I raised a point with the MKP transport people today re progress and
costings. Now that the proposed number of trains per hour through the
single track Wolvercote tunnel has increased so dramatically and with
the proposal for freight how could they cope? The response was that it
is believed that by dropping the track 300mm and concrete slabbing (&
possibly reduced line speed?) then clearance/doubling could be
provided. This would save a substantial cost and the time of reboring.
It is felt that this work should be done prior to the opening of the
consortium level of service to avoid subsequent closure to enable
possible inter-regional freight and Cross-Country passenger services
to commence at a later date. With Chiltern Railways (German Railways!)
contribution to the infrastructure costs and the proposed  house
building tariff now being finalised they believe that the finance will
not be a major problem.
Regards, JohnG

On Sep 25, 2:36 pm, JohnG  wrote:
> I raised a point with the MKP transport people today re progress and
> costings. Now that the proposed number of trains per hour through the
> single track Wolvercote tunnel has increased so dramatically and with
> the proposal for freight how could they cope? The response was that it
> is believed that by dropping the track 300mm and concrete slabbing (&
> possibly reduced line speed?) then clearance/doubling could be
> provided. This would save a substantial cost and the time of reboring.
> It is felt that this work should be done prior to the opening of the
> consortium level of service to avoid subsequent closure to enable
> possible inter-regional freight and Cross-Country passenger services
> to commence at a later date. With Chiltern Railways (German Railways!)
> contribution to the infrastructure costs and the proposed  house
> building tariff now being finalised they believe that the finance will
> not be a major problem.

Great news, thanks for reporting.

"1506"  wrote in message 
news:64870e64-3e32-43ef-99f0-5c06c74ff40c@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 25, 2:36 pm, JohnG  wrote:
> I raised a point with the MKP transport people today re progress and
> costings. Now that the proposed number of trains per hour through the
> single track Wolvercote tunnel has increased so dramatically and with
> the proposal for freight how could they cope? The response was that it
> is believed that by dropping the track 300mm and concrete slabbing (&
> possibly reduced line speed?) then clearance/doubling could be
> provided. This would save a substantial cost and the time of reboring.
> It is felt that this work should be done prior to the opening of the
> consortium level of service to avoid subsequent closure to enable
> possible inter-regional freight and Cross-Country passenger services
> to commence at a later date. With Chiltern Railways (German Railways!)
> contribution to the infrastructure costs and the proposed house
> building tariff now being finalised they believe that the finance will
> not be a major problem.

> Great news, thanks for reporting.

I guess they assume large scale house building in the area will start again 
some time soon...

Paul

On Sep 25, 10:36 pm, JohnG  wrote:
> I raised a point with the MKP transport people today re progress and
> costings. Now that the proposed number of trains per hour through the
> single track Wolvercote tunnel has increased so dramatically and with
> the proposal for freight how could they cope? The response was that it
> is believed that by dropping the track 300mm and concrete slabbing (&
> possibly reduced line speed?) then clearance/doubling could be
> provided. This would save a substantial cost and the time of reboring.
> It is felt that this work should be done prior to the opening of the
> consortium level of service to avoid subsequent closure to enable
> possible inter-regional freight and Cross-Country passenger services
> to commence at a later date. With Chiltern Railways (German Railways!)
> contribution to the infrastructure costs and the proposed  house
> building tariff now being finalised they believe that the finance will
> not be a major problem.
> Regards, JohnG

I thought the route was historically double track. Was this tunnel
always single?

Andy

On Sep 25, 11:36 pm, JohnG  wrote:
> I raised a point with the MKP transport people today re progress and
> costings. Now that the proposed number of trains per hour through the
> single track Wolvercote tunnel has increased so dramatically and with
> the proposal for freight how could they cope? The response was that it
> is believed that by dropping the track 300mm and concrete slabbing (&
> possibly reduced line speed?) then clearance/doubling could be
> provided. This would save a substantial cost and the time of reboring.
> It is felt that this work should be done prior to the opening of the
> consortium level of service to avoid subsequent closure to enable
> possible inter-regional freight and Cross-Country passenger services
> to commence at a later date. With Chiltern Railways (German Railways!)
> contribution to the infrastructure costs and the proposed  house
> building tariff now being finalised they believe that the finance will
> not be a major problem.
> Regards, JohnG

I don't remember any tunnel on the Oxford - Bletchley line in the old
days - but you clearly know what you are on about.

