• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

A303 Stonehenge tunnel works.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
Moderator note: split from this thread

Liverpool loses its UNESCO world heritage status | RailUK Forums (railforums.co.uk)


Predictably the Guardian reports that the same might happen with Stonehenge
The very logical argument of "removing the road which currently blots the landscape by building a tunnel will destroy Stonehenge". :rolleyes:
I wonder if 2000 lorries thundering* past every day is part of the WHS designation?


*In all likelihood they'll probably be crawling along at 30mph or so!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

eMeS

Member
Joined
12 Jun 2011
Messages
954
Location
Milton Keynes, UK
...

Predictably the Guardian reports that the same might happen with Stonehenge.
...
The problem at Stonehenge is that the proposed tunnel is a "cut and cover" design if the reports I've seen are correct. That's totally mad for a site such as Stonehenge where more archaeological items and their context could well be destroyed with that method of construction - time to use a tunnel boring machine at a depth well below that of any archaeology.
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
The problem at Stonehenge is that the proposed tunnel is a "cut and cover" design if the reports I've seen are correct. That's totally mad for a site such as Stonehenge where more archaeological items and their context could well be destroyed with that method of construction - time to use a tunnel boring machine at a depth well below that of any archaeology.
I thought it was going to be a bored tunnel?
 

eMeS

Member
Joined
12 Jun 2011
Messages
954
Location
Milton Keynes, UK
I thought it was going to be a bored tunnel?
That's what I thought, until reading the latest about it a few days ago when I think I saw that Grant Shapps had approved a cut and cover design. I hope I'm wrong, but ... (Sorry, can't remember my sources.)
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
The problem at Stonehenge is that the proposed tunnel is a "cut and cover" design if the reports I've seen are correct. That's totally mad for a site such as Stonehenge where more archaeological items and their context could well be destroyed with that method of construction - time to use a tunnel boring machine at a depth well below that of any archaeology.
Not buying this at all. If they are digging they will find the archeology rather than it being unfound.
And they are just fields, they aren’t demolishing buildings! It’s a waste of huge amounts of money to build such a long tunnel.
As for Liverpool, from the other side of the Mersey the new buildings to the east of the three graces are jarringly minging, but replacing a near abandoned dock with a spectacular football stadium should be encouraged.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,640
https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/a303-stonehenge/fact-checker/ - Myth #2
During the main construction, the only equipment (above ground) in the World Heritage Site will be at the tunnel entrances and cuttings – about ¾ mile away to the east, and a mile to the west.
To me that sounds like a bored tunnel rather than cut-and-cover. You’d hope Highways England would have the correct information on their website.
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/a303-stonehenge/fact-checker/ - Myth #2

To me that sounds like a bored tunnel rather than cut-and-cover. You’d hope Highways England would have the correct information on their website.
This picture from Myth 1 on the website indicates a bored tunnel:
1627134937110.png

Then there's this on a different page:
twin bore tunnel


The twin-bore tunnel will be around two miles long, passing more than 200 metres to the south of Stonehenge at its closest point, further away than the existing road.
The tunnels also look bored in the "drive-through" videos available on Highways England's website.

Perhaps the confusion is caused by artists' impressions like this (which I think is the western tunnel entrance), which looks rather more like a cut-and-cover tunnel?
1627135188468.png
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/a303-stonehenge/fact-checker/ - Myth #2

To me that sounds like a bored tunnel rather than cut-and-cover. You’d hope Highways England would have the correct information on their website.
40m down would be a serious cut and cover!
It will be a shame to lose the sight of the stones - it’s like a gateway that you are off the seaside
Though they always seem much smaller than I expect, and they were mucked around with significantly by the Victorians weren’t they?
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
As I understand it, it is a combination of both. In total its a 2.9km tunnel, 85m at the eastern end and 200m at the western end will be cut and cover with the rest bored up to a maximum depth of 40m


 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,265
I expect there’s a cut and cover transition at either end, rather than having a huge flat wall portal structure visible where the bored tunnels start.

Looking at the Hindhead tunnels as a comparison, there’ll probably have to be some sort of services and control buildings, in this case that’s likely to be hidden at one end or both, as well.
 
