Restarting HS2a

[HSTEd]

Phase 2a is being retained.

https://x.com/transportb/status/1935350452528496669?t=bVUycR-RaDDuR1DgSsYPAg&s=19

I read that as the stubs of track proposed for connecting to Phase 2 sections will still be built.

It would likely cost a lot of money to take them out of the plans at this point.

 

[NCT]

Phase 2a is being retained.

https://x.com/transportb/status/1935350452528496669?t=bVUycR-RaDDuR1DgSsYPAg&s=19

I've seen that too ...

Is this an active decision to signal retaining future HS2 phases (I suppose the 2b bit is significant because in this context it means the Eastern leg element?) Or just a passive decision to avoid having to revise powers or get out of existing committed contracts?

 

[Zomboid]

What it means at this stage is that they're not going to change the civil engineer design now (and at a cost) to make future expansions harder or impossible.

They may never actually be used, but it will remain possible. And if they never carry trains they can stand as monuments to myopia.

 

[Bradford1]

I always thought HS2's eastern leg would be restarted after Phase 1a opens. The public would demand HS2 to continue they saw the benefits of 1a. But the government has now announced the eastern leg land is being sold off. Very short sighted, and not exactly going to make any meaningful difference to public finances.

 

[BottleTheWater]

I always thought HS2's eastern leg would be restarted after Phase 1a opens. The public would demand HS2 to continue they saw the benefits of 1a. But the government has now announced the eastern leg land is being sold off. Very short sighted, and not exactly going to make any meaningful difference to public finances.

I think people tend to overlook that the current passenger numbers on the train include the post-covid revenge travel. The numbers on the London Underground might be more reflective of the downward trend of passenger numbers. Remember that demographically the UK isn't going to bode well in the future and the economy is stagnating too.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I always thought HS2's eastern leg would be restarted after Phase 1a opens. The public would demand HS2 to continue they saw the benefits of 1a. But the government has now announced the eastern leg land is being sold off. Very short sighted, and not exactly going to make any meaningful difference to public finances.

Phase 1 benefits are at least a decade away but would agree they should protect the line of route giving how much effort and cost has already been expended.

 

[jfowkes]

I think people tend to overlook that the current passenger numbers on the train include the post-covid revenge travel. The numbers on the London Underground might be more reflective of the downward trend of passenger numbers. Remember that demographically the UK isn't going to bode well in the future and the economy is stagnating too.

There's a big opportunity to move existing travel (both people and freight) from roads to trains though. Even with demographic shifts, that's still the case. Environmentally, and for public health, we need to be doing that.

 

[Brubulus]

Phase 1 benefits are at least a decade away but would agree they should protect the line of route giving how much effort and cost has already been expended.

The eastern leg isn't a particularly amazing route. I would much rather the stub of the eastern leg was attached to the Birmingham-Derby line than just left to rot for a mythical eastern leg. London-Newcastle/Leeds journeys will still have to run via the classic network, but there will be a lot more space for them without end to end traffic on the ECML. Remember Leeds services should be able to run via a line to Manchester and TRU if they ever actually build 2a and a link to Manchester.

 

[Zomboid]

My opinion is that Leeds should always have been reached via Manchester, and Sheffield should be reached via a short link to the Birmingham to Derby line. (Allowing the Nottingham to St Pancras line to get a London service focused on Nottingham and Leicester, rather than having to fit with Derby & Sheffield as well).

Selling off the east leg and not the west leg is perhaps a sign that all hope is not yet lost for 2a.

 

[NCT]

What land was bought for 2b East?

 

[Snow1964]

Not directly HS2 section 2a, but a drone video has been posted of the section north of delta junction (near where A38 crosses), and it seems there is now a distinct lack of work going ahead.
The person doing video said that staff have mentioned that some the worksites have been closed.
Originally the section south of Hansacre should have been ready in 2027, later slipped to sometime 2029-2033, now seems to be 10 years away in 2035

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Not directly HS2 section 2a, but a drone video has been posted of the section north of delta junction (near where A38 crosses), and it seems there is now a distinct lack of work going ahead.
The person doing video said that staff have mentioned that some the worksites have been closed.
Originally the section south of Hansacre should have been ready in 2027, later slipped to sometime 2029-2033, now seems to be 10 years away in 2035

Firstly great drone video really shows up how much temporary and take has been taken to build HS2. Can't see how its not efficient to at least finish the structures and put the roads back on their final alignments then close the worksites down although given its still in scope why aren't they getting on with it.

