'Higher Speed' Lines by bypassing slow sections with new track

[TheGrew]

In a similar vein to Gareth Dennis' excellent video on the Morpeth curve I have been thinking about places where either a much quicker alignment or capacity could be created by taking out pinch points.
I'm not thinking of something as 'grand' as HS2 acting as a bypass for the southern WCML but more thinking of the Selby diversion or the bypass alignment Gareth suggests for Morpeth. What would people like to see if they could go fully crayonista?
To start I was thinking:

• Some sort of Trans-Lake District base tunnel with portals near Oxenholme and north of Penrith. To both speed up long-distance passenger and freight trains (the latter of course being helped by bypassing Shap summit).
• A 'Dewsbury Bypass' for the Huddersfield Line by tunneling from Heaton Lodge junction to just north of Cottingley. With the aim principally to speed up journey times between Manchester and Leeds.
• Moving Colwich junction closer to Rugeley Trent Valley, grade separating it and running the Colwich-Stone line east of the Haywoods to remove a major conflict area due to the flat junction and to increase speeds.
• A 'York Bypass' (which I appreciate sort of exists) running pretty much parallel to A1237. This is mainly for freight as most passenger services would still call at York.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think @Bald Rick has posted before that a Morpeth avoiding route is not very straightforward, very expensive, and doesn’t give much operational benefit.

 

[Ken H]

In a similar vein to Gareth Dennis' excellent video on the Morpeth curve I have been thinking about places where either a much quicker alignment or capacity could be created by taking out pinch points.
I'm not thinking of something as 'grand' as HS2 acting as a bypass for the southern WCML but more thinking of the Selby diversion or the bypass alignment Gareth suggests for Morpeth. What would people like to see if they could go fully crayonista?
To start I was thinking:

• Some sort of Trans-Lake District base tunnel with portals near Oxenholme and north of Penrith. To both speed up long-distance passenger and freight trains (the latter of course being helped by bypassing Shap summit).
• A 'Dewsbury Bypass' for the Huddersfield Line by tunneling from Heaton Lodge junction to just north of Cottingley. With the aim principally to speed up journey times between Manchester and Leeds.
• Moving Colwich junction closer to Rugeley Trent Valley, grade separating it and running the Colwich-Stone line east of the Haywoods to remove a major conflict area due to the flat junction and to increase speeds.
• A 'York Bypass' (which I appreciate sort of exists) running pretty much parallel to A1237. This is mainly for freight as most passenger services would still call at York.

Not sue a Cumbrian base tunnel is affordable, but straightening some of the curves each side of Shap has to be a possibility. Maybe run sections alongside the M6.

 

[edwin_m]

I spent quite a lot of time about 10 years ago on a team investigating this very question for HS2. Can't give you details but it did result in significant time savings, especially if longer sections were built to allow the trains to get up some speed. But, unsurprisingly, it was very costly.

 

[Ken H]

I spent quite a lot of time about 10 years ago on a team investigating this very question for HS2. Can't give you details but it did result in significant time savings, especially if longer sections were built to allow the trains to get up some speed. But, unsurprisingly, it was very costly.

it was Eastern Region policy to fix slow bits of the route in the Deltic era. The West Coast line did nothing to the line, but went faster by going to 110mph operation, relaxed curving rules and waiting for APT to become available.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think @Bald Rick has posted before that a Morpeth avoiding route is not very straightforward, very expensive, and doesn’t give much operational benefit.

Yes, I did. Can‘t remember the details, but I think it saved about about 90 seconds for £300-£400m. Alternatively, dont stop at Durham and Darlington and save 8 minutes for free.

Some sort of Trans-Lake District base tunnel with portals near Oxenholme and north of Penrith. To both speed up long-distance passenger and freight trains (the latter of course being helped by bypassing Shap summit).

Doesn’t need to be a tunnel all the way.

Moving Colwich junction closer to Rugeley Trent Valley, grade separating it and running the Colwich-Stone line east of the Haywoods to remove a major conflict area due to the flat junction and to increase speeds.

That‘s called HS2 2a

A 'York Bypass' (which I appreciate sort of exists) running pretty much parallel to A1237. This is mainly for freight as most passenger services would still call at York.

There’s really not that much freight, the benefit would be negligible.

