• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

HS2: what signalling system is planned? also is the Handsacre connection no longer going ahead?

Status
Not open for further replies.

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,249
Location
Torbay
While the junction is a political necessity, perhaps a flat junction with the WCML would now suffice?
That'd be a lot of pathing difficulty during the Phase 1 service where everything on HS2 going north of Birmingham will have to run that way and conflict with everything else in the area on WCML. My alternative from just south of Hixon direct into Stafford would cross the Thames Valley fasts and connect end on to the slow lines on the approach, the correct side to then take advantage of the Norton Bridge flyover to Stoke and with the classic route available to Crewe for diversions and for initial Phase 1 service. No conflict with the Trent Valley fasts at all, and you'd get about a further 20 km on the high-speed tracks, which should improve journey time to Stafford, Stoke and Macclesfield.
stafford hs2.jpg
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,920
Location
Nottingham
There are no doubt various feasible alternatives to the Handsacre connection that might be more suited to its much reduced useage. But the problem is that none of them was included in the Hybrid Bill so adopting any of them would involve a new design process and several rounds of consultation. I'm not familiar with the legal processes involved but I'd imagine a TWAO as a minimum and there may be some reason it needs another Hybrid Bill. That would delay any substitute connection by several years.

Oakervee was very clear that while there would be scope to tweak Phase 2b, the earlier phases have gone too far to do that. I don't think there is anything that says all the bits of route in the legislation have to be built, so it would be possible to omit it completely. Or only part of it might be built, but this probably wouldn't result in an operationally feasible connection.
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,076
That'd be a lot of pathing difficulty during the Phase 1 service where everything on HS2 going north of Birmingham will have to run that way and conflict with everything else in the area on WCML.

I was assuming Phases 1 and 2a are combined, as recommended by Oakervee.
 
Joined
18 Oct 2017
Messages
215
Some recent posters may not be aware that the design of Handsacre Junction has been changed: Instead of the HS2 track "landing" inbetween and joining the WCML fasts, with the up WCML fast/slow pair slued to the east, the new design now has HS2 track linking to the WCML slows - in the up direction with a simple turnout and a smaller single track flyover for the down direction linking to the WCML down slow. IIRC there''s some additional/or replacement fast/slow crossovers on the WCML to get HS2 services onto the fasts if needbe.

There's some pics in this mapbook from the Phase 2A Bill... https://assets.publishing.service.g.../file/778831/VOL2_J15_CA01_mapbook_part_1.pdf
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,959
Some recent posters may not be aware that the design of Handsacre Junction has been changed: Instead of the HS2 track "landing" inbetween and joining the WCML fasts, with the up WCML fast/slow pair slued to the east, the new design now has HS2 track linking to the WCML slows - in the up direction with a simple turnout and a smaller single track flyover for the down direction linking to the WCML down slow. IIRC there''s some additional/or replacement fast/slow crossovers on the WCML to get HS2 services onto the fasts if needbe.

There's some pics in this mapbook from the Phase 2A Bill... https://assets.publishing.service.g.../file/778831/VOL2_J15_CA01_mapbook_part_1.pdf
Hasn't been finally confirmed, it can still be one of three things, slows, fasts or nothing.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,942
Hasn't been finally confirmed, it can still be one of three things, slows, fasts or nothing.

If my memory serves me isn't the WCML at that location slow, fast, fast, slow so is the following allowed
Down slow, Down ramp, Down fast, Up fast, Up ramp, Up slow?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,920
Location
Nottingham
If my memory serves me isn't the WCML at that location slow, fast, fast, slow so is the following allowed
Down slow, Down ramp, Down fast, Up fast, Up ramp, Up slow?
It could do, but then the Slows would have to diverge away on both sides to make room for the ramps, or stay in place on one side but three tracks move the other way. Hitting the Fasts means two tracks move on one side only, and a connection to the Slows might be done without moving the existing tracks at all. The merger of Phases 1 and 2a means that Handsacre never has to carry the full Phase 1 Manchester/Liverpool/Scotland service, just a train or two ever hour to serve Stoke and Stafford.

