HS2 - UK's heaviest bridge drive | WCML, Lichfield

[@Rail_Focus]

My Patreon page if anyone would like to consider supporting the channel to help fund future content and my drone repayments 😅 www.patreon.com/Chris_Rail_Focus

[@bazatkinson8369]

How can you support anyone that thinks that HS2 being officially unachievable is funny?

[@Rail_Focus]

@@bazatkinson8369 your comment was funny, but thanks for the further engagement 👍

[@barryjatkinson]

Billions (comprehend billions) of public money wasted is funny? Unnecessary destruction is funny? There's no hope.

[@Rail_Focus]

Someone people's comments are funny and tiresome yes. It's a national infrastructure project which unfortunately costs money to build, these things don't appear as if by magic.

[@JakeLikesTrains]

As someone who is local to the WCML Trent Valley, I can confirm that I am very excited to see HS2 in full service

[@johncamp2567]

So interesting and well presented that I had to subscribe. Thank you! 👍

[@Rail_Focus]

Thank you for subscribing

[@paulrandall9705]

Very helpful and well presented. Thank you.

[@Rail_Focus]

Glad it was helpful 🙂

[@johnburns4017]

Staffordshire County Council say the Handsacre link to the WCML is going ahead.. From their website... _We also secured an assurance that the Handsacre link, connecting HS2 to the West Coast Main Line, would be constructed. This will provide the infrastructure needed for Staffordshire to receive HS2 services and benefit economically._

[@Rail_Focus]

Good to know. Let's just hope HS2 doesn't stop at Handsacre 😬

[@johnburns4017]

@@Rail_Focus HS2 is not needed above Handsacre. The WCML upgrades, that are in planning, are equal to HS2.

[@johnburns4017]

@@Rail_Focus Most lose focus on that HS2 is a just plain bad design. The designer of HS1 wanted a hub at Iver with a _long_ tunnel to HS1, then follow M40 north with no green tunnels to balance the long tunnel costs. He also wanted no terminal stations at Mcr and B'ham. He designed Stratford as through station. _High Speed UK_ designed the spine to be an upgraded and maybe widened ECML that peels of to the Chunnel and London. With a high speed Liverpool- Hull line branching in. Either one is better than this dog's dinner. I like High Speed UKs better.

[@karimscaterovic5413]

Will the fast lines out of Euston cut onto HS2?

[@Rail_Focus]

Not from Euston station no, the lines will be separate. The first connection from the WCML to HS2 will be Handsacre (Rugeley) if the link is constructed.

[@karimscaterovic5413]

@@Rail_Focus good to know. Thanks.

[@johnburns4017]

The best way is to abandon the Handsacre junction saving costs, continuing on with HS2 to north of Stafford as planned, then branch into the WCML. Many junctions are by-passed for 16 miles of HS2 track in open country. It is worth doing on safety grounds alone. Recall the Colwich train crash. Then Liverpool, Glasgow, Lancs, Mcr, can all have London and B'ham WCML/HS2 services. Maybe even Chester & North Wales thrown in, in time.

[@Rail_Focus]

Not sure people from Stoke and Stafford would agree. The cost saving really wouldn't be that significant compared to the total cost of phase 2a and b. There is still the possibility of running a few Liverpool, Manchester and Scotland trains ahead of the opening of phase 2a with Handsacre. And Handsacre would provide operational flexibility in future.

[@johnburns4017]

​@@Rail_Focus Stoke and Stafford are off HS2 anyhow. No HS2 schedule ever put them on. The 16 miles of HS2 across open country to the north of Stafford is extra but cheap as in open country. The cost of the junction north of Stafford is offset by eliminating Handsacre. Safety considerations alone make it worth doing rather than terminating at Handsacre.

[@Rail_Focus]

@johnburns4017 Macclesfield, Stoke and Stafford are shown as being served by HS2 with Handsacre

[@johnburns4017]

@@Rail_Focus I should have been more specific. Stafford and Stoke would only be served if phase 2a is completed. After phase 1 only Liverpool, Glasgow and Mcr would use a mixture of HS2 & WCML track. That will not happen as per heavy media speculation and what is coming out of Sunak's mouth.

