Should Colwich Junction and Rugeley Trent Valley station be remodelled in the event that HS2 2a never happens?

[PTR 444]

Colwich junction is a major bottleneck on the WCML, since the down fast towards Stoke crosses the up fast on the flat as it comes from Stafford. The arrival of HS2 Phase 1 at Handsacre will exacerbate this with more intercity trains per hour scheduled in addition to existing freight and local stopping services.

With Phase 2 unlikely to go ahead in the foreseeable future, would it be feasible to reconfigure the lines between Handsacre and Colwich so that the lines are paired by use rather than direction? This would reduce conflict between HS2 and classic line trains, albeit with some new challenges to consider:

• Trains coming off HS2 at Handsacre would only be able to access the line to Stoke, therefore any trains going to destinations other than Manchester would need to be routed via Alsager (with that line double tracked).
• You could mitigate the above by providing a crossover to allow HS2 trains to run direct to Stafford, but this would cause conflicts with down fast (HS2) and up slow (freight and classic) trains.
• Alternatively, making the above grade separated would mitigate this but at considerable extra cost. If you changed the spec of HS2 to have the chord at Huddlesford (near Lichfield) instead of Handsacre, the HS2 tracks would end up on the south side of the WCML, making it easier for those trains to access Stafford direct.
• Rugeley Trent Valley station would need to be rebuilt to take into account the new track pairings. Alternatively, the existing platforms could remain, but would be served by completely different services in each direction (which would be absolutely ludicrous).

Would any of the above provide a better business case than just getting on with building HS2 2a?

 

[The Planner]

Colwich junction is a major bottleneck on the WCML, since the down fast towards Stoke crosses the up fast on the flat as it comes from Stafford. The arrival of HS2 Phase 1 at Handsacre will exacerbate this with more intercity trains per hour scheduled in addition to existing freight and local stopping services.

With Phase 2 unlikely to go ahead in the foreseeable future, would it be feasible to reconfigure the lines between Handsacre and Colwich so that the lines are paired by use rather than direction? This would reduce conflict between HS2 and classic line trains, albeit with some new challenges to consider:

• Trains coming off HS2 at Handsacre would only be able to access the line to Stoke, therefore any trains going to destinations other than Manchester would need to be routed via Alsager (with that line double tracked).
• You could mitigate the above by providing a crossover to allow HS2 trains to run direct to Stafford, but this would cause conflicts with down fast (HS2) and up slow (freight and classic) trains.
• Alternatively, making the above grade separated would mitigate this but at considerable extra cost. If you changed the spec of HS2 to have the chord at Huddlesford (near Lichfield) instead of Handsacre, the HS2 tracks would end up on the south side of the WCML, making it easier for those trains to access Stafford direct.
• Rugeley Trent Valley station would need to be rebuilt to take into account the new track pairings. Alternatively, the existing platforms could remain, but would be served by completely different services in each direction (which would be absolutely ludicrous).

Would any of the above provide a better business case than just getting on with building HS2 2a?

Work is being done to look at what can be done. Rugeley won't get altered and Colwich itself won't be grade seperated. Its too constrained. There is no way that HS2 trains going north will be using Alsager.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Behind a paywall but new Treasury minister says

A Treasury minister has refused to rule out resurrecting the HS2 railway line north of Birmingham.

Darren Jones, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said Labour would have a “conversation” with Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, about the future of the high-speed route after the northern leg was scrapped by Rishi Sunak.

Mr Burnham announced in February this year that he was exploring a number of alternative options to the section ditched by the Tories, including a proposal for a new, lower-speed line roughly along the same route.

In an interview with Sky News on Monday morning, Mr Jones was told that Mr Burnham “wants HS2 reinstated”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ter-darren-jones-northern-leg-hs2-birmingham/

 

[Nottingham59]

Colwich junction is a major bottleneck on the WCML, since the down fast towards Stoke crosses the up fast on the flat as it comes from Stafford. The arrival of HS2 Phase 1 at Handsacre will exacerbate this with more intercity trains per hour scheduled in addition to existing freight and local stopping services.

With Phase 2 unlikely to go ahead in the foreseeable future, would it be feasible to reconfigure the lines between Handsacre and Colwich so that the lines are paired by use rather than direction? This would reduce conflict between HS2 and classic line trains,

It would increase the capacity of Handsacre by separating the two flows in some way, but the cost and disruption of doing so on a working railway would be very high.

I think the only sensible thing to do would be to drop the Hansacre spur (saving all that disruption to the WCML), and
build 2a instead to the nearest point that it can merge onto the line from Stafford to Crewe.

