TPT Transpennine Trail: Longdendale section, improvement fund?

[SA_SA_SA]

In my opinion the Longdendale section (exWoodhead railway Trail) section of the Transpennine Trail (TPT) is greatly spoiled by the tunnel section being blocked* so that cyclists have a choice of two rough bridleway sections that require crossing the A628 twice or simply braving the busy A628 with its heavy artic lorry traffic (badly behaved on my trip) :

could a charity/kickstarter appeal by TPT for the purpose of a proper railway path style section that avoids the A628 completely raise enough cash?

*imo it renders the TPT useless as complete coast to coast route, making it two isolated halves. If the Longdendale section starts and ends as a rail trail, surely the middle should be similar because that is what people choosing an off road rail trail will expect, not a main road or rough bridleway in middle?
(Until fixed I would rather avoid LongendalecTrail and use the A635, but this is suboptimal/ inconvenient etc)

[Bmblbzzz]

I agree with the basic premise. I rode it a couple of years ago and had been looking forward to riding through the tunnel. But, assuming reopening the tunnel would be unsafe or unfeasibly expensive, I think all that's needed is a proper crossing of the A628, particularly at the Longdendale end (above the tunnel portal). And the replacement of the steps at that end with a proper slope. The rest of the "rough bridleway" is actually okay, even on my overladen tourer, and it would be inappropriate to eg surface it.

[SA_SA_SA]

I agree with the basic premise. ...., I think all that's needed is a proper crossing of the A628, particularly at the Longdendale end (above the tunnel portal). And the replacement of the steps at that end with a proper slope. .

I found the eastern bridleway half (whilst heading west), with its steep slope with stepped horse gate in middle and path with large rocks very awkward with a tourer (1.75in tyres) and that was when wheeling it.

Signaled crossings are expensive, plus I expect cyclists will not expect/be prepared to donate for merely traffic signals as opposed to an off road route improvement.... Or did you mean bridges .

Also, if going to the expense of traffic lights, why not set them up to allow cyclists exclusive use of the A628 road section between the two rail trail sections, ie motor vehicles get red, cyclists get green cycle aspect... but again traffic signals seem a gov responsibility, so not for a charity appeal..

.....The rest of the "rough bridleway" is actually okay, even on my overladen tourer, and it would be inappropriate to eg surface it.

Do you mean the western half of
the bridleway on the north side of the A628? It looks walkable from Google, but quite rough for cycling, couldnt it be upgraded a bit....

[Bmblbzzz]

I am talking about the section of NCN62 from crossing the A628 at Woodhead pass to rejoining tarmacked road at what seems to be called Windle Edge. Heading west to east, this is north of the A road, then crosses it again and stays south of it for about 1km, till rejoining it at the junction with the Windle Edge road.

Starting in the west, immediately after crossing the A628 there are steps. These are a problem. I had to remove luggage and take bike and bags separately, but I was overladen. After that, the trail is nicely surfaced and quite flat. Until crossing the A628 again some 2km later. There is then a steep and rough section down to a stream and up the other side of this valley (I'd even call it a gully). This is probably rideable on a mountain bike but I had to push. However, I did not have to remove luggage! And walking wasn't a problem – I'm on holiday! I did see some people on day rides and I expect they, being without luggage, coped with it much better. And if anyone were to use it as a commuter route, well they'd have to factor that into their commute just as any commuter has to take account of regular route conditions. In fact, rather than upgrading the bridleway, I'd recommend building a decent cycle path (separated) alongside the A628 for that section; it's less than a mile so wouldn't cost too much, and would give much better road cycling than anything which could be done to the bridleway, while preserving the gully and its ruined buildings.

[rareposter]

In fact, rather than upgrading the bridleway, I'd recommend building a decent cycle path (separated) alongside the A628 for that section; it's less than a mile so wouldn't cost too much, and would give much better road cycling than anything which could be done to the bridleway, while preserving the gully and its ruined buildings.

It's inside PDNP boundary - there'd be a huge cost plus the associated disruption to the main A628.

I'm not saying it can't be done. If you throw enough money at a problem, pretty much anything can be done; it's just that no-one has any money to pay for the massive costs of feasibility studies and legal stuff to build across PDNP land.

It'd be cheaper and easier to upgrade the BW, after all it is as you say only a fraction over a km, even though it's got a hefty descent/climb aspect to it.

I have a rule with trails in the Peak District / Derbyshire and that's "be careful what you wish for" because time and time again, Derbyshire County Council have demonstrated that they have zero understanding of BW maintenance, user suitability, etc. They've squandered hundreds of thousands of pounds - probably millions of pounds - over the years with atrocious attempts to "resurface" trails, usually little more than dumping some rubble over them, and then wondering why there's a load of rubble and gravel washed onto the road further down the hill.

[Bmblbzzz]

I don't think any resurfacing would make that section of bridleway easily cycleable. It would need a bridge across the whole stream valley, which would cost £loads and totally alter the nature of the trail – and valley – for all users.

