How will the WCML work when HS2 reaches Handsacre and no further ?.

[eldomtom2]

You would run a New St Cov all station stopper.

At what frequency?

 

[The Planner]

At what frequency?

No reason why you couldnt go for 2tph. Like the current Rugeley International and the Birmingham Euston currently picking up either half of the stops now. Overtaken at International if needs be.

 

[Transilien]

Result is going to be more services for secondary stations on the WCML as far as Lichfeld - good but bad not reaching to somewhere logical like Stafford or Crewe.

Couldn’t the current LNWR Crewe service be pushed back to Lichfield to give more space at Colwich? The classic intercity service could replace its existing role as the budget option for long distance passengers.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Couldn’t the current LNWR Crewe service be pushed back to Lichfield to give more space at Colwich? The classic intercity service could replace its existing role as the budget option for long distance passengers.

That is an idea.

I feel complaints coming on from Milton Keynes about a degradation in their Intercity service to places North though ?.

 

[cle]

That is an idea.

I feel complaints coming on from Milton Keynes about a degradation in their Intercity service to places North though ?.

They will have a Manchester and probably a Liverpool - that should call at Crewe. Appreciate today is has the TV-Runcorn fast quirk.

And may as well reinstate the Chester call to bring Stafford. Plus calls on the Coventry services.

So MKC would have a decent amount north, certainly 1tph to everywhere of note and maybe 2tph to Crewe. That’s plenty. Demand north isn’t that hugely high - other than to Birmingham and Manchester themselves.

 

[Nottingham59]

They will have a Manchester and probably a Liverpool - that should call at Crewe. Appreciate today is has the TV-Runcorn fast quirk.

And may as well reinstate the Chester call to bring Stafford. Plus calls on the Coventry services.

So MKC would have a decent amount north, certainly 1tph to everywhere of note and maybe 2tph to Crewe. That’s plenty. Demand north isn’t that hugely high - other than to Birmingham and Manchester themselves.

I really can't see more than 2tph passenger from the WCML through Handsacre and Colwich - one fast and one slow. Every other path through Colwich will be better served by HS2 trains. Ideally those would all be 400m, with splitting and joining at Crewe, Warrington BQ, Preston or Carlisle.

If necessary, HS2 should be developing procedures to split and join sets at places where platforms are shorter than 400m.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It would be nice if HS2 did not need to order many new trains until after most routes can handle 400m.
Certainly Birmingham might as well be 400m from the start. The displaced 390s could do some of the other HS2 work.
Especially while it is still useful tilting on the bendy bits of the WCML just beyond Handsacre (which phase 2a would have by-passed).

Otherwise HS2 will be hamstrung by having splitting/joining going on at various places and this also means sub optimal (200m) train lengths on the classic network. I mean places like Manchester being served by trains only 2/3rd the current length. That is a waste of capacity North of Handsacre.
Alternative is 300m trains that need lengthening a decade or so later. But it is usually not possible to buy coaches for an older design.

Of course now it is all GBR perhaps the 300m trains built for HS2 could be cascaded to the ECML etc when HS2 is more complete.
That is probably the least overthinking way of progressing.

 

[Manutd1999]

Otherwise HS2 will be hamstrung by having splitting/joining going on at various places and this also means sub optimal (200m) train lengths on the classic network. I mean places like Manchester being served by trains only 2/3rd the current length. That is a waste of capacity North of Handsacre.
Alternative is 300m trains that need lengthening a decade or so later. But it is usually not possible to buy coaches for an older design.

Of course now it is all GBR perhaps the 300m trains built for HS2 could be cascaded to the ECML etc when HS2 is more complete.
That is probably the least overthinking way of progressing.

I think 300m trains are a good idea. We need to plan HS2 for what we have, not what was originally designed, and 300m sets clearly make more sense for the current infrastructure. The first batch could still be 200/400m for Birmingham services, with a second batch of 300m once Handscare opens. If 400m platforms appear at Manchester one day, then new trains could be ordered and the 300m sets cascaded elsewhere.

That said, capacity to Manchester could be maintained by running an extra service (i.e. 3x 200m HS2 + 1x Pendalino via the TV). The Trent Valley service is likely to be needed to maintain connectivity anyway, the question is whether Manchester should get 2x 300m or 3x 200m via HS2. Personally I'd go with 2x 300m to save a path and also allow a more sensible half-hourly pattern along the Stoke line.

