Talk:Woodhead Tunnel

Derbyshire Low‑importance

The article on Woodhead Tunnel is supported by the Derbyshire WikiProject, which is a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of Derbyshire-related articles on Wikipedia.DerbyshireWikipedia:WikiProject DerbyshireTemplate:WikiProject DerbyshireDerbyshire articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	At least one photograph is included in this article

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Woodhead Tunnel is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sheffield Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sheffield, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sheffield on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SheffieldWikipedia:WikiProject SheffieldTemplate:WikiProject SheffieldSheffield articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	June 23, 2020

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Can't now see the 2003 reference to reopening as a route to Channel Tunnel. If I don't rediscover I'll replace with slightly earlier proposal from Arriva to reopen.

How long[edit]

How long?

Does "poor working conditions" make it a rathole tunnel?

Tabletop 11:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3miles 13yards (about 5.0 km) I understand. It was a poor environment because (I believe) - it was long, single bore, took heavy traffic of long coal trains, many of which were double-headed, and double banked into the tunnel. Its portals are high up on the moor (nearly 1000ft asl), and the tunnel itself is mainly through shale (and so in a wet environment). Linuxlad 13:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Length? My figure of 5.0km is from the 1 in 25000 map and I'm surprised if the error is 100m (the figure Tabletop gives, presumably from my 3m 13yds - but that's from an old 'fun' reference book). A recheck would help.Linuxlad 07:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Route v Tunnel[edit]

This article was originally called 'Woodhead' and so was more clearly about the rail route as a whole. The tunnel is only the most important feature, but is only a small part of the total mileage. Linuxlad 10:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rolling Highway[edit]

Watchout for our company Translink UK Ltd will on Monday 20th of February, 2006 be launching a £159M bid to reopen the Woodhead route between Manchester and Shefield as a Rolling Highway. For further details go to www.translinkuk.com [1]

(I've tidied this up since, though I think as written it doesn't quite fit with WP policy, it's worth retaining in some form. Linuxlad 19:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Beeching[edit]

In the decision to close Woodhead as a passenger route, I thought the only reason was that Beeching wanted about half the trains to use th Edale/Hope Valley line for social reasons - what were the 'network' reasons 'anon' has referred to?Linuxlad 14:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Gradient[edit]

What was gradient of tunnel. A steep gradient can make the smoke problem worse. See Cascade Tunnel.

Tabletop 11:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the old tunnels, the gradient is given as 1 in 200 climbing from Woodhead (Manchester end) to a summit inside the tunnel, but close to Dunford Bridge. The new tunnel (design for electric haulage) climbed at 1 in 129 from Woodhead to a summit two thirds of the way through, then dropped towards Sheffield at 1 in 1186 (according to a 1954 book).

Remember that the coal trains had been climbing had for about 10 miles at 1 in 100 before they got to the tunnel and that the signals placed within the tunnel allowed a constant flow of trains with no time for the smoke to clear. Pennine weather would quite often not help either. AHEMSLTD 09:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With electrics, the gradient hardly mattered. The hump in the grade may have improved drainage since the watershed was mid-tunnel rather than at one end. At least the original 1 in 200 was half as steep as the 1 in 100 ruling grade on the approaches. However, a greater difference in hindsight would have been preferred in the steam age, say 1 in 300 in the tunnel and 1 in 90 for the 10 mile approach.

Indeed - the electrics quite happily hauled fully-loaded trains up the 1 in 40 Worsboro' bank on their way from Wath to the tunnel and beyond.BaseTurnComplete 21:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tabletop 13:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember this route was built in the early 1840s, less than 15 years after the Rainhill Trials, it was not planned to carry the tonnages of coal that it saw fifty years later. You must also consider the geography (both ends of the tunnel are about 20 minute drive away from home). Both at Dunford Bridge and Woodhead the line is only a few feet above the level of the rivers (River Don and River Etherow, respectively). AHEMSLTD 18:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If...[edit]

If the tunnel ever were to be recommissioned is there clearance enough for 25kVAC? Bob aka Linuxlad 00:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the tunnel is out of use, it would be easy to lower the floor if greater clearances are needed for 25kV. Alternately, the double track could be reduced to a single track centred in the middle where clearances are higher anyway.

