HS2 - Stafford Bypass

[cle]

It will be the slows.

Will they run 2tph to Manchester via Stoke (per day) then? Seems less conflict than more via Crewe.

 

[Palmerston]

It will be the slows.

Does this mean HS2 lines at Handascre join the slow WCML lines? Just trying to understand. This seems weird if correct

 

[The Planner]

Does this mean HS2 lines at Handascre join the slow WCML lines? Just trying to understand. This seems weird if correct

Yes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Nov 2024 ==

Will they run 2tph to Manchester via Stoke (per day) then? Seems less conflict than more via Crewe.

Everything is still on the table.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Does this mean HS2 lines at Handascre join the slow WCML lines? Just trying to understand. This seems weird if correct

Yes.

AIUI this connection of the two HS2 tracks to the outer two slow tracks of the West Coast Mainline at Handsacre Junction is required by High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Act 2021 which replaced the original more complicated (and presumably more expensive) connection in High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act 2017 to the two fast tracks used by the current Avanti West Coast train services in the centre of the four track West Coast Mainline at Handsacre Junction. According to the following HS2 full business case only one 200m single set train an hour London Euston and Old Oak Common to Stafford Stoke on Trent and Macclesfield would have used Streethay and Handsacre Junctions.

It is surely unworkable to run all HS2 services North of Birmingham through a connection to the WCML outer slow lines at Handsacre Junction and there is no point is building the Streethay and Handsacre Junctions, better to save the money which would be spent building them and continue to run the existing two fast trains an hour on the West Coast Mainline between London Euston and Manchester via Stoke on Trent.

Clearly the only workable way for HS2 trains to connect with the West Coast Mainline North of Birmingham is a connection immediately South of Crewe which bypasses Stafford and the two track Shugborough Tunnel bottleneck, whether this is with a railway on the HS2 phase 2a route or a railway on some other route. As pointed out in post #13 if, as is suggested by the Stafford Bypass proposal discussed in this thread, the route taken is different to the HS2 phase 2a route, it will need new land take affecting people who are not currently affected so it would be better to build a railway connecting HS2 to the West Coast Mainline South of Crewe on the HS2 phase 2a route.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fc51d7b8fa8f54755392863/full-business-case-hs2-phase-one.pdf

 

[eldomtom2]

Is this proposal an attempt to revive the Atkins "Rail Alternatives to HS2 Phase 2a" report? The emphasis on bypassing Stafford and the suggestion of upgrading the WCML to 140mph suggest so.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Surely 4 tracking Crewe to Stockport aswell isn’t a bad idea too. The only obvious difference to HS2 Phase 2a is linespeed, but of course that goes back to the argument on whether capacity or speed from London to the North is more useful.

How many trains use that line? Is it enough to cause capacity issues with 2 tracks, given that a lot of trains from Manchester to the South will be going via Stoke on Trent. I could imagine 4-tracking at the Stockport end and grade-separating the junction at Cheadle Hulme and possibly the junction at Wilmslow would help a lot, but would you need more than that?

 

[Nottingham59]

a Stafford bypass

I see this is your third post. Welcome to the forum.

STAFFORD BYPASS
A Stafford bypass would work well, but it needs to include a bypass of Colwich Junction too, which is the more limiting constraint on WCML capacity.

In my opinion, the cheapest way to do this would be to continue the HS2 mainline from Fradley Junction for 18km to Great Haywood, and then build a chord to merge onto the line from Colwich to Stoke at Hixon. That would permith 4tph from HS2 to access Manchester by using the paths through South Manchester currently used by two Avanti and two Cross-County services each hour. To make this work, the Manchester-Stoke stopper would need to be extended to Birmingham to serve Wolverhampton-Manchester traffic.

Taking HS2 further, past Stafford and thus completing a Stafford bypass, would only add more capacity if the new design for Euston station enables enough HS2 trains to make use of it. The best place to merge onto the WCML would be around Baldwin's Gate, where HS2 could join the fast lines. This is another 25km of HS2 mainline.

4-tracking Crewe to Preston as a cheaper/better option than extending HS2 to Crewe.

It's not an either - or. If HS2 doesn't get past Colwich, then there will no more trains coming up the WCML than there are at present. You need to bypass Colwich somehow to get any benefit from upgrading Crewe to Preston.

HS2 TO HIXON
If HS2 gets to Hixon, then everything going up to Stoke comes from HS2, and Colwich no longer operates as a flat junction with the crossing moves that severely limit capacity. Instead, it becomes a place where the WCML funnels down from four tracks to two, with no crossing moves. So the capacity of Colwich immediately increases from say 8tph to around 12tph.

These extra 4tph on the WCML can probably get through Crewe station, but the rail network south of Manchester has no more capacity, given it is already carrying the HS2 4tph through Hixon and Stoke, and the WCML from Crewe to Weaver Junction is at capacity now. So there is nowhere for extra traffic to go. (Except for more freights heading for the yards just south of Crewe.)

