How could service patterns through Colwich Junction increase capacity

[absolutelymilk]

Once the HS2 connection to the WCML at Handsacre opens, Colwich Junction will become a key bottleneck as the HS2 trains to Scotland & the north of England plus existing trains will all still have to go through the junction. There have been threads already about remodelling the junction, using ETCS or creating a bypass to increase capacity, but my question is whether there is anything that could be done by simply changing service patterns or speeds through the junction?

For example, would lowering the maximum speed through the junction help reduce headway between trains, or are there things to be done by e.g. scheduling northbound trains going via Stoke in a bunch so that they only occupy the junction for a shorter amount of time?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

For example, would lowering the maximum speed through the junction help reduce headway between trains,

Lowering the speed would mean trains take longer to cross the junction. It might reduce the physical distance of the headway, but the time apart would hardly change.

 

[absolutelymilk]

The other option is sending more northbound intercity trains to Manchester via Crewe and fewer via Stoke, but more southbound via Stoke rather than Crewe to minimise conflicting moves. Remember that there will presumably still be a non-HS2 intercity service to Stoke, so this could done in such a way that Crewe and Stoke still have at least one service to London per hour in each direction

 

[jfollows]

Or send the northbound trains via Stafford and Stone!
Not going to happen.

 

[Nottingham59]

Once the HS2 connection to the WCML at Handsacre opens, Colwich Junction will become a key bottleneck as the HS2 trains to Scotland & the north of England plus existing trains will all still have to go through the junction. There have been threads already about remodelling the junction, using ETCS or creating a bypass to increase capacity, but my question is whether there is anything that could be done by simply changing service patterns or speeds through the junction?

Well they could start by removing all freight paths in the morning and evening peaks. (Or just southbound paths in the morning and northbound in the evening.) That should enable more passenger paths in peak hours.

Take for instance 4L58 which went through Colwich at 0752h this morning. This crossed the Down fast flows to both Crewe and to Stafford and both Up fast flows to get across to the Up slow lines on the Trent Valley.

Southbound, the 0700h from Piccadilly went through just ahead of it at 0749h, and the 0655h from Piccacilly via Crewe just after it at 0758h. That's a 9.5 minute enforced gap between peak Up fast trains in the timetable to accommodate one freight movement, which looks like close to the minimum practical gap.

With three minute headways on the fasts, that 9 minute gap could (in principle) accommodate two fast paths.

 

[Senex]

Or send the northbound trains via Stafford and Stone!
Not going to happen.

That was a serious proposal some years back (and proved just as unsound an idea then). And nearly two centuries ago that was the original planned route for the Manchester & Birmingham.

 

[slowroad]

Well they could start by removing all freight paths in the morning and evening peaks. (Or just southbound paths in the morning and northbound in the evening.) That should enable more passenger paths in peak hours.

Take for instance 4L58 which went through Colwich at 0752h this morning. This crossed the Down fast flows to both Crewe and to Stafford and both Up fast flows to get across to the Up slow lines on the Trent Valley.

Southbound, the 0700h from Piccadilly went through just ahead of it at 0749h, and the 0655h from Piccacilly via Crewe just after it at 0758h. That's a 9.5 minute enforced gap between peak Up fast trains in the timetable to accommodate one freight movement, which looks like close to the minimum practical gap.

With three minute headways on the fasts, that 9 minute gap could (in principle) accommodate two fast paths.

Genuine question - given the origin and destination of freight movements are there any options for more radical re-routing (perhaps subject to gauge increases)?

 

[Nottingham59]

Genuine question - given the origin and destination of freight movements are there any options for more radical re-routing (perhaps subject to gauge increases)?

Sure. You could send all southbound freights via Penkridge and Walsall to rejoin the WCML slows via the Nuneation flyover. I don't know how congested that alternate route is today, but there will be significantly less traffic on it when Handsacre opens allowing Birmingham-Manchester passengers to go via HS2 rather than through Wolverhampton.

 

[Oxfordblues]

Rerouteing intermodals via the Coventry Corridor, Stechford, Aston, Bescot and Bushbury and vice-versa would relieve the Slow lines Handsacre to Colwich but would of course simply transfer the problem to the West Midlands pinch-points.

