Colwich

[RyanOPlasty]

I understand that fixing the junction at Colwich is constrained by available space.
There is a lot of line between Colwich and Rugeley, surrounded by farmland. Is it not possible to build a junction further back, where there is more room and run two parallel two-track railways between there and Colwich?

 

[jfollows]

Why?
You’d still need to build a flyover to avoid the conflict.
For two trains an hour. The down Manchester services which cross on the flat to get to Stoke etc.
Possible - yes - but a sensible use of money?

 

[The Planner]

I understand that fixing the junction at Colwich is constrained by available space.
There is a lot of line between Colwich and Rugeley, surrounded by farmland. Is it not possible to build a junction further back, where there is more room and run two parallel two-track railways between there and Colwich?

Nothing will happen at Colwich as the solution for HS2 will end up off line.

 

[eldomtom2]

Nothing will happen at Colwich as the solution for HS2 will end up off line.

Can you elaborate on what "the solution for HS2 will end up off line" means?

 

[The Planner]

Can you elaborate on what "the solution for HS2 will end up off line" means?

It will be a bypass of Colwich. Probably as speculated on here, continuing on from Fradley to around Hixon.

 

[furnessvale]

It will be a bypass of Colwich. Probably as speculated on here, continuing on from Fradley to around Hixon.

Hixon would seem to be a strange end location, only being able to serve trains to Manchester.

 

[The Planner]

Hixon would seem to be a strange end location, only being able to serve trains to Manchester.

The rest still use Handsacre. Its going to be the cheapest option to release something off the WCML. I don't disagree that getting it north of Stafford is a better option.

 

[eldomtom2]

It will be a bypass of Colwich. Probably as speculated on here, continuing on from Fradley to around Hixon.

So something similar to the Medium Cost option from the HS2 Alternatives report, except without the additional conventional line for Crewe-bound trains? Is this something that is likely to get government funding?

 

[The Planner]

So something similar to the Medium Cost option from the HS2 Alternatives report, except without the additional conventional line for Crewe-bound trains? Is this something that is likely to get government funding?

It will be whatever does something for the minimal cost. It might not even be anything the way it appears to be progressing.

 

[PTR 444]

It will be whatever does something for the minimal cost. It might not even be anything the way it appears to be progressing.

In which case we are back to square one of eliminating the Colwich bottleneck.

Surely it would be much cheaper to build HS2 as far as Hixon, than it would to grade separate Colwich junction or change the track pairing through Rugeley.

 

[The Planner]

In which case we are back to square one of eliminating the Colwich bottleneck.

Surely it would be much cheaper to build HS2 as far as Hixon, than it would to grade separate Colwich junction or change the track pairing through Rugeley.

Like I said, nothing may happen, that costs nothing.

 

[AndrewE]

Like I said, nothing may happen, that costs nothing.

apart from continuing to handicap travel (and hence the economy) in the provinces (but who cares about that in Westminster and Whitehall?) while London gets its WCML relieving line, allowing better semi-fast and commuter services at the S end of the WCML.

 

[Nottingham59]

I understand that fixing the junction at Colwich is constrained by available space.
There is a lot of line between Colwich and Rugeley, surrounded by farmland. Is it not possible to build a junction further back, where there is more room and run two parallel two-track railways between there and Colwich?

It would be very easy (but not cheap) to add a viaduct somewhere between Rugeley and Colwich to grade separate those two flows, but that won't fix all the constraints around Colwich. Freights coming south from Crewe on the Up Slow line have to cross over the paths of northbound down fasts and southbound up fasts to get to the Up slow at Rugeley which is on the east side of the WCML alignment. And these all have to fit through the twin-track Shugborough Tunnel.

And running all Crewe traffic on just two tracks from Shugborough to Rugeley extends the length of the Shugborough bottleneck to several miles. Full grade separation of the Colwich / Shugborough / Stafford Trent Valley complex would be extremely expensive.

Hixon would seem to be a strange end location, only being able to serve trains to Manchester.

Manchester is by far the most important destination for trains on the northern WCML.

Taking HS2 to Hixon buys a surprising amount of extra capacity, for just 10 miles of new high speed line. Firstly, by eliminating the fast paths crossing at Colwich, it simplifies operations in the Colwich / Shugborough area so should increase the overall capacity of that bottleneck.

And secondly, it means that HS2 trains from London can use both the 2tph Avanti paths from Euston and the 2tph Cross Country paths from Birmingham to access Piccadilly. On the existing rail infrastructure in South Manchester, HS2 could run

• 2tph OOC-Piccadilly direct
• 2tph OOC-Curzon St(reverse)-Piccadilly
• 1tph OOC-Macclesfield terminator

That's 4/5 x 550 seats per hour into Manchester, plus whatever goes via Crewe. Extending HS2 phase 2a to Crewe means 35 miles of new line, compared to 10 miles to Hixon, and would be more than three times as expensive, given all the grade separation viaducts needed for HS2 south of Crewe. And would give no more paths through the South Manchester suburbs.

Note they would need to extend the Stoke stopper to Wolverhamption to serve Stafford-Stone-Stoke traffic.

