Restarting HS2a

[AlexSJW]

Your proposal will be slower for all of Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Lancs, and also Chester, if that line was wired.

Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Lancs trains reach Stone on high-speed line, still on fast track to Crewe after Stone. Pretty obvious really. Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Lancs trains byass the mess of Stafford.

 

[Grimsby town]

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

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

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

The problem with continuing to use Handsacre is that Shugborough/Colwich bottleneck isn't just the two trains per hour going to/from Stoke/Manchester, its the two track section through Shugborough AND the need for southbound slow services need to cross the northbound fast lines to reach the slow line south of Colwich. That always seems to be forgotten about. Removing 2 trains per hour isn't a good enough solution. It needs completely bypassing whether than be 2a or something else.

 

[AlexSJW]

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

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

.
Phase 2a is more expensive and politically toxic. Phase 2a bypasses Stoke, this Stafford bypass does not. This takes high-speed/fast track to Stone, 17 miles further than Fradley with three less junctions, although probably under a different name than toxic HS2.

Are you from the Manchester region?

 

[HSTEd]

The problem with continuing to use Handsacre is that Shugborough/Colwich bottleneck isn't just the two trains per hour going to/from Stoke/Manchester, its the two track section through Shugborough AND the need for southbound slow services need to cross the northbound fast lines to reach the slow line south of Colwich. That always seems to be forgotten about. Removing 2 trains per hour isn't a good enough solution. It needs completely bypassing whether than be 2a or something else.

It could be arranged to remove three trains per hour from Colwich if you concentrate the XC via Crewe and the HS2 via Stoke. It's not a total solution, sure, but it could be engineered into a total solution later should one be needed.

But it gets us several additional paths through the area and simplifies later fixes, which honestly is probably just a remodelling of the Stafford area, or the aforementioned Stone-WCML connection.

Are you from the Manchester region?

I have lived in the Manchester region, although I am from Lincolnshire.
Removing Handsacre in favour of a new connection from Stone to the WCML creates a real problem on how the quarter million London-Stafford journeys get served, and increases the near term cost.

Just building the line to Hixon and taking over Stone-Colwich, with Handsacre, gets us at least three paths and can be supplemented with additional works later should they become necessary.

 

[AlexSJW]

I have lived in the Manchester region
...
...
on how the quarter million London-Stafford journeys get served,

I see about the Manchester bit.
If the demand for Stafford is there then retain the Handsacre link. But, those bound for Stafford can change at Stoke.

 

[Noddy]

Once again Phase 2a is a lame duck as takes Manchester trains to Crewe, the long route,

You keep saying this is a long route but I don’t think you have a good sense of geography. Look at a map. This is one showing the existing routes. London to Manchester via Phase 2a is only going to be marginally longer than via Stoke, Macclesfield and Poynton due to the windy nature of this 19th century route. It’s only Phase 2b that introduces a ‘long way round’ for Manchester but this is negated by the significantly higher lines speeds all the way into Manchester.


(Image shows current rail lines between Wolverhampton and Manchester, the approximate Phase 2a route in red and the suggested link to Stone in purple).


There are also some level crossings on the Stoke line which you’ll need to sort out if you want to upgrade the speed on this route. Given their proximity to housing etc not an easy challenge to sort. And the proposal does nothing to improve local services in the area and potentially makes them even worse.

 

[The Planner]

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

Where did I say it didn't happen? I asked what has happened there since. So what if Hendy is at the top, he doesn't make the decisions on spending enhancement money. You have just repeated what I said about power north of Crewe, what faster trains? Nothing is going faster than the linespeed which isn't increasing.

 

[AlexSJW]

Where did I say it didn't happen? I asked what has happened there since. So what if Hendy is at the top, he doesn't make the decisions on spending enhancement money. You have just repeated what I said about power north of Crewe, what faster trains? Nothing is going faster than the linespeed which isn't increasing.

The idea is get faster trains and more of them. If it happened once it can happen again.

You keep saying this is a long route but I don’t think you have a good sense of geography. Look at a map. This is one showing the existing routes. London to Manchester via Phase 2a is only going to be marginally longer than via Stoke, Macclesfield and Poynton due to the windy nature of this 19th century route. It’s only Phase 2b that introduces a ‘long way round’ for Manchester but this is negated by the significantly higher lines speeds all the way into Manchester.

