Woodheadcases

13 days after we posted this story, this week David Jones of the Glossop Chronicle has spilled the beans on the details of the vandalism proposed for the Woodhead Tunnel. National Grid have apparently been keeping Charlesworth Parish Council informed of their plans - and nobody else.

In the article, David Jones is eager to point out that the plans of National Grid will put beyond use any rail option, and especially that of Translink, an alternative to the bypass.

But the key here is the stated purpose of the Electricity lines:

The new power lines will connect Greater Manchester with Yorkshire to meet the rising demand for electricity from the conurbation from power stations.

Given this government's stated commitment to reducing CO2 emissions, fostering smaller-scale, local & sustainable power generation projects is the way forward, not a continued reliance on old-style projects. Despite Steven Knight-Gregson's comments that "we have to replace these cables - we can't switch the lights off in Manchester", National Grid's advocacy of dirty, unsustainable power will surely result in that outcome happening much sooner unless unrealistic expectations about energy consumption are discouraged and micro-generation is not developed much more widely.

We'd be interested to know if anyone can enlighten us whether or not the power stations David Jones mentions include Drax near Selby in Yorkshire, site of the 2006 Climate Camp - targeted because this power plant alone emits more CO2 than 103 small unindustrialised nations.

But the most absurd part of this article is reserved to the last. Knight-Gregson comments that any future railway could use the Victorian tunnels - that is rather than the purpose-built, relatively modern tunnel that they want to vandalise.

Say Goodbye to Woodhead?

Regular readers will be aware that we've written several times over the past few months about the plans that National Grid have to move high voltage cables into the 1954 tunnel at Woodhead, thereby ending any possible future use for the purposes it was built for - train travel and freight on the rails.

Over the past couple of months, things have got worse. In July, a variety of organisations joined with the Peak District National Park Authority to make representations about the threat posed by National Grid's intentions.

But by September, the Government had indicated it had no intention to intervene in the issue. Whilst this was reported and lamented over the other side of the Pennines, the local press over this side has been silent, until prompted by local campaigners. Indeed, the only other reference we can find to this issue locally is on Councillor McKeown's blog (upon which we blogged pointing out the contradictions inherent in the argument the Councillors put forward).

You don't have to be as cynical as we are to see how these delays have conveniently coincided with the Highways Agency's successful attempts to stall the Bypass Public Inquiry. The delays have meant that the timetable for the discussion of alternatives like the Translink proposal has been set further and further back. To those following the PI, it has been clear that the Inspector is keen to hear all about Translink, and he has made a lot of room for them.

But the clincher lies in National Grid's timetable for the planned legal vandalism. Whilst the PDNPA hint that the work will begin within the next 5 to 10 years, we have it on good authority that they are in fact due to start in February 2008. With the latest PI delays, there is no chance that the case for the alternatives will be held before then.

What is at stake in this veritable game of chess should not be underestimated. There is an already existing transpennine route that would require little comparable effort and expense to resurrect, utilising a comparatively environmentally friendly and sustainable mode of transport - which is badly needed. All of which is under threat from a multinational corporation whose only concern and responsibility is returning profits to shareholders. All of which is based on promoting the growth of unsustainable energy use.

We've already pointed out that the Government has indicated that it wants more roads and is indifferent about Rail. The High Peak MP, Tom Levitt, is busy attaching himself to a green energy project that's a drop in the ocean as to what's required to turn things around. But at the same time, he fully backs one massively environmentally damaging project (the Bypass) and remains silent about environmental vandalism (the closure of the Tunnel). What is accrued through this 'business as usual' approach is a huge pile of bullshit that the State is inclined paint bright green. But it still smells like bullshit to us.

There should be a huge head of steam built up around this issue (pardon the pun), not just here, but throughout the North West of England. But time is short. Bold action and initiatives are needed to prevent the destruction of a badly needed form of sustainable transport. Will we show willing? If you want to help, please get in touch. And watch this space for more news.

