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

[HSTEd]

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.

Removing the Handsacre connection in favour of going to Crewe would cost billions, and would lead to increases in subsidies from having to pay for fast WCML trains solely for the benefit of Stoke and Macclesfield.
It's a solution that might make sense in the world where subsidies to the operational railway are never challenged, but we no longer live in that world.

I doubt removing Handsacre at this stage would even save very much money, so you would just be burning money not getting what has already been contracted for.
The only intervention that I can see with a chance of being funded in the current environment is Handsacre to Hixon (which would reduce the problems at Shugborough tunnel), and even that seems increasingly unlikely.

Given that freight services don't really pay much for track access, I can't see how you are going to build a business case on that basis.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Removing the Handsacre connection in favour of going to Crewe would cost billions, and would lead to increases in subsidies from having to pay for fast WCML trains solely for the benefit of Stoke and Macclesfield.
It's a solution that might make sense in the world where subsidies to the operational railway are never challenged, but we no longer live in that world.
I doubt removing Handsacre at this stage would even save very much money, so you would just be burning money not getting what has already been contracted for.
The only intervention that I can see with a chance of being funded in the current environment is Handsacre to Hixon (which would reduce the problems at Shugborough tunnel), and even that seems increasingly unlikely.
Given that freight services don't really pay much for track access, I can't see how you are going to build a business case on that basis.

There is no point in talking about the business case for a project that is already half built. At this point it just needs to be completed in a way that as far as possible delivers the original objectives of more capacity for rail freight and more seats on passenger trains. Making space for more freight trains on the West Coast Mainline was one of the reasons to build the High Speed Two railway. The Labour Government also committed in their manifesto to promote and grow the use of rail freight and this will only be possible if HS2 is completed in a way that enables more freight trains to run on the West Coast Mainline. There are two trains an hour on the West Coast Mainline London to Manchester via Stoke-on-Trent and these can continue and also provide a service for important stations on route such as Milton Keynes and Nuneaton. The point of building High Speed Two is to enable more such semi-fast trains services to run on the West Coast Mainline. It was never intended that High Speed Two services would fully replace all passenger services on the West Coast Mainline, HS2 is being built to provide additional capacity for a line that is currently full. The Oakervee Review recommended maintaining or improving services on the WCML to Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford and Macclesfield. If HS2 Euston is built with only six platforms or HS2 terminates at Old Oak Common which is likely anyway when it first opens the number of trains that can be run on HS2 will be limited and some existing long distance services will have to continue on the West Coast Mainline.

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf

There will be a duty to promote and grow the use of rail freight.

 

[HSTEd]

There is no point in talking about the business case for a project that is already half built.

Well the project is arguably Phase 2A, which hasn't started construction now and probably never will.

It was never intended that High Speed Two services would fully replace all passenger services on the West Coast Mainline, HS2 is being built to provide additional capacity for a line that is currently full. The Oakervee Review recommended maintaining or improving services on the WCML to Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford and Macclesfield. If HS2 Euston is built with only six platforms or HS2 terminates at Old Oak Common which is likely anyway when it first opens the number of trains that can be run on HS2 will be limited and some existing long distance services will have to continue on the West Coast Mainline.

What the project was originally intended to do isn't really very relevant any more.
HS2 is dead, it has failed.
The question is what we do now, from here.

From this position, attempting to go to Crewe will cost a vast sum of money and wouldn't deliver significantly more benefits than going to Hixon and being done with it.
The Oakervee Review was conducted in an entirely different world - it was completed before coronavirus ripped the heart out of the railway finances.

Whilst Starmer's conception of GBR is apparently going to have a nebulous duty to "promote and grow the use of rail freight", that is not the same as "GBR must spend billions to get a handful of additional freight paths".
There is not a river of unlimited money for the railway, so future spending is absolutely dependent on business case.

It is doubtful we will even get money for Hixon, let alone de-facto completing Phase 2A in its entirety.

 

[Brubulus]

A potential solution could be a flying junction between Rugeley and Colwich that would prevent conflicts at Colwich. However this would again run into the hundreds of millions but seems to be the cheapest way to unlock any sort of capacity out of HS2

 

[PTR 444]

There is no way that a truncated HS2 is going to be acceptable without some remodelling in the Colwich area. At the very least, you should build the HS2 mainline from Handsacre to Hixon, joining with the line to Stoke at a flat junction.

