High Speed Rail Group calls for affordable plan for HS2 phase 2a and Euston

[The Planner]

There is significant benefit to the first 50-75% of phase 2a as you bypass Stafford and the two track section to the South of Stafford.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Mar 2025 ==

Yes, everyone is aware that Colwich is the issue, but Arup were saying it removes issues at Crewe.

So many fewer conflicts than Didcot east.

Which has been planned to be grade seperated for longer than I care to remember. Why will Crewe have many less that Didcot East? That has 7 fast paths on an off peak hour.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Mar 2025 ==

If there are no Birmingham services on a short HS2a just the London ones, then does the extension facilitate any additional services on HS2?

Yes, but not a massive amount as you are pushing the constraints north to Winsford Weaver and Stockport.

 

[chris2]

It’s better to join the fast lines than the slow, but it’s better yet to not join either until north of Crewe. This is the second worst option, unless it’s cheaper to stick to the current (slow lines?) plan, and later build 2b+c.

I’m keen to hear more on this…can you elaborate a bit? In what sense is it better to join north of Crewe? Speed, capacity or both?

Second worst option compared to what?

What if it could be built with passive provision to continue further north in future?

If there are no Birmingham services on a short HS2a just the London ones, then does the extension facilitate any additional services on HS2?

As others have said, to Manchester, no, due to that section being full already. Not sure about Liverpool / Scotland. But I assume you’d improve capacity on the WCML to run more freight / local services.

 

[Nottingham59]

Interesting to see their suggestion for a phase 2a route revision in this point...

This is the proposed junction nr Whitmore / Baldwin's Gate, first proposed in the Alternatives document from 2015 (page 9) and discussed sometime ago on this forum. The WCML at this point is four tracks and the fasts are on the HS2 side so connection would be (relatively) easy. Plus you avoid having to build the Whitmore Heath and Madeley tunnels, as well as some pretty huge structures approaching Crewe, so cost savings do seem realistic.

I might have quoted this discussion on the value of 2a vs the shorter option from the Alternatives doc previously, but I think it's worth repeating...

What do others think of this vs the 2a route, in the context of this probably being as far North as HS2 might possibly get for some time?

The track layout proposed for phase 2a at Crewe has a lot of merit, giving six tracks all the way to Crewe:

• The WCML slow lines from Stafford connect directly to the freight yards at Crewe, with no crossing conflicts (apart from any passenger trains using the slow lines north of Stafford), adding a lot of freight capacity to Crewe from the south.
• The WCML fast lines connect to the outside tracks of the four tracks that pass straight through Crewe station. These call at platforms 5 and 6, then connect directly onto the slow lines towards Weaver.
• The HS2 tracks come down between the WCML fasts; connect to the fast tracks between platforms 5 and 6; then directly onto the fast lines towards Weaver.

This layout gives a really high capacity (I reckon at least 24tph) for passenger traffic from the south, via Stafford or HS2, to pass straight through Crewe station towards Weaver junction.

BUT

• Crewe-Weaver is full. To handle that level of traffic, it will need to four tracks all the way to Weaver. Luckily most of the bridges are already built four tracks wide (except at Hartford Station), so this could be relatively easy to do, but would need extended blockades of the WCML.
• If you want to split and join HS2 trains at Platforms 5 and 6 at Crewe, the capacity will be very much reduced.
• The proposed track layout for 2a does not provide any grade separation for Crewe North junction, so all northbound trains towards Manchester will still have to cross all southbound passenger paths heading to HS2 or to the WCML.
• If they ever build the tunnel under Crewe, then nearly all HS2 traffic will go that way, and all the civil engineering that provides all this extra capacity through Crewe itself will be wasted. The penalty of stopping from high speed is severe. At 360kph, a 2-minute station call costs 320 seconds, and the stopping train ends up 32km behind where it would have been if it had not stopped.

So 2a going all the way to Crewe would not buy much, as it will just run up against constraints in Crewe-Weaver and at Stockport.


Terminating 2a at Baldwin's Gate would limit the capacity south of Crewe to four tracks of mixed traffic, so much less capacity than the 6 tracks all the way in the 2a plans. (Probably around 8tph on the fasts; 8tph on the slows, which would include freight.) But this would still be more than could fit through the two-track sections through Hartford, plus the two track railway towards Wilmslow. So terminating 2a at Baldwin's Gate is probably the best bet in the current econimic climate. Going all the way buys nothing unless you also invest in capacity beyond Crewe. And it keeps open the possibility of continuing 2bWest on a lower-cost surface route direct from Baldwins Gate towards Manchester and Golborne avoiding Crewe altogether.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure going to Baldwin's Gate really gains you much compared to going to Hixon.