View attachment 198469
(Image shows current rail lines between Wolverhampton and Manchester, the approximate Phase 2a route in red and the suggested link to Stone in purple).


There are also some level crossings on the Stoke line which you’ll need to sort out if you want to upgrade the speed on this route. Given their proximity to housing etc not an easy challenge to sort. And the proposal does nothing to improve local services in the area and potentially makes them even worse.

Phase 2a is a lame duck as takes Manchester trains to Crewe, the long route, and omits Stoke.

 

[Noddy]

Phase 2a is a lame duck as takes Manchester trains to Crewe, the long route, and omits Stoke.

You can keep saying that this is a long route however much you like but it doesn’t make it any more a valid point. It’s meaningless as anyone who can use a map can see. Have you even looked at a map? How much does it actually add in terms of distance?

Avoiding stopping at Stoke strikes me as a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

[Grimsby town]

It could be arranged to remove three trains per hour from Colwich if you concentrate the XC via Crewe and the HS2 via Stoke. It's not a total solution, sure, but it could be engineered into a total solution later should one be needed.

That might be difficult to accommodate though given the XC and Avanti services run pretty close to each other. It'll be end of the 20 minute interval London service which isn't the end of the world but certainly isn't ideal. It'd also mean no Manchester to WCML service.

But it gets us several additional paths through the area and simplifies later fixes, which honestly is probably just a remodelling of the Stafford area, or the aforementioned Stone-WCML connection.

If its going to require additonal interventions 10 years later, just build a Stafford bypass in the first place. It'll be more disruptive and more costly to go to Hixon and then come back and extend to the WCML.

 

[AlexSJW]

The northern chord of the HS2 Delta Junction near Birmingham is not being fitted out with tracks under current HS2 descoping plans - it s not cancelled though. The structural earthworks and viaducts are being completed. There is no active plan to install the tracks until trains are operating from London to Birmingham.

The Birmingham to Manchester line that is wanted by Burnham and Parker can use this chord, run off HS2 and an extension from Fradley to just before Stone and onto Manchester via Stoke on some upgraded track. The obvious solution. In short, use the Delta junction at Birmingham and a section of track in a Stafford bypass. Sorted. That will keep Richard Parker and Andy Burnham quiet. This could also be used for Birmingham to Liverpool trains. When the ECML is upgraded, which is ongoing not a proposal, Edinburgh trains will be off HS2/WCML giving more capacity.
--------------------------

Richard Gibb is on about replacing Pendolino trains with 186mph tilting trains for HS2 and WCML operation. They will make a big difference to end to times from London to Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester and Lancs services. London–Glasgow via HS2 (to Handsacre) plus WCML would likely be slower or similar to today’s WCML-only tilting trains. The new 186mph tilting trains tilters will render HS2, apart from a lower speed extension, dead for sure.

Avoiding stopping at Stoke strikes me as a good thing, not a bad thing.

That sounds like a prejudiced comment. Neglected Stoke needs all the help it can get. All this Manchester, Manchester, Manchester has to stop. It also does not do the image of Manchester any favours either.

 

[HSTEd]

That might be difficult to accommodate though given the XC and Avanti services run pretty close to each other. It'll be end of the 20 minute interval London service which isn't the end of the world but certainly isn't ideal. It'd also mean no Manchester to WCML service

Well the arrival of HS2 is likely to require a complete recast anyway given the radical changes in journey times. But yes, the timetable will need to be rejigged.

Also HS2 Phase 1 kills the Manchester to south WCML service anyway because the paths through Colwich simply won't exist without further track work.

If its going to require additonal interventions 10 years later, just build a Stafford bypass in the first place. It'll be more disruptive and more costly to go to Hixon and then come back and extend to the WCML.

The smaller the number to be spent today the more likely we are to get the Treasury to say yes, though.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

How much does it actually add in terms of distance?

It's roughly 5 miles longer to Manchester via Crewe than via Stoke ( on the existing routes ), which for the distance and even at the present speeds speeds is negligible really. HS2a via Crewe would, I think, be a more direct route than the present line, so the distance difference might even vanish completely.

