technical report following 2007 06 21 meeting v3 - Planning · PDF fileFilename updated technical report following 2007 06 review.doc Description Second issue to network rail on 2007

Network Rail Stafford Area Capacity Study Technical Report Black

ISSUE 3

Network Rail Stafford Area Capacity Study Technical Report

June 2007

This report takes into account the

particular instructions and requirements

of our client.

It is not intended for and should not be

relied upon by any third party and no

responsibility is undertaken to any third

party

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd

The Arup Campus, Blythe Gate, Blythe Valley Park, Solihull, West Midlands. B90 8AE

Tel +44 (0)121 213 3000 Fax +44 (0)121 213 3001 www.arup.com Job number 119075-20

J:\119000\119075-20\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-08 PUBLIC AND STATUTORY CONSULTATION\4-08-01 TECHNICAL REPORT AND TAGS\TECHNICAL REPORT FOLLOWING 2007 06 21 MEETING V3.DOC

Ove Arup & Partners LtdIssue 3 26 June 2007

Document Verification

Page 1 of 1

Job number Job title Stafford Area Capacity Study

119075-20

File reference Document title Technical Report

Document ref

Revision Date Filename 0005 draft to network rail 2006 08 22.doc

Description First draft

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name Various Authors Richard Foster Phil Hall

Draft 1 22/08/06

Signature

Filename 0006 issue to network rail 2006 08 31.doc

Description Issue to Network Rail



Issue 1 12/06/07

Signature

Filename updated technical report following 2007 06 review.doc

Description Second issue to network rail on 2007 06 01



Issue 2 22/06/07

Signature

Filename technical report following 2007 06 21 meeting v3.doc

Description Revised following June 21 meeting



Issue 3 28/06/07

Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document �

Network Rail Stafford Area Capacity StudyTechnical Report



Contents

Page

Executive Summary i

1 Introduction and Purpose of this Report 1

1.1 Historical Overview 1

1.2 Initial Arup Commission 1

1.3 The Purpose of this Report 1

1.4 Structure of this Report 1

2 Network Rail’s Requirements 3

2.1 Future Train Service Requirements 3

2.2 Infrastructure Requirements 3

3 Existing Engineering Conditions 5

3.1 The Trent Valley Four-Tracking Scheme and Colwich Junction 5

3.2 The Layout in the Stafford Area – Post TV4 5

3.3 Train Services 6

3.4 The Capacity Pinch-points 6

3.5 Signalling 6

3.6 Structures 7

3.7 Electrification 8

3.8 Utilities 8

3.9 Communications Systems 8

4 Environmental Setting 9

4.1 Noise and Vibration 9

4.2 Local Air Quality 9

4.3 Greenhouse Gases 9

4.4 Landscape and Townscape 9

4.5 The Heritage of Historic Resources 10

4.6 Biodiversity 11

4.7 The Water Environment 12

4.8 Planning Policy Context 14

4.9 Environmental Constraints Plans 16

5 Geotechnical Issues 17

5.1 Approach 17

5.2 Sources of Information 17

5.3 Identification and interpretation of BGS borehole data 17

5.4 Outline Geology 17

5.5 Interpretation of Landscape from a Geological Perspective 18




5.6 Identification of Geological Features from Envirocheck Mapping 20

5.7 General Observations 21

6 Traffic and Transportation Setting 23

6.1 Local Highway Network – Stafford Town Area 23

6.2 Role of Highway Routes – Stafford Town Area 23

6.3 Highway and Local Transport Proposals – Stafford Town Area 24

6.4 Traffic and Transportation Issues – Rural Staffordshire 25

6.5 Highway and Local Transport Proposals - Rural Staffordshire 27

7 Initial High-Level Study 29

7.1 Option Generation Workshop 29

7.2 The Options – Descriptive Title and Key Decision Factors 30

7.3 Options Carried Forward 38

8 Assessment Methodology 41

8.1 Environmental Appraisal Methodology 41

8.2 Tunnelling Issues 41

8.3 Costing Methodology 43

9 Development of the HS Options 48

9.1 The Bishton Junction 48

9.2 The Existing Railway – Hixon to Sandon / Stone 48

9.3 Junction Layout Sub-options at Each A to D Location 49

9.4 Speed Capability of the Existing Railway: Hixon to Stone 50

9.5 The N and S Route Variants 51

9.6 The HS Options’ Trent Viaduct 52

9.7 HS Options Carried Forward 53

10 Development of the ER Options 54

10.1 Option ER1 - Twin Track Underpass at Stafford 54

10.2 Option ER2 - Single Track Underpass at Stafford, Flyover at Great Bridgeford 56

10.3 Option ER3 - Four-Tracking Shugborough Tunnel 58

10.4 Option ER4 - Paired by Direction to Great Bridgeford 61

10.5 Option ER5 - Paired by Direction to Crewe 62

10.6 Option ER6 – Transposition: Stafford to Badnall Wharf 63

10.7 Option ER7 - Six-track Railway: Stafford to Newport Corridor 65

10.8 Option ER8 - Six-track Railway: Stafford to Creswell 66

10.9 Option ER8+ 66

10.10 The ER Options Carried Forward 71

11 Development of the GF Options 72

11.1 Option GF1 – Salt / North of Norton Bridge 72

11.2 Option GF2 – Ingestre/Hopton/South of Norton Bridge 74




11.3 Option GF3 – Ingestre/Hopton/North of Norton Bridge 76

11.4 Option GF4 – Four-Track Variant of Option GF3 77

11.5 GF Options Carried Forward 78

12 The Short-List 79

12.1 A Reminder of the Short-Listed Options 79

12.2 Engineering Design Requirements 79

13 Appraisal Methodology for the Short-Listed Options 81

13.1 The Government’s Five Criteria 81

13.2 The Environmental Objective - Appraisal Methodology 82

13.3 The Safety Objective – Appraisal Methodology 86

13.4 The Economy Objective - Appraisal Methodology 86

13.5 The Accessibility Objective - Appraisal Methodology 86

13.6 The Integration Objective - Appraisal Methodology 86

13.7 Environmental Reporting 86

14 Option HSAN 87

14.1 Description 87

14.2 Structures 90

14.3 Signalling 92

14.4 Electrification 93

14.5 Speeds 93

14.6 Environmental Overview 94

14.7 Traffic and Highways Impacts 95

14.8 Implementation Planning and Outline Possession Requirements 97

15 Option HSBN 100

15.1 Description 100

15.2 Structures, Signalling and Electrification 100

15.3 Speeds 101



16 Option HSCN 103


16.2 Speeds 103



17 Option HSDN 106


17.2 Speeds 106






18 Option HSAS 109


18.2 Speeds 109


19 Option HSBS 111


19.2 Speeds 111


20 Option ER8+ 113


20.2 Speeds 115


20.4 Geotechnical Overview 117


21 Option GF2 120


21.2 Speeds 121



22 Transposition 125

22.1 The Concept 125

22.2 Schematic Layout 125

22.3 Untransposition – Restoring the Existing Pattern of Trains 125

22.4 The Options to which Transposition Could Apply 125

22.5 The Business Case for Transposition 126

23 Layouts at Norton Bridge - the “NB” Options 127

23.1 Introduction 127

23.2 Environmental Effects 127

23.3 Option NB1 127

23.4 Option NB2 128

23.5 Option NB3 128

23.6 Option NB4 129

23.7 Option NB5 130

23.8 Environmental Appraisal 130

23.9 Summary of Preferences 131

23.10 Further Work Requirements 131

24 Costing and Risk Assessment 132




24.1 Capital Costs 132

24.2 Risk Assessment Methodology 134

24.3 Cost and Risk Results 137

25 Planning Policy Assessment 139

25.1 National Planning Guidance 139

25.2 Regional Planning Policy 140

25.3 County Structure Plan 141

25.4 Local Plan 142

25.5 Conclusion 143

26 Operational Analysis Results – Summary 144

26.1 Basic Approach 144

26.2 Issues 144

26.3 Key Findings 144

27 Summary Tables 146

27.1 WebTAG – Environmental Effects 146

27.2 WebTAG - The Accessibility Objective 146

27.3 WebTAG - The Integration Objective 147

27.4 Property Effects 147

27.5 Route Lengths 147

27.6 Trent Viaduct Lengths and Heights 148

28 Discussion of the Options - The Decision Tree 149

28.1 Option ER8+ 149

28.2 HS Options - Locations A to D 149

28.3 Option GF2 150

28.4 “N” or “S” options north or south of Norton Bridge 150

28.5 Discussion – the NB Options 151

28.6 The Effect of Transposition 151

28.7 The Preferred Option 151

Appendices

Appendix A

Planning Policies



Page i Ove Arup & Partners LtdIssue 3 26 June 2007

Executive Summary

The report explains the process for generating and assessing options for solving a forecast capacity

problem at Stafford.

The West Coast Main Line (WCML) runs from London (Euston) to the West Midlands, the north-

west of England, and western Scotland. It was electrified in stages, reaching Glasgow in 1974.

The West Coast Route Modernisation, planned in the 1990’s, has been largely implemented with

completed works at Euston, Proof House Junction (Birmingham), Nuneaton, Stockport, and

Manchester Piccadilly. 125mph tilting trains have been introduced. On-going work is taking place at

Bletchley/Milton Keynes, Rugby, from Tamworth to Armitage in the Trent Valley, and between

Crewe and Weaver Junction.

The Stafford area remains as a problem. Network Rail therefore carried out a series of studies into

forecast capacity problems there, and concluded that the existing layout would not cater for the

forecast increases in train services. Network Rail therefore commissioned this engineering and

environmental study of route improvement options, while also undertaking business case analysis.

The report focuses on technical studies, principally on engineering, environmental appraisal and

costs.

Of the short-listed options, six would partially use the existing railway between Hixon and the

Sandon area:

• Option HSAN;

• Option HSBN;

• Option HSCN;

• Option HSDN

• Option HSAS;

• Option HSBS.

One would use the existing railway corridor;

• Option ER8+.

One would be a wholly green-field route:

• Option GF2.

These routes were appraised in line with Government’s Web-Based Transport Analysis Guidance

(WebTAG) methodology. In parallel with the engineering work, capacity studies were undertaken.

The conclusion was that, in terms of environmental impact, there were no overwhelming

“showstoppers”, but there are some significant areas of concern to be addressed.

The report does not make any recommendations on a preferred option, principally because there

are other deciding factors outside the scope of the above topics.



Page 1 Ove Arup & Partners LtdIssue 3 26 June 2007

1 Introduction and Purpose of this Report

1.1 Historical Overview

Prior to commissioning Arup, Network Rail had undertaken capacity modelling studies.

These demonstrated, although the existing layout at Stafford would have enough capacity

for the proposed 2008 passenger timetable, it would not have sufficient capacity to handle

the full passenger and freight demands of 2015.

Network Rail had also previously commissioned Scott Wilson to prepare a report entitled

“West Coast Route Modernisation, Stafford Underpass Option, Pre-Feasibility Summary

Report, Issue 01 Final, 05/12/03”. That Scott Wilson report of 2003 looked at underpass

options in the Stafford station area.

Network Rail and the Department for Transport had also considered, at a very high-level, an

alternative underpass at Stafford, and a bypass option around Stafford, hence relieving

capacity pressures in the station area.

There were, therefore, three options in concept before Arup was appointed:

• Scott Wilson underpass at Stafford;

• Network Rail underpass at Stafford;

• Network Rail / DfT bypass around Stafford.

1.2 Initial Arup Commission

In January 2006, Arup was appointed by Network Rail to study the above three options.

For the bypass, an indicative alignment was drawn, but only to determine whether it was a

feasible engineering concept, and to establish an understanding of the key cost and

environmental issues. In parallel with Arup’s work, the DfT had commissioned a Business

Case analysis, again to establish whether there was a plausible economic and financial

case. These studies came together in March 2006. It was concluded that a bypass was

worthy of consideration.

Arup’s commission was therefore extended to ensure that there was a fully structured

process for generating, assessing, sieving and carrying forward only those options worthy of

more detailed consideration. This report starts from that position.

1.3 The Purpose of this Report

This report describes the processes for generating a wide range of options, and the sieving

process which has taken place to result in a short-list of options which go towards meeting

Network Rail operational, performance, cost and environmental objectives.

The report is technical, describing how the need for the scheme was determined, and then

explaining how the route selection process was undertaken. It does not describe the

selection process for arriving at a definite single option.

1.4 Structure of this Report

This report is laid out as follows.

• Chapter 1, this chapter, is introductory;

• Chapter 2 describes Network Rail’s Requirements;

• Chapter 3 describes the Existing Engineering Conditions;

• Chapter 4 describes the Environmental Setting;

• Chapter 5 describes the Geotechnical Issues;




• Chapter 6 sets out the Traffic and Transportation Setting;

• Chapter 7 concerns the results of an Initial High-Level Study;

• Chapter 8 describes the Assessment Methodology used for this study;

• Chapter 9 describes the Development of the HS Options;

• Chapter 10 describes the Development of the ER Options;

• Chapter 11 describes the Development of the GF Options;

• Chapter 12 is the process for determining the Short-List;

• Chapter 13 describes the Appraisal Methodology for the Short-Listed Options;

• Chapters 14 to 21 describe the options:

o Chapter 14 concerns Option HSAN;

o Chapter 15 concerns Option HSBN;

o Chapter 16 concerns Option HSCN;

o Chapter 17 concerns Option HSDN;

o Chapter 18 concerns Option HSAS;

o Chapter 19 concerns Option HSBS;

o Chapter 20 concerns Option ER8+;

o Chapter 21 concerns Option GF2.

• Chapter 22 describes the concept of Transposition;

• Chapter 23 describes Layouts at Norton Bridge - the “NB” Options;

• Chapter 24 sets out the Costing and Risk Assessment;

• Chapter 25 is the Planning Policy Assessment;

• Chapter 26 summarises the Operational Analysis Results;

• Chapter 27 presents Summary Tables;

• Chapter 28 is a Discussion of the Options.

The report has one Appendix.

• Appendix A gives a comprehensive list of planning policies.

Supporting Volumes.

The environmental appraisal was undertaken in accordance with a technique known as

“WebTag” - this is explained later. The results of the appraisal are presented in three

separate Volumes (appropriate to the particular NATA objectives they address):

• Environmental Appraisal of Options;

• Accessibility Objective; the Severance and Access Sub-Objectives;

• The Integration Objective; the Land Use Policy Sub-objective.

The summary information from these detailed tables is included in the option appraisal

chapters.




2 Network Rail’s Requirements

2.1 Future Train Service Requirements

Initially, the key input for this study was the “Stafford Remodelling – Assumptions and

Specification Document (W169-155-EG-SPE-005000 A02, 3 February 2006) which gave

train services frequencies, types, routes and speeds in the study area for the year 2008.

Tests were also conducted using a 2015 train service specification, which was conceived

and instructed by the Department for Transport, and developed by Network Rail. It was

derived from a “one line represents one train per hour” plot showing the entering and leaving

points of services in the study area. This plot gave details of the type of train, the traction,

the route and stopping pattern for both passenger and freight services. This plot was

translated, by Network Rail, into a conventional timetable (and presented in spreadsheet

format) entitled:

• “Timetable for Stafford Modelling Exercise”, with a footer containing the text

“Version 5.0 dated 18/07/06. Jeff Hawken”, with a further annotation “Based on (and

an expansion of) Version Ea of “Stafford Flows” diagram, updated following Blue

Sky Workshop 12/07/06”.

The data was described in the notes on the sheet as being:

• “Evening Peak Period (1900 – 2030) assumed, with additional Down pm peak West

Coast services, and enhanced Up freight services”.

This timetable data was used as the basis of all the infrastructure tests. The timetabling

used Sectional Running Times (SRTs) from VISION modelling undertaken by Network Rail.

The timetable was also developed as conventional train service graph of paths.

2.2 Infrastructure Requirements

The key requirements in terms of design of the options developed in the study are

summarised from Network Rail’s Functional Specification entitled “Project W169 & W179,

Stafford Area Route Utilisation, Remodelling and Resignalling, Incl Colwich Junction –

Norton Bridge Junction Version 3.4, 17th January 2006”.

The requirements were as follows:

2.2.1 General

• line-speeds will aim at 125 mph EPS;

• Slow Line speeds shall aim at 100 mph PS otherwise stated;

• freight trains will be a maximum length of 775 metres inclusive of locomotive;

• Bi-directional working capability between Colwich Junction and Milford &

Whitehouse Junctions is required.

2.2.2 Stafford Station

• Four lines are required, each with a platform capable of accommodating a 10-car

Class 390, 10-car Class 221 or 12-car 20m EMU, and capable of extension to take

a 12-car Class 390;

• An independent platform to turn back local services from both the north and the

south shall be provided;

• Speeds are to be as high as possible (target 125 mph EPS/HST 110 mph PS) for

traffic to Bushbury and no lower than the braking/acceleration curve for Queensville

Curve for Trent Valley traffic;

• Slow line speeds are to be 75 mph PS, minimum 60 mph PS;




• S&C should be capable of a minimum of 40 mph;

• Junctions to switch between Slow and Fast lines in both directions are required

north of Stafford station;

• Passive provision should be made for the existing Doxey junction to be re-laid at

higher speed (75 mph).

2.2.3 Norton Bridge Junction

• Fast lines target 125 mph EPS 90 mph PS;

• Slow lines target 100 mph PS;

• Stone lines 30 mph PS with an increased speed if possible;

• The station should be assumed to remain.

2.2.4 Between Whitehouse Junction and Queensville Curve:

• Trent Valley Fast line speeds to be targeted at 125 mph EPS and maximum

practicable PS;

• Trent Valley Slow lines are to be target 100 mph PS.

2.2.5 Queensville Curve

• Trent Valley Fast line speeds are to be as high as possible (target 90 mph EPS 75

mph PS).

• Trent Valley Slow lines are to be as high as possible (target 60 mph PS)

• Bushbury – Trent Valley Jn

• Up and Down Line speeds are 125 mph HST and maximum practicable PS, and

should be assumed to be retained as now.

2.2.6 Bypass Options

• Double track unless capacity calculations demonstrate additional track(s) to be

required;

• Aligned and configured for 125 mph Permissible Speed (140 mph EPS compatible);

• The incremental cost of 155 mph and 186 mph is to be assessed;

• To be freight compatible with gradients of no greater than 1 in 100 target and 1 in

75 maximum;

• To be to UIC GB gauge, any disproportionate costs compared with W12 gauge to

be assessed;

• Conventional (lineside) signalling is to be assumed to support a maximum line-

speed of 125 mph.

• S&C at junctions and the speed capability of any intermediate sections of existing

route shall be optimised for the new line, with a maximum (straight) speed to/ from

existing lines of 140 mph.

2.2.7 Implementation Strategy

• Construction and commissioning should minimise interaction with the delivery of the

2008 timetable on the existing routes.

• A weekday 4-track West Coast Main Line railway through Stafford and 2-track

Bushbury route to/ from Stafford must be provided at all times, except at times of

exceptional traffic reduction;

• A weeknight 2-track West Coast Main Line railway must be provided at all times.




3 Existing Engineering Conditions

This section sets out the existing conditions around which a wide range of options was

developed.

3.1 The Trent Valley Four-Tracking Scheme and Colwich Junction

A scheme currently under construction involves 4-tracking the WCML in the Trent Valley

from Tamworth to Armitage. This scheme is known as “TV4”.

At present, north of Armitage, the disposition of the tracks, from west to east, is Down Fast,

Down Slow, Up Fast, Up Slow. Although loosely “paired by direction”, the arrangement of

Fast and Slow lines is unusual on the Down side. The existing Colwich Junction is

configured to match this unusual arrangement, with Manchester-bound trains turning from

the Down Fast to the Down Slow south of the junction, before crossing the Up Main (from

Milford Junction) at a switch diamond crossing with a speed limit of 45mph. The TV4

scheme will reverse the disposition of the Down lines, to form a rather more typical

arrangement, from west to east, of Down Slow, Down Fast, Up Fast, Up Slow (i.e. Fast lines

in the centre of the layouts).

There will be a consequential need to reconfigure Colwich Junction, seeking to provide a

50/65mph capability for Manchester-bound trains. Network Rail developed a number of

layouts for the reconfiguration of Colwich Junction. The favoured layout, entitled “Colwich

Option 2”, would have the primary benefit of removing the slip diamond, as well as achieving

faster speeds. Network Rail provided a single-line diagram as input to the study.

3.2 The Layout in the Stafford Area – Post TV4

After the completion of TV4, there will be a 4-track railway approaching the study area from

the south (via the Trent Valley route). The disposition of the lines, from west to east, will be

Down Slow, Down Fast, Up Fast, Up Slow (i.e. Fast lines in the centre of the layouts). The

layout at Colwich will allow parallel moves from the Down Slow to Stafford / Down Fast to

Stoke, and the corresponding Up moves.

Towards Stafford, the twin-track railway will assume its present configuration, which is as

follows. The Up Main and Down Main run from Colwich Junction (MP 127.08) to Milford

Junction (MP 129.31), where the Down Slow is created as a third, westerly, track. This 3-

track layout continues northwards to Whitehouse Junction (MP130.47), where the Up Slow

is created. North from Whitehouse Junction, therefore, there is a 4-track railway, paired by

speed, with the Slow lines to the east, and Fast lines to the west. This arrangement

continues to Stafford Trent Valley Junction (MP133.04) where the Down Slow Birmingham

and the Up Fast Birmingham form a flat, double junction with the Slow lines only.

At Stafford South Junction (MP133.24), there are connections between the Slow and Fast

sides. In general terms, the Fast lines continue through Stafford Station (MP133.43) with

platform loops on both Up (Platform 1) and Down (Platform 3) sides. Also, in general terms,

the Slow lines continue and pass the faces of Up Slow (Platform 4) and Down Slow

(Platform 5). An additional Up and Down Platform 6 line lies to the east, together with a

Royal Mail platform. North of the station, Uttoxeter Line Junction No 5 (MP133.60) and

Stafford North Junction / Doxey Junction (MP134.03) allow moves between all Fast and

Slow lines.

Northwards, the railway passes under the M6 at Cresswell viaduct (MP135.19), and pass

through the site of the former Great Bridgeford station at MP136.60. At Norton Bridge South

Junction, there is a Slow to Fast ladder, allowing trains from the Slow lines to access the

Norton Bridge Branch (Norton Bridge North Junction MP139.00 to Stone Junction (MP0.00).

The WCML continues northwards towards Crewe, and passes out of the study area at

Millmeece.




Reverting back to Colwich Junction, the Down Main and Up Main form a twin-track railway

towards Stone, Stoke and ultimately, Manchester. Colwich Junction is MP38.58 measured

from the Macclesfield direction. The former Sandon Station is situated at MP31.53, followed

by Aston-by-Stone Level Crossing (CCTV) at MP28.63, the northern extremity of the study

area.

3.3 Train Services

The existing train services comprise a mix of high-speed, medium-speed, and stopping

passenger services, together with a number of freight services. A number of TOCs are

responsible for their operation. The main operator of higher-speed services is Virgin Trains,

who operate the West Coast Franchise, and the Cross-Country Franchise. The most recent

timetable change saw a major speed-up of the WCML services in the December 2005

timetable change. The next major timetable change is planned for implementation in

December 2008.

3.4 The Capacity Pinch-points

The major capacity problems identified by the capacity analysis were at:

• Milford Junction;

• Whitehouse Junction;

• Trent Valley junction;

• Stafford South junction;

• Doxey Junction;

• Norton Bridge Junction.

Other issues affecting capacity were;

• The twin-track section through Shugborough Tunnel;

• The mix of train speeds on the lines between Stafford and Norton Bridge;

• Platform utilisation at Stafford.

3.5 Signalling

The study area splits into three control areas:

• Stafford No 4;

• Stafford No 5;

• Stoke Signalling Centre (Stoke SC).

Stafford No 4 is a 105-lever frame electro-mechanical interlocking, dating from 1960. It

controls multiple-aspect signals, and turnouts with point machines. It essentially controls the

route from Colwich Junction (exclusive) to Stafford South Junction, and includes Milford

Junction, Whitehouse Junction, and Trent Valley Junction.