If you get a connection to Hixon you can eliminate all crossing moves at Colwich and convert it, de-facto, into a simple section of two track on a four track railway.
With appropriate signalling you could pile a lot of trains through it.

I'm not sure what the last 25km actually gets you in capacity terms.

 

[Grimsby town]

I'm not sure going to Baldwin's Gate really gains you much compared to going to Hixon.

If you get a connection to Hixon you can eliminate all crossing moves at Colwich and convert it, de-facto, into a simple section of two track on a four track railway.
With appropriate signalling you could pile a lot of trains through it.

I'm not sure what the last 25km actually gets you in capacity terms.

But you do nothing to solve the two track section at Shugborough or the change in the slow lines from being paired by direction to paired by use. You're only removing all crossings at Colwich if no additonal classic services. Phase 2a (or something very similar) would allow a better local service through the Trent Valley with services terminating at Stoke and Crewe.

 

[HSTEd]

But you do nothing to solve the two track section at Shugborough or the change in the slow lines from being paired by direction to paired by use.

Well are those the bottlenecks or is the flat junction combined with the two track segment the issue?
If you get to hixon you can route the London Manchesters and some (most?) of the Birmingham traffic away from Colwich.

That will simplify timetabling and create room for paths - indeed you could even extend the Manchester Stoke stopper to Birmingham via Hixon and still beat the classic XC service.

You're only removing all crossings at Colwich if no additonal classic services. Phase 2a (or something very similar) would allow a better local service through the Trent Valley with services terminating at Stoke and Crewe.

To create crossing moves at Colwich a stopping service would have to go to stoke avoiding Stafford.

Why would a local train avoid Stafford?
Once the shugborough tunnel is a simple two track segment you would be able to stack an awful lot of trains through it.

 

[Nottingham59]

I'm not sure going to Baldwin's Gate really gains you much compared to going to Hixon.

If you get a connection to Hixon you can eliminate all crossing moves at Colwich and convert it, de-facto, into a simple section of two track on a four track railway.
With appropriate signalling you could pile a lot of trains through it.

I'm not sure what the last 25km actually gets you in capacity terms.

I agree. Going to Hixon is the part of 2a that buys the most capacity uplift, at relatively low cost. But that option is not in the HSRG report, unfortunately.

 

[The Planner]

Depends on what value is put on Glasgow/Edinburgh and Liverpool journey times on whether Hixon alone is enough.

 

[MarkyT]

Depends on what value is put on Glasgow/Edinburgh and Liverpool journey times on whether Hixon alone is enough.

Agreed. Without a Stafford bypass to the main line heading towards Crewe, you still have the debilitating double track through Shugborough, shared with freight, and the tight slow curves south of Stafford. Further time savings are important, particularly for the Scottish market to capture any more mode share from air. The air lobby doesn't want that of course.

 

[chris2]

Is there an actual service spec for a post-Handsacre scenario?

As I understand it, a WCML junction at Handsacre pushes every HS2 train to the north through Colwich and this is widely considered bad.

If the aim is to get all HS2 trains to bypass Colwich then none of the options do that on their own.

An extension on the full 2A / to Baldwins Gate provides a bypass for HS2 trains going to Liverpool / Scotland and any Manchesters routed via Crewe. But any Manchesters routed via Stoke would still go over Colwich.

An extension to Hixon reverses the above situation.

So I guess to understand which route is best it might be worth starting with which route (via Crewe, or via Stoke) has more HS2 traffic?

Is there an option where you do both and not need Handsacre?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Is there an actual service spec for a post-Handsacre scenario?

As I understand it, a WCML junction at Handsacre pushes every HS2 train to the north through Colwich and this is widely considered bad.

If the aim is to get all HS2 trains to bypass Colwich then none of the options do that on their own.

An extension on the full 2A / to Baldwins Gate provides a bypass for HS2 trains going to Liverpool / Scotland and any Manchesters routed via Crewe. But any Manchesters routed via Stoke would still go over Colwich.

An extension to Hixon reverses the above situation.

So I guess to understand which route is best it might be worth starting with which route (via Crewe, or via Stoke) has more HS2 traffic?

Is there an option where you do both and not need Handsacre?

My bold.
I have been wondering about this and I am pretty sure via that via Crewe will have more HS2 traffic than via Stoke - certainly if Liverpool and Scotland are to be served.