I also see a case for using 400m sets to Scotland, splitting at Preston. The front portion would continue non-stop to Edinburgh, with the rear set following the current calling pattern to Glasgow. Journey times to Edinburgh could probably be <4hrs, allowing a re-cast on the ECML to potentially increase capacity further south.

 

[HSTEd]

How many passenger trains run through Colwich junction per hour?

How many trains per hour are needed to maintain connections across the Trent Valley line?

Subtract one from the other and I suspect that is how many trains HS2 will be running through the Handsacre connection.

Little reason not to pile as many trains as possible into HS2.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2026 ==

I think 300m trains are a good idea. We need to plan HS2 for what we have, not what was originally designed, and 300m sets clearly make more sense for the current infrastructure. The first batch could still be 200/400m for Birmingham services, with a second batch of 300m once Handscare opens. If 400m platforms appear at Manchester one day, then new trains could be ordered and the 300m sets cascaded elsewhere.

That said, capacity to Manchester could be maintained by running an extra service (i.e. 3x 200m HS2 + 1x Pendalino via the TV). The Trent Valley service is likely to be needed to maintain connectivity anyway, the question is whether Manchester should get 2x 300m or 3x 200m via HS2. Personally I'd go with 2x 300m to save a path and also allow a more sensible half-hourly pattern along the Stoke line.

As going to 300m trains will require a redesign of the depot in any case, I think there is little point in ordering many 200m trains at all.
Order 250/300m and 400m sets, pay for the new depot design work, and forget about doubling up. If we need to double up later for operational reasons then we will likely be looking at enough growth to need new stock regardless.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

300m is still too long for some current WCML platforms - Warrington is 251m and Lancaster 254m, Stockport 268m, Wilmslow 275m.
Some reversible platforms have shorter lengths in the "wrong" direction, so there would be a loss of flexibility without changes.
An 11-car Pendolino is 265m.

 

[Peter Sarf]

How many passenger trains run through Colwich junction per hour?

How many trains per hour are needed to maintain connections across the Trent Valley line?

Subtract one from the other and I suspect that is how many trains HS2 will be running through the Handsacre connection.

Little reason not to pile as many trains as possible into HS2.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2026 ==


As going to 300m trains will require a redesign of the depot in any case, I think there is little point in ordering many 200m trains at all.
Order 250/300m and 400m sets, pay for the new depot design work, and forget about doubling up. If we need to double up later for operational reasons then we will likely be looking at enough growth to need new stock regardless.

If the depot is designed for 400m sets how much change is needed to cater for 300m sets ?.

Or is the depot designed for 200m half sets ?.

 

[JamesT]

300m is still too long for some current WCML platforms - Warrington is 251m and Lancaster 254m, Stockport 268m, Wilmslow 275m.
Some reversible platforms have shorter lengths in the "wrong" direction, so there would be a loss of flexibility without changes.
An 11-car Pendolino is 265m.

What proportion of services are 11-car pendolino versus 9-car? A 200m HS2 train has more seats than the latter.

 

[mmh]

It would be nice if HS2 did not need to order many new trains until after most routes can handle 400m.

We should probably forget about 400m trains, and put it down to being just another flight of fancy in the HS2 debacle that was a silly idea that was never going to work. That's so long it was never going to be workable, splitting or not.

The best thing the 400m proposal gave us were the humerously daft workarounds that were suggested. Platforms spanning the River Clyde, anyone?

 

[JamesT]

If the depot is designed for 400m sets how much change is needed to cater for 300m sets ?.

Or is the depot designed for 200m half sets ?.

If you squint at the photo in slide 1 of https://www.hs2.org.uk/building-hs2...-depot-and-network-integrated-control-centre/ then it looks like 7/8 car (200m half set) in the stabling roads at the back. Comparing the size of the building to the half set going past it, I can’t see that you can fit much more than said half set inside the building.

 

[Peter Sarf]

300m is still too long for some current WCML platforms - Warrington is 251m and Lancaster 254m, Stockport 268m, Wilmslow 275m.
Some reversible platforms have shorter lengths in the "wrong" direction, so there would be a loss of flexibility without changes.
An 11-car Pendolino is 265m.