I would suggest terminate 2a at Baldwin's Gate, where the line of 2a comes very close to the WCML, and avoids having to build the tunnel at Whitmore Heath. HS2 traffic could join the WCML fasts on a simple flat junction. This would need 44km of new line from Fradley (cost around £5bn) but saving the £1bn cost of the Handsacre spur.

For £1bn less, you could merge HS2 2a onto the fasts in the vicninty of the old Norton Bridge station (32km of new track for £4bn)

Avoiding Handsacre would release massive capacity on the WCML, but only as far as Crewe. There will still be no capacity north of Crewe to accomodate any more paths, and no 400m platforms to accommodate longer trains.

 

[The Planner]

It would increase the capacity of Handsacre by separating the two flows in some way, but the cost and disruption of doing so on a working railway would be very high.

I think the only sensible thing to do would be to drop the Hansacre spur (saving all that disruption to the WCML), and
build 2a instead to the nearest point that it can merge onto the line from Stafford to Crewe.

I would suggest terminate 2a at Baldwin's Gate, where the line of 2a comes very close to the WCML, and avoids having to build the tunnel at Whitmore Heath. HS2 traffic could join the WCML fasts on a simple flat junction. This would need 44km of new line from Fradley (cost around £5bn) but saving the £1bn cost of the Handsacre spur.

For £1bn less, you could merge HS2 2a onto the fasts in the vicninty of the old Norton Bridge station (32km of new track for £4bn)

Avoiding Handsacre would release massive capacity on the WCML, but only as far as Crewe. There will still be no capacity north of Crewe to accomodate any more paths, and no 400m platforms to accommodate longer trains.

The slow line connection at Hadsacre causes less disruption than you think, fast line connection is much worse. There is no way anyone is going to accept a flat junction between Stafford and Crewe.

 

[Manutd1999]

Could the line through Alsager be upgraded to allow freight trains to run Colwich-Crewe via Stoke? Not sure how feasible it is to make it electrified 2-track the whole way?

Then with some re-modelling of Handsacre and signalling changes you could have grade-separated tracks the whole way, paired by direction:

- Handsacare is remodelled to enable HS2 trains to access all 4x tracks, grade-separated.
- North of Handsacre the right hand pair become the 'Manchester and freight' lines.
- The left pair become a 2-track, grade-separated, WCML between Handsacre and Crewe.
- After Stafford, the left-hand pair become a grade-separated Crewe-Birmingham.

If feasible (?), this would provide plenty of capacity at a fraction of the cost of Phase 2a?

 

[HSTEd]

Could the line through Alsager be upgraded to allow freight trains to run Colwich-Crewe via Stoke? Not sure how feasible it is to make it electrified 2-track the whole way?

Then with some re-modelling of Handsacre and signalling changes you could have grade-separated tracks the whole way, paired by direction:

- Handsacare is remodelled to enable HS2 trains to access all 4x tracks, grade-separated.
- North of Handsacre the right hand pair become the 'Manchester and freight' lines.
- The left pair become a 2-track, grade-separated, WCML between Handsacre and Crewe.
- After Stafford, the left-hand pair become a grade-separated Crewe-Birmingham.

If feasible (?), this would provide plenty of capacity at a fraction of the cost of Phase 2a?

The problem with "paired by destination" line type schemes is that they require a rebuild of Rugeley Trent valley, as the station does not currently have platforms on all running lines.
You'd have to build at least one more platform for the line from Rugeley Town.
There doesn't appear to be a huge amount of space for such a platform.

 

[Manutd1999]

You'd have to build at least one more platform for the line from Rugeley Town.

Admittedly I had overlooked this but it should be possible to squeeze in a platform on the south-west side for the Birmingham terminators, then use the island platform for the WCML.

 

[185]

Rugeley terminators should be going to Stafford - somehow. The number of Stafford passengers jumping off the Euston, and crossing the bridge certainly warrants this 10 minute extension. Any rejig of Colwich should take account of this. Stafford's disused P2 should be rebuilt and lengthened for the terminators.

 

[The Planner]

Admittedly I had overlooked this but it should be possible to squeeze in a platform on the south-west side for the Birmingham terminators, then use the island platform for the WCML.

That is a complete remodelling to do that for no real benefit.

Rugeley terminators should be going to Stafford - somehow. The number of Stafford passengers jumping off the Euston, and crossing the bridge certainly warrants this 10 minute extension. Any rejig of Colwich should take account of this. Stafford's disused P2 should be rebuilt and lengthened for the terminators.

You can't make that work now, let alone when 7 or 8 HS2 trains arrive at Handsacre.