Stafford No 5 is a 150-lever frame electro-mechanical interlocking, dating from 1952. It

controls multiple-aspect signals, and turnouts with point machines. It controls Uttoxeter Line

Junction, Stafford North/Doxey Junction, and the WCML to a point near Great Bridgeford.

Stoke SCC controls the route from south of the study area, through Rugeley North Junction,

Colwich Junction, and the Colwich to Stoke route to a point beyond the study area. Colwich

interlocking, on the Stoke SC, controls Rugeley North Junction, Colwich Junction, and the

Colwich to Stoke route to a point at MP35.28 near Hixon.




The existing signalling in the Stafford area mainly dates from the resignalling of the 1960s,

but has had extensive alterations carried out since, including the conversion of points from

mechanical to power operation and the renewal of the interlocking in the 1990s. Stafford 4

has also had some major alterations carried out since, including the conversion of points

from mechanical to power operation. Major changes were made in the 1970’s with the

abolition of Stafford 1, Stafford 2 and Queensville signal boxes in the 1970s. and

concentration of their functions on No. 4.

Some of the equipment will have been renewed as alterations were carried out or through

like-for-like replacement as the original equipment became worn out. It is known that there

are issues with some of the equipment at Stafford but spot renewals are being carried out to

maintain the safe operation of the railway.

The existing signalling system in the Stafford area lends itself particularly well to being

easily maintained and can be renewed almost indefinitely. The external equipment is of a

type which can, if required, be renewed with modern equivalents. On the whole, as

equipment becomes worn out or life expired, it can be renewed piecemeal. The main

exceptions to this are the signal box structures. Even the mechanical lever frames can be

renewed as parts wear.

3.6 Structures

Records drawings, inspection details and assessment reports relating to the structures that

are likely to be affected by the options were investigated.

3.6.1 Stafford Station Area

The existing routes are constrained by a number of structures that date from the original

construction of the various lines that converge at Stafford.

To the south at Rickerscote, the line to Wolverhampton is crossed by a two span structure

that may originally have been a masonry arch farm access bridge. The bridge has been

modified by the addition of a concrete slab deck and now carries a footway/cycleway linking

Rowley Grove to Exeter Street. It forms a constraint to widening.

The Trent Valley lines pass under a steel footbridge in the area of Siemens Road. This

structure is of relatively lightweight construction and should not be regarded as a constraint

to track slews etc. No information has been located as yet regarding the status of the

structure; its form may be regarded by some as worthy of preservation, however, it is not

thought to have been listed.

Where the Trent Valley and Wolverhampton lines converge, they are crossed by

Wolverhampton Road Bridge (Structure No B83). This structure carries the A449 into the

centre of Stafford and is a major commuter route into the city from the south and from M6

Junction 13. The A449 is also the main diversion route for the M6 when the motorway has

been closed. The bridge has had a varied history as the railway developed in the area

culminating with re-decking in the 1960’s associated with electrification of the route and

extension to the north by the addition of an extra span. This extension appears to have been

accomplished by demolition of the North Abutment to ground level and the construction of a

steel trestle on the remaining base and a new Northern Abutment. This bridge is a major

constraint to the horizontal alignment of the railway in this area.

The A518 Newport Road crosses the route just to the South of Stafford Station on B84

Station Bridge which is a skew 4 span multi-beam bridge. This is a major constraint on the

track layout in the southern station approach area.

In the northern station approach area, the track layout is constrained by Castle Street

Bridge, which is a narrow single span structure that may originally have been a masonry

arch, but which now has a concrete slab deck. The highway alignment over this structure is

very constrained both vertically and horizontally and sightlines are sub-standard.




3.6.2 Great Bridgeford Area

The railway passes through a rural area, and under the M6 Cresswell viaduct. The other

structures in this area are primarily field access or farm accommodation structures. These

structures are of little of significance to the options under consideration.

3.6.3 Bishton Area

The main structure of significance in the Bishton area is at Bellamour Lane where the

existing railway crosses the lane on a single span structure. The superstructure of this

bridge appears to be a series of individual spans supporting the rails on longitudinal timber

bearers. It is assumed that this was done to maximise the headroom at this point. Bellamour

Lane itself crosses the railway with a sharp bend which is sub-standard from the point of

view of sightlines. It should be noted that if it was decided that a highway diversion was

necessary in this area, extensive work would be needed to achieve current highway design

standards.

3.6.4 Sandon

At Sandon, the B5066 crosses the route of the WCML via a bridge that is located adjacent

to the disused Station (now a residential property). The existing bridge is a masonry arch

structure and appears to be in reasonable condition. The alignment of the B5066 over the

bridge has substandard sightlines however. The B5066 continues toward Stafford, crossing

the Trent and Mersey Canal and the River Trent itself, on masonry bridges and it is

understood that at least one of these bridges is a listed structure. Both bridges are narrow

and alternating single line traffic is necessary at the canal bridge.

3.7 Electrification

The electrification system dates from the London – Manchester/Liverpool scheme of 1966.

The equipment through the Stafford station area is from the Mark 1 range with the structures

of portal, single and two track cantilever construction. There is a mixture of auto tensioned

and fixed termination equipment.

The system is fed in the area from Brereton Feeder Station with a return conductor and

booster transformers but this is currently being replaced by a new autotransformer system.

3.8 Utilities

Network Rail was in the process of collecting data on utilities for this study, but it was not

available in time to affect the recommendations. A Utilities Risk Analysis was therefore

undertaken, and the capital costings reported later made assumptions about utility

diversions and effects.

3.9 Communications Systems

It was assumed that, by the time the scheme is implemented, operational communications

will be based upon Network Rail’s GSM-R mobile network with lineside telephony as

backup. GSM-R itself is supported by lineside optical fibre and copper infrastructure

capable of integrating with the Fixed Transmission Network (FTN). Consequently,

communications infrastructure should already exist by the lineside on all existing routes in

the vicinity. A detailed survey of all existing infrastructure would be required to assess the

impact of any proposed modifications and associated communications requirements.

Currently, the IVRS project provides voice-grade GSM-R coverage on all existing routes. It

was understood that Network Rail envisages that GSM-R will be fully functional at the time

of implementation of the proposed options.




4 Environmental Setting

This chapter describes the available data and the setting of environmental resources in the

study area.

4.1 Noise and Vibration

There was no factual data concerning noise levels in the study area.

In general terms, the operational phase would be of greater significance for options in the

rural areas, while those along the existing rail corridor would not result in a significant

change in noise levels. For both cases, it was expected that mitigation could be

incorporated into the design of the new railway.

The construction phase would be likely to give rise to significant, if sometimes localised,

noise nuisance for any option. There could be a requirement to provide significant quantities

of secondary glazing to residents as a consequence of the close and high-density

residential population. Whether the disruption would be a daytime or night-time issue would

be dependent on the option, and the degree of interference with the existing railway

infrastructure.

4.2 Local Air Quality

There was no factual data on air quality in the study area. A review of the Stafford Borough

Air Quality report 2005 showed that there are no anticipated breaches of air quality

objectives in the Stafford area, and there has been no designation of an Air Quality

Management Area (AQMA), or need to implement an action plan for criteria pollutants listed

in the Air Quality Regulations 2000.

4.3 Greenhouse Gases

There was no data on Greenhouse Gas emissions specific to the study area, although there

is considerable data at national and regional levels, against which options were assessed.

4.4 Landscape and Townscape

The study area lies at the junction of three Landscape Character Areas as defined by the

Countryside Agency; this is reflected in the variety of landscape types encountered within

the study area:

• The Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire Plain covers parts of the west and

north-west of the study area. It is an extensive area typified by gently rolling

topography interrupted by sandstone ridges, with few woodlands but strong field

patterns and good hedgerows with many hedgerow trees;

• The Needwood and South Derbyshire Claylands Character Area includes the north-

eastern section of the study area, encompassing the River Trent corridor and the

land immediately adjacent to it, where the ground rises towards Cannock Chase;

• The Cannock Chase and Cank Wood Character Area covers the southern and

central parts of the study area. This is again very varied but is typified by the

Cannock Chase landscape itself, with large areas of plantation complemented by

broad tracts of heathland, with long views. The Chase is an Area of Outstanding

Natural Beauty, is heavily used for recreation due to its proximity to the West

Midlands conurbation and contains a Country Park.

North of the main woodland and heathland of the Chase there is a landscape of older

villages such as Milford which have now expanded to an almost suburban level. Here the

hedges are generally good but the landscape remains predominantly open and arable.




Historic parks are a feature of the landscape lying around the edge of Cannock Chase.

Shugborough Park, in particular, is a fine example of an 18th century designed landscape.

The study area contains a number of sections with landscape designations;

• The Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) includes part of

the southern section of the study area and incorporates Shugborough Park. This

AONB is the smallest in mainland England but the Country Park within it is one of

the UK’s largest.

• An extensive Special Landscape Area (SLA), as defined in the Stafford Borough

Local Plan, lies towards the north of the study area. This SLA includes the mature

historic parkland of Sandon Park, as well as part of the River Trent corridor and the

nearby village of Salt.

The central rural sections of the study area typically have a landscape setting characterised

by small intermittent pockets of replanted ancient woodland, open naturalised grassland and

agricultural land; the topography is generally undulating.

The study area also contains areas of settlement and existing rail uses, and there are

isolated Conservation Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Water bodies include

two lakes and numerous smaller ponds. In addition, there is also a complex network of

water channels, many of which are highly significant features in the landscape, including the

River Trent and the Trent and Mersey Canal which run through the north-western section of

the study area, and the River Sow and the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal running

through the southern and south-western sections.

Stafford itself is an extensive urban area, and the urban rail options under consideration

have the potential to cause adverse visual impact on adjacent residential properties,

particularly during construction: this would be assessed in more detail at a later stage, and

mitigation proposed. Stafford has a network of important green spaces which would also

need to be considered during the assessment.

4.5 The Heritage of Historic Resources

There are a number of listed buildings and archaeological areas of interest focused on

Bishton, one of which, Bishton Hall is a nationally significant grade II* listed structure now

used as a school.

The Conservation Area for Colwich and Little Haywood is sandwiched between the A51 and

the River Trent. The Colwich area was known for its quarrying and brickworks, remains of

which are archaeologically significant.

The Conservation Area of Great Haywood and Shugborough is an area of strong canal

heritage, and is the junction point of the Trent and Mersey Canal and the Staffordshire and

Worcestershire Canal. There are a number of Grade II listed buildings in the village,

including the church and Post Office. The Conservation Area also covers the majority of the

grade I Registered Park of Shugborough, designated as having the highest level of

importance amongst similar features in Britain.

Shugborough Park contains a range of associated listed buildings of grades I, II* and II. The

Shugborough estate was purchased in 1624 by the Anson family, later Earls of Lichfield.

The original house was built in 1693 for William Anson, a prosperous Staffordshire lawyer.

In 1720, Shugborough was inherited by Thomas Anson. He was responsible for three

remarkable neo-Grecian monuments that stand in the park. The most imposing piece, the

Triumphal Arch begun in 1761, is a memorial to Admiral Anson and his wife. The Chinese

House by the River Sow also commemorates the Admiral. In 1790 Samuel Wyatt was

commissioned to carry out extensive remodelling. Shugborough has some 365 hectares of




grounds. The formal terraces decorated with classical urns and cones of yellow yew

descend from the house to the River Sow.

There are likely to be features of archaeological interest located within the late Glacial River

terrace deposits. The Trent Valley is noted for intensive archaeological activity from a range

of archaeological periods, and includes both well preserved archaeological features and

waterlogged remains. Its landscape today is the result of 10,000 years of change and

development through natural and human actions.

The Pasturefields area on the west side of the River Trent is an internationally designated

Special Area of Conservation, as the last surviving natural inland salt marsh in Britain. The

localities salt fields are integral to the industrial history of Staffordshire, in particular the

production of salt glazed pottery in Stafford.

The hamlet of Ingestre is a designated Conservation Area and includes significant heritage

buildings including St Mary’s Church, grade I listed, Ingestre Hall, Grade II* listed, and

associated estate buildings listed at grade II.

The small Conservation Area of Tixall contains a number of significant heritage structures,

including Tixall Gatehouse, grade I listed. There are also a number of other listed buildings

associated with the estate of Tixall Hall – the hall of which is no longer extant.

Weston Hall is a nationally significant grade II* listed Jacobean house. The Weston area

was historically important in the production of salt, and was served by the Trent and Mersey

Canal of 1777. Few features of this history now survive, but Weston Lock, to the north of

the Hall, is of note. The canal as a whole is designated as a Conservation Area.

There is a registered battlefield at Hopton Heath, commemorating the battle in 1643. After a

period of relative inactivity over the winter, both sides in the Civil War sought to regain

momentum in the field by the spring of 1643 however, the battle of Hopton Heath was

indecisive in outcome.

The village of Salt contains a Grade II listed church.

To the north-eastern edge of the study area lies Sandon Park, a grade II registered park of

national importance. Sandon Hall is the ancestral home of the Earls of Harrowby. The

house was rebuilt by William Burn in imposing neo-Jacobean style in 1854. The Hall is set

in approximately 21 hectares (50 acres) of landscaped gardens, including an arboretum.

The Park includes a number of listed buildings within its limits.

The existing Sandon station house is a Listed Building, approached by an avenue of trees

from Sandon Park, and the Jacobean building reflects the style of the gate lodges. There is

a porte cochere provided for the convenience of the Earl. The adjacent overbridge, although

rebuilt for electrification, still carries the earl's arms.

To the west of Sandon Park, and to the north of Marston, are a series of archaeological

sites recorded on the County Sites and Monument Record.

There is a concentration of archaeological sites identified on the County Sites and

Monuments Record around Yarlet Hall, now a school.

Near the M6 motorway, a number of archaeological sites have been recorded broadly

between the motorway and Norton Bridge.

At Heamies Hill and Meece Brook contain alluvial material, and late glacial River Terrace

deposits will be present across the Meece Brook. It is likely that archaeological and geo-

archaeological material will be present within this area.

4.6 Biodiversity

There are a range of designated nature conservation sites within the study area that include:




• Ancient Woodlands (AWs);

• Sites of Biological Interest (SBIs);

• Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs); and a,

• Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

There are also other SACs outside of the study area that may be indirectly affected. English

Nature is normally contacted with regard to proposed works within 10km of SACs. The

SACs that occur within 10km of the options are: Pasturefields Salt Marsh, Chartley Moss

(part of the West Midlands Mosses) and Cannock Chase. The requirement for an

Appropriate Assessment of the aforementioned sites of European importance will need to

be determined when a more detailed assessment is made of route options.

In order to determine what habitats and species are likely to be affected, a more detailed

desk-based study (involving consultation with English Nature, Staffordshire County Council,

Staffordshire Wildlife Trust and other organisations) and field surveys will need to be

conducted.

A generic issue is the risk posed by Great Crested Newts. The chances could be high on

the rural sections of some options, as a number of ponds could be adversely affected. The

process for overcoming this issue could take 1-2 years, with implications on the timescales

for the TWA process, and for mitigation after the TWA powers were granted. Additional land

for mitigation might be needed in the Order.

4.7 The Water Environment

The area in and around Stafford has a complex pattern of surface water drainage and fluvial

system. The main river in the study area is the River Trent, which flows in a south-easterly

direction and has a significant fluvial floodplain. This river will require particular

consideration for any future analysis of options within the extent of both the functional and

passive fluvial floodplain. The other primary watercourses in the area are the River Penk,

River Sow, Marston Brook, Cher Brook, Doxey Brook, Millian Brook and Rising Brook.

These could be either designated main river, critical ordinary watercourse (COW) or other

watercourses. However, the exact designation of the water bodies affected is unknown at

this time and will likely remain so until stakeholder consultation. The study area for the

options also contains the Trent and Mersey Canal.

In the vicinity of Stafford, both of these major rivers are fed by a large number of small

brooks, streams and drains. It is thought that the complex nature of the drainage is a result

of the very low gradient of the river systems at this point. This low gradient arises as the

rivers have superimposed themselves onto an accumulation of unconsolidated sediments,

washed into an incised gorge some time after the last glacial maximum. This created

conditions that could result in a braided channel network if the channels were left totally

natural.

Due to the low lying nature of the land in and around Stafford town centre, much of it has

been mapped to lie with the 1% floodplain of the River Sow. This includes the entire

alignment of the existing railway, including Stafford Station. However, flood defences have

been constructed on the western bank. These features reduce the risk of flooding in the

area around the existing station. As a result the risk of flooding is perceived by the EA to be

low. However, development within an area of existing floodplain is against current EA

policy, as the development may increase the risk of flooding to the immediate locality or

elsewhere.

There is a substantial fluvial floodplain throughout the whole length of the River Trent in the

study area, although much of it is contained within the Trent Valley. After the Autumn/Winter

2000 floods, the Environment Agency is reviewing their approach to flood management and




flood defence on the River Trent. These floods were categorised as 2% (1 in 50 year

chance of a flooding) and they caused extensive damage to local communities.

Consequently, the EA’s River Trent Strategy is a review of fluvial flooding which looks at the

whole of the River Trent, rather than just focusing on individual towns and communities. The

Environment Agency have also produced the River Trent inception report, which is a

summary of readily available catchment data and issues that are relevant to flood risk

management in the catchment area. The report provides a catchment overview and will

assist to identify relevant issues in the catchment. It should be noted that impounded flood

water within the River Trent’s functional floodplain will have an adverse affect on the

tributary watercourses draining to it.

All watercourses impacted by the proposed works will have to be analysed in relation to the

proposed works. This analysis will be in the form of an investigation to determine the

existing 1-in-100 year floodplain, an assessment of whether the proposed works impacts

upon the floodplain and whether the proposed works changes the extent of the floodplain.

This is irrespective of whether previous analysis has been done to determine the floodplain

extent. If the proposed works impact the existing hydraulic conditions of the river, mitigation

measures would have to be proposed which would return the river to a state similar

encountered pre-development. This applies to all watercourses irrespective of their status.

In addition, any excavation within the existing floodplain will be at particular risk at times of

high rainfall from a number of sources of flooding including fluvial, overland flow and rising

groundwater.

The unconsolidated sediments underlying Stafford and the surrounding area are by their

very nature likely to be water bearing. In addition, the bed rock of the area, Mercia

Mudstone is fairly impermeable. For this reason the area underlain by the sub glacial layer

may be prone to high groundwater conditions, which may increase the risk of flooding

incurred by any excavations within the area. In addition, the local geology promotes a large

reaction between the surface and groundwater. The proposed alignments cross both minor

and major aquifers, and a ground water protection zone exists in the area of Shugborough

Park, which some of the alignments encroach upon.

Water quality data collected for the Doxey Brook, River Penk and River Sow all suggest that

the water is of a ‘good’ standard when compared to the EA’s General Quality Assessment

(GQA) with grades of B shown for the data period 2000 - 2002. However, the Marston

Brook, a watercourse which feeds into the River Sow from the north, suffers from depleted

dissolved oxygen and so records a GQA grade of E, which is interpreted as ‘poor’ water

quality. The marshy conditions are favoured by many aquatic species and this is reflected

by the existence of Doxey and Tillington Marshes SSSI located to the north west of the town

centre.

The Mercia Mudstone contains salt deposits at a depth of about 55m and is about 35m thick

(as a sequence of interbedded rock salt, saliferous mudstone and mudstone). The salt

deposits historically provided a source of Brine by interaction with groundwater. However

continued exploitation of this resource has lead to serious subsidence beneath Stafford

Town centre. The eastern edge of the salt deposits contains brine due to the interaction of

groundwater from the Sherwood Sandstone to the east, with the salt deposit. Within this

zone, the interaction between groundwater and the salt deposit continues at a very low rate.

Although the area in and around Stafford is shown to be a minor aquifer, there are no

source protection zones. This suggests that public water supply abstraction from this area

has been avoided due to the salt deposits.

There is little general information readily available on the water quality of groundwater within

the area. However, borehole investigation has detected some saline-rich water, due to the




existence of salt deposits. It is important that there is no mixing of the good quality surface

water and the saline rich groundwater.

Network Rail advised that there would be a strong resistance to applying for discharge

consents, especially as they would consider run-off from a ‘new’ railway to be

uncontaminated surface water. Unless there was a sensitive receptor, or a high potential for

a pollution source, then discharge consents would be unlikely.

4.8 Planning Policy Context

4.8.1 National Planning Guidance

Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) notes set out

policies on different aspects of land use planning and need to be taken into account by

Regional Planning Bodies.

• Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development. Sets out the

overarching framework for planning policies on the delivery of sustainable

development through the planning system.

• Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts. Establishes a general

presumption against inappropriate development within a Green Belt, except where

there are very special circumstances to justify that development.

• Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. Sets

out the role of planning in facilitating and promoting sustainable patterns of

development and sustainable communities in rural areas. Where significant

development of agricultural land is unavoidable, any adverse effects on the

environment should be minimised.

• Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

Promotes sustainable development through the enhancement of biodiversity and

geological resources as part of economic, social and environmental development.

The aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and

geological interest.

• Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management.

Looks to achieve more sustainable waste management.

• Planning Policy Statement 11: Regional Spatial Strategies. Sets out the

processes and procedures to guide the preparation of Regional Spatial Strategies

(RSS) and Regional Transport Strategies (RTS).

• Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport. Annex C (Para 8-10) deals with

Planning for New Railways, Tramways and Inland Waterways and notes that “The

RTS provides a strategic steer on the role and future development of new railways,

tramways and inland waterways.” It deals with mitigating the impact of new

transport infrastructure and notes that “Care must be taken to avoid or minimise the

environmental impact of any new transport infrastructure projects, or improvements

to existing infrastructure; this includes the impacts which may be caused during

construction (including the need to transport materials to and from the site, and

dispose of spoil).”

• Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment. This

PPG sets out policies for the identification and protection of historic buildings,

conservation areas, and other elements of the historic environment. It highlights the

impact that “major new transport infrastructure developments can have on the

historic environment, not just visually and physically, but indirectly, for example by

altering patterns of movement or commerce and generating new development

pressures or opportunities in historic areas”.




• Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning. This sets out the

government’s policy on archaeological remains. It aims to ensure that the impact of

development on areas of archaeological interest is kept to a minimum and there is a

presumption in favour of preservation ‘in situ’.

• Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control. This PPS

emphasises the need for Local Planning Authorities, when considering proposals for

development, to take into account the risks of, and from, pollution and land

contamination and how these can be managed or reduced.

• Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise. This PPG provides advice

and guidance on matters to be taken into account when considering activities which

will generate noise, the impact on residential areas and planning conditions to

minimise the impact of noise. Local Planning Authorities are encouraged to locate

noise sensitive developments away from noise generators and vice versa. Where

this is not possible, mitigation measures should be considered.

• Planning Policy Guidance 25: Development and Flood Risk and recent

consultation on new PPS 25. This makes clear the importance of the

management and reduction of flood risk, acting on a precautionary basis and taking

account of climate change. It sets out a catchment-wide approach, and assuming

the use of flood plains for their natural purpose. The Environment Agency has the

lead role in providing advice on flood issues, and developers should fund flood

defences where required as a consequence of the development.

4.8.2 Other Relevant National Policy Issues

Future of Transport White Paper 2005

This identifies the need a transport network that can meet the challenges of a growing

economy and the increasing demand for travel, but can also achieve the government’s

environmental objectives. In terms of rail, this requires a network “providing a fast, reliable

and efficient service, particularly for interurban journeys and commuting into large urban

areas”.

Future of Rail White Paper 2005

This includes reference to encouraging more people to use rail rather than road in meeting

the government’s environmental objectives.

M6 Expressway – feasibility study 2005

Work is underway to consider the feasibility and impact of the proposed M6 Expressway as

an alternative to the planned widening of the M6 between Birmingham and Manchester

(which runs through the study area).

4.8.3 Regional Planning Policy

Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands - RSS 11

The WCML is identified in the priority Trans-European Transport (TEN). Policy T12 identifies

the priorities for transport investment and includes the completion of works to the WCML.

Stafford is identified as a strategic town centre within the region, and as such a driver for the

economy. The RSS also contains a number of policies which seek to protect and conserve

the region’s natural and built heritage.

