Here's one for the 'Night of fear'. Who remembers the Fiery Jack Tunnel? If you're not sure, it ran from near Bridgehouses to just beyond theWicker Arches, between Spital Hill and Saville Street. It was one of the really big 'dares' to go down this when I was a kid (late 60's).

The story is that during the late 19th century (or early 20th) a passenger train caught fire in it. Furthermore, a large number of people roasted (or choked) to death in it and their ghosts haunted the place from that day to this. A most 'fiery' demise, indeed. Scary, huh.

The questions are: Does anybody know if it is true? Did you go down there and come out with soiled underwear? Was it better to trust your luck than getting beat up by the 'big boy' who told you to go in?

Finally, an ex-pat is interested to know if you can still get in it. Go on, go out and have a look for me. It was bricked up at the Wicker end in my time (nineteen sixty summ'at) but the Brigehouses end was open.

So, if you've got nothing to do this hallowe'en, go frighten yourself in a tunnel.

SuperCol
I used to play in the Fiery Jack during the 50's and heard similar stories/legends to you.
The truth is, the tunnel was built to link the old Midland railway with what became the Great Central Railway. No one was roasted to death or otherwise in it during the blitz although it was used as a shelter. However several men were killed when it was being built (1850's) after falling through the roof working above it on Spital Hill.
Several people were killed on the footpath that went under the Wicker Arches nearest to the fiery jack by the bomb that went through the viaduct, (this also was used as a shelter) the repairs can still be seen. This may be the source of the story. The name Fiery Jack comes from the engines that moved goods between the two companies slipping on the steep incline and having to use more power resulting in more smoke and steam, very dramatic I think.
Hope this helps
Siren

Thanks for the info, Siren.

I can now see why it was called 'Fiery Jack'. With fire in the loco's boiler fully stoked up there must have been a shower of sparks bursting out of the chimney, not to mention the bright orange glow from the footplate. It must have been hellish in there. Very dramatic, indeed.

Still it was very scary wandering in there as a kid, with a bunch of other kids waiting to see if you were 'yellow' and run back out.

I remember my uncle telling me that as kids they used to watch two steam engines firing up and then struggle to push loads of wagons up through the tunnel from one line to the other..

The engines put off a fiery glow which lit up the tunnel with the steam and the smoke belching out of the tunnel.

The sound of slipping wheels, clanging wagons coupled with the tremendous roar of the loco engines echoed in a frightening sound from the tunnel,

It was a fearsome and exciting event for kids to watch during the dark nights.

The old boy is in his eighties now and still remembers those days of simple pleasures.

I used to live on Brunswick Rd . Till they pulled the houses down, mid 60's i think. Well my brother & I plus all the other local kids, ie. The Campbells, Earnshaws, Bucks, Cashmores, Saunders, Richard Pascoe and John Boyle, plus others whose names escape me, used to mess about on the bull rocks and the old railway sideings very close to the Firey Jack entrance

Many a time we used to walk the full length of the tunnel comming out into the big yard that is now part of Hartwell's Vauxhall dealers on Saville St. And in all the years we played in there we never heard of any one being killed in the tunnel.

Had a look down the top of the tunnel the other day, does anyone know when it was closed? Looked to be blocked up with a big pile of muck, but surely it won't be filled in all the way down?

B

I used to climb up and down the rocks (over the tunnel) four times a day on my way to and from Pye Bank School (c1944-1948).

It was a twin track tunnel but only one was used in my day. The transfer was always done by an LMS locomotive - usually an 0-6-0 with tender.

There were at least two transfers a day. A train would come up to Bridgehouses around 12:30pm (lunchtime), drop off a string of wagons on the transfer tracks and pick up whatever needed transfering to the LMS. There was another transfer around 7pm. Don't know if there were any overnight transfers.

Some times there were only one or two wagons going in each direction - other times anywhere up to a dozen. Mostly, they seemed to be open wagons (possibly coal wagons being sent back to the pit that owned them), very rarely were they vans.

