Grand northern plans to reopen woodhead

[eastwestdivide]

On the cycling issue, it's not just the Bredbury end - much of the route over the Woodhead is now the Trans Pennine Trail, which is presumably the "Bridal way" (sic) referred to in their FAQs.

On the route out of Tinsley, there's currently only a single track from Tinsley to Woodburn Jn, but the section shared with trams is only about 1.5-2 miles - not sure if that bit is easily redoubled, but the rest of the single track could be redoubled without much problem.

 

However, I don't think those are the biggest problems faced by the project, not by a long chalk.

[MarkC]

 

They could put a lorry toll on the M62.

I don't think that any politician would dare do that. Tolls on new roads, such as the M6(Toll), fair enough, but existing ones? Nope. Not happening.

 

And look at how the M6(Toll) has been a resounding success...not...

[jjb1970]

 

And look at how the M6(Toll) has been a resounding success...not...

 

I think its been a splendid success, when I drive home for visits it is thoroughly enjoyable to drive past Birmingham on an empty motorway  Its even quieter than the M6 North of Lancaster out of tourist season.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I don't think that any politician would dare do that. Tolls on new roads, such as the M6(Toll), fair enough, but existing ones? Nope. Not happening.

 

And look at how the M6(Toll) has been a resounding success...not...

 

Road/congestion charging will have to happen sooner or later unless we want to build a lot of new roads.

 

How Govt. can make that work is another question. My solution would be to get rid of VED in exchange.

[Zomboid]

Tax on fuel is the fairest and "greenest" way to charge for road use. People who drive less and use a less polluting car pay less, and those who drive thousands of miles in a V8 pay the most.

 

Politically that's not an easy sell, though. As well as being OT.

[locoholic]

Tax on fuel is the fairest and "greenest" way to charge for road use. People who drive less and use a less polluting car pay less, and those who drive thousands of miles in a V8 pay the most.

Politically that's not an easy sell, though. As well as being OT.

Tax on fuel is a tax on people in rural areas who have to drive further, and who cannot use public transport because there isn't any.

[TheSignalEngineer]

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

IIRC Julian has been peddling this (insert suitable word for rubbish) for about 12 years. Most of the stuff on that website was on a previous incarnation around 2003. I think I may still have the analysis of his proposals that I did at the time.

My conclusion was that the existing tunnel could only take a single track at the height an HGV and his proposals at that time for the western end were basically unachievable. His latest idea for that end is probably worse. My figure for the charge possible at that time was £30 for Tinsley to the M67 terminal. His coatings of rolling stock and infrastructure were optimistic to say the least and I estimated that it would all be life expired before he got the money back even before allowing for financing charges.

Edited December 22, 2017 by TheSignalEngineer

[Dava]

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

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

Certainly in 'League of Gentlemen' territory with this scheme, it was cute seeing the single track 'Royston Vesey' [Hadfield] station on tv the other night. That's the nearest it will get.

 

Dava

[The Stationmaster]

I think its been a splendid success, when I drive home for visits it is thoroughly enjoyable to drive past Birmingham on an empty motorway  Its even quieter than the M6 North of Lancaster out of tourist season.

 

I've used it a couple of times and reckon it's an absolute bargain - nice empty road and a pleasure to drive along compared with the alternative as well as reducing journey time.

 

As for Woodhead the electricity cables have been transferred to the new tunnel with transfer being completed in 2016   So any thought of reusing the tunnel for rail would rely on the provision of a new tunnel or pylon route for the electricity network.

[MarkC]

I think its been a splendid success, when I drive home for visits it is thoroughly enjoyable to drive past Birmingham on an empty motorway  Its even quieter than the M6 North of Lancaster out of tourist season.

From your point of view, yes it is - but isn't it interesting that people will settle for slow moving traffic on the 'old road', rather than pay a toll? There's a lesson there...

[APOLLO]

Tax on fuel is a tax on people in rural areas who have to drive further, and who cannot use public transport because there isn't any.

 

True - but they COULD receive a "cash rebate" based on postcode, vehicle owned etc, subsidised by urban drivers.

 

As to Woodhead, as much as I would like to see it re-opened I doubt it. Isn't there is a report due (I think) soon on the HS3 Trans Pennine rail route proposals ?

