would the woodhead route have survived if never modernised ?

[62613]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

It does help I guess, but having been stopped in traffic through Glossop on a few occasions I cannot help but think they will get no respite and if the Mottram bit has been eased it might attract even more traffic.

 

And of course, then there are the lorries over the A628 will still pound through Hollingworth before reaching the faster part of the by-pass.

Yep! Doesn't do much for Hollingworth, Tintwistle or Dinting Vale

[MarkC]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

 

Well I've attended many hundreds (if not thousands) of gas escapes at all pressure regimes and pipe materials over my 40 years of work and have never come across this as a problem, let alone it was never even considered. Perhaps a case with LNG but that is only piped within LNG import & regassification terminals (Milford Haven and Isle of Grain UK) - but that stuff I never worked on. Having said the above sometimes high pressure gas is pre heated before it enters pressure reduction plant to stop condensate freezing clogging the works - an operational problem.

 

The meeting I attended was about the safety of the bridge for rail traffic, and the solution later was to close the line. The railway officials were concerned that the gas pipeline would have had to be re routed if the bridge needed demolishing, hence the meeting. Both bridge and pipeline still survive.

 

Meetings with railway officials, I've had many over the years re gas pipes, always very thorough and officious with multiple railway managers from various departments, and just me, though it did help that I was a (semi knowledgeable)  railway enthusiast who (more or less) understood what they wanted and why.

 

Brit15

Fair enough - but always it's safety first, especially with LNG, simply because of the possible cryogenic risks involved as opposed to most other piped gases.

 

Latchford isn't the only ex railway bridge which survives because it's carrying pipelines - there's one over the Tyne at Scotswood too. Quite how it's still standing is a mystery - I dread to think how long it's been since it saw any maintenance. It's a truly rust-raddled thing.

 

Are Peel Ports, as owners of the Manchester Ship Canal, now responsible for Latchford's well-being?

 

Mark

[woodenhead]

26 minutes ago, MarkC said:

Are Peel Ports, as owners of the Manchester Ship Canal, now responsible for Latchford's well-being?

 

 

One would hope not, given the dilapidated state of the toll bridge at Warburton which they wanted to increase the toll to £1 on to pay for repairs or obtain funds from the local councils for something that Peel are responsible for.

 

I would imagine with it being a railway viaduct it will be owned by Network Rail or the body that was British Rail and became responsible for looking after and disposing of old assets.  It was built by the LNWR but paid for by the Canal company, that would indicate to me that it would have passed to the LMS and then to BR and would not form part of the MSC's assets unless Peel have bought it since - the only way that might have happened would be if they thought there would be profit in them to do so, it's been out of use since 1985.  Only the local council have suggested any potential uses, a rapid transit system using buses or a high level road way have been met with a lot of objections so the likely use is to extend the Trans Pennine trail along it for cycling and walking - assuming it can be made safe for such activities.

[jamie92208]

I believe that Highways England are now responsible for the residuary railway estate and are making a right mess of it if Queebsbury Tunnel and a bridge in Cumbria are anything to go by.  It could be amusing if they try to shore up the Latchford bridge by tipping concrete under it without asking for permission from Peel,Ports and the local authority.

 

Jamie

Edited February 27, 2023 by jamie92208

[Ramrig]

Back to Woodhead. Any body read this book. First published in 1986.  Written by a reporter in Manchester and then Sheffield. I read it when I managed to obtain a copy in 2002. Via an online book seller at the time. Cannot remember a lot of the content but it looks at both sides of the argument.
 

[APOLLO]

The "Northern Powerhouse" proposed railway (of which I've yet to see a detailed plan) from Ditton through Warrington Bank Quay low level and on to Manchester Airport etc would need to use this route through Latchford to get out to the east out of Warrington, a ready made route that would avoid very extensive housing demolition as it is very built up in that area.

 

Yes the bridge is "iffy" but the route and embankments are still there, though again getting through Lymm a bit further east would be a problem. No problem for the Class 56's on MGR trains screaming through the village over the level crossings though back in the 70's - I remember those well.