 

[chris2]

The sensible reason not to progress this area would be because the current construction sequence has the route from OOC->Curzon opening first and this section isn't on it. The connection from delta->Handsacre will be opening some years afterwards and in the context of a restricted annual spend, it would clearly make sense to divert money and resources to the parts of the scheme due to open first.

The longer-term view is that the 2a route hasn't really gone completely away, despite cancellation and the lifting of safeguarding. In the event that some kind of alternative 2a were to come forward, it would make very little sense to open delta->Handsacre as a standalone stage because the benefits of this section on its own would be marginal compared to the fuller route. Far better would be to package it together with a continued route past Colwich, as this is the key enabler of the faster journeys, better reliability and relieved capacity on the existing line that was originally promised north of Birmingham.

Whilst this is by no means certain to happen, the possibility probably adds to the reasons not to rush things at this point.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The sensible reason not to progress this area would be because the current construction sequence has the route from OOC->Curzon opening first and this section isn't on it. The connection from delta->Handsacre will be opening some years afterwards and in the context of a restricted annual spend, it would clearly make sense to divert money and resources to the parts of the scheme due to open first.

The longer-term view is that the 2a route hasn't really gone completely away, despite cancellation and the lifting of safeguarding. In the event that some kind of alternative 2a were to come forward, it would make very little sense to open delta->Handsacre as a standalone stage because the benefits of this section on its own would be marginal compared to the fuller route. Far better would be to package it together with a continued route past Colwich, as this is the key enabler of the faster journeys, better reliability and relieved capacity on the existing line that was originally promised north of Birmingham.

Whilst this is by no means certain to happen, the possibility probably adds to the reasons not to rush things at this point.

That all makes sense given the money allocated now doesn't go as far as it should have done. Anyhow my point wasn't about getting on with the whole route but completing those discrete civil projects that have been started so you can restore the local road network and keep the local population on side. Also you would have thought they would have let a contract to deliver those discrete works including any remediation but who knows with the byzantine contracting strategy that HS2 have deployed to date.

 

[weeklycommuter]

The sensible reason not to progress this area would be because the current construction sequence has the route from OOC->Curzon opening first and this section isn't on it. The connection from delta->Handsacre will be opening some years afterwards and in the context of a restricted annual spend, it would clearly make sense to divert money and resources to the parts of the scheme due to open first.

The longer-term view is that the 2a route hasn't really gone completely away, despite cancellation and the lifting of safeguarding. In the event that some kind of alternative 2a were to come forward, it would make very little sense to open delta->Handsacre as a standalone stage because the benefits of this section on its own would be marginal compared to the fuller route. Far better would be to package it together with a continued route past Colwich, as this is the key enabler of the faster journeys, better reliability and relieved capacity on the existing line that was originally promised north of Birmingham.

Whilst this is by no means certain to happen, the possibility probably adds to the reasons not to rush things at this point.

I remain of the view that there is no point in building the HS2 connection to the WCML at Handsacre Junction because all HS2 trains North of Birmingham would have to continue to go through the Colwich-Shugborough bottleneck which is limited to the current eight passenger trains an hour and it would not enable any more freight trains to run on the WCML South of Crewe.

If the Streethay and Handsacre Junctions are not built to save money, HS2 is built from the delta junction to Crewe and the platform extensions at Preston and Carlisle are completed, all the passenger and freight capacity enhancements on the WCML London to North West England and virtually all of the planned HS2 connectivity between London to and from Scotland and the North West of England can be delivered.

The 200m long Class 895 single sets can be used for 2tph London-Liverpool, 1tph London-Lancaster and 1tph Glasgow/Edinburgh-Birmingham and in addition to three or four double sets an hour London-Birmingham, the planned two double sets an hour London-Scotland calling only at Preston and Carlisle and dividing at Carlisle for Edinburgh and Glasgow can be run.

If the HS2 operating speed is set to 250kph, four 250m long 250kph trains an hour each with around 750 seats could run from London to Manchester, two on the WCML via Stoke-on-Trent and two on HS2 via Crewe. This would deliver the promised 3,000 seats an hour each way between London and Manchester.