The railways were nationalized in 1948 so I assume there was different routing of freight and therefore no longer a need to use the tunnel to switch systems.

Regards

The tunnel is now fenced off, and wouldn't recommend anyone to go there.

if anyone does go in please can you have a look for my shoe lovely tan moccasin last seen about 1974 somewhere in the middle of fiery jack

You can't get in any more.:thumbsup: And if you did manage to get in it would probably be full of dead junkies.:(

And if you did manage to get in it would probably be full of dead junkies.:(
are theres a positive aspect to the tunnel too then :)

I used to climb up and down the rocks (over the tunnel) four times a day on my way to and from Pye Bank School (c1944-1948).

It was a twin track tunnel but only one was used in my day. The transfer was always done by an LMS locomotive - usually an 0-6-0 with tender.

There were at least two transfers a day. A train would come up to Bridgehouses around 12:30pm (lunchtime), drop off a string of wagons on the transfer tracks and pick up whatever needed transfering to the LMS. There was another transfer around 7pm. Don't know if there were any overnight transfers.

Some times there were only one or two wagons going in each direction - other times anywhere up to a dozen. Mostly, they seemed to be open wagons (possibly coal wagons being sent back to the pit that owned them), very rarely were they vans.

The railways were nationalized in 1948 so I assume there was different routing of freight and therefore no longer a need to use the tunnel to switch systems.

Regards

yeah they did have overnight transfers, they used to wake me up every night going past the wicker around 1.10am :hihi:

i used to live on kilton place when it was first built and remember running through the fiery jack as a dare after telling stories about it. oh the memories

Might be your last chance to see Fiery Jack from Savile street this week as there is a building going up right across the opening of the tunnel

hello,

incredibly interested in this bridgehouses tunnel, i didnt even know about bridgehouses train station (though it was before my time), really interesting.

Whereabouts was/is the tunnel located?

me and some friend(Mick Mcdermott, Start Birch, Lawrence Bannister) were dared to go thro the tunnel when we were kids, and told all the stories about ghost's and other things lerking inside the tunnel...

Had a look down the top of the tunnel the other day, does anyone know when it was closed? ...It was closed in 1948 according to Cobb's railway atlas. Here (http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/twigmore/Maps/Tunnel.jpg) is a scan - the blue arrow shows the location of "Spital Hill Tunnel", opened 1846 and closed 1948. The closure was probably due to nationalisation as Falls wrote. I remember the two ends were open and the rails were still there in the early 1960s; I once walked up and down it for a dare..:)

Can you remember the cattle pens by the side of the signal box on the little lane at the bottom of the bull rocks?

Yes - I seem to remember seeing cattle pens from a train leaving Victoria station. I just found this photo (http://friendsofcharltonbrook.co.uk/My_Archive/Design/Assets/images/SMALL_IMAGES/spittaltunnel.jpg) of the top end of the tunnel.
(http://friendsofcharltonbrook.co.uk/My_Archive/Design/Assets/images/SMALL_IMAGES/spittaltunnel.jpg)

Hi

Who walked through fiery jack tunnel as a kid.Did you dare !!!:(

Thanks

Joe

should charles step aside and let wills be next inline?

No. This isn't the X Factor, it's not a popularity contest.

Err I think he already has...

he would never step aside, [whats this got to do with sheffield]

I never understand this argument. Why isn't the argument "should Elizabeth II step aside?", because she is the 85 year old.

I think they should all step aside. I'm embarrassed to have any monarch.

Having said that I think I'll be extra embarrassed when Charles is king, the man is a fool.

Let Harry have a crack, be a right tear up.

It doesn't make a blind bit of difference whether Charles becomes King or not.

Charles will want his "turn" at being king. It really is a pity that someone with such massive pinnas is so hard of hearing.:(

Let Harry have a crack, be a right tear up.

