Restarting HS2a

[DynamicSpirit]

They may be unpalatable to you, but what the figures represented was very clear.

So if the figures are very clear, presumably you can tell us which journeys they include? (Which so far you've avoided doing)

 

[AlexSJW]

How much cheaper would that be compared to 2A? considering what would be needed in terms of resignalling all of Crewe and the costs of 4 tracking Crewe Weaver? Norton Bridge to Crewe at 140 vs 125 gives you a massive 1 minute saving

2A takes the Manchester train to Crewe, the long way - not a good idea. Building a Stafford bypass takes the Manchester and Stoke trains off the WCML entirely releasing capacity for Edinburgh and other trains. Taking all trains to Crewe is a daft idea. What the cost to build a Stafford bypass, at one billion a mile for HS2 it will be a lot cheaper and achieve more.

 

[Manutd1999]

• Drop the Handsacre branch onto the WCML.
• Then use HS2 from Fradley to the Colwich-Stone line at Hixon.
• Just before Stone Liverpool and Scots trains diverge onto new track to the WCML north of Norton Bridge,
• Manchester trains continue via upgraded line via Stoke, the shortest route, not via Crewe over to the west. Stone, Stoke and Manchester are all above each other, nth-sth.
• That gives an extra 17 miles of high speed track meaning three quarters of the line from London to Manchester is high-speed track.
• High speeds are then possible to just outside Stone.
• Upgrade the line from Norton Bridge to Crewe to 140mph.
• Make WCML all 4-track north of Crewe to at least Weaver junction.
• Journey times to Liverpool and Manchester are then excellent.

I'd do all of this except the 4-tracking north of Crewe and upgrade to 140mph.

That would deliver the vast majority of the benefits of 2A but save costs by scrapping Handsacre and stopping HS2 at Norton Bridge.

There would be no conflicts at Colwich and everything from the classic WCML could flow onto the slow lines through Stafford.

With 1x grade separated junction for HS2 at Hixon, then dropping onto the fast lines at Norton Bridge, you'd have a grade-separated route for HS2 trains all the way to Crewe.

It seems like by far the best value for money solution

 

[Peter Sarf]

Manchester trains stop at Stoke, yet the Stoke figures tend to be rolled into the Manchester figures.

Office of Rail and Road figures for 2023/24, the WCML is not at full passenger seating capacity. On average, only about one-third of the current seating capacity on services from Manchester to London is utilized. Far too many trains on the WCML track carrying fresh air. Manchester does not need three trains an hour during the day for sure. If they have problems in peak hours then add the odd train or make them longer. Liverpool urgently needs three train per hour to London at peak times.

All this: the Manchester trains are rammed to London, is propaganda to get the unneeded phase 2A built. The only section needing retaining is the Fradley to Hixon section, which will add value in forming a section of a Stafford byass. The rest can be binned.

I prefer hard facts myself.

My bold.

In YOUR facts above you say on average. So it goes up and down during the day (and week). Which is what I said in my earlier reply.

You now mention peak hours need more trains.
How do you propose to fit these extra trains on the West Coast Mainline at the times people so obviously want them.
There in your own words is the reason for the requirement for HS2 phase 1 and phase 2a. Or something like Phase 2a.

It suggests nothing, being hard data.

But hard data is hard data, and that was given.

Are you being serious when you write that?

It is a report borne out of hard data but it is not clear what hard data.

I think you need to sit back and think about what selective facts are being used in that report.

 

[The Planner]

2A takes the Manchester train to Crewe, the long way - not a good idea. Building a Stafford bypass takes the Manchester and Stoke trains off the WCML entirely releasing capacity for Edinburgh and other trains. Taking all trains to Crewe is a daft idea. What the cost to build a Stafford bypass, at one billion a mile for HS2 it will be a lot cheaper and achieve more.

Do we know that 2A is a billion a mile? A Stafford bypass is 2A anyway so nothing different and you are adding another junction in your proposal and resignalling all of Norton Bridge to Weaver including Crewe in the process which wipes out the vast majority of your supposed savings.

 

[AlexSJW]

I'd do all of this except the 4-tracking north of Crewe and upgrade to 140mph.

That would deliver the vast majority of the benefits of 2A but save costs by scrapping Handsacre and stopping HS2 at Norton Bridge.