Last edited:

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
As I understand it, it is a combination of both. In total its a 2.9km tunnel, 85m at the eastern end and 200m at the western end will be cut and cover with the rest bored up to a maximum depth of 40m


That would explain the artists' impression I posted earlier showing cut-and-cover then! :D

I expect there’s a cut and cover transition at either end, rather than having a huge flat wall portal structure visible where the bored tunnels start.
Probably. Though personally I quite like the look of Hindhead (which I'm pretty sure was bored), Monmouth (probably bored) and Baldock (cut-and-cover, I believe).
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Dresden lost WHS when a new road + bridge were built, there were warnings but the road + bridge were built anyway, disgraceful.

Predictably the Guardian reports that the same might happen with Stonehenge.

High time to stop This Madness (road building).

Isn't the plan with stone henge to put the road in a tunnel so that it doesn't spoil the ambience of the place ?
 

LSWR Cavalier

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Messages
1,565
Location
Leafy Suburbia
Isn't the plan with stone henge to put the road in a tunnel so that it doesn't spoil the ambience of the place ?
I think a tunnel is planned with access roads and the like, encouraging yet more traffic, could really be a plus minus situation.

I think the outside influence of UNESCO is good, a counterweight to decisions and influence of government and british establishment.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I think a tunnel is planned with access roads and the like, encouraging yet more traffic, could really be a plus minus situation.

I think the outside influence of UNESCO is good, a counterweight to decisions and influence of government and british establishment.

Maybe.

But I think in this case, putting the existing road in a tunnel would improve the place to be honest.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
I think a tunnel is planned with access roads and the like, encouraging yet more traffic, could really be a plus minus situation.

I think the outside influence of UNESCO is good, a counterweight to decisions and influence of government and british establishment.
If doing something that will protect a historical site (such as removing a major trunk road from the immediate environment) will remove the UNESCO designation, then that designation is clearly not fit for purpose. Yes, there's the argument that improving the A303 will increase traffic, but that's really a separate issue from the UNESCO status.

As I said in the Liverpool thread, there are places that don't need WHS designation to bring in tourists because they were famous worldwide before UNESCO was even a thing. Stonehenge falls into that category for me, everyone already knows it exists so having World Heritage Site designation doesn't really add anything.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
If doing something that will protect a historical site (such as removing a major trunk road from the immediate environment) will remove the UNESCO designation, then that designation is clearly not fit for purpose. Yes, there's the argument that improving the A303 will increase traffic, but that's really a separate issue from the UNESCO status.

Indeed.

One has to wonder what UNESCO's motivations are in this. Perhaps its machinations need to be more heavily scrutinised.
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
If doing something that will protect a historical site
You clearly aren't keeping up: the tunnel will completely destroy the site and be the end of the world.
(Well, according to the Stonehenge Alliance and similar anti groups.)

If the tunnel will cause such destruction etc blah blah blah, why do English Heritage and the National Trust and other such bodies support it?* Though admittedly they'd prefer a longer tunnel.

*The common argument used by the antis is that people on the road will no longer be able to see the stones for free, so these bodies will make more money. Except that argument conveniently ignores the fact that the existing A303 will be repurposed into a "green highway", basically a footpath, so if anything it will be even easier to see the stones without paying!
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,352
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
The tunnel or other well disguised diversionary route has been needed for decades. I'm just glad it's finally happening, maybe with this and some other improvements the A303 will finally become a reasonable delay-free route between London and the West country. If people want to see Stonehenge for free they can stop off and use the repurposed route on foot. I really don't understand UNESCO and the Stonehenge Alliance's point of view here.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
*The common argument used by the antis is that people on the road will no longer be able to see the stones for free, so these bodies will make more money. Except that argument conveniently ignores the fact that the existing A303 will be repurposed into a "green highway", basically a footpath, so if anything it will be even easier to see the stones without paying!
Good. I've lost count of the near-misses I've seen on that stretch, probably caused by Fred and Mavis looking at the stones instead of the road!
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
The tunnel or other well disguised diversionary route has been needed for decades. I'm just glad it's finally happening, maybe with this and some other improvements the A303 will finally become a reasonable delay-free route between London and the West country. If people want to see Stonehenge for free they can stop off and use the repurposed route on foot. I really don't understand UNESCO and the Stonehenge Alliance's point of view here.
Indeed.
It's worth pointing out that many opponents to the current scheme (mainly those who are generally in favour of road schemes but think this one is too expensive (perhaps mistakenly assuming that Stonehenge is sucking up all the money so there's none left for their preferred local improvement project!)) think that instead of a tunnel, "they" should just build a fence between the stones and the current road, then slap down another carriageway next to the existing one. Which will definitely improve the ambience of the site... :rolleyes:

Good. I've lost count of the near-misses I've seen on that stretch, probably caused by Fred and Mavis looking at the stones instead of the road!
I think that is one of the main problems along the stretch - as well as the high traffic flow (around 26000 AADT before coronavirus, which is far in excess of what a single carriageway should be handling), quite a few people slow down to look at the stones, which combined cause most of the traffic issues.
 