 

[Nottingham59]

There is no way anyone is going to accept a flat junction between Stafford and Crewe.

With 2a in operation, nearly all fast traffic from Birmingham will go via HS2. The few remaining fasts coming up from Wolverhampton or from Milton Keynes will mostly go via Stoke to get to Manchester and avoid Crewe. So the main flows will be

• HS2 to Crewe fasts
• Birmingham to Stoke
• WCML to Crewe slows

There will be very few trains left that need to get from Stafford to Crewe Fasts, so a flat junction at the point HS2 merges onto the fasts would be fine.

EDIT: Though they should redouble the freight turnout at Basford Hall Junction to add capacity to the Slows.

 

[The Planner]

With 2a in operation, nearly all fast traffic from Birmingham will go via HS2. The few remaining fasts coming up from Wolverhampton or from Milton Keynes will mostly go via Stoke to get to Manchester and avoid Crewe. So the main flows will be

• HS2 to Crewe fasts
• Birmingham to Stoke
• WCML to Crewe slows

There will be very few trains left that need to get from Stafford to Crewe Fasts, so a flat junction at the point HS2 merges onto the fasts would be fine.

EDIT: Though they should redouble the freight turnout at Basford Hall Junction to add capacity to the Slows.

Basford Hall is a double turn out and you can do parallel moves now. If a flat junction is fine, why was the HS2 Basford Hall junction not designed like that?

 

[Nottingham59]

Basford Hall is a double turn out and you can do parallel moves now.

On openrailwaymap, it looks like a single-lead turnout to the Independent Lines, and a separate single-lead turnout to the Basford Hall sidings. But I now see you can do parallel moves. Thank you.

If a flat junction is fine, why was the HS2 Basford Hall junction not designed like that?

Because it is grossly and expensively over-specified, like everything else designed by HS2 Ltd.

 

[The Planner]

Because it is grossly and expensively over-specified, like everything else designed by HS2 Ltd.

I'll tell the people that did the timetable work they were wrong then.

 

[Manutd1999]

The Planner​

Veteran Member​

Admittedly I had overlooked this but it should be possible to squeeze in a platform on the south-west side for the Birmingham terminators, then use the island platform for the WCML.

That is a complete remodelling to do that for no real benefit.

If combined with my other suggestions to make everything grade-separated and run freight via Stoke there is a significant capacity benefit.

 

[The Planner]

If combined with my other suggestions to make everything grade-separated and run freight via Stoke there is a significant capacity benefit.

How does freight access the yards at Crewe via Stoke? There is also a reason why freight doesnt go that way now, it doesnt fit.

 

[jfollows]

How does freight access the yards at Crewe via Stoke? There is also a reason why freight doesnt go that way now, it doesnt fit.

Just put the Stoke Goods line back (https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ow-diesel-operated.258194/page-4#post-6643288) and make the freight reverse on arrival, no problem!

 

[Greybeard33]

With 2a in operation, nearly all fast traffic from Birmingham will go via HS2. The few remaining fasts coming up from Wolverhampton or from Milton Keynes will mostly go via Stoke to get to Manchester and avoid Crewe. So the main flows will be

• HS2 to Crewe fasts
• Birmingham to Stoke
• WCML to Crewe slows

There will be very few trains left that need to get from Stafford to Crewe Fasts, so a flat junction at the point HS2 merges onto the fasts would be fine.

The Train Service Specification for 2a did not envisage any HS2 services northwards from Birmingham Curzon Street. Such services were dependent on the additional capacity provided by the 2b Crewe bypass tunnel. The TSS did envisage at least 3tph WCML fasts from Stafford to Crewe, namely Euston - Scotland via Birmingham New Street, Euston - N Wales via the Trent Valley and New Street - Liverpool. Hence the need for the 2a grade separated junction at Basford Hall to avoid conflicts with the 6tph HS2 services from Euston through Crewe (3 Manchester, 1 Glasgow, 1 Lancaster + Liverpool, 1 Liverpool).

 

[HSTEd]

The Train Service Specification for 2a did not envisage any HS2 services northwards from Birmingham Curzon Street. Such services were dependent on the additional capacity provided by the 2b Crewe bypass tunnel. The TSS did envisage at least 3tph WCML fasts from Stafford to Crewe, namely Euston - Scotland via Birmingham New Street, Euston - N Wales via the Trent Valley and New Street - Liverpool. Hence the need for the 2a grade separated junction at Basford Hall to avoid conflicts with the 6tph HS2 services from Euston through Crewe (3 Manchester, 1 Glasgow, 1 Lancaster + Liverpool, 1 Liverpool).