 

[Matt P]

I'm surprised now one has blown the dust of Virgin's 2002 proposals for some high speed cut offs for the ECML. However this wouldn't do anything for capacity at the southern end of the line. Virgin also proposed to reopen the Leamside Line. That would probably scupper more recent ambitions to use the route for local transport projects.

 

[Grimsby town]

If the HS2 eastern leg isn't built then my number 1 high speed bypass would be Doncaster. Probably leaving the ECML somewhere around Bawtry and joining back up at Temple Hirst.

Doncaster is a serious mess of conflicts that will likely cost billions to solve anyway. A bypass would largely solve those capacity issues. I think something similar was proposed by Motts as part of the HS2 alternatives work.

Another sensible one that seems to have some political backing is building the proposed eastern leg from around South Elmsall to Leeds City Centre. It could be used by London services, an hourly cross country service and additonal Sheffield to Leeds fast services.

It would mean worsened intercity connections for Wakefield but a regular service to Kirkgate/Bradford or Huddersfield could make up for that as well as hugely improved local service from Leeds to Westgate and beyond.

I also have a soft spot for a Lancaster and Oxenholme bypass on the WCML following the M6 to allow more freight up the WCML and local trains to Morecambe.

I think any bypass is going to have to be about capacity first and foremost.

 

[stevieinselby]

One of the problems with bypasses is that on busy lines you would need flying junctions to avoid having too many conflicts, eg northbound fast trains conflicting with southbound trains calling at Morpeth (on both approach and departure), which pushes the cost up considerably – for the price of one grade-separated junction you could get several more miles of plain track.

Some sort of Trans-Lake District base tunnel with portals near Oxenholme and north of Penrith. To both speed up long-distance passenger and freight trains (the latter of course being helped by bypassing Shap summit).

I'm struggling to see that it's worth it. Tilting trains can already go over 100mph for much of the route, and the speed gains from pushing that up to 125mph over a relatively short distance are small in comparison to the route as a whole ... freight is less time sensitive and so even less worried about shaving a few minutes off ... and you would still have to maintain the existing route for access to Penrith, so not even any meagre savings to be made by sacking that off. If the problem is the capacity on the current route, with slow freight trains lumbering up the hill getting in the way of fast AWC trains on the tilt then there are much cheaper ways to add in passing loops.

 

[Halish Railway]

I find it ironic that HS2 - The nuclear option for overcoming the problem all the problems discussed by the OP planned to end the 'Golbourne Link' just south of Wigan, creating conflicts with Liverpool to Blackpool and Scotland services at Springs Branch Jn, using paths for Anglo-Scottish services that wouldn't have stopped at Wigan and having to slow down from 200 mph to 80 mph to navigate the curve to the north of the station. Between Preston and Wigan is a former four-track alignment with space to put a flying junction if necessary, as well as the alignment between Leyland and Standish being straight enough to support speeds in excess of 125mph if in-cab signalling was installed on that section of the route and the ageing electrification was replaced with a model that can support 140mph or even 155mph running.

The caveat to all of this is that there is little space between the Abram/Hindley area and the old Wigan-avoiding Lancashire Union line formation, meaning that a roughly 3 mile long tunnel would probably have to be built.

Unfortunately, a lot of this discussion is academic given that the Golbourne link was one of the first bits of HS2 to be cut. Perhaps it could work as a deviation of the WCML beginning just north of Golbourne in addition to remodelling the Warrington area.

 

[HSTEd]

• Some sort of Trans-Lake District base tunnel with portals near Oxenholme and north of Penrith. To both speed up long-distance passenger and freight trains (the latter of course being helped by bypassing Shap summit).

I've thought a lot about this one in particular.
It has the potential to get rid of the major pain that is Shap, although at least one track will have to be maintained for part of the route to serve the industrial customers near the summit. Unfortunately the traffic to the summit installations is mostly from the south, although with a flat line in the tunnel northern access may still be more economical given it would be half the length.
Nevertheless a flat straight route would be a major operational boon.

Not sure if its worth putting a portal north of Penrith, if you bypass penrith you have to maintain the existing line to serve it from the south.

Ive also thought a lot about the location of the southern portal, I am tempted to put it near Burneside and reroute the WCML through Kendal, reducing Oxenholme to a minor station on the branch line, but I don't think the alignment through the town is suitable, which is a shame because bypassing the main population centre is hardly ideal.
Otherwise I think just dive into the tunnel as soon as possible north of Oxenholme, before the hard eastwards turn of the line.