Would never happen. He'd get bumped off like his mum before they would let him near the throne. They couldn't have a king that came from two 'commoners'.

Would never happen. He'd get bumped off like his mum before they would let him near the throne. They couldn't have a king that came from two 'commoners'.

Lady Diana Spencer wasn't a commoner. The clue, is quite literally, in her title.

She was no lady.

yes i think charles should let his elder son take the monarchy.reason is i think charles fluffed up with diana.these 2 seem ideal and very much in love,they have had a long courtship so in my eyes they got a damn good chance of a successful union.and hes dianas son so surley some good is to come of this.good luck to them both.diana will have been looking down at her son and his new wife.so goodness will prevail.im just old fashioned.:)

Charles has massive ears, so he should be king as the ears will prop his crown up.:cool:

If Wills is king then Kate is queen, right ? so is Charles is king what will Camille be, ? if not queen, why not ? I've forgotten all that stuff :huh:

No, the Royal queue for the Throne should remain as it is (and when I say Throne I don't mean the Loo :P), Will and Kate will be King and Queen eventually.

I never understand this argument. Why isn't the argument "should Elizabeth II step aside?", because she is the 85 year old.

good to know ism not the only one. always thought the same. she's done her bit. she should retire to St james's or something.

Lady Diana Spencer wasn't a commoner. The clue, is quite literally, in her title.

Yes she was, anybody can be a 'Lady' whether they are a commoner or not.

I think that charles should be next in line for the throne as he is full of it.:)

If Wills is king then Kate is queen, right ? so is Charles is king what will Camille be, ? if not queen, why not ? I've forgotten all that stuff :huh:

Camilla will never be Queen, at best she'd be the King's consort if/when Charles becomes King.

Diana would've been Queen though, and like Kate she was from a middle class background.. And, she was better looking that Camilla.

Camilla will never be Queen, at best she'd be the King's consort if/when Charles becomes King.

Diana would've been Queen though, and like Kate she was from a middle class background.. And, she was better looking that Camilla.

Diana was Lady Diana Spencer before she married Charlie, hardly middle class. ;)

With the Royal Family suffering all sorts of problems over the last few decades I think that Charles should hand the reigns to his son when the time comes.

It would be a fresh start for the Monarchy, a time to move on from all the bad publicity and scandal that's plagued them over recent history.

William would be a great King and Kate a great Queen.

Camilla will never be Queen, at best she'd be the King's consort if/when Charles becomes King.

Diana would've been Queen though, and like Kate she was from a middle class background.. And, she was better looking that Camilla.

Yes but why wouldn't she be queen if Kate can, also Di wasn't from a middle class background Rich, far from it.

Threads merged.

should charles step aside and let wills be next inline?

No....................

Prince William next King? Give him a break - I just wouldn't wish that on him till he's at least in his forties

Camilla will never be Queen, at best she'd be the King's consort if/when Charles becomes King.

Diana would've been Queen though, and like Kate she was from a middle class background.. And, she was better looking that Camilla.

is ANYONE not better looking than Camilla?

Camilla will never be Queen, at best she'd be the King's consort if/when Charles becomes King.

Diana would've been Queen though, and like Kate she was from a middle class background.. And, she was better looking that Camilla.

And they weren’t divorces or marriage breakers.

I think they should all step aside. I'm embarrassed to have any monarch.

Having said that I think I'll be extra embarrassed when Charles is king, the man is a fool.

Are you the bloke up my road that has used black marker to scribble out the eyes of William and Kate on a flag then hung it out proud for all to see? :suspect:

Are you the bloke up my road that has used black marker to scribble out the eyes of William and Kate on a flag then hung it out proud for all to see? :suspect:

I said I'm embarrassed to live in a country with a monarchy, not that I wish any harm to them.

