Great Western Coffee Shop

Looks like the often talked about Leeds to Manchester High Speed line is back on the agenda according to reports on the BBC. It seems Boris wants to get on with it now but there has been talk like this before. Here's a link to the story:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49132477

All I would say is be careful what you believe.

There is a blonde haired man running around at the moment telling everybody what he thinks they want to hear...

Well it's suceeded in getting a lot of attention from the Beeb. I would have been genuinely surprised if said blonde haired man had declared a South Western Powerhouse instead.

We'll know if Boris is serious if we find out he has contacted Grahame asking to borrow his mapbook and crayons....... ;D

Aff of its there already isn't it, it's called the Woodhead Tunnel, just head North-East out of the Eastern Portal rather than South-East as the previous line went.
 ::)

I am sure the people in the area won't mind the power cuts when they remove the national grid cables from it!

Yea but I would expect national grid to be that prudent enough to provide an alternative before removing said cables.

With 3 tunnels is it at Woodhead, might the utilities currently using them be able to use the space more efficiently and free room up for it's original purpose? It's a lot cheaper than digging a new tunnel.

I first thought of the Woodhead route too, and there are two sets of tunnels there (the original two single bores and the double bore dug for electrification), and I'm not sure that all four carry national grid cables.

However there are a number of other problems with using it, and the following have sprung to mind so far:

1. A new line would still be needed west of Woodhead, or at least certainly west of Hadfield because the existing line os full of local services. Even between Hadfield and Woodhead the line was not engineered for high speed running as it twists and turns to cope with the gradient.

2. Where it emerges at Dunford Bridge is not only still a long way from Leeds, it is a long way south of Leeds. This would make such a line look like an inverted "L" on the map. There would be much work to do to cut a high speed railway through the hills between Dunford Bridge (or Penistone) and Leeds.

3. The existing line between Hadfield and Pensitone, except currently the Woodhead tunnels, is a footpath/ cycle track/ nature trail and runs through a National Park. I can see the reinstating of the railway causing a stir in many quarters.

4. Taking all the above into account, if they gave me a blank sheet of paper and  said "plot out a route for a high speed line between Manchester and Leeds" I would start by looking at a route that runs parallel to the M62. This would have the advantage of being next to an existing transport corridor which was planned in the first place to minimise extensive disruption en route (it takes almost the least populated route across the Pennines that it is possible to find in the general area) so that might keep objections to a minimum.

It would also have the advantage of allowing road traffic using the M62 the opportunity to see trains running along the same route at almost double the speed that road traffic can get up to. There may be some psychology brought into play to make the motoring public at least think of using the train next time. This is not unlike the situation in Kent with HS1 and the M20.

Yes but the railway would have to pay to move them!



The old tunnels are now in too poor a condition to carry the cables so National Grid bought the new tunnel.  And no there would not be room for trains as well.  This is the national grid we are talking about.

If they did want to reuse Woodhead tunnel for HS3 then I suspect the cheapest option would be to refurbish one of the old ones for the cables.

However the railway might also consider using the spare bores in Standedge tunnel!

And where would the railway get the money to move them then, THE TAXPAYER of course. Isn't it called something like THE VICIOUS CIRCLE.

I think that was the point being made?! It's the way I read it

This is called electioneering. 

It is, in my opinion, with very little doubt there will be a general election before Christmas; so I fear the new PM and his Cabinet are writing cheques for projects which post  election can then renege.  The current PM is well known for glamorous projects, London garden bridge over the Thames, the moving Heathrow into the Thames estuary, the bridge across the English Channel...…..

A written cheque is STOPPED, not reneged.

I'm wearing my JRM hat now
 ;D

I can see the merit of a new route that largely follows a motorway as suggested a few posts back.