So really we want enough new sets to allow a cascade of 390s onto routes still using most of the WCML (ie HS2 to Preston Northwards).

First step is 400m for Birmingham, no issues there as it is all HS2.
How many 390s does that free up ?.
Could that allow 807s or such like to be used on the classic Birmingham route ?.

Second step to free up more 390s to Manchester, how much work required to bodge the classic route to cope with 400m sets ?
(I assume hopelessly complicated/expensive).

I doubt if enough 390s could be freed up from Birmingham classic to allow HS2 390s to Manchester UNLESS the remaining classic Manchester services also use something like 807s.

There is a trade off here I am afraid.
390s lower top speed on HS2 vs new, faster, trains slowed down by the bends between Handacre and Manchester.

Going backwards here, unless Manchester can use 400m sets we will not have enough 390s to use further North via HS2.

Obvious solution is to get HS2 to Crewe at least........
(cries quietly in the corner).

I suppose mixing 390s and new high speed trains on HS2 is not very productive. Would it hamper capacity enough until demand sees HS2 extended beyond Manchester.
I assume the original idea for 200m sets was for services beyond Preston even if HS2 got way beyond Manchester ?.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2026 ==

We should probably forget about 400m trains, and put it down to being just another flight of fancy in the HS2 debacle that was a silly idea that was never going to work. That's so long it was never going to be workable, splitting or not.

The best thing the 400m proposal gave us were the humerously daft workarounds that were suggested. Platforms spanning the River Clyde, anyone?

+

If you squint at the photo in slide 1 of https://www.hs2.org.uk/building-hs2...-depot-and-network-integrated-control-centre/ then it looks like 7/8 car (200m half set) in the stabling roads at the back. Comparing the size of the building to the half set going past it, I can’t see that you can fit much more than said half set inside the building.

So HS2 has got itself into a corner by deciding on a train length that is longer than the current standard length possible on the WCML but not a multiple of that length.

That means even with phase 2 HS2 trains will be shorter than 11car 390s North of Preston. But if capacity beyond there abounds then so be it.

But I can imagine the alternative of 2 x 11car 390 would be an eye watering length for Birmingham and Manchester.

Lets face it plenty of scope there for talking ones self into spending oodles of money on future proofing.

 

[cle]

Also, we have to consider post-Pendo. And I would guess that tilt will be retired - perhaps not - but it's a possibility.

Dividing trains - I think only Crewe is a good contender, or Carlisle, because it's quiet. Preston needs the western island re-instating - it doesn't have enough platforms, let alone 400m ones. Not sure if that work is still in-scope, given the ambition to do Glasgow/Edinburgh. If only phase 1 happens, the ECML still has the edge time-wise and Edinburgh is less of a priority?

But Crewe needs that P12 island fully activated, inc the other through face (maybe the bays reinstated to shift over the Salop/Wales services) - and everything budging over by a road or two. As it might become a splitting point and terminus during various works.

----
Curve ball for the various sub-Handsacre paths:

this was mentioned for HS2 also, but could there also be a world where a curve is built from the WCML bypassing Tamworth, to enable Euston-Weedon-Burton services? Useful at all? Might Not HSR but it could see a new purpose for those many paths out of Euston, and below Handsacre/Colwich - and maybe relieve/augment some MML service. Assuming almost all else runs via HS2.

A non-stop from Euston passes Tamworth in one hour, and a Tamworth-Derby non-stop is 17 mins, so this could maybe scrape 1h15 Euston-Derby non-stop, if the last part was electrified and it is moving.

That's ten mins quicker than today (also to Sheffield) - enables a slow-down or redeployment of services after Leicester. With a Burton call, it'd still maybe do 1h20, and then same as today (1h25) to Derby, with an MKC call. Not a horrible idea?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Also, we have to consider post-Pendo. And I would guess that tilt will be retired - perhaps not - but it's a possibility.

Dividing trains - I think only Crewe is a good contender, or Carlisle, because it's quiet. Preston needs the western island re-instating - it doesn't have enough platforms, let alone 400m ones. Not sure if that work is still in-scope, given the ambition to do Glasgow/Edinburgh. If only phase 1 happens, the ECML still has the edge time-wise and Edinburgh is less of a priority?