The situation is rather different to what was envisaged at the time Phase 2A was conceived, however.
Indeed, even extending the Northern Stoke stopper to Curzon Street would end up with a Manchester-Birmingham journey time to competitive with the classic line XC operation.

If Colwich junction can be somehow bypassed or remodelled, a huge increase in capacity over the status quo would be achievable. Phase 2A would do that, but it is far from the only possible scheme that would do so.

 

[The Planner]

The situation is rather different to what was envisaged at the time Phase 2A was conceived, however.
Indeed, even extending the Northern Stoke stopper to Curzon Street would end up with a Manchester-Birmingham journey time to competitive with the classic line XC operation.

If Colwich junction can be somehow bypassed or remodelled, a huge increase in capacity over the status quo would be achievable. Phase 2A would do that, but it is far from the only possible scheme that would do so.

The Northern stopper won't get extended, any new Manchester Curzon St will be a fast.

 

[HSTEd]

The Northern stopper won't get extended, any new Manchester Curzon St will be a fast.

Probably it won't, but I was pointing out that there is definitely some sort of path for atleast one competitive Manchester-Curzon Street train.

 

[The Planner]

Probably it won't, but I was pointing out that there is definitely some sort of path for atleast one competitive Manchester-Curzon Street train.

It will be a game changer on that route.

 

[Nottingham59]

The Train Service Specification for 2a did not envisage any HS2 services northwards from Birmingham Curzon Street. Such services were dependent on the additional capacity provided by the 2b Crewe bypass tunnel.

The TSS was many years ago. Surely it can be improved?

The TSS did envisage at least 3tph WCML fasts from Stafford to Crewe, namely Euston - Scotland via Birmingham New Street, Euston - N Wales via the Trent Valley and New Street - Liverpool. Hence the need for the 2a grade separated junction at Basford Hall to avoid conflicts with the 6tph HS2 services from Euston through Crewe (3 Manchester, 1 Glasgow, 1 Lancaster + Liverpool, 1 Liverpool).

Yes, but as I see it the Euston-Chester service would use the slows (if they couldn't be timetabled to switch across to the fasts). That means they would already be on the west side of the alignment to access the Chester line via platforms 11 and 12 at Crewe without further conflicts.

Similarly for the New Street-Liverpool. This is the 350 service that calls at Hartford and Acton Bridge? It can go on the slows if necessary. The slows are really not very busy, and it will take time for the freight traffic to build up from the south to Basford Hall when the capacity is released on the WCML. By which time phase 2bWest will have been built to take all the non-stopping HS2 traffic. Though I can see it would be advantageous to speed up the turnout to Basford Hall to minimise the time that freights block the slows.

As for Euston-Scotland via Birmingham New St? There will be no point in that service when HS2 opens. I think that path through Crewe should go to Curzon St.

 

[Manutd1999]

How does freight access the yards at Crewe via Stoke? There is also a reason why freight doesnt go that way now, it doesnt fit.

The line via Stoke would require upgrades, including some form of access to the goods yard. This wouldn't be straight-forward, but neither is Phase 2a ....

 

[The Planner]

The line via Stoke would require upgrades, including some form of access to the goods yard. This wouldn't be straight-forward, but neither is Phase 2a ....

2a is greenfield effectively, you are trying to upgrade a running railway with multiple interventions. I don't see how 2a is any worse.. You need to keep peoples user names in your quotes too.

The TSS was many years ago. Surely it can be improved?

Yes, but as I see it the Euston-Chester service would use the slows (if they couldn't be timetabled to switch across to the fasts). That means they would already be on the west side of the alignment to access the Chester line via platforms 11 and 12 at Crewe without further conflicts.

Similarly for the New Street-Liverpool. This is the 350 service that calls at Hartford and Acton Bridge? It can go on the slows if necessary. The slows are really not very busy, and it will take time for the freight traffic to build up from the south to Basford Hall when the capacity is released on the WCML. By which time phase 2bWest will have been built to take all the non-stopping HS2 traffic. Though I can see it would be advantageous to speed up the turnout to Basford Hall to minimise the time that freights block the slows.

As for Euston-Scotland via Birmingham New St? There will be no point in that service when HS2 opens. I think that path through Crewe should go to Curzon St.

Why would the Chester service use the slows? Have you seen the amount of freight paths on the slows? The issue of getting to 11 or 12 is a red herring as well as you conflict with anything towards Shrewsbury regardless.

 

[Dspatula]

In my opinion the most reasonable way to avoid conflicts at at Colwich Junction would be use the H2a alignment for another 13kms of so north of Handsacre then curve northward and join the Stoke route south west of Hixon either at the A51 crossing or the New Road crossing.
The vast majority of the traffic via Hixon seems to be Manchester to London so I'd probably just abandon the old route and only use it for HS2 traffic and either reroute all the London Manchester services this way or cut a cross country in favour of a Manchester to Curzon street service.

