HS2 Phase One - Possible service patterns (OOC to Curzon St and via Handsacre)

[Nottingham59]

I realise this has probably been addressed before, but are there any low (ish) cost improvements possible for Colwich? How many extra paths would say £100m, £200m etc get you?

At Handsacre, the HS2 spur will join the WCML by crossing over all four tracks and onto a descending viaduct merging onto the southernmost track which is the Down Slow. Given that Colwich is only a few miles away, there could be an advantage in adding

1. Extra crossovers in between the two points to allow more flexibilty when trains to Stafford and to Stoke sort themselves onto the correct to diverge at Colwich
2. Adding a platform 0 at Rugeley Station on the Goods Siding opposite platform 1 for Chase Line trains. With access from the Down Slow, this would allow Platform 1 to become a passing loop for freight trains and WCML slow trains to get out of the way of an HS2 train staying on the slow line.
3. Adding a "slow loop" outside the Handsacre Down viaduct, so HS2 trains arriving at Hansacre can cross over onto the fasts without conflicting with any traffic already on the WCML slow.

But any of these would be redundant if HS2 were ever extended to Hixon, which would in effect grade separate Colwich Junction, or to Crewe, which would take most traffic off the WCML.

Ok thanks. Any guesses at lowest cost grade separation - accepting lower than ideal speed? Cost and additional paths?

Cheapest: 5km of extra two track railway, plus 1km of viaduct to cross the WCML and a 1km tunnel to get under Coley Lane hill: £1-2bn at current prices.

Extend HS2 phase 2a to Great Heywood (17km of new high speed line), plus 1km twin-track chord to join Colwich-Stone line at Hixon: £2-3bn

Extend HS2 phase 2a to Baldwin's Gate and merge on the WCML fasts to Crewe (42km): £5-6bn.

Costs estimated from:

Cost of new railway lines in 2024

What is the current cost of building a new railway in the UK? I'm thinking about the total cost, not just the civil engineering. There's a number of references I can find. Are there any better sources? East West Rail Central Section options Central section capital cost estimate (14.08.2019)...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[slowroad]

At Handsacre, the HS2 spur will join the WCML by crossing over all four tracks and onto a descending viaduct merging onto the southernmost track which is the Down Slow. Given that Colwich is only a few miles away, there could be an advantage in adding

1. Extra crossovers in between the two points to allow more flexibilty when trains to Stafford and to Stoke sort themselves onto the correct to diverge at Colwich
2. Adding a platform 0 at Rugeley Station on the Goods Siding opposite platform 1 for Chase Line trains. With access from the Down Slow, this would allow Platform 1 to become a passing loop for freight trains and WCML slow trains to get out of the way of an HS2 train staying on the slow line.
3. Adding a "slow loop" outside the Handsacre Down viaduct, so HS2 trains arriving at Hansacre can cross over onto the fasts without conflicting with any traffic already on the WCML slow.

But any of these would be redundant if HS2 were ever extended to Hixon, which would in effect grade separate Colwich Junction, or to Crewe, which would take most traffic off the WCML.


Cheapest: 5km of extra two track railway, plus 1km of viaduct to cross the WCML and a 1km tunnel to get under Coley Lane hill: £1-2bn at current prices.

Extend HS2 phase 2a to Great Heywood (17km of new high speed line), plus 1km twin-track chord to join Colwich-Stone line at Hixon: £2-3bn

Extend HS2 phase 2a to Baldwin's Gate and merge on the WCML fasts to Crewe (42km): £5-6bn.

Costs estimated from:

Cost of new railway lines in 2024

What is the current cost of building a new railway in the UK? I'm thinking about the total cost, not just the civil engineering. There's a number of references I can find. Are there any better sources? East West Rail Central Section options Central section capital cost estimate (14.08.2019)...

www.railforums.co.uk

That’s really helpful, thanks. Any idea how many extra paths with each? (Let’s forget about speed.)

 

[Meerkat]

Unless it's price dumped nobody is going to make a connectional journey where a direct one exists at a reasonable price

I was thinking of effectively price dumping, to fill the seats on London trains that were empty due to Interchange passengers. Hopefully it won’t just be a price issue but even with a change using HS2 will be much nicer than XC.

 

[The Planner]

A first stop Crewe service from Curzon St to Manchester would be far better than today's service.