I'm struggling to see that it's worth it. Tilting trains can already go over 100mph for much of the route, and the speed gains from pushing that up to 125mph over a relatively short distance are small in comparison to the route as a whole ... freight is less time sensitive and so even less worried about shaving a few minutes off ... and you would still have to maintain the existing route for access to Penrith, so not even any meagre savings to be made by sacking that off. If the problem is the capacity on the current route, with slow freight trains lumbering up the hill getting in the way of fast AWC trains on the tilt then there are much cheaper ways to add in passing loops.

I agree that a portal north of Penrith is not a great idea, but I think a portal at the south end of Penrith, near the bridge over the River Eamont is potentially transformative.
That would allow the existing route to be largely abandoned apart from a stub siding to the industrial customers.

Given that HS2 stock is likely to be the mainstay of long distance journeys on this route in the medium-long term, we can potentially push up to speeds far beyond 125mph/200kph. Oxenholme-Penrith stop-to-stop journey tmies on order of 14-15 minutes would be achievable for classic compatible sets.
Eliminating the gradient would drastically improve freight timings over the route (easing pathing), and we of course escape having to maintain large amounts of signalling and track equipment on Shap summit. Indeed the equipment the railway is responsible for up there is reduced to a handful of point machines or ground frames to select between industrial users.

 

[Jonny]

I'm surprised now one has blown the dust of Virgin's 2002 proposals for some high speed cut offs for the ECML. However this wouldn't do anything for capacity at the southern end of the line. Virgin also proposed to reopen the Leamside Line. That would probably scupper more recent ambitions to use the route for local transport projects.

The section (edit: of the Leamside Line) south of the Victoria Viaduct would be mostly useful for speed, the problem would be the curves on the viaduct approach; from about there onwards any worthwhile high-speed cutoff would need a new alignment anyway.

 

[Snow1964]

I think XC suffers from closure of the Midland line where it now snakes around (using slow flat junctions) between Yate and Bristol via Bristol Parkway (a relatively pointless stop as most services East-West from there can be reached by XC trains at Reading or Newport / Cardiff), the Parkway routing adds quite a few minutes over old route via Mangotsfield, so would be good to see it reopened as a cut off

The Berks and Hants is quite slow, around Savernake / Marlborough area having opened as a branch line. Ideally a straighter alignment alongside A4 from west of Hungerford, then under Savernake forest rejoining nearer the closed Patney and Chirton junction (where the 1902 cut off south of Devizes to Westbury starts) could save many minutes on expresses to SW. probably even get away with a tunnel being single track as fast trains only hourly.

The Derby and Birmingham line had an almost dead straight spur to Grand junction (and continued almost dead straight to Kenilworth), a section now being rebuilt as part of HS2 alignment. The closed section north of Birmingham interchange would make an ideal cut off for HS2 trains to East Midlands (although not as good as dedicated high speed line)

 

[Ben427]

Another sensible one that seems to have some political backing is building the proposed eastern leg from around South Elmsall to Leeds City Centre. It could be used by London services, an hourly cross country service and additonal Sheffield to Leeds fast services.

It would mean worsened intercity connections for Wakefield but a regular service to Kirkgate/Bradford or Huddersfield could make up for that as well as hugely improved local service from Leeds to Westgate and beyond.

This is what was included in the SLC report from HS2 East group of LAs (including a new station in Leeds on the footprint of the HS2 safeguarded area) - tbh the other option for electrifying services Leeds to Sheffield will be the normanton line and a new chord (option was included in Mott's strategic alternatives I think and also considered in the SLC report that Leeds has adopted as it's preferred option).

 

[The Planner]

I think XC suffers from closure of the Midland line where it now snakes around (using slow flat junctions) between Yate and Bristol via Bristol Parkway (a relatively pointless stop as most services East-West from there can be reached by XC trains at Reading or Newport / Cardiff), the Parkway routing adds quite a few minutes over old route via Mangotsfield, so would be good to see it reopened as a cut off

You forget that many people from the North of Bristol are going to be driving to catch trains to head north towards Cheltenham and Birmingham. How do you deal with those passengers?

The Derby and Birmingham line had an almost dead straight spur to Grand junction (and continued almost dead straight to Kenilworth), a section now being rebuilt as part of HS2 alignment. The closed section north of Birmingham interchange would make an ideal cut off for HS2 trains to East Midlands (although not as good as dedicated high speed line)

It only went as far as Hampton in Arden? You then have to cross over the Nuneaton line and join at Kingsbury on the flat. The current spur is infinitely better.