 

[Noddy]

That sounds like a prejudiced comment. Neglected Stoke needs all the help it can get. All this Manchester, Manchester, Manchester has to stop. It also does not do the image of Manchester any favours either.

I have nothing against Stoke, and as I’ve previously said on a personal level I don’t even really like Manchester. However, there is no point in building a new network if you’re going to stop at every small or medium sized town or city that happens to be nearby. If we want a modal shift to railway we need the new lines to offer something completely new and/or different, and services on the existing lines to be developed to offer something more useful for those users.

I also fail to see how this provides any significant benefit to Liverpool (or further north) over Phase 2 or for local services in Staffordshire. A few days ago you were moaning that Phase 2 would result in Liverpool trains that ‘trundled’ (to quote you) on conventional lines to Lime Street. This idea means they would be trundling on slow conventional lines for even longer. And you’re suggesting closing lines that could be used for improved local services once Phase 2 is complete.

It's roughly 5 miles longer to Manchester via Crewe than via Stoke ( on the existing routes ), which for the distance and even at the present speeds speeds is negligible really. HS2a via Crewe would, I think, be a more direct route than the present line, so the distance difference might even vanish completely.

Less than 5 miles sounds about right. So much for a long way round especially when you’re travelling 75mph faster than the so called ‘shorter’ alternative.

 

[Palmerston]

If it happened once it can happen again.

Does this mean you'll never be getting a train over the Tay Bridge?

Phase 2a is a lame duck as takes Manchester trains to Crewe, the long route, and omits Stoke.

This doesn't make 2a a lame duck. What do you actually mean by this phrase?

 

[AlexSJW]

Does this mean you'll never be getting a train over the Tay Bridge?


This doesn't make 2a a lame duck. What do you actually mean by this phrase

Tay Bridge? Poor analogy.
2a is an expensive lame duck for reasons given.

there is no point in building a new network if you’re going to stop at every small or medium sized town or city that happens to be nearby.

Manchester trains can run through Stoke without stopping. Through Stoke is a shorter route keeping Manchester trains off the WCML entirely releasing capacity.

The original HS2 'Y' design had HS2 trains running off HS2 track at Crewe, then at around 100mph on the forty miles to Liverpool - slower than Pendolinos. From London the train would spend more time on the WCML forty mile leg than on the high-speed track. No kidding. The design was that bad. HS2 need to be higher speed tilting trains to optimise WCML running. Non-tilting trains are only suitable for London to Birmingham.

There is no case for 2A. Those who want it built see it as a lever for phase 2b to be built to Manchester - at horrific cost for no gain. Their heads are in a high-speed train cloud, where cost, benefit and efficiency do not exist.

so the distance difference might even vanish completely.

The land is not going to shrink.

 

[zwk500]

Manchester trains can run through Stoke without stopping.

Only if there isn't a train in front of it.

 

[AlexSJW]

Only if there isn't a train in front of it.

They have time tables to prevent that.

 

[zwk500]

They have time tables to prevent that.

Having been involved in writing quite a few timetables, I can tell you that they don't make trains phase through each other.

Currently the Northern Stopper takes 42 minutes from Stoke to Adswood road jn (where the line splits to 4-track to Manchester). Currently the headway between Stone and Manchester is 3 minutes, So the stopper can leave stoke 3 minutes after the first fast train, and must clear Adswood Road Jn 3 minutes before the next fast train comes through. Currently a Pendo takes 27.5 minutes to do this run.

So we'd be looking at:
Fast train Depart Stoke 10.00
Stopper Depart Stoke 10.03, pass Adswood road Jn 10.45
Fast train depart Stoke 10.20:30, pass Adswood road Jn 10.48

Speeding up trains via Stoke and routing all Manchester trains that way would require reducing the capacity for fast trains from 3tph, or 'padding out' the fast trains and wasting the benefits of a HSR.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The land is not going to shrink.

No, but HS2a would be a more direct route between roughly where Colwich is and Crewe than the WCML is, so the distance travelled would reduce. If it cuts six or more miles off the WCML distance, which for a virtually straight line route is not unreasonable for the distance involved, then it actually becomes a shorter route than via Stoke.