The issue with the 2tph Manchester XC (and 2tph LNWR Liverpool) services today that plod to and from Birmingham is that they do so much more than serve those cities - and add semi-fast frequency to a lot of intermediate stations. The Manchesters also extending to Bristol/Reading.

So even with a Handsacre service, you'd probably need them - or to tweak them (e.g. send one to Preston, send an XC to Liverpool maybe) - but keep those paths through Wolvo as they're also part of the Brum-Wolvo metro frequency.

So again I could see 1tph of each staying, and 1tph maybe going somewhere else (esp if Stockport is tapped) - but they'll have to stay in some shape.

It would go via Stoke.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2025 ==

By how much? Enough to make changing at Interchange workable (particularly if there are lots of spare seats to flog off cheap and easy XC)?

Changing at Interchange from what to what?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2025 ==

At Handsacre, the HS2 spur will join the WCML by crossing over all four tracks and onto a descending viaduct merging onto the southernmost track which is the Down Slow. Given that Colwich is only a few miles away, there could be an advantage in adding

1. Extra crossovers in between the two points to allow more flexibilty when trains to Stafford and to Stoke sort themselves onto the correct to diverge at Colwich

There will be crossovers from the slows to fasts.

1. Adding a platform 0 at Rugeley Station on the Goods Siding opposite platform 1 for Chase Line trains. With access from the Down Slow, this would allow Platform 1 to become a passing loop for freight trains and WCML slow trains to get out of the way of an HS2 train staying on the slow line.

HS2 will be on the fasts as above. You would be realigning the Chase line to do that as well.

1. Adding a "slow loop" outside the Handsacre Down viaduct, so HS2 trains arriving at Hansacre can cross over onto the fasts without conflicting with any traffic already on the WCML slow.

But any of these would be redundant if HS2 were ever extended to Hixon, which would in effect grade separate Colwich Junction, or to Crewe, which would take most traffic off the WCML.

Or you just path out anything on the slow and spend nothing.

 

[Nottingham59]

That’s really helpful, thanks. Any idea how many extra paths with each? (Let’s forget about speed.)

Sure. Note these are only guesses; I don't have professional knowledge.

To start, my best estimate is that Colwich junction can take 10tph, of which 8tph head towards Stafford and 2tph towards Stoke. Others may know better. If all the trains had the same speed and acceleration, like say Blackfriars Junction on Thameslink, then capacity would be much higher. But coping with a mix of freight, express passenger and stopping passenger trains severely limits throughput.

1. If you closed the line towards Stoke and sent all trains towards Stafford, then I guess this would allow an additional 4tph, as Colwich then becomes a simple convergence-divergence through the twin-track Shugborough Tunnel, with no crossing moves. So maybe 14tph in all, if Stafford and Norton Bridge can handle such extra traffic. (Note that northbound flows diverted in this way would have to cross southbound flows towards Wolverhampton before they can head towards Stoke via Norton Bridge, or get to Crewe, so the capacity may not be there).
   
   
2. Adding a simple grade separation at Colwich would in principle allow around 12tph (all passenger) towards Stoke. But all these would head towards Stockport, where there no paths for any more than the current 2tph Avanti. You could get this up to 4tph if Birmingham-Manchester trains went via HS2 from Curzon St, using the current Cross County paths through Stoke to Manchester. Maybe 5pth if you had one HS2 path that terminated early at Macclesfield. You'd also have to extend the Stoke stopper to Wolverhampton to service Wolves-Stafford-Stoke traffic that currently goes via XC.
   
   The line towards Stafford could take perhaps 2tph more. (Fewer than (1) above, as the 2-track Shugborough chicane would be much longer - effectively extending back all the way to Handsacre). So only 10+5=15tph usable.
   
   
3. Extending HS2 to Hixon would allow 4tph extra towards Stafford, as in (1) and 12tph towards Stoke (as in 2), of which only 4tph could get to Manchester, and 1tph to Macc. So 12+5=17tph usable.
   
