Contact

8 Responses to Contact

1. Steven Tuck says:

   October 20, 2009 at 16:10

   Really impressed with this website it’s a great way to of sharing information. Well done! You’re definitely on the right track 🙂

   Sorry about that
2. admin says:

   October 27, 2009 at 15:04

   Thanks Steve for your comments
3. jon says:

   February 16, 2012 at 12:29

   good afternoon , just come across this website while looking for (SHRUG) website.

   this is a very useful website indeed.

   but i would also like to keep viewing (SHRUG) website as well , so can you tell me where its gone and could you provide it to me , i used to use the link via saddleworth online , but it seems to have disappeared. thank you for your time.
4. admin says:

   February 17, 2012 at 10:54

   There is no SHRUG website, but there used to be a page within Saddleworth online, which like you I have been unable to find. The community groups page in Saddleworth online is stated to be under construction, so maybe it will reappear.
5. Tim Millea says:

   April 2, 2012 at 19:34

   Firstly congratulations on this marvellous website and resource.

   I am interested in the ‘either-or’ view of electrification or re-opening the single-bore Standedge tunnels. The Manchester (now ‘Northern’) Hub report did not advocate electrification between Manchester and York but this has been rush-funded and the work is due to complete in December 2013. The time savings in the report are now being attributed to electrification rather than the re-opening of the two closed tunnels. It occurs to me that the time savings on average may be similar but may in fact be complimentary. The time saving with electric is light weight, faster acceleration and braking due to lower momentum and power available and absolute faster maximum speeds due to the lower loading on the track. The time saving with four tracks through Standedge is that, on average, of not having to wait on either the Stalybridge or Marsden loops for something faster but behind to pass or being stuck behind something slower because it didn’t wait.

   So my comment is the case for re-opening the tunnels stands regardless of electrification.
6. admin says:

   April 2, 2012 at 21:28

   At SMART we are not experts on railway operation. We are mere passengers. Hopefully reasonably well-informed passengers, but passengers all the same.

   So what we don’t know is just how much extra capacity is created by electrification alone, and how much by reopening of one or both of the disused tunnels.

   Apparently one of the disused tunnels is in quite good condition. The other, rather less so.

   At the SHRUG public meeting at Uppermill in January, the comment from Mark Barker of Northern Rail regarding electrification was that “effectively it flattens the hill”.

   However…….. our contention is that there should be sufficient capacity created to
   1. allow the extra express trains proposed
   2. allow a half hourly service calling at all local stations between Huddersfield and Stalybridge
   3. enable the reopening of stations at Golcar/Milnsbridge and at Diggle
   4. allow “open access” services such as that proposed between Leeds and London Euston via Huddersfield, Stalybridge and Stockport.
   5. cater for the anticipated growth in freight traffic.

   If insufficient capacity is created then some of these objectives conflict.

   Another reason to reopen at least one, and possibly both of the disused tunnels, is that it would no longer be necessary to close the line on Sundays throughout the Autumn each year for tunnel maintenance. Anything which gets rid of the appalling rail replacement buses (upon which I had the misfortune to travel yesterday) has to be a good thing.

   Finally, there’s a wonderful proposal reported by Dr Paul Salveson in his Illustrated Weekly Salvo no 44, dated 1st April 2012

   http://www.paulsalveson.org.uk/2012/04/01/illustrated-weekly-salvo-44/
   Network Rail tight-lipped on TransPennine ‘Barge-Train’ scheme
   Network Rail is neither confirming nor denying reports that a team has been established to develop a novel approach to ways of keeping TransPennine services running during the electrification of the route in the next few years. The biggest problem will be Standedge Tunnel, over three miles long, which will require a blockade of several weeks whilst catenary is installed through the double track bore. Diverting some services along the Calder Valley route is certainly possible but even with proposed investment in re-signalling, it will not be feasible for all TransPennine express services to be routed via Hebden Bridge. Re-opening the two disused single bores at Standedge has been ruled out on grounds of cost, but there is another tunnel, parallel to the railway, which is already operational. This is of course the original canal tunnel, opened in 2011. Network Rail planners are said to be examining the viability of constructing a ‘barge-train’ which will be capable of carrying a 3-car class 185 train through the canal tunnel, with connecting tracks at each end allowing for smooth interchange from rail to barge. “This is an ingenious adaptation of the train-ferry concept, which is common in many parts of the world” said an anonymous source.
7. Linda Houston says:

   August 10, 2018 at 13:02

   Will anything be done to make it easier to alight the trains at Marsden station? I find the trains very useful but have to jump off when I arrive at Marsden which is awkward when carrying shopping bags. The guard does give warnings to be careful, and get your parachutes ready now!…….so the rail company are aware of this .. but many elderly and disabled travellers cannot use the trains because of this simple problem.
   I hope something can be done before the winter weather, as I think you might have a health and safety issue.
8. admin says:

   August 10, 2018 at 19:27

   One of many things which we have been pointing out to Transpennine Express and to Network Rail.