 

Perhaps an extension connecting the two proposed arms of HS2 (Man Piccadilly to Sheffield) may be viable, with a new Woodhead tunnel. Fill the old ones with foam concrete and re-drill em as was done at Farnworth ?. I doubt that also, but Manchester to Leeds has 2 long tunnels to electrify Standedge (1 x double in use and 2 x single track not used) and Morley. There was an old route (The LNWR Leeds "New" line) via another longish tunnel at Gildersome - The route is probably now built over. But Leeds is quite a few miles north of Sheffield, and Manchester NEEDS a decent fast rail link to Sheffield, so in reality two electrified links are required (like a crossrail 1 & 2 !!!!!).

 

Oh how our useless politicians have grossly failed us in the past, and continue to do so today.

 

Brit15

Edited December 22, 2017 by APOLLO

[Stentor]

The game changer here is the planned expansion of the container port at Liverpool to a 1 million TEU capacity site.

 

To make that operational there will need to be a better route across the Pennines to link to the East Coast ports.

 

This plan then looks much more viable.

 

Simon

[MarkC]

The game changer here is the planned expansion of the container port at Liverpool to a 1 million TEU capacity site.

 

To make that operational there will need to be a better route across the Pennines to link to the East Coast ports.

 

This plan then looks much more viable.

 

Simon

But how much flow across the Pennines is predicted? There's still spare rail capacity, especially overnight, to get from west to east and vice versa

[phil-b259]

True - but they COULD receive a "cash rebate" based on postcode, vehicle owned etc, subsidised by urban drivers.

 

As to Woodhead, as much as I would like to see it re-opened I doubt it. Isn't there is a report due (I think) soon on the HS3 Trans Pennine rail route proposals ?

 

Perhaps an extension connecting the two proposed arms of HS2 (Man Piccadilly to Sheffield) may be viable, with a new Woodhead tunnel. Fill the old ones with foam concrete and re-drill em as was done at Farnworth ?. I doubt that also, but Manchester to Leeds has 2 long tunnels to electrify Standedge (1 x double in use and 2 x single track not used) and Morley. There was an old route (The LNWR Leeds "New" line) via another longish tunnel at Gildersome - The route is probably now built over. But Leeds is quite a few miles north of Sheffield, and Manchester NEEDS a decent fast rail link to Sheffield, so in reality two electrified links are required (like a crossrail 1 & 2 !!!!!).

 

Oh how our useless politicians have grossly failed us in the past, and continue to do so today.

 

Brit15

 

It is on record that the Government WILL NOT sanction ANY large infrastructure projects within our National Parks anymore (such is the pressure of the environmental lobby - which includes bodies like the National Trust, not just the likes of Greenpeace etc.

 

As such any rail or road route running across the pennies will now require a VERY long tunnel so as to remove any trace of it within the park boundaries which takes the portals so far east and west of Woodhead as to make any potential reuse of the disused railway formation miniscule.

 

This then makes it rather pointless to constrain route options by slavishly following the bits of the Woodhead route that lie outside the park - in the same way that HS2 does not seek to reuse the ex GC formation where possible.

[TheSignalEngineer]

I think (the M6 TOLL) has been a splendid success, when I drive home for visits it is thoroughly enjoyable to drive past Birmingham on an empty motorway  Its even quieter than the M6 North of Lancaster out of tourist season.

 

From your point of view, yes it is - but isn't it interesting that people will settle for slow moving traffic on the 'old road', rather than pay a toll? There's a lesson there...

The easiest way to get lorries out of the Peak National Park and the towns and villages on its boundaries would be to put a toll booth at the Woodhead Layby on the A628 and another at the Derwent Layby on the Snake.  The alternative would be to put a permanent VOSA checkpoint on the A57 at Hattersley. When they do a check there the lorries and traffic jams in the area disappear within minutes of it opening up.

[TheSignalEngineer]

It is on record that the Government WILL NOT sanction ANY large infrastructure projects within our National Parks anymore (such is the pressure of the environmental lobby - which includes bodies like the National Trust, not just the likes of Greenpeace etc.

 

As such any rail or road route running across the pennies will now require a VERY long tunnel so as to remove any trace of it within the park boundaries which takes the portals so far east and west of Woodhead as to make any potential reuse of the disused railway formation miniscule.

 

This then makes it rather pointless to constrain route options by slavishly following the bits of the Woodhead route that lie outside the park - in the same way that HS2 does not seek to reuse the ex GC formation where possible.