With this arrangement, you can run the following service pattern on HS2:

• 3tph Euston to Birmingham Curzon Street
• 2tph Euston to Manchester Picc via Stoke
• 1tph Euston to Manchester Picc via Crewe
• 2tph Euston to Liverpool Lime Street
• 1tph Euston to Lancaster/Glasgow Central (splitting at Crewe)

This arrangement reduces the number of trains using the Handsacre spur to 4tph, but you would have to make one of the Liverpools call at Stafford to make up for the loss of the Macclesfield terminator. Colwich - Hixon could become mothballed as both Manchesters (via Stoke) would now be using HS2 to Hixon, while the removal of conflicts at Colwich should allow the Trent Valley local service to be increased to 2tph.

 

[weeklycommuter]

The East Coast Mainline December 2024 timetable change has had to be postponed because there are 42 freight paths that cannot be accommodated and the holders of these paths do not want to give them up. Will the same happen at Handsacre Junction? If the only way to run all the HS2 trains on to the outer slow lines of the West Coast Mainline at Handsacre is to cancel some freight paths will the holders of the freight paths refuse to give them up?

 

[The Planner]

The East Coast Mainline December 2024 timetable change has had to be postponed because there are 42 freight paths that cannot be accommodated and the holders of these paths do not want to give them up. Will the same happen at Handsacre Junction? If the only way to run all the HS2 trains on to the outer slow lines of the West Coast Mainline at Handsacre is to cancel some freight paths will the holders of the freight paths refuse to give them up?

There will be crossovers on to the fasts. They wont be running slow line to Colwich.

 

[weeklycommuter]

There is no way that a truncated HS2 is going to be acceptable without some remodelling in the Colwich area. At the very least, you should build the HS2 mainline from Handsacre to Hixon, joining with the line to Stoke at a flat junction.
With this arrangement, you can run the following service pattern on HS2:

• 3tph Euston to Birmingham Curzon Street
• 2tph Euston to Manchester Picc via Stoke
• 1tph Euston to Manchester Picc via Crewe
• 2tph Euston to Liverpool Lime Street
• 1tph Euston to Lancaster/Glasgow Central (splitting at Crewe)

This arrangement reduces the number of trains using the Handsacre spur to 4tph, but you would have to make one of the Liverpools call at Stafford to make up for the loss of the Macclesfield terminator. Colwich - Hixon could become mothballed as both Manchesters (via Stoke) would now be using HS2 to Hixon, while the removal of conflicts at Colwich should allow the Trent Valley local service to be increased to 2tph.

AIUI construction currently ends in a field near Lichfield and the Streethay and Handsacre Junctions are not currently being built as it is unclear how to connect HS2 to the WCML North of Birmingham in a way that works in practice and complies with the law, specifically the Acts of Parliament to build HS2 phases 1 and 2a. Unless a decision is made on how to connect HS2 to the WCML North of Birmingham in a way that works in practice and complies with the law HS2 will end in a field near Lichfield and the only HS2 services will be 3 trains per hour Euston or Old Oak Common to Birmingham Curzon Street.

 

[Manutd1999]

At the very least, you should build the HS2 mainline from Handsacre to Hixon, joining with the line to Stoke at a flat junction.

The business case for an extension to Hixon as a standalone scheme would be very strong. For a small outlay (compared to the full Phase 2a), you would get:

- 2x extra paths through Colwich, freed up by running Manchester services via Hixon.
- Elimination of all crossing moves at Colwich, potentially releasing more capacity above the 2ph mentioned above.
- Minor journey time improvements for London-Manchester
- Ability to run Birmingham-Manchester services via HS2, reducing journey times and improving utilisation of Curzon St.

With conflicts removed at Colwich, the bottleneck then becomes the 2-track section through Shugborough. I would propose ~14ph, which should be deliverable on 2-tracks(?)