4.8.4 Structure Plan Policy

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996 – 2011

The Structure Plan for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent was prepared jointly by

Staffordshire County Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council and covers the period 1996-

2011. The Plan was formally adopted in 2001.




• Policy T1B seeks an integrated and sustainable transport strategy.

• Policy T7 looks for the provision of a comprehensive and integrated public transport

network.

• Policy TA8 seeks improvements to the rail network, the development of services, the

upgrading of the WCML and the modernisation and enhancement of other lines.

• Policy T14 supports the free flow of traffic on routes of national and regional

significance, including the WCML.

• Policy T15A reserves land for the implementation of improvements to the WCML.

• Policy T10 gives priority to reducing the environmental impact of long distance freight

movements.

There are also a number of plan wide protection policies which need to be taken into

account relating to development, the environment, countryside, landscape, biodiversity,

habitats, nature conservation, water, flood, archaeology, Historic Parks and Gardens, Listed

Buildings, Conservation Areas, and the Trent Valley and Canal Facilities. There is also

Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Planning for Landscape Change’.

4.8.5 Local Planning Policy

The relevant documents are:

• Lichfield Local Development Framework Submission Documents

• Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001

• Cannock Chase Local Plan March 1997

• Lichfield District Local Plan 1998

• Lichfield Local Development Framework - Core Strategy Submission

Document 2005

4.9 Environmental Constraints Plans

Based on the data assembled from the sources described above, Environmental

Constraints Plans were prepared.

It must be noted that there was no consultation with statutory bodies or consents authorities

to establish an understanding of the importance of the constraints derived from the above

process.

An internal workshop was held at which a range of environmental specialists presented their

interpretation of the severity of the mapped constraints, and described the rarity,

designation, importance and replaceability of those sites that could be spatially mapped.

Planning policy was also reviewed over the study area as this could not be “mapped” on a

spatial background.

This understanding of constraints was then used to derive the basic alignments of each of

the selected options, or to begin to understand the major issues which a route could involve.




5 Geotechnical Issues

5.1 Approach

Landmark Envirocheck reports for the study area were defined by National Grid Reference

(NGR) SJ 9000, 3500 to the north; SK 0800, 1700 to the east; SK 0600, 1700 to the south;

and SJ 8200, 3500 to the west were obtained to facilitate constraints mapping. Geological

maps at a scale of 1:10 000 held by the BGS, and the Stafford Memoir (H.M.S.O. 1927)

were also consulted.

The work carried out was limited to:

• Interpretation of the landscape from a geological perspective;

• Identification and interpretation of BGS boreholes;

• Identification of geological features from historical and modern mapping;

• Provide recommendations on the mitigation of risks deriving from identified features.

5.2 Sources of Information

This assessment provided a summary of the key issues identified from the desk study

information, provided by the sources identified below and makes a qualitative assessment of

the potential impact on the project from geological ground conditions constraints identified in

the areas of each option.

The following list of sources was referred to:

• Geological Mapping, (BGS 1;50 000 sheet 139 [Stafford] and sheet 140 [Burton on

Trent])

• The Geological Memoirs for sheet 139 and 140 (see 6.4)

• BGS borehole records

• Landranger Series 1:50,000 maps (Ordnance Survey)

• Envirocheck Report

• Envirocheck Historical Mapping

The information presented is the result of a high level review and to be confirmed by more

detailed study and physical ground investigation.

5.3 Identification and interpretation of BGS borehole data

Available BGS borehole data was acquired, some of it from very old investigations. Only

limited interpretation of this data was made at this stage.

5.4 Outline Geology

The following observations are made based on the study of geological mapping and

memoirs for the study area.

5.4.1 Solid Geology

The solid geology of the study area comprises Triassic Strata belonging to the Mercia

Mudstone and Sherwood Sandstone Groups, with the majority of the study area being

underlain by the mudstone. A narrow upfaulted area of Sherwood Sandstone crosses the

eastern part of the study area.

The Sherwood Sandstone Group is divided into two formations: the Lower Cannock Chase

Formation (equivalent to the Kidderminster formation of the Birmingham Area), and the




upper Bromsgrove Sandstone Formation, which extends across much of the West Midlands

region.

The sandstones are generally weakly cemented and the Cannock Chase Formation is

gravely/conglomeratic in the lower part. However, in places the Bromsgrove Sandstone is

better cemented, and has locally been quarried for building stone.

Beneath the Triassic Strata, Carboniferous Upper, Middle and Lower Coal Measures strata

occur at depth. Within the upfaulted area of Sherwood Sandstone to the east of Stafford,

the Middle and Lower Coal Measures have been prospected in the past as an extension to

the South Staffordshire/ Cannock Chase Coalfield. It is understood, in the current economic

climate there are no plans to revive this. This should be confirmed with the Coal Authority.

5.4.2 Drift Geology

The solid geology is overlain by superficial deposits across about 50% of the study area.

The following materials are present.

• Small isolated areas of Fluvio glacial sands and gravels.

• A thin and very discontinuous layer of Glacial Till.

• Extensive spreads of Glacial Sands and Gravels along the valleys of the Rivers Sow

and Trent.

• Extensive spreads of River Terrace deposits across the lower part of the River Trent

Valley

• Alluvial deposits across the lowest parts of the Valleys of the Rivers Sow and Trent, and

also minor tributary stream courses.

• Deposits of Peat in isolated hollows, occasionally as layers overlying River Terrace

Deposits and as often as layers within the Alluvial deposits.

• Deposits within Sub Glacial ‘Tunnel Valleys’ beneath parts of Stafford. These consist of

a variety of Sands Gravels Silts Clays and Peat.

5.5 Interpretation of Landscape from a Geological Perspective

5.5.1 Glaciation

The landscape of the study area was significantly impacted by the advance of glacial ice

across the whole area from the north-west during the later part of the Devensian glacial

period, approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. During the glacial maximum, melt-water

escaped south and south-eastwards within and beneath the glacier, eroding sub-glacial

channels into the underlying strata. The present course of the River Sow through the study

area largely follows the alignment of one of these channels.

The landscape and the present valleys of the Sow and Trent were eroded by a flood of

glacial melt-water flowing south eastwards as the ice sheet melted and retreated north

westwards. This phase dissected the layer of lodgement till formed beneath the glacier into

discontinuous areas, and deposited spreads of gravel across the lower elevations.

The River Sow and probably the River Trent now occupy the valleys incised into the

landscape by glacial and subglacial meltwater. The valley sides are typically steep and the

valley bottoms broad and flat. Beyond the main valleys the Triassic Strata overlain by a

discontinuous covering of Glacial Till forms an undulating topography rising 20 to 50m

above the valley bottoms. To the south of the Rivers Sow and Trent, Cannock Chase forms

an area of more elevated topography, rising to 150 – 200m OD, 100m or more above the

base of the river valleys.

The valley gradient of the River Sow, following the line of a sub glacial channel is very slack,

resulting in very poorly drained and marshy conditions across the broad flat valley bottom




and the development of extensive peat deposits. A consequence of the slack valley profile is

that the valley bottom is vulnerable to flooding,

The River Trent, which has a large catchment to the north, has continued to modify the

bottom of its valley after the influence of glacial meltwater ceased, and has left some

extensive spreads of River Terrace Deposits across the valley bottom. The current river

channel and associated alluvial deposits have very slightly incised and reworked the earlier

deposits so the current flood plain is some 1.2m below the level of the main (no. 1) river

terrace.

5.5.2 Glacial Channels

During the last (Devensian) ice age, meltwater escaping south eastwards from the glacier

covering the area, eroded channels into the underlying strata. These channels subsequently

became infilled by Fluvio-glacial sands and gravels and Glacio-lacustrine silts. Locally these

channels were not completely infilled and in post glacial times were occupied by lakes,

which in time became infilled with peat and clay. The courses of many of the glacial

channels were followed by the post glacial river systems as they superimposed themselves

on the glacial landscape immediately after the ice melted. This was due to the tendency for

the Glacial Channels to have formed linear hollows in places across the landscape and due

to the easily erodable infilling of unconsolidated deposits.

In the Stafford area, the course of the River Sow appears to follow the line of a glacial

channel which extends from beyond the M6 Creswell Viaduct to south of Stafford Station.

However there is insufficient data to define the exact course and margins of the feature

The glacial channels do not directly impact on the present landscape, however, just to the

south of the study area, the eastern margin of the channel at Walton on the Hill, remains as

an abrupt step in the topography.

5.5.3 Brine Extraction

The Mercia Mudstone contains salt deposits approximately equivalent to the Upper

(Wilkesley) Halite in Cheshire. The salt deposits occur at a depth of about 55m and are

approximately 35m thick, forming a sequence of interbedded rock salt, saliferous mudstone

and mudstone. The salt deposits historically provided a source of Brine by interaction with

groundwater. However continued exploitation of this resource lead to serious subsidence

problems as fresh water gained access to the salt deposits beneath Stafford Town centre.

As a result of this, brine pumping ceased in 1969 following court action, although minor

residual movement continues in places. The eastern edge of the salt deposit (including

Stafford Town centre) contains brine from the interaction of groundwater from the Sherwood

Sandstone to the east with the salt deposit. Within this zone, the interaction between

groundwater and the salt deposit continues at a very low rate (Review of Mining Instability

Stafford Brine Pumping Case Study Report).

5.5.4 Groundwater

The Mercia Mudstone is classified as a non-aquifer; however minor amounts of groundwater

can occur within the weathered zone. The Sherwood Sandstone is classified as a major

aquifer and the groundwater surface reflects the topography of the area with levels close to

the surface across the lower parts of valleys.

Groundwater will also be present within many of the superficial deposits. Levels are close to

the surface along the valley of the River Sow, within the Glacial Sands and Gravels and the

Alluvium. Substantial thicknesses of water bearing Sands, Gravels and Silts are present

within the Sub Glacial Channels.




5.6 Identification of Geological Features from Envirocheck Mapping

Mapping dating from approximately 1890 to 2000 was examined for changes in geological

features which were then annotated onto 1:10,000 plans. The significant features identified

comprised:

• Water courses and water bodies

• Areas currently or previously identified as liable to flooding

• Areas currently or previously defined as marsh or reeds

• Extraction features (marl pits, sand pits, quarries etc.) that still have a physical presence

• Historic extraction features (marl pits, sand pits, quarries etc.) that have been infilled or

developed and are no longer visible in the landscape

• Sites of household and industrial land-fill

• Areas of potential archaeological significance

• Identification of pollution incidents of significance

5.6.1 Water Courses and water Bodies

Large sections of the study areas follow the paths of the River Trent, River Sow and the

Trent and Mersey Canal.

It was identified that certain areas (in particularly the study area north of Doxey) were

networks of field drains and areas that were marshy and liable to flood. The area also has a

large number of pits and small ponds that have been formed following marl extraction.

5.6.2 Extraction/ Marl Pits

Large numbers of pit features were identified from the historical mapping for the area of the

study. The majority dated from the 18th and 19

th centuries when following enclosure, the

Mercia Mudstone was extracted to improve the topsoil, as its slightly-calcareous aspect

(Marl) improved acid soils. Since then, they have either become infilled, remained as

features on the landscape or have filled with water to form ponds. There are also similar

features that have resulted from quarrying and gravel extraction.

5.6.3 Sites of Household and Industrial Landfill

There are a number of landfill sites within the study area. The majority of sites are classified

as small (less that 25,000m3 pa) and handle non-toxic, non-hazardous inert wastes such as

building rubble, soils and brick.

Several sites were identified within the Envirocheck Report as large (greater than 75,000m3

pa) and handle household, industrial and commercial wastes.

The largest of these sites were identified at RAF Swynnerton and Hopton Railway Cutting

(now closed).

5.6.4 Archaeology

There were few site of potential archaeological that were identified from the historical

mapping. These were:

• Tumuli near Beacon Hill

• Moat and fishponds at Gayton

• Moat at Little Haywood

• Site of church and burial ground, and site of battle near Hopton

An additional burial ground was identified within Stafford but its location is beneath factory

buildings.




5.6.5 Pollution

A number of pollution incidents to controlled waters were identified in the Envirocheck

Report. The majority of incidents identified were Category 3 (minor) incidents, with a few

classed as significant incidents (Category 2). A single category 1 (major) incident was

recorded as a fuel tanker fire with a foam blanket used.

The Envirocheck data shows that these incidents were in surface waters and therefore it is

very unlikely that residual risks remain due to dissolution and attenuation of contaminants.

5.7 General Observations

Northwest from Stafford Station, the landscape is flat and lies at approximately 70mAOD.

Large numbers of drains are present in the area and there is evidence of large areas of

marshy ground. Historical mapping also shows that the River Sow and drain system are

liable to flooding in the area north of Doxey. The network of drains continues northwest to

southeast of Great Bridgeford where a small number of both infilled and open marl pits are

present.

Northwest from Great Bridgeford, the corridor follows the course of the River Sow. Within

the region of Chebsey the number of remaining marl-pit is approximately one per field, and

many of them form ponds. Southwest of Chebsey is the Smallwood Pit landfill site1

(household waste) and Chebsey landfill2 (household, commercial and inert waste).

South and southwest of the MoD Swynnerton Training Area there is another area of drain

networks and larger bodies of water. The area between the Meece Brook and railway has

been worked for sand gravel. A large area just to the northeast of the study area is the site

of RAF Swynnerton landfill3 (household waste).

North east of Rugeley, the River Trent, the Trent and Mersey Canal and a network of brooks

and drains is present. There are also a small number of pits that have subsequently infilled.

The River Trent and the Trent and Mersey Canal follow the perimeter of the study area

between Bishton and Hixon, and there are some areas of marshland between the two

watercourses. To the south of Hixon, the study area is dominated by a large number of

historic marl pits. Some have been subsequently infilled but the majority have formed small

ponds.

There are also a number of landfill sites in the area of Little Haywood and Great Haywood,

which handle household and inert, non-hazardous, non-toxic commercial wastes.

Between Great Haywood and Sandon, the study area follows the Trent Valley, with the

higher ground of Beacon Hill and Stafford to the south. Within this area, there are many

former extraction pits or which approximately one third are no longer present, one third

remain as surface features and the remaining third have formed ponds. These features are

generally more concentrated in the low lying fields close to the River Trent and the Trent

and Mersey Canal. North of the village of Hopton is a large landfill4 that holds residential,

commercial and industrial wastes.

Between Stafford and Ashton-By-Stone, the corridor moves to the west of the River Trent

and Trent and Mersey Canal. On the higher ground, surface water features are limited to

water filled extraction pits and field drainage. Lower lying ground lies close to Burston and

the River Trent and Trent and Mersey Canal. There are high numbers of former marl pits in

the area between Ashton-By-Stone and Stafford, of which more than half have formed water

filled ponds. The remaining half either have visible surface features or are infilled. There are

1 Envirocheck Map ID 37







several small landfill sites in this area, all of which handle construction materials such as

hardcore, soil and rubble.

From Shallowford to Swynnerton, the route corridor crosses the shallow valley formed by

the Meece Brook and its’ tributaries. There are large numbers of extraction pits in this area,

averaging more than one per field. Close to Norton Bridge and Swynnerton the size of the

pits is significantly greater than other parts of the route corridor.




6 Traffic and Transportation Setting

6.1 Local Highway Network – Stafford Town Area

The highway network in Stafford consists of six main radial routes, connected by an inner

ring road. The radial routes comprise:

• A449 Wolverhampton Road;

• A518 Newport Road;

• A5013 Eccleshall Road;

• A34 Stone Road;

• A518 Weston Road; and

• A34 Lichfield Road.

The inner ring road on the east and north sides of the town centre (linking the A34 Lichfield

Road, the A518 Weston Road and A34 Stone Road) is constructed to dual 2-lane standard,

with additional queuing lanes on some sections). The remainder of the inner ring road on

the south and west halves of Stafford is a two-lane single carriageway.

The M6 forms a western bypass, with Junction 13 on the A449 and Junction 14 on the

A5013. From M6 Junction 14, a section of the A34 and the A513 Beacon Side forms the

northern section of an edge-of-town distributor road linking the motorway with the A34 and

the A518. The alignment for an Eastern Bypass is safeguarded in the Local Plan (see

below).

Emergency Service Routes

The Staffordshire General Hospital, situated on the A518 Weston Road, has an accident

and Emergency Department. Stafford Fire Station is located off the roundabout junction of

the A518 Weston Road and A518 Beacon Side. Direct access throughout Stafford and to

the M6 needs to be maintained from both emergency service sites.

6.2 Role of Highway Routes – Stafford Town Area

Within Stafford, the key roads are:

• The A449 Wolverhampton Road provides access onto the M6 at junction 13 and

thus provides the main radial route into Stafford from the M6 South. It also serves

as a local distributor for much of the south part of Stafford. The A449 carries a two-

way flow of 450 heavy commercial vehicles per 12-hour weekday period (source:

Staffordshire Provisional LTP 2005). The A449 was de-trunked and transferred to

Staffordshire County Council management in 2002. It remains a Primary Route on

the Strategic Road Network.

• The A518 Newport Road is classified as a ‘Primary Route on the Strategic Road

Network’. It serves a distributor function to the Stafford residential areas along its

south side and to the village of Gnosal and to Newport beyond. The A518 does not

provide access onto the M6. It carries a two-way flow of 210 heavy commercial

vehicles per 12-hour weekday period (source: Staffordshire Provisional LTP 2005).

Staffordshire County Council is the Highway Authority responsible for the A518.

• Castle Street is a narrow single carriageway, providing access to terraced houses

to the east of the railway and to light industrial premises west of the railway via a

hump-back bridge. Castle Street is closed to through motor traffic west of the

industrial access, but provides a through route for pedestrians and cyclists between




Martin Drive/Kingsway and Doxey Road, as part of the Beaconside to Derrington

Cycle Route, linking the west and north parts of Stafford.

• The Rowley Grove bridge in the Rickerscote area carries cycle and pedestrian

traffic only.

Signing Strategy

The existing signing strategy to key destinations for vehicles entering the town on the A449

Wolverhampton Road and A518 Newport Road is shown on the drawings.

Vehicles approaching the town centre on the A449 are signed to follow the inner ring road

around the east and north sides of the town centre to reach all destinations. For vehicles

approaching the town centre on the A518 Newport Road, the signed route to the M6 North

and destinations along the A34 is via the ring road around the south and west sides of the

town centre (A518 Station Road, Victoria Road, Tenterbanks and Chell Road). For all other

destinations, traffic on the A518 is signed to follow the inner ring road around the east and

north sides of the town centre.

Congested locations

Loop occupancy data from the Stafford Urban Traffic Control (UTC) centre confirms that all

‘A’ Class radial routes in the town are subject to standing/slow moving traffic between 0815

and 0915. Average journey speeds during this period are estimated at between 6-10 kph. In

the evening peak, congestion is mainly confined to the central areas although queues do

occur at certain key outbound junctions.

Data from the UTC confirms that traffic diverts off the M6 through the Stafford around twice

a month, to avoid accidents and incidents between J13 and J14. This diversion results in

major gridlock problems within the town. At peak times, motorway flows can exceed 5,000

vehicles per hour in the peak direction of flow, whereas the capacity of local diversion roads

is around 800 vehicles per hour per direction.

The County’s UTC system is used to manage congestion caused by traffic diverting from the

M6, by altering timings at strategically located traffic signal installations. These incident

management facilities are introduced automatically by continually sensing the level of

congestion at strategically important locations. The incident control facilities operate on the

A449, but may not be available on alternative routes that would be utilised during bridge

works on the A449.

The drawings show the existing congestion on selected routes as observed during site visits

undertaken in mid February 2006, (on ‘typical’ days, not subject to motorway incidents).

The drawings also show junctions in Stafford that are forecast to suffer regular peak hour

congestion by 2011, if no improvements are implemented, taking into account all

programmed development.

6.3 Highway and Local Transport Proposals – Stafford Town Area

6.3.1 Data Sources

Published proposals for highway schemes and local transport improvements were reviewed,

to identify possible impacts on or synergy with the proposed railway remodelling. The

following documents were included in the review:

• The West Midlands Regional Transport Strategy, 2004;

• Staffordshire Provisional Local Transport Plan 2006-2011;

• The Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001; and

• The Highways Agency’s Targeted Programme of Improvements.




6.3.2 Highways Agency Targeted Programme of Improvements

There are no schemes within the Highways Agency Targeted Programme of Improvements,

TPI (as published in February 2006), that would impact on the railway remodelling or be

affected by the remodelling. Similarly, none of the schemes in the TPI would affect the

sections of highway subject to proposed bridge works or proposed as diversion routes.

6.3.3 Stafford Eastern Bypass

The Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001 safeguards the route for the A513 Stafford Eastern

Bypass, which would provide an eastern extension of the A513 Beacon Side linking the

A518 Weston Road to the A34 Lichfield Road. The proposed bypass would cross the

railway at Baswich Lane.

The proposed by-pass would not provide a diversion route for traffic displaced from the

A449 Wolverhampton Road or A518 Newport Road.

The A513 Stafford Eastern Bypass is not included in the Targeted Road Improvements

listed in the Staffordshire Provisional Local Transport Plan, nor are there any other Targeted

Road Improvements in the LTP2 that would impact on or be affected by the railway

remodelling.

6.3.4 Stafford Western Access Improvements

The Staffordshire Provisional Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 refers to a possible major

scheme to improve access around the western side of Stafford Town Centre, in support of

regeneration proposals. The scheme would include the construction of a new link road and

improvements to Stafford Rail Station, including a significant expansion of car parking to

serve the station as well as improvements to bus, cycle and pedestrian links. A feasibility

study is currently being undertaken which will determine whether the scheme will need to be

brought forward as a major project or whether it will need to be funded out of the integrated

transport block allocation.

The alignment of the new Western Access Link Road is not defined in the Provisional LTP,

nor is a safeguarded corridor for the scheme shown on the Stafford Local Plan 2001

proposals map.

However, the high standard of the newly-constructed Kingsway and the roundabout at its

north end suggests that this may be designed to form part of such a highway improvement,

and it also appears from aerial photos that a corridor has been retained between new

developments north of the railway and south of Doxey Road. On the north side of the

railway, a new link road could connect back to the ring road (A518 Chell Road) on an

alignment parallel with Doxey Road.

6.3.5 Rickerscote Park & Ride

The Borough Local Plan 2001 housing proposal HP3 includes reservation of an area for a

potential Park & Ride at Rickerscote, off the A449. The site is not operational at present,

but if constructed, buses would route via the A449 to Stafford town centre. This proposal is

not mentioned in the Staffordshire Provisional Local Transport Plan 2006-2011.

6.3.6 Cycle Network Improvements

Staffordshire County Council is currently considering the development of a National Cycling

Demonstration Town Project for Stafford for incorporation in the Final LTP. The estimated

cost would be around £4 million. It is likely that Staffordshire County Council would require

any highway or footbridges removed as part of the Stafford remodelling to be replaced by

cycle and pedestrian bridges.

6.4 Traffic and Transportation Issues – Rural Staffordshire

6.4.1 Highway Network - Rural Staffordshire

Key routes are as follows:




• The M6 Motorway;

• Other Primary Routes on the Strategic Network:

• the A34 Stafford-Stone-Stoke;

• the A51 Lichfield-Rugeley-Stone;

• the A513 Rugeley to Stafford;

• the A518 Stafford to Uttoxeter;

• The B5066 Stafford to Meir Heath

• The B5026 Stone to Eccleshall.

The rural area is also crossed by a fine network of minor rural roads and farm accesses.

6.4.2 Role of Highway Routes - Rural Staffordshire

The existing roads potentially affected are:

• Bellamour Lane is a narrow single carriageway road between the A51 at Bishton and

the B5013 near Colton. It currently provides a shortcut between the A51 and B5013,

avoiding Rugeley, although with opening of the Rugeley Eastern Bypass, this role

should diminish. The carriageway is wide enough for two cars to pass, but there is no

centre line. The existing railway bridge over the road imposes a 12.0 ft height restriction

for road traffic, and the carriageway narrows at a blind bend to pass under the railway.