 

[Helvellyn]

I've thought a lot about this one in particular.
It has the potential to get rid of the major pain that is Shap, although at least one track will have to be maintained for part of the route to serve the industrial customers near the summit. Unfortunately the traffic to the summit installations is mostly from the south, although with a flat line in the tunnel northern access may still be more economical given it would be half the length.
Nevertheless a flat straight route would be a major operational boon.

Not sure if its worth putting a portal north of Penrith, if you bypass penrith you have to maintain the existing line to serve it from the south.

Ive also thought a lot about the location of the southern portal, I am tempted to put it near Burneside and reroute the WCML through Kendal, reducing Oxenholme to a minor station on the branch line, but I don't think the alignment through the town is suitable, which is a shame because bypassing the main population centre is hardly ideal.
Otherwise I think just dive into the tunnel as soon as possible north of Oxenholme, before the hard eastwards turn of the line.


I agree that a portal north of Penrith is not a great idea, but I think a portal at the south end of Penrith, near the bridge over the River Eamont is potentially transformative.
That would allow the existing route to be largely abandoned apart from a stub siding to the industrial customers.

Given that HS2 stock is likely to be the mainstay of long distance journeys on this route in the medium-long term, we can potentially push up to speeds far beyond 125mph/200kph. Oxenholme-Penrith stop-to-stop journey tmies on order of 14-15 minutes would be achievable for classic compatible sets.
Eliminating the gradient would drastically improve freight timings over the route (easing pathing), and we of course escape having to maintain large amounts of signalling and track equipment on Shap summit. Indeed the equipment the railway is responsible for up there is reduced to a handful of point machines or ground frames to select between industrial users.

You'd be better off putting in more passing loops, possibly shortening signal sections and ensuring all freight traffic is electrically hauled (In the 1980s as well as the double-headed Freightliners BR had steel traffic from Ravenscraig to South Wales electrically hauled as well as a lot of the limestone traffic from Hardendale Quarry).

Any tunnels would not be cheap. Not.only because of length but because you're going to be going through some very tough rock formations. There's a eason the M6 and WCML take fairly similar routes through not only the Lune Gorge and over Shap but up to Carlisle as well - it's the easiest and most cost efficient route.

The tunnel option wasn't taken in the nineteenth century for the railway due to cost. An interesting what-if given not only because Kendal would then have been on the main WCML but because the tunnel would have come out and run along the banks of Haweswater on its way to Penrith. The latter might have prevented the lake being turned into a reservoir by Manchester corporation in the early 1930s.

When the M6 was being built through Cumberland and Westmoreland in the early 1970s the option of tunnels to avoid going over Shap Summit was looked at and also discounted on cost. It's partly due to the rock formations that the two carriageways separate on the climb to the summit from the South (but it was also partly designed to mitigate drifting snow).

 

[eldomtom2]

That‘s called HS2 2a

Which is dead. Time to start looking at alternatives.

 

[HSTEd]

You'd be better off putting in more passing loops, possibly shortening signal sections and ensuring all freight traffic is electrically hauled (In the 1980s as well as the double-headed Freightliners BR had steel traffic from Ravenscraig to South Wales electrically hauled as well as a lot of the limestone traffic from Hardendale Quarry).

I'm not sure if any real mechanism exists to compel electric traction on freight operators, or double heading. Trying to declare congested infrastructure has its own downsides in that the whole point is that the infrastructure operator has to undo the bottleneck.
Passing loops also have their own issues in that long freight trains take significant periods of time to crawl in and out of them, they aren't a panacea (especially with all the 10-15mph crossovers). The only way to escape this bottleneck on the current alignment would be a third track up both sides of the incline, and that is going to get very expensive.

Any tunnels would not be cheap. Not.only because of length but because you're going to be going through some very tough rock formations. There's a eason the M6 and WCML take fairly similar routes through not only the Lune Gorge and over Shap but up to Carlisle as well - it's the easiest and most cost efficient route.

The tunnel option wasn't taken in the nineteenth century for the railway due to cost. An interesting what-if given not only because Kendal would then have been on the main WCML but because the tunnel would have come out and run along the banks of Haweswater on its way to Penrith. The latter might have prevented the lake being turned into a reservoir by Manchester corporation in the early 1930s.

