UKC

interesting reading, will it ever happen though? plenty of pros an cons

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34964253

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Can't see Joseph Locke being too impressed.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

£6Bn to save 2ft 6 ins, hardly worth it.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Odd solution: the Pennines are not the problem. I think a viaduct over Glossop, then just blow up Mottram and tarmac it up to the M60. That'd save about 2h on most journeys.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Indeed. Makes the transit between traffic jams a lot quicker. It certainly seems to need a new motorway section at either end and probably widening of the M60 and M1 around the junctions which seems very unlikely to me given the history of past bypass discussions.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Never going to happen, this nonsense gets trotted out in various forms every six months or so round here. Build a tunnel, open an old tunnel, build a bypass through a nature reserve, rebuild the railway they dug up twenty years ago, whatever.

All options cost too much and are in the north. When was the last time £6 billion was spent outside London?

Personally, glad it aint happening, 20mins in a jam is small price to live in a nice place. All this trans-pennine nonsense would just ruin it.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


Intriguing comment. I can't be bothered reading all that blurb so can you enlighten me? What does Joseph Locke have to do with it? He was one of my Mum's favourites, bless him. And her.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Doubt it will ever happen, but I can see at lot of advantages

First of all it will be good for the northern economy, both during construction and once it's built.
The Woodhead is already very busy with heavy traffic, which causes problems all along the route (jams in Mottram, speeding lorries in Langsett, crossing it anywhere, cycling it etc etc). Simply widening the road is a very poor solution - bad for the countryside and will probably create as many bottlenecks as it solves.

One proposal was to reopen the rail tunnels and get freight off the roads - nice idea, but unless we make it financially attractive for freight companies, they won't use it. As a nation we are addicted to an economy based around freight on our roads - cheaper upfront, lots of hidden costs for all of us.

As for saving 30 mins - by the time it's built average journey times will have doubled

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Would love to see something like this but, as Chris the Tall said, by the time it is built there will be more pressing issues.

I would rather see the M66-M65-M606 all joined up - much more scope for industrial development. Much of the benefit of motorways is that industry can develop along a corridor: what use would a tunnel be? I would also rather see the 'tunnel' come south of Sheffield to the M1 but I suspect this will just overload the M1 south.

But really the problems of economic stagnation in the North are not really dependent on a lack of roads. I wonder if a 'London Underground' style rail network encompassing York-Preston-Chester-Sheffield might be money better spent, especially if freight can be easily moved.

In reply to Martin Bennett:
Josef Locke ("Hear My Song "etc etc..) was a renowned tenor singer in the early part of the 20th Century. Also a tax fiddler.

Joseph Locke was an engineer responsible for the driving through of the first Woodhead Tunnel.

He is immortalised in Locke Park in Barnsley and also in the town of Barentin in France where he had rather less success in building a viaduct.....

Also allegedly at the controls of Stephenson's Rocket when it ran over the Tory MP Huskisson at the opening of the Manchester -Liverpool Railway.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Thanks TomV. The singing one is the one my Mum had a crush on - I don't think she was heavily into civil engineers! I remember the line "Come with me, in my gondola" and am pretty sure that would be from the song you cite "Hear my song". Now you come to mention it the tax fiddler persona seems familiar too. Cheers.

In reply to Martin Bennett:

I watched the film "Locke"on DVD recently bloody hard work(to sit still and not wander off)),but a strangely compelling 1hr 25 imns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locke_(film)

In reply to Martin Bennett:

I think Ned Beatty played him in a film version without ever once squealing like pig...

In reply to Asleep in the backs:


Not in your backyard then, eh?!

"... a more in-depth study ..."

I'd like to assume it'll be linked to the M1 & the end of the M67.
I hope it happens. Manc - Sheff is terrible. I'd've liked the railway opened up again, but NG have shoved their cables down the 'new' tunnel now.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Good to see the illustration already shows a couple of breakdowns !!!!

In reply to Lusk:

"Not in your backyard then, eh?!"

Yeah, pretty much. Can't see the benefit to me if I'm honest but can see a few negatives. The bypass will rip through nature reserve, and nice countryside of my village and the village next door as well as a local climbing venue. This could also impact negatively on the local small businesses in our village.

Or the rip up the Longendale trail, again affecting local business, and sending the valley back into the last century as a conduit for others. All the work would make the traffic problems much worse for several years.

I know it is a bit selfish but not bothered, prefer it if they just sent the wagons via the motorways and improved them. Much cheaper and more likely to happen than silly tunnel talk. Really they have never even got close to building a cheaper by-pass so why consider that they will actually spend more on a super tunnel or building new railways.

New trains we cant even get, heck they're even stealing the old trains to give to the south, investment in the Shef-Manc? No chance.

In reply to oaktree:



Clearly a very versatile chap - tenor singer with a penchant for tax evasion who also constructed tunnels in Yorkshire whilst pouring concrete in Birmingham. Was here no end to this man's talent?

In reply to Tom Valentine:


Thanks TomV - I might have a look at it one day when I have as little to do as I have just now!

In reply to winhill:

2 ft 6 ins in about one small step for a man, so it wouldn't be the most expensive.