• Bishton Lane is a narrow single track road with restricted forward visibility at bends. It

provides an access from the A51 at Bishton to Moreton Farm and a number of other

farms.

• Tolldish Lane & Moreton Lane are narrow single carriageway roads, which provide the

access from the A51 at Great Haywood to Tolldish and several farms situated to the

north and south of Moreton Lane. Moreton Lane also provides an access to Moreton

Farm from the west.

• Church Lane, Hixon is a single 2-lane carriageway, which provides access to Hixon

from the A51 and Rugeley. (New Road provides the access to Hixon from the A51 and

Stone). Church Lane forms the main north-south road through Hixon and continues

north as Stowe Lane to link to the A518 to Uttoxeter. Church Lane is subject to a

60mph speed limit from the A51 north as far as the access to Hixon Industrial Estate

(some 200m north of the junction with Pasturefields Lane), from where a 30mph limit

applies through the village.

• Pasturefields Lane is a single carriageway road between the A51 and Church Lane,

Hixon. Pasturefields Lane is closed to traffic at the existing Colwich to Stone railway.

Thus, the sole means of vehicular access to the factory units east of the railway is via

Church Lane and the east section of Pasturefields Lane. Some of the factory units are

currently unoccupied.

• The A51 runs along the Trent Valley from Stone to Rugeley and beyond to Lichfield. It

is a Primary Route on the Strategic Road Network and is the responsibility of

Staffordshire County Council. For most of its route, it is a single 2-lane carriageway with

local widening to provide right-turn ghost islands at junctions, but there is a 4km section

of dual 2-lane carriageway between Weston and Sandon.

• The B5066 is a single 2-lane carriageway road which provides a moderately direct route

from Stafford northwards to Sandon on the A51, and beyond to Meir Heath where it

joins the A520 to Leek. The B5066 links several hamlets. The A34 to the west provides

a north-south route of higher standard for longer distance traffic. A significant number of




HGVs carrying quarry products were observed on the B5066 near Sandon, but the local

authority record of pre-operational, operational and non-operational mineral sites in

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent does not list any sites along the B5066 and all mineral

sites nearby could use an alternative route.

• Enson Lane is a single track rural road, which serves farms and isolated properties

along the south edge of the Trent Valley flood plain. Although it forms a link between

the B5066 south of Sandon with the A34 south of Aston-By-Stone, traffic flows are low.

• The A34 is a dual 2-lane carriageway route from Stafford northwards to Stone and

Stoke-on-Trent, running parallel to and on the east side of the M6. It provides an

alternative route for traffic avoiding congestion on the M6 between junctions 14 and 15.

The A34 in Staffordshire was de-trunked and transferred to Staffordshire County

Council in 2002/2003. It remains a Primary Route on the Strategic Road Network. A

60mph speed limit applies between the junction with the A513 and the approach to the

junction with the A51.

• Green Lane and Pirehill Lane form a bridleway linking the minor farm access roads

that run north from Whitgreave and south from Stone. The section of Pirehill Lane

between Stone and North Pirehill Farm is a ‘byway open to all traffic’.

• The M6 is a strategic link to the North West and Scotland from all southern areas of the

country. The motorway in the Stafford area is a dual 3-lane carriageway carrying in

excess of 100,000 vehicles per day, of which approximately 30% are heavy vehicles.

The route carries the highest traffic volumes and percentage of HGVs in the Region.

The M6 is the responsibility of the Highways Agency.

• The B5026 is a single 2-lane carriageway road, which provides one of few east-west

routes to the north and west of Stafford. It is the main route between Stone and

Eccleshall, and is the most direct route from Stone to the A519 and Telford. It provides

the all-purpose highway access to Stafford M6 northbound services, but there is no

access from the B5026 to the M6.

6.5 Highway and Local Transport Proposals - Rural Staffordshire

6.5.1 Data Sources

Published proposals for highway schemes and local transport improvements were reviewed,

to identify possible impacts on or synergy with the proposed railway remodelling. The

following documents were included in the review:

• The West Midlands Regional Transport Strategy, 2004;

• Staffordshire Provisional Local Transport Plan 2006-2011;

• The Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001; and

• The Highways Agency’s Targeted Programme of Improvements.

6.5.2 Highways Agency Targeted Programme of Improvements

Widening of the M6 is proposed between Junctions 11A and 19, for implementation in the

period 2011-2015. Two possible schemes are under consideration:

• Widening the existing M6 to four lanes in each direction;

• A parallel expressway (toll road); comprising two lanes in each direction.

The Highways Agency is currently consulting on the two options. Staffordshire County

Council supports the widening proposal, but not the proposal for the parallel M6

Expressway. If the parallel M6 expressway (toll road) option is taken forward, it is likely that

the alignment of the M6 Expressway would be widely separated (more than 100m) from the




existing M6, in order to avoid the M6 service areas on the northbound and southbound

carriageways. By the time that plans for rail remodelling would be being finalised, the

method and alignment of the M6 improvement scheme should be known, enabling the

widened or additional motorway crossing to be built into the railway design.

There are no other schemes within the Highways Agency Targeted Programme of

Improvements, TPI (as published in February 2006), that would impact on the railway

remodelling or be affected by the remodelling.

6.5.3 Rugeley Eastern Bypass

Work has commenced on construction of single carriageway Rugeley Eastern Bypass,

which is due to be open to traffic by the end of 2007. The bypass includes construction of

two new road-under-rail bridges, but it is not anticipated that these will affect the new

section of railway. When completed, the bypass would provide part of the diversion route via

the A51 and B5013 (skirting around the north side of Rugeley).




7 Initial High-Level Study

This chapter describes how a very wide range of possible solutions were generated and

assessed. The chapter represents the start of the process for option assessment.

7.1 Option Generation Workshop

In order to begin the process of generating the widest possible range of options, a “Blue

Sky” Workshop was held on July 12th, 2006.

The Workshop was attended by a wide range of Network Rail, DfT and Arup specialists. The

Workshop was managed by a facilitator independent of the study team, and it took place at

Arup’s Campus office. The facilitator prepared a free-standing report of the Workshop; the

Workshop report is entitled “W169 Stafford Remodelling Output of Blue Sky Workshop

(W169-222-EG-REP-0050000)”. The report contains the list of attendees, and it was

circulated to ensure they agreed its contents.

Initially, the Workshop heard background information on the business drivers for a scheme.

The key constraints were then identified. The major environmental constraints that may

cause issues were identified as:

• Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and an Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty;

• Flood plains;

• Historic Parks and Gardens;

• Battlefields;

• Listed Buildings;

• The Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area;

• Residential areas with issues of noise, and air quality, especially during

construction.

Other issues identified that may constrain the final route included

• The potential for widening the M6 motorway, or creating a parallel Expressway;

• Topography, especially the higher lying land between the Trent and Sow valleys;

• The need to maintain the existing railway, and to retain its capacity;

• The business need to avoid blockades or four-line blocks;

• Major highways to be kept open at all times except for limited weekends and nights.

• The signalling at Stafford is inflexible and cannot be modified.

• The project will have a funding limit, and must have a satisfactory Business Case.

• The tunnel at Shugborough is a capacity constraint.

The Workshop then went on to draw up a totally unconstrained, judgement-free list of

options for addressing the capacity problem. In total, 34 options (33 infrastructure schemes

and 1 Do-Minimum) were suggested by attendees, and these were captured in descriptive

format by the facilitator.

The Workshop later reviewed each option, and discussed its primary advantages and

disadvantages. The attendees concentrated on the extent to which the option would

address the primary capacity issue at Stafford, rather than being merely “good ideas” which

could be developed independently if they had benefits beyond the immediate project remit.




Following the workshop, Arup undertook some alignment, costing and assessment work to

amplify the attendees’ considerations.

7.2 The Options – Descriptive Title and Key Decision Factors

The full list of options, with their descriptive title and a summary of the key decision factors,

is described below. This report contains notes additional to those recorded as the workshop

to aid clarification and understanding.



Page 31 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Draft 1 17 August 2006

TABLE 7.1: OPTIONS CONSIDERED AT OPTION GENERATION WORKSHOP

Option Title Description and Issues Outcome

0 (Base Case) Renew in Modern

Equivalent Form (MEF)

This is the base case scenario against which other proposals will be

measured. There is a projection of 125% capacity utilisation when the

2008 timetable comes into play.

SSI moved to Stoke Control

Normal possession requirements

TWA powers not required

Not carried forward.

1 Twin Track Underpass at

Stafford

Major disruption to highways (incl A449 road bridge)

Possession hungry (65 long possessions).

Large number of people would be affected

About 14 properties will need to be acquired

About 80 properties would lose gardens

Very low down in the NPV ranking in the previous study.

Does little for London to Crewe journey times and nothing for London to

Manchester journey times.

Does not deal with the problems at Norton Bridge or Colwich.

There would be groundwater issues.

TWA powers required.

Does not deliver the capacity

requirements in its current form, but

needs to be reviewed and carried

forward.

2 Single Track Underpass at

Stafford + flyover at Great

Bridgeford

Major disruption to the highways (incl A449 road bridge)

Possession hungry (75 long possessions).

Large number of people would be affected

About 14 properties will need to be acquired

Very low down in the NPV ranking in the previous study.

Does little for London to Crewe journey times and nothing for London to

Manchester journey times.

Does not deal with the problems at Norton Bridge or Colwich.

Does not deliver the capacity

requirements in its current form, but

needs to be reviewed and carried

forward.




There would be groundwater issues.

A TWO is required.

3 Colwich cut-off and

Northern Bypass

Was not optimised but met the needs of 125mph and 140mph EPS.

Delivers the capacity requirements at Stafford

Modest works to be undertaken to highways

Railway Disruption (28 long possessions, but limited in effect as spread

over a number of locations)

Limited number of people affected with a few properties to be purchased.

Rehanding of Fast and Slow Lines and the transposition of Fast and

Slows could be included in bypass options.

In terms of gradient, the 1:75 proposal does not cause a problem but

1:40 gradient may.

There is a different contracting option (Greenfield working).

There is the least amount of new railway for a green-field route.

There is an additional opportunity to reduce journey times on the

Manchester line.

There is a maintenance advantage of having an alternative route through

Stafford.

Highest NPV of the options that have been looked at to date.

Removes the Colwich junction, maintains the Norton Bridge one but

bypasses it

Would require a junction at Sandon,

Would be visually intrusive, with difficult landscaping issues on the

Colwich Cut-Off section

The railway between Colwich and Great Haywood could be closed.

Could not offer 300kph because of the curvature.

Would offer journey time savings to both Crewe and Manchester,

Would still need to be works at Stafford.

Carried forward to the high-level options

study.

4 “Open Country” routes There are a number of options in this area of Stafford between Stafford Carried forward .




between Stafford and the

Trent Valley corridor

and the Colwich/Stone railway,

There may be a potential issue with installation of a tunnel through the

area as a result of topographical issues.

Assumes it would minimise effects of the major environmental

constraints.

Has advantages for the maintenance of Stafford.

Potential for 300kph.

Would involve an M6 crossing.

5 Routes on the fringe of the

Stafford urban area.

As Option 4 but closer to the urban edge of Stafford. Not really different

in concept from Option 4.

Carried forward.

6 Western Bypass Takes out 1 train /hour and doesn't meet the capacity requirements.

Would be costly in terms of a Cost/Benefit analysis

Close, as it would only address issues on

the Birmingham corridor.

7 Alternative to Option 3, but

still using Route Section 12

Similar to Option 3.

Moved south to minimise the effect on Burston.

Could be a higher speed on RS12.

It may affect more properties.

More bridge works required.

Might enable a flat junction,

Longer than Option 3 so potentially more costly

Carry forward.

8 North East of Sandon Park Should be moved to pass east of Hixon,

It is longer than other routes,

There is no tunnel.

There is less of a gradient.

It could achieve 300kmph,

The route would be lengthier, more

costly and less effective than Route 3

above. Not carried forward.

9 4 tracking through

Shugborough, with

termination at Milford /

Whitehouse Junction.

Uses the existing transport corridor

Offers no speed improvements.

Would be disruptive to the railway.

Does not solve the capacity problem.

Stafford still needs doing.

Take forward, and consider extension

through Stafford to Great Bridgeford, or

to Crewe (see 23 below).




No Manchester or Crewe journey time benefits.

May solve some capacity issues at Norton Bridge / Great Bridgeford.

Could be paired by direction to match TV4

10 North of Rugeley to

Stafford (Link)

There are better journey times.

Would be a high cost.

Would go through Cannock Chase

Still requires works (Options 1 or 2) at Stafford.

Not carried forward in view of ineffective

performance and adverse environmental

impact. .

11 Move starting point of

Colwich Cut-off from

Bishton to Armitage.

Adds track mileage.

It would incorporate the junction at Armitage

Would add additional cost with no corresponding benefit

Not carried forward as it would simply

add cost with no corresponding benefit,

and with adverse environmental effects.

12 Move starting point of

Colwich cut-off towards

Rugeley.

There may be advantages to moving the junction from Bishton closer to

Rugeley in order to incorporate a revised Rugeley North Junction.

Take forward.

13 Elevated Structure through

Stafford (similar to Ashford,

Kent on CTRL)

Would be too high to go above the road crossings over the existing

railway in the station area.

The construction would be notably difficult whilst maintaining a running

railway.

It could be an expensive engineering option

It would be very environmentally intrusive

Not carried forward in view of the scale

of disruption to rail operations during

construction, the visual effects and the

disruption to road traffic. It would be very

costly.

14 Move Stafford Station to

the Great Bridgeford /

Creswell area and remove

the existing route through

the Shugborough area.

Would be politically very sensitive when people are being encouraged to

walk/use public transport rather than driving to an out of town station.

There would be increased road traffic

Not driven by any operational requirement

Probably still requires a local station

Not carried forward. There would be no

Stafford to Euston service, except via

Wolverhampton. There would be no rail

access from the Trent Valley stations

such as Lichfield, Rugeley etc to

Stafford.

15 Move the northern

termination of bypass north

from the Badnall Wharf

area.

Provides more of a route for no purpose.

Would be more costly for no benefit

Not carried forward as it would simply

add cost with no corresponding benefit,

and with adverse environmental effects.




16 Build a chord South of

Stone to Mill Meece

There are too many houses on this route.

The route is too slow.

The speeds would be below 125mph

Not carried forward as it would not solve

the defined problem.

17 Stone Bypass on the West

side (remove Stone)

including a Norton Bridge

link

Would speed up the Manchester Line.

Would eliminate the railway from Stone.

Would add to the core problem



18 Stone Eastern Bypass to

Whitmore

Would be very long.

The solution would be disproportionate to the problem.

Would be very costly.

There would be topographical issues.



19 Grade separation North of

Stone to Norton Bridge

Is not a solution to the core problem.

It is an extra over cost.



20 Realignment of Stone to

Norton Bridge

Is not a solution to the core problem.

It is an extra over cost.



21 From the “east of Hixon”

route to the north of Stone

and Whitmore as well as

plain lining Stone Junction

This would be very long.

The solution would be disproportionate to the problem.

It would be very costly,

There would be topographical issues



22 Divert freight from WCML

onto the Crewe –

Kidsgrove route and via

Stone to take it out of the

Stafford area.

May help capacity issues between 2008 and 2014.

There needs to be a link with the timetables to check if this solves the

problem at Stafford

Not carried forward into high-level

options report as such, but Network Rail

to address internally.

23 Remodel the existing

corridor from Colwich to

Norton Bridge to “paired by

speed”

This will be covered under Option 9. Covered by Option 9, which was carried

forward.

24 From Bishton to a location Is longer than other options Not carried forward for the reasons




near the M6 at Junction 13,

then follow the M6 corridor

north.

Probably offers no journey time benefits (or even slower)

It is notably more expensive than other options

It crosses Cannock Chase

Causes avoidable environmental effects.

identified.

25 Remove the Midlands

Metro between Bushbury

and Birmingham in order to

use the corridor.

Would be additional mileage between London and Stafford.

Would be increased timescales and costs.

Unlikely to be politically acceptable

Does not resolve the capacity issues at Stafford.

Not carried forward; the idea was

generated only to demonstrate radical

thinking. It would not solve the defined

problem.

26 Southern Stafford Bypass

from Hixon to Penkridge

Does not resolve the capacity issue at Stafford

Is similar to option 24



27 Improve the Cannock to

Rugeley route

Does not resolve the capacity issue at Stafford Not carried forward as it would not solve


28 Use the corridor of the

disused Great Northern

railway from Stafford to

Uttoxeter towards Stone in

order to remove the Norton

Bridge Junction

Does not resolve the capacity issue at Stafford Not carried forward as it would not solve


29 Use Disused route from

Stafford to Newport to

create 6-track route

No speed increase or saving in journey time but potential capacity

increase

Carried forward.

30 6 Tracking from Stafford to

Norton Bridge

No speed increase or saving in journey time but potential capacity

increase

Carried forward.

31 Parallel the M6 corridor

between Penkridge and the

Whitgreave area as a sub

option of Option 24

Takes out 1 train /hour and doesn't meet the capacity requirements.

Would also be costly in terms of cost/Benefit analysis

Not carried forward as it would be only a

very partial and costly solution.

32 Divert the freight out of the

Stafford Area through the

Could offer some capacity benefit Not carried forward into high-level

options report as such, but Network Rail




Stone and Stoke areas. to address internally.

33 Build Colwich Cut-Off and

Great Bridgeford Flyover

but not the Underpass at

Stafford.

Removes the Colwich conflict.

It does not resolve the capacity problem at Stafford.

These options would be component

elements of other options, and are

effectively being studied as incremental

additions.




7.3 Options Carried Forward

The options carried forward are repeated below:

• Option 1 - Twin Track Underpass at Stafford;

• Option 2 - Single Track Underpass at Stafford + flyover at Great Bridgeford;

• Option 3 - Colwich Cut-off and Northern Bypass;

• Option 4 - “Open Country” routes between Stafford and Trent Valley;

• Option 5 – Routes close to the fringe of the Stafford urban area;

• Option 7 - Western Bypass, using Route Section 12 – like Option 3 moved south;

• Option 9 – 4-tracking through Shugborough to Milford / Whitehouse, or extended

north to Great Bridgeford or Crewe as in Option 23;

• Option 12 - Move starting point of Colwich cut-off towards Rugeley;

• Option 22 - Divert freight from WCML onto the Crewe – Kidsgrove route and via

Stone to take it out of the Stafford area (a Network Rail modelling exercise);

• Option 23 - As Option 9 but extended north to Great Bridgeford or Crewe;

• Option 29 - Use the corridor of the disused Stafford to Newport line to connect into

part of Option 6;

• Option 30 - 6-tracking from Stafford to Norton Bridge;

• Option 32 - Divert the freight out of the Stafford Area through the Stone and Stoke

areas.

Options 22 and 32 would not involve infrastructure work, and only required performance

modelling by Network Rail. This report does not therefore develop them further. Also, it was

agreed that the case for Option 12 (moving the starting point of the Colwich Cut-off towards

Rugeley) may be developed later. This left Option 1, Option 2, Option 3, Option 4, Option 5,

Option 7, Option 9 / 23, Option 29 and Option 30.

In general terms, the options fell into three broad groupings:

• Options partially using the existing railway between Hixon and Sandon (the Route

Section 12 section) and partially “green-field” situation – these options were re-

numbered into the “HS” series;

• Options in a wholly “green-field” situation – these options were re-numbered into the

“GF” series.

• Options concentrating on the existing rail corridor from Colwich, through

Shugborough, Stafford and to Norton Bridge – these options were re-numbered into

the “ER” series. In the “ER” series, the existing Stone lines north of Colwich

Junction would remain.

It transpired, during the engineering development of the alignments, particularly in the “”GF”

series, that there could be a “mix and match” between routes, with a route being part of an

initially-conceived route before changing location to adopt the alignment of another route.

During the study, Network Rail’s consideration of performance modelling also suggested

both 2-track and 4-track versions of the “green-field” routes. One bypass was selected for

development as a 4-track option as an incremental tests of costs and effects.




The following chapters therefore make an attempt to describe the logical process for

identifying and naming routes, rather than adhering slavishly to the numbers indicated in

Table 7.1 above.

The map below shows the routes in diagrammatic form.

This section of the report therefore concerns:

• Option HS1. This would run from a junction with WCML near Bishton, include the

Colwich Cut-off, join RS12 at Hixon, leave RS12 at Sandon, and a cross-country

alignment, pass north of the M6 Stafford Services, pass just north of Norton Bridge,

joining the WCML at Badnall Wharf;

• Option HS2. This would run from a junction with WCML near Bishton, include the

Colwich Cut-off, join RS12 at Hixon, leave RS12 at Sandon Park (south of the HS1

junction), and a cross-country alignment, pass south of the M6 Stafford Services,

pass just north of Norton Bridge, joining the WCML at Badnall Wharf;

• Option GF1. This would run from a junction with WCML near Bishton, pass north of

Great Haywood, cross the Trent to the western side of the valley, pass south of

Salt, and south of the M6 Stafford Services (adopting the westerly elements of

HS2);

• Option GF2. This would run from a junction with WCML near Bishton, pass north of

Great Haywood, cross the Trent to pass south of Ingestre, pass south of Hopton,

cross the M6 south of Whitgreave, pass south of Norton Bridge, and join WCML at

Badnall Wharf;




• Option GF3. This would follow the GF2 route as far as Hopton, but then adopt a

more northerly alignment to pass north of Norton Bridge, in an almost identical

position to Option HS1;

• Option GF4. This would be 4-track version of Option GF3. It was not considered at

the Workshop which led to Table 7.1, but emerged following route development and

performance modelling of “bypass” options generally;

• Option ER1 - Twin Track Underpass at Stafford;

• Option ER2 - Single Track Underpass at Stafford plus flyover at Great Bridgeford;

• Option ER3 - Four-tracking in the Shugborough area, adding a second twin-track

tunnel, paired by direction to match TV4. The paired by direction would “unwind” in

the Milford and Whitehouse Junction areas to retain the existing track configuration

between Whitehouse Junction and Stafford station;

• Option ER4 – As ER3 in the Shugborough area but not “unwound” at Whitehouse

Junction. This would extend the paired by direction concept through the Stafford

station area to Great Bridgeford, where a new twin-track grade-separation would

adopt the existing track configuration to Norton Bridge;

• Option ER5 - As ER3 and ER4 but not “unwound” at Great Bridgeford. This would

extend the paired by direction concept through to Crewe, where the existing layout

is so paired;

• Option ER6 – This would be any “GF” option, plus the transposition of Fast and

Slow lines north of Stafford. This would not involve infrastructure changes in the

Milford, Whitehouse or Stafford station areas, but would route the “slow” trains from

Shugborough/Queensville onto the eastern side of Stafford station, allowing the

Birmingham lines to be “fast” towards the western side of the layout. The “un-

transposition” would occur within the Bypass/Badnall Wharf junction, allowing the

Fast and Slow sides to adopt the present configuration north of Badnall Wharf.

• Option ER7 – Provide a six-track railway north of Stafford by placing two tracks on

the corridor of the disused Stafford to Newport line to rejoin the present route south

of Norton Bridge. There would be a grade-separated connection to the Fast lines,

thus providing a non-conflicting move from the Birmingham direction towards

Manchester;

• Option ER8 – Provide a six-track railway north of Stafford by placing two tracks to

the west of the existing four between Stafford station and the Great Bridgeford area,

then providing a grade-separated junction to provide a non-conflicting move from

the Birmingham direction towards Manchester.




8 Assessment Methodology

8.1 Environmental Appraisal Methodology

A standard methodology was favoured for the appraisal of the environmental constraints.

While the Transport Analysis Guidance website (WebTAG) would provide a means for

consistency of appraisal, it would be a rather unwieldy tool for appraising very large

numbers of options. It was also necessary to ensure that the appraisal process would fit

seamlessly with Network Rail’s Guide to Rail Infrastructure Projects (GRIP), ensuring a fit

with the GRIP product steps from pre-feasibility through to option development. It was for

this reason that the Network Rail environmental appraisal/action plan checklist was used in

the initial stages of the study. It was also agreed that the appraisal would focus on high-level

issues, and, while still addressing the issues raised in the WebTAG guidance, it would focus

more on stating the significance and importance of the environmental constraints discovered

by the desk study and investigative work. This would make it easier to take the output of

appraisal through to option development and detailed design (GRIP 2 - 5), and would be in

line with the preferred Network Rail approach.

