Grand northern plans to reopen woodhead

[Guest Bri.s]

After reading the plans or ideas to reopen the woodhead route as a rolling road railway

http://www.grandnorthern.co.uk/

I thought I’d ask on here what the thoughts are

There is a Facebook discussion group that’s called grand northern (sorry cannot link )

 

On there it’s been said the plan is for rebuilding the route and electrifying it

 

I’d love to see a true costing of reopening of the route and a survey to see what would actually needs to be done to reopen it .

 

I like the idea ,to get trucks off the road and onto rail ,easing congestion and more eco friendly.

But is it really feasible?, it must have to take a huge amount of money to even get started

 

Brian

[woodenhead]

But when there are lots of free options to go over or around the Pennines for free, why pay to load a lorry onto a ro-ro train?

 

It's not as if banning lorries from Woodhead would make this the prime option, the A628 is a prime option as it's the most direct route currently but if it was removed through legislation the lorries would just go via the M62 or get onto the M6 (great) down near Stoke.

 

Also the time taken to divert & wait at Tinsley to load onto the train, wait for one to depart, unload at the Manchester end and vice versa will be another detrimental factor.

 

Folly

Edited December 22, 2017 by woodenhead

[peterfgf]

I'm very much afraid that any plans to re-instate the railway have already been scuppered by the Department of Transport's (or who ever it is now) plans to build a motorway.  A spur off the Manchester ring road has already been built and is pointing eastwards straight up Longdendale.  The argument is now about how long to make the new Woodhead tunnel.

Peterfgf

[Michael Edge]

That's a strange description of the M67 as a spur off the The Manchester ring road. It's been there for many decades, long before the Woodhead railway closed. Usually called the Hyde bypass then, it was supposed to be the start of a motorway to Sheffield, scuppered by the Peak District national park

[big jim]

I can see there being ‘local’ protests in the Hadfield/Royston vasey area

 

[woodenhead]

That's a strange description of the M67 as a spur off the The Manchester ring road. It's been there for many decades, long before the Woodhead railway closed. Usually called the Hyde bypass then, it was supposed to be the start of a motorway to Sheffield, scuppered by the Peak District national park

The M67 was part of an aborted route into the centre of Manchester connecting to the Mancunian Way the start of an inner ring road - they built the M67 and the Mancunian Way before abandoning the route to Sheffield and into Manchester itself - if you look at maps there is (was) a great swathe of land between the M67 and the Manchester inner ring road that was left open for the motorway. 

 

One of the reasons Belle Vue shut was because it crossed the route of the M67 extension.

 

In the end we got an outer ring road - the M60 which sort of attaches to the M67 at Denton and the inner ring road only took 40 years and isn't a ring more a jagged rectangle.

[woodenhead]

I'm very much afraid that any plans to re-instate the railway have already been scuppered by the Department of Transport's (or who ever it is now) plans to build a motorway.  A spur off the Manchester ring road has already been built and is pointing eastwards straight up Longdendale.  The argument is now about how long to make the new Woodhead tunnel.

Peterfgf

Ahh the M67 - yet another folly - a Motorway that leads to a two lane road right through some peaceful villages on the edge of Longdendale and at the other end comes to an abrupt halt in Denton because they cancelled the rest of it into Manchester.

 

On the M60 there is another one where the M60 was meant to continue on to the A6 but doesn't so we have a 50mph camera enforced curve in a motorway to go around a junction that has no purpose.

 

Manchester has had lots of big plans but never got the finance to finish the jobs or the political support from the Government to make them all happen.

 

We planned an underground rapid transit, even built a void under the Arndale for one of the stations before the Government pulled the plug and in the end got the Metrolink which isn't quite so rapid.

[Zomboid]

Building anything at all (rail or motorway) through the national park is likely to be difficult enough to sink most ideas before they even get to the Facebook group stage.

 

This particular idea is so flawed as to make it laughable.

[pete_mcfarlane]

I can see there being ‘local’ protests in the Hadfield/Royston vasey area

 

DE4F3606-0910-4DCC-B4E7-1C9C85330310.jpeg

"We didn't burn him...."

 

Reopening Woodhead always seems like a solution looking for a problem. Resignalling and upgrading the Hope valley line seems like a much cheaper way to add Manchester-Sheffield capacity. 

[Velopeur]

This site is interesting re the motorway idea

 

http://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/m67_manchester_to_sheffield_motorway/

[eastwestdivide]

From their website:

single fare "notional journey fare for a 45ft articulated vehicle" £130 (€145)

"Up to 5 trains per hour departing every 10 to 15 minutes during working hours"

about 65km (40 miles)

 

Comparison figures from the existing Brenner-Wörgl route:

single fare for a 44tonner €209 downhill and €235 uphill. (+VAT)

18 departures a day each way (basically 1 per hour from 0500-2000)

about 100km

Edited December 22, 2017 by eastwestdivide

[MarkC]

This proposal has been picked over and consigned to the euphemistic "round file" on several railway discussion groups. Gauging, delays in loading/unloading, tunnel, costs etc etc

 

For its proponents to claim that its planning and construction costs would be recouped in only 4 years after opening simply beggars belief. Then there's the "The route was surveyed in the 1800s, so it doesn't require doing again" comment. Walter Mitty would be proud of both of those gems, I suggest...