Anyway if Phase 2a got just North of Sfafford I assume Stoke could be reached via the flying junction at Norton Bridge anyway ?.
So to me that seems to be the best place for HS2 to join the WCML - North of Stafford and South of Norton Bridge.
Furthermore when HS2 gets extended further North in the future the current link to the WCML will still be of use for trains needing to call at Crewe or via Stoke.

 

[Nottingham59]

Is there an actual service spec for a post-Handsacre scenario?

As I understand it, a WCML junction at Handsacre pushes every HS2 train to the north through Colwich and this is widely considered bad.

If the aim is to get all HS2 trains to bypass Colwich then none of the options do that on their own.

An extension on the full 2A / to Baldwins Gate provides a bypass for HS2 trains going to Liverpool / Scotland and any Manchesters routed via Crewe. But any Manchesters routed via Stoke would still go over Colwich.

An extension to Hixon reverses the above situation.

So I guess to understand which route is best it might be worth starting with which route (via Crewe, or via Stoke) has more HS2 traffic?

Is there an option where you do both and not need Handsacre?

HIXON
A divergence at Hixon allows up to 4tph to Manchester from HS2. These could use the two Avanti paths through Stoke and the two Cross Country paths from Birmingham via Stafford and Stoke. Perhaps 3tph from Old Oak Common and 1tph from Curzon St would give the right balance. You would need to extend the Stoke stopper to service Stafford and Wolverhampton.

Hixon would also allow an additional 1tph calling at Stoke and terminating at Macclesfield, before reaching the most congested parts of the rail network in south Manchester. And by eliminating crossing moves in the Colwich-Shugbourough junction complex, this would add significant capacity to what is possible now. (My guess is an additional 1 or 2tph, but I haven't modelled that).

BALDWIN'S GATE
Continuing 2a straight on to Baldwin's Gate would not provide any more paths to Manchester via Wilmslow than are available now, but would permit more paths to Liverpool and Scotland, and to Manchester via Warrington and Chat Moss, though that is very much the long way round. You might also be able to run 1tph HS2 calling at Wilmslow and terminating at Manchester Airport to serve the South Manchester and Cheshire market to London.

BOTH
One option would be to do both, which means that the divergence to join the Colwich-Stoke line at Hixon would need to be compatible with 2a continuing on towards Crewe at some point in the future. The best way to do this would probably be to split the mainline vertically, so that both north and southbound chords towards Hixon could be at 125mph / 230kph.


Personally, I would commit now to building nine miles of HS2 2a, to just short of Hixon, and commit to making the decision about junctions within two years from today, after modelling and better planning of the whole network including NPR, approaches to south Manchester, and longer platforms in central Manchester. Any construction spending on junctions will be after the government's five year planning horizon, so the costs shouldn't be limited by Rachel Reeves' spending constraints. The costs of planning, design and safeguarding would be minor compared to construction.

 

[Grimsby town]

Well are those the bottlenecks or is the flat junction combined with the two track segment the issue?
If you get to hixon you can route the London Manchesters and some (most?) of the Birmingham traffic away from Colwich.

That will simplify timetabling and create room for paths - indeed you could even extend the Manchester Stoke stopper to Birmingham via Hixon and still beat the classic XC service.

I might be forgetting something but I didn't think there was Birmingham traffic over Colwich?

Running the stopper with 200 metre classic compatible HS2 rollingstock would be difficult. Its really not suited to it. I don't see specifically designed rollingstock being developed for such a service. It's probably technically possible but operationally difficult.

To create crossing moves at Colwich a stopping service would have to go to stoke avoiding Stafford.

Why would a local train avoid Stafford?
Once the shugborough tunnel is a simple two track segment you would be able to stack an awful lot of trains through it.

Thinking about this more, Hixon wouldn't even remove all Colwich to Stoke services unless all Manchester services are diverted on to HS2. I'd be surprised if Manchester didn't maintain a WCML service for direct connections to places like Milton Keynes. Everything published so far suggests that one Manchester WCML service would be retained.

Serving Stafford creates a 10 minute time penalty over going directly to Stoke (an urban area of nearly 400k people). Stafford has very good services already for a town of its size and if 2a was built would get additonal services anyway. Improving access to Stoke would be far more beneficial.

I don't know how it impacts capacity but Southbound services using the stopping line have to cross the northbound 'fast' lines' to access the slow lines south of Colwich so it's not a case of a simple two track section, particularly with the speed differential between passenger and freight.

 

[HSTEd]

I might be forgetting something but I didn't think there was Birmingham traffic over Colwich?

No, but the time advantage is so large that there will be a strong driver for a Birmingham-Manchester via HS2 service in any case.