1x HS2 to Manchester via Crewe
2x HS2 to Scotland/Lancaster
2x HS2 to Liverpool
2x Classic to Crewe/Manchester/Preston
1x Classic to Chester
4x freight
2x growth / Open-access


HS2 would be ~10ph, deliverable from OCC in the interim and then a smaller ~6 platform Euston:
3x Birmingham, 3x Manchester, 2x Liverpool, 2x Scotland/Lancaster


I struggle to see the justification for any more than this tbh.

 

[PTR 444]

AIUI construction currently ends in a field near Lichfield and the Streethay and Handsacre Junctions are not currently being built as it is unclear how to connect HS2 to the WCML North of Birmingham in a way that works in practice and complies with the law, specifically the Acts of Parliament to build HS2 phases 1 and 2a. Unless a decision is made on how to connect HS2 to the WCML North of Birmingham in a way that works in practice and complies with the law HS2 will end in a field near Lichfield and the only HS2 services will be 3 trains per hour Euston or Old Oak Common to Birmingham Curzon Street.

Without any further work, that will be such a sad outcome. A white elephant of what was once probably the most ambitious infrastructure project in the UK.

The business case for an extension to Hixon as a standalone scheme would be very strong. For a small outlay (compared to the full Phase 2a), you would get:

- 2x extra paths through Colwich, freed up by running Manchester services via Hixon.
- Elimination of all crossing moves at Colwich, potentially releasing more capacity above the 2ph mentioned above.
- Minor journey time improvements for London-Manchester
- Ability to run Birmingham-Manchester services via HS2, reducing journey times and improving utilisation of Curzon St.

With conflicts removed at Colwich, the bottleneck then becomes the 2-track section through Shugborough. I would propose ~14ph, which should be deliverable on 2-tracks(?)

1x HS2 to Manchester via Crewe
2x HS2 to Scotland/Lancaster
2x HS2 to Liverpool
2x Classic to Crewe/Manchester/Preston
1x Classic to Chester
4x freight
2x growth / Open-access


HS2 would be ~10ph, deliverable from OCC in the interim and then a smaller ~6 platform Euston:
3x Birmingham, 3x Manchester, 2x Liverpool, 2x Scotland/Lancaster


I struggle to see the justification for any more than this tbh.

This is a good idea. I’d also run 2tph Manchester - Birmingham CZ via Stoke, flighted behind the London trains. Manchester - London can be sped up with alternate trains skipping Macclesfield and Stockport, while the Manchester - Stoke stopping service can be increased to 2tph.

With the above plan, the Bournemouth - Manchester XC service can be diverted via Crewe while Bristol - Manchester becomes a Bristol - Edinburgh/Glasgow service via the WCML. This would replace the existing Avanti Birmingham - Scotland service.

 

[The Planner]

Without any further work, that will be such a sad outcome. A white elephant of what was once probably the most ambitious infrastructure project in the UK.

This is a good idea. I’d also run 2tph Manchester - Birmingham OOC via Stoke, flighted behind the London trains. Manchester - London can be sped up with alternate trains skipping Macclesfield and Stockport, while the Manchester - Stoke stopping service can be increased to 2tph.

With the above plan, the Bournemouth - Manchester XC service can be diverted via Crewe while Bristol - Manchester becomes a Bristol - Edinburgh/Glasgow service via the WCML. This would replace the existing Avanti Birmingham - Scotland service.

You will still have a Birmingham Manchester via Stoke. If you think XC have no rolling stock now, that Glasgow will soon prove it. Stockport is unlikely to get trains not calling apart from maybe some peak flyers. The XC and Avanti are pretty much flighted now and you still can't get a second stopper.

 

[Manutd1999]

I was envisaging 2ph Birmingham Curzon St to Manchester via HS2 and Stoke, then perhaps 1ph XC via Crewe.

Enabling a better service between Birmingham and Manchester would be a key selling point of the extension to Hixon.

 

[PTR 444]

You will still have a Birmingham Manchester via Stoke. If you think XC have no rolling stock now, that Glasgow will soon prove it. Stockport is unlikely to get trains not calling apart from maybe some peak flyers. The XC and Avanti are pretty much flighted now and you still can't get a second stopper.

Birmingham OOC is a typo. It should read Birmingham CZ (Curzon Street).