There would be no conflicts at Colwich and everything from the classic WCML could flow onto the slow lines through Stafford.

With 1x grade separated junction for HS2 at Hixon, then dropping onto the fast lines at Norton Bridge, you'd have a grade-separated route for HS2 trains all the way to Crewe.

It seems like by far the best value for money solution

• Even Hendy says 4-tracking north of Crewe and upgrade to 140 mph is needed. 140mph improves times to the two Scots cities.
• Also the power lines need upgrading north of Crewe for faster and more trains and especially freight into Liverpool's expanding port and the planned, relocated from Trafford, rail freight terminal at St.Helens.
• 4-tracking north of Crewe and power lines upgrading needs doing immediately.
• There are no stations between Colwich junction and Stone. The Colwich junction can be removed entirely eliminating a bottleneck and danger point - there have been fatalities there.
• Run the extension from Fradley to seamlessly run onto the line at Hixon - no junction. Terminate the Colwich-Hixon line at Hixon using the existing line from Hixon to the south for a local shuttle between the small towns along its route - Colwich junction will remain. So, HS2 can seamlessly run onto the line to Stone - no expensive grade separated flying junction.
• Remove the WCML junction at Handsacre. It was to service Stoke. Stoke will now be serviced.
• Edinburgh, Liverpool, Glasgow and Manchester trains from London to just before Stone trains will run at high speeds.

What is not to like.

Do we know that 2A is a billion a mile? A Stafford bypass is 2A anyway so nothing different and you are adding another junction in your proposal and resignalling all of Norton Bridge to Weaver including Crewe in the process which wipes out the vast majority of your supposed savings.

You have selective amnesia. A Stafford byass as described is superior as it keeps the London and Birmingham to Manchester trains off the WCML entirely. Divide and rule. 2A takes all to Crewe. Not a good idea.

 

[Peter Sarf]

• Even Hendy says 4-tracking north of Crewe and upgrade to 140 mph is needed. 140mph improves times to the two Scots cities.
• Also the power lines need upgrading north of Crewe for faster and more trains and especially freight into Liverpool's expanding port and the planned, relocated from Trafford, rail freight terminal at St.Helens.
• 4-tracking north of Crewe and power lines upgrading needs doing immediately.
• There are no stations between Colwich junction and Stone. The Colwich junction can be removed entirely eliminating a bottleneck and danger point - there have been fatalities there.
• Run the extension from Fradley to seamlessly run onto the line at Hixon - no junction. Terminate the Colwich-Hixon line at Hixon using the existing line from Hixon to the south for a local shuttle between the small towns along its route - Colwich junction will remain. So, HS2 can seamlessly run onto the line to Stone - no expensive grade separated flying junction.
• Remove the WCML junction at Handsacre. It was to service Stoke. Stoke will now be serviced.
• Edinburgh, Liverpool, Glasgow and Manchester trains from London to just before Stone trains will run at high speeds.

What is not to like.


You have selective amnesia. A Stafford byass as described is superior as it keeps the London and Birmingham to Manchester trains off the WCML entirely. Divide and rule. 2A takes all to Crewe. Not a good idea.

I am confused over what you mean about Colwich - my bold.

 

[Nottingham59]

I am confused over what you mean about Colwich - my bold.

He means connect the HS2 mainline at Hixon onto the 125mph line towards Stone, with no junction.

And disconnect the existing track between Hixon and Colwich, so that the Colwich-Shugborough-Stafford South complex becomes a simpler Shugborough-Stafford complex.

 

[AlexSJW]

I am confused over what you mean about Colwich - my bold.

The high-speed extension from Fradley can run seamlessly onto the line to Stone at Hixon producing one continuous track. Even removing the track from Hixon to Colwich and the Colwich junction entirely. This eliminates three junctions taking into account the junction at Handsacre.

He means connect the HS2 mainline at Hixon onto the 125mph line towards Stone, with no junction.

And disconnect the existing track between Hixon and Colwich, so that the Colwich-Shugborough-Stafford South complex becomes a simpler Shugborough-Stafford complex.