Is it just my memory playing up, or is this some new "tunnel" created
by a motorway or something ?

And in answer to somone's question below, yes, it was double track
throughout up to 67. There again, maybe the brain box has got that
wrong too.

Anyway, anything to have standing room only in 125 mph Desirots filled
with dons travelling between Oxford and Cambridge (and on to Bury St
Edmunds) within the next decade.

(Just in case Mr Polson is reading this.)
:)

Kester

Andy Kirkham  wrote:

>On Sep 25, 10:36 pm, JohnG  wrote:
>> I raised a point with the MKP transport people today re progress and
>> costings. Now that the proposed number of trains per hour through the
>> single track Wolvercote tunnel has increased so dramatically and with
>> the proposal for freight how could they cope? The response was that it
>> is believed that by dropping the track 300mm and concrete slabbing (&
>> possibly reduced line speed?) then clearance/doubling could be
>> provided. This would save a substantial cost and the time of reboring.
>> It is felt that this work should be done prior to the opening of the
>> consortium level of service to avoid subsequent closure to enable
>> possible inter-regional freight and Cross-Country passenger services
>> to commence at a later date. With Chiltern Railways (German Railways!)
>> contribution to the infrastructure costs and the proposed  house
>> building tariff now being finalised they believe that the finance will
>> not be a major problem.
>> Regards, JohnG
>
>I thought the route was historically double track. Was this tunnel
>always single?


I thought it might be useful to show the location of this tunnel,
which might help to give an indication of why its reconstruction might
be quite an expensive undertaking:

http://tinyurl.com/46svy3

"Andy Kirkham"  wrote
>
>I thought the route was historically double track. Was this tunnel
>always single?

A 1968 OS map shows it as double track up to the tunnel mouths, so I presume
that it was double track through the tunnel. If the track has been slewed
into the middle of the formation it might look as though there's no room to
redouble, and, as JohnG suggests, it might be necessary to lower the invert
and install slab track to meet current standards.

Peter

Kesterj  wrote:
>
>Anyway, anything to have standing room only in 125 mph Desirots filled
>with dons travelling between Oxford and Cambridge (and on to Bury St
>Edmunds) within the next decade.
>
>(Just in case Mr Polson is reading this.)


You can dream as much as you like.  There's no law against it.  ;-)

"Kesterj"  wrote in message 
news:433d17ed-587b-4b5d-8dd3-267edad8c9c0@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 25, 11:36 pm, JohnG  wrote:
> I raised a point with the MKP transport people today re progress and
> costings. Now that the proposed number of trains per hour through the
> single track Wolvercote tunnel has increased so dramatically and with
> the proposal for freight how could they cope? The response was that it
> is believed that by dropping the track 300mm and concrete slabbing (&
> possibly reduced line speed?) then clearance/doubling could be
> provided. This would save a substantial cost and the time of reboring.
> It is felt that this work should be done prior to the opening of the
> consortium level of service to avoid subsequent closure to enable
> possible inter-regional freight and Cross-Country passenger services
> to commence at a later date. With Chiltern Railways (German Railways!)
> contribution to the infrastructure costs and the proposed house
> building tariff now being finalised they believe that the finance will
> not be a major problem.
> Regards, JohnG

> I don't remember any tunnel on the Oxford - Bletchley line in the old
> days - but you clearly know what you are on about.

> Is it just my memory playing up, or is this some new "tunnel" created
> by a motorway or something ?

Looking at an old OS map (1925-45 ish), it may possibly have just seemed 
like a slightly longer than average road underbridge,  it passed diagonally 
under a staggered cross roads where a minor road to Wolvercote joined the 
Woodstock Rd; however it was described by OS then as a tunnel.

The successor to that minor junction is a fairly major roundabout  on the 
A40 bypass, connecting via the A44 dual carriageway with the A34 ring road. 
Does that probably date the current tunnel to the late 60s or early 70s?