However as many others have said this sounds more like a pipedream or electioneering rather than a serious proposal. Several factors mitigate against this actually happening.
Firstly Boris has previous for grand schemes that never happen, see an earlier post for some of them.
Secondly network rail have previous for failing miserably to keep major projects to time or on budget. Crossrail, HS2, GW electrification.
And finally, if these issues can be overcome, consider the decades of studies, reviews, and consultations that will be needed, many of which will need doing again after each change of government. Meanwhile the newts and bats are no doubt breeding, but not of course breeding to the extent that they are no longer endangered.

Quite. This is no more than electioneering, telling people what they want to hear.

Nevertheless it was interesting looking at the options for a new line, and it highlighted something that I have thought for some time that railway-minded folk often think too much about history and not enough about what is needed in today's real world.

We have had suggestions about the Woodhead route and Standedge. Both ideas show that the proposers know their railway history but, in today's terms, they are no more than holes dug through mountains where railways once ran. Neither of them would be suitable for a high speed line, because in both cases they twist and turn up populated valleys before getting to a summit tunnel, and there is no way on God's earth that you could ever build a 125mph railway in such terrain without knocking half of Huddersfield or Guide Bridge down.

We have a not-too-dissimilar situation locally when the English Channel decides to wash the railway at Dawlish away. Thoughts turn to an alternative, and immediately the railway fraternity start shouting about the Okehampton route. Why? Because a railway was there once, that's why. so we could put one back again. This mindset fails to address the facts that the junctions at Exeter and Devonport face the wrong way, there was a blanket 40mph restriction over much of it when it was open, and it is in truth just as liable to weather disruption as the Dawlish route, but with snow in that case rather than sea water. Then they round off their thesis by telling us that it could all be done for fourpence three-farthings, so we don't need to go for expensive solutions.

I, on the other hand, tend to think of the fact that when there is a bus replacement running between Bodmin Parkway and Tiverton, the bus will do the journey faster than the advertised train service. Therefore, to me at least, it seems clear that if you are going to "resolve" Dawlish once and for all you build a new line engineered for high speeds from the outset. Anything else is simply tinkering around the edges and will never provide 21st century speeds for Devon and Cornwall.

This isn't back of fag packet stuff. There are relatively well developed plans for a NPR high-speed network between the major cities in the north of England, using a combination of new track, HS2 and upgraded lines - such as the ECML. The main question is how HS2 and NPR fit together in Manchester and Leeds, and whether it would be better to scrap the current station plans and go for something far more radical, though goodness knows if, how and at what expense you can fit a 400m long station box plus approaches under either.

But there is plenty that is nearly shovel-ready - the connection from Liverpool to Manchester Airport, enlargement of Sheffield station (plus electrification of the MML through to Leeds). Sheffield City Region just published a long-term rail strategy based on HS2 and NPR etc. Long-term government borrowing is very, very cheap by historic standards. To a large extent the problem isn't whether we have the money, it's more whether we have enough skilled people to do it.

As for the Woodhead, the tunnel is 80 years old, full of HV cables, it is not big enough for a pair of full-size HS2 trains to pass, the trackbed is 190 years old , wiggly, and goes through a national park etc, etc. But more importantly, it's in the wrong place - the NPR aspiration is 30 minutes between both Sheffield and Manchester Airport. As far as I can see the most practical way to accomplish that is to build a very long tunnel under the High Peak from somewhere like Dore, run west across the Cheshire Plain to Manchester Airport, thence to Manchester, Liverpool or even back to Sheffield via Leeds as a sort of northern Circle line ;-)

Finally, I don't think it's short-term political gain - Cameron and Osborne had a relatively clear policy of trying to make long-term inroads into Labour heartlands (particularly in the Midlands and the north of England) by supporting rail, public transport and economic development, whilst being relatively liberal on social policy. To a certain extent that was reversed by Hammond in the Treasury and Grayling in Transport, but there's plenty to suggest that Boris is just dusting off and updating that strategy.   

Perhaps there's some truth in that; there are certainly cases where the politics of competition produced irrational layouts that we would not seek to replicate.