If there really is no room for a stopper after two flighted fast trains every half hour, then I can see sense in keeping Bournemouth - Manchester running via Stoke. Maybe it could call additionally at Stone and Congleton to improve connectivity, since the fast Birmingham - Manchester service would now be via HS2 and Hixon.

An alternative for Bristol - Scotland could be for it to run to Liverpool, absorbing one of the 2tph from Birmingham.

I was envisaging 2ph Birmingham Curzon St to Manchester via HS2 and Stoke, then perhaps 1ph XC via Crewe.

Enabling a better service between Birmingham and Manchester would be a key selling point of the extension to Hixon.

I had this in mind. Running fast Birmingham - Manchester trains via HS2 and Hixon makes perfect sense as it relieves Colwich and frees up capacity in the surrounding area.

The idea of diverting Bournemouth - Manchester via Crewe is so that the route via Wolverhampton, Stafford and Stoke can accommodate a stopping service. Something along the lines of the following:

Birmingham New Street
Tame Bridge Parkway
Willenhall
Wolverhampton
Penkridge
Stafford
Stone
Stoke on Trent
Congleton
Macclesfield
(then all local stations to)
Stockport
Manchester Piccadilly

But if there is no room for this in addition to the existing Stoke - Manchester stopper, then it’s all moot point really.

 

[Greybeard33]

There will be crossovers on to the fasts. They wont be running slow line to Colwich.

Presumably, then, the slow line pathing will have to be such that each freight is overtaken by one or two (flighted) HS2 trains between the Handsacre crossover and Colwich. But if a freight is brought down to a stand before Colwich, it will then occupy the two track Shugborough bottleneck for longer once released....
-------------------

This week's episode of the Green Signals podcast includes an interview with William Barter, who developed the HS2 Phase 2 timetables (2a, 2b West and 2b East) before the cancellations. In it he explains that the 2a timetable would have worked particularly well. The turnaround times of the HS2 trains at their northern termini would have been near optimal, enabling efficient use of rolling stock and platforms. Parallel moves across Crewe North Junction would have been possible, maximising junction capacity. Whereas a shorter Stafford bypass would increase journey time, relative to the full 2a route, and so would make turnaround times at Manchester and Liverpool too short unless additional train diagrams were added to these routes. Parallel moves at Crewe North Jn would probably not be feasible.

The William Barter interview starts at 38:14 in the YouTube video below. Earlier, at 13:00, there is another interesting interview, with Simon Pilkington about the development of the 2008 VHF timetable for the WCML.

 

[HSTEd]

There would be an awful lot of money to defray the cost of a handful of additional multiple units (and staff) if it reduces capital expenditure by several billion.....

 

[Grimsby town]

There would be an awful lot of money to defray the cost of a handful of additional multiple units (and staff) if it reduces capital expenditure by several billion.....

But the infrastructure would last for 60 years+, so over that period it is a significant reduction. Its not clear that it would even cost several billion more than an alternative to phase 2a anyway. Ant alternative connections is going to need further evaluation and planning powers under the current system.

 

[The Planner]

Presumably, then, the slow line pathing will have to be such that each freight is overtaken by one or two (flighted) HS2 trains between the Handsacre crossover and Colwich. But if a freight is brought down to a stand before Colwich, it will then occupy the two track Shugborough bottleneck for longer once released....

Thats not significantly different to now.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Presumably, then, the slow line pathing will have to be such that each freight is overtaken by one or two (flighted) HS2 trains between the Handsacre crossover and Colwich. But if a freight is brought down to a stand before Colwich, it will then occupy the two track Shugborough bottleneck for longer once released....

Thats not significantly different to now.