When the M6 was being built through Cumberland and Westmoreland in the early 1970s the option of tunnels to avoid going over Shap Summit was looked at and also discounted on cost. It's partly due to the rock formations that the two carriageways separate on the climb to the summit from the South (but it was also partly designed to mitigate drifting snow).

The tunnel boring machines we have today make the ones that were available when the M6 was built look like toys though!
A base tunnel would not be cheap, but then doing anything at all on the existing railway is not cheap either, and the very real journey time and capacity benefits will be worth quite a lot.
I'm not sure there is a cheap way to cut 10+ minutes off the Scotland-England journey time at the end of the day!

Plus as I said, escaping having to maintain a railway in such an exposed location.

 

[The Planner]

Which is dead. Time to start looking at alternatives.

They already are, and will pretty much end up being a shorter version of 2A.

You'd be better off putting in more passing loops, possibly shortening signal sections and ensuring all freight traffic is electrically hauled (In the 1980s as well as the double-headed Freightliners BR had steel traffic from Ravenscraig to South Wales electrically hauled as well as a lot of the limestone traffic from Hardendale Quarry).

The first two are fairly certain to happen via ETCS and other plans, the latter is nigh on impossible to enforce.

 

[Nottingham59]

I'd propose the following. These are all about increasing capacity rather than speed.

• Curve from the HS2 Eastern stump at Delta Junction to the Birmingham-Derby line. Adding 400m platforms at Derby and Sheffield and freight passing loops at Burton. Would bring HS2 trains to Yorkshire, cut 15 mins off the time to Sheffield, and most importantly release a lot of capacity on the southern MML.
  
  
• From the Chester-Manchester line at Daresbury, build a new line skirting Hartford and Winsford Industrial Estate, to join the WCML south of Winsford (15 miles). Shortest way to bypass the bottleneck at Weaver Junction, and would deliver a 4-track WCML all the way to Wigan.
• Add a third track to the Chat Moss line past Patricroft and Eccles stations, to allow fast trains to pass stoppers kept to the bi-directional centre track. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be space for four tracks along here, without a tunnel.
• Add a chord at Newton-le-Willows to allow WCML trains to join the Chat Moss route to Victoria at speed. Extend platforms at Victoria or Salford Central to 400m, giving a high-capacity but slower LNWR-priced route for HS2 trains to reach Manchester.
  
  
• Tunnel from near where the Man Vic - Ashton line crosses the M60 to near Uppermill (6 miles as the crow flies). With passive provision and safeguarding to duplicate the Saddleworth Viaduct and rebore the unused Standedge Tunnels. The next step in upgrading the Transpennine route to four tracks throughout.
  
  
• South-facing platforms at Leeds station, connecting to the line through Woodlesford. Build 250m length at first, with passive provision to extend to 400m. Gives access to Hull and York via Castlefield. New chord near Wakefield either along HS2 alignment (Goosehill to Crofton) or Midland Line (Curdworth to Wath-upon-Dearne) to give access to Doncaster and Sheffield. Passive provision for a tunnel towards Morley and Dewsbury.

 

[TheGrew]

You'd be better off putting in more passing loops, possibly shortening signal sections and ensuring all freight traffic is electrically hauled (In the 1980s as well as the double-headed Freightliners BR had steel traffic from Ravenscraig to South Wales electrically hauled as well as a lot of the limestone traffic from Hardendale Quarry).

Any tunnels would not be cheap. Not.only because of length but because you're going to be going through some very tough rock formations. There's a eason the M6 and WCML take fairly similar routes through not only the Lune Gorge and over Shap but up to Carlisle as well - it's the easiest and most cost efficient route.

The tunnel option wasn't taken in the nineteenth century for the railway due to cost. An interesting what-if given not only because Kendal would then have been on the main WCML but because the tunnel would have come out and run along the banks of Haweswater on its way to Penrith. The latter might have prevented the lake being turned into a reservoir by Manchester corporation in the early 1930s.

When the M6 was being built through Cumberland and Westmoreland in the early 1970s the option of tunnels to avoid going over Shap Summit was looked at and also discounted on cost. It's partly due to the rock formations that the two carriageways separate on the climb to the summit from the South (but it was also partly designed to mitigate drifting snow).

I wouldn't have thought rock would be a particular issue. Later this year I will be traveling through the Furka Base Tunnel which was built to bypass a treacherous mountain route that had to be closed for part of the year because of inclement weather (which is now a heritage line in summer!). If the Swiss can do it I can't see why we couldn't given enough money.

