Hs2 Reviiew.

[Theland]

£7bn spent so far.
Should it be scrapped?
I think so, just can't see the benefit of getting to London ten minutes quicker.

[Old_Geezer]

But it's also about getting OUT 10 minutes quicker ! Bargain at twice the price.

[jourdain2]

Living, as I do, in t'North - I don't know anyone who wants HS2. What we do want is 1) improved roads (e.g. the A64 a main route Leeds to E. coast) is only dual carriageway in a couple of places for a very few miles - it is used by local farmers with tractors, 'nuff said)…… as for the M62 !!!!!!!!!

2) improved West/East rail links - how about re-opening the Woodhead Tunnel - it's there, just needs improving.

From family who are living in the S.W. comes the same plea - better local road and rail links, please.

[ABerrant]

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1671779.html

[andy-hughes]

I appreciate that the issues involving cost spiralling in major projects only become apparent after the project has started, which leads governments to the situation where it is simply not feasible to stop a project, but to press on and swallow the costs, and the hostility.


But we don't need hindsight to see that no government could possibly hope to run a brand new rail network properly and efficiently.

Why?

Because they have never managed to run the one we've got, that's why!!!

[New Judge]

//…how about re-opening the Woodhead Tunnel - it's there, just needs improving.//

Not possible, I’m afraid.

Following the completion of the “new” twin track tunnel in 1954 (built to accommodate the electrification scheme from Manchester to Sheffield and Wath) the two single bore Victorian tunnels were taken out of service. In 1964 they were handed over to the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) to accommodate their trans-Pennine 400kV cables in one tunnel and oil tanks to supply the cable pressurisation system in the other. The system went live in 1969.

The new tunnel saw railway service until 1981 when all services on the route were discontinued. In the late 1980’s a major collapse in one of the Victorian tunnels caused the CEGB to reassess its strategy for their cables. The collapse and concern over the increasing costs involved with maintaining the 130 year old tunnels prompted them to acquire the new tunnel from BR for £1. In the 1990s a couple of serious fires in the old tunnels encouraged them to speed up their plans to move next door. Work began on installing cables in the new tunnel in 2008. By 2013 the work was complete and the old tunnels, by then in a serious state of disrepair, were abandoned and sealed up. The six cables in the new tunnel are about 12 inches in diameter. They together with ancillary equipment and a concrete floor make the likely cost of returning the tunnel to rail use greater than boring a new tunnel.

There will almost certainly be no more trains running through the Woodhead tunnel.

[jourdain2]

A comprehensive reply, N.J. and very discouraging. Why, in that case, are there several groups of 'people who should know' who seem to think that it would be cost-effective? I'm not an engineer and go by what I hear. If it would be cheaper to bore another tunnel - then that is the sort of thing we need to do.
Transport links are dire. I hear many people talking about restoring and re-opening branch-lines, both here and in the S-W. Beeching has a lot to answer for.

[New Judge]

We’re straying a little, jourdain, but as you can probably tell, I’m a bit of a railway nut (or “enthusiast” as I prefer it).

I’ve actually seen inside the Woodhead tunnel. Went on a special trip about three years ago. From what I saw (admittedly only a short distance inside from the Woodhead end) I would say that to restore the tunnel for rail use would be a mammoth undertaking. The biggest problem with the tunnel would be the concrete floor. I believe it is about two feet thick, totally unsuitable for rail use and would have to be removed (and the tunnel is over three miles long). As well as this the tunnel walls have been re-concreted and the dimensions of the tunnel are now too small to accommodate a twin track railway. But bigger than all that is where do the displaced cables go? They were placed underground in the 1960s because there were considerable objections against the environmental impact of placing three miles of pylons across the Pennines. Imagine if that were to be proposed today!

The good Dr Beeching is much maligned, often unjustifiably. Before his report the railways were haemorrhaging cash at an alarming rate. Huge swathes of the network were running with very little traffic and had matters continued as they were the entire system would have become unsustainable. Something had to be done and he did it. Of course much of the network that was uneconomic in the 1950s would probably be viable today with the development that has taken place between then and now. But The Good Doctor wasn’t to know that.