   
4. Extending HS2 to Baldwin's Gate and merging onto the WCML fasts north of Stafford would enable the full capacity of HS2, which is perhaps 10tph. Assuming 2tph went via Handsace and Colwich towards Stoke and Manchester, that would leave 8tph arriving at Baldwins Gate via HS2. Colwich would still take 10tph as in (1) - 2tph HS2 to Manchester and 8tph WCML towards Stafford. So Colwich plus HS2 Colwich Bypass together deliver 8+2+8=18tph usable. I have no idea if Crewe Station and the lines north of Crewe can handle the 8tph extra traffic. I suspect possibly not: you'd probably need to quad the WCML north of Crewe and grade separate the southern approach to Crewe station to handle it all.

Hope this helps. As I said, these are only my best guesses.

 

[cle]

It would go via Stoke.

So do you think taking the path of an existing XC service would be best (running same pattern to Piccadilly)?
But then the XC path through Wolves has to go on to somewhere else from Stafford... and Manchester loses its Reading or Bristol.

Or this idea of extending the Stoke stopper (slow to Manc, but more local options to Brum, eg Congleton - and some TV stations?)

- or both? Serve different purposes entirely, I suppose.

 

[Meerkat]

Changing at Interchange from what to what?

From a Brum-OOC to an OOC-north.

 

[The Planner]

So do you think taking the path of an existing XC service would be best (running same pattern to Piccadilly)?
But then the XC path through Wolves has to go on to somewhere else from Stafford... and Manchester loses its Reading or Bristol.

Or this idea of extending the Stoke stopper (slow to Manc, but more local options to Brum, eg Congleton - and some TV stations?)

- or both? Serve different purposes entirely, I suppose.

Why does it? Chances are you would have a sizeable rewrite, so the XC paths may change radically or one could.just go.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jan 2025 ==

From a Brum-OOC to an OOC-north.

Probably not as I doubt the timetable would be designed for decent connections like that.

 

[Meerkat]

Probably not as I doubt the timetable would be designed for decent connections like that.

Could it be, if the timings and prices could be made attractive to passengers and revenue?
It does depend whether there is actually space - ie those getting off at Interchange might be replaced by P&R people going to the North.

 

[The Planner]

Could it be, if the timings and prices could be made attractive to passengers and revenue?
It does depend whether there is actually space - ie those getting off at Interchange might be replaced by P&R people going to the North.

Probably not, as everything is going to be governed by Colwich and OOC at the start. You aren't going to build a timetable on a connection like that.

 

[Nottingham59]

This is my suggested service pattern for HS2 Phase One to a terminus at Old Oak Common (OOC):

COLWICH JUNCTION:
Assuming Colwich can reliably handle 10tph, I'd allocate those paths to:

• 5 x HS2 direct from London OOC, making as many as possible of these trains are 400m to maximise capacity
• 1 x HS2 from London via Birmingham Curzon St ("BCR") - The Value Special
• 2 x WCML passenger - 1 fast Pendolino to Piccadilly (MAN), using the Avanti path via Stoke; 1tph Trent Valley stopper to Liverpool (LIV).
• 2 x Freight.

OLD OAK COMMON
Analysing train movements to the nearest ten seconds shows that the theorectical maximum capacity of OOC is 18tph off six platforms, using just the Victoria Street Crossing Box. So a robust and reliable timetable at 10tph should be readily feasible using also the scissors crossing within the station box, which conveniently suggests a 30-minute cycle, using 5 platforms and leaving one spare.

Also, I would lay a short length of track into the southernmost tunnel to Euston at the Eastern end of OOC connecting to P9, 10, 11, 12, 13, leaving the northern tunnel available for construction access to Euston. This would allow trains arriving at P13 to reverse into P9 or P10 without conflicts with trains using P11 and P12, which have access to the scissors crossover at the western end of the station box. The HS2 "In Your Area Map" suggests this would be quite feasible. Note that this extra track is not needed to support 10tph, but would provide extra resilience.

In your area map

Search our interactive In Your Area Map to find information about current or planned HS2 construction works taking place across the route.

www.hs2.org.uk

Services from OOC would be:

• 4tph x 200m Birmingham shuttle, calling at Interchange and Curzon St. By "Shuttle" I mean a turn up and go service all from one platform island with no seat reservations. Trains would be lengthened to 400m at busy times.
• 1tph x 400m "Value Special" to Birmingham Curzon St then continuing to Manchester and beyond. See Train Z below.
• 5tph on the direct line to Handsacre and Colwich - Trains A to E as shown below

== == ==

TRAIN A
200m "Manchester Pullman" to Manchester Piccadilly using the Avanti path through Wilmslow, calling at Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport. Premium Service with premium ticket pricing. No splitting/joining for reliability. Headline target timing 1h45m (40m OOC-Handsacre, 65m Handsacre-MAN). If headline times were that important, Train A could save five minutes by going via Stoke, and the WCML Pendolino could go via Wilmslow instead.