 

Oh, and check out the <ahem> "bridal ways" proposal - one presumes that they mean "bridle ways"- or is there a great attraction in Longdendale for weddings? 

[woodenhead]

Oh, and check out the <ahem> "bridal ways" proposal - one presumes that they mean "bridle ways"- or is there a great attraction in Longdendale for weddings? 

"Have an open top wedding encounter with our special Bridal package, round trip for you, your spouse to be and guests on a very low floor flat wagons.  Discounts for winter packages and in the summer free flies in the mouth for everybody"

[scottishlocos]

All

 

I thought any prospect of Woodhead reopening was scuppered by electric pylons being routed through one of the existing tunnels

 

Dave

[DJM Dave]

I think grand northerns idea is to use the newer tunnel which is impossible now and only solution would be a new bore through the older tunnels which would cost a fair bit ,I’m sure I read that even if they were allowed to use the 1954 tunnel it would need considerable work mabe reboring itself

Brian

Isn’t the newer tunnel now devoid of any occupation from electrical stuff as I thought it had all been removed and the new tunnel was ‘free’ again?

I apologise in advance if wrong, but looking at Dunford Bridge recently it’s just steel gates I believe.

[woodenhead]

Woodhead New tunnel is full of cables, all under the floor though.

 

There is no mention I don't think by Grand Northern about how they would convince the National Grid to sell them the tunnel back and then they would do something with the old tunnels they have just sealed up.

 

The DFT have already said if railways were to return to the Woodhead route there would have to be a new tunnel to meet current safety standards - of course that could be the same as it costs too much to convert from DC to AC in 70s speak.

[Legend]

Too short a distance for modal change . I think someone's been on the Sherry a wee bit too early

[Joseph_Pestell]

Isn’t the newer tunnel now devoid of any occupation from electrical stuff as I thought it had all been removed and the new tunnel was ‘free’ again?

I apologise in advance if wrong, but looking at Dunford Bridge recently it’s just steel gates I believe.

 

Certainly looks that way on photos. But someone has put in a concrete roadway which significantly reduces the gauge. Assuming that could be removed, a single track through the tunnel might be achieved at a gauge which would allow trucks through on specially designed wagons. With that as the only traffic, it should be possible to create a workable timetable with dynamic loops at each end of the tunnel. I am not sure where one would put the loading/unloading facilities though.

 

And with a single track, I don't think any other traffic could be accommodated without using some complex signalling and interlaced tracks. That would be fun!

 

Edit: Other posts come in since. The cables are under that concrete!

Edited December 22, 2017 by Joseph_Pestell

[Edwin_m]

Even if the tunnel is re-bored to whatever gauge is necessary there are still clearances on the open air sections to contend with.  I think the European ro-ro routes are to standard UIC gauge but they may be larger.  However not only is the UK gauge smaller than UIC, many of our trucks are larger than the normal European height. 

[black and decker boy]

Further discussion in the Reversing Beeching thread

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/128632-reversing-beeching/page-16

 

Suffice to say I’m not convinced by the promoter

[eastwestdivide]

.... I am not sure where one would put the loading/unloading facilities though.

 

Their website says Tinsley and Bredbury, next to the M1 and M60 respectively.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Their website says Tinsley and Bredbury, next to the M1 and M60 respectively.

 

I'm not familiar with Bredbury but Tinsley sounds ideal.

 

Edit:

 

Just looked at it on Google Earth and see that it involves another row with the cycling lobby as the route from Bredbury to Godley Jct has been converted into a cycleway. Rather them than me.

 

But, for all the National Grid use of the 1950s tunnel looks to put the kyebosh on this project, it is generally quite sensible and certainly something that the National Park should support in principle. It would be much better to have lorries going on a train along the old railway than grinding along the existing road. The financial viability though must be questionable. There are alternative routes which the HGVs would use rather than pay for the train which is perhaps not the case in the Swiss and Austrian context.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Joseph_Pestell

[woodenhead]

Getting out of Tinsley might be a pathing issue if they need two tracks, the Sheffield Trams occupy much of the trackbed

Edited December 22, 2017 by woodenhead

[MarkC]

I'm not familiar with Bredbury but Tinsley sounds ideal.

 

Edit:

 

Just looked at it on Google Earth and see that it involves another row with the cycling lobby as the route from Bredbury to Godley Jct has been converted into a cycleway. Rather them than me.

 

But, for all the National Grid use of the 1950s tunnel looks to put the kyebosh on this project, it is generally quite sensible and certainly something that the National Park should support in principle. It would be much better to have lorries going on a train along the old railway than grinding along the existing road. The financial viability though must be questionable. There are alternative routes which the HGVs would use rather than pay for the train which is perhaps not the case in the Swiss and Austrian context.

There are indeed - the obvious one being M60, M62, M1.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Getting out of Tinsley might be a pathing issue if they need two tracks, the Sheffield Trams occupy much of the trackbed

 

Looks OK on Google Earth!

There are indeed - the obvious one being M60, M62, M1.

 

They could put a lorry toll on the M62.