 

[Harpo]

Bar major upgrades, it’s very hard to improve any railway junction in isolation without causing issues elsewhere, and those issues can include making the resource plan sub-optimal.

 

[slowroad]

Sure. You could send all southbound freights via Penkridge and Walsall to rejoin the WCML slows via the Nuneation flyover. I don't know how congested that alternate route is today, but there will be significantly less traffic on it when Handsacre opens allowing Birmingham-Manchester passengers to go via HS2 rather than through Wolverhampton.

Sounds like half a resolution….what would be needed to do similar for northbound?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Well they could start by removing all freight paths in the morning and evening peaks. (Or just southbound paths in the morning and northbound in the evening.) That should enable more passenger paths in peak hours.

Take for instance 4L58 which went through Colwich at 0752h this morning. This crossed the Down fast flows to both Crewe and to Stafford and both Up fast flows to get across to the Up slow lines on the Trent Valley.

Southbound, the 0700h from Piccadilly went through just ahead of it at 0749h, and the 0655h from Piccacilly via Crewe just after it at 0758h. That's a 9.5 minute enforced gap between peak Up fast trains in the timetable to accommodate one freight movement, which looks like close to the minimum practical gap.

With three minute headways on the fasts, that 9 minute gap could (in principle) accommodate two fast paths.

It is always helpful to describe (freight) trains in terms of their origin, route and destination rather than 4L58. We don’t even know if it was anywhere near its booked path.

I think that you have succeeded in demonstrating the folly of filling the ‘firebreak’ path around that time of day with the 0700 additional from Manchester (which didn’t have firm rights and has been the subject of another recent thread).

We keep being assured of how GBR will have a target to increase freight by 75% within the next 24 years. In practice, with the likely decline of commodities such as petroleum and biomass that is likely to mean a doubling of the mainly intermodal flows on the southern WCML. Right from the beginning HS2 was envisaged as facilitating a huge number of additional freight paths on the WCML. And now we see proposals of peak ‘curfews’ for freight instead. Something sadly wrong here.

 

[Nottingham59]

Sounds like half a resolution….what would be needed to do similar for northbound?

Northbound freights are on the same (southwest) side of the alignment all the way through the Colwich-Shigborough bottleneck, so they block only WCML-Stafford fasts in the two-track Shugborough tunnel.

You could stack northbound freights on the slow just before Colwich, and then flight them through Shugborough without conflict whenever a northbound fast train took the route towards Stoke. Which would be much less disruptive than southbound freights, which have to cross all northbound and southbound fast flows to get to the other side of the WCML alignment.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As I see it, all that happens when HS2 opens to Handsacre is that most of the WCML fast services (6-7tph?) will divert to the new line, operated by HS2 stock.
The Chester/North Wales service will remain on the classic WCML, operated by the current bi-modes, as will anything operated by diesel units (eg Lumo 222s).
There are unlikely to be additional services as the NR classic infrastructure will not be able to cope.
The old plan to run HS2 services to Crewe on HS2a, with a residual service via Handsacre to Stoke and Macclesfield is surely dead now, with 2tph remaining to Manchester via Stoke.
I don't see why the Colwich problem will be significantly different than it is now, unless the non-tilt speeds of the HS2 stock forces timetable changes.

 

[Nottingham59]

I don't see why the Colwich problem will be significantly different than it is now,

Colwich will have the same capacity as it does now, but the demand for paths will be greater.

There are unlikely to be additional services as the NR classic infrastructure will not be able to cope.

There is scope for more paths than now north of Colwich, even on the current infrastructure. Not many, but if they can find a path to Stirling, they can find paths to elsewhere.

The key constraint is political: should precious capacity of the network through the Manchester suburbs be allocated to short trains from Cardiff, or long trains to London? Or better services for Manchester commuters?

 

[Snow1964]

Fortunately I suspect Lord Hendy is aware of this bottleneck.

Cannot really squeeze more through the junction without spending hundreds of millions on serious upgrade with flyovers, very high speed (line speed) junctions, and extra spurs to cover just about every conceivable parallel move etc.