So three junctions at Handsacre, Colwich and Hixon are removed. Only two grade separated junctions are needed: before Stone, and north of Norton Bridge on the WCML. The 125mph line towards Stone needs no work as trains will be slowing down on that section.

So three junctions at Handsacre, Colwich and Hixon are removed. Only two grade separated junctions before Stone and north of Norton Bridge on the WCML.

Manchester trains only slowed down at two junctions on high-speed/fast track from London to Stone. Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh trains slowed down at four junctions on high-speed/fast track from London to Crewe.

 

[Palmerston]

Can someone compare these two options on a map?

 

[Peter Sarf]

He means connect the HS2 mainline at Hixon onto the 125mph line towards Stone, with no junction.

And disconnect the existing track between Hixon and Colwich, so that the Colwich-Shugborough-Stafford South complex becomes a simpler Shugborough-Stafford complex.

The high-speed extension from Fradley can run seamlessly onto the line to Stone at Hixon producing one continuous track. Even removing the track from Hixon to Colwich and the Colwich junction entirely. This eliminates three junctions taking into account the junction at Handsacre.


So three junctions at Handsacre, Colwich and Hixon are removed. Only two grade separated junctions are needed: before Stone, and north of Norton Bridge on the WCML. The 125mph line towards Stone needs no work as trains will be slowing down on that section.

So three junctions at Handsacre, Colwich and Hixon are removed. Only two grade separated junctions before Stone and north of Norton Bridge on the WCML.

Manchester trains only slowed down at two junctions on high-speed/fast track from London to Stone. Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh trains slowed down at four junctions on high-speed/fast track from London to Crewe.

It was the
" - Colwich junction will remain" bit that confused me.

I am not sure how important a Stoke Southwards through Colwich onto the WCML route is for non HS2 services. Perhaps freight or a service stopping all shacks Manchester via Stoke to the Trent valley, I certainly expect a remaining intercity service serving Stoke to principal places like Milton Keynes. Those all could be routed via Stafford BUT that is a detour and then that overloads the Colwich - Shugborough - Stafford route so loses a chunck of the capacity freed up by HS2 phase 2a.

As an aside I would be tempted to leave Colwich junction in situ as cheaper than removing it, safety wise it will be less busy anyway. But a saving would be eliminating the new junction up at Hixon but as I say I suspect that could be too limiting.

Next idea would be to leave HS2 Phase1 as is and for HS2 phase2 drop the branch towards Stone. Build it later if/when the need becomes obvious.

 

[Energy]

Can someone compare these two options on a map?

Does this help?



Image Description: Proposed "Stafford bypass" annotated on OpenRailwayMap.

I'm not really sure how this enables HS2 to serve trains other than Manchester and Stoke.

 

[HSTEd]

Is a connection from Stone to the WCML really going to be cheaper than Handsacre junction? Its 6km or so.

I'm all aboard with cutting the Stone-Colwich line off from the WCML and connecting it solely to HS2, but cutting Handsacre is just going to create a mess.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Is a connection from Stone to the WCML really going to be cheaper than Handsacre junction? Its 6km or so.

I'm all aboard with cutting the Stone-Colwich line off from the WCML and connecting it solely to HS2, but cutting Handsacre is just going to create a mess.

I am not sure how much there is to save by removing Handsacre. How much is spent already ?.

Does this help?

View attachment 198453

Image Description: Proposed "Stafford bypass" annotated on OpenRailwayMap.

I'm not really sure how this enables HS2 to serve trains other than Manchester and Stoke.

Why put a link from HS2 Phase2a Northwards to Hixon. Could link from HS Phase2a further North bypassing Stone. It is a similar length of link (but might have to be careful to avoid built up areas). Gets us more HS1 for the Manchester via Stoke HS1 services and less old route plus takes pressure of the junction at Stone.
.

 

[AlexSJW]

The route. However, remove the link to the WCML at Handsacre, and maybe remove the track from Colwich junction to where HS2 meets the Colwich to Stone line. Flat junctions make flying junctions.

I am not sure how much there is to save by removing Handsacre. How much is spent already ?.


Why put a link from HS2 Phase 2a Northwards to Hixon. Could link from HS Phase2a further North bypassing Stone. It is a similar length of link (but might have to be careful to avoid built up areas). Gets us more HS1 for the Manchester via Stoke HS1 services and less old route plus takes pressure of the junction at Stone.
.