Tabletop 10:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True up to a point, but would radically alter the economics of any refurb (if lowered the floor), or the utility of the route (if single track for 3 miles). Anyone know the clearance numbers? Linuxlad —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 23 December 2005

As it opperated on DC OLE then it will be able to run on AC OLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.255.2 (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily: the voltages are significantly different, therefore the clearances will be different. Higher voltages require greater clearances (see breakdown potential). The clearance required for 25,000 volts is eight inches; that for 6,250 volts is four inches; that for 1,500 volts will be under two inches. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Route vs. tunnel - "Woodhead Route" redirect[edit]

I have set up another page that talks about the Manchester-Sheffield-Wath electric railway rather than focussing on the Woodhead Tunnel. That page links to this one. Does anyone else have any problems with me moving the Woodhead Route redirect to my page rather than this page? There was rather more to the route than just the tunnel and I feel that a page on the route as a whole does it more justice than a page on just the tunnel.

I'll wait for a couple of weeks before actioning to see if there are any objections.

Cheers BaseTurnComplete 21:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If going down that route (?!) I think you should flag up the reference out to the Woodhead Tunnel much more clearly (the blue-link just says 'tunnel' as if it's nothing specific.) For, with respect, it's the tunnel which had the fearsome reputation for over 130 years - first in its route, then in the human cost in its building and the fact that most railwaymen dreaded working it; finally in the controversy over its re-engineering and final abandonment. In comparison even the Wath incline pales into insignificance. To take a near-at-hand comparison, it's like subsuming the travails of building the Severn Tunnel into a potted history of the Bristol-Cardiff coal run :-). Linuxlad 22:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I'll expand upon the article and add more about the tunnel before changing the redirect. Woodhead 3 was by far the most challenging civil engineering project on the line, and indeed from memory a major collapse in the tunnel held up the opening of the network for a while. First I have to dig out my books on the route though.

BaseTurnComplete 19:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My dim recollection is that W3 cost the same order of number of lifes as the first ones did!. Don't duplicate too much of the Tunnel in the Route though :-) Bob aka Linuxlad

Current Status[edit]

The article refers to National Grid wanting to move cabling to the 1950's tunnel, however references in the article stop at about Jan 2008. What has happened since? If anything has happened perhaps someone could update the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.0.159 (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Tunnel is Which?[edit]

Part of the article uses Nth and Sth and part of it Woodhead 1 and Woodhead 2 for the Victorian Tunnels. It's not easy to understand whether Woodhead 1 is the Nth or Sth Tunnel. It would be good to use consistent naming and make that clear. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. Zin92 (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current Update[edit]

The following was added by 82.132.227.88 (talk) on 25th April 2013.

At the moment 25/04/12, Balfour Beaty the civil contractors fitting the new electricity cables through the wood head tunnel, are currently on phase 2 of the project. The cables exiting the tunnel are being laid individually in concrete and sand insulated ducts upon exiting the tunnel, leading upto the first pileon of many. Ready to be connected to it. The old galvanised steel work hanging over the river has now been dismantled and trucked away.

The inside of the tunnel is all concrete flat floor and concrete finished walls and ceiling. The cables run down both sides of the tunnel attached to metal frame work down both sides of the tunnel from one end to the other. There are 6 cables running along each wall. The cables are about 12" in diameter with thick insulation. The floor has ducting and cables running down the ducting for other purposes. It is possible to drive a large Waggon down the tunnel. There is no reminance inside the tunnel that trains used to use it except for the shape on the tunnel.

At the far end of the tunnel the old platforms still stand but cannot be removed as they are listed. They are nothing but concrete and Tarmac. The size of tunnel no. 3 is at least 3 times larger than that of the older Victorian tunnels. So tbh no modern train could use the older tunnels.

Recently there was a fire on the banking of the river due to the metal structure been cut via gas torch.

Rehnn83 ^Talk 08:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An edited version of this has been put in by Dave.Dunford (talk). Thanks Dave - Rehnn83 ^Talk 09:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I was tidying it up but when I saved it I had an edit conflict with your revert; I thought some of it was worth saving so I put in what I'd done. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Woodhead Tunnel/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.

Requires infobox - with location map would be helpful
Requires copy edit for WP:MOS

Keith D (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 12:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

250 Trains per day, or per week?[edit]

250 trains per day seems rather implausible for 1850's train network infrastructure. That would mean a train was passing through the tunnel every 5 minutes and 45 seconds, 24/7/365. The signal switching apparatus couldn't handle that type of traffic back then, it would have been insanely unsafe. This has to be a typo in my opinion.

250 trains a week seems more plausible. That's a train every 40 minutes. Jimindc (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source for this appears to be the history section of "the woodheadsite" in the external links - "over a 24 hour period 252 up trains and 265 down trains passed over a double line of rails". Not sure how accurate it is based on the opening statement: "This was originally written over 20 years ago as an illustrated talk on the route. It is obvious now that it contains some glaring errors which will be correct when I can find the time!". EdwardUK (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]