Hi

Who walked through fiery jack tunnel as a kid.Did you dare !!!:(

Thanks

Joe

Been through many a time as a youngster. I used to live nearby, (Champs hill)

I think it has to be charles, as well as being ordained by god, a bloke who marries whilst banging another man's wife and continues to do so, who flies to a climate change conference in hungary and also has his 8 litre bentley driven there , who usurps the democratic planning process because he doesn't fancy the proposed social housing, who spends £10's of thousands on the royal train cos it snowed in scotland, who tripled his claims on the public purse during the parliamentary claims scandal (etc) is the perfect guy to represent this country.

that's what i think.

I think it has to be charles, as well as being ordained by god, a bloke who marries whilst banging another man's wife and continues to do so, who flies to a climate change conference in hungary and also has his 8 litre bentley driven there , who usurps the democratic planning process because he doesn't fancy the proposed social housing, who spends £10's of thousands on the royal train cos it snowed in scotland, who tripled his claims on the public purse during the parliamentary claims scandal (etc) is the perfect guy to represent this country.

that's what i think.

whoo raaahhh. agreed.

Th argument against a republic is:

President Bliar,
President Brown
President Thatcher
I rest my case.

ps:or any of the other politicians

Th argument against a republic is:

President Bliar,
President Brown
President Thatcher
I rest my case.

ps:or any of the other politicians

Would we have assistant president Clegg ……. Doesn’t exactly role of the tongue does it. :D

Th argument against a republic is:

President Bliar,
President Brown
President Thatcher
I rest my case.

ps:or any of the other politicians

but those were prime ministers, don't you know the difference?

Gordon Clown would never have made President, not even with the fact the Labour government were so far up America's ample derierre it wasn't funny! :loopy: :rant:

but those were prime ministers, don't you know the difference?

If Britain had been a Republic, they would have been Presidents.

If Britain had been a Republic, they would have been Presidents.

no they wouldn't, you're confusing the US model - the head of the administration is the PM and the head of state is the president and even if the US model was adopted, it's up to US the people to choose, not god or the sperm / eggs of the current monarch - it's called democracy and we're supposed to be killing and dying for it as we speak

no they wouldn't, you're confusing the US model

What model did you have in mind?

If Head of State is to remain a largely ceremonial role, why change who fills it?

I never understand this argument. Why isn't the argument "should Elizabeth II step aside?", because she is the 85 year old.

It is the Queen's duty to reign until she dies.:)

Charles has massive ears, so he should be king as the ears will prop his crown up.:cool:

Love it!! lol

No, the Royal queue for the Throne should remain as it is (and when I say Throne I don't mean the Loo :P), Will and Kate will be King and Queen eventually.

Couldn't agree more. Charles should have his turn at being King, this is his birth right.
William and Kate need time to them selves for years to come yet, let them live a little before they take on their duty as King and Queen in the future.
Lovely wedding day for them, Kate looked Gorgeous.

What model did you have in mind?

If Head of State is to remain a largely ceremonial role, why change who fills it?

Because hereditary offices are offensive and unfair.

he would never step aside, [whats this got to do with sheffield]Last time I heard, Sheffield was still in England, This is about the future king of England. Is Sheffield seceding?:loopy:

I think they should all step aside. I'm embarrassed to have any monarch.

Having said that I think I'll be extra embarrassed when Charles is king, the man is a fool.
jUst think, you could have a president. Dubya isn't employed at the moment, Would he do? You don't seem to like any of your PMs lately. How would you find a President?

Last time I heard, Sheffield was still in England, This is about the future king of England. Is Sheffield seceding?:loopy:

I think when they first wrote that comment the thread was in the Sheffield Discussion section and has since been moved.

I think when they first wrote that comment the thread was in the Sheffield Discussion section and has since been moved.Where did they move it to? Sports?

jUst think, you could have a president. That would be fantastic.

How would you find a President?practically infinitely better than a monarch.

no. If this thing is going to continue, monarchs just wait their turn.

Yes, I think Charles should step aside, as Camilla would not be as popular as Kate.