Running the stopper with 200 metre classic compatible HS2 rollingstock would be difficult. Its really not suited to it. I don't see specifically designed rollingstock being developed for such a service. It's probably technically possible but operationally difficult.

The 200m trainset probably has more door area for passengers to use than the existing stopper!
But at the end of the day the cost of a rolling stock order modification or dedicated rolling stock will be small compared to the cost of fixed infrastructure.

Thinking about this more, Hixon wouldn't even remove all Colwich to Stoke services unless all Manchester services are diverted on to HS2. I'd be surprised if Manchester didn't maintain a WCML service for direct connections to places like Milton Keynes. Everything published so far suggests that one Manchester WCML service would be retained.

Well presumably the remaining classic service to Manchester would run via Stafford to allow it to pick up the necessary connections.

Serving Stafford creates a 10 minute time penalty over going directly to Stoke (an urban area of nearly 400k people). Stafford has very good services already for a town of its size and if 2a was built would get additonal services anyway. Improving access to Stoke would be far more beneficial.

Ten minute time penalty via Stafford, but only for a comparatively small subset of passengers.
Stoke passengers to Birmingham and London would see far faster journeys than today thanks to the use of HS2, because there would be a Birmingham service to Curzon street that would crush the existing routing via Wolverhampton.

I don't know how it impacts capacity but Southbound services using the stopping line have to cross the northbound 'fast' lines' to access the slow lines south of Colwich so it's not a case of a simple two track section, particularly with the speed differential between passenger and freight.

As it stands, they would have to do that whatever happens, because the lines north of the Shugborough tunnel are paired by use and not by direction. However the conflicts at Colwich themselves would be resolved.
Of course, I am not actually sure how much work it would be to reconfigure the track layout between Norton Bridge Junction and Shugborough to paired by direction, given that NOrton Bridge seems to be a fully flying junction with several routes through it.

Certainly resignalling, but not sure how much beyond that.

 

[The Planner]

As it stands, they would have to do that whatever happens, because the lines north of the Shugborough tunnel are paired by use and not by direction. However the conflicts at Colwich themselves would be resolved.
Of course, I am not actually sure how much work it would be to reconfigure the track layout between Norton Bridge Junction and Shugborough to paired by direction, given that NOrton Bridge seems to be a fully flying junction with several routes through it.

Certainly resignalling, but not sure how much beyond that.

That would be a horrendous amount of work, and probably imports just as many conflicts. Norton Bridge was rebuilt to separate out the flows.

 

[Grimsby town]

No, but the time advantage is so large that there will be a strong driver for a Birmingham-Manchester via HS2 service in any case.

That could be achieved by building Phase 2a/ Stafford Bypass and running via Handsacre albeit with a slightly longer journey time.

The 200m trainset probably has more door area for passengers to use than the existing stopper!
But at the end of the day the cost of a rolling stock order modification or dedicated rolling stock will be small compared to the cost of fixed infrastructure.

Most or none of the platforms are currently 200 metres and HS2 trains are high floor like crossrail. Not completely impossible issues to solve but annoying issues to solve to create a flawed solution. It reminds me of the 150mph pendolino plan. Technically possible but a very complicated imperfect solution with relatively small benefits.

Well presumably the remaining classic service to Manchester would run via Stafford to allow it to pick up the necessary connections.


Ten minute time penalty via Stafford, but only for a comparatively small subset of passengers.
Stoke passengers to Birmingham and London would see far faster journeys than today thanks to the use of HS2, because there would be a Birmingham service to Curzon street that would crush the existing routing via Wolverhampton.

Why run via Stafford? It'll extend the Manchester to MK journey times which is a bigger flow than Stafford to Manchester and Stafford is already very well served to Manchester, Birmingham and London. Stoke should be a far bigger market than Stafford but isn't because the service is generally poorer. Phase 2a gives the opportunity to resolve that by providing direct and fast journeys from Stoke along the Trent Valley.

As it stands, they would have to do that whatever happens, because the lines north of the Shugborough tunnel are paired by use and not by direction. However the conflicts at Colwich themselves would be resolved.
Of course, I am not actually sure how much work it would be to reconfigure the track layout between Norton Bridge Junction and Shugborough to paired by direction, given that NOrton Bridge seems to be a fully flying junction with several routes through it.

Certainly resignalling, but not sure how much beyond that.