TRAIN B
400m train to Manchester and Macclesfield, splitting at Stoke-on-Trent (SOT)

• Front 200m unit advertised to Manchester and Stockport only
• Rear 200m unit calls at Stoke and Macclesfield
• Train splits at SOT by drawing forward to a stopping board 180m beyond the end of platform 2. Real unit doors open, while the front unit detaches and heads fast to Manchester using one Avanti path to Stockport and Piccadilly.
• Rear unit continues to Macclesfield where it waits in P3 for the return working to leave Piccadilly before setting off to Stoke. I assume there is capacity SOT-MAC to accommodate this movement.
• If platforms at SOT are extended to 400m, then both portions can call there.

TRAIN C
400m train to Liverpool and Manchester, splitting at Stafford (STA)

• The split at Stafford gives access to the Cross County path to Manchester through Stoke
• Front unit platforms at Stafford; rear unit does not call
• Rear unit calls at SOT, MAC, SPT, MAN
• Front unit calls at Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn and Liverpool
• If platforms at Stafford are extended to 400m, then both portions can call there. This could be done at the South end. Switches south of Stafford station could be moved southwards by 50-100m to avoid stopped trains blocking junctions.
• One Cross Country path is still available to serve Stoke, Stone, Stafford, Wolverhampton, New St corridor

TRAIN D
400m train to Glasgow and Edinburgh, splitting at Crewe (CRE)

• Front unit proceeds express to Glasgow, with call at Preston
• Front unit platforms at Crewe; rear unit does not call.
• Rear unit calls at Warrington, Wigan NW, Preston, Lancaster, and other main stations to Edinburgh
• Platforms at Crewe would be extended to 400m. Until then, the front unit would stop at the end of the platform and only the front unit doors would open. Passengers from Crewe for stations before Preston would have to use the Birmingham-Glasgow WCML service.

TRAIN E
400m non-stop to Edinburgh Waverley (EDI), which is the only station north of Crewe currently able to handle 400m trains. Expected journey time OOC-EDI is less than 3h30m, so this would become the main London-Edinburgh service, relieving the ECML. If platforms are lengthened to 400m at CRE, WBQ, WNW, PRE, LAN, or CAR then Train E could call there too depending on demand, at the expense of end-to-end journey times.

TRAIN Z
400m train to Rochdale and Leeds via Birmingham Curzon St, splitting at Warrington Bank Quay (WBQ). Train Z is the "Value Special" targetted at the price-sensitive customer segment that would not pay premium prices, but can be tempted by a slower non-direct service. I had originally planned Train Z as a Birmingham-Piccadilly-Leeds service, but HS2 has unlimited capacity between Birmingham and London, and hey this gives Rochdale and Huddersfield direct trains to London.

• Train splits at WBQ. Both units continue to Manchester Victoria, via Chat Moss. I hope but haven't verified if two trains flighted together can fit onto the Chat Moss route, but this is the only approach route to Manchester City Centre which is not full.
• One unit terminates at Rochdale, using the open access path found by Lumo
• One unit calls at Stalybridge, Huddersfield and Leeds, using the increased capacity available from the Transpennine Route Upgrade. I would expect the Birmingham-Leeds leg to be as fast as the Cross County route via Sheffield if TRU brings Manchester-Leeds times down to 42 minutes as promised.
• If platforms are extended at WBQ, then both units can call there.

OVERALL

• Manchester gets 5tph HS2 services, providing 2,750 seats per hour, all to London, compared to 1800 today. It also keeps 1tph Pendolino Service (600 seats) to Milton Keynes and London, and 1tph Cross Country service to Wolverhampton and Birmingham.
• Liverpool gets 2tph service to London, one via HS2, one via WCML Trent Valley stopper
• Edinburgh gets 2tph HS2 service to London, with 1650 seats per hour.
• Glasgow gets 2tph to London, 1 via HS2, the other via Birmingham New St as now
• Rochdale, Huddersfield and Stalybridge get direct services to London

I would keep one Cross Country service from Birmingham to Manchester via Wolverhampton, but run it with 11-car Pendolino trains, and keep the WCML Avanti service to Glasgow via Birmingham as a second "Value Special". Both these paths avoid Colwich, as does extending the Stoke Stopper through to Wolverhampton.