If only do bit of work, get token increase in capacity. If want the full version allowing 4 trains at same time, fast and slow (or slow and fast) track to each destination, then likely to be spending over £1bn

If going to spend that much, then better to bypass the whole thing and build a new high speed line across some fields to just south of Crewe with a spur to Stoke line.

You could also save money (and divert it to the bypass line construction) by then not building the Hansacre spur either as it will not be going to get much use if can join the existing lines few miles further on. My view is the Hansacre spur creates a problem at Colwich, so is a dumb place to end the HS2 line even temporarily.

 

[Nottingham59]

It might be useful to consider the likely demand for paths through Colwich, once Handsacre is open.

Old Oak Common could handle 10tph off six platforms (with a reversing siding at the London end). If 4tph go to Curzon St, that leaves 6tph HS2 from Euston, plus say 2tph from Curzon St giving 8tph from HS2 through Colwich.

I can't see the passenger demand for more than 2tph slow and 2tph fast up the WCML Trent Valley once HS2 is open. And one of those slows could terminate at Litchfield, giving 3tph through Colwich from the WCML.

Would Colwich be able to handle those 11tph passenger, if it weren't for freight slowing things up? I suspect it probably would.

Today for example, Colwich handled 16 passenger trains between 10am and 11am, which is only 8tph. Plus 3 freights which ran plus one cancelled freight. That's 2tph freight. So we know Colwich can handle 8tph passenger and 2tph freight. So it should be able handle 11tph passenger, as passenger trains can transit the bottlenecks faster than slow freights.

There are also 6 Q-paths in the timetable between 10-11am that were not used today (so a theorectical 3tph), of which one is the Lumo path from Stirling.

So the question becomes how many freights should be allowed through Colwich during the day? I say they should go at night, but others will disagree.

 

[Bunglejim]

I would just like to point out that ports, quarries and terminals are quite similar to people, they generally like to work during the daylight. If freight is to be barred from the network during the daytime so a few more passenger trains can run and are heavily restricted at night so Network Rail can repair and maintain the passenger railway, which motorway has the space for thousands of tonnes of aggregate traffic and miles of more container lorries?

The railway is mixed traffic, especially the west coast main line. We have to live with that and utilise it the best we can. If more space is required for passenger traffic then rather than simply cancel the freight, we should in my view, be looking at where we can improve the railway to allow the freight to run. How about increasing the capacity between east anglia and the west coast main line and electrifying it? Then freight can avoid London and be much more reliable.

 

[Nottingham59]

Rerouteing intermodals via the Coventry Corridor, Stechford, Aston, Bescot and Bushbury and vice-versa would relieve the Slow lines Handsacre to Colwich but would of course simply transfer the problem to the West Midlands pinch-points.

I was thinking more via Walsall and the Sutton Park line, which has lots of Q timings but only seems to have around 3tph of actual trains. Again, I don't know if that routing would be feasible for southbound WCML freight.

Water Orton seems quite constrained, which is all the more reason to connect Curzon St to the Derby line.

The railway is mixed traffic, especially the west coast main line. We have to live with that and utilise it the best we can.

Sure. As we have to live with the fact the Colwich will be the critical constraint for at least five years after Handsacre opens.

If more space is required for passenger traffic then rather than simply cancel the freight, we should in my view, be looking at where we can improve the railway to allow the freight to run.

Tell that to Sunak and the other plonkers who cancelled phase 2a.

 

[mmh]

I don't think we need to worry too much about this because I doubt there's even a 50% chance HS2 trains will leave the HS2 line within most of our lifetimes.

 

[Manutd1999]

Or send the northbound trains via Stafford and Stone!
Not going to happen.

Why shouldn't it happen? A few mins extra on northbound journey times would be compensated by HS2 anyway, and the benefit in deconflicting Colwich could be a considerable benefit?

 

[The Planner]

Well they could start by removing all freight paths in the morning and evening peaks. (Or just southbound paths in the morning and northbound in the evening.) That should enable more passenger paths in peak hours.

Take for instance 4L58 which went through Colwich at 0752h this morning. This crossed the Down fast flows to both Crewe and to Stafford and both Up fast flows to get across to the Up slow lines on the Trent Valley.

