This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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?
Does "poor working conditions" make it a rathole tunnel?
Tabletop 11:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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]
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).
What was gradient of tunnel. A steep gradient can make the smoke problem worse. See Cascade Tunnel.
Tabletop 11:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
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.
Tabletop 13:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
If the tunnel ever were to be recommissioned is there clearance enough for 25kVAC? Bob aka Linuxlad 00:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
The following was added by 82.132.227.88 ( talk) on 25th April 2013.
Rehnn83 Talk 08:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
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.
.
|
Last edited at 12:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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?
Does "poor working conditions" make it a rathole tunnel?
Tabletop 11:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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]
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).
What was gradient of tunnel. A steep gradient can make the smoke problem worse. See Cascade Tunnel.
Tabletop 11:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
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.
Tabletop 13:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
If the tunnel ever were to be recommissioned is there clearance enough for 25kVAC? Bob aka Linuxlad 00:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
The following was added by 82.132.227.88 ( talk) on 25th April 2013.
Rehnn83 Talk 08:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
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.
.
|
Last edited at 12:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
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)