BayPaul

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2019
Messages
1,219
I think a tunnel is planned with access roads and the like, encouraging yet more traffic, could really be a plus minus situation.

I think the outside influence of UNESCO is good, a counterweight to decisions and influence of government and british establishment.
Far from it - access roads are being removed as well. The various design reports are well-worth reading, it is very clear that restoring the prehistoric landscape is the first priority and where most of the money is being spent. Even the open sections have green bridges to provide better connectivity across the World Heritage Site for footpaths / bridleways. Yes There will be more traffic on the A303, but it will all be well away from Stonehenge (i.e. below it!). As someone who uses the road regularly, I'll also miss the view, but it needs to happen, more for the benefit of the landscape than for traffic relief.
 

75A

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2021
Messages
1,356
Location
Ireland (ex Brighton 75A)
Not buying this at all. If they are digging they will find the archeology rather than it being unfound.
And they are just fields, they aren’t demolishing buildings! It’s a waste of huge amounts of money to build such a long tunnel.
As for Liverpool, from the other side of the Mersey the new buildings to the east of the three graces are jarringly minging, but replacing a near abandoned dock with a spectacular football stadium should be encouraged.
Why does a City the size of Liverpool (Manchester / Sheffield / Bristol etc) require more than one spectacular football stadium? they manage ok in Milan with just one.
Then there's that White Elephant called Wembley that is rarely used.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Why does a City the size of Liverpool (Manchester / Sheffield / Bristol etc) require more than one spectacular football stadium? they manage ok in Milan with just one.
Then there's that White Elephant called Wembley that is rarely used.

It's not just about football stadiums, it's about cities being living, breathing, evolving places for people and not historical monuments. UNESCO have proven themselves to have lost relevance with the Liverpool debacle. I'd be the first to shout if they were going to flatten the Liver Buildings, but it's not that, it's a rotting, tumbledown dock. Sure, you could convert it to like the Albert Dock, but as that exists as a monument of dockland gone by what's the point?

I don't particularly care about football, but the new stadium will be a great addition to the riverfront.

I support the A303 tunnel, though if feasible they might want to make it a little longer to avoid some of the potentially interesting unexcavated areas - or indeed make an archaeological dig part of the project.
 

75A

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2021
Messages
1,356
Location
Ireland (ex Brighton 75A)
It's not just about football stadiums, it's about cities being living, breathing, evolving places for people and not historical monuments. UNESCO have proven themselves to have lost relevance with the Liverpool debacle.

I don't particularly care about football, but the new stadium will be a great addition to the riverfront.
Why?
what's wrong with the other one?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Why?
what's wrong with the other one?

It's replacing Goodison Park which is too small and in an awkward residential location. The situation is very similar to Maine Road moving to Eastlands in Manchester. (And Manchester of course has two main stadia, too).

Because Stonehenge isn't a city the arguments aren't quite the same, but tunnelling under it seems quite reasonable to me, indeed it'll mean less blight from traffic, not more.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,024
Location
West Wiltshire
As I understand it, it is a combination of both. In total its a 2.9km tunnel, 85m at the eastern end and 200m at the western end will be cut and cover with the rest bored up to a maximum depth of 40m

That’s normal as TBMs cannot bore tunnel ramps, they need a minimum depth of overburden.

I thought the arguments were about these end sections and if they are far enough away. Plus of course you need to dig the cut and cover, and store some material then bring it back on the concrete roof which is disruptive and means temporary spoil heaps.
 
Last edited:

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
2,728
You don’t get a choice any more do you?
No, there are two years of archaeological digs planned before any construction starts. And presumably more if they find anything substantial
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
BBC News - Stonehenge tunnel campaigners win court battle
Campaigners have won a court battle to prevent the "scandalous" construction of a road tunnel near Stonehenge.
Sorry, I can't copy more as I'm using my phone.

It appears that the tunnel project will now be halted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top