Southbound, the 0700h from Piccadilly went through just ahead of it at 0749h, and the 0655h from Piccacilly via Crewe just after it at 0758h. That's a 9.5 minute enforced gap between peak Up fast trains in the timetable to accommodate one freight movement, which looks like close to the minimum practical gap.

With three minute headways on the fasts, that 9 minute gap could (in principle) accommodate two fast paths.

That doesn't mean those extra paths work elsewhere though.

Why shouldn't it happen? A few mins extra on northbound journey times would be compensated by HS2 anyway, and the benefit in deconflicting Colwich could be a considerable benefit?

Its not just a few minutes though and you still create conflicts at Stone and Stafford in the other direction unless the plan is that the trains don't stop at Stafford, which would be odd if you deliberately sent them that way.

 

[MatthewHutton]

It might be useful to consider the likely demand for paths through Colwich, once Handsacre is open.

Old Oak Common could handle 10tph off six platforms (with a reversing siding at the London end). If 4tph go to Curzon St, that leaves 6tph HS2 from Euston, plus say 2tph from Curzon St giving 8tph from HS2 through Colwich.

I can't see the passenger demand for more than 2tph slow and 2tph fast up the WCML Trent Valley once HS2 is open. And one of those slows could terminate at Litchfield, giving 3tph through Colwich from the WCML.

Would Colwich be able to handle those 11tph passenger, if it weren't for freight slowing things up? I suspect it probably would.

Today for example, Colwich handled 16 passenger trains between 10am and 11am, which is only 8tph. Plus 3 freights which ran plus one cancelled freight. That's 2tph freight. So we know Colwich can handle 8tph passenger and 2tph freight. So it should be able handle 11tph passenger, as passenger trains can transit the bottlenecks faster than slow freights.

There are also 6 Q-paths in the timetable between 10-11am that were not used today (so a theorectical 3tph), of which one is the Lumo path from Stirling.

So the question becomes how many freights should be allowed through Colwich during the day? I say they should go at night, but others will disagree.

The big advantage for Colwich that HS2 phase one will deliver is reliability.

Rather than 40% of trains being at least 3 minutes late and 13% of trains being 15 minutes late you will have 5% of them being 3 minutes late and 1% being 15 minutes late like greater anglia manages.

I do also actually think if you reduced the speed of the express services to 60mph so they were the same as the freight that would help. Roads have more capacity at lower speeds so I fail to see why railways wouldn’t be the same. Maybe you would have to redo the signals so they are closer together but that feels to me like a worthwhile investment.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2026 ==

Sure. As we have to live with the fact the Colwich will be the critical constraint for at least five years after Handsacre opens.

It’s not going to be that quick unless we can deliver it for a sensible price, which may well need fundamental planning reform to have a rules-based approach rather than a discretionary one.

Fundamentally the re-planning at 1/10th the cost of HS2 phase 2a or whatever is sensible likely wont even begin until HS2 goes completely live.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2026 ==

You could also save money (and divert it to the bypass line construction) by then not building the Hansacre spur either as it will not be going to get much use if can join the existing lines few miles further on. My view is the Hansacre spur creates a problem at Colwich, so is a dumb place to end the HS2 line even temporarily.

The other Colwich issue is the 2 track section that I think goes through Cannock Chase AONB. So you can’t just add extra tracks so it’s not just a grade separation issue.

The spur and continuing HS2 to at least Norton Bridge is pretty useful, and the good news is that it is very similar to the sorts of projects our neighbours deliver for peanuts (well £1bn)

 

[Manutd1999]

Its not just a few minutes though and you still create conflicts at Stone and Stafford in the other direction unless the plan is that the trains don't stop at Stafford, which would be odd if you deliberately sent them that way.

It would only be northbound trains (southbound continue to run via Colwich), so they probably wouldn't stop at Stafford and there wouldn't be any conflict at Stone? The journey time penalty could be worth it if it frees a path or two....

 

[markymark2000]

Could we not create a link from HS2 to just past Colwich on the Stoke branch? Then you can move the London to Manchester via Stoke services to run via HS2 and this HS2-Colwich link, which will negate the need for these trains to rejoin the WCML for 8-10 miles before branching off again at Colwich. Cuts out a number of conflicts with the core WCML and

 

[The Planner]

It would only be northbound trains (southbound continue to run via Colwich), so they probably wouldn't stop at Stafford and there wouldn't be any conflict at Stone? The journey time penalty could be worth it if it frees a path or two....