What have I missed?

 

[The Planner]

This is my suggested service pattern for HS2 Phase One to a terminus at Old Oak Common (OOC):

COLWICH JUNCTION:
Assuming Colwich can reliably handle 10tph, I'd allocate those paths to:

• 5 x HS2 direct from London OOC, making as many as possible of these trains are 400m to maximise capacity
• 1 x HS2 from London via Birmingham Curzon St ("BCR") - The Value Special
• 2 x WCML passenger - 1 fast Pendolino to Piccadilly (MAN), using the Avanti path via Stoke; 1tph Trent Valley stopper to Liverpool (LIV).
• 2 x Freight.

Where is the "Value" train going, Manchester? I'd expect a push for a second Trent Valley local as well. That Pendo will be a semi fast as well.

OLD OAK COMMON
Analysing train movements to the nearest ten seconds shows that the theorectical maximum capacity of OOC is 18tph off six platforms, using just the Victoria Street Crossing Box. So a robust and reliable timetable at 10tph should be readily feasible using also the scissors crossing within the station box, which conveniently suggests a 30-minute cycle, using 5 platforms and leaving one spare.

No one is working to 10 second increments, I'd be surprised if it goes lower than the current 30 second standard.

== == ==

TRAIN A
200m "Manchester Pullman" to Manchester Piccadilly using the Avanti path through Wilmslow, calling at Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport. Premium Service with premium ticket pricing. No splitting/joining for reliability. Headline target timing 1h45m (40m OOC-Handsacre, 65m Handsacre-MAN). If headline times were that important, Train A could save five minutes by going via Stoke, and the WCML Pendolino could go via Wilmslow instead.

You can do Stafford, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport now in 63 minutes. Going via Stoke will save 10 minutes based on a Stoke, Macc and Stockport stop.

TRAIN B
400m train to Manchester and Macclesfield, splitting at Stoke-on-Trent (SOT)

• Front 200m unit advertised to Manchester and Stockport only
• Rear 200m unit calls at Stoke and Macclesfield
• Train splits at SOT by drawing forward to a stopping board 180m beyond the end of platform 2. Real unit doors open, while the front unit detaches and heads fast to Manchester using one Avanti path to Stockport and Piccadilly.
• Rear unit continues to Macclesfield where it waits in P3 for the return working to leave Piccadilly before setting off to Stoke. I assume there is capacity SOT-MAC to accommodate this movement.
• If platforms at SOT are extended to 400m, then both portions can call there.

Stoke is an awful place to split and would need significant signalling alterations to make that work. You need another 130m of platform (which can only really be at the South end or a brand new platform) as what is the point of not stopping the first portion if you need 2 minutes to detach anyway? Just run 200m to Macclesfield as originally envisaged. The second portion is going to be waiting 5 minutes at Stoke before it can leave.

TRAIN C
400m train to Liverpool and Manchester, splitting at Stafford (STA)

• The split at Stafford gives access to the Cross County path to Manchester through Stoke
• Front unit platforms at Stafford; rear unit does not call
• Rear unit calls at SOT, MAC, SPT, MAN
• Front unit calls at Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn and Liverpool
• If platforms at Stafford are extended to 400m, then both portions can call there. This could be done at the South end. Switches south of Stafford station could be moved southwards by 50-100m to avoid stopped trains blocking junctions.
• One Cross Country path is still available to serve Stoke, Stone, Stafford, Wolverhampton, New St corridor

Again, needs massive signalling and S&C alterations at Stafford to accommodate 130m extensions as well as rebuilding. Rear unit is waiting 5 minutes before it can depart.

TRAIN D
400m train to Glasgow and Edinburgh, splitting at Crewe (CRE)

• Front unit proceeds express to Glasgow, with call at Preston
• Front unit platforms at Crewe; rear unit does not call.
• Rear unit calls at Warrington, Wigan NW, Preston, Lancaster, and other main stations to Edinburgh
• Platforms at Crewe would be extended to 400m. Until then, the front unit would stop at the end of the platform and only the front unit doors would open. Passengers from Crewe for stations before Preston would have to use the Birmingham-Glasgow WCML service.