It was recognised that an appraisal methodology covering both railway and highway

interests would be required, as any rural options would involve “green-field” new

construction more typical of a road scheme than a rail scheme, and also recognising that,

while Network Rail’s GRIP Manuals describe the products to be prepared at each GRIP

stage, they do not provide any guidance on actual methodologies.

The Network Rail Environmental Appraisal/Action Plan provides a checklist to be completed

that is underpinned by the following key steps:

• Identify appropriate GRIP Stage;

• Review environmental constraints/risks from pervious GRIP stage where appropriate;

• Collect relevant environmental data (Marlin, Landmark, MAGIC, etc.);

• Appraise environmental constraints/risks for each option;

• Create action plan to progress issues to next stage;

• Evaluate probability of occurrence for construction/operation;

• Identify specific actions to control, prevent and/or mitigate risks;

• Review Appraisal/Action Plan through GRIP design stages.

In all cases, the appraisal was constrained by the timescale available, but it still followed the

spirit, if not the detailed letter, of the published advice. Some topics (such as journey

ambience) were omitted at this stage, principally because they would not be key, high-level

decision-making variables. Wherever possible, outputs from this study would follow GRIP

principles, and deliverables would seek to follow GRIP templates, despite the appraisal

being conducted at the most strategic level and not providing all the necessary products as

a function of pre-feasibility at GRIP stage 2.

8.2 Tunnelling Issues

8.2.1 Introduction

Some route options may involve tunnelling, so this section explores a few key issues in

relation to tunnel sizing and costs.

8.2.2 Issues Affecting Passengers

When a train enters a tunnel, it induces pressure waves in the air which travel up and down

the tunnel at the speed of sound. These waves pass over the trains causing the air pressure




inside the carriages to fluctuate, potentially resulting in discomfort and even pain in the ears

of the passengers.

The magnitude of these fluctuations is dependent on many parameters, such as those

below, listed in approximate order of decreasing significance:

• Train speed;

• Presence of other trains, their speeds and relative times of entry;

• Blockage ratio (area of train/area of tunnel);

• Pressure relief features such as vent shafts and cross passages;

• Tunnel and train length;

• Ballast / slab tracked and wall roughness;

• Train nose geometry.

The pressure relationship with velocity is a square law. While on existing lines it is often

tunnel aerodynamics which impose limits on line speeds, new tunnels can be constructed

for the desired line speed, taking account of aerodynamic requirements, and issues such as

gauge and clearances. The economics of new tunnel construction though, are such that

very significant savings can be made on the construction cost by minimising the cross

sectional area of the tunnel. Significant reductions can also be made to the required tunnel

area by incorporating vent shafts or cross-passages at appropriate points.

Detailed design iterations would be needed to achieve the required aerodynamic

performance, focussing on:

• The effect of incorporating air shafts to ground level;

• Changing the existing tunnel areas by excavation and track lowering;

• The possibility of including cross-passages for twin-tunnel situations.

8.2.3 Aerodynamic Modelling

Traditional techniques for computing pressure changes experienced by passengers in

tunnels have used 1-Dimensional techniques. For the study of the Welwyn tunnels on the

East Coast Main Line, Arup developed new advanced 3-Dimensional Computational Fluid

Dynamics (CFD) software tools that enabled the extent of these pressure fluctuations to be

predicted and to characterise certain events as trains pass through tunnels. These new

techniques involve a greater depth of investigation, and involved a larger number of

iterations of train combinations and other scenarios. They were an advance on the

methodologies generally used to date. The models were validated by monitoring the

pressures inside the Welwyn South tunnel, and were shown to predict to a high degree of

accuracy the pressure transients induced in tunnels by trains. The results also compare

favourably with results obtained from established modelling methods.

Using these tools, aerodynamic studies were undertaken relating to aural passenger

comfort to establish the free cross-sectional area required. The design pressure change

criterion was adopted as a 4kPa (kilopascals) change in 4 seconds. This criterion in double-

track tunnels (and 2.5kPa in 4 seconds in single track tunnels) have historically been used

in the U.K. These levels are based on extensive pressure chamber tests performed by

British Rail Research in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The comfort level is lower for single track

tunnels as the maximum pressure change is experienced every time the train passes

through the tunnel rather than only when a combination of two trains pass in the tunnels at

one particular point. In practice, a double track tunnel which is compliant with the 4kPa

criterion for two trains will also comply with the 2.5kPa criterion for single trains. Indicative

cross-sections for the new tunnels were developed that satisfied that aerodynamic




constraint, and the implications of these cross sections with regard to clearances, the

provision of safe access were considered.

Actual pressure changes experienced by passengers are very susceptible to speed, but

crucially also to the relative time of entry of two trains in a tunnel, and the exact location on

the train where the critical passenger is located. For many design combinations, only a few

passengers may experience pressure changes in excess of any chosen criterion, but the

majority will be under the threshold value. It is a probabilistic issue, not a “pass or fail” test.

8.2.4 Tunnel Cross-Section

Based on the Welwyn results, a 125mph tunnel for the Stafford scheme would need a “free”

area of about 60sq.m, or about 50sq.m if air-shafts or cross-passages were used. The exact

values would depend on the train types chosen as the “design case”. The larger areas

would accommodate the W18 loading gauge without compromising the potential provision of

emergency walkways etc. The area would meet HMRI dimensional requirements. It is not

likely that the optimum aerodynamic shape would be a circle, but it would more likely be a

flattened ellipse, with a width of about 10m. This was assumed for the Stafford situation,

together with a 10m separation between tunnels for a twin-tunnel scenario.

For 186mph (300kph) operation, data from the Channel Tunnel Rail Link was used, which

again used the computational techniques described above. Again, the optimum

aerodynamic shape would not be circular, but a flattened ellipse with a free area of about

100sq.m giving a 14m width.

Given the sensitivity of pressure changes to quite modest changes in cross-section, there is

considerable scope for optimisation of tunnel cross-sections and a consequential reduction

in capital cost.

8.2.5 Tunnelling Costs

It was assumed that tunnelling costs would be £500 per sq.m giving a cost of £30,000 per

metre run (£30m/km) for a 60sq.m/125mph tunnel, and £50,000 per metre run (£50m/km)

for a 100sq.m/186mph tunnel.

Cost savings could potentially be achieved by the inclusion of airshafts, the cost of each

shaft being approximately £250,000. Any air shafts would introduce some adverse

environmental impact (both visual and audible) especially if they were unavoidably situated

near residential property.

The engineering feasibility of such proposals and the environmental and cost implications

need to be assessed in detail. Fundamental to any decisions are confirmation of the train

types to be considered and the most likely combinations, and the probability of passing

through the tunnel coincidentally. Detailed value engineering and risk assessment would

need to be undertaken in order to enable significant reductions to be made on the

construction costs.

8.3 Costing Methodology

8.3.1 Introduction

For the very initial study (up to March 2006), some route options were developed, and were

costed, using unit rates and calculated quantities, to establish confidence in the magnitude

of cost for the initial conceptual analysis. For this stage of design, there was insufficient

route engineering detail to allow quantities to be derived at the same level of definition. The

detail would be appropriate only to a more “corridor” definition of the alignments.

Nevertheless, it was necessary to maintain consistency with the earlier work.

The unit rates discussed above were therefore used to derive more aggregated rates,

consistent with the quantities available from the current drawings. The costs used previously

were aggregated into fewer major headings, concentrating on the “civil engineering”




elements (particularly earthworks, major structures and tunnels), and “railway” elements

such as track, signalling and OLE.

The rates used in the March 2006 study were largely green-field / Green Zone rates, as they

applied almost wholly to construction remote from the existing railway. For options in the

“ER” series, this would not apply, as these would have a significant amount of working in

difficult and less accessible areas.

8.3.1.1 Permanent Way

The March 2006 work contained a reasonably detailed breakdown on the length of new

track, and counted the numbers of turnouts of different speeds. Allowances were made for

the costs of cess walkways etc. For this work, the total costs from March 2006 were divided

by the number of track-km to give an inclusive rate of £928,885 per track-km.

8.3.1.2 Signalling

In March 2006, Signalled Single-Line Diagrams (SSLDs) were produced for the 3 options

under consideration at that time. The SSLDs allowed a detailed extraction of the total

number of Signalling Equivalent Units (SEU) for each option, which was then costed at an

SEU rate. Changes to interlockings were also included. For this work, it was not necessary

to produce SSLDs. It was therefore decided to divide the previous total costs by the number

of track-km (not route-km) to produce a signalling cost per track-km. The signalling cost

would be an inclusive total of all signalling elements. The quantity measure of track-km was

taken from the track layout drawings. The signalling rate per track-km was £465,818.

8.3.1.3 Electrification

The March 2006 estimates included a specific measure of new support structures (single

track cantilevers, portals etc), together with catenary and contact wire costs per track-km.

Additional costs were included for new feeder stations and AT sites. As with many issues,

electrification design was not undertaken in this high-level study, so the previous total

electrification cost was divided by track-km to derive a cost for this study. The derived rate

was £898,155.

8.3.1.4 Telecomms

The March 2006 estimate included provision for new base stations and trackside

infrastructure. This total was divided by the route kilometrage to derive an inclusive rate per

route-km of £74,885.

8.3.1.5 Utilities

In March 2006, a generalised estimate was made for utilities alterations, making

assumptions about the scale of utilities present in each side road location, or affected by the

main line. This March 2006 total was divided by the route kilometrage to derive a per route-

km cost of £185,166.

8.3.1.6 Civil Engineering

In the March 2006 work, about 75% of the totality of the civil engineering works element was

explained by earthworks operations. It was therefore decided to split the previous costs into

the earthworks elements and aggregate the remaining costs into an overall “per route-km”

basis.

Earthworks quantities were calculated from the drawings. Allowances were made for the

excavation and disposal of contaminated material, and for special ground improvement

measures such as stone columns or soil nailing by inclusion in the aggregated earthworks

rates. The rates used were:

• Cut to Fill: £7.50 / cu.m;

• Cut to dispose: £20.00 / cu.m;

• Imported fill: £25.00 / cu.m.




The following were aggregated into the “route-km” measure:

• Site Clearance;

• Fencing;

• Drainage;

• Highways.

The inclusive rate was £1,130,025 per route-km.

8.3.1.7 Bridges

In the March 2006 work, the total structures cost was the summation of a few, high-cost,

individual structures, together with a modest sum for the host of minor structures such as

accommodation bridges, minor watercourse crossings, and side road bridges. It was

therefore decided, for this study, to undertake specific costings (per metre run) for the

following structures (where applicable on a particular option):

• The M6 Crossing (Jacked Box or Major Overbridge);

• Trent Viaduct;

• Eccleshall Road;

• Badnall Wharf (or similar Northern Junction);

• Meece Brook;

• Any “rail over rail” major structure;

• Colwich Underbridge;

• Retaining Walls.

For the more minor structures, the remaining cost was used to derive a cost of £988,235 per

route-km.

Tunnelling was specifically estimated using a cost figure related to the cross-sectional area

of the tunnel. This rate per square meter was then used to derive tunnel costs for tunnels of

differing diameters (to allow for single or double track, or to estimate the effects of larger

cross-sectional areas needed for higher-speed routes). The cost implication of a change

from 125mph to 186mph was also estimated.

8.3.1.8 Tunnelling

Tunnelling costs were as described above.

8.3.2 Net Construction Cost

The total of the above items was the “Net Construction Cost”:

• Permanent Way

• Signalling

• Electrification

• Telecomms

• Utilities

• Civil Engineering

• Bridges and Tunnels.




8.3.3 Administration and Ancillary Costs

The March 2006 report included other allowances for scheme development costs. The

costing for this report therefore added these as percentage additions over the Net

construction Cost. This report’s costs therefore include:

• General Administration / Scheme Development (13% for design, 20% for signalling

design, 9% testing and commissioning);

• Environmental mitigation: 2%.

The following were not included:

• Possessions costs;

• Land Acquisition costs;

• Network Rail costs.

8.3.4 Total Construction Costs

The total construction cost was the sum of:

• Net Construction Cost;

• Administration and Ancillary Costs.

8.3.5 Risk Allowance

The March 2006 report undertook cost-risk analysis, and the resulting P (mean) figure was

fairly constant at 5.2% of the Total Construction Cost. The figure of 5.2% was then added to

the Total Construction Cost to give the Estimated Total Cost. It must be stressed, therefore,

that the costs as presented include a risk allowance.

8.3.6 Other Exclusions

The estimates did not include for the following, as these valuations were incorporated into

the Business Case model built by the DfT:

• “Optimism Bias”, in accordance with HM Treasury’s “Green Book”;

• Escalation costs for inflation adjustments;

• TOC/FOC compensation, which was valued as “genuine” values of time losses to

passengers, not Schedule 4 compensation values.

8.3.7 Validation of Estimating Procedure

The costs of Option HS1 were checked by taking quantities from the drawings for a

comparable option in the March 2006 report, and then multiplying them out by the

aggregated rates as described above. The total which emerged was within £3m (1%) of the

previous estimate, giving confidence in the estimating procedure.

8.3.8 Price Base

The costs were assumed to be at Q1, 2006. The costs were required at 2002 prices for

input to the Business Case, as this uses 2002 values of time etc in the benefit calculations.

Network Rail / DfT undertook this deflation calculation.

8.3.9 Comparison with Trent Valley 4-Tracking Estimates

The scheme now under construction to widen the railway between Tamworth and Armitage

(known colloquially as “TV4”) has had recent tendered costs for civil engineering elements.

Later tenders will provide data on track, signalling and electrification. This cost data was

used to provide a validation of the methodologies.

8.3.10 Accuracy of Alignments and Corresponding Cost Estimates

For the option development, alignments were prepared on the basis of spot heights in the

ground model at 10m centres, at an accuracy of about ±0.5m. While this accuracy gave a

reasonable ground profile in a gently-sloping field, it was problematic for a discrete




obstruction such as a road, whose level could be identified with considerably less accuracy

than 0.5m. It should therefore be noted that a lateral movement of a centre-line could result

in a noticeable change in the ground profile, and hence the assumed cutting / embankment

heights. In some areas, visual inspection of the surrounding features was such that it could

be possible that taking the vertical profile over a road rather than under it, especially if a

road diversion were needed, might be a more cost-effective solution.

The lateral position of options in the more open country sections was not optimised; efforts

were concentrated in more sensitive areas such as Burston, Pea Hill and certain designated

sites. There remains some way to go on refining alignments in order to avoid individual

property constraints or to minimise impacts on designated environmental sites whose

boundaries are not known with accuracy.

No major attempts were made to optimise earthworks balance, and there remains some

scope for adjustment of those alignments which might emerge from the selection process.

Equally, earthworks quantities and bridging options suggest that costs could move.

It would not be wise to dismiss or retain routes simply because of the impact shown on the

drawings; moving an alignment by 50m could result in cost changes (either positive or

negative).

8.3.11 Network Rail Adjustments

Following Arup’s costing work, Network Rail undertook estimates of the items not included

in Arup’s costs. Also, it is understood that they took a view on risk magnitude. Other

adjustments were made to provide consistency with their Business Case analysis work, and

re-worked figures to fit in with their Control periods for accounting purposes.

It is therefore quite likely that, when comparing cost data from this report and from Network

Rail’s own work, the reader of this report will encounter differing costs, apparently for an

identical scheme. It must be remembered that all the costs in this report are essentially

capital construction costs only, but are consistent in undertaking relative comparisons of

options.




9 Development of the HS Options

The HS1 and HS2 options described above were further developed, and it became clear

that there were more than two possible options within the general concept of the “HS”

series, i.e. those using the existing railway between Hixon and Sandon.

9.1 The Bishton Junction

The study began from a preliminary visual / landscape study of the area to the east of Little

Haywood and Great Haywood. An alignment close to the A51 would be challenging

topographically, probably involving tunnelling works to obtain satisfactory gradients. The

more easterly routes could follow the groundform more naturally, albeit that they would be

longer, though less costly by the avoidance of tunnelling.

The issues about the elongated length of a grade-separated junction were highly relevant in

this locality. It was also necessary to position the junction in relation to existing signal

positions where possible, and to avoid curvature towards the Colwich Junction area.

Vertically, consideration was given to the alignment of the cut-off. If it were to rise almost

immediately following its divergence from the WCML (in order to gain height for the

approaching topography), it would be about 1km northwards before there would be sufficient

vertical clearance to allow a ground-level route to pass under it. This would involve a very

significant diversion of the present WCML Up alignments to pass under the structure, and

their southerly extent would be problematic at Rugeley North Junction. It was therefore

decided to allow the bypass route to remain at ground level, with the Up WCML diverted to

pass over it.

9.2 The Existing Railway – Hixon to Sandon / Stone

There were a number of locations where the “northern bypass / cross-country” element of

the route would diverge from the length of existing railway between Hixon and the Aston-by-

Stone area. The issues influencing the decision on the preferred location are:

• North of the divergence, the bypass would cross the River Trent, its valley, and the

Trent and Mersey Canal, in a potentially difficult location in terms of environmental,

particularly visual, impact;

• In this valley the river meanders, and any structure could have an adverse impact

on water and flooding issues;

• As the existing railway proceeds north, it becomes generally more sinuous,

adversely impacting on the speed potential;

• There are isolated straight sections where a junction could be conveniently located;

• The valley bottom contains the A51, restricting lateral freedom;

• The villages of Salt and Burston are established communities, close to potential

locations;

• The vertical alignment of the bypass, in order to cross the river and canal, would

have to be elevated such that an intrusive structure could result. A corollary of this

is that this elevation would naturally create a grade-separated junction of the bypass

and through alignment towards Manchester.

In the light of these considerations, four junction locations were developed. The options

were:

• Location A - Option HSA – Weston;

• Location B - Option HSB – Sandon Park;




• Location C - Option HSC – Sandon;

• Location D - Option HSD – near Aston-by-Stone.

In geographical order, these options would use increasing lengths of the existing railway

between Hixon and a point near Aston-by-Stone. It was necessary to explore the maximum

speed capability as an input to the route selection process, and to assist in determining

journey time savings for use in the Business Case assessments.

9.3 Junction Layout Sub-options at Each A to D Location

For each of the A to D locations, there were a number of layout configurations based on the

priority afforded to the bypass or Manchester route, and the speeds achievable through the

turnouts off the priority route. In general terms, the alternatives would offer:

• Sub-option 1: a compliant 100mph turnout to Manchester off a straight bypass;

• Sub-option 2: a split 125mph/125mph turnout giving 125mph on both routes;

• Sub-option 3: a 100mph or 125mph turnout to the bypass off a straight Manchester

route.

• Sub-option 4: a non-compliant 125mph turnout off a straight bypass

These options were developed in order to determine the spatial requirements, and also to

determine the vertical alignments needed to allow the bypass alignment to pass over the

Trent and Mersey Canal, the River Trent and its floodplain, and other side roads. In all

cases, the need to cross these obstacles led naturally to the provision of a grade-separated

junction, whereas providing a flat junction would require an artificial lifting of both bypass

and Manchester routes to a common, higher, level. Grade separation was, therefore, the

natural and most cost-effective solution.

Sub-options 1 and 4 were favoured over 2 and 3 as they offer an unrestricted “main line”

towards the bypass, within a compact land requirement, and with lesser interference with

the River Trent and the Trent and Mersey Canal. The distinction between 1 and 4 would be

in respect of the speed towards Manchester, with 1 having a compliant 100mph turnout, and

4 having a non-compliant 125mph capability. The land requirement would be very

comparable. The decision between a compliant 100mph turnout and a non-compliant

125mph turnout can be deferred. While there were slight variations in performance, land-

take and layout, none was such as to require development of all the 1 to 4 sub-options for

all of the locations A to D. It would be possible to future-proof either the 1 or 4 variants by a




modest change in land requirement. At this level of costing, there would be no significant

difference between sub-options.

The remainder of the study therefore assumes a 100mph turnout towards Manchester off a

“straight” bypass alignment, but with that length of straight in the bypass being sufficient to

allow a 125mph turnout to be incorporated later, if and when approved.

9.4 Speed Capability of the Existing Railway: Hixon to Stone

The existing railway between Hixon and Stone is known as Route Section 12 (RS12), a

piece of terminology arising from the West Coast Route Modernisation.

The installed track geometry data from the RS12 upgrade (taken from W142-040-TR-RTE-

489026-A03) was used to establish the start and end of each horizontal element (curve,

straight or transition). The data was used to derive an appropriate maximum potential

design speed for each element. Speed increases were considered by means such as the

lengthening of transitions and slewing of the curved sections. No detailed gauging studies

were undertaken. No vertical curve data was available, but the gradient profiles were such

as to suggest that there would not be any vertical restraint on higher speeds.

This data translated into the following speed capabilities, in relation to the A to D junction

location options.

Table 9.1 presents the results in the Down direction.

TABLE 9.1: EXISTING AND POTENTIAL LINE SPEEDS ON SHARED SECTION OF

ROUTE – DOWN DIRECTION

Location Chainage Existing Speeds Potential Speeds

PS EPS PS EPS

Hixon Junction 210+320 95 125 186 -

211+374 95 125 160 -

Junction Point A 212+360 95 125 160 -

213+209 95 125 140 140

Junction Point B 213+500 95 125 140 140

214+657 95 125 115 140

Junction Point C 215+370 95 125 115 140

Junction Point D 216+860 95 125 115 140

216+904 95 125 115 130

217+049 95 125 105 130

Table 9.2 presents the results in the Up direction.

TABLE 9.2: EXISTING AND POTENTIAL LINE SPEEDS ON SHARED SECTION OF

ROUTE – UP DIRECTION

Location Chainage Existing Speeds Potential Speeds

PS EPS PS EPS

218+276 95 125 105 130

216+904 95 125 115 140




Junction Point D 216+865 95 125 115 140

Junction Point C 215+370 95 125 115 140

214+656 95 125 140 140

Junction Point B 213+500 95 125 140 140

213+206 95 125 160 -

Junction Point A 212+360 95 125 160 -

211+371 95 125 186 -

Hixon Junction 210+320 95 125 186 -

NOTE: Potential speeds assume track realignment within existing railway corridor only. Route can be upgraded to

186mph from Hixon Junction to Junction Point B with works outside the existing railway boundaries.

The above tables demonstrate the gradually decreasing speed capability of RS12 as it

proceeds north.

9.5 The N and S Route Variants

For each of the A, B, C and D locations, the alignment to the north-west could run to the

north or south of Norton Bridge. The route options were therefore given a supplementary

letter (N or S) to denote that choice.

In total, therefore, there were 4 “N” combinations:

• Option HSAN - From Location A to north of Norton Bridge;

• Option HSBN - From Location B to north of Norton Bridge;

• Option HSCN - From Location C to north of Norton Bridge;

• Option HSDN – From Location D to north of Norton Bridge.

These are shown conceptually on the following diagram.

There were four “S” combinations. Preliminary studies were conducted on alignments,

achievable speeds, environmental effects and costs. This work demonstrated the tortuous

nature of Options HSCS and HSDS. These layouts would fail to meet the desired criteria,

and other HS options would always perform better on any or all criteria.

No further consideration was therefore given to Option HSCS and HSDS.

The remaining “S” options were:




• Option HSAS - From Location A to south of Norton Bridge;

• Option HSBS - From Location B to south of Norton Bridge.

These are shown conceptually on the following diagram.

9.6 The HS Options’ Trent Viaduct

For all HS options, a major structure would be needed to cross the valley, the river, and the

canal.

The valley of the River Trent is broad and flat at the point where the route would cross.

Within the flood plain, the river occupies the western side at normal flows and the Trent and

Mersey Canal follows the eastern side. For the purposes of this study, and in the absence of

any more precise information, it was assumed that the canal water level is also the 100 year

flood level and that, in flood conditions, the water extends from the canal to the rising

ground to the West of the River Trent channel. It was also assumed that the Environment

Agency would require at least this length to be unobstructed by earthworks. A multi-span

viaduct was proposed to carry the route across this valley.