So there's less need for a high-capacity connection and an opportunity to save some money if it can be done without delaying the project as a whole. A Slow line connection could probably be built much more quickly than the alternatives, as there is no need for the extra stage(s) of moving the existing tracks out of the way first. This shortening might even buy the time to get a TWAO (if one is needed) for the revised junction arrangement.

The above is speculation on my part, not inside knowledge.
 
Joined
18 Oct 2017
Messages
215
...This shortening might even buy the time to get a TWAO (if one is needed) for the revised junction arrangement.

A "revised junction arrangement" for Handsacre is presently before Parliament as part of the HS2 Phase 2A Bill. This has already been approved by the House of Commons and is up to Select Committee Stage in the Lords, so assuming the Phase 2A Bill makes it all the way to Royal Assent without significant amendment, additional legislation should not be needed unless they decide to bin it and dream up a third version.

Basically the WCML alignments remain more or less as they are now, a one track flyover takes the down line of the HS2 link over the top of the lot and joins the WCML down slow and in the opposite direction a single lead branches off the up slow to become up HS2 link. So at it's widest point it's DHS2, DS, DF, UF, US, UHS2. The mapbook linked in post #94 has details of before/after the revision.

EDIT - 2020-03-16 - Evidence HS2 gave to the Lord Select Committee in the "Promoters Opening Statement" included a schematic of the revised layout: P19 in following PDF: https://committees.parliament.uk/do.../358/documents/1402&slug=opening-statementpdf
 
Last edited:

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,592
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
https://www.expressandstar.com/news...lans-move-forward-following-hs2-announcement/

Uncertainty around the future of the controversial high speed rail line, which is set to pass through Stafford Borough, had also raised questions about whether or not the county town would get a link via HS2-compatible trains switching to the West Coast Main Line at a junction at Handsacre.

Stafford Borough Council’s leader Patrick Farrington put the question to Government and received a response from the Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, which he shared with fellow cabinet members last week.

He said: “You will know the Government has recently made an announcement in relation to HS2. I wrote to the Prime Minister and Transport Secretary wanting comfort in relation to what is happening to the Handsacre junction.


We have had a letter back from Grant Shapps confirming that the Handsacre junction is to be retained as part of the proposal.

"Following the announcement that’s very important to Stafford as a borough and also we will continue to make representations about how HS2 itself will affect all of our residents and how we can best mitigate and help that."

The announcement came as cabinet members were asked to give the green light to signing a task agreement for developing a business case for the Stafford Station Gateway project.

The initial cost to the borough council is £71,354, which can be met from existing budgets, a cabinet report said. And by agreeing to share the cost of the work the liability to the borough council is reduced by two thirds.

Around 650 apartments and 150 town houses have been proposed for the area, alongside up to 760,000 square feet of office, commercial and industrial space.

In February 2019 a £150,000 Local Enterprise Partnership Growth Fund award enabled the acquisition of redundant Network Rail sidings, which will allow an additional 70 new homes to be developed, the report added.

And a housing layout for the Gateway Central area has been re-planned with St Modwen to allow a realigned spine road to be built in a later phase to connect the area with Gateway South.

Councillor Farrington said: “The council has for some time wanted to make progress around its plans for Stafford Station Gateway. Now we have had the announcement about HS2, more particularly the incorporation of the works around Handsacre which will mean that classic compatible trains will come off the new HS2 line onto the existing West Coast Main Line and stop at Stafford, that makes the proposals around the gateway even more attractive than before."

Councillor Jeremy Pert, cabinet member for community and health, said: “I think what this demonstrates is we are ambitious for our borough and residents – not just today but planning many years in advance. I think also what it demonstrates is our innovative thinking and ways of using the best from all of our partners to deliver as we go forward for our residents.”