[@Rail_Focus]

I thought 2a was what you were saying "continue HS2 north of Stafford as planned" if phase 2a is built I still think Handsacre should be built as well, not only to allow for the Stafford/Stoke services but for operational flexibility. I can see phase 2b being pushed into the long grass, but it'd be nonsensical to cancel 2a.

[@nigel5755]

From my understanding they were putting a bridge over the A38 at Streethay but they've now decided to tunnel underneath instead! This section has wasted millions of public money again! 💰

[@Rail_Focus]

The new Steethay plan has been in place for some time, but asaik the A38 was always going to go over HS2. But they've actually redesigned the scheme to save money

[@bazatkinson8369]

It's now officially pointless destruction.

[@Rail_Focus]

lol, okay.......

[@MrGreatplum]

Great graphics - really helped to illustrate and explain what was going on 👍🏻 I’m glad there was some joined up thinking and network rail got on with track renewal as well - sounds like these 9 days are being well used!

[@Rail_Focus]

Thanks, the graphics are simple but glad they help explain what's going on.

[@markiliff]

Great graphics

[@Rail_Focus]

Thank you 😀

[@jermainetrainallen6416]

I somehow missed this video but thanks for the update and the explanation of how the bridge was constructed👍

[@Rail_Focus]

No worries, the move was amazing

[@michaelashall4523]

Fantastic engineering

[@YelpBullhorn]

Shame it’ll never see a train.

[@Rail_Focus]

It would be a shame yes, a monumental waste. Which is why we need to build HS2 in full.

[@stevewalsh1987]

Without the Junction they basically would be building an abandoned railway from the M42 to Litchfield for like 10 years.

[@Rail_Focus]

I'm still confident phase 2a will be constructed, but Handsacre is a tempting target for cutbacks. Which means no service North of Birmingham until 2a is built and no HS2 services to Stoke or Stafford

[@andrewreynolds4949]

From the plans I can find the segment to Crewe will open 1-4 years after Phase 1, probably dependent on what kind of delays different parts of the project encounter. Definitely not 10 years though, and I think they could probably get away with cutting the Handsacre link without much negative impact on the overall project

[@Rail_Focus]

@@andrewreynolds4949 Removal of the link will be a blow for Stoke and Stafford though. Yes there will be WCML benefits through released capacity, but they were promised HS2 services as well.

[@mikehindson-evans159]

Excellent report: might I perhaps suggest - around 05:25 and just after - that the route of HS2 be superimposed upon the schematics? I struggled to work out which direction I was looking for a while. Just a suggestion - brilliant report.

[@Rail_Focus]

Thank you, good suggestion about the map, it's easy to forget people may not be as familiar with the route.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

I doubt that the Handsacre link would give much if any benefit for Stoke and Stafford. My guess is that its main utility would be a contingency and engineering access link, unless it allows some services to begin significantly earlier than the Crewe link is completed.

[@Rail_Focus]

Handsacre would provide more capacity and considerable journey time savings. The proposed service would also serve Macclesfield. Without Handsacre services Stoke and Stafford could be slightly more of a disadvantage as it's proposed that more 'classic services' would stop at Rugby and MK.

[@mattpotter8725]

Wouldn't building the link at Handsacre allow HS2 to basically allow starting running HS2 services up to Manchester as soon as this is finished, albeit at lower speeds once it has to use the West Coast Mainline? This would allow the freeing up of anything using the WCML south of this for better regional services? Or am I being far too sensible? Surely getting this up and running as soon as possible needs to be a priority rather than waiting until it's all finished and then probably months or years of delays like there was with the Elizabeth Line? I would have thought this would have been the way to build the line, in a more modular way and starting in the north and not around London!!!

[@mattpotter8725]

Also I would love to see how this railway will look as if comes from the junction that takes it into Birmingham and how it comes across the A5 and across the Heart of England Way and what is currently Whittington Heath Golf Course, as it is quite hilly here. HS2 seems to have been here for years now though very little seems to have been done apart from a bit of landscaping prep. I'm fully behind HS2 but I can understand why locals get very up in arms about all the disruption. If shouldn't take this long considering how quickly Spain built its high speed lines often through even more tricky geography.

[@Rail_Focus]

That was the original intention, initially it was assumed 3tph Manchester, 2tph Liverpool and 1tph Glasgow via Handsacre, in addition to 'classic services'. But that was reduced to 1tph Manchester, Liverpool & Glasgow until phase 2a opens. Then once ph2a opened, services starting at Macclesfield would call Stoke and Stafford before joining HS2 at Handsacre. The initial proposal would've been challenging as Colwich is a bottleneck.

[@mattpotter8725]

@@Rail_Focus I get that and it wouldn't be ideal but one of the reasons I will hear people being against HS2, apart from those who have been misinformed about why it's been needed from the start is that it is taking too long to get any of it done. I get that the tunnels take a lot of time to complete further south in the Chilterns, and then there's the whole thing in this country that everything has to be London centric, but if it would have been easier to get it running between Birmingham and Manchester then that would have been the last to concentrate on first whilst getting on with the tunnels further south and maybe difficult parts of it in London as well could have been started earlier in preparation for it to be completed down there afterwards. Having visited family in Lichfield and seeing the little bits around it, mainly where it will need bridges it is a very scattergun affair and there aren't any long stretches of line actually having been put down, but the local communities have been impacted for something that is still years away, and I say this as a supporter of the need for HS2. Maybe it's happening further south in this way and maybe this was done to basically stop the government cancelling the part up to Manchester like it did for the Eastern branch up to the East Midlands, Sheffield and Leeds, but it's terrible PR to the public.

[@Rail_Focus]

The flaw with the "build the northern bit first" argument is there would be nowhere for the trains to go. 2 trains per hour between Manchester and Birmingham alone wouldn't be enough of a justification, even if trains would one day reach London and leaves the southern WCML constricted. The main rationale for HS2 was it would release capacity on the WCML south of Rugby where capacity is most constrained. Admittedly HS2 is demanding a lot from the construction industry, with reports there aren't enough equipment operators to build phase 1, so it's not as if we can build parts of phase 1 and phase 2 at the same time. Ultimately we need to get phase 1 built to Euston asap so capacity can be released on the WCML, not just for improved regional links but for freight.

[@mattpotter8725]

@@Rail_Focus I've lived in many different parts of the country, including London for many years, and I find this a shocking statement. Yes, I don't disagree with the analysis that South of Rugby is where more of the benefit would be at the moment, but this is because all investment has been concentrated in London and the South East for decades. Maybe more growth would be stimulated building the Northern part first, I find your comments about running 2 trains per hour between Birmingham and Manchester not enough of a justification a very London centric view of things and a view we need to be moving away from. London has had a huge amount of investment in its infrastructure over the past decade, and it does need it, but starving the Midlands and North of infrastructure that is needed to attract business and growth away from the overcrowded and unsustainable South East of the island we live on isn't going to make things better, in fact it would make things worse. Lastly, if you read my comment you'd see it didn't say don't build the infrastructure only from the North, but build the parts that will take a long time to complete whilst building from the north, or at least Manchester southwards first, that's where the biggest benefit is going on what has been explained to me on the Rail Natter channel and having read up on the subject extensively. It's everything I've read and heard just wrong?

[@blubana5828]

I was there in that time 😊😊

[@chrisevans2686]

I am more intrigued, why was it necessary to construct a helipad ????

[@Rail_Focus]

Perhaps in case Sunak wanted to visit 😅

[@jakehowie442]

Does anyone know why all train (WCML) and road (M6), (M6 Toll) traffic goes through the Trent Valley east and north of Birmingham, rather than west of Birmingham? West of Birmingham makes much more sense for access to the South from the North West, including Cheshire, Manchester, Liverpool, Lancashire etc, it makes no geographical or logistical sense?!! Since it’s already such a busy corridor full of traffic. The M40 motorway geographical path makes more sense since it undercuts Birmingham and diverts/filters better into Birmingham New Street

[@Rail_Focus]

Access to Birmingham is simpler from the east and to connect with the WCML just south of Rugeley. If it headed west it would have to swing passed Stourbridge which would mean no connection to the WCML until Crewe and there are a lot more residential areas between the west and Birmingham city centre meaning a much longer tunnel would probably have to have been constructed.

[@jakehowie442]

Yes, I am aware of what you’re saying and in order to connect with the WCML it would have to go near to Rugby, Coventry, Tamworth, Lichfield etc which are all rather grim towns. I use this WCML route all the time from Manchester to London etc. But my point is from a geographical stance, from London to Birmingham, the HS2 line could easily follow east of the M40 corridor into Birmingham New Street. Am I right in thinking there is very little residential housing in this area between London and Birmingham and mostly countryside? Station could also be located closer to Heathrow? Why already use a busy route near to the WCML and M6, M1 motorways, A roads? Is it purely for aesthetic and noise reduction reasons in Tory voting Oxfordshire, Warwickshire areas and thus locate the HS line following the M1 instead, near towns like Coventry. Since HS2 is more of an inter-city trainline, surely the primary focus and stops are Birmingham, Crewe, Manchester…thus why is Rugely relevant? Are you saying Phase 2A and B will be using existing WCML train routes/track?

[@Rail_Focus]

Rugby? I'm not sure. I did refer to Rugeley in my previous comment. The original intention was that the Handsacre (Rugeley) connection from HS2 to the WCML would be used to serve the North prior to the opening of phase 2 and still may be, but primarily would be used for an hourly service serving Macclesfield, Stoke and Stafford and would be useful for operational reasons.

[@ncooper8438]

I thought the extension to Manchester had been paused?

[@Rail_Focus]

Phase 2a from Lichfield to Crewe has been delayed by 2 years. But the bridges here had already been committed to.

[@Phuc_Yhou]

It's also going up in cost again since they paused it, I not confident it will be completed this decade if at all, such a shame its never going to be carbon neutral either.

[@Andrewjg_89]

Is this where HS2 and West Coast Main Line would meet and to have a underpass for HS2 line to pass underneath the WCML. What about the Eastern Leg that would go to Leeds via East Midlands and have connections with the Midland Main Line and East Coast Main Line.

[@Rail_Focus]

The spur to Leeds would have been south of the WCML bridge, but isn't being constructed for the time being, but they are provided passive provision just in case. As for the connection to the WCML at this point it's anyone's guess if it'll be constructed

[@mattpotter8725]

@@Rail_Focus It is Handsacre, a bit further north, where the current link to the WCML is planned (as stated in the video), not at this bridge at Lichfield. I was a bit confused about this, but this came from just assuming the two lines diverged after this point, but the WCML curves quite a bit more than you'd think and so they come quite close together a bit further up. This is one of the reasons why the WCML couldn't have been used for High Speed Rail in the UK, it just wasn't straight enough for such high speeds (that and to free up the existing line for more frequent, better local services and freight, as far as I understand it.

[@ewantennant5847]

I live in Lichfield and my god all these works are irritating me. While I know it’s all worth it, the site where the bridge is has caused lots more congestion and the a38 closures and slip road closure for the bridge under there has been causing chaos in the Trent valley area of Lichfield for months

[@Rail_Focus]

It's only once you drive around the area that you realise just how many roads HS2 must cross, which means disruption for locals. And I know from speaking to people affected that HS2's communication about what's going on isn't the best.

[@johnburns4017]

Sunak is wanting HS2 to be from Old Oak Common in London to the WCML at Handsacre north of Lichfield with a short branch to Birmingham - and no more. As laid out in the Policy Exchange document. This will give a time of about 1 hour 30 minutes from London to Manchester 200 miles away. *That is not slow.* Averaging around 150 mph on a mix of high speed and existing track. Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow will all have fast times to London once phase 1 is built.

[@Rail_Focus]

Problem is there's a bottleneck at Colwich and Crewe, so although Liverpool, Glasgow and Manchester would get faster services there would be no scope to free up capacity on the WCML. Also cancelling phase 2b means cancelling the promised Northern Powerhouse rail link.

[@johnburns4017]

@@Rail_Focus NPR is that it has been designed *ASSUMING* HS2 Phase 2b is in place. A chicken and egg situation There is no detail on the route NPR is going to take especially Liverpool-Mcr. It is a very thick crayon line on a diagram, not a specified detailed route. NPR is best being designed correctly having straight lines, not going from Liverpool to Mcr going south, then circling Cheshire frightening cows.

[@johnburns4017]

@@Rail_Focus Colwich 2-track bottleneck is easily rectified by boring a tunnel a few hundred yards long giving 4-track and grade separating the tracks at the junction into fast and slow - it will need doing anyhow. Lord Hendy is planning to upgraded the WCML north of Crewe to Warrington or just further north. Should be 4-tracked and with heavier power wires. Then three dedicated lines leave Crewe: *1)* to Mcr; *2)* to Liverpool; *3)* to Scotland/Lancs. All eliminates HS2 north of Crewe at least. HS2 Ltd's journey times are for classic compatible trains that do not tilt on the WCML - they are slower on the WCML - down to 100-110mph. Having HS2 trains that tilt on the WCML makes end to end times quicker. HS2 trains not designed yet. Having non-tilting trains on Old Oak Common to B'ham can make matters cheaper.

[@johnburns4017]

@@Rail_Focus phase 1 takes Liverpool, Mcr, B'ham and Glasgow trains off the southern WCML. So all the _capacity_ arguments are solved - if they had an argument to begin with of course.

[@johnburns4017]

@@Rail_Focus I believe the maximum number of HS2 trains that can be pathed on the WCML north of Handsacre is 7 trains an hr. Say, 3 Manchester, 2 Liverpool, 1 Lancaster and 1 Glasgow. The pinch point is the junction at Colwich, which also has to accommodate freight paths and at least the Trent Valley stopper each hour. So, boring a short low cost tunnel can make matters much easier giving greater capacity at Handsacre.

[@Sim0nTrains]

Very nice video, but hope they do connect the link

[@Rail_Focus]

Cheers Simon. It'd be ridiculous if they removed the link, but who knows what the current Government will do 😬

[@mikehindson-evans159]

@@Rail_Focus It would literally (and physically) show a lack of "joined-up thinking"! Sorry - open goal!

[@SirKenchalot]

Another great video with interesting visuals and commentary. 9 days is a long time. Do you know if box jacking is going to be used for any of these bridges as I know these can reduce the closure of roads/railways? I know they built one such structure on the Brightline route in Cocoa Fl and I believe Network Rail built a curvy tunnel at Peterborough using the same technique but here they've cut-and-covered their way straight through a closed super-important mainline.

[@Rail_Focus]

Not sure tbh, I am wondering how there's going to build the A45 and A38 bridge without closing 2 busy dual carriageways., I've been trying to find out but they haven't published anything about it yet. Bridge jacking may be the only solution.

[@willweiss6982]

@@Rail_Focus They going to divert the dual carriage way temporarily

[@Rail_Focus]

@@willweiss6982 ah thanks

[@andrewreynolds4949]

9 days is a blink in the world of infrastructure! Box jacking seems much slower and more difficult than the method used here. If box jacking used on HS2 it will probably be for a significantly larger bridge.

[@davidmillar9595]

The bridge at Fulfen wood - was originally designed to be installed using Autofoncage (which is a jacking system using high capacity strand jacks), however I convinced the BBV Senior Management and both Network Rail and HS2 to change the installation to the SPMT method as it could be undertaken at least Three days faster than the "push" Autofoncage method - it was also substantially cheaper. The Curvy Tunnel (Aka Werrington dive under also 9 day blockade to install) was also undertaken by Mammoet we did look at using hydraulic rams but the SPMT's provided the better solution. The bridge at Streethay on the BJW3 line will be installed using SPMT's, however the bridge Coventry to Leamington spa line is being installed using the Autofoncage method at the Start of July 2023. All methods are valid as construction methodology and each has advantages and disadvantages - however given Fulfen Wood took just over 8 days (i was first and last on track) i think it was the best solution.

[@PrinceJohn84]

A fantastic white elephant. Tax payers money well spent as usual 👍

[@Rail_Focus]

🙄