Once again Phase 2a is a lame duck as takes Manchester trains to Crewe, the long route, and does not serve Stoke. A Stafford bypass diverges the Manchester trains and Liverpool/Scots trains just before Stone at the end of high-speed/fast track from London. London/Birmingham to Manchester and Stoke, the trains are entirely off the WCML.

 

[HSTEd]

Once again Phase 2a is a lame duck as takes Manchester trains to Crewe and does not serve Stoke. A Stafford bypass diverges the Manchester trains and Liverpool/Scots trains just before Stone at the end of high-speed/fast track. London/Birmingham to Manchester and Stoke, the trains are entirely off the WCML.

Handsacre Junction is likely to be less expensive, certainly from this point, than this connection between the Stone-Colwich line and the WCML.

What does this extra expenditure gain you? Especially as it means that HS2 cannot serve Stafford.

Getting to Hixon already gets you several more paths by untangling the existing mess doesn't it?

 

[AlexSJW]

Extra expenditure over what? Cheaper than 2A for sure. You clearly do not understand the advantages. They have all been explained.

 

[HSTEd]

Extra expenditure over what? Cheaper than 2A for sure. You clearly do understand the advantages. They have all been explained.

Extra expenditure over building Handsacre junction and connecting HS2 to the Stone Colwich line at Hixon.

Trains to Stoke/Manchester use the Stone Colwich line, trains going to Liverpool and the North WCML use Handsacre and proceed through Stafford.

6km of new line with two new junctions is probably not going to be cheaper than building Handsacre

 

[AlexSJW]

It gives more capacity on the WCML for sure. Chester maybe can even have its own HS2 service from London, as Phase 2 east has gone releasing capacity on HS2. May need battery hybrids for Chester to get it the last thirty miles.

Extra expenditure over building Handsacre junction and connecting HS2 to the Stone Colwich line at Hixon.

Trains to Stoke/Manchester use the Stone Colwich line, trains going to Liverpool and the North WCML use Handsacre and proceed through Stafford.

6km of new line with two new junctions is probably not going to be cheaper than building Handsacre

You are saying have no Stafford byass and stay as we are, running though multiple junctions, a station, a two-track tunnel reducing from four-track, and ninety degree bends. This bottleneck that drastically slows down trains, is notorious having had a fatality at Colwich. Fast intercity trains have to bypass Colwich/Stafford.

 

[HSTEd]

You are saying have no Stafford byass and stay as we are, running though multiple junctions, a station, a two-track tunnel and ninty degree bends.

For trains to Liverpool and the north WCML, stay as they are using Handsacre.

Trains to Manchester go to Hixon on HS2 and join the Stoke-Colwich line.

Colwich junction becomes a simple reduction from four lines to two with no diverging route.
Most likely concentrate the XC Manchester-Birmingham services via Crewe, concentrate the London-Manchester services via Stoke. Extend the Stoke-Manchester stopper path to Birmingham Curzon Street, plus any other paths you can find.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Extend the Stoke-Manchester stopper path to Birmingham Curzon Street, plus any other paths you can find.

Are you proposing stopping a HS2 train at every stop between Manchester and Stoke?
The upgrade from 3 carriages (occasionally 6) to 8 might need a lot of platform extensions (or short platform announcements).

 

[AlexSJW]

For trains to Liverpool and the north WCML, stay as they are using Handsacre.

Trains to Manchester go to Hixon on HS2 and join the Stoke-Colwich line.

Colwich junction becomes a simple reduction from four lines to two with no diverging route.
Most likely concentrate the XC Manchester-Birmingham services via Crewe, concentrate the London-Manchester services via Stoke. Extend the Stoke-Manchester stopper path to Birmingham Curzon Street, plus any other paths you can find.

So you are extending HS2 and its extension to Stone, sending Manchester trains the quick and safe route. But sending Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Lancs trains through a massive less safe route though a bottleneck thru Stafford. Wow. I see.

Does this help?

View attachment 198453

Image Description: Proposed "Stafford bypass" annotated on OpenRailwayMap.

I'm not really sure how this enables HS2 to serve trains other than Manchester and Stoke.