 

[Noddy]

The original HS2 'Y' design had HS2 trains running off HS2 track at Crewe, then at around 100mph on the forty miles to Liverpool - slower than Pendolinos. From London the train would spend more time on the WCML forty mile leg than on the high-speed track. No kidding.

Are you saying that London to Crewe will take less than 40 minutes? Because even using West Midlands Trains services only take 40 minutes.

 

[AlexSJW]

As of February 2026, approximately 90% of the land required for HS2 Phase 2a (West Midlands to Crewe) had been acquired by the UK government. Land held, which is different than acquired is estimated to be a lot less. By October 2023 90% of CPOs were largely complete. Land acquisition stopped immediately after Sunak's cancellation announcement in October 2023. The government is retaining land that may be essential for other future projects (e.g., land that may be used in NPR, a line to Birmingham).

By this month, February 2026, no further Phase 2a land purchases could occur as the legal power for CPO land acquisition for the route between the West Midlands and Crewe expired on 11 February 2026. The inability to purchase new land via CPO effectively stopped any development from proceeding of the Phase 2a route dead in its tracks. Despite the cancellation of the project the government indicated it would retain existing land holdings that had already been acquired for Phase 2a for potential future use or alternative projects, such as NPR, Stafford bypass, etc.

If Phase 2a was to go ahead new acts of parliament would need to be passed to gain the at least ten percent of land required for the project. An attempt of passage of the act through the Houses of Parliament would meet strong determined opposition.

 

[HSTEd]

If Phase 2a was to go ahead new acts of parliament would need to be passed to gain the at least ten percent of land required for the project. An attempt of passage of the act through the Houses of Parliament would meet strong determined opposition.

Depending on what land precisely remains to be acquired, small quantities could be more easily obtained by a Transport and Works Act Order.

And obviously the route of least resistance for a cut down scheme will depend on what land is already in hand.

 

[AlexSJW]

Depending on what land precisely remains to be acquired, small quantities could be more easily obtained by a Transport and Works Act Order.

And obviously the route of least resistance for a cut down scheme will depend on what land is already in hand.

The land missing is a rather lot. The public and political resistance would very high. It is so toxic to the point few political parties would run with it. It is safe to say that Phase 2a is dead in its original form. Using land they bought to build a Stafford bypass which looks like it may happen in time. The 11 miles from Fradley to Hixon.

 

[Noddy]

As of February 2026, approximately 90% of the land required for HS2 Phase 2a (West Midlands to Crewe) had been acquired by the UK government. Land held, which is different than acquired is estimated to be a lot less. By October 2023 90% of CPOs were largely complete. Land acquisition stopped immediately after Sunak's cancellation announcement in October 2023. The government is retaining land that may be essential for other future projects (e.g., land that may be used in NPR, a line to Birmingham).

By this month, February 2026, no further Phase 2a land purchases could occur as the legal power for CPO land acquisition for the route between the West Midlands and Crewe expired on 11 February 2026. The inability to purchase new land via CPO effectively stopped any development from proceeding of the Phase 2a route dead in its tracks. Despite the cancellation of the project the government indicated it would retain existing land holdings that had already been acquired for Phase 2a for potential future use or alternative projects, such as NPR, Stafford bypass, etc.

If Phase 2a was to go ahead new acts of parliament would need to be passed to gain the at least ten percent of land required for the project. An attempt of passage of the act through the Houses of Parliament would meet strong determined opposition.

Do you have a source that 90% has been purchased?


A written question to parliament (UIN HL8410, tabled on 12 June 2025) asking how much land had been compulsory purchased for Phase 1+2a was 54km. The High Speed Rail Group say that 11.7km had been purchased for Phase 2a by November 2023 (written submission HS20006). If the latter figure is correct comparing it with the route mileages across Phase 1 and 2a indicates approximately all the land had already been purchased by June 2025 as the figure for both is about 20%.

 

[AlexSJW]

- DfT Q4 2025 Property Report:
Confirms 65% disposal rate for Phase 2a land by December 2025.
- National Audit Office (NAO) Update (Jan 2026):
Estimates £1.2bn recovered from sales, with 30–40% still held pending further action.
- HS2 Ltd. Disposal Portal:
Shows live status of sold/retained parcels (publicly accessible).