 

[PTR 444]

• 2tph OOC-Piccadilly direct
• 2tph OOC-Curzon St(reverse)-Piccadilly
• 1tph OOC-Macclesfield terminator

Would the Macclesfield Terminator need to exist if 2tph London - Manchester runs via Stoke? I presume both of these would have a Macclesfield call, and 3tph London - Macclesfield seems rather overkill.

 

[Cheshire Scot]

Would the Macclesfield Terminator need to exist if 2tph London - Manchester runs via Stoke? I presume both of these would have a Macclesfield call, and 3tph London - Macclesfield seems rather overkill.

Wasn't the Macclesfield on the basis Manchester trains would run via Crewe and Stoke would be served by the Macc train although Manchester via Birmingham might run via Stoke.
No idea what current plans are.

 

[Nottingham59]

Would the Macclesfield Terminator need to exist if 2tph London - Manchester runs via Stoke? I presume both of these would have a Macclesfield call, and 3tph London - Macclesfield seems rather overkill.

That's just to illustrate the maximum service level that I understand can fit through the Stoke-Manchester corridor.

There is currently capacity in south Manchester for 3tph from London, through Stoke and Crewe combined. (Currently 2 via Stoke and 1 via Crewe). When HS2 phase 1 opens, there will still only be capacity for 3tph. This means a reduction in seats as a 200m HS2 unit will fewer seats than an 11-car Pendolino. If you serve Stoke and Macc with their own dedicated terminating service, then other services would have more space for passengers to Manchester. And crucially none of these services would use up capacity at Colwich.

I don't know if there would be a business case for that though. I expect that DfT will just choose to limit passenger numbers with extortionate ticket prices, like they do now.

Wasn't the Macclesfield on the basis Manchester trains would run via Crewe and Stoke would be served by the Macc train although Manchester via Birmingham might run via Stoke.
No idea what current plans are.

Yes, the Macc terminator only appeared on HS2's Train Service Specification as a "statement of intent" for when phase 2a was open to Crewe. My assumption is that it was a sop to politicians in Stafford and Stoke. I too have no idea what the current DfT plans are.

 

[AndrewE]

There is currently capacity in south Manchester for 3tph from London, through Stoke and Crewe combined. (Currently 2 via Stoke and 1 via Crewe). When HS2 phase 1 opens, there will still only be capacity for 3tph. This means a reduction in seats as a 200m HS2 unit will fewer seats than an 11-car Pendolino. If you serve Stoke and Macc with their own dedicated terminating service, then other services would have more space for passengers to Manchester. And crucially none of these services would use up capacity at Colwich.

Really? I thought that (unless they are routed via Bescot or Wolves and Stafford) all trains down the WCML have to go through Colwich whether they are turning off there for Stoke or not.

 

[Nottingham59]

Really? I thought that (unless they are routed via Bescot or Wolves and Stafford) all trains down the WCML have to go through Colwich whether they are turning off there for Stoke or not.

Sorry, I was talking in the context of HS2 being extended to Hixon. So the "these services" were the ones going directly to Stoke from the HS2 extension and therefore missing out Colwich.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Would the Macclesfield Terminator need to exist if 2tph London - Manchester runs via Stoke? I presume both of these would have a Macclesfield call, and 3tph London - Macclesfield seems rather overkill.

You are not going to get 400m (ie double sets) calling at Macclesfield, or any current WCML station.
The Macc terminator would have been a single 200m set.
There isn't yet a solution to working 400m HS2 trains trains on the WCML, the previous plan being to extend platforms at Crewe and divide there.
But that is not planned either, as things stand.

 

[PTR 444]

That's just to illustrate the maximum service level that I understand can fit through the Stoke-Manchester corridor.

There is currently capacity in south Manchester for 3tph from London, through Stoke and Crewe combined. (Currently 2 via Stoke and 1 via Crewe). When HS2 phase 1 opens, there will still only be capacity for 3tph. This means a reduction in seats as a 200m HS2 unit will fewer seats than an 11-car Pendolino. If you serve Stoke and Macc with their own dedicated terminating service, then other services would have more space for passengers to Manchester. And crucially none of these services would use up capacity at Colwich.

To make this fair on everyone in terms of preventing intermediate passengers from crowding onto London - Manchester trains, you would ideally run them non-stop through Stoke and Macclesfield. I’m not sure this is a great use of scarce paths on an already constrained line, and that’s before asking what would train would serve the Manchester - Macclesfield/Stoke flow.

 

[daodao]

That's just to illustrate the maximum service level that I understand can fit through the Stoke-Manchester corridor.

There is currently capacity in south Manchester for 3tph from London, through Stoke and Crewe combined. (Currently 2 via Stoke and 1 via Crewe). When HS2 phase 1 opens, there will still only be capacity for 3tph. This means a reduction in seats as a 200m HS2 unit will fewer seats than an 11-car Pendolino. If you serve Stoke and Macc with their own dedicated terminating service, then other services would have more space for passengers to Manchester. And crucially none of these services would use up capacity at Colwich.

If it is decided long-term not to build HS2 phase 2a as far as Crewe, would it not be preferable to build 11 (rather than 8) coach trains to run on HS2 and to points further north beyond the northern end of HS2, given that most stations on the existing lines won't be able to handle 16 coach 400m long trains? Using 200m long 8 coach trains on these services would be a capacity reduction, unless they just have 2nd class 4 abreast seating and no catering facilities other than a trolley service.