Having your cake and eating it

Older (or should that read 'weary'?) readers of this weblog will remember that amongst our first posts was an attempt to have a dialogue with a Glossop Councillor, Anthony McKeown, about High Peak Borough Council's decision to support the bypass. This fell flat on its face, largely because he refused to allow 'anonymous' comments on his blog (although that doesn't seem to have stopped certain Longdendale Councillors...).

But after months of tedious posts about things that are mostly only of interest to himself, he has now given us something to go on. Today, he reveals that HPBC are steamed up because the National Grid want to use the remaining accessible tunnel at Woodhead to carry electric cables, thereby putting it beyond other uses. His conclusion is that we should all support HPBC:

"...the proposals should not be supported and instead referred to the relevant government office where hopefully the proposals can be stopped or at (word missing Ant!) amended to prevent the loss of this potential future transport route"

How ironic. This is the same lot who fully support the bypass, and join TMBC in pouring scorn on existing alternative proposals to re-use the Woodhead railway line and tunnel to relieve Longdendale of HGVs. So how long do we have to wait for future use of the tunnel? Are HPBC and their councillors lobbying government for sustainable & environmentally friendly alternatives to more roads and more cars? If you've got a point of view, pop over to this post and leave a comment (and remember, any old name will do as long as it's not a nickname...)

Roy Oldham: Woodhead chameleon

Those against the Longdendale Bypass are fully aware that its successful completion will make the extension of the M67 motorway much more likely.

Yet it's a little known fact that our very own Roy Oldham was very much against the closure of the Woodhead railway line for the very same reason. And in 1980, Oldham spoke out publicly against the possibility of an extension of the M67 at a Public Inquiry into the closure of the line. It's recounted in Railroaded: Battle for the Woodhead Pass (ISBN 0-571-13909-4), a book by Simon Bain. Text from the passage that deals with Oldham is reproduced below (if you don't believe me, the pages can be viewed here):

On the final afternoon there was an unscheduled appearance by the Leader of Tameside Council, Roy Oldham. He said the GMC was looking at cutting its transport budget by £3.7 million because of government cuts, and the local rail services were an obvious target. But the whole of the Longdendale and west Manchester area naturally commuted west into the city, and without a good service the local road systems could not cope. Worse, the M67 constructed through Denton and Hyde 'led people to believe that it would be extended through Longdendale',

ROY OLDHAM: We have a situation where a major rail artery is about to be removed for ever, with a road construction company having built a bypass that points at it. All that will happen is that it will smash through villages and curve its way towards Sheffield. What is the sense of constructing a motorway when a modern railway links two industrial centres 30 miles apart, and replacing that with something that will destroy the environment and cost huge amounts of capital? We have a procession of bumper-to-bumper vehicles coming over from Sheffield, but many are loads like coal, which should be on the rail line, and our roads are cut to pieces with them.

Another website shows how the M67 may have proceeded through Longdendale.

So why the conversion? Others (ex TMBC Councillors) have spoken about Oldham's possible motives for his concern at that time, but what is clear is there's been a damascene conversion against the possibility of reopening Woodhead - the Translink proposal is shot down at every available opportunity by Oldham & Co, despite the fact that their much vaunted consultant's report which supposedly rubbished the proposal runs to 2 sides of A4 (and they paid nearly £24,000 for it! - you can have it for free here). Yes 2 sides - no supporting research, nothing. Let's hope they have something better for the PI!

The likely truth is they have their own plans. Oldham is the ex-Chair of Manchester Airport, and the Chair of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund (a TMBC owned body which invests heavily in the arms trade). Manchester Airport recently enrolled it's staff in the GMPF, and TMBC, as well as owning a stake of the Airport also underwrites the Airport's debt (along with other Greater Manchester Local Authorities). It suits the Airport & TMBC to have a trans-pennine route which can be upgraded to a motorway, and can carry as much freight as possible to and from the airport.

GMPF's investment portfolio may contain other nuggets of info related to the despoliation of our Valley, yet to be unearthed.

And another likely reason for rubbishing Translink? It envisages a depot near Hattersley, which is not very far where TMBC currently wants to build 800 houses...

Really not very much to do with relieving 3 villages of traffic.