[AndyK]

Friends of the TPT seems like the logical place to start: a charity that raises funds, makes grants of its own and looks for external funding to deliver improvements to the Trail. They welcome ideas for future improvements, apparently:
https://www.transpenninetrail.org.uk/live-projects/

[FatBat]

I agree with the basic premise. I rode it a couple of years ago and had been looking forward to riding through the tunnel. But, assuming reopening the tunnel would be unsafe or unfeasibly expensive, I think all that's needed is a proper crossing of the A628, particularly at the Longdendale end (above the tunnel portal). And the replacement of the steps at that end with a proper slope. The rest of the "rough bridleway" is actually okay, even on my overladen tourer, and it would be inappropriate to eg surface it.

The tunnels are currently used to accommodate the high-voltage power lines, so re-opening any of them for any sort of traffic would be a massive undertaking.

There was a plan about 20 years ago to reopen the route to rail traffic, which obviously came to nothing. And National Highways, in the past, have expressed a desire to use the tunnels for a re-routed A628.

[FatBat]

Just to add to my previous post, there are three bores that make up the Woodhead tunnels. The power cables are in Woodhead 3, whereas Woodhead 1 and 2 are currently blocked up. If a cycle-tunnel were to be opened, it would have to use Woodhead 1 or 2. These used to accommodate the power cables, but their poor condition meant the cables were moved and the tunnels were blocked. I don't know whether they could be repaired and used for cycle traffic. I imagine the cost would be massive.

[rareposter]

Just to add to my previous post, there are three bores that make up the Woodhead tunnels. The power cables are in Woodhead 3, whereas Woodhead 1 and 2 are currently blocked up. If a cycle-tunnel were to be opened, it would have to use Woodhead 1 or 2. These used to accommodate the power cables, but their poor condition meant the cables were moved and the tunnels were blocked. I don't know whether they could be repaired and used for cycle traffic. I imagine the cost would be massive.

Woodhead 1 and 2, in spite of various campaigns over the years, can essentially be regarded as totally defunct. It'd actually be easier to bore new tunnels rather than try to repair the absolute mess of those two, both of which have suffered significant collapses.

It's been talked about, on and off, for decades and the cost would wildly outstrip any benefits.

There were occasional bursts of interest in a Trans-Pennine motorway tunnel between Manchester and Sheffield as well but the costs of that were off the charts - higher even than trying to repair Woodhead 3 and re-open it to rail. Various bits of feasibility work, studies, campaigns etc done on that one...

[Bmblbzzz]

If (any one or more of) the tunnel(s) were to be reopened, rail would be my first choice, with a diversion of the A628 second, leaving the current road route as an more or less automobile-free smoother alternative to the bridleway for cyclists, walkers, agricultural traffic, etc.

[SA_SA_SA]

If (any one or more of) the tunnel(s) were to be reopened, rail would be my first choice, with a diversion of the A628 second, leaving the current road route as an more or less automobile-free smoother alternative to the bridleway for cyclists, walkers, agricultural traffic, etc.

Reinstating as rail link seems spectacularly unlikely now. .

I dont understand why the National grid were allowed to snaffle the good modern tunnel, those power lines are on pylons the rest (majority) of the way through that bit of the peak district, why bother, tunnel it all or not at all surely? Better to use modern nicer looking pylons the whole way than have a short tunnel and long chain of standard ones?

[rareposter]

I dont understand why the National grid were allowed to snaffle the good modern tunnel, those power lines are on pylons the rest (majority) of the way through that bit of the peak district, why bother, tunnel it all or not at all surely? Better to use modern nicer looking pylons the whole way than have a short tunnel and long chain of standard ones?

Because the two older tunnels were unsafe and there wasn't enough space in there to safely install new cables alongside the existing ones while maintaining the electricity supply.

Plus all this was done decades ago - there was always a caveat that the Government could buy the newer tunnel back if required but it's never been seen as financially viable to do so. As I said, it'd be cheaper to bore a new tunnel to modern dimensions than it would be to either open up the two closed Victorian ones or try to move all the high voltage lines through Woodhead 3 and reinstate it.

[SA_SA_SA]

I dont understand why the National grid were allowed to snaffle the good modern tunnel, those power lines are on pylons the rest (majority) of the way through that bit of the peak district, why bother, tunnel it all or not at all surely? Better to use modern nicer looking pylons the whole way than have a short tunnel and long chain of standard ones?

Because the two older tunnels were unsafe and there wasn't enough space in there to safely install new cables alongside the existing ones while maintaining the electricity supply....
- there was always a caveat that the Government could buy the newer tunnel back if required but it's never been seen as financially viable to do so. As I said, it'd be cheaper to bore a new tunnel to modern dimensions than it would be to either open up the two closed Victorian ones or try to move all the high voltage lines through Woodhead 3 and reinstate it.

You have misunderstood my post: I was suggesting that when the old tunnels wore out as they did, Nat Grid could just have strung the wires on normal outside pylons like the rest of the line, rather than use cables thru the modern tunnel (your Woodhead 3?) as they have already done.
That would have left the modern good condition tunnel for the TPT to use..

[Bmblbzzz]

The cables pre-date the trail. National Grid got there first. They made first dibs on that particular section of disused railway.