 

 

Such a pity this (and other) routes were closed, together with the Woodhead line they would have been very useful going forward towards net zero or whatever awaits us.

 

They don't build em like this anymore.

 

 

MGR train heading west down the Latchford ramp. In the 70's there were also general merchandise, and block steel, cement and BOC liquid oxygen / nitrogen trains also, most via Woodhead though I thing the cement came from Hope on the MR line to Sheffield.

 

 

 

Nice view of the pipeline.

 

 

The bridge and gas transmission pipeline as current.

 

 

I remember these Manchester Liners container ships, built to just fit in the locks and under the bridges.

 

 

Brit15

[woodenhead]

33 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

The "Northern Powerhouse" proposed railway (of which I've yet to see a detailed plan) from Ditton through Warrington Bank Quay low level and on to Manchester Airport etc would need to use this route through Latchford to get out to the east out of Warrington, a ready made route that would avoid very extensive housing demolition as it is very built up in that area.

 

Yes the bridge is "iffy" but the route and embankments are still there, though again getting through Lymm a bit further east would be a problem. No problem for the Class 56's on MGR trains screaming through the village over the level crossings though back in the 70's - I remember those well.

 

 

Such a pity this (and other) routes were closed, together with the Woodhead line they would have been very useful going forward towards net zero or whatever awaits us.

 

They don't build em like this anymore.

 

 

 

The other issues with the route through Lymm now are that:

1. They've demolished some of the viaduct and alignment in Altrincham for a series of businesses and shopping areas

2. It's only good for a route through to Stockport as heavy rail if item 1 could be overcome, the Metrolink have the route from Timperley now.

 

However, it would have made a nice extension to Metrolink for a tram train to warrington, though really the only town on the route with a populace to use trains of any sort is Lymm before Latchford itself which is basically Warrington.

 

Whether any of it gets reused for Northern Powerhouse remains to be seen, if the residents of Latchford were not happy about an express roadway using the viaduct, I would imagine a 'high' speed railway would be just as welcomed.

 

That other picture shows how the LNWR completed the viaduct well before the canal was ready .

[TheSignalEngineer]

On 26/02/2023 at 12:37, Enterprisingwestern said:

despite it being a tad bleak in places, population tends to follow the railway.

On 26/02/2023 at 19:54, TheSignalEngineer said:

Besides being bleak, Longdendale is not well served by utilities past Torside. 

....

Also virtually all of the land is owned by United Utilities and is used for water catchment so any development would be frowned upon.

 

 

And I forgot to add that beyond Hadfield the reserviors cover most of the land flat enough to build houses on. Once you cross the A628 or the Woodhead line the valley sides climb steeply and there is a lot of unstable ground.

[APOLLO]

I've drove around Europe, California, Nevada, New England & Thailand but the only place I have ever been worried of getting stranded is Woodhead when the snow began falling !!!

 

Scary place, I've seen horizontal rain up there.

 

Brit15

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

I've drove around Europe, California, Nevada, New England & Thailand 

 

Interesting Americanism. To my (possibly twisted) ears it sound as if you have been herding sheep to market in all those places.

[APOLLO]

27 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Interesting Americanism. To my (possibly twisted) ears it sound as if you have been herding sheep to market in all those places.

 

Baaaahhh !!!!!!

 

Brit15

[jamie92208]

35 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

Baaaahhh !!!!!!

 

Brit15

Was that the reply from the other inhabitants of the moors at Woodhead.

 

Jamir

[phil-b259]

On 26/02/2023 at 12:37, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

In the alternative UK, if we had practised route protection, The DN&SR and the GC via Banbury would have been the simple answer to the current day needs.

 

 

Not really

 

Take the DNSR - it wouldn't be useful for passengers as it misses the key hubs of Basingstoke and Reading while the need to cross the GWL on the flat at Newbury and Didcot would have been a right pain in the backside.