Rear unit is waiting until the front portion can leave, what is the point of not calling when P6 is 446m long?

TRAIN E
400m non-stop to Edinburgh Waverley (EDI), which is the only station north of Crewe currently able to handle 400m trains. Expected journey time OOC-EDI is less than 3h30m, so this would become the main London-Edinburgh service, relieving the ECML. If platforms are lengthened to 400m at CRE, WBQ, WNW, PRE, LAN, or CAR then Train E could call there too depending on demand, at the expense of end-to-end journey times.

How are you doing Handsacre to Edinburgh in 2 hours 40 odd? Colwich to Glasgow is 3 hours 21 now with 6 stops. Say 3½ penalty for each station call and you are at 3 hours.

TRAIN Z
400m train to Rochdale and Leeds via Birmingham Curzon St, splitting at Warrington Bank Quay (WBQ). Train Z is the "Value Special" targetted at the price-sensitive customer segment that would not pay premium prices, but can be tempted by a slower non-direct service. I had originally planned Train Z as a Birmingham-Piccadilly-Leeds service, but HS2 has unlimited capacity between Birmingham and London, and hey this gives Rochdale and Huddersfield direct trains to London.

• Train splits at WBQ. Both units continue to Manchester Victoria, via Chat Moss. I hope but haven't verified if two trains flighted together can fit onto the Chat Moss route, but this is the only approach route to Manchester City Centre which is not full.
• One unit terminates at Rochdale, using the open access path found by Lumo
• One unit calls at Stalybridge, Huddersfield and Leeds, using the increased capacity available from the Transpennine Route Upgrade. I would expect the Birmingham-Leeds leg to be as fast as the Cross County route via Sheffield if TRU brings Manchester-Leeds times down to 42 minutes as promised.
• If platforms are extended at WBQ, then both units can call there.

Nothing HS2 is going to Rochdale, especially if TRU is the better route. The Chat Moss might not be full, but Ordsall Lane and Victoria aren't far off it. Warrington again needs 150m of platform and significant S&C and signalling alterations to do that.

OVERALL

• Manchester gets 5tph HS2 services, providing 2,750 seats per hour, all to London, compared to 1800 today. It also keeps 1tph Pendolino Service (600 seats) to Milton Keynes and London, and 1tph Cross Country service to Wolverhampton and Birmingham.
• Liverpool gets 2tph service to London, one via HS2, one via WCML Trent Valley stopper
• Edinburgh gets 2tph HS2 service to London, with 1650 seats per hour.
• Glasgow gets 2tph to London, 1 via HS2, the other via Birmingham New St as now
• Rochdale, Huddersfield and Stalybridge get direct services to London

Isn't that 10 HS2 trains per hour going through Colwich?

 

[Nottingham59]

Thankyou for the feedback. It's really useful and very much appreciated.

Addressing each point in turn:

Where is the "Value" train going, Manchester?

Yes. The "Value Special" splits into 2 x 200m consists to Victoria via Chat Moss, which appears to be the only route into Manchester that is not full. The main problem with HS2 phase 1 is its limited capacity into Manchester. How else can that be fixed without spending big money?

I'd expect a push for a second Trent Valley local as well.

You can have as many Trent Valley stoppers as you like, provided they terminate at or before Lichfield. Any going beyond LTV will use up a path through Colwich.

That Pendo will be a semi fast as well.

Agreed

No one is working to 10 second increments, I'd be surprised if it goes lower than the current 30 second standard.

That was just a desktop exercise to verify that six trains could terminate and reverse in (just) under 20 minutes, giving a hypothetical maximum throughput of 18tph. A 10tph timetable will only need specifying to the nearest minute. I'll work on that next.

You can do Stafford, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport now in 63 minutes. Going via Stoke will save 10 minutes based on a Stoke, Macc and Stockport stop.

Realtime trains suggested 5 minutes saving via Stoke. If it's 10, then I'd send the headline-grabbing premium service that way.

Stoke is an awful place to split and would need significant signalling alterations to make that work. You need another 130m of platform (which can only really be at the South end or a brand new platform) as what is the point of not stopping the first portion if you need 2 minutes to detach anyway? Just run 200m to Macclesfield as originally envisaged. The second portion is going to be waiting 5 minutes at Stoke before it can leave.

