the GC where the tunnel to wicker good was and build a bridge across Spital hill acros wicker goods then join the Midland as it cross the river don.   

The Woodhead was doomed once the Passenger service was withdrawn to make it freight only. It was the best way to travel to the wet side of the country

 

Derek 19B

 

 

I assumed a junction at Bridgehouses, the line still continuing to Victoria and beyond, the line to the Midland giving access to areas south of Lincolnshire, and also precluding the need for the GC main line as the MML could have been used. The Hope Valley line might never have needed to be built, although the railway history to validate all this is not necessarily chronologically correct.

 

Mike.

[Titan]

Pity a preservation society could not have been formed to run a section of it.  Electrify at 6.25kV ac and you would have had somewhere for 303, 306, 309 and AC locos up to class 85 to run. Better still at 25Kv and maybe even the APT would have somewhere to run...

[dave75]

What would happen if the DoT had stuck to the beeching report, closed the Hope Valley line, the Glossop branch and routed all traffic over the Woodhead.

 

Close Victoria and Midland stations, and redevelop the railway land at blast land and the acres of land that becomes Park Square roundabout into a Station with a triangular junction to the GC route (as was planned) and links to the midland routes.

 

Alternate scenario, BR doesn't get permission to build the 58s as no believes they are suitable for export!

BR has to keep shifting black diamonds over Woodhead, it closes the wath branch and its inefficient banking operations and centralises Yorkshire/ Notts and Derbyshire coal traffic on Tinsley yard.

Manchester- Sheffield is re- electrified at 25K AC on the cheap in 1984  for £3M (like Manchester to Glossop) and Class 81 and 85 haul MGR trains over the hill.

 

Which begs the question how many MGR wagons would an AC electric drag up the hill to Dunford?  Tractive effort experts welcome