There are two fast train paths an hour between Crewe and Manchester Piccadilly calling only at Wilmslow and Stockport but only one is used by Avanti West Coast trains to and from London as there is no capacity for a second train from London to Manchester via Crewe to pass through the Colwich-Shugborough bottleneck. The TfW Cardiff-Manchester train uses the other path but this could terminate at Crewe.

The XC Manchester-Bristol train could be made a double set with one set to Bristol and one set to Cardiff to ensure there continues to be a direct hourly train between Cardiff and Manchester. There would be no capacity for the proposed HS2 Birmingham-Manchester trains without HS2 2b to Manchester but ensuring that this XC train and the XC Manchester-Bournemouth train each have 600 to 700 seats with new rolling stock would ensure enough seats each hour on direct trains between Birmingham and Manchester via Stoke-on-Trent.

 

[The Planner]

I remain of the view that there is no point in building the HS2 connection to the WCML at Handsacre Junction because all HS2 trains North of Birmingham would have to continue to go through the Colwich-Shugborough bottleneck which is limited to the current eight passenger trains an hour and it would not enable any more freight trains to run on the WCML South of Crewe.

If the Streethay and Handsacre Junctions are not built to save money, HS2 is built from the delta junction to Crewe and the platform extensions at Preston and Carlisle are completed, all the passenger and freight capacity enhancements on the WCML London to North West England and virtually all of the planned HS2 connectivity between London to and from Scotland and the North West of England can be delivered.

The 200m long Class 895 single sets can be used for 2tph London-Liverpool, 1tph London-Lancaster and 1tph Glasgow/Edinburgh-Birmingham and in addition to three or four double sets an hour London-Birmingham, the planned two double sets an hour London-Scotland calling only at Preston and Carlisle and dividing at Carlisle for Edinburgh and Glasgow can be run.

If the HS2 operating speed is set to 250kph, four 250m long 250kph trains an hour each with around 750 seats could run from London to Manchester, two on the WCML via Stoke-on-Trent and two on HS2 via Crewe. This would deliver the promised 3,000 seats an hour each way between London and Manchester.

There are two fast train paths an hour between Crewe and Manchester Piccadilly calling only at Wilmslow and Stockport but only one is used by Avanti West Coast trains to and from London as there is no capacity for a second train from London to Manchester via Crewe to pass through the Colwich-Shugborough bottleneck. The TfW Cardiff-Manchester train uses the other path but this could terminate at Crewe.

The XC Manchester-Bristol train could be made a double set with one set to Bristol and one set to Cardiff to ensure there continues to be a direct hourly train between Cardiff and Manchester. There would be no capacity for the proposed HS2 Birmingham-Manchester trains without HS2 2b to Manchester but ensuring that this XC train and the XC Manchester-Bournemouth train each have 600 to 700 seats with new rolling stock would ensure enough seats each hour on direct trains between Birmingham and Manchester via Stoke-on-Trent.

What junction at Streethay? The South Wales to Manchester train will never be truncated at Crewe.

 

[weeklycommuter]

What junction at Streethay? The South Wales to Manchester train will never be truncated at Crewe.

The planned junction between HS2 continuing to Crewe and branching to Handsacre Junction. See attached.

What would be the more attractive use of the second fast train path each hour between Crewe and Manchester Piccadilly?

An hourly train Manchester-Stoke-Birmingham-Bristol/Cardiff dividing at Gloucester would also be a second direct train each hour from Cardiff to Birmingham so that is likely to be more attractive as a direct train Cardiff-Manchester. At present the hourly Cardiff-Nottingham train provides the only direct hourly Cardiff-Birmingham train. There is also a TfW Cardiff-Cheltenham train where passengers have to change for a train to Birmingham.

The original plan was to build HS2 2a and 2b Crewe-Manchester. If 2a and 2b Crewe-Manchester are built this will provide all the capacity that is needed for trains between London and Manchester. But what is the plan to increase capacity between London and Manchester if 2b is not built? If 2a is not built I see no solution but I see this possible solution if 2a is built but 2b is not built. That is why I consider it to be so important that HS2 2a is built so HS2 joins the WCML at Crewe and not at Handsacre Junction.

