Both tunnels were difficult to maintain because of their narrowness and heavy traffic, estimated to be around 250 trains per day in either direction.

[1] Vignoles was responsible for the tunnel's design and specification and was involved in other activities for the company, including fundraising.

His decision to use his own resources to purchase shares under an alleged understanding that he would not have to pay the full price led to controversy; he resigned from his position in 1838.

[1] The tunnel's bore passed through ground largely composed of Millstone Grit interspersed with argillaceous shale and softer sandstone on a gradient of 1 in 201, rising toward the east.

[1] The estimated costs were doubled from the £98,467 figure produced by Vignoles to around £200,000 and contractors were provided with new, highly detailed specifications.

The human cost was high: 30 people lost their lives, 200 workers were maimed and 450 suffered some form of injury in the harsh working conditions.

[3] The second bore, also referred to as the north tunnel, was undertaken by the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway.

[1] Although more care was exercised during its construction, in regards to safety conditions, an outbreak of cholera amongst the workforce, in 1849, resulted in 28 deaths.

It was claimed that they provided a poor operating environment and were difficult to maintain, partially caused by the level of traffic.

The decision to electrify the route during the 1950s was partially made to eliminate the emissions produced by steam and diesel traction.

[3][1] A 2 ft (610 mm) narrow gauge railway has been built inside the tunnel for service engineers.

[1] In the 1960s, a proposal was made to close the tunnel to railway traffic and use it to carry a section of a Manchester to Sheffield motorway through the Pennines.

[9] In 2002, the Trans-Pennine Rail Group, composed of county councils, unitary authorities, passenger transport executives (PTE) and the Peak District National Park Authority[10] provided evidence to the Transport Select Committee that identified interest from bidders for the Trans-Pennine rail franchise in reopening the Woodhead route.

[12] In July 2003, the Greater Manchester Branch of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, presented evidence to a parliamentary select committee, stating that Arriva had an interest in reopening the Woodhead Line as part of a bid for the Trans-Pennine rail franchise.

For several decades, Woodhead 2 has carried electrical cables for the National Grid which by the early 2000s were coming to the end of their operational life.

The National Grid proposed installing new cables in Woodhead 3 which would prevent its restoration for rail traffic.

[3] In July 2007, the Peak District National Park expressed concern at the plans to place cables in Woodhead 3, observing that it could not be used for rail traffic.

[3] In September 2007, the Government Office for the East Midlands indicated that it was unlikely that the route would be used for rail traffic again, and declined to intervene.

[17] On 4 December 2007, 57 MPs signed an early day motion in the Commons, brought by Manchester Blackley MP Graham Stringer, expressing concern at laying cables in a tunnel that was viable for rail traffic.

[18] On 18 December, a written answer in the Commons stated that laying cables in the tunnel would not preclude opening the route to rail traffic.

[20] In 8 January 2008, the "Northern Way", a collaboration between three Northern Regional Development Agencies: Yorkshire Forward, Northwest Regional Development Agency and One NorthEast, called for the government to ensure the potential reuse of Woodhead Tunnels for rail use in the future.

[citation needed] In November 2013, it was decided to seal the Victorian tunnels, following a decision by the government not to purchase them from the National Grid.