But Crewe needs that P12 island fully activated, inc the other through face (maybe the bays reinstated to shift over the Salop/Wales services) - and everything budging over by a road or two. As it might become a splitting point and terminus during various works.

----
Curve ball for the various sub-Handsacre paths:

this was mentioned for HS2 also, but could there also be a world where a curve is built from the WCML bypassing Tamworth, to enable Euston-Weedon-Burton services? Useful at all? Might Not HSR but it could see a new purpose for those many paths out of Euston, and below Handsacre/Colwich - and maybe relieve/augment some MML service. Assuming almost all else runs via HS2.

A non-stop from Euston passes Tamworth in one hour, and a Tamworth-Derby non-stop is 17 mins, so this could maybe scrape 1h15 Euston-Derby non-stop, if the last part was electrified and it is moving.

That's ten mins quicker than today (also to Sheffield) - enables a slow-down or redeployment of services after Leicester. With a Burton call, it'd still maybe do 1h20, and then same as today (1h25) to Derby, with an MKC call. Not a horrible idea?

Shhhh, that could undermine MML electrification all the way to Sheffield .

Your point about the future of tilt is relevant. After all there is a lack of tilt on 805s and 807s already.

 

[sprinterguy]

What proportion of services are 11-car pendolino versus 9-car? A 200m HS2 train has more seats than the latter.

About 60%.

That's a fair point regarding capacity versus a 9-car Pendo; certainly wouldn't want to see the Manchester route, as one I use regularly, lose seated capacity against the current provision, though.

 

[The Planner]

----
Curve ball for the various sub-Handsacre paths:

this was mentioned for HS2 also, but could there also be a world where a curve is built from the WCML bypassing Tamworth, to enable Euston-Weedon-Burton services? Useful at all? Might Not HSR but it could see a new purpose for those many paths out of Euston, and below Handsacre/Colwich - and maybe relieve/augment some MML service. Assuming almost all else runs via HS2.

A non-stop from Euston passes Tamworth in one hour, and a Tamworth-Derby non-stop is 17 mins, so this could maybe scrape 1h15 Euston-Derby non-stop, if the last part was electrified and it is moving.

That's ten mins quicker than today (also to Sheffield) - enables a slow-down or redeployment of services after Leicester. With a Burton call, it'd still maybe do 1h20, and then same as today (1h25) to Derby, with an MKC call. Not a horrible idea?

No point, you would be better off just utilising HS2, Delta and the 2b link.

 

[mmh]

300m is still too long for some current WCML platforms - Warrington is 251m and Lancaster 254m, Stockport 268m, Wilmslow 275m.
Some reversible platforms have shorter lengths in the "wrong" direction, so there would be a loss of flexibility without changes.
An 11-car Pendolino is 265m.

I don't know about the other stations, but at Warrington and Lancaster I'm pretty sure all passenger doors open on an 11 car Pendolino. I don't think I've ever heard an announcement on one anywhere about doors.

I think some posters are missing the practical implications of running longer and longer trains. 11 car 390s and 10 car 805s are already difficult for passengers and platform staff at intermediate stations. Warrington is a good example of this. You're changing off your 2 car Transport For Wales train so alight in the middle of the platform and need to get to the extreme end of the narrow platform for an end carriage in a 390.

400m trains would be massively unfriendly to passengers, and need longer dwell times.

(But then my opinion is the railway "industry" is overly obsessed with reducing dwell, and it should be higher in many places, both for realism - for example many services at Chester have dwell times which will rarely be met) and for passenger convenience.)

 

[The Planner]

(But then my opinion is the railway "industry" is overly obsessed with reducing dwell, and it should be higher in many places, both for realism - for example many services at Chester have dwell times which will rarely be met) and for passenger convenience.)

Easy target for creating capacity. Agree though that dwells are now often inadequate when it comes to newer stock, and often difficult to actually fix.

 

[NCT]

400m trains would be massively unfriendly to passengers, and need longer dwell times.

Tell that to the continentals who are well used to 400m long-distance trains.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Tell that to the continentals who are well used to 400m long-distance trains.

I agree. The longer the distance a passenger travels then the longer that passenger would tolerate allowing/spending getting to the right part of the platform. Of course these intercity trains will have a gangway within each set anyway.