My thinking is you don't need a platform to split at Stoke alongside the front portion, if you don't open the doors. So no new building strictly required, and no need for a budget from the Treasury.

The mid-point of the train will be on the 285m platform at Stoke, in case a fitter needs to access to the coupler, and the rear portion will be fully platformed. The HS2 train specification says that trains must be able to split and join when passengers are boarding the stationary part, so my plan is for the front portion to detach and set off to Manchester during the rear portion's dwell time at Stoke. Same in reverse.

I wanted to split at Stoke so that both Stoke and Macc got an hourly service without using up another path through Colwich. Having an HS2 train block the siding to platform 3 for a short while seems a small price to pay, and even that could be avoided by restoring a third track on the existing 3-track bridge over Stoke Road.

The original HS2 plan for a 200m Macclesfield terminator was depended on phase 2a getting built.

Again, needs massive signalling and S&C alterations at Stafford to accommodate 130m extensions as well as rebuilding. Rear unit is waiting 5 minutes before it can depart.

Good point. Stafford is trickier, than I thought. But looking at the track layout again, it looks quite feasible to move the switches and crossing north of Stafford station further north by around 150m each. And replacing Castle Street bridge with a wider span and adding tracks would enable a 400m train to stand at P3 without blocking the through lines between P3 and P2.

But if, as you say, Crewe already has long enough platform 6, then we could split there instead. Though that now makes it imperative to lengthen the southbound platform at Crewe too.

enaRear unit is waiting until the front portion can leave, what is the point of not calling when P6 is 446m long?

railwaydata.co.uk said 390m, but I may have misunderstood. At 445m, then both portions can call at Crewe northbound and it just emphasises the importance of lengthening the 275m southbound P5 to 400m to match. I shall assume this is in the next iteration. Thank you.

How are you doing Handsacre to Edinburgh in 2 hours 40 odd? Colwich to Glasgow is 3 hours 21 now with 6 stops. Say 3½ penalty for each station call and you are at 3 hours.

I must have mis-remembered some figures I worked out previously. Maybe they assumed 2a was in place. Thanks for pointing this out. Looks like extra Edinburgh services on HS2 can wait until 2a or its equivalent gets built. Probably just as well.

Nothing HS2 is going to Rochdale, especially if TRU is the better route. The Chat Moss might not be full, but Ordsall Lane and Victoria aren't far off it. Warrington again needs 150m of platform and significant S&C and signalling alterations to do that.

I suggested Rochdale because Lumo want to terminate there, but it would need electrification of course.

The extra 2tph trains for TRU have to come from somewhere. Leeds acting as a 2tph turnback siding for Victoria seems a neat way to kill two birds with one stone. I'm pretty hopeful that Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds would be a popular and useful through route, especially if those trains continued on to London.

There seems plenty of space around WBQ to slew tracks across and shift switches and crossings at either end of the station to accommodate 400m trains. They're going to have to lengthen platforms on the northern WCML sooner or later anyway. Or it's just throwing away the £50bn invested in phase 1. In the meantime, you just block crossings if necessary.

Isn't that 10 HS2 trains per hour going through Colwich?

No. It's 9 x HS2 200m-long units through Colwich

The whole point of this proposed service pattern is that those 9 x 200m units go through Colwich joined into just 5 x 400m trains and therefore use up just five paths between them. I can't see any other way to maximise the throughput of HS2 phase 1.

Until we build phase 2a (£7bn) or add 400m platforms in Manchester (£1-3bn)

 

[generalnerd]

Until we build phase 2a (£7bn) or add 400m platforms in Manchester (£1-3bn)

I doubt it would be 7bn for 2a, but even still it would be a bargain to build. If I was playing (insert transit tycoon here) I would go straight for a loan to build it

 

[Manutd1999]

Some good ideas and knowledge on this thread!

Assuming no upgrades at Colwich and a nominal capacity of ~10ph, I would propose the following:

4ph OOC - Curzon Street (200m, maybe 400m in the peaks).
2ph OOC - Manchester via Stoke (200m), perhaps recast to run at 30 min intervals.
1ph OOC - Crewe (400m), which then splits for Liverpool and Preston.
1ph OOC - Carlisle (400m, first stop Preston), splitting for Edinburgh and Glasgow

2ph Euston - Birmingham (1ph to Scotland)
1ph Euston - Manchester
1ph Euston - Chester/Holyhead
1ph Euston - Liverpool
2ph Euston - Lichfield

The Crewe stopper is replaced, with the stops north of Handsacre transferring to the Liverpool service and stops to the south served by the new Lichfield services.