It's also true that many disused railway alignments follow well-thought-out routes between real places, and often incorporate usable civil engineering along the way. It would be eccentric not to at least take account of this when planning new lines. In many cases, modern engineering techniques (and political will) may allow better routing options that weren't available or practical in times gone by; where this is the case it would be eccentric not to take account of that..

Of course things like existing engineering should be taken into account, but it should not become the only croteria to take into account. If the best way forward is to reopen an existing route, then the existence of the engineering should be the icing on the cake, not the primary reason for doing it.

I will go back to my Okehampton route example, despite in being off topic, simply because I have carried out a detailed survey of what is down there today (for another book!). From the Exeter end the rails are still in place as far sa Meldon Quarry. Good start. From Meldon almost all the way to Tavistock the line has been preserved and is now a footpath and cycle track. A couple of minor bridges have been removed but the viaducts at Meldon, Lydford and Tavistock are still there. The good start has been continued. There are proposals to reopen the line anyway between Tavistock and Bere Alston, and Shillamill's viaduct and tunnel are still there. Beyond Bere Alston the line is again open, this time as the Gunnislake branch.

My word this is excellent! All we have to do then is to relay 16 miles of track between Meldon and Tavistock and we've got a new railway to South Devon. Clearly a piece of cake, and a cheap piece of cake at that. What could possibly go wrong?

Well...

The line may well still be there as far as Meldon Quarry, but its got a 40mh limit on it. It never had a limit higher than 60mph even when it was the LSWR main line to Plymouth. To turn that 40mph freight branch into a 125mph railway is going to involve decent sums of money.

Meldon Viaduct hasn't had a train on it for years. It was restored some time ago but as a footpath and cycle track, where its load bearing capacity would not be an issue. If you started running trains over it again then it might be a major issue which could cost huge sums to sort out. Further bear in mind that there was a 20mph limit over it from 1892. Also bear in mind that it is a listed structure, and you might end up finding it cheaper to divert the line away from it and build a new viaduct. More expense - possibly a lot more.

We are out in the wilds of Exmoor now, and admittedly there aren't many obstacles in the way between here and Tavistock. Lydford viaduct, and those in the Tavistock area may need strengthening work but that would be surmountable. But then you get to Tavistock station, where a Council Office has been built on the east side of the station and houses have sprung up on the west side of the viaduct. A Transport & Works Order could get rid of the houses fairly straightforwardly, but how much would a Council Office cost in terms of compensation, bearing in mind that West Devon Council would still want one after the railway has re-arrived in the town, and they won't be paying either for the new one or for the old one to be knocked down. Then there is any repair work at Shillamill that will need paying for.

I have seen madcap ideas put forward on other forums - a diversionary-route-only single line with dynamic loops, a level of traffic that such a line would engender from Okehampton and Tavistock equalled only by the claims in new line prospectuses in the 19th century (lines that were bankrupt a few years later), and it all being done "on the cheap." The trouble is, if you do it on the cheap then you'll still have a route over which it would take longer to get from Exeter to Plymouth than it does via Dawlish, you do nothing to give higher speeds and reduced travelling times to Devon and Cornwall, and you introduce the operational headaches of two reversals for Cornwall trains and retaining route knowledge of the crews. And you also need to order a snow plough to keep at Laira - just in case...

Re: Plymouth to Exeter - would it not perhaps be cheaper just to buy a pair of second-hand TBMs, start them up outside Exeter and leave them running for a few years until they get to Plymouth ;-)

With a bit of luck someone might have wired Bristol Parkway to Exeter in the interim, but that is definitely moving into the realms of fantasy!

It doesn't have to be the taxpayer if the government doesn't want to pay for it. If Network Rail have to foot the bill, it would be the passenger. If National Grid pay, then the bill would be shared among electricity consumers.

Same people paying, of course, but out of different jam jars.