At this point is becomes worth four-tracking Crewe-Weaver. That could be very easily done and would add at least 10tph to the capacity of this section. The alignment is wide enough through Winsford, and many of the modern bridges on that line (e.g. A54, Acton Bridge, A556) were constructed to accommodate four tracks already. So this could be done at relatively low cost. The main requirement would be to move Acton Bridge and Hartford stations, which block any widening, and replace them by a new station at Weaverham where the WCML is already four tracks wide. For details see this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/four-tracking-crewe-to-weaver-junction.268735/


HS2 TO BALDWINS GATE
If Great Haywood to Baldwins Gate was built, and Euston had the capacity, then HS2 could deliver up to 12tph to Crewe on the fast lines. The slow lines from Stafford could carry perhaps 8tph, being a mix of freights and traffic from Birmingham. This is far more traffic than the WCML currently carries between Stafford and Crewe, and at the moment there is nowhere for it to go. I don't know how many tph Crewe Station can handle. It might need a lot of rebuilding to take much more than it does now.

North of Weaver Junction, the WCML is a mess. Sometimes four tracks; sometimes two. The slow lines swap from east of the fasts to the west, and back again - all on the flat.

I don't think it would be possible to four track the line through Preston Brook, so you'd have to tunnel under Preston-on-the-Hill, or build a chord to connect the WCML slows onto the Manchester-Chester line near Frodsham. That would give you four tracks all the way to Winwick junction, just south of Newton-le-Willows. You'd have to raise the bridge over the underpass at Warrington Bank Quay to get the down (northbound) slow back onto the West side of the fasts
(or swap the slows and fasts around to keep both slows on the East side).

Newton-le-Willows is a mess too. The Up (southbound) slow crosses the fasts on the flat at Winwick, only for the slow route to cross over the mainline and rejoin it from the East side at Golborne Junction. At which point the slow again cross the fasts on the flat to the West side of the alignment.

What might be needed is to quadruple the fasts on the direct line between Winwick and Golborne junctions. This looks feasible, but building directly alongside a working railway is dangerous and expensive. A two-track bypass route might be better.

There is also a need for a high speed route from the WCML from Crewe onto the Chat Moss route towards Manchester. The Chat Moss is the only route through the suburbs of Manchester that is not fully congested and could feasibly carry extra HS2 trains from London to Manchester without building the £17bn HS2 tunnel past the airport.

(Personally I'd knock down the AO Arena at Manchester Victoria and build 400m-long platforms there, with 400m reversing sidings at Rochdale, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.)


North of Newton, it's four tracks to Wigan and then only two to Euxton Balshaw Lane where it reverts to four to Preston. It doesn't look like it would be easy to quad these, so getting four tracks all the way to Preston might require a new line. But it may not be needed. The most important destination by far for HS2 is Manchester. Any increased capacity between Crewe and Newton-le-Willows should firstly be used to get more HS2 trains to Manchester via Chat Moss.


I hope this is helpful. You might find https://www.openrailwaymap.org/ useful for showing details of track layout and junction names.

 

[6Gman]

Doesn’t seem horrible in theory.

Surely 4 tracking Crewe to Stockport aswell isn’t a bad idea too. The only obvious difference to HS2 Phase 2a is linespeed, but of course that goes back to the argument on whether capacity or speed from London to the North is more useful.

Trying to 4-track along the existing alignment would be - to quote Sir Humphrey - courageous given what there is along the route!

 

[Nottingham59]

Doesn’t seem horrible in theory.

Surely 4 tracking Crewe to Stockport aswell isn’t a bad idea too. The only obvious difference to HS2 Phase 2a is linespeed, but of course that goes back to the argument on whether capacity or speed from London to the North is more useful.

It's four track already to Sandbach, then open countyside until Holmes Chapel. There might be space to fit four tracks north of the station without too much demolition, then it's open country through Goostry and Chelford to Alderley Edge, home of the Manchester millionaire class. You might be able to get through there with four tracks, as the houses all have massive gardens, but you will get very vocal and well-funded opposition.

Wilmslow station is four tracks already. It gets a bit trickier between Wilmslow and Handforth, but doable with some land take and some demolition. North of Handforth station most demolition would be industrial units. That will get you to just short of Cheadle Hulme.

Cheadly Hulme is tricky. Maybe a short (2km) tunnel under Cheadle Hulme to surface near Cheadle Hulme North junction? That would also grade separate the junction. Then it's four tracks again the rest of the way to Stockport.




So it's doable. But it would cost as much as the route proposed by HS2 to the edge of the conurbation. Perhaps more, as it involves more construction in built-up areas and next to a live railway.

And unfortunately Stockport - Piccadilly is full. So can't take any more trains anyway.

== == == ==
(Personally, I would route HS2 via the Golborne link alignment over the Ship Canal, then follow the M62 to join the Chat Moss route near Barton Aerodrome. Chat Moss is not congested now, and it used to be four tracks all the way past Eccles Station, so could be quadrupled again when needed, making it the only viable surface routing for HS2 into the centre of Manchester, saving massively on tunnelling costs. High Legh to Eccles Interchange is 18km. At 360km/h this would just three minutes to traverse, so no massive time penalty going the long way round.)