Handsacre Junction will be retained as part of HS2.
 

jfisher21

Member
Joined
21 Mar 2011
Messages
218
Not sure how busy a Stafford, Stoke, macc service will be. Maybe extend to Manchester and have some cheaper tickets!
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,959
It think he was talking about Handsacre...
Indeed, and you won't see a lot of construction in April even if notice to proceed actually happens this month (which is potentially unlikely at the minute) apart from continued enabling works. The main works contractors cannot mobilse overnight.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,398
Indeed, and you won't see a lot of construction in April even if notice to proceed actually happens this month (which is potentially unlikely at the minute) apart from continued enabling works. The main works contractors cannot mobilse overnight.
I'd be surprised if we see much construction as opposed to more clearance / landscaping /haul road construction this year.
 

gsnedders

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2015
Messages
1,472
The incremental infrastructure maintenance standards for tilt are essentially nil. It’s the 125mph linespeed that drives the maintenance, not the tilt.
There's the extra maintenance necessitated by the comparatively heavy trains with tilt equipment, no? So non-EPS 125mph running would in the future allow for lighter trains to be acquired without altering journey times?
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,942
Not sure how busy a Stafford, Stoke, macc service will be. Maybe extend to Manchester and have some cheaper tickets!

I reckon the Stafford service would head to Liverpool with the Stoke service running to Manchester as these links would still need to be maintained and terminating short would seem to be wasteful.
 

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,592
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
I reckon the Stafford service would head to Liverpool with the Stoke service running to Manchester as these links would still need to be maintained and terminating short would seem to be wasteful.

I think the stoke service will head to Manchester Piccadilly via Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, Stafford, Macclesfield and Stockport
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,205
There's the extra maintenance necessitated by the comparatively heavy trains with tilt equipment, no? So non-EPS 125mph running would in the future allow for lighter trains to be acquired without altering journey times?

There isn’t any extra maintenance. The WCML fast lines are already at the highest standard of track maintenance that there is (Cat 1a). Having non tilt trains won’t change that.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I reckon the Stafford service would head to Liverpool with the Stoke service running to Manchester as these links would still need to be maintained and terminating short would seem to be wasteful.
,

Doesn't need to be HS2 services retaining these links. The current LNW/XC services aren't going to evaporate.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,942
I think the stoke service will head to Manchester Piccadilly via Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, Stafford, Macclesfield and Stockport

Would only be an hourly service if you did that using Handacre.

,

Doesn't need to be HS2 services retaining these links. The current LNW/XC services aren't going to evaporate.

Agreed but what you do with them instead once they reach Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield? Terminating at Stafford, Stoke or Macclesfield seems silly to me.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Would only be an hourly service if you did that using Handacre.



Agreed but what you do with them instead once they reach Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield? Terminating at Stafford, Stoke or Macclesfield seems silly to me.

Why? They are useless in serving London-Manchester demand as main HS2 services will be faster. Stafford \ Macc both have suitable terminating platforms.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,959
I think the stoke service will head to Manchester Piccadilly via Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, Stafford, Macclesfield and Stockport
No it won't, it cannot get there in the proposed diagram, it turns at Macclesfield. The original plan was Stoke but it sat there for long enough to use the marginal time.
Would only be an hourly service if you did that using Handacre.

Agreed but what you do with them instead once they reach Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield? Terminating at Stafford, Stoke or Macclesfield seems silly to me.
Handsacre was only ever going to be 1tph after phase 2A. Original plan was for a Liverpool to go via Handsacre but it was changed to the Macclesfield which was orignally Stoke until there was enough time to get it to Macc.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,942
No it won't, it cannot get there in the proposed diagram, it turns at Macclesfield. The original plan was Stoke but it sat there for long enough to use the marginal time.

Handsacre was only ever going to be 1tph after phase 2A. Original plan was for a Liverpool to go via Handsacre but it was changed to the Macclesfield which was orignally Stoke until there was enough time to get it to Macc.

Still wouldn't terminate at Macclesfield, silly idea and would also deprive it and the other stations a fast service, even if XC stayed and I feel one of those could run via Crewe instead, to Manchester.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,959
Still wouldn't terminate at Macclesfield, silly idea and would also deprive it and the other stations a fast service, even if XC stayed and I feel one of those could run via Crewe instead, to Manchester.
Unless they can squeeze another unit to do the journey then you can't get past Macc anyway.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,920
Location
Nottingham
The three London-Manchester trains will be replaced by three HS2 services so any London-Stoke-Macclesfield-Manchester would need an extra path through Stockport in Phase 1/2a. I guess it could run through in Phase 2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top