That's the point of bypassing that section. HS2 should mean an increased stopping services and freight through the trent valley. Only going to Hixon prevents that. It also provides less journey time improvements for all HS2 services other than London-Stoke and beyond and potentially a Manchester to Birmingham service. Even if it costs a couple of £billion more, fully bypassing Stafford provides significantly more journey time and capacity benefits.

 

[Bald Rick]

No, but the time advantage is so large that there will be a strong driver for a Birmingham-Manchester via HS2 service in any case.

As mentioned previously, the time advantage of Birmingham to Mancheter via HS2 Phase 1 is not that large at all.

 

[SynthD]

But this is really just because the whole HS2 project has been overly gold plated rather than working out what the absolute minimum you need is.

I agree that to start with somewhere beyond the minimum made sense. But at this point we need to work out what is cheap and will deliver a reasonable service.

Do not forget Tokyo does 13-14tph on 4 platforms. Now yes that is a limiting case, and yes the Japanese have full separation and lower levels of luggage, but running a dozen trains per hour on 8 platforms (which is done at St Pancras every day) is really not that bad.

Plus if half of those will run onto the classic network anyway then a 260m platform in the classic station is good enough.

If the trains were 200/260m, and they commit to never building beyond Crewe, then four could be enough, but it would be ugly when there’s disruption. But when they aim higher than that, they do so with a target in mind, an absolute minimum for the full Y, for 400m to beyond Crewe. What minimum would you like to build for? Its impossible to determine if something is gold plated if we don’t know what the target is.

I’m keen to hear more on this…can you elaborate a bit? In what sense is it better to join north of Crewe? Speed, capacity or both?

Second worst option compared to what?

What if it could be built with passive provision to continue further north in future?

If HS2 joins the WCML north of Crewe, it means it stopped at HS2 dedicated platforms there. This is the best option for speed and capacity.

Worst is to join the WCML south of Crewe and only onto the slow lines.

Yes, I’d expect that in any of these three cases, they’d build a stub so that it could continue later, as they are doing now with the eastern arm.

While various points like Colwich do lead to small options, is it likely that anything less than Handsacre to near Crewe is chosen?

 

[The Planner]

If HS2 joins the WCML north of Crewe, it means it stopped at HS2 dedicated platforms there. This is the best option for speed and capacity.

What plan is this?

Worst is to join the WCML south of Crewe and only onto the slow lines.

That has never been an option

 

[Snow1964]

Daily Telegraph is reporting that a private HS2a replacement might be happening

19 March 2025 2:50pm GMT
The northern leg of HS2 could be replaced with a new privately funded railway under government plans to boost economic growth.

Can't read whole article as its behind a paywall

Scrapped HS2 leg set to be replaced with new rail line

Ministers considering reviving plans for a new high-speed line between the West Midlands and Greater Manchester

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[HSTEd]

Government will "back" it, but I am skeptical the Treasury will provide the large and long term subsidy required to persuade private capital to proceed.

It will not be a small amount of additional money.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Can't read whole article as its behind a paywall

It's the proposal from the two Mayors, nothing more, nothing less - no new scheme details other than what was announced last autumn.

 

[6Gman]

In terms of stations Crewe has tonnes of capacity as is with 4 platforms that are essentially unused, plus perhaps one intermediate “Stoke Parkway” station, albeit one that could be ultra simple although perhaps needing platform edge doors. Certainly it’s tough to argue it should cost more than Yunlin in Taiwan in PPP adjusted for inflation - https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/01/14/2003552497

Which platforms would these be?

 

[SynthD]

What plan is this?

In June 2022, the Golborne spur was removed from the Crewe-to-Manchester Parliamentary Bill.[27][28] Without this link, trains to Scotland would join the existing West Coast Main Line further south at Crewe, instead of south of Wigan.

From Wikipedia.

That has never been an option

One particular issue is Handsacre Junction which was originally designed to transfer HS2 trains directly onto the WCML’s centre fast lines to minimise their capacity impact. This required an expensive 1.9km diversion of the WCML Up slow and fast lines. The decision to accelerate phase 2a’s construction meant that few HS2 trains would use the junction, hence the junction was redesigned to reduce costs with HS2 lines joining the WCML slow lines.

With the cancellation of phase 2a, the junction will now be constructed as originally designed with HS2 joining the WCML fast lines. This is a further aspect of cancelling phase 2a that will involve significant additional costs. Moreover, as the HS2 phase 2a Act now specifies a slow line connection, there are no longer Parliamentary powers to construct the original junction connecting HS2 to the WCML fast lines.

From https://www.railengineer.co.uk/hs2-cutback-update/ in December 2023.

My mind is muddled with all the different legal powers, official proposals, and forum ideas.