 

[Manutd1999]

Speeding up trains via Stoke and routing all Manchester trains that way would require reducing the capacity for fast trains from 3tph, or 'padding out' the fast trains and wasting the benefits of a HSR.

No reason why the existing pattern can't continue with the reduced scheme, with 2ph via Stoke and 1ph via Crewe.

Akins did some modelling of alternatives to Phase 2A. Absolute costs presented are probably meaningless in todays world, but it gives a rough idea. The "medium cost option" is what has been suggested here - extend HS2 to Hixon then onto Norton Bridge.

It would cost roughly half of the full Phase 2A, with further savings possible if we scrapped Handsacare Jn (which wasn't considered by Atkins). Food for thought....

 

[Noddy]

- DfT Q4 2025 Property Report:
Confirms 65% disposal rate for Phase 2a land by December 2025.
- National Audit Office (NAO) Update (Jan 2026):
Estimates £1.2bn recovered from sales, with 30–40% still held pending further action.
- HS2 Ltd. Disposal Portal:
Shows live status of sold/retained parcels (publicly accessible).

Assuming this is in response to my previous post non of the reports or claims appear to exist using a Google search. Do you have any direct links?

 

[HSTEd]

Having been involved in writing quite a few timetables, I can tell you that they don't make trains phase through each other.

Currently the Northern Stopper takes 42 minutes from Stoke to Adswood road jn (where the line splits to 4-track to Manchester). Currently the headway between Stone and Manchester is 3 minutes, So the stopper can leave stoke 3 minutes after the first fast train, and must clear Adswood Road Jn 3 minutes before the next fast train comes through. Currently a Pendo takes 27.5 minutes to do this run.

So we'd be looking at:
Fast train Depart Stoke 10.00
Stopper Depart Stoke 10.03, pass Adswood road Jn 10.45
Fast train depart Stoke 10.20:30, pass Adswood road Jn 10.48

Speeding up trains via Stoke and routing all Manchester trains that way would require reducing the capacity for fast trains from 3tph, or 'padding out' the fast trains and wasting the benefits of a HSR.

How long would the Manchester-Stoke stopper take if it was composed of HS2 stock, as I actually proposed to get a path for Manchester-Curzon Street?

I don't actually know what stock Northern uses on this route these days, but I imagine a full blown high speed unit will leave a Class 323 or similar in the dust given its huge installed power and 30 year advantage in traction electronics.
What unit is used?

Also I think you are saying only a small increase in performance would be required?

EDIT:
Although a precise calculation would require a traction design for the Class 895, that unfortunately has not yet been made public (I wonder if its even finished!), the station spacings are not particularly short on this route. All appear to be at least two miles, so even if the Class 323 does initially accelerate faster it simply won't be able to overcome the enormous installed power of the Class 895, especially as much of the route has a speed limit above the Class 323's top speed of 90mph.

Of course, this all depends on what happens to the EPS speed limits - if they are not converted into HST or EMU limits, then the fast trains will be slower than today and once again, this will not be an issue.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Assuming this is in response to my previous post non of the reports or claims appear to exist using Google using a Google search. Do you have any direct links?

Not sure where other data come from but this article references the NAO saying HS2 had apparently spent £592m on Phase 2 land acquisition by March 2024
Source: https://www.modernrailways.com/article/nao-spells-out-costs-hs2-phase-two-cancellation

The Department for Transport is establishing a strategy for disposal of land acquired for Phase Two; at the end of March 2024, HS2 had spent £592 million buying land and around 1,000 properties on the Phase Two route, which will no longer be needed.

The strategy referenced in Modern Railways presumably led to the announcement of Jones Lang LaSalle to deliver the disposal of Phase 2 land and property no longer required for DfT, but this contract was not awarded until Christmas 2025. Source: https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/085723-2025

Contract 1. Provision of HS2 Phase 2 Surplus Land and Property Disposal Delivery Agent​

Supplier​

• Jones Lang LaSalle Limited

Award decision date​

19 December 2025