Overall, a reasonable balance between HS2 and classic services. That leaves ~3ph free for freight services through Colwich, allowing some growth there as well.

Upgrades required:
400m platforms at Crewe and Carlisle (fairly cheap?)
A crossover just north of Lichfield, to permit terminating slow line services to cross into the sidings. This may just about work as a flat crossing, as the fast lines will be fairly quiet around there.

 

[cle]

I don't think the Lichfield plan would work so well. How about a Stone-Stoke routing into terminating at Crewe, avoiding Colwich?

4ph OOC - Curzon Street (200m, maybe 400m in the peaks).
2ph OOC - Manchester via Stoke (200m), perhaps recast to run at 30 min intervals.
1ph OOC - Crewe (400m), which then splits for Liverpool and Preston.
1ph OOC - Carlisle (400m, first stop Preston), splitting for Edinburgh and Glasgow

this looks reasonable. Liverpool may prefer not to have a splitter, if the penalty is a lot or reliability. I would think 1 x 200m is decent on HS2, plus maybe a Curzon service or new XC services.

Also I think the Lancs/Lakes should have their own service, maybe to Carlisle. And the Scotland is OOC-Preston-Carlisle fast.

 

[HSTEd]

Is the Handsacre connection still going to be onto the fast lines, or the slow lines?

What about LNWR services, is there any scope to "lop" them off and couple the northern end to HS2?

LNWR Trent Valley services might still be competitive even if they operated as extensions of London-Birmingham Curzon Street trains.

 

[The Planner]

Is the Handsacre connection still going to be onto the fast lines, or the slow lines?

What about LNWR services, is there any scope to "lop" them off and couple the northern end to HS2?

LNWR Trent Valley services might still be competitive even if they operated as extensions of London-Birmingham Curzon Street trains.

Slow lines

 

[Nottingham59]

I realise this has probably been addressed before, but are there any low (ish) cost improvements possible for Colwich? How many extra paths would say £100m, £200m etc get you?

I've been thinking about this a bit more.

One of the main conflicts at Colwich is southbound (Up) freight from Crewe having to cross northbound passenger flows twice:

1. It has to cross passenger traffic heading towards Crewe on fast lines. It does this at either Stafford South junction or at the point where the four track railway becomes two tracks to enter the Shugborough Tunnel.
2. It then has to cross any traffic heading north towards Stoke-on-Trent, at Colwich Junction itself.

Northbound freight is much less of a problem as it all goes from the WCML Down Slows towards Stafford and therefore does not cross any southbound paths.

So one very cheap option would be to send most or all southbound freight on the WCML via Penkridge, Walsall and Water Orton to rejoin the Up Slows at Nuneaton. This route is around 10 miles further and would take quite a while longer than the direct route on the WCML. I don't know how congested this alternative route is, but from a quick glance at realtimetrains this morning there seems to be unsused capacity.

That single step would release, at a guess, around 3 paths an hour through Colwich for HS2 use when phase one opens. It could be achieved by declaring Colwich "Congested Infrastructure" and imposing supplementary track access charges at a sufficient level to make it worthwhile for FOC's to reroute southbound freight as suggested. Charges would only be needed for northbound paths towards Stoke and southbound paths from Stafford through Colwich.

DP World subsidises FoC's to ship containers from Southhampton by rail instead of road, at a rate of £100 per container. So a supplementay charge of say £100 or £1000 per path per day in the timetable might be enough. £10k per path certainly would be.

Capital cost: Zero
Income for supplementary track access charges at say £1000 per path = 10/h x 15h/d x 200d/y = £30M /y
Cost of subsidy to placate FoCs: Just give them the track access income, as increased subsidy somehow = £30M /y
Economic cost of rerouting and delaying southbound freight: relatively little as most of them will be empty containers returning to South Coast ports to be shipped back to China.

Sounds too easy. Must have missed something .....

EDIT:
Another way to increase the capacity of Colwich would be to introduce ERTMS / ETCS train control to the line between Handsacre and Norton Bridge. But I think any discussion on that belongs in another thread.