Yes, that is it south of Stone. Just before Stone a flying junction to new track to the WCML north of the Norton Bridge junction where another flying junction takes the Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Lancs, and maybe Chester trains onto the WCML. This is in the map I posted. This is a far better solution than reinstating Phase 2a. It covers more bases.

 

[HSTEd]

Are you proposing stopping a HS2 train at every stop between Manchester and Stoke?
The upgrade from 3 carriages (occasionally 6) to 8 might need a lot of platform extensions (or short platform announcements).

Even if it does, it still ends up competitive with (or faster than) the conventional CrossCountry service. That's just how slow the drag out of Birmingham via Wolverhampton is. And its a path that already exists through the Cheadle Hulme bottleneck.


The platforms on the route are surprisingly long, most of the train should be platformed at pretty much all of the stations, and the units are required to be fitted with ASDO anyway. I don't think its a huge problem.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Feb 2026 ==

So you are extending HS2 and its extension to Stone, sending Manchester trains the quick and safe route. But sending Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Lancs trains through a massive less safe rote though a bottleneck thru Stafford. Wow. I see.

The route via Stafford is hardly dangerous, it's been 40 years since the Colwich accident and that accident could not physically occur under this proposal, because Colwich junction would no longer be a junction with a route towards Stone.

The bottleneck will become much less pressing when three trains per hour have been removed, along with the crossing moves at Colwich.

EDIT:
If we remove Handsacre we also create a mess on serving Stafford with fast-ish London trains. Not serving it would be another political fight that we could do without. London Euston is the top destination from Stafford in the ODM data.

 

[AlexSJW]

The route via Stafford is hardly dangerous, it's been 40 years since the Colwich accident and that accident could not physically occur under this proposal, because Colwich junction would no longer be a junction with a route towards Stone.

The bottleneck will become much less pressing when three trains per hour have been removed, along with the crossing moves at Colwich.

You are saying prioritise HS2 for Manchester, and the rest, the more important as it serves many cities, have a poorer, slower and less safe service. BTW, are you from the Manchester region?

 

[The Planner]

• Even Hendy says 4-tracking north of Crewe and upgrade to 140 mph is needed. 140mph improves times to the two Scots cities.
• Also the power lines need upgrading north of Crewe for faster and more trains and especially freight into Liverpool's expanding port and the planned, relocated from Trafford, rail freight terminal at St.Helens.
• 4-tracking north of Crewe and power lines upgrading needs doing immediately.
• There are no stations between Colwich junction and Stone. The Colwich junction can be removed entirely eliminating a bottleneck and danger point - there have been fatalities there.
• Run the extension from Fradley to seamlessly run onto the line at Hixon - no junction. Terminate the Colwich-Hixon line at Hixon using the existing line from Hixon to the south for a local shuttle between the small towns along its route - Colwich junction will remain. So, HS2 can seamlessly run onto the line to Stone - no expensive grade separated flying junction.
• Remove the WCML junction at Handsacre. It was to service Stoke. Stoke will now be serviced.
• Edinburgh, Liverpool, Glasgow and Manchester trains from London to just before Stone trains will run at high speeds.

What is not to like.


You have selective amnesia. A Stafford byass as described is superior as it keeps the London and Birmingham to Manchester trains off the WCML entirely. Divide and rule. 2A takes all to Crewe. Not a good idea.

You keep saying Hendy says things are needed, it still doesn't mean anything. Power lines need upgrading north of Crewe to keep the current service going, it doesn't allow faster services. The Colwich crash was 40 years ago, what has happened since?

 

[Palmerston]

So you are extending HS2 and its extension to Stone, sending Manchester trains the quick and safe route. But sending Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Lancs trains through a massive less safe route though a bottleneck thru Stafford. Wow. I see.


Yes, that is it south of Stone. Just before Stone a flying junction to new track to the WCML north of the Norton Bridge junction where another flying junction takes the Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Lancs, and maybe Chester trains onto the WCML. This is in the map I posted. This is a far better solution than reinstating Phase 2a. It covers more bases.

Your proposal will be slower for all of Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Lancs, and also Chester, if that line was wired. I suspect it will be slower to Manchester too, given the time saving from HS2 reaching Crewe vs a shorter and slower route via Stoke. Does it provide superior capacity than HS2a?