Where did they move it to? Sports?
No, they moved it to 'General Discussions' as it isn't specifically Sheffield related.

Yes, I think Charles should step aside, as Camilla would not be as popular as Kate.

UK monarchs can't shirk their duty as easy as that. If we're going to have this, it needs to be done properly. It's not Big Brother or some other sort of reality television. Wait your turn.

No. Why should he? He's the lawful heir apparent and he's not as bald as William either

The events of yesterday are something to be embarrassed about, not proud of.

They are a reminder that we still are still ruled by an unelected, unaccountable head of state, we elect less than half of our parliament and that the Monarch sits at the very top of that.

The powers of the Monarch are largely ceremonial, but the powers carried out in her name are not.

Royalists who want Prince Charles to step aside are misguided - the whole point is that YOU don't get to choose - we never will until we rid ourselves of these self serving leeches.

Yes, I think Charles should step aside, as Camilla would not be as popular as Kate.

You can't have an unelected ruler, and expect to choose who you want.

People don't like Charles because he speaks his mind and reveals the true idiocy of having an elected ruling class.

People don't like Camilla because she's grotesquely ugly.

People like William because he seems sufficiently docile and witless.

The only reason Charles should step aside is so that I can get a clear shot at William. :|

Let Harry have a crack, be a right tear up.

Agreed! :hihi:

Camilla will never be Queen, at best she'd be the King's consort if/when Charles becomes King.

Diana would've been Queen though, and like Kate she was from a middle class background.. And, she was better looking that Camilla.

aint aint seem many women that arent worse lookin than camilla

Thats a right jod title for Charles aint it=Trainee King

but those were prime ministers, don't you know the difference?

Yes, I do know the difference.
The point I was trying to make was that it would be more than likely that they would be elected as President and what a shower they are (politicians in general that is).

Let Harry have a crack, be a right tear up.

I could just imagine him copping a feel of Michelle Obama at some state function, then snotting Mr President in the car park afterwards!

I said I'm embarrassed to live in a country with a monarchy, not that I wish any harm to them.

I actually look at it completely the opposite way.

I'm embarrassed to live in a country where people have forgotten simple manners, kids walk the streets carrying knives and the police are more interested in actions of people defending their own property as opposed to the people committing the crimes.

However yesterday reminded me about many of the great things in this country. The fantastic architecture of some of our buildings and a superb ceremonial occasion.....No other country does that as well as we do it and that's why billions will have been watching around the world.

For a few hours yesterday I once more felt proud to be British.

Regards

Doom

People don't like Camilla because she's grotesquely ugly.

.

I suppose the fact that she was Charles mistress and the reason for the divorce is purely coincidental.

should charles step aside and let wills be next inline?

King Tampax wouldn't go down well would it:gag:

People don't like Camilla because she's grotesquely ugly.Utter nonsense. She looks no worse than most people and if we didn't like people because of the way they look most people would have no friends at all.

People probably don't like you because you talk like a fool, but we have to suffer it, because even fools are apparently entitled to their 'free speech'. :rolleyes:

Charles cannot 'step aside', being King is not an optional career choice and William deserves to have a few carefree years as a young married before the cares of State descend on his head, wouldn't you say?

Utter nonsense. She looks no worse than most people and if we didn't like people because of the way they look most people would have no friends at all.

People probably don't like you because you talk like a fool, but we have to suffer it, because even fools are apparently entitled to their 'free speech'. :rolleyes:

Charles cannot 'step aside', being King is not an optional career choice and William deserves to have a few carefree years as a young married before the cares of State descend on his head, wouldn't you say?

Is or was he a serial adulterer, talks to trees, wants to be her tampax, says as lot about him.

What model did you have in mind?

If Head of State is to remain a largely ceremonial role, why change who fills it?

because it's called 'democracy' - it's the new thing- everybody's talking about it, there's outrage in libya that gaddafi isn't shiftable and intends to pass the role of head of state on to his eldest son (sound familiar?), or Syria for instance - democracy is where the head of state is chosen by the people, we aren't a democracy , we're a constitutional monarchy.