 

[Nottingham59]

That is why I consider it to be so important that HS2 2a is built so HS2 joins the WCML at Crewe and not at Handsacre Junction.

Which is why the phase 2a was defined in the first place: truncating HS2 at phase 1 made no sense, as was obvious to everyone except Mr Sunak.

 

[HSTEd]

Which is why the phase 2a was defined in the first place: truncating HS2 at phase 1 made no sense, as was obvious to everyone except Mr Sunak.

Phase 2A only came into existence (as a separate phase) years after Handsacre was selected as the connection point for Phase 1 though.

So it does raise the question about what the plan was before that, I suspect that there simply was no plan for Phase 2 not being completed.

From where we are, I don't like the false dichotomy of "do nothing", "build Phase 2A as previously envisaged".

If the issue is Colwich/Shugborough, we can solve it without going all the way to Crewe. If we can reach Hixon and take over the Stone-Colwich line, Colwich ceases to be operationally a junction and Shugborough just becomes a simple two track section which can have trains stacked through it.

 

[The Planner]

The planned junction between HS2 continuing to Crewe and branching to Handsacre Junction. See attached.

What would be the more attractive use of the second fast train path each hour between Crewe and Manchester Piccadilly?

An hourly train Manchester-Stoke-Birmingham-Bristol/Cardiff dividing at Gloucester would also be a second direct train each hour from Cardiff to Birmingham so that is likely to be more attractive as a direct train Cardiff-Manchester. At present the hourly Cardiff-Nottingham train provides the only direct hourly Cardiff-Birmingham train. There is also a TfW Cardiff-Cheltenham train where passengers have to change for a train to Birmingham.

The original plan was to build HS2 2a and 2b Crewe-Manchester. If 2a and 2b Crewe-Manchester are built this will provide all the capacity that is needed for trains between London and Manchester. But what is the plan to increase capacity between London and Manchester if 2b is not built? If 2a is not built I see no solution but I see this possible solution if 2a is built but 2b is not built. That is why I consider it to be so important that HS2 2a is built so HS2 joins the WCML at Crewe and not at Handsacre Junction.

I don't disagree that it should just go straight to Crewe, but South Wales to Mamchester is the right train for that second path. Its political as well as the biggest money earner.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2025 ==

Which is why the phase 2a was defined in the first place: truncating HS2 at phase 1 made no sense, as was obvious to everyone except Mr Sunak.

Handsacre was always an interim phase and partially to keep the Potteries happy long term.

 

[BrianW]

I don't disagree that it should just go straight to Crewe, but South Wales to Mamchester is the right train for that second path. Its political as well as the biggest money earner.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2025 ==


Handsacre was always an interim phase and partially to keep the Potteries happy long term.

This is important. Stoke has 3 MPs. There's a lot of post-industrial red wall/grey belt about ...

 

[Wolfie]

This is important. Stoke has 3 MPs. There's a lot of post-industrial red wall/grey belt about ...

If they believe that Reform or the Tories will do more to help them then frankly they'll get what they deserve.

 

[Topological]

I don't disagree that it should just go straight to Crewe, but South Wales to Mamchester is the right train for that second path. Its political as well as the biggest money earner.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2025 ==


Handsacre was always an interim phase and partially to keep the Potteries happy long term.

Yes,

Also we are talking about Hereford and Shrewsbury to Manchester being served by that train, something a "via Gloucester" would not offer. After adding in all of the other Marches stops, it becomes apparent how important the through train is.

I can see you could have a connection at Crewe relatively smoothly, but it would need Crewe to Manchester to be more regular than 2tph, and it would need those trains from Crewe to Manchester to have the capacity to absorb the Marches passengers in relative comfort.

Whilst you could make a case for an "Intercity" via Birmingham, the regional express on the Marches needs to stay.

Worth also noting this is a side discussion to HS2, but does remind that the solution for HS2 needs to respect important existing flows.

 

[AndrewE]

Also we are talking about Hereford and Shrewsbury to Manchester being served by that train, something a "via Gloucester" would not offer. After adding in all of the other Marches stops, it becomes apparent how important the through train is.

I can see you could have a connection at Crewe relatively smoothly, but it would need Crewe to Manchester to be more regular than 2tph, and it would need those trains from Crewe to Manchester to have the capacity to absorb the Marches passengers in relative comfort.