The 20 mile road tunnel has already been declared not value for money and that option is no longer being developed. The latest proposal being worked on reportedly  includes a shorter road tunnel in the Woodhead area.

[phil-b259]

The game changer here is the planned expansion of the container port at Liverpool to a 1 million TEU capacity site.

 

To make that operational there will need to be a better route across the Pennines to link to the East Coast ports.

 

This plan then looks much more viable.

 

Simon

 

You are doing exactly what the BML2 lot are doing - using something some distance away to bolster their own pet project. A new Woodhead railway is pretty useless for shift Containers out of Liverpool if they cannot get past Manchester, nor does Woodhead help if most of those containers want to head for the most densely populated bits of the country where demand is strongest (i.e. London & the South East) or destinations like Scotland.

[phil-b259]

The 20 mile road tunnel has already been declared not value for money and that option is no longer being developed. The latest proposal being worked on reportedly  includes a shorter road tunnel in the Woodhead area.

 

Define 'shorter' - if it encroaches on the National Park to any significant extent it simply won't happen - the environmental lobby will see to that!

[TheSignalEngineer]

No length given yet. I'm playing a bit of a dangerous game in reporting what I am hearing from politicians. I believe it comes from the report being prepared for Transport for the North, so the chances of anything happening within my lifetime are remote.

[woodenhead]

The game changer here is the planned expansion of the container port at Liverpool to a 1 million TEU capacity site.

To make that operational there will need to be a better route across the Pennines to link to the East Coast ports.

This plan then looks much more viable.

Simon

Liverpool to Hull, Felixstowe can be managed quite easily by rail

[MarkC]

Liverpool to Hull, Felixstowe can be managed quite easily by rail

Exactly

[pete_mcfarlane]

I had a more detailed look at the website, now that I'm home. First up, some interesting ideas about how potential energy works. 

 

 

 

Furthermore, all HGV’s that use the pennine routes waste massive amounts of energy through the braking process. Friction from slowing the lorry creates heat and this is lost to the atmosphere forever.

 

This then leads on to a whole load of spiel about regenerative braking on the electric locos, and general over-optimism of the benefits. It's touted as a revenue earner (selling the electricity back to the grid) rather than just a way of reducing the railway's energy costs slightly. 

 

Next up, axle weights:

 

 

 

The weight will be spread over 8 axles not 4 as was the case with the much heavier coal carrying trains using the route prior to its closure. By spreading the weight over 8 axles, the maximum per axle would be 8.25 T not 10T as was the case with the old Coal Wagons.

 

(8 axle wagons? do they mean 8 wheels? ).

[Sheffield]

Bearing in mind how much time and money has been spent just talking about restoring the sensible East-West route restoration between Oxford and Cambridge, and how far that has got as a result I do not see this Woodhead idea going very far. In fact I don't think there will be any significant rail route restorations in England. The ones that have been achieved, such as Worksop-Nottingham for example, have had considerable local authority support, and these bodies don't have any money these days. The recent words from Government are just "sounds good" not real intent.

[eastwestdivide]

More back of the envelope calculations and stats.

 

Using the data here:

https://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/cp.php?la=Derbyshire#73378

for a manual traffic count on the A628 (Woodhead Pass) from 2016, there were 1572 HGVs a day, plus another 156 on the A57 (Snake Pass).

So rounding up to 1800 a day, or 900 in each direction.

How many on a shuttle train? I counted 18 on a fully-loaded Brenner Pass* one that I videoed.

900/18 = 50 departures a day to take all of the traffic? But realistically not all of the traffic would use the service.

Even assuming all that traffic uses the shuttle, if you spread that over 24 hours, that's a half-hourly service give or take.

 

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

 

*Latest figures I could find for the Brenner Pass are 1.8 million trucks in 2004.

Call it 2 million, or about 5500 a day, three times the level of the Woodhead, and it only supports 1 train shuttle an hour.

To be fair, the Brenner motorway is a far better standard than the Woodhead/Snake Pass routes, but it climbs far higher (4500ft versus 1486ft). 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Tax on fuel is a tax on people in rural areas who have to drive further, and who cannot use public transport because there isn't any.

 

I live in the countryside but I am still a firm advocate of increasing fuel duty and abolishing VED. In the countryside, we get more miles per gallon than urban drivers.