 

[Bald Rick]

Which is dead. Time to start looking at alternatives.

It’s not dead, believe me.

Besides, the alternative to a High Speed line from somewhere north of Lichfield to somewhere south of Crewe is, err, a high speed line from somewhere north of Lichfield to somewhere south of Crewe…

Trying to declare congested infrastructure has its own downsides in that the whole point is that the infrastructure operator has to undo the bottleneck.

No, the infrastructure manager has to study and propose solutions to the congested infrastructure to the industry, including (crucially) the funders. One feasible outcome is… nothing.

Passing loops also have their own issues in that long freight trains take significant periods of time to crawl in and out of them, they aren't a panacea (especially with all the 10-15mph crossovers).

That’s easy to solve though - higher speed entry and exits.

A base tunnel would not be cheap, but then doing anything at all on the existing railway is not cheap either, and the very real journey time and capacity benefits will be worth quite a lot.

As stated previously, it doesn‘t need to be a base tunnel. Or even much in the way of tunnelling.

 

[swt_passenger]

The section (edit: of the Leamside Line) south of the Victoria Viaduct would be mostly useful for speed, the problem would be the curves on the viaduct approach; from about there onwards any worthwhile high-speed cutoff would need a new alignment anyway.

Leamside line summary so far. Great idea to reopen it, but no-one so far has any idea how to use it. I doubt it would ever be a better fast route to Newcastle overall, simply because of the Victoria Viaduct. The Team Valley route was after all built to speed the route to Newcastle up. I doubt Virgin (as mentioned up thread) had the first idea of how to use it either.

 

[eldomtom2]

It’s not dead, believe me.

It looks pretty dead from here.

Besides, the alternative to a High Speed line from somewhere north of Lichfield to somewhere south of Crewe is, err, a high speed line from somewhere north of Lichfield to somewhere south of Crewe…

That depends on what you consider an alternative, and what problem you're trying to solve. HS2 Phase 2 is not the only possible solution.

 

[The Planner]

It looks pretty dead from here.

That depends on what you consider an alternative, and what problem you're trying to solve. HS2 Phase 2 is not the only possible solution.

Colwich and Shugborough are the problem, unless you are suggesting something else is?

 

[stuu]

Which is dead. Time to start looking at alternatives.

I absolutely expect that the project called HS2 Phase 2a is dead. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn about a new project called Midlands Connect or something, which happens to run between Crewe and HS2

 

[Railsigns]

About 15-20 years ago, drawings were produced for a proposed new track alignment bypassing Dunbar.

 

[eldomtom2]

Colwich and Shugborough are the problem, unless you are suggesting something else is?

The point is that there are a large variety of ways to deal with congestion at Colwich and Shugborough.

I absolutely expect that the project called HS2 Phase 2a is dead. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn about a new project called Midlands Connect or something, which happens to run between Crewe and HS2

Well yes, as we all know the mayors of Manchester and Birmingham are trying to get something of that nature off the ground. The question is how similar the plans for that will be to Phase 2a.

 

[zwk500]

The question is how similar the plans for that will be to Phase 2a.

Probably very, given the number of available alternatives.

The point is that there are a large variety of ways to deal with congestion at Colwich and Shugborough.

Such as? The only way to get more capacity on the existing infrastructure is to reduce the linespeed so trains can bunch up closer together. You can't build more infrastructure on-line because of the environmental sensitivity of Cannock Chase. You can't grade-separate Colwich at it's current location. So whatever you do you need a new alignment from Rugeley to Hixon (or possible further north) and Rugeley to somewhere north of Stafford (as you can't get back onto the line without a Morpeth-type sharp speed restriction.
Any upgrade of Colwich-Stafford is going to end up looking very similar to the HS2 proposal because there simply isn't much else to do. It's been referenced before (I think by @Bald Rick) that the HS2 proposal was itself extremeley similar to previous WCML upgrade proposals.

 

[stuu]

Well yes, as we all know the mayors of Manchester and Birmingham are trying to get something of that nature off the ground. The question is how similar the plans for that will be to Phase 2a.

The absolute insanity of cancelling phase 2a is that they have already designed it, and got it through parliament, bought the land and I believe even started moving utilities. They must have spent at least 25% of the budget already, there won't be a cheaper solution