Whilst you could make a case for an "Intercity" via Birmingham, the regional express on the Marches needs to stay.

and a lot better than the current 2-an-hour all-stations offerings too - one of which even calls at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel. Long-distance passengers from the S end of the Marches line need a proper Inter-Regio express service to Manchester.

 

[Shrop]

Is there much point in holding out for advancing HS2 these days? We know that the Tories tried hard to kill it off under Sunak, and Labour seem very unenthusiastic about it, seemingly regarding it as a legacy they reluctantly preside over. No other political Party stands any chance of taking over at the next election, with the possible exception of Reform who have openly stated that they want the whole thing scrapped.
Personally I whole-heartedly support rail advancement even though I maintain that HS2 could and should have been much better designed. However, I fear that discussing much further development of it might be little more than just a bit of intellectual fun. Which I understand and appreciate, but at the same time it's sad that our people and leaders are so unsupportive of rail.

 

[Topological]

and a lot better than the current 2-an-hour all-stations offerings too - one of which even calls at Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel. Long-distance passengers from the S end of the Marches line need a proper Inter-Regio express service to Manchester.

My 2tph was ignoring the two Northerns and assuming that the two were the existing Avanti and the new train which was proposed by @weeklycommuter

With the Northerns included there is 4tph from Crewe, but those are very slow.

It would need 4tph calling at Wilmslow and Stockport only to really allow sufficient confidence in connection at Crewe from a Marches train.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Is there much point in holding out for advancing HS2 these days? We know that the Tories tried hard to kill it off under Sunak, and Labour seem very unenthusiastic about it, seemingly regarding it as a legacy they reluctantly preside over. No other political Party stands any chance of taking over at the next election, with the possible exception of Reform who have openly stated that they want the whole thing scrapped.
Personally I whole-heartedly support rail advancement even though I maintain that HS2 could and should have been much better designed. However, I fear that discussing much further development of it might be little more than just a bit of intellectual fun. Which I understand and appreciate, but at the same time it's sad that our people and leaders are so unsupportive of rail.

The reason for the project is that the West Coast Mainline South of Crewe is full and cannot take any more freight or passenger trains. An additional pair of tracks is therefore needed London Euston to Birmingham and to Crewe to be used by long distance high capacity high speed trains. HS2 London to Birmingham is currently under construction so this project just needs to be completed London Euston to Birmingham and to Crewe to enable more freight and passenger trains to run on the West Coast Mainline South of Crewe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2025 ==

Also we are talking about Hereford and Shrewsbury to Manchester being served by that train, something a "via Gloucester" would not offer. After adding in all of the other Marches stops, it becomes apparent how important the through train is.

I can see you could have a connection at Crewe relatively smoothly, but it would need Crewe to Manchester to be more regular than 2tph, and it would need those trains from Crewe to Manchester to have the capacity to absorb the Marches passengers in relative comfort.

Whilst you could make a case for an "Intercity" via Birmingham, the regional express on the Marches needs to stay.

Worth also noting this is a side discussion to HS2, but does remind that the solution for HS2 needs to respect important existing flows.

There is clearly a need for more rail capacity into central Manchester, whether this is some variant of HS2 phase 2b or something else, to enable everyone who wants a good train connection into central Manchester to have this. Without additional rail capacity into central Manchester choices will have to continue to be made about which places have good train connections into central Manchester. This is a separate issue to the additional pair of tracks to add rail capacity London to Birmingham and Crewe.

 

[Topological]

The reason for the project is that the West Coast Mainline South of Crewe is full and cannot take any more freight or passenger trains. An additional pair of tracks is therefore needed London Euston to Birmingham and to Crewe to be used by long distance high capacity high speed trains. HS2 London to Birmingham is currently under construction so this project just needs to be completed London Euston to Birmingham and to Crewe to enable more freight and passenger trains to run on the West Coast Mainline South of Crewe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Sep 2025 ==


There is clearly a need for more rail capacity into central Manchester, whether this is some variant of HS2 phase 2b or something else, to enable everyone everywhere wanting a good train connection into central Manchester to have this. Without additional rail capacity into central Manchester choices will have to continue to be made about which places have good train connections into central Manchester. This is a separate issue to the additional pair of tracks to add rail capacity London to Birmingham and Crewe.