The level of the viaduct would be determined by the level of the canal and the assumption of

a standard British Waterways Air Draught of 2.8m. A number of structural forms would be

possible, but there are restrictions on pier spacing etc to satisfactorily straddle obstacles

without unnecessary diversion.

Normally, such a structure would be a push-launched concrete trapezoidal box about 4m

deep over piers at typically 50m centres, but the relatively low height of the crossing might

produce a disproportionately deep deck in relation to the clearance from the ground with

spans of this size.

It was assumed that the viaduct would be a pre-stressed concrete structure of

approximately 3m structural depth with pier supports at approximately 40m intervals. This

span module could conflict with the plan location of at least one of the river, canal or field

access tracks necessitating one or more diversions. The structure concept would possibly

need to include permanent diversions of the canal and the River Trent to avoid the pier

locations. This is considered to be a conservative maximum impact assumption for

estimating purposes and further development of the structure concept, particularly in the

consideration of a different span module is likely to reduce or eliminate this impact.

It might be possible to achieve a shallow arch structure, with perhaps 100m spans, offering

an elegant profile. The piers could be clad to match local materials. The structural depth

could be up to 10m (at the supports), considerably more than a trapezoidal box. If the

obstacle to be crossed occurred near the support, the vertical alignment would need to be




raised by up to 5-6m, somewhat contrary to the need to minimise the visual effects of the

structure. There would be severe knock-on effects on the vertical curvature approaching the

area. Also, if there were a 10m structural depth over an obstacle needing 10m clearance,

the visual impact would be oddly disproportioned; the “Golden Ratio” rule would be notably

broken.

Much more detailed study is needed of a range of structural types, span arrangements,

deck depths and vertical alignments. It is believed, however, that it will be possible to design

an aesthetically-pleasing structure in modern materials.

It was assumed that noise considerations will require of the provision of acoustic screening

close to the major source of noise and so a combined robust kerb and absorptive acoustic

barrier could be included. Additional noise barriers may however be required when more

detailed calculations of noise exposure are performed.

It was assumed that maintenance of a long structure of this form would require a permanent

maintenance access track both at high level and at the river valley level. Maintenance

requirements are likely to be for small tools and light plant at high level and for heavier plant

such as inspection platforms at ground level. The cross section allows for a 2m access track

to both sides of the running tracks on the viaduct and a single 3.6m wide track at the river

valley level. The shadow area of the viaduct would also be hardened using grasscrete or

similar to allow future maintenance plant to operate beneath all parts of the structure. It may

also be necessary to provide additional small bridges crossing the River Trent and the Trent

and Mersey Canal to permit full length access the lower maintenance track. It would also be

prudent to connect the lower track to the longitudinal maintenance access track that is

provided along the remainder of the route.

9.7 HS Options Carried Forward

The short-list of HS options was:

• Option HSAN;

• Option HSBN;

• Option HSCN;

• Option HSDN;

• Option HSAS;

• Option HSBS.




10 Development of the ER Options

10.1 Option ER1 - Twin Track Underpass at Stafford

10.1.1 Layout

Option ER1 would provide a twin-track underpass to carry the Up and Down Birmingham

Fast lines below the Up and Down Trent Valley Slow, south of Stafford Station. This would

bring the Wolverhampton fast service onto the easterly “fast” side of the 4-track railway to

the north of Stafford, and would avoid Virgin Cross-country service from the Wolverhampton

direction towards Manchester having to cross at Doxey Junction.

The underpass would be south of the station, and would deepen to a maximum depth of

eight metres below existing levels, south of the existing A449 Wolverhampton Road bridge.

The underpass would rise to ground level about 300m south of Rickerscote bridge, merging

into the Birmingham Slow lines. The Slow lines would be diverted to the west, to join the

Trent Valley Slow lines at Stafford South Junction. Gradients of about 1:55 to 1:65 would be

required as a result of the need to have all tracks at ground level to the south of the

platforms.

The key structure would be the Wolverhampton Road bridge. It would be demolished to

allow the construction of the underpass, and to give the freedom to place tracks anywhere

below it on either temporary or permanent alignments. A new bridge would first be built

alongside the existing to the north. It would cross the railway corridor at zero skew relative

to the railway and in a single span to provide maximum flexibility for track position. A

realignment of Wolverhampton Road would be needed, involving a demolition of a garage

and petrol filling station, a Public House, and 14 residential properties on the north side of

the railway.

The existing signal boxes would be abolished, with control transferred to a new control

centre. This could be temporary or permanent; the decision would not affect the proposed

scheme. New SSI interlockings would be provided, with their boundaries to suit NR Territory

preferences. It was assumed that it would be necessary to implement bi-directional

signalling on both lines between Stafford and Colwich to provide flexibility for future

maintenance, given the absence of a diversion route under Option ER1.

The construction effects would be sufficiently disruptive as to necessitate the upgrading of

the Walsall to Rugeley route to carry diverted services.

10.1.2 Environmental Effects

10.1.2.1 Noise

There are approximately 2197 properties within 300m of the alignment, although many are

masked from the railway by intervening property.

Construction

With the assumed construction activities, there is likely to be considerable numbers of

receptors that may experience potential adverse noise impacts.

Construction activities would involve day-time, night-time and long-weekend activities with

possession of the WCML during which intensive and heavy engineering activities would be

undertaken. As a consequence, it was considered that these activities could give rise to

noise nuisance which in consequence could give rise to noise abatement action and

possible delays in programme and associated costs.

It was considered that noise mitigation could be provided during the construction period;

however, it was considered that the use of noise barriers was unlikely to mitigate noise

levels sufficiently for night-time possession activities.




Other options that may mitigate noise impacts are provision of noise insulation, temporary

re-housing or compulsory purchase.

It is recommended that detailed noise analysis should be undertaken to identify appropriate

mitigation options to control construction noise prior to undertaking the works, which should

be supported by consultation and close liaison with local authority planning, environmental

health officers and the immediate community.

Operation

The change in train flows (as described in the Functional Specification for the 2008

timetable) was considered using the CRN prediction methodology and based upon the

assumption that no screening would exist between the railway and the nearest properties.

The preliminary assessment identified that an increase in noise levels of 1 dB may be

expected; this was not considered to be significant. There is a need to undertake more

detailed modelling of the effects of the underpass in shielding operational noise, or

potentially generating reflected noise from the underpass walls.

Detailed analysis taking into account screening, topography and any other mitigating

information should be undertaken upon selection of a preferred option.

10.1.2.2 Air Quality

There would be about 1441 properties within 200m. The effect on local air quality is thought

likely to be greatest through the construction phase, particularly dust and fugitive emissions

on residential property properties proximal to construction work.

10.1.2.3 Landscape and Townscape

Option ER1 would lead to increased visual impact within the urban environment; the

underpass would help to improve the situation by removing some trains from view, but large

scale OLE gantries would be a notable disfigurement of the visual scene. The railway

corridor is in close proximity to adjacent properties, both existing and under construction.

Construction activities would also require careful control, particularly night-time possessions.

10.1.2.4 The Heritage of Historic Resources

There would be potential effects on buried archaeological resources should they be present,

resulting from construction activities. The permanent works may give rise to visual effects

on the setting of listed buildings located in the vicinity. The works may also result in effects

on industrial archaeological features associated with the railway. The County SMR includes

a medieval settlement on this route. Details of these archaeological features, including their

extent, cannot be determined in more detail without consulting with the Local Authority.

Archaeological investigation could take a significant period which would need to be

accommodated within the project staging. If the site were identified to be of special

importance, protection of the site could preclude construction of a haul road through this

area.

Archaeological mitigation would include the careful design of construction to avoid (were

practicable) features of importance should they be identified and/or propose a suitable

investigative mitigation.

10.1.2.5 Biodiversity

There may be impacts to the following designated sites of European nature conservation

importance that are located within 10km of this route:

• Cannock Chase SAC 5km to the south-east;

• Chartley Moss (part of the West Midlands Mosses SAC) 10km to the north-east;

and,

• Pasturefields Salt Marsh Special Area of Conservation (SAC) 6km to the north-east.




There may also be impacts to the following designated sites nature conservation importance

that are located within 1km of this route:

• Doxey and Tillington Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI);

• Rowley Grove Site of Biological Interest (SBI); and,

• Hough Drain SBI.

Habitats that may be impacted include:

• a UK BAP priority habitat (floodplain grazing marsh); and,

• seven UK BAP broad habitats (boundary and linear features, built up areas and

gardens, fen, marsh and swamp, neutral grassland, rivers and streams and

standing open water).

Protected or otherwise notable species that may be impacted include: Otter, Water Vole,

White-clawed Crayfish, birds, bats, reptiles, amphibians, fish, invertebrates and plants.

10.1.2.6 The Water Environment

For the water environment, the option may impact two watercourses at the southern end of

the underpass, requiring realignment or culverting that the Environment Agency does not

usually support.

10.1.3 Geotechnical Issues

There was very little information on the likely ground conditions for the underpass, which is

envisaged as a long structure excavated about 8m below existing ground level. Based on

the results of a few boreholes and the information depicted on the geological map, two

alternatives on the expected ground conditions were identified; in both, ground water is

indicated to be high, within 1.0m of surface level. Any cuttings in the superficial deposits are

likely to encountered groundwater, and Alluvial deposits may require 1 in 3 side slopes.

10.1.4 Construction Traffic

A key construction site would be triangle of land between the Queensville curves and the

Birmingham lines. The haul road to this site would need to cross an area of ‘Protected Open

Space’, pass close to a children’s playground and fringe a site listed in the “Sites and

Monuments Record”.

10.1.5 Capital Cost and Incremental Add-Ons

The basic capital cost of the scheme was estimated at £289m.

10.1.6 Option Summary

Environmentally, it would affect significantly more people than any HS or GF option, but

would have a reduced effect on ecological, landscape and heritage resources.

The option was not carried forward.

10.2 Option ER2 - Single Track Underpass at Stafford, Flyover at Great

Bridgeford

10.2.1 Layout

This option would provide a single-track underpass to carry the Up Birmingham Fast lines

below the Down Slow and Down Fast (Trent Valley) lines. The location of the underpass

would be almost identical to that of Option ER1. Down Birmingham services needing to

access the present Down Fast would cross by means of a new flyover near Great

Bridgeford.

The key structures would be the underpass (whose issues would be as in Option ER1), and

the flyover near Great Bridgeford. To minimise the vertical difference between alignments

for the two tracks that cross, a structure form that spans from side to side of the route was




chosen. The structure approaches use reinforced earth type retaining walls either side of the

track to form ramps in the order of 1km long. The location chosen for the crossover structure

would be where an existing farm accommodation structure crosses the WCML, complicating

the structural provisions.

The signalling would include full bi-direction provision on the Up Trent Valley Slow line

between Whitehouse Junction and Stafford, on all lines in Stafford station except the Up

Trent Valley Fast, on all lines except the Up Fast between Stafford station and Doxey

Junction and on the Up and Down Birmingham lines between Stafford station and

Rickerscote Junction.

The OLE implications would be almost identical to Option ER1.

10.2.2 Environmental Effects

10.2.2.1 Noise

There are approximately 2290 properties in the vicinity of this option which may potentially

be affected by noise during construction works.

10.2.2.2 Air Quality

There would be about 1404 properties within 200m of the proposed route. The effect on

local air quality is thought likely to be greatest through the construction phase, particularly

dust and fugitive emissions on residential property properties proximal to construction work.


The effects of Option ER2 would be as for Option ER1, but with additional impact to the

north-west of Stafford, where communities at Great Bridgeford and Seighford may be

affected. The flyover would introduce hard urban elements into the rural setting. This would

need to be addressed during the assessment and scheme design; mitigation in the form of

landscape earthworks and planting could help to reduce the impact, but should be carefully

planned to avoid the mitigation measures themselves becoming visually intrusive.


There would be potential effects on buried archaeological resources should they be present,

resulting from construction activities. The permanent works may give rise to visual effects

on the setting of listed buildings located in the vicinity. The works may also result in effects

on industrial archaeological features associated with the railway. The County SMR includes

a medieval settlement on this route. Details of these archaeological features, including their

extent, cannot be determined in more detail without consulting with the Local Authority.

Archaeological mitigation would include the careful design of construction to avoid (were

practicable) features of importance should they be identified and/or propose a suitable

investigative mitigation.

There is a listed chapel at Creswell. Other listed buildings are also present in the vicinity.

These may, as a result of the permanent works experience adverse impacts to their setting.




• Cannock Chase SAC 5km to the south-east;

• Chartley Moss (part of the West Midlands Mosses SAC) 10km to the north-east;

and,

• Pasturefields Salt Marsh Special Area of Conservation (SAC) 6km to the north-east.

There may also be impacts to the following designated sites nature conservation importance





• Doxey and Tillington Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI);

• Rowley Grove Site of Biological Interest (SBI);

• Hough Drain SBI; and,

• Drakelow Covert SBI.









In terms of the water environment, Option ER2 would be very similar to Option ER1, with the

added effects within the 1 in 100 floodplain of the River Sow and the Doxey and Millian

Brook.

10.2.3 Geotechnical Issues

The southern part of Option ER2 would be virtually identical to Option ER1 in the Stafford

station area. For the underpass, the observations made in respect of Option ER1 would

apply.

The Great Bridgeford flyover would be located within the central part of a cutting up to 6m

deep. There was little/no borehole data to indicate expected ground conditions. Any cuttings

into the superficial deposits are likely to encountered groundwater, and Alluvial deposits

may require 1 in 3 side slopes. The cuttings into the Mercia Mudstone Strata overlain by

gravels are likely to require 1 in 2 side slopes.

10.2.4 Construction Traffic

Construction of the Great Bridgeford Flyover would require a main construction access and

haul road to the A5013 between Great Bridgeford and Cresswell, and a secondary point of

access from the B5405 to the west side of the existing railway.




Environmentally, this option would affect significantly more people than any HS or GF

option, and would affect more people in the Rickerscote area than Option ER1. It would

have a reduced effect on ecological, landscape and heritage resources. There would be

additional effects at Great Bridgeford, and on the Doxey and Tillington Marshes Site of

Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).


10.3 Option ER3 - Four-Tracking Shugborough Tunnel

10.3.1 Layout

The option would extend the track arrangement from Bishton, through Colwich Junction and

on to Shugborough. Colwich Junction would have to be re-modelled to include a six-track

corridor from a new junction some distance to the south. The route towards Stoke and

Manchester would not be grade-separated, but would simply peel off to the north. It would

be preferable to construct the Colwich Cut-Off as a more cost-effective and journey time

saving alternative.




To the west of Colwich Junction, two new tracks would be added to the north of the existing

two, passing over a new structure over the Trent and Mersey Canal. The new bridge would

be clear of the existing structure. West of Meadow Lane, the two new tracks would need to

lie to the south of existing, thereby necessitating a change of side for the widening. A new

bridge would be constructed over Meadow Lane.

The new southerly tracks would pass over the River Trent on a viaduct, clear of the flood

plain. The existing cutting in the Shugborough Park area would be widened to create the

space for the new tracks. A new aqueduct would be needed to carry Cher Brook over the

railway, together with a new bridge to carry the egress from Shugborough Park to the A513.

The route would then enter a new tunnel parallel to, and about 25m from, the existing

tunnel. A 125mph tunnel cross-section would be provided, as the potential for higher line

speeds is modest. The new tunnel would be approximately 700m in length, as is the

existing.

West of the tunnel, the new lines would pass the site of the former Milford Station, and

would remove Milford Junction. It was assumed that the new tracks could pass under the

structure carrying Holdford Road. Further west, the existing railway formation is sufficiently

wide as to accommodate all four running lines.

West of the village of Milford, it would be necessary to construct a new flyover structure to

allow the Up Slow to run over to be the northerly of the four tracks through Shugborough.

This new flyover would lie in open land between Milford and the easterly Stafford suburbs in

the Baswich area. There would be a temporary diversion of the Staffordshire and

Worcestershire Canal to the north. There would also need to be a temporary realignment of

the Slow lines to the south to create construction space. For environmental reasons, a site a

little further west may actually be preferable.

West and north of Whitehouse Junction, there would be no change to the existing railway.

The present layout at Stafford would remain.

10.3.2 Environmental Overview

10.3.2.1 Noise

There are approximately 713 properties located within 300 metres that may be potentially

affected by construction or operation of the route. The majority of these properties are

located within the villages of Walton-on-the-Hill and Milford.

10.3.2.2 Local Air Quality

There are 470 houses within a distance of 200m on either side of the proposed route. The

effect on local air quality is thought likely to be greatest through the construction phase,

particularly dust and fugitive emissions on residential properties proximal to construction

work.


Option ER3 would involve substantial new work within the AONB, in the Shugborough Park

area, leading to landscape/visual impacts from the new cutting and tunnel sections and a

length of new embankment. Near Milford, there would also be visual impact from the new

flyover structures and the associated approach ramps; this would be on the borders of the

AONB and occur in a sensitive location adjacent to the River Sow and the Staffordshire and

Worcestershire Canal.


This option would cross the Trent Valley south of Little Haywood, passing through the

Conservation Area of Colwich and Little Haywood before crossing the Trent River. The route

would also pass close to a number of listed buildings within the village of Colwich.




At the River Trent, the alignment would traverse alluvium and river terraces which have the

potential to contain archaeology and information on palaeo-environmental indicators. The

Trent and Mersey Canal to the west of Colwich is a designated conservation area.

The route would pass underneath Shugborough Park in a tunnel and surface on the

southern side of the River Sow valley where a flyover is proposed comprising a reinforced

earth ramp.

The alignment is within the Conservation Area of Great Haywood and Shugborough. The

Conservation Area also covers the majority of the Grade I Registered Park of Shugborough.

The Park contains a range of listed buildings whose setting would be affected.

Construction may affect archaeology located within the late Glacial River terrace deposits.

Tunnelling may have an impact on the variety of listed buildings and the setting of the

parkland landscape. The cutting required for the tunnel would also have an impact on the

setting for these features and would also increase the potential for the discovery of

archaeological remains.




• Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC) 500m to the south-east;

• Chartley Moss (part of the West Midlands Mosses SAC) 7km to the north-east; and,

• Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC 3km to the north.

There may also be impacts to the following designated sites of nature conservation


• Rawbones Meadow Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

• Baswich Meadows Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).









The route would affect the 1% year floodplain of the River Trent, which extends to the

western bank of the River Trent at this location. There would be a widened embankment

which would impinge on the existing floodplain both in terms of flood conveyance and flood

storage volume. Any loss would need to be compensated for.

The alignment would affect the 1 in 100 year floodplain of the Cher Brook at Shugborough

Park. The brook crosses the existing railway, which is within cutting, via an aqueduct. A

new aqueduct would be required, with potential flooding implications.

West of Shugborough tunnel, the alignment would enter the 1% floodplain of the River Sow.

The alignment would again be on embankment with conveyance and storage issues.

The Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal delineates the edge of the 1% floodplain of the

River Sow but the route would fall predominantly outside the floodplain. The flyover

approach ramp would encroach onto the canal, which would need realigning to the north,




impeding the River Sow floodplain; any lost volume would need to be compensated and

may require considerable mitigation works.

Part of the alignment would pass over a major aquifer, and care would need to be taken in

the construction of any foundations or tunnels, to ensure the aquifer was not affected. This

aquifer was identified at being at risk from diffuse pollution on the EA’s website. Surface

water disposal to ensure water quality is particularly relevant as part of the alignment would

pass through a groundwater protection zone.

10.3.3 Geotechnical Overview

The tunnel at Shugborough through Sherwood Sandstone Strata would most likely be

constructed using a Road Header with a temporary sprayed concrete lining followed with

cast in situ concrete lining; similar to the North Downs tunnel on the CTRL. Due to the short

length of the tunnel, the use of a TBM is unlikely to be cost-effective. The required

separation from the existing tunnel would depend on the details of the ground conditions.

The western section of this option would follow the southern side of the River Sow valley

between Baswich and Milford, where a flyover is proposed. Alluvial deposits and a late

glacial River Terrace deposit will be present overlying Sherwood Sandstone strata.

Any cutting required into the Sherwood Sandstone are likely to be accommodated by 1 in 2.




The layout would not achieve a capacity increase at Stafford Trent Valley Junction, and

would need to be supplemented. Although the basic cost would be £192m, there would

need to be the addition of the Colwich Cut-off (£135m), together with either option Er1 or

ER2 at Stafford Station (£289m or £372m).

There would be major landscape and townscape implications, with substantial work within

AONB, in Shugborough Park and near Milford, on River Sow and on the Staffordshire and

Worcestershire Canal. There would be major effects on the Conservation Area of Colwich

and Little Haywood, Shugborough Park, and the Conservation Area of Great Haywood and

Shugborough. There would be biodiversity impacts on Cannock Chase Special Area of

Conservation (SAC), Rawbones Meadow SSSI and Baswich Meadows SSSI. There would

be water impacts on floodplains and a groundwater protection zone. Environmentally, these

are major adverse issues.


10.4 Option ER4 - Paired by Direction to Great Bridgeford

10.4.1 Layout

Option ER4 would extend the track arrangement of the TV4 Scheme through Stafford, to

Great Bridgeford. The key issue is that this configuration will be a conventional paired-by-

direction scheme with the Fast lines in the centre of the layout. This paired by direction

arrangement would require all Birmingham-bound services to cross both TV Down lines.

The option would be identical to Option ER3 between Colwich Junction and Milford, but

would not require the flyover at Whitehouse Junction. West from Whitehouse Junction, the

existing four lines to Stafford would remain in exactly the same positions, but would be used

differently. At Stafford, this option would include the underpass element of Option ER2. At

Great Bridgeford, there would be a flyover as in Option ER2, but with different tracks being

carried on it.





10.4.2.1 Noise

There are approximately 1075 properties within 300m that may be potentially affected by

construction or operation of the route. These figures do not count property in the Stafford

area where no infrastructure changes are proposed. The majority of the properties are in the

villages of Walton-on-the-Hill and Milford, with a small number near Great Bridgeford.



effect on local air quality is likely to be greatest through the construction phase, particularly

dust and fugitive emissions on residential properties proximal to construction work.


The effects would be as for Option ER2 and ER3.








The implications would be as for Option ER2 and ER3.




This option would achieve a capacity increase at Stafford Trent Valley Junction, but in

environmental terms, it would be comparably poor as Option ER3, with a trade-off of the

Great Bridgeford effects against those at Milford.

This option was not carried further.

10.5 Option ER5 - Paired by Direction to Crewe

10.5.1 Layout

Option ER5 would extend the track arrangement of options ER3 and ER4. It would be

identical to Option ER4 between Colwich Junction and Great Bridgeford, but there would be

no flyover there. The track configuration would be maintained to Crewe, which is already

paired in this configuration. There would, therefore, be a paired-by-direction railway all the

way from Nuneaton to Winsford. There would be no flyovers at Whitehouse Junction or

Great Bridgeford. Between Stafford and Crewe there would be significant railway works to

adapt the present four tracks into their new running arrangements. At Basford Hall, it might

be necessary to construct a grade-separated facility to connect Basford Hall yards with the

Up Slow.


10.5.2.1 Noise

There are approximately 1242 properties within 300 metres that may be potentially affected

by construction or operation of the route.








work.


Option ER5 would involve substantial new work within the AONB, in the Shugborough Park

area, leading to landscape/visual impacts from the new cutting and tunnel sections and a

length of new embankment.


The route would have all the effects of Option ER4, but would avoid those in the Great

Bridgeford area. Further data collection and consultation would be required in order to

ascertain the effects between Great Bridgeford and Crewe.


The route would bring about all the effects associated with Option ER4, but would avoid

those in the Great Bridgeford area. Further data collection and consultation would be

required in order to ascertain the effects between Great Bridgeford and Crewe.


The route would bring about all the effects associated with Option ER4, but would avoid

those in the Great Bridgeford area. Further data collection and consultation would be

required in order to ascertain the effects between Great Bridgeford and Crewe.


No physical works are required for this option over and beyond those described for Options

ER3 and ER4.