Referring to safety seems like a straw man. I have never seen anyone suggest there is a pressing safety concern.

I have no issue with building a new line to connect Stoke more directly to HS2, but that can be done later if necessary.

 

[InTheEastMids]

The route. However, remove the link to the WCML at Handsacre, and maybe remove the track from Colwich junction to where HS2 meets the Colwich to Stone line. Flat junctions make flying junctions.

Once again Phase 2a is a lame duck as takes Manchester trains to Crewe, the long route, and does not serve Stoke. A Stafford bypass diverges the Manchester trains and Liverpool/Scots trains just before Stone at the end of high-speed/fast track from London. London/Birmingham to Manchester and Stoke, the trains are entirely off the WCML.

<Snipped the picture, which was the "Medium Cost Alternative" option from the Atkins 2015 report Rail Alternatives to HS2 Phase 2a>

My reading of that report (Health Warning: it's from 2015) was all the 3 alternative options offer similar value for money to Ph2a - i.e. what you saved on the costs, you lost on (primarily journey time) benefits. I thought about a couple of points that might be relevant if this option, or one like it is taken (Others may have said this, in which case sorry that I missed them).

1. If 3tph Avanti Euston-Piccadilly transfer to HS2, then will they use the same capacity from Hixon via Cheadle Hume and Stockport into the main shed at Piccadilly?
If so, I think it means
- No capacity release for other train services such as south Manchester suburban, or trains to Sheffield via Hope Valley
- No new capacity for e.g. a new XC style service from Curzon Street to Manchester via Delta Junction
- Very limited ability to lengthen trains due to platform constraints at Piccadilly

This strikes me as odd when part of the strategic case for HS2 is about increasing capacity between the West Midlands and the North West (Don't forget about the state of the M6)

2. Whether the Government's threat to build NPR/LMR/Ph2b including a new line via MAN Airport into a new station at Piccadilly are credible

...because I think if it does get built, the capacity arguments above will prove irresistible and London/Brum-Manchester services will end up using the new line anyway, even if it is no faster and Stoke will be back to 1tph. I also wonder, if we are making choices about junctions and ways to maximise HS2 investment, whether it's better value to connect to the WCML at Hixon or XC near Tamworth. Sheffield might not be as big as Manchester, but it's quite a lot bigger than Stoke.

 

[Manutd1999]

• Even Hendy says 4-tracking north of Crewe and upgrade to 140 mph is needed. 140mph improves times to the two Scots cities.
• Also the power lines need upgrading north of Crewe for faster and more trains and especially freight into Liverpool's expanding port and the planned, relocated from Trafford, rail freight terminal at St.Helens.
• 4-tracking north of Crewe and power lines upgrading needs doing immediately.

This may well need doing but it should be considered separately to Phase 2a.

The route. However, remove the link to the WCML at Handsacre, and maybe remove the track from Colwich junction to where HS2 meets the Colwich to Stone line. Flat junctions make flying junctions.

I like it. One change would be to add grade-separation at middle junction indicasted, so trains for Manchester are not conflicting with southbound trains from the WCML (we don't want to re-create Colwich....)

 

[AlexSJW]

This may well need doing but it should be considered separately to Phase 2a.

The prime point is that it replaces Phase 2a. entirely, adding value and covering more bases.

You keep saying Hendy says things are needed, it still doesn't mean anything. Power lines need upgrading north of Crewe to keep the current service going, it doesn't allow faster services. The Colwich crash was 40 years ago, what has happened since?

The Colwich crash did happen and happened at a junction. Hendy is in command. Power lines do need upgrading north of Crewe to keep the current service going, it does allow faster services for sure by supplying more power to more and faster power consuming trains.

 

[HSTEd]

Your proposal will be slower for all of Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Lancs, and also Chester, if that line was wired. I suspect it will be slower to Manchester too, given the time saving from HS2 reaching Crewe vs a shorter and slower route via Stoke. Does it provide superior capacity than HS2a?

I don't think the question is whether this option is better than Phase 2a in terms of what it delivers. It obviously won't be, its primary benefit would be getting something rather than nothing (although Stoke benefits from not having its service cut).

The question is how we extricate ourselves from the mess that the failure of HS2 has created at minimum cost.