Talk:Woodhead Tunnel

message: How long?
Does "poor working conditions" make it a rathole tunnel?
Tabletop 11:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long 

message: 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)
thread_title: Route v Tunnel

message: 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  
:(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)
thread_title: Rolling Highway

message: 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)
thread_title: Beeching

message: 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)
thread_title:  Route vs. tunnel - "Woodhead Route" redirect 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current Status 

message: 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)
replies: text: Clarified. Zin92 (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Tunnel is Which? 

message: 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)
replies: text: An edited version of this has been put in by  Dave.Dunford (talk). Thanks Dave - Rehnn83 Talk 09:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Current Update 

message: Substituted at 10:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  250 Trains per day, or per week?