This option would appear to have negative performance aspects. It was of high cost, and

environmentally would have the disadvantages of Option ER3, offset by a lesser impact at

Great Bridgeford, but with unknown and possibly notable impacts resulting from the other

infrastructure changes which would be needed to make it a satisfactory operational option.


10.6 Option ER6 – Transposition: Stafford to Badnall Wharf

10.6.1 Introduction to the Concept of Transposition

One of the factors thought likely to benefit performance was the concept of transposition.

If a bypass were constructed, the majority of the remaining trains approaching Stafford from

the Trent Valley direction would be freight or stopping passenger services. These could be

routed almost exclusively to the present Fast lines north of Stafford. Equally, trains from the

Birmingham direction could be routed to the present Slow lines. This would vastly reduce

conflicts at Trent Valley Junction, and would avoid the costly and disruptive impact of

providing grade-separation in this area. Effectively, the layout through Stafford would

become two parallel, two-track railways, with no conflicts.

The schematic below presents transposition in its most simplistic, stylised form.




There would be no track or signalling changes at Stafford; transposition would simply be a

matter of routing. A further benefit would be that this reduction in conflicts could give the

opportunity to simplify the layout to something more appropriate to the residual movements,

possibly in conjunction with re-signalling.

10.6.2 Layout

Option ER6 would be the incremental addition of transposition. There would be no

infrastructure changes in the Milford, Whitehouse or Stafford areas, but these “slow” trains

would be routed onto the easterly lines at Stafford, allowing the Birmingham lines to be

“fast” towards the western side. There would have to be an arrangement of grade-

separation to restore the present track layout north of Badnall Wharf. A bypass junction at

Badnall Wharf would allow this at a marginal incremental cost.


There would be no more environmental effects over and above those described for

whichever bypass layout that Option ER6 was combined with.


There would be no more geotechnical implications over and above those described for

whichever bypass layout that Option ER6 was combined with.


The costs of ER6 are included in the estimates for previous options, except for the costs of

the Slow line upgrade. This was not fully costed.

10.6.6 Operational Performance of Transposition

The key findings (in relation to Option ER6) from operational modelling were that:

• the 2015 timetable would not perform satisfactorily on the existing infrastructure;

• transposition ending within the Badnall Wharf Junction would be ineffective – it

would have to be south of Norton Bridge to be effective;

• satisfactory performance could be achieved by routing Trent Valley freight via

Stafford;

• remodelling Norton Bridge would achieve time savings;

• decisions on the number of freight trains routed via the bypass, or remaining on the

existing route via Stafford, would adjust performance; there was no simple answer

to this conundrum;

• the Wolverhampton to Stafford corridor was not critical to performance.


This option would achieve a simplification of Stafford Trent Valley Junction with capacity

gains. It would be combined with any “bypass” option. Environmentally, there would be no




effect over and above whichever HS or GF option it were combined with. It would, however,

not deliver the expected performance and capacity benefit, as the transposition would be

north of Norton Bridge.


10.7 Option ER7 - Six-track Railway: Stafford to Newport Corridor

10.7.1 Layout

Option ER7 would provide a six-track railway north of Stafford by placing two tracks to the

west of the existing railway between Rickerscote and Stafford. There would be no Trent

Valley Junction. There would be a 40mph curve to take the route onto the Stafford to

Newport rail corridor. The route would require the re-location of “The Way for the

Millennium”, a cycle route network which runs along this corridor. The two new tracks would

then utilise the disused line as far as Burleyfields, at which point they would rise to pass

over the M6 and local rural roads. The route would then turn north to pass east of Seighford,

approaching the existing railway north of the M6, via a pair of 80mph curves. There would

be a flyover at Great Bridgeford to provide a grade-separated route from the Birmingham

direction to the easterly Fast Lines north of Cresswell.


10.7.2.1 Noise



located in Stafford and its outlying villages.


There are about 1533 houses within a distance of 200m but there was insufficient data to

calculate accurately. The effect on local air quality is thought likely to be greatest through

the construction phase, particularly dust and fugitive emissions on residential properties

proximal to construction work.


The urban section’s limited townscape impact would arise mainly from road realignments.

There would be a visually intrusive structure over the M6 Motorway and a flyover at Great

Bridgeford as in Option ER2.


This route would have no known impact on designated features. Further data collection and

consultation would be required in order to ascertain the effect that this alignment would have

on undesignated and as yet unidentified heritage assets.


There may be some effects along the disused rail corridor, but these are unknown. The

effects at Great Bridgeford would be as for Option Er2.


Between Rickerscote and Stafford, any widening would impinge on the existing floodplains.

Near the M6, the route would cross the floodplain of the Doxey Brook. It would then cross

the Millian Brook, but if elevated should be satisfactory to the Environment Agency. The

route passes through a minor aquifer though to be ‘possibly at risk’ from diffuse pollution.

The route does not pass through any groundwater protection zones.


This option would require little or no earthworks either where the alignment would follow the

existing alignment north of Stafford Station or where it would follow the course of the former

Newport Railway railway. The flyover at Great Bridgeford would be as for Option Er2.







This option would provide a major capacity gain and a grade-separated movement for trains

between the Birmingham and Manchester routes. It would however have a serious adverse

effect on journey times on that axis, and would not afford any benefit for the Euston to

Manchester services, unless it were combined with the Colwich Cut-Off. Environmentally, it

would be much preferred over ER3, ER4 and ER5.


10.8 Option ER8 - Six-track Railway: Stafford to Creswell

Option ER8 would provide a six-track railway north of Stafford by placing two tracks to the

west of the existing four between Stafford station and Creswell.

The route would be identical to Option ER7 from the Queensville and Rickerscote directions

to, and through, Stafford station. North of the station, and unlike Option ER7, the new pair of

lines would run alongside the existing four through the Doxey area, and under the M6

Cresswell Viaduct. A flyover south of Great Bridgeford would take the new lines from the

west side of the layout to the east, to provide a grade-separated route for trains from the

Birmingham direction to access the Fast lines in this area.

In addition to this basic option, other schemes could be included as northwards extensions

of the Option ER8 concept. These incremental extras could be a Norton Bridge Cut-Off and

a Norton Bridge Grade-separation. This would allow:

• A simpler Norton Bridge junction, with major capacity gains;

• higher speeds through the simplification at Norton Bridge;

• a possibly environmentally-benign option.

This option could become the basis for a highly effective capacity improvement for all

movements in the Stafford area. Option ER8 was therefore extended in concept to become

Option ER8+; this is described below.

It was also considered that any option comparison must include an improvement to existing

railway infrastructure in the existing rail corridor.

10.9 Option ER8+

10.9.1 Introduction

Along the existing rail corridor, there are capacity problems at:

• Colwich Junction;

• Through Shugborough Tunnel.

• At Whitehouse Junction, where Up Trent Valley Slow services needed to cross

Down Fast services;

• At Stafford;

• Between Great Bridgeford and Norton Bridge, where track occupation was an issue;

• At Norton Bridge where junction margins were a problem;

The infrastructure solutions to the above capacity issues would, respectively, be:

• The Colwich Cut-off;

• 4-tracking through Shugborough Tunnel;




• Whitehouse flyover;

• Six-tracking through Stafford;

• A flyover near Great Bridgeford;

• A 5th track between Great Bridgeford and Norton Bridge.

As described earlier, the Shugborough Tunnel 4-tracking was only marginally effective at

improving capacity, but would incur a high adverse environmental impact, and a high cost.

The other infrastructure elements were therefore added to produce Option ER8+.

10.9.2 Layout

10.9.2.1 Colwich Cut-Off

This part of Option ER8+ would be identical to Options HSAN, HSBN, HSCN and HSDN.

There would be a grade-separated junction near Bishton, and a two-track new length of

railway between there and Hixon. The route would join the existing Colwich - Stone route

immediately south of New Road, and the existing route between Colwich Junction and

Hixon would be abandoned.

10.9.2.2 The Whitehouse Flyover

Shugborough Tunnel would remain unchanged. West of Milford, in the Whitehouse Junction

area, it would be necessary to construct a new flyover and approach retained-fill

embankments to carry the present Up Slow over the Up Fast and Down Fast. This new

flyover would lie in open land between Milford and the easterly Stafford suburbs in the

Baswich area. In order to accommodate the construction of this flyover, there would need to

be a permanent diversion of the Down Slow to the south. The canal would need to be

permanently re-aligned over a length of about 600m.

West and north of Whitehouse Junction, there would be no change to the existing railway as

far as Stafford, and the existing four-track Trent Valley lines round the Queensville curve

would remain.

Construction traffic access would be problematic, with a new access road needed, and

possibly a temporary Bailey bridge to gain access to the island site.

10.9.2.3 Rickerscote to Trent Valley Junction

Over the whole length from Rickerscote and through Stafford, permanent security palisade

fencing would be required for safety reasons in order to fully segregate the work site from

the live railway, with an outer fence as necessary. Two new tracks would be built in a green-

field, Green Zone situation, with simple end-on slews to make the final connections.

At Rickerscote, residential gardens and allotments would be acquired where the new lines

would swing west.

Rowley Grove Bridge would need to be replaced by a steel foot/cycleway bridge which

would be constructed adjacent to the existing on the south side. The new bridge would be a

single span structure to provide maximum flexibility for the works and would connect to the

existing ramps via new approach ramps. At present it is not clear whether the DDA

regulations apply to this structure as the existing ramps are already steeper than the

regulations would permit. If it were decided that the regulations should be applied, then

there would be a need to construct considerably more new ramp than is currently proposed.

The location of the new bridge would inevitably require additional land and it is probable that

two properties would need to be purchased, one on each side of the railway corridor.

10.9.2.4 Trent Valley Junction

In Trent Valley Junction area, the two lines from Birmingham would be slewed to the east to

form a separate twin-track route. Trent Valley Junction would be abolished; the new lines

would run alongside the four tracks to form a six-track route. The base scheme assumes




that it would be possible to signal the new tracks from Stoke Control Centre. There would be

no connections between the Trent Valley and Birmingham lines, with signalling

disconnections only. Should connections be required, it is possible that this could trigger

complete resignalling of Stafford No 4 and No 5 areas.

10.9.2.5 A449 Wolverhampton Road Bridge

At the A449, the two new lines would be located in an independent structure to be jacked

under the southerly approach embankment. They would probably be at a lower level than

existing, but this would be of no implication as the new tracks would not be connected to the

existing layout. The jacking would probably take place over 2 weekend closures of the road.

It is possible that it would be necessary to close the railway during the pushing of the box

underpass.

If the jacked box option were not possible, it would be necessary to consider a realignment

of the A449, with a wholly new structure placed over the railway at about right-angles to the

railway. This would involve, on the northerly side, the demolition of a motorcycle shop, petrol

filling station, a Public House, and 14 residential properties. If required, the new bridge

would be constructed on land to the southwest of the required location. This area is

currently used as sidings for the station area and the extent of p-way in this area would

need to be adjusted to provide the necessary space. Additional land outside of Network Rail

property would also need to be acquired in order to provide sufficient construction space. It

is probable that the new bridge would be constructed on the partially constructed approach

embankment. Once constructed, the new bridge would be launched into position from the

pre-built abutments during a possession. To facilitate the launch a temporary pier may need

to be constructed in the sidings area and a temporary launch nose would need to be fitted to

the front of the structure and dismantled upon landing at the northern abutment.

10.9.2.6 Newport Road

At Newport Road, it would be necessary to close the existing road for about 9 months, in

order to allow the demolition and on-line reconstruction of a replacement highway structure.

It was seen as unlikely that an off-line temporary structure could be constructed, given the

constraints of the site. This closure would cause considerable disruption to Stafford’s traffic

flows.

10.9.2.7 Stafford Station

All six tracks would continue through Stafford station, with Platform 7 being introduced into

public use, and the Birmingham line services being confined to Platforms 6 or 7. Platform 7

(the current Royal Mail platform) would be completely rebuilt with new passenger facilities

and access to the existing station. It is possible that the works to platform 6 could trigger

DDA compliancy works on Platform 5, and possibly throughout the whole station. In the

station area, it is likely that a number of OLE support structures would need to be replaced,

as existing supports would be affected by the works. This would require all-line blocks to

install the new supports, and to re-register over existing lines.

10.9.2.8 Castle Street

At Castle Street, the existing road bridge would be demolished, and replaced by a

pedestrian-only structure, with vehicular access to the premises west of the railway being

achieved by the construction of a new connection from the roundabout at Martin Drive.

10.9.2.9 Doxey Road to Cresswell

Doxey Road would be realigned onto a permanent new alignment. This would involve the

demolition of adjacent factory premises.

The new pair of lines would run alongside the existing four through the Doxey area, to the

M6 Cresswell Viaduct. Residential property in the Baxter Green area of Doxey would be

affected. It would be necessary to demolish possibly 6 properties, and a further 10 might




lose a proportion of their gardens, depending on the separation between the existing four

and the proposed two new lines.

The route would be carried over Doxey and Tillington Marsh SSSI on a viaduct, with higher

cost provision to minimise the effects on the SSSI.

10.9.2.10 Cresswell to Great Bridgeford

Just south of M6 Cresswell Viaduct, the new twin-track route would bifurcate to form a 4-

track route to allow the vertical separation of lines needed to create a flyover south of Great

Bridgeford.

At the flyover, it would be necessary to create a diversion of the Up Fast and Down Fast,

slewing them to the east to create working space.

Two of the four lines would run from the west side of the layout to the east, to provide a

grade-separated route for trains from the Birmingham direction to access the Fast lines in

this area. The Down Flyover line would be taken over the Slow lines, and would then

descend on retained fill to merge into the diverted Down Fast. The other two lines would

create a direct connection to the Slow lines, to allow the Birmingham services to run Slow-

line north of Great Bridgeford.

10.9.2.11 Great Bridgeford to Norton Bridge 5Th Track

The Great Bridgeford flyover would carry an Up Birmingham Fast line from a new 5th track

on the east side of the layout, this 5th track would become the Up route from the

Stone/Norton Bridge direction. It would be necessary to demolish the A5013 bridge over the

railway to accommodate the additional track, and a permanent diversion onto a new side

road overbridge would be needed. This would affect perhaps 6 residential properties.

The additional; track would be constructed in Green Zone close to the existing route, so as

to minimise land-take, although some would be required for embankment and cutting

widenings, and the reconstruction of the road overbridge at Little Bridgeford.

The existing Up Fast would become bi-directional between the flyover and Norton Bridge.

Down trains towards Manchester would therefore run bi-directionally on the Up Fast, before

turning towards Stone. This arrangement would allow some parallel moves towards Crewe

and Stone.


10.9.3.1 Noise




Given that the construction of this route option is alongside an existing operational railway

line, some major elements of work would have to be undertaken during night-time

possessions. Undertaking such works during the night-time periods over a sustained period

of time is likely to give rise to adverse noise impacts on the properties located immediately

in the wayside of the route.

The potential increase in rail traffic movements would give rise to a 1dB increase in noise

levels at properties and the change in proximity to properties is unlikely to result in more

than 1-2 dB change in noise levels. Therefore the overall change in operational noise levels

is not anticipated to be of significance.





work.





This option would have a limited impact within the urban section, resulting mainly from the

road realignments required, together with their associated earthworks. Towards Great

Bridgeford there would also be visual impact from the new flyover structures and the

associated approach ramps; this would also occur in a sensitive location adjacent to the

River Sow, but is not close to any designated landscapes.






The most significant implication of this option would be the effect on the Doxey and

Tillington Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which would be directly affected,

and the Rowley Grove Site of Biological Interest (SBI). The crossing of the SSSI at Doxey

would be challenging, but not insurmountable, and there might be significant cost

implications.


As for bio-diversity interests, this option’s major effects would be on the Doxey and Tillington

Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest, which is an area densely populated with land

drains and smaller watercourses. Any widening of the existing rail corridor through this area

would need to be carefully assessed to determine the effect on both the marshes and the

existing drains and watercourses. There may be a significant impact to the protected local

water environment.


This option would require little or no earthworks between Rickerscote and just north of

Stafford Station, but would then cross the Doxey Marshes. There would be some

engineering challenge here, with a variety of treatments which could be adopted to provide

a foundation for the railway consistent with the biodiversity and water environment issues

associated with the Marsh. Founding conditions may be poor, and there may be a

requirement for extensive ground improvement, geotextile solutions, low-level structures, all

with an understanding of settlement and aquatic issues. For costing purposes, it was

assumed that a low-level viaduct structure would be required to preserve watercourse

linkages to the maximum possible extent.

Near Great Bridgeford, the scheme would be as for Option ER2.


The basic capital cost of the scheme was estimated at £197m, but in order to provide

comparable performance, a number of “Add-On” costs should be considered for inclusion.

Some of these would be in the Colwich area in order to provide benefits for London –

Manchester services, or to provide a continuous 4-track route between Colwich and

Stafford. These are Whitehouse Flyover (£192m), Colwich Cut-off (£135m) and Stafford

Resignalling or Remodelling (£53m to £100m). The total cost could therefore be in the order

of £577m - £624m, considerably more than a bypass solution.

10.9.6 Capacity and Performance

The key findings from operational modelling (in relation to Option ER8+) were that:

• the 2015 timetable would not perform satisfactorily on the existing infrastructure;

• remodelling Norton Bridge would achieve time savings;

• Option ER8+ needs to include all the infrastructure elements defined.




• Option ER8+ would have no realistic flexibility to cater for further growth; it would be

very difficult to further enhance it, unlike a bypass option where additional facilities

could be added;

• the Wolverhampton to Stafford corridor was not critical to performance;

• relief of Colwich Junction is required, as there is a residual high Up usage through

Shugborough Tunnel;

• Colwich Cut-Off was essential.


This option would provide a major capacity gain, but at high cost, and with some significant

environmental effects.

It was carried forward.

10.10 The ER Options Carried Forward

The short-list of ER options was:

• Option ER8+.




11 Development of the GF Options

11.1 Option GF1 – Salt / North of Norton Bridge

11.1.1 Description

Option GF1 would run from Bishton to a point near Moreton Farm and pass south of

Tithebarn Farm. A junction would be provided to the Manchester route. The existing route

between Colwich Junction and the new Hixon Junction would be abandoned. The route

would cross the A51, the existing Colwich – Stone railway, the River Trent and the Trent

and Mersey Canal on an elevated structure. The route would then run parallel to the River

Trent, on its south-westerly side. It would enter Weston Hall Tunnel to pass below the A518.

It would run to the west of Salt, a village some 200-400m to the north. West of Salt, the

route would enter Sandon Bank tunnel to pass below the B5066. The route would then rise

towards the A34 area near Yarlet Hall. It would pass over the M6 well south of the

southbound Stafford MSA. It would continue to fall towards Norton Bridge. It would join the

existing railway at Badnall Wharf.


11.1.2.1 Noise

There are approximately 135 houses within 300 metres which could be affected by noise or

vibration as a consequence of the construction and operation of this route option in the

absence of mitigation.



effect on local air quality is likely to be greatest through the construction phase.


The option would pass through undulating landscape topography and result in a series of

cuttings and embankments. The impact could be partially reduced by careful detailed

alignment to avoid the replanted ancient woodland and by careful mitigation, comprising

both earthworks and planting. It would have a greater impact on the Special Landscape

Area, an interface with the River Trent which would cause adverse impact, and pass

through or close to more areas of woodland.


This route would have direct or indirect effects on:

• the Conservation Area for Colwich and Little Haywood;

• the Conservation Area of Great Haywood and Shugborough, Grade II listed

buildings and the grade I Registered Park of Shugborough.

• the Trent Valley’s intensive archaeological activity;

• the Pasturefields Special Area of Conservation;

• the Ingestre Conservation Area;

• Weston Hall, a nationally significant grade II* listed Jacobean house, with the tunnel

portal having an adverse affect due to the vibration;

• the registered battlefield of Hopton Heath;

• Sandon Hall and Park, a grade II registered parkland including a number of

associated listed buildings;

• Salt, which contains a Grade II listed church;

• a concentration of sites around Yarlet Hall near the A34;




• the M6 motorway, where a number of archaeological sites have been recorded;

• Meece Brook, where archaeological and geo-archaeological material will be

present.


There may be impacts to the following sites of European nature conservation importance


• Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC) 2km to the south-west;

• Chartley Moss (part of the West Midlands Mosses SAC) 4km to the north-east; and,

• Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC 200m to the north.



• Bishton Site of Biological Interest (SBI);

• Higher Coley Farm SBI;

• Shirleywichfields and Canal SBI;

• Lambert’s Coppice Ancient Woodland;

• Maggies Ditch SBI;

• Flute Meadows SBI;

• Maggies Fields SBI;

• New Plantation SBI;

• Whitegreave Wood SBI;

• Shallowford Gorse SBI;

• Meece Brook SBI; and,

• Yarnfield SBI.









This option would affect:

• the 1% floodplain of the River Trent;

• the 1% floodplain of the Meece Brook and its tributaries;

• a number of smaller watercourses and land drains;

• minor and major aquifers in the corridors of the River Trent and Meece Brook and

the major aquifer to the northeast of Stafford.

No part of this option passes through any groundwater protection zones.





Initial costing (excluding scheme preparation etc) was estimated at £517m. In order to

provide comparable functionality, a number of “Add-On” costs should be considered for

inclusion. These are:

• Badnall Wharf 4-track: £20m

• Norton Bridge Cut-Off: £64m

• Norton Bridge Grade-separation: £40m

• Stafford Resignalling: £53m or Stafford Remodelling: £100m

11.1.4 Summary

Overall, GF1 was not only the worst-performing of the GF series, but is arguably the poorest

of all the options considered. It was not carried further.

11.2 Option GF2 – Ingestre/Hopton/South of Norton Bridge

11.2.1 Description

Option GF2 would adopt the Option GF1 alignment from Bishton to the Trent Crossing. The

route would then rise through the southern extremity of Ingestre Golf Course. It could enter

a Hanyards Tunnel and then pass over the A518 near Stafford Lodge. It would enter

Beacon Hill Tunnel, and pass south of Hopton. It would cross the B5066, and then pass

immediately north of the RAF Fuel Depot and south of Newbuildings Farm. It would involve

the demolition of Marstongate Farm. It would pass under the A34 just north of Redhill Farm.

It would rise to pass over the M6 south of Whitgreave, before falling to cross over the Little

Bridgeford to Shallowford road and the WCML south of Shallowford (and hence south of

Norton Bridge). It could involve the demolition of Scamnell Farm, before re-joining the

existing WCML near Baden Hall.


11.2.2.1 Noise

There would be approximately 162 properties located within 300 metres that may potentially

be affected by noise or vibration through the construction and / or operation of this route.

11.2.3 Local Air Quality


effect on air quality would be greatest through the construction phase.

11.2.4 Landscape and Townscape

Option GF2 would be comparable to GF1, but would have a shorter interface with the River

Trent and would avoid the Special Landscape Area and AONB. It would pass close to

slightly more residential areas, potentially leading to greater visual impact.

11.2.5 The Heritage of Historic Resources

The route could affect:


• the Conservation Area of Great Haywood and Shugborough;

• Shugborough Park;

• the Trent Valley’s archaeological remains;

• the Pasturefields Special Area of Conservation (but not to the degree of Option

GF1);

• the small Conservation Area of Tixall;

• Ingestre and the Conservation Area.




• Marston Brook’s preserved archaeological remains;

• the Conservation Area of Chebsey;

• Meece Brook’s archaeological and geo-archaeological material.

11.2.6 Biodiversity



• Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC) 2.5km to the south-west;

• Chartley Moss (part of the West Midlands Mosses SAC) 4.5km to the north; and,

• Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC 1.5km to the north.





• Tixall Park Pool SBI;


• Hopton Pools SBI;

• Yelds Rough Ancient Woodland;

• Drumble Wood Ancient Woodland; and,

• Meece Brook SBI.








11.2.7 The Water Environment


• the 1% flood plains of the River Trent;

• the 1% flood plain of the Meece Brook and its tributaries;

• the River Trent west of Great Haywood, but the perpendicular crossing is likely to

be preferred by the Environment Agency to an oblique crossing;

• a number of land drains and other smaller watercourses;

• minor and major aquifers;

• groundwater identified as being ‘possibly at risk’ from diffuse pollution.