 

[chris2]

In my opinion the most reasonable way to avoid conflicts at at Colwich Junction would be use the H2a alignment for another 13kms of so north of Handsacre then curve northward and join the Stoke route south west of Hixon either at the A51 crossing or the New Road crossing.
The vast majority of the traffic via Hixon seems to be Manchester to London so I'd probably just abandon the old route and only use it for HS2 traffic and either reroute all the London Manchester services this way or cut a cross country in favour of a Manchester to Curzon street service.

Like this?


Source. (Well worth a read)

You also have to build a line towards Crewe to connect HS2 trains to Liverpool and the route to Scotland.

 

[HSTEd]

You also have to build a line towards Crewe to connect HS2 trains to Liverpool and the route to Scotland.

Do you?
Connecting HS2 directly to the line via Stone would remove the majority of the conflicting moves at Colwich.

You should then be able to route via-Crewe trains using the Handsacre connection.

 

[Dspatula]

Like this?

View attachment 161807
Source. (Well worth a read)

You also have to build a line towards Crewe to connect HS2 trains to Liverpool and the route to Scotland.

Alignment wise yes, but top speed would be no more than 230kph. I would also close the existing route between Hixon and Colwich as it would be redundant.
As HSTEd says Liverpool and Scotland would be via Stafford.

​

 

[weeklycommuter]

It would increase the capacity of Handsacre by separating the two flows in some way, but the cost and disruption of doing so on a working railway would be very high. I think the only sensible thing to do would be to drop the Hansacre spur (saving all that disruption to the WCML), and build 2a instead to the nearest point that it can merge onto the line from Stafford to Crewe.
I would suggest terminate 2a at Baldwin's Gate, where the line of 2a comes very close to the WCML, and avoids having to build the tunnel at Whitmore Heath. HS2 traffic could join the WCML fasts on a simple flat junction. This would need 44km of new line from Fradley (cost around £5bn) but saving the £1bn cost of the Handsacre spur.
For £1bn less, you could merge HS2 2a onto the fasts in the vicninty of the old Norton Bridge station (32km of new track for £4bn)
Avoiding Handsacre would release massive capacity on the WCML, but only as far as Crewe. There will still be no capacity north of Crewe to accomodate any more paths, and no 400m platforms to accommodate longer trains.

Basford Hall is a double turn out and you can do parallel moves now. If a flat junction is fine, why was the HS2 Basford Hall junction not designed like that?

If the new Labour Government can be persuaded to reinstate 2a in full and build it to and including the Basford Hall junction that is fine.
The suggestion of building 2a to a flat junction with the two fast lines on the East side of the four track West Coast Mainline at Baldwin's Gate is an attempt to persuade a Government concerned about the costs to at least bypass both Colwich Junction and the two track Shugborough Tunnel and take all the HS2 trains going North of Birmingham to Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh and Glasgow on to the two fast tracks of the West Coast Mainline between Crewe and Norton Junction as this is at least better than putting all these HS2 trains on to the outer slow tracks on the West Coast Mainline at Handsacre Junction and would cost much less than building all of 2a to Basford Hall Junction. Not building Handsacre Junction also reduces the cost. As only the hourly single set to Macclesfield, just one of the eight planned hourly HS2 services on the West Coast Mainline North of Birmingham using just one of the 14 HS2 sets for these eight services, was due to use the Handsacre Junction clearly it would have been better if the Oakervee Review conclusion 13 had been accepted and phases 1 and 2a built together without Handsacre Junction. If the Government says no to building all of 2a to Basford Hall junction due to the cost which is the better option? All HS2 trains going North of Birmingham joining the slow lines at Handsacre Junction or joining the fast lines at Baldwin's Gate? How is extra capacity for freight trains on the West Coast Mainline South of Crewe to be made available if all HS2 trains going North of Birmingham join the slow lines at Handsacre Junction?
Clearly to take advantage of the additional capacity provided by double set HS2 trains platforms would have to be extended or new platforms built to accommodate 400 metre long trains at some stations on the West Coast Mainline North of Birmingham.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e5f6d6d86650c5143547885/oakervee-review.pdf

Conclusion 13: The Review recommends removing the Handsacre connection from HS2. At the same time, Network Rail and the DfT should maintain or improve services on the WCML to Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford and Macclesfeld. The Review considers that the Handsacre connection would only be needed if it was decided not to proceed with Phase 2a to Crewe.