AIUI five passenger trains an hour each way go through the two track Shugborough Tunnel bottleneck
London Euston to Crewe stopping
London Euston to Manchester via Crewe
London Euston to Glasgow
London Euston to Liverpool Lime Street
London Euston to Chester and North Wales
However when HS2 opens to Birmingham Curzon Street the hourly train service London Euston to and from Scotland (alternating Edinburgh and Glasgow) via Birmingham will also have to run through the two track Shughborough Tunnel bottleneck as removing all the long distance train paths from London Euston to Birmingham on the West Coast Mainline including the two track section Rugby to Birmingham New Street will be the top priority. Unless one of the other trains is removed from the two track Shugborough Tunnel bottleneck, for instance by starting and ending the train to and from Chester and North Wales at Crewe, there will be one more train than now going through the two track Shugborough Tunnel bottleneck. The only other solution is to start and end this second long distance London Euston to Scotland train at Birmingham New Street and require any passengers using this train to and from London to walk between Birmingham New Street and Birmingham Curzon Street and travel on the HS2 service between London and Birmingham Curzon Street.
If it has been determined that running all the HS2 services North of Birmingham that go via Crewe on to the slow tracks of West Coast Mainline at Handsacre then crossing to the fast lines and on through Colwich Junction and the Shugborough Tunnel is workable and can be supported without cancelling any freight trains why do they not just get on with building the Handsacre Junction? Why is construction currently halted at Lichfield?

 

[The Planner]

However when HS2 opens to Birmingham Curzon Street the hourly train service London Euston to and from Scotland (alternating Edinburgh and Glasgow) via Birmingham will also have to run through the two track Shughborough Tunnel bottleneck as removing all the long distance train paths from London Euston to Birmingham on the West Coast Mainline including the two track section Rugby to Birmingham New Street will be the top priority.

None of it is confirmed. Why is the Euston to Scotland via Birmingham suddenly swapping to the Trent Valley? There will still be at least one, if not two, Avanti style services along the Coventry corridor.

Unless one of the other trains is removed from the two track Shugborough Tunnel bottleneck, for instance by starting and ending the train to and from Chester and North Wales at Crewe, there will be one more train than now going through the two track Shugborough Tunnel bottleneck. The only other solution is to start and end this second long distance London Euston to Scotland train at Birmingham New Street and require any passengers using this train to and from London to walk between Birmingham New Street and Birmingham Curzon Street and travel on the HS2 service between London and Birmingham Curzon Street.

As above, the train can still run if its decided to as there will be a "fast" path along the Coventry corridor.

If it has been determined that running all the HS2 services North of Birmingham that go via Crewe on to the slow tracks of West Coast Mainline at Handsacre then crossing to the fast lines and on through Colwich Junction and the Shugborough Tunnel is workable and can be supported without cancelling any freight trains why do they not just get on with building the Handsacre Junction? Why is construction currently halted at Lichfield?

That is a political decision, and there is no opportunity for growth if the status quo happens with Phase 1 ending at Handsacre. It takes 2 minutes for a Class 4 with 1600t trailing to do Colwich to Milford.

 

[Manutd1999]

With conflicts removed at Colwich, the bottleneck then becomes the 2-track section through Shugborough.

Following up on this, how many trains could we get through Shugborough if all the conflicts at Colwich are removed?

With a 3 minute headway (is it 3 minutes through Shugborough?), there is a theoretical maximum capacity of 20ph.

A 1600t freight loses about 2 minutes between Colwich and Stafford compared to a 125mph passenger service. If we have 4ph freight that is ~3x paths gone.

That leaves us with 17ph maximum. So maybe 14-15ph is a realistic capacity, with 6-9 mins of free time to spread around the hour to aid reliability?

 

[The Planner]

Following up on this, how many trains could we get through Shugborough if all the conflicts at Colwich are removed?

With a 3 minute headway (is it 3 minutes through Shugborough?), there is a theoretical maximum capacity of 20ph.

A 1600t freight loses about 2 minutes between Colwich and Stafford compared to a 125mph passenger service. If we have 4ph freight that is ~3x paths gone.

That leaves us with 17ph maximum. So maybe 14-15ph is a realistic capacity, with 6-9 mins of free time to spread around the hour to aid reliability?

You never run at 100% utilisation. You are looking at freight incorrectly, they will be on the slows from Milford and to Whitehouse. 6 spare or 54 minutes in an hour is 90% utilisation, peformance types will get nervous at that as well on a mixed traffic railway.

 

[Manutd1999]

True, switching to the slow lines will mean that freights lose less than 2 minutes, probably closer to 1 minute.

How much performance buffer do you think would be required? 14ph would give ~14 minutes spare each hour (60- 14*3 -4 mins for freight), or ~75% utilisation.