 

Yes some of the constraints remain on the Basingstoke / Reading route but because grade separation schemes there would also benefit passengers its a much better use of taxpayers cash than reinstating the DNSR

 

With the GCR - you are, like virtually everyone else ignoring the point that (1) South of Aylesbury the lines are heavily used by commuter traffic - yet are only double track (2) North of rugby it veers away from the most congested axis (the WCML) and (3) it has few connections with the rest of the rail network limiting its usefulness. It also was NOT big enough to accommodate continental gauged rolling stock (which are incompatible with UK platforms and some signalling) plus at 90mph was not exactly fast by modern standards. Again there are much better uses for taxpayers cash (e.g. HS2 which neatly avoids all the problems south of Aylesbury or the GCR going the wrong way north of Rugby)

 

 

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

and (3) it has few connections with the rest of the rail network limiting its usefulness. It also was NOT big enough to accommodate continental gauged rolling stock (which are incompatible with UK platforms and some signalling) plus at 90mph was not exactly fast by modern standards. Again there are much better uses for taxpayers cash (e.g. HS2 which neatly avoids all the problems south of Aylesbury or the GCR going the wrong way north of Rugby)

 

The original plan for what became the Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway was the Oxford and Rugby Railway. The incomplete earthworks for the line to Rugby can still be seen from the train leaving Banbury. If the Rugby route had been completed, this would have given not only a connection from Reading and points south to Birmingham via the London & Birmingham but also to Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield etc. via the Midland Counties line of the Midland Railway. (Setting aside the break-of-gauge problem.)

[phil-b259]

31 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The incomplete earthworks for the line to Rugby can still be seen from the train leaving Banbury.

 

Here?

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.204304,-1.3993648,501m/data=!3m1!1e3

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Here?

 

Yes. I had forgotten it is after Fenny Compton (travelling north).

[TheSignalEngineer]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Yes. I had forgotten it is after Fenny Compton (travelling north).

Near the site of the former Knightcote IB signals. I have a picture somewhere taken from a bridge showing the current line curving away and the abandoned earthworks straight ahead

Edited February 28, 2023 by TheSignalEngineer

[eldomtom2]

On 24/02/2023 at 20:43, pH said:

Offhand, I can think of two in the US; the Cascade Tunnel on BNSF in Washington State and the Moffat Tunnel on UP in Colorado. And another two in Canada; the Mount Macdonald Tunnel on the CPR in British Columbia and the Thornton Tunnel under Burnaby in Greater Vancouver. I’m sure there are more.

It makes an interesting point of comparison that at the same time we were electrifying Woodhead because of the fumes, the Americans were installing massive ventilation systems so that they could deelectrify their tunnels...

[jamie92208]

13 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

It makes an interesting point of comparison that at the same time we were electrifying Woodhead because of the fumes, the Americans were installing massive ventilation systems so that they could deelectrify their tunnels...

However they were de electrified for much the same reason that Woodhead was closed.  The Great Northern one was an electrified island and two changes of traction were needed for a relatively short stretch of track.  The Moffatt was never electrified. Others such as Hoosac and I think one berween the US and Canafa under a river were also short electrified islands and disel locos were becomi g more and more powerful.  

 

Jamie

[APOLLO]

Don't forget the Milwaukee road electrification through Snoqualmie tunnel - not to distant from and parallel to the GN line. This line has now gone completely.

 

A very good account of the electrification here on this PDF

 

https://streamlinermemories.info/Milw/Milw73EndofEra.pdf

 

 

Brit15

[pH]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

Don't forget the Milwaukee road electrification through Snoqualmie tunnel - not to distant from and parallel to the GN line. This line has now gone completely.

 

A very good account of the electrification here on this PDF

 

https://streamlinermemories.info/Milw/Milw73EndofEra.pdf

 

 

Brit15

There’s an old topic on here, with links, about the abandonment of the Milwaukee’s Pacific Extension:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/17260-how-to-lose-a-railway/