Not necessarily, especially if it moves fresh air about as the journey time isn't as attractive.

 

[Manutd1999]

Could we not create a link from HS2 to just past Colwich on the Stoke branch? Then you can move the London to Manchester via Stoke services to run via HS2 and this HS2-Colwich link, which will negate the need for these trains to rejoin the WCML for 8-10 miles before branching off again at Colwich. Cuts out a number of conflicts with the core WCML and

This would be my preferred solution but is not the premise of this thread. IMO they should extend to Hixon at the same time as Handsacre. That frees 2ph paths on the WCML, removes conflicts at Colwich and also allows Birmingham-Manchester via HS2. Handsacre to Hixon is what, 10km? In terms of "value added per km" it seems like a no-brainer.

 

[MatthewHutton]

This would be my preferred solution but is not the premise of this thread. IMO they should extend to Hixon at the same time as Handsacre. That frees 2ph paths on the WCML, removes conflicts at Colwich and also allows Birmingham-Manchester via HS2. Handsacre to Hixon is what, 10km? In terms of "value added per km" it seems like a no-brainer.

I was going to say that it’s only a little further to the west coast mainline, but that isn’t actually true. This is about half way.

 

[WTT Gremlin]

There is a 'small' structural issue with trying resolve Colwich by just looking at Colwich... that is Colwich does not exist in a vacuum and therefore related bottlenecks for a mixed use railway which have to be included at the same time.

Just a few are (obviously not all of equal scale or impact):
2-track section through Shugborough Tunnel
Stafford Trent Valley & South Junctions
Stone
Cheadle Hulme
Slade Lane JN
WCML 3-track section south of Nuneaton
Wolverhampton to Stafford - and many more across the West Mids

Would also add regarding to the re-routing of freight. In addition to the excellent point regarding opening hours for terminals, it is worth considering freight is sensitive to journey time/route length increases and therefore just moving freight paths might just have the effect of removing that freight from the network.

The headline answer to the OP is that there had were such gains to be made, then they would already have been made. The more useful answer is, to 'solve' a challenge like Colwich would take a much wider collection of interventions to release capacity that could effectively be used, and given the current climate, I would doubt that there are enough services that cannot be run today/additional services for a viable business case given that for a full integrated programme of interventions you'd be lucky to get any change from £5Bn.


Just going for Crayonista-ing then here are a few 'small' interventions that could assist:
WCML: 4 track min Euston - Preston
6 track Whitehouse Jn to Norton Bridge avoiding route - with flyover from FL to access new route at Norton Bridge, and black sheet Stafford
4 track Stone to Kidsgrove
4 track Cheadle Hulme station to Adswood Road Jn
Re-pair tracks between Cheadle Hulme and Piccadilly
6 track Slade Lane Jn to Piccadilly - 8 from Adwick with Eastern Lines provided new platforms (partially on top of a HS2 through box)
Rebuild large parts of Piccadilly to remove things like single lead to 9-12
Double single line sections & re-signalling WCML to Carlisle via S&C - bonus points for electrification
Carlisle Re-doubling junctions and re-instating freight avoiding lines - bonus for 4-track to a rebuilt Gretna Jn
Crewe station complete reimagination - inc redoubling line to Kidsgrove

Even without any new routes such as Rugby to Leicester - broadly ex-Midland route with added access to Magma Park/Lutterworth - that lot would easily blow well beyond said £5Bn

 

[MatthewHutton]

There is a 'small' structural issue with trying resolve Colwich by just looking at Colwich... that is Colwich does not exist in a vacuum and therefore related bottlenecks for a mixed use railway which have to be included at the same time.

Just a few are (obviously not all of equal scale or impact):
2-track section through Shugborough Tunnel
Stafford Trent Valley & South Junctions
Stone
Cheadle Hulme
Slade Lane JN
WCML 3-track section south of Nuneaton
Wolverhampton to Stafford - and many more across the West Mids

To be fair if you extended HS2 to from Handsacre to Norton bridge that would fix/improve 4 of those?