Regardless, it does seem that removing conflicts at Colwich would give a significant boost in capacity even without bypassing Shugborough. That's important when discussing the merits of Phase 2a vs other proposed schemes.

 

[Dspatula]

Well I've wasted too much time on an almost doable timetable based on the Hixon spur towards Manchester.
Going off the limited information I could find on timings for HS2 I've assumed 45 minutes Euston to Hixon and 25 minutes from Curzon Street.
I have cut one cross country in favour of a Birmingham via Hixon.
All three London's take the route giving 3 independent 240 minute runs so 12 trains total. Shortest turn around is 19 minutes.
Wilmslow is the main loser the cross country could be diverted but that would conflict with the freight path to Trafford park and create non mirrored crossing moves at Crewe.
Things I haven't considered at all; what happens to the other XC route and if I'm conflicted with other Hs2 timings via Handsacre.

Well hopefully this thing is somewhat readable....

 

[Manutd1999]

Well I've wasted too much time on an almost doable timetable based on the Hixon spur towards Manchester.

Impressive work! A couple of suggestions:

- I would make the Manchester - Birmingham Curzon St via Stoke half-hourly, with the XC routed via Crewe.

- For the Stockport-Stoke line, I wonder if the timings are too tight to reliably run a stopper all the way to Stafford? I would propose cutting it back at Macclesfield to provide more margin. One of the Birmingham services would then pick up the stops at Congleton and Kidsgrove.

- Try to add space for a second hourly stopper to Macclesfield, even if it runs peak only. It could run behind the xx57 HS2 service from Stockport.

 

[Justin Smith]

Apologies if this is duplication, but I have a simple question, with the cancellation of HS2 phase 2 is Handsacre Junc going to join HS2 to the fast lines (by also diverting the WCML up lines eastwards) or the slow lines (by simply building a grade separated junc onto the WCML slow lines) ?

 

[The Planner]

Apologies if this is duplication, but I have a simple question, with the cancellation of HS2 phase 2 is Handsacre Junc going to join HS2 to the fast lines (by also diverting the WCML up lines eastwards) or the slow lines (by simply building a grade separated junc onto the WCML slow lines) ?

It will be the slows unless they find a load of cash.

 

[507020]

It will be the slows unless they find a load of cash.

Surely the grade separation should have HS2 joining IN BETWEEN the fasts and the slows, to allow non-conflicting access to either? Not South Western style where accessing the fasts from a diverging route means fouling the slows.

Otherwise they might as well just join the WCML on the flat, which would only conflict with the up slow, not the down slow. The down is already more constrained by the 3 track section between Rugby and Nuneaton, so this may be excusable.

If the services using HS2 have simply been diverted off the WCML south of Handsacre, this shouldn’t change the usage at Colwich Junction.

 

[The Planner]

Surely the grade separation should have HS2 joining IN BETWEEN the fasts and the slows, to allow non-conflicting access to either? Not South Western style where accessing the fasts from a diverging route means fouling the slows.

Otherwise they might as well just join the WCML on the flat, which would only conflict with the up slow, not the down slow. The down is already more constrained by the 3 track section between Rugby and Nuneaton, so this may be excusable.

The fast line connection was to land between the fasts, with the up slow and up fast realigned. If they land on the flat you conflict with the up fast as well.

 

[507020]

The fast line connection was to land between the fasts, with the up slow and up fast realigned. If they land on the flat you conflict with the up fast as well.

But what’s the point of that?

I know the intention is that little to no traffic from HS2 would be joining the slows, but if anything needs to for operational flexibility, it shouldn’t have to foul the fasts.

A flat junction only fouls the up fast as well as the down fast if traffic isn’t expecting to join HS2, which by the same logic, not a lot is.

 

[The Planner]

But what’s the point of that?

I know the intention is that little to no traffic from HS2 would be joining the slows, but if anything needs to for operational flexibility, it shouldn’t have to foul the fasts.

A flat junction only fouls the up fast as well as the down fast if traffic isn’t expecting to join HS2, which by the same logic, not a lot is.

How does it foul the fasts? Its either diverging off the up fast or converging onto the down fast, that is just headway. The Trent Valley is DS DF UF US, if its a flat junction a down train is conflicting with both up lines.