 

[cle]

No point, you would be better off just utilising HS2, Delta and the 2b link.

I caveated it as such, but on the topic of using the spare paths out of Euston, it makes some sense.

Whereas we should endeavor to fill out more via HS2 in time.

 

[mmh]

I agree. The longer the distance a passenger travels then the longer that passenger would tolerate allowing/spending getting to the right part of the platform. Of course these intercity trains will have a gangway within each set anyway.

The nature of our network is that passengers change trains. Relatively few people are going end to end, and not everyone is going to or from London, which seemed to be more nonsense assumptions behind the whole idea of HS2.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The nature of our network is that passengers change trains. Relatively few people are going end to end, and not everyone is going to or from London, which seemed to be more nonsense assumptions behind the whole idea of HS2.

The point I am making is that HS2 trains do not stop every few miles, this is not a metro operation. Therefore a bit more time spent getting to the right part of the train/platform is not so significant because it is for a long stint in that particular train. That applies to changes of trains as well as people just taking one long distance train and is irrespective of what part of the route they take. The (extreme) alternative is to run two coach intercity trains just to make it easier to connect but that would dramatically eat up capacity.

 

[Nottingham59]

The nature of our network is that passengers change trains. Relatively few people are going end to end, and not everyone is going to or from London, which seemed to be more nonsense assumptions behind the whole idea of HS2.

Unfortunately most passengers on the GB rail network are going to or from London.

 

[The Ham]

The obsession with the loss of 65m (25% reduction) of train length between a 390 (11 coaches) and a 200m HS2 set is looking at one factor, however it's not the critical factor.

I understand why people see it as more of a problem than it is, as it's any easy thing to compare.

However when you look at the number of seats it's less of an impact

An 11 coach 390 has 607 seats
A 9 coach 390 has 469 seats

A HS2 (200m set) is due to have 550 seats, whilst that's a reduction vs the 11 coach sets it's an increase over the 9 coach sets.

Across the 390 fleet there's 22 sets with 9 coaches and 35 with 11 coaches, that's a total of 32,003 seats for the fleet.

If there were 57 sets for HS2 (there doesn't need to be as they'll be faster so fewer are needed to run the same service frequencies) they would have 31,350 seats.

Whilst places which see a lot of 11 coach services may have a reduction in seating capacity, especially at peak times) those with an mix of train lengths may not see much of an overall change in capacity across the day.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The obsession with the loss of 65m (25% reduction) of train length between a 390 (11 coaches) and a 200m HS2 set is looking at one factor, however it's not the critical factor.

I understand why people see it as more of a problem than it is, as it's any easy thing to compare.

However when you look at the number of seats it's less of an impact

An 11 coach 390 has 607 seats
A 9 coach 390 has 469 seats

A HS2 (200m set) is due to have 550 seats, whilst that's a reduction vs the 11 coach sets it's an increase over the 9 coach sets.

Across the 390 fleet there's 22 sets with 9 coaches and 35 with 11 coaches, that's a total of 32,003 seats for the fleet.

If there were 57 sets for HS2 (there doesn't need to be as they'll be faster so fewer are needed to run the same service frequencies) they would have 31,350 seats.

Whilst places which see a lot of 11 coach services may have a reduction in seating capacity, especially at peak times) those with an mix of train lengths may not see much of an overall change in capacity across the day.

The Manchester services are all 11car if I remember correctly. The shorter (9car) 390s tend to be used for services from London to further North/West. So Manchester is the problem. Manchester needs longer platforms or bespoke HS2 trains. Alternative of just running more trains to London down the WCML and HS2 does not really work because there is not really the capacity for more movements at the Manchester end.

Would be such a good idea to get HS2 to Manchester.........

 

[NCT]

The Manchester services are all 11car if I remember correctly. The shorter (9car) 390s tend to be used for services from London to further North/West. So Manchester is the problem. Manchester needs longer platforms or bespoke HS2 trains. Alternative of just running more trains to London down the WCML and HS2 does not really work because there is not really the capacity for more movements at the Manchester end.

Would be such a good idea to get HS2 to Manchester.........

A cursory look on Realtimetrains at today's allocations suggests this isn't true.

My collection is that Manchester being the highest frequency route has the highest proportion of 9-car workings.