Paul

"Paul Scott"  wrote:

>
>"Kesterj"  wrote in message 
>news:433d17ed-587b-4b5d-8dd3-267edad8c9c0@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>On Sep 25, 11:36 pm, JohnG  wrote:
>> I raised a point with the MKP transport people today re progress and
>> costings. Now that the proposed number of trains per hour through the
>> single track Wolvercote tunnel has increased so dramatically and with
>> the proposal for freight how could they cope? The response was that it
>> is believed that by dropping the track 300mm and concrete slabbing (&
>> possibly reduced line speed?) then clearance/doubling could be
>> provided. This would save a substantial cost and the time of reboring.
>> It is felt that this work should be done prior to the opening of the
>> consortium level of service to avoid subsequent closure to enable
>> possible inter-regional freight and Cross-Country passenger services
>> to commence at a later date. With Chiltern Railways (German Railways!)
>> contribution to the infrastructure costs and the proposed house
>> building tariff now being finalised they believe that the finance will
>> not be a major problem.
>> Regards, JohnG
>
>> I don't remember any tunnel on the Oxford - Bletchley line in the old
>> days - but you clearly know what you are on about.
>
>> Is it just my memory playing up, or is this some new "tunnel" created
>> by a motorway or something ?
>
>Looking at an old OS map (1925-45 ish), it may possibly have just seemed 
>like a slightly longer than average road underbridge,  it passed diagonally 
>under a staggered cross roads where a minor road to Wolvercote joined the 
>Woodstock Rd; however it was described by OS then as a tunnel.
>
>The successor to that minor junction is a fairly major roundabout  on the 
>A40 bypass, connecting via the A44 dual carriageway with the A34 ring road. 
>Does that probably date the current tunnel to the late 60s or early 70s?



Yes, it probably does.  I went to have a look at it today.  It is a
cut and cover structure with a flat base slab and straight, vertical
walls, but strangely it has an arch roof that springs from the walls
at quite a low level.  

I couldn't find a way of getting close enough to the portal to judge
dimensions, but I would guess that there is just enough width between
the walls for double track plus the necessary clearances.  The problem
is likely to come at the shoulders, where the arch presents a problem.

Possibly double track could work for passenger trains, but designating
the route for the larger shipping containers (W10 gauge) may mean that
only a single, central track could be accommodated.

The idea of constructing a new base slab and lowering the track could
work, but it would be extremely expensive and probably very disruptive
to traffic on what is one of Oxford's busiest major road junctions.  I
would imagine that the rail service to Bicester would almost certainly
have to stop while the work was done, taking at least a few months.

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:v4jqd4pts65qrv4qv3faqj17795vrhkgbi@4ax.com...
> "Paul Scott"  wrote:

>>Looking at an old OS map (1925-45 ish), it may possibly have just seemed
>>like a slightly longer than average road underbridge,  it passed 
>>diagonally
>>under a staggered cross roads where a minor road to Wolvercote joined the
>>Woodstock Rd; however it was described by OS then as a tunnel.
>>
>>The successor to that minor junction is a fairly major roundabout  on the
>>A40 bypass, connecting via the A44 dual carriageway with the A34 ring 
>>road.
>>Does that probably date the current tunnel to the late 60s or early 70s?

> Yes, it probably does.  I went to have a look at it today.  It is a
> cut and cover structure with a flat base slab and straight, vertical
> walls, but strangely it has an arch roof that springs from the walls
> at quite a low level.
>
> I couldn't find a way of getting close enough to the portal to judge
> dimensions, but I would guess that there is just enough width between
> the walls for double track plus the necessary clearances.  The problem
> is likely to come at the shoulders, where the arch presents a problem.
>
> Possibly double track could work for passenger trains, but designating
> the route for the larger shipping containers (W10 gauge) may mean that
> only a single, central track could be accommodated.
>
> The idea of constructing a new base slab and lowering the track could
> work, but it would be extremely expensive and probably very disruptive
> to traffic on what is one of Oxford's busiest major road junctions.  I
> would imagine that the rail service to Bicester would almost certainly
> have to stop while the work was done, taking at least a few months.

I wonder if the original structure is in the middle somewhere, and they've 
just extended at either end with new work?

Paul

"Paul Scott"  wrote:

>
>"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
>news:v4jqd4pts65qrv4qv3faqj17795vrhkgbi@4ax.com...
>> "Paul Scott"  wrote:
>
>>>Looking at an old OS map (1925-45 ish), it may possibly have just seemed
>>>like a slightly longer than average road underbridge,  it passed 
>>>diagonally
>>>under a staggered cross roads where a minor road to Wolvercote joined the
>>>Woodstock Rd; however it was described by OS then as a tunnel.
>>>
>>>The successor to that minor junction is a fairly major roundabout  on the
>>>A40 bypass, connecting via the A44 dual carriageway with the A34 ring 
>>>road.
>>>Does that probably date the current tunnel to the late 60s or early 70s?
>
>> Yes, it probably does.  I went to have a look at it today.  It is a
>> cut and cover structure with a flat base slab and straight, vertical
>> walls, but strangely it has an arch roof that springs from the walls
>> at quite a low level.
>>
>> I couldn't find a way of getting close enough to the portal to judge
>> dimensions, but I would guess that there is just enough width between
>> the walls for double track plus the necessary clearances.  The problem
>> is likely to come at the shoulders, where the arch presents a problem.
>>
>> Possibly double track could work for passenger trains, but designating
>> the route for the larger shipping containers (W10 gauge) may mean that
>> only a single, central track could be accommodated.
>>
>> The idea of constructing a new base slab and lowering the track could
>> work, but it would be extremely expensive and probably very disruptive
>> to traffic on what is one of Oxford's busiest major road junctions.  I
>> would imagine that the rail service to Bicester would almost certainly
>> have to stop while the work was done, taking at least a few months.
>
>I wonder if the original structure is in the middle somewhere, and they've 
>just extended at either end with new work?


I don't think so.  I could see all the way through the tunnel, and the
flat, vertical concrete walls were continuous.

I suspect that there was originally a bridge, or perhaps two bridges,
but rising levels of traffic dictated that a roundabout was needed,
and a cut and cover tunnel under that roundabout was the solution
chosen.

"Paul Scott"  wrote:
>
>I wonder if the original structure is in the middle somewhere, and they've 
>just extended at either end with new work?


On second thoughts ...

I have uploaded a picture, here:
http://www.pbase.com/docnews/image/103685708

I wonder if the arch shown was the original structure?

On 2008-09-26 13:00:07 +0100, Tony Polson  said:

> Andy Kirkham  wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 25, 10:36 pm, JohnG  wrote:
>>> I raised a point with the MKP transport people today re progress and
>>> costings. Now that the proposed number of trains per hour through the
>>> single track Wolvercote tunnel has increased so dramatically and with
>>> the proposal for freight how could they cope? The response was that it
>>> is believed that by dropping the track 300mm and concrete slabbing (&
>>> possibly reduced line speed?) then clearance/doubling could be
>>> provided. This would save a substantial cost and the time of reboring.
>>> It is felt that this work should be done prior to the opening of the
>>> consortium level of service to avoid subsequent closure to enable
>>> possible inter-regional freight and Cross-Country passenger services
>>> to commence at a later date. With Chiltern Railways (German Railways!)
>>> contribution to the infrastructure costs and the proposed  house
>>> building tariff now being finalised they believe that the finance will
>>> not be a major problem.
>>> Regards, JohnG
>> 
>> I thought the route was historically double track. Was this tunnel
>> always single?
> 
> 
> I thought it might be useful to show the location of this tunnel,
> which might help to give an indication of why its reconstruction might
> be quite an expensive undertaking:
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/46svy3

Ah! In this particular case getting large freight trains under the 
roundabout should be easy. Conveniently the tunnel is near the entrance 
to another, parallel, world and the trains could be re-routed that way 
and back into this world at the other end of the tunnel.

See Chapter 1 of "The Subtle Knife" by Philip Pullman, being the 2nd 
book of the "His Dark Materials" series .


Robert

Robert  wrote:

>On 2008-09-26 13:00:07 +0100, Tony Polson  said:
>
>> Andy Kirkham  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sep 25, 10:36 pm, JohnG  wrote:
>>>> I raised a point with the MKP transport people today re progress and
>>>> costings. Now that the proposed number of trains per hour through the
>>>> single track Wolvercote tunnel has increased so dramatically and with
>>>> the proposal for freight how could they cope? The response was that it
>>>> is believed that by dropping the track 300mm and concrete slabbing (&
>>>> possibly reduced line speed?) then clearance/doubling could be
>>>> provided. This would save a substantial cost and the time of reboring.
>>>> It is felt that this work should be done prior to the opening of the
>>>> consortium level of service to avoid subsequent closure to enable
>>>> possible inter-regional freight and Cross-Country passenger services
>>>> to commence at a later date. With Chiltern Railways (German Railways!)
>>>> contribution to the infrastructure costs and the proposed  house
>>>> building tariff now being finalised they believe that the finance will
>>>> not be a major problem.
>>>> Regards, JohnG
>>> 
>>> I thought the route was historically double track. Was this tunnel
>>> always single?
>> 
>> 
>> I thought it might be useful to show the location of this tunnel,
>> which might help to give an indication of why its reconstruction might
>> be quite an expensive undertaking:
>> 
>> http://tinyurl.com/46svy3
>
>Ah! In this particular case getting large freight trains under the 
>roundabout should be easy. Conveniently the tunnel is near the entrance 
>to another, parallel, world and the trains could be re-routed that way 
>and back into this world at the other end of the tunnel.
>
>See Chapter 1 of "The Subtle Knife" by Philip Pullman, being the 2nd 
>book of the "His Dark Materials" series .