If Charlie stood for election (or elizabeth for that matter) who the hell would vote for them?

should charles step aside and let wills be next inline?

Charles should definitely step aside ....and all the rest as well...

because it's called 'democracy' - it's the new thing- everybody's talking about it, there's outrage in libya that gaddafi isn't shiftable and intends to pass the role of head of state on to his eldest son (sound familiar?), or Syria for instance -

If you think that Libya or Syria are comparable to Britain why are you still here ?

If you think that Libya or Syria are comparable to Britain why are you still here ?

well ..............er...........cos I live here having been born here and then went on to live here. That's the old 'if you don't like it leave' argumnet and it's weak, in my opinion, you could equally say 'if you want AV the bugger off to australia or papua new guineau'
in fact i might go to papua new guineau only I don't know where it is.

I still think democracy is a very good idea indeed - i'm all for it.

well ..............er...........cos I live here having been born here and then went on to live here. That's the old 'if you don't like it leave' argumnet and it's weak, .

About as weak as comparing Britain to Libya or Syria :roll:

About as weak as comparing Britain to Libya or Syria :roll:

Malky, calm down, go with the flow.:banana:
PS. Want a Knighthood ?, got two going free.:hihi:

About as weak as comparing Britain to Libya or Syria :roll:

I'm not saying that UK = libya/syria, I'm saying that the UK is claiming to be promoting DEMOCRACY in other countries and that that includes the right of the people to choose their head of state.

I support that in Libya as much as I support it in Britain - I have no respect for the 'windsors' (saxe coburg gothas), there isn't a single one of them I'd sit and have brew with, others think they're splendid folk who are just right to represent this fair land, as harry hill says -

FFFIIIGGGHHHTTT!!!!

(or 'election' as its called in democratic countries)

PS can I have a knighthood - sir frank ryan has a ring to it.

Utter nonsense. She looks no worse than most people and if we didn't like people because of the way they look most people would have no friends at all.

People probably don't like you because you talk like a fool, but we have to suffer it, because even fools are apparently entitled to their 'free speech'. :rolleyes:

Charles cannot 'step aside', being King is not an optional career choice and William deserves to have a few carefree years as a young married before the cares of State descend on his head, wouldn't you say?The modern cult of glorifimg looks confirms that Abe Lincoln could never have been elected if he had campaigned today.

The modern cult of glorifimg looks confirms that Abe Lincoln could never have been elected if he had campaigned today.

Based on looks what do you reckon Donald Trumps chances are ? :hihi:

Prince William next King? Give him a break - I just wouldn't wish that on him till he's at least in his fortiesWell, if the Queen lives as long as her mother (101) he'll be 45 when his dad belatedly becomes king at the age of 79..:?

Me & friends always played inside & around Fiery Jacks tunnel in the 80's, & we had heard similar stories, the st once called 'railway street' ran from Brunswick, past Fiery Jacks & came out & rock st, facing Pye bank rd. surrounded by back to back housing, i still pass from time to time... I have some pics but not sure how to post :huh:

Me & friends always played in and around Fiery Jacks in the 80's & heard similar stories, the st once called 'Railway Street' ran from Brunswick, along side Jacks & out at Rock St, facing Pye Bank Rd. I have some recent pics of the tunnel, someone advise me how to post em pls!

Hi RoganSheff - welcome to the Forum!.:)...the st once called 'railway street' ran from Brunswick, past Fiery Jacks & came out & rock st, facing Pye bank rd. e... I have some pics but not sure how to post Yep - here's a map: http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/twigmore/Maps/RailwaySt.jpg (http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u219/twigmore/Maps/RailwaySt.jpg).... I have some pics but not sure how to post You could upload them to an image hosting site such as Photobucket and then give links, as I did with the map.