These are very strong reasons for some form of HS2 route, even if the construction is not true HS. However, when building the line it makes sense to be HS.

I believe that HS into Manchester will be firmly back on the agenda in 2029. I am not a betting man, but I can see "Thanks to the tough policies we applied, we are now in a position to invest in the future of Britain" bringing High Speed to the North. Hard hats and core samplers in Central Manchester aplenty.

 

[Snow1964]

Is there much point in holding out for advancing HS2 these days? We know that the Tories tried hard to kill it off under Sunak, and Labour seem very unenthusiastic about it, seemingly regarding it as a legacy they reluctantly preside over. No other political Party stands any chance of taking over at the next election, with the possible exception of Reform who have openly stated that they want the whole thing scrapped.
Personally I whole-heartedly support rail advancement even though I maintain that HS2 could and should have been much better designed. However, I fear that discussing much further development of it might be little more than just a bit of intellectual fun. Which I understand and appreciate, but at the same time it's sad that our people and leaders are so unsupportive of rail.

If you work on assumption that next General election is mid 2029, then have to consider where HS2 will be at that time. Yes phase 1 should have been virtually finished by then, but we know it has slipped 2-3 years (and parts possibly nearer 5-6 years).

By 2029 going to have a trackbed from Old Oak Common to Birmingham substantially ready (even if there is no track in parts, and some landscaping isn't complete). Station buildings are likely to be mainly constructed (but not fitted out).

At least 2 years of digging Euston approach tunnels should mean most of that is done. Although how much of Euston is built is anyone's guess.

North of Delta junction all the big bridges and viaducts crossing main roads, motorways, other railways will be built too.

Contracts might have been updated and improved, but penalties for pulling out probably means pulling out and stopping is stupid by that stage.

More likely to be a case of increments to make proper use of it becoming more obvious to outsiders than today. With many north midlands and northern constituencies asking why they can't have trains that can be joined to what exists. Especially if they are told no spare capacity on current system.

I think going to be politicians (and candidates) that realise scrapping it will be as unpopular as councils taking flags off lampposts is today. Not a vote winner with the noisy minority.

 

[chris2]

There are certainly a range of options that exist for dealing with the bottleneck of Colwich / Shugborough and releasing capacity for more passenger and freight traffic.

The original 2a plan is the best - it would drive a high-speed, slab track line all the way from the end of phase 1 into Crewe station. It unlocks significant journey time savings to everywhere north on HS2, Bhm->Man services and provides loads of new capacity for freight. It’s also the most ££. For both political and economic reasons, this probably isn’t coming back.

The re-named 2a-lite or ‘Cheshire Connector’ is the 2a alignment, but de-spec’ed with ballast tracks, smaller loading gauge and slightly slower. Still a great option, but some say not enough money saved / substantially different enough to make it politically possible.

Given that the 2a route basically follows the (already 4-track) WCML from Baldwin’s Gate, another, cheaper option would be to build 2a as far as here, then connect onto the WCML fasts, take these lines over exclusively for HS2 and upgrade their line speed to 140mph. Crewe is therefore reached via a mix of new and existing line but in a financially beneficial way - the most expensive bit of 2a is all the viaducts on the approaches into Crewe, the line south of here is basically open countryside with no major civils (relatively speaking). You get much of the benefit for less cost.

Next up as would be to build 2a only as far as Hixon and join onto the line to Stone / Stoke. This misses Crewe but is even less new line and gets you to Manchester. Doesn’t benefit other northern places though. A variant of this could see a further line divert from this and connect into Crewe to unlock these.

Finally, there is the old Colwich bypass scheme which would see a line divert from the WCML north of Handsacre, cut the corner off and merge with the line to Stone, north of the bottleneck.

All these have way more complex details and have many pros and cons.

Personally I think Crewe is important and given the powers are there to build it, the 2a alignment should be used to get past Colwich. But I think there’s a very real possibility of a significant cost saving by not going all the way into Crewe on new line. The ideas of connecting into the existing lines somewhere south of Crewe should be weighed against the do-nothing and original schemes. Also looking at the prospect of releasing funds to pay for this by abandoning Handsacre.