So "Wolvercote Tunnel" is actually "Wormhole Tunnel"?

I think I see what you mean ...

In message <2008092713345816807-coppercapped@googlemailcom>, Robert 
 writes
>On 2008-09-26 13:00:07 +0100, Tony Polson  said:
>> Andy Kirkham  wrote:
>>> On Sep 25, 10:36 pm, JohnG  wrote:

>>>> Now that the proposed number of trains per hour through the
>>>> single track Wolvercote tunnel has increased so dramatically and with
>>>> the proposal for freight how could they cope?

>>>  I thought the route was historically double track. Was this tunnel
>>> always single?

>>   I thought it might be useful to show the location of this tunnel,
>> which might help to give an indication of why its reconstruction might
>> be quite an expensive undertaking:
>>  http://tinyurl.com/46svy3
>
>Ah! In this particular case getting large freight trains under the 
>roundabout should be easy. Conveniently the tunnel is near the entrance 
>to another, parallel, world and the trains could be re-routed that way 
>and back into this world at the other end of the tunnel.

Or perhaps, with JRR Tolkien buried just across the road, they could use 
the Paths of the Dead as an under-pass.
-- 
Goalie of the Century

On Sep 26, 11:59 pm, Tony Polson  wrote:
> "Paul Scott"  wrote:
>
> >I wonder if the original structure is in the middle somewhere, and they've
> >just extended at either end with new work?
>
> On second thoughts ...
>
> I have uploaded a picture, here:http://www.pbase.com/docnews/image/103685708
>
> I wonder if the arch shown was the original structure?  

Ah, thanks to those above for explanations and photo.

Looks very short -no wonder I don't recall it as a tunnel - and
designed originally for double track.
Kester

Kesterj  wrote:

>On Sep 26, 11:59 pm, Tony Polson  wrote:
>> "Paul Scott"  wrote:
>>
>> >I wonder if the original structure is in the middle somewhere, and they've
>> >just extended at either end with new work?
>>
>> On second thoughts ...
>>
>> I have uploaded a picture, here:http://www.pbase.com/docnews/image/103685708
>>
>> I wonder if the arch shown was the original structure?  
>
>Ah, thanks to those above for explanations and photo.


You're welcome.


>Looks very short -no wonder I don't recall it as a tunnel - and
>designed originally for double track.


I'm going to try and find out a little more about its history, and
especially the history of the road junction above which, I feel sure,
will have had considerable influence on the choice and design of the
tunnel.

On 2008-09-27 17:15:50 +0100, Goalie of the Century  said:

> In message <2008092713345816807-coppercapped@googlemailcom>, Robert 
>  writes
>> On 2008-09-26 13:00:07 +0100, Tony Polson  said:
>>> Andy Kirkham  wrote:
>>>> On Sep 25, 10:36 pm, JohnG  wrote:
> 
>>>>> Now that the proposed number of trains per hour through the
>>>>> single track Wolvercote tunnel has increased so dramatically and with
>>>>> the proposal for freight how could they cope?
> 
>>>>  I thought the route was historically double track. Was this tunnel
>>>> always single?
> 
>>>   I thought it might be useful to show the location of this tunnel,
>>> which might help to give an indication of why its reconstruction might
>>> be quite an expensive undertaking:
>>>  http://tinyurl.com/46svy3
>> 
>> Ah! In this particular case getting large freight trains under the 
>> roundabout should be easy. Conveniently the tunnel is near the entrance 
>> to another, parallel, world and the trains could be re-routed that way 
>> and back into this world at the other end of the tunnel.
> 
> Or perhaps, with JRR Tolkien buried just across the road, they could 
> use the Paths of the Dead as an under-pass.

Careful! The Str*****c R*****e is hidden down there!

Robert