Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
*** Do it the way works for you personally - [here]
 tomorrow - TravelWatch SouthWest
tomorrow - GWR meet the team - Westbury
19/10/2019 - MRUG meet and chat
21/10/2019 - Ticket booking test - BRI
23/10/2019 - GWR Customer Panel, Cardiff
26/10/2019 - Railfuture Branches and Groups
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
October 17, 2019, 12:08:17 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[166] St.Erth Park and Ride
[112] New Timetable Fares Issue - Bedwyn, Hungerford, Kintbury
[90] Railways and the Queen’s Speech
[88] Weather disruption caused in 2014, and how to prevent it happe...
[61] Portishead Line reopening for passengers - ongoing discussion
[38] Night Riviera Sleeper refurb
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
Author Topic: A new Severn tunnel - or other crossing?  (Read 2894 times)
Celestial
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 259


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: September 03, 2019, 12:17:22 pm »


Talking to someone who regularly travels to Bridgend from Bristol Parkway they said that in conversation with staff at BPW the staff are commenting that in the long run it might be cheaper to bore a second Severn Tunnel than to keep spending millions each year TRYING to maintain the present tunnel.

Going back to the comment that started it, I do wonder how much "in the know" staff at Bristol Parkway are as to the engineering challenges of the Severn Tunnel and possible alternatives, and as those comments have come third hand via a commuter to a member of the forum, (so we can't know the context in which they were made), I'm not sure I would pay much attention to them.
Logged
Oxonhutch
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 659



View Profile
« Reply #31 on: September 03, 2019, 02:54:02 pm »

Just looking up the geology of the Severn Tunnel which I am finding a bit scarce at the moment.  The big problem was/is the Great Spring and the huge volumes of fresh (not estuarine) water that it produces.  Off to the library tomorrow to consult some old tomes but if Stuving et al. has access to the Proceedings of the ICE, Haswell (1973), v. 54 (3), pp. 451-486 - https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep.1973.4855 might make an interesting read. A relatively modern HVAC power tunnel that might have been properly mapped. It had water problems too.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2019, 04:02:29 pm by Red Squirrel » Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4175


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: September 03, 2019, 06:23:54 pm »

Just looking up the geology of the Severn Tunnel which I am finding a bit scarce at the moment.  The big problem was/is the Great Spring and the huge volumes of fresh (not estuarine) water that it produces.  Off to the library tomorrow to consult some old tomes but if Stuving et al. has access to the Proceedings of the ICE, Haswell (1973), v. 54 (3), pp. 451-486 - https://doi.org/10.1680/iicep.1973.4855 might make an interesting read. A relatively modern HVAC power tunnel that might have been properly mapped. It had water problems too.

While the ICE are helpful only to students, it seems, I've found other things in the cyber-stuffheap. Like a short IEEE piece written in 1970 during the work - which strangely says nothing about springs. It does, however, lament that they (CEGB) were refused an overhead link at Sharpness on amenity grounds - "a somewhat surprising decision decision in view of the fact that a 275kV overhead crossing has existef for some years, and will continue to exist" (which of course it still does). That meant a four-year delay and a cost of £3.5M rather than £1.5M (1970 prices).

The two 400kV circuits in the tunnel were designed for a 2.6GVA rating but to be operated at half power initially. The big issue was cooling - they were to be put in PVC pipes and water-cooled via heat exchangers at the surface. Ironic that they are pumping 63 m3/hr of water out the tunnel, while struggling to get enough water down the pipes to cool the cables - apparently.

National Grid would like a new link along that route anyway, and in planning for Hinckley Point C will need several more new and uprated links locally. A (now rather old) report on that says a new cross-Severn link is needed just to reach 2.2GVA per circuit, and if new Hinckley feeds in via Aberthaw (one of the options, though discounted) even more. There are plans for new grid stations at Aust and Iron Acton, and possible Tockngton.

I wonder if they'd get approval for a new high-level Severn crossing if the cables hung off the pylons of a new railway bridge...
Logged
Oxonhutch
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 659



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2019, 08:37:34 am »

Back from a little trip down the library to pull some papers on the geology of the tunnel with a view to looking at a second bore under the estuary. The original report by Charles Richarson is available online for you to read: the University of Michigan’s long out of copyright reproduction of the Proceedings of the Bristol Naturalists’ Society of 1887 followed by Lloyd Morgan’s description of the geological section: pp. 82ff. Click on the page to turn over.

The coloured sections to which both articles importantly refer are missing from the archive scan, but not from the Bod’s copy from which I have reproduced below for your reference. Richardson’s paper is a fascinating to read. Raise your cap to the courage of diver Lambert who sealed off two devastating breaches – one with an experimental and novel diving suit – nerves of Victorian steel!

From the Haswell 1973 ICE paper on the HVAC tunnel, very similar problems with excessive water intake despite pre-treating the ground ahead of the face: in excess of 1000 gallons per minute continuously over the majority of the excavation (Figs 7 & 12 referenced and reproduced under private research fair use).

The Severn Valley is extensively faulted within variable but often hard Carboniferous and Triassic rocks – a nightmare for tunnelling even with modern methods. Compare that to the clay rich and impervious, but soft, chalk of the Lower Cretaceous in which the Channel Tunnel was bored and the equally workable Eocene London Clay of Crossrail.

All the geological information to hand points to a bridge or barrage if a second rail crossing is required.  Much easier to engineer and much cheaper too if I were to hazard a guess.
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2812



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2019, 03:16:40 pm »

A Severn barrage has long been proposed in order to generate electric power from tidal flows. If this could be combined with a new rail crossing, then the idea has considerable merit.

With pedestrian and cycle access it could become an attraction in its own right, for sightseeing, exercise and angling.
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1378


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 07, 2019, 08:57:14 am »

Two tidal barrages with railway atop. Railway on rising inclines from each shore, with a bridge in the centre of the channel.
A bridge in the centre? So not actually a barrage spanning the whole river? Interesting, would that generate much power and would it avoid the loss of mudflat habitats that a full barrage would cause?
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3335


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: September 07, 2019, 09:12:11 am »

Two tidal barrages with railway atop. Railway on rising inclines from each shore, with a bridge in the centre of the channel.
A bridge in the centre? So not actually a barrage spanning the whole river? Interesting, would that generate much power and would it avoid the loss of mudflat habitats that a full barrage would cause?

There was always intended to be a navigation channel through the Severn Barrage, IIRC it would have lock gates.  There would need to be a bridge over it.  That said a small gap in the barrage would still allow it to function as there is a very high tidal flow. 
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2812



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: September 07, 2019, 10:53:52 pm »

I doubt that a barrage with an opening in the middle would work.
The tidal flow through the opening would be vast and liable to scour away the riverbed under or near the foundations.
An opening closed by lock gates should be fine.

Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26740



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #38 on: September 14, 2019, 11:09:30 am »

Following discussions on the previous Severn Rail Bridge, I was interested to come across a BBC article at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-49675863 describing the "Solway Junction Railway: The ill-fated Scotland to England rail route" which included a long viaduct that proved the line's downfall.

Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
johnneyw
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1128


Still want to work on the railways when I grow up.


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: October 03, 2019, 05:42:34 pm »

From Gloucestershire Live.  It seems a bit fanciful to me.

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/another-bridge-over-river-severn-3389047

The article implies this can be looked at as a regional project although it is admitted that no one has any idea where the money would come from.
Logged

Railway rock n' roll rebel. I once bought a return ticket and didn't go back!
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page