No part of this option would pass through any groundwater protection zones.


The basic capital cost of the scheme was estimated at £510m. In order to provide

comparable functionality, a number of “Add-On” costs should be considered for inclusion.

These are:







• Stafford Resignalling: £53m or Stafford Remodelling: £100m.


The routeing of Option GF2 would avoid effects at Weston Hall, and minimise effects on the

Trent Valley. Passing south of Norton Bridge would also be preferred on ecological

interests.

Overall, the performance of Option GF2 was better than other GF options.

11.3 Option GF3 – Ingestre/Hopton/North of Norton Bridge

11.3.1 Description

Option GF3 would adopt the Option GF2 alignment from Bishton to the Beacon Hill Tunnel /

Hopton area, but would then adopt a more northerly alignment towards to the Option HS2

route. It would pass north of Whitgreave over the M6, well south of the southbound Stafford

MSA. It would pass north of Greenhill Farm towards Norton Bridge. It would pass through

the southern extremities of the Izaak Walton Golf Club. It would pass over the Norton Bridge

– Stone line and the B5026. It would join the existing railway at Badnall Wharf.


11.3.2.1 Noise

There are approximately 175 properties located within 300 metres of this route option that

may be expected to experience a significant increase in noise and/or vibration in the

absence of mitigation from both construction and operation of the route.



effect on local air quality is likely to be greatest through the construction phase.


Option GF3 would have similar landscape/townscape impacts as GF2.


The route would have direct or indirect effects similar to GF2, but would avoid the Chebsey

conservation Area.


The effects would be as for GF2 as far Hopton Pools SBI, but would then affect:

• New Plantation SBI;

• Whitegreave Wood SBI;

• Shallowford Gorse SBI;

• Meece Brook SBI; and,

• Yarnfield SBI.



• the 1% flood plains of the River Trent;

• the 1% flood plain of the Meece Brook and its tributaries;

• the River Trent west of Great Haywood, but the perpendicular crossing is likely to

be preferred by the Environment Agency to an oblique crossing;




• a number of land drains and other smaller watercourses;

• minor and major aquifers;

• groundwater identified as being ‘possibly at risk’ from diffuse pollution.

No part of this option would pass through any groundwater protection zones.

11.3.2.7 Capital Cost and Incremental Add-Ons


comparable functionality to other options, a number of “Add-On” costs should be considered

for inclusion. These are:





11.3.2.8 Option Summary

This option would be comparable to Option GF2, but would not be preferred over an HS

option. The reason for the retention of Option GF2 would be because it would pass south of

Norton Bridge.

There was, therefore, no need to retain option GF3 on the short-list.

11.4 Option GF4 – Four-Track Variant of Option GF3

11.4.1 Description

Option GF4 would be a four-track variant of Option GF3 and would adopt the Option GF3

alignment throughout its length. It was assumed that the tunnelled section sections would

comprise a pair of double-track tunnels, with adequate separation between tunnels

appropriate to the expected ground conditions.

This option was used as an indicative test for the incremental cost of providing a four-track

“bypass” route, but it was not engineered to the same level of definition as other options.

Option GF4 should NOT be regarded as the definitive layout of a four-track bypass route,

nor would the incremental cost necessarily apply to any other “GF” option.


11.4.2.1 Noise

It was assumed that there would be approximately 26 more properties (than Option GF3)

located within 300 metres.


It was assumed that there would be a total of 118 houses within a distance of 200m (an

increase of 26 over Option GF3).


Option GF4 would involve a greater impact than Option GF3 resulting from the generally

larger-scale cuttings and embankments associated with the wider corridor.


There could be a marginally greater impact than Option GF3 as a result of the slightly wider

trace.

11.4.6 Biodiversity

There may be slightly greater impacts than Option GF3.





This option would create a larger impact (than GF3) relating to floodplain compensation

storage volumes resulting from the duplication of the viaduct across the River Trent valley.



comparable functionality to other options, a number of “Add-On” costs should be considered

for inclusion. These are:

• Norton Bridge Cut-Off: £64m;

• Norton Bridge Grade-separation: £40m;



This option would cost £808m (substantially more than GF3) and it would be

environmentally poorer.

It was not carried further.

11.5 GF Options Carried Forward

Of all of the above options, only Option GF2 was carried forwards.




12 The Short-List

12.1 A Reminder of the Short-Listed Options

This section concentrates on only those options which went a good way to meeting Network

Rail’s requirements. The short-list brought forward is repeated below:

• Option HSAN;

• Option HSBN;

• Option HSCN;

• Option HSDN;

• Option HSAS;

• Option HSBS;

• Option ER8+;

• Option GF2.

12.2 Engineering Design Requirements

12.2.1 Grade-Separated Junctions

One of the first issues to be addressed was the physical space requirement for a high-speed

grade-separated junction. Given the design restrictions on gradient of 1:75, and the need to

accommodate approximately 7.0m of vertical clearance at the bridging point, a longitudinal

section was developed using “normal” values for crest and sag curvature. This indicated

that, on level ground, a length of almost exactly 1.0km would be required from the bridging

point to the “last long bearer” of the turnout. A return to ground level would require a total of

about 2.0 km, to bring a new alignment up and over (or down and under) another line. This

proved to be a major constraint on junction location options.

12.2.2 Radii and Speeds

The primary need was to achieve 125mph Permissible Speeds (PS). For some route

options, the alignment avoiding constraints would coincidentally result in reasonably

“straight” routes where speeds in excess of 125mph could be achieved – this was not the

design requirement.

It was decided to use the guidance in RT/CE/S/049, Sheet B2.1, where, for new lines with a

possible speed in excess of 125mph, a maximum applied cant of 130mm should be used,

with a 110mm deficiency. This led to the adoption of a minimum radius of 2000m (in round

terms) for the initial horizontal alignment exercises, with larger radii where possible.

12.2.3 Route Location and Alignment

Each of the selected options was developed on an Ordnance Survey 3-D mapping

background in order to produce centre-line alignments and longitudinal sections. Junction

locations and turnout geometry were not considered in detail, except where these could be

a serious restraint on the horizontal alignment itself.

From these alignments, earthworks were added at a side-slope of 1:2. Where routes might

involve tunnelling, an indicative location of the tunnel portals was developed. Alignments for

major highway diversions were considered in developing the railway alignments. The

location of major structures was considered, particularly viaducts for those route options

involving a Trent Valley crossing.

The combination of alignment and side slopes resulted in a very preliminary indication of

land requirements.




12.2.4 Turnouts

Network Rail specified the need to achieve 125mph speeds through turnouts, but noted that

“J Switches” are currently not approved for use. It was assumed that J-switches or

equivalent would be approved in the necessary timescales; this is a risk issue. Should this

not be true, the option of using “H switches”, with the through and turnout geometry adjusted

to achieve 125mph on both routes, would necessitate the introduction of curvature into

existing straight track, and realignment of “straight” and turnout roads. The effect of using a

“split-equal” H-switch would be swamped by much larger issue of the ”hand” of the junction,

the possibility for a significant move of the route, and the reversal of the grade-separation to

make the bypass the “through” alignment.

12.2.5 Highway Diversions and Geometry

For all options, parameters from Table 3 of TD9/93 (Highway Link Design) of Volume 6 of

the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) were used for new designs. While

DMRB is clearly appropriate for trunk roads and motorways, it was not known if it would be

acceptable for local authority roads, but many highway authorities base their standards on

DMRB. The overall aim was to determine the extent of side road works, for costing

purposes.




13 Appraisal Methodology for the Short-Listed Options

13.1 The Government’s Five Criteria

The short-listed options were appraised on the five criteria used by government to assess

transport projects, using the New Approach to Appraisal (NATA). The five criteria, with their

sub-objectives, are:

• Environment – to protect the built and natural environment:

o To reduce noise;

o To improve local air quality;

o To reduce greenhouse gases;

o To protect and enhance the landscape;

o To protect and enhance the townscape;

o To protect the heritage of historic resources;

o To support biodiversity;

o To protect the water environment;

o To encourage physical fitness;

o To improve the journey ambience.

• Safety - to improve safety:

o To reduce accidents;

o To improve security.

• Economy - to support sustainable economic activity and get good value for money:

o To improve transport economic efficiency;

o To improve reliability;

o To provide beneficial wider economic impacts.

• Accessibility - to improve access to facilities for those without a car and reduce

severance:

o To improve access to the transport system;

o To increase option values;

o To reduce severance.

• Integration - to ensure that all decisions are taken in the context of the

Government’s integrated transport policy:

o To improve transport interchange;

o To integrate transport policy with land-use policy;

o To integrate transport policy with other Government policies.

This report addresses only the following elements:

• Environment – all of the sub-objectives of the environment objective are addressed

by this report;

• Safety – this report does not address safety; this work was undertaken by the DfT;




• Economy – this report provides capital cost information to be used by the DfT in

developing the Business Case (the Economy objective) for the scheme;

• Accessibility – this report addresses the issue of severance;

• Integration – this report addresses transport interchange, and integration of

transport policy with land use policy.

13.2 The Environmental Objective - Appraisal Methodology

13.2.1 Scope and Data

The environmental appraisal was carried out in accordance with the Government’s Web-

Based Transport Analysis Guidance (WebTAG) methodology.

The scope and methodology for the study, and the study area, were defined to contain the

potential options. Environmental data from Network Rail (Marlin) was provided and

disseminated to all environmental specialists. Landmark Envirocheck reports defined by

National Grid Reference (NGR) SJ 9000, 3500 to the north; SK 0800, 1700 to the east; SK

0600, 1700 to the south; and SJ 8200, 3500 to the west, cover the study area for constraints

mapping.

As there was no consultation with statutory bodies or consents authorities, there remains

some uncertainty about the exact boundaries of sites, and the reasons behind the

designations of features of environmental interest.

The environmental appraisal is reported in a supporting Volume which contains the

appraisal of each route option, and its worksheets; the context behind the appraisal score

can be understood. The option appraisal was summarised on individual Option Summary

Appraisal Tables. The aggregated outcomes of the individual appraisals were then carried

forward, with qualitative/quantitative scores of significance, into a single Appraisal Summary

Table (AST).

A TAG appraisal was dependent upon the level of information and data that was readily

available; the appraisal attempted to complete the Appraisal Summary Tables. Where there

was insufficient information/data to complete AST’s for individual sub-objectives, these were

supported by qualitative comments to provide some detail of the current understanding and

the potential impacts.

The methodology is such that, if, in one discipline area, five designated sites are potentially

affected, with four “slight” and one ”moderate” score, the overall score must be described as

“moderate”. Equally, if all five were “moderate”, the resulting appraisal would still be

described as ”moderate”. Professional judgment must be used to identify finer differences

where scores are apparently equal. Also, where there is a lack of data, WebTAG requires a

somewhat pessimistic appraisal score, and this too must be borne in mind when considering

statements about significance.

13.2.2 Noise and Vibration

The noise assessment was undertaken based upon the CRN prediction methodology with

no screening. Based upon initial train service assumptions, it was predicted that noise

levels arising from operation of trains would give rise to noise levels in the region of up to 75

dBLAeq, 18hr at a distance of 100 metres from new sections of alignment. Again based

upon these assumptions, it was also identified that properties would need to be located at

least 1.1km from the alignment to receive noise levels of 55 dBLAeq,18hr and hence not be

of particular significance. The most significant impacts are likely to be within 250m of the

route. This level of 55dB was chosen based on the annoyance response factors defined in

WebTAG unit 3.3.2.

It was considered that noise barriers could be incorporated into the detailed design and

would likely provide sufficient mitigation to reduce impacts to acceptable levels. It is likely




that there would be some isolated properties or properties located very close to the

alignment that may be eligible for noise insulation under the noise insulation regulations,

1996 even with noise barriers, however, it is not expected that many properties would

qualify.

Where the ambient noise is currently controlled by railway noise, the appraisal was

conducted by looking at the change in period noise level (in LAEq units) as a result of the

scheme.

An increase of less than 3dB was not regarded as significant; 3-5dB was rated minor

adverse; 6-10dB moderate adverse; 11-15dB major adverse and more than 15dB severe

adverse. Where the current ambient noise level is controlled by road traffic noise, 3 dB was

added to all these figures.

Where the current ambient is low and variable, as in a rural area away from transport noise

sources, the significance criteria would be subject to threshold values of 50dBLAEq by day

and 45dBLAeq by night, i.e. predicted train noise levels below these threshold values would

be rated insignificant irrespective of ambient noise levels.

Vibration was assessed in terms of absolute levels for potential structural damage and dose

values for human comfort. It was clear that none of the options would be close enough to

any building to trigger such criteria, and vibration was not considered further.

Predictions were made of the noise at each of the chosen receptor locations using the

methodology contained in the Department of Transport memorandum “Calculation of

Railway Noise” HMSO 1995. The train service levels used for these assessments were

derived from the 2008 Functional Specification, with the train allocated to geographical route

sections to obtain a quantum of the train service levels on the bypass, and those remaining

on existing corridors.

The Noise Insulation Regulations require the provision of insulation to properties if noise

levels rise by greater than 1dB(A) and the resulting noise level is above 68dBLeq (day-time)

and 63dBLAeq (night-time). In order to give a measure as to the potential effects, the

number of properties within 300m of the options were calculated. It was recognised it was

not possible to calculate the exact impacts without a full noise measurement survey.

Noise issues were determined in relation to a 300m distance from the route, in accordance

with established guidance.


The effect on local air quality was appraised, and was thought likely to reveal the largest

impacts through construction phases, particularly dust and fugitive emission impacts on

residential property properties in close proximity to construction work.

Operational air quality issues were appraised in relation to the potential for an increased

frequency of diesel-hauled trains close to residential properties and on the overall air quality

objectives for the Stafford Borough.

A review of the Stafford Borough Air Quality report 2005 showed that there are no

anticipated breaches of air quality objectives in the Stafford area, and there has been no

designation of an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), or need to implement an action

plan for criteria pollutants listed in the Air Quality Regulations 2000.

From the operational perspective, the criteria pollutants likely to be under consideration from

the emissions of diesel hauled trains are nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulates (PM10).

Once a preferred option has been selected, a detailed analysis of the scheme would be

undertaken to assess construction and operational impacts. This would minimise the effect

of objections on the scheme and provide the opportunity to identify appropriate mitigation

measures and methodologies to minimise impacts.




Air quality issues were determined in relation to a 200m distance from the route, in

accordance with established guidance.

13.2.4 Greenhouse Gases

The WebTag methodology states that rail source emissions may be scoped out in most

cases. Until greater detail regarding the anticipated volume of rail traffic is available, it will

not be possible to assess any impacts relating to freight traffic. There may be impact from

road traffic on realigned highways, but this data is not fully known at this stage.


The landscape within the study area was reviewed for this stage but not formally assessed.

Site visits were undertaken and the information gathered has been combined with desktop

studies to establish landscape features and topography. Potential visual intrusion and

landscape impacts were assessed in relation to route selection and operational impact.


The appraisal of potential Heritage and Historic Resource constraints was informed by data

from the following sources:

• Landmark Envirocheck;

• MARLIN;

• Images of England Web site;

• MAGIC;

• Stafford Borough County Plan 2001.

A desk study of archaeology and cultural heritage was undertaken. This identified a range of

receptors consisting of Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens, Historic

Battlefield Sites and archaeological sites. A review of the English Heritage website “Images

of England” identified Listed Buildings within the study area, although in some instances it

was not possible to determine their precise location as the detail provided on the Website

was not entirely clear, and the descriptions are generally generic. No consultation was

undertaken with statutory bodies as part of the data collection.

The data collected indicates that there is a range of resources present within the study area

which may be impacted by the proposals. Additionally, it should be noted that whilst the

study has identified resources that may be impacted by the proposals, there is the potential

that previously unidentified archaeological resources will be present. It should be noted that

the impacts will relate to both physical and buried archaeological remains for example, and

to the setting of resources such as parks and gardens which will relate to the operational

phase of the scheme. At this stage it is not possible to determine the effects of the scheme

on such receptors.

The data collected needs to be augmented by consultation with the Local Planning Authority

and English Heritage as appropriate to provide a greater level of detail about the specific

resources identified, as well as, the potential of those areas where resources have not been

identified. This stage would also involve establishing the scope of any fieldwork that may be

required and specifically non-intrusive surveys.

13.2.7 Biodiversity

The appraisal was based on a desk-study within the study area, which involved obtaining

information on ecological receptors (designated nature conservation sites and UK BAP

Priority Habitats) from a range of publicly accessible sources. The following data sources

were used in this appraisal:

• Envirocheck Report

• Network Rail MARLIN database




• MAGIC (Multi-Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside) website

• Nature on the Map (English Nature’s interactive map) website


• Cannock Chase Local Plan 1997


• Doxey and Tillington Marshes SSSI Management Report

There was no consultation with statutory or non-statutory organisations during this

appraisal. The information presented in this appraisal is limited to data that was obtained by

the desk-based study.


The direct and indirect impacts on the water environment were considered in terms of key

constraints.

The data sources used included local knowledge, recent experience on other projects,

Ordnance Survey mapping, internet searches from historical data, freely available

Environment Agency fluvial floodplain data (downloaded from their website), Envirocheck

report and geological mapping. Any lack of information and the ability to obtain and confirm

key water environment data was hampered by the confidential nature of the project scope,

thereby preventing the usual consultation with statutory authorities in order to fully

determine and understand the constraints.

The key water constraints identified thus far were: managing groundwater (quantity and

quality issues); fluvial crossings; floodplain impingement; sewerage severances; and

disposal of surface water runoff (quantity and quality issues). The key water environment

constraints can be expanded as follows:

• Fluvial crossings: from recent project experience, it is anticipated that culverting of

any watercourse or small stream would be strongly resisted by the Environment

Agency, who have a general policy of retaining open watercourses wherever

possible. The Environment Agency may also object to culvert lengthening on

ecological grounds. In addition, all fluvial crossings will require detailed hydraulic

analysis to determine pre and post construction flood risk.

• Fluvial floodplains: again from recent experience, impingement of floodplain

volumes will be of major concern to the Environment Agency. For any floodplain

impingement the provision of compensation storage will be on a volume-for-volume

and level-for-level basis. This will not only affect any embankments required in

floodplain zones, but also likewise the positioning and size of bridge piers and

abutments.

• Groundwater (quantity): dealing with groundwater flows during the construction and

operational phases is likely to be a considerable problem for any option requiring

significant excavation. If such flows are excessive, then extensive temporary and

permanent works will be required.

• Groundwater (quality): both the construction and operational phases are likely to

require significant pollution control measures to prevent contamination of

groundwater, especially in the vicinity of water abstraction boreholes. With the

Water Framework Directive in mind, this will also apply to the control of diffuse

pollution sources.

• Sewerage severances: where the proposed alignment involves significant

excavation, there may be a requirement to reconnect sewerage (or other services

infrastructure) as a result of a permanent severance. The only feasible solution for




a sewerage severance in certain instances would be a pumping station

construction, with both associated capital and operation expenditure costs.

• Disposal of surface water runoff (quantity & quality): recent Network Rail project

experience has highlighted the increasing difficulties in obtaining approved

discharge consents from operating authorities for line side surface water runoff, in

water constraint terms of both quantity and quality. The key stakeholders for future

consultation are likely to be the Environment Agency and the Severn Trent Water.

13.2.9 Planning Policy Context

An initial high level assessment, in terms of relevant planning policy guidance, was

undertaken. The exercise was desk based, and relied on published documents only. Due to

recent changes in the planning system, the policy context is undergoing rapid change. The

relevant planning policy context is set out below.

Appendix A contains a complete listing of all the policy documents of relevance to this study.

The main issues are summarised below.

13.3 The Safety Objective – Appraisal Methodology

This report does not address safety issues.

13.4 The Economy Objective - Appraisal Methodology

Chapter 24 describes the appraisal methodology to determine the costs of the options, and

presents a summary table whereby the individual “building block” elements of cost can be

seen together to give the total cost of the option.

No other elements of the Economy objective were undertaken as part of this study.

13.5 The Accessibility Objective - Appraisal Methodology

The severance effects of each option were appraised by appropriate transport specialists,

who completed an appraisal in line with Government’s Web-Based Transport Analysis

Guidance (WebTAG) methodology.

The accessibility appraisal is reported in a supporting Volume which contains the appraisal

of each route option, and its worksheets; the context behind the appraisal score can be

understood. The option appraisal was summarised on individual Option Summary Appraisal

Tables. The aggregated outcomes of the individual appraisals were then carried forward,

with qualitative/quantitative scores of significance, into a single Appraisal Summary Table

(AST).

13.6 The Integration Objective - Appraisal Methodology

The transport interchange and integration of transport policy with land use policy elements

of the integration objective were appraised by appropriate planning specialists, who

completed an appraisal in line with Government’s Web-Based Transport Analysis Guidance

(WebTAG) methodology. As for other objectives, the integration appraisal is reported in a

supporting Volume which contains the appraisal of each route option, and its worksheets.

13.7 Environmental Reporting

The environmental appraisal is reported in a supporting Volume which contains the

appraisal of each route option, and its worksheets; the context behind the appraisal score

can be understood. The option appraisal was summarised on individual Option Summary

Appraisal Tables. The aggregated outcomes of the individual appraisals were then carried

forward, with qualitative/quantitative scores of significance, into a single Appraisal Summary

Table (AST).




14 Option HSAN

Option HSAN is shown on the plan below.

14.1 Description

14.1.1 Existing Rugeley North Junction and the new Bishton Junction

Consideration was given to combining Rugeley North Junction and the new Bishton

Junction in an overall simplified layout. The constraint was taken as Rugeley Trent Valley

Station, and particularly existing Points 205 which connect the Up and Down Cannock with

the post-TV4 Down Slow immediately north of the station. The layout was then developed in

a northwards direction. It would need to achieve the following attributes:

• An approx 75mph Up ladder from the Up Slow, Up Fast and Up Bypass to and

through points 205 to the Cannock route;

• An approx 75mph Down Fast crossover to the Down Slow south of the Down Fast

to Down Bypass turnout;

• An approx 75mph Down Fast (in bi-directional use) crossover to the Up Fast south

of Bishton Junction;

• An approx 75mph crossover Up Fast to Up Slow south of the above, again to allow

bi-directional moves from the Down Fast to Up Slow;

• As fast a speed as reasonably practical for the Down Bypass, especially at its

turnout with the Down Fast towards Colwich, Shugborough and Stafford;

• 100mph minimum speeds on the Slow Lines;

• 125mph minimum speeds on Fast Lines;

• Retention of the existing Rugeley North Junction ladder until the new facilities were

in place;

• Avoidance of S&C on structures wherever possible;

• Minimisation of signalling changes, especially in respect of longitudinal positioning.

The longitudinal positioning of the 75mph Up ladder north of Points 205 determined the

positions of the remaining crossovers for the Down moves. It proved possible to avoid S&C

on structures.

One of the key determinants of the layout was the need to achieve an unrestricted speed on

the bypass. On the Down Fast, a short right-hand curve was introduced, followed by a




length of straight in order to contain a left-hand 100mph turnout to the Down Fast, which

would be realigned over some length north of the turnout, and would lie north of the present

formation width.

The existing Up Slow and Up Fast would be diverted to the north to create space for the

structure carrying them over the Up and Down Bypass. The realigned Down Fast would lie

between them and the existing formation, which would carry the Down Slow in its present

position.

Overall, it was concluded that Rugeley North Junction would not need to move as a result of

the position of the bypass; it and Bishton Junction could be independent entities; Rugeley

North Junction does not have to be replaced upon completion of a bypass. Equally, there

would be nothing in the location of the bypass to prevent a later upgrading of the ladder to a

75mph layout.

14.1.2 Colwich Cut-Off – Bishton to Hixon

Option HSAN would begin at a grade-separated 125mph junction to the south-east of the

village of Bishton. The existing Up Slow and Up Fast lines from Colwich Junction to Bishton

would be diverted to the north to pass on structure over the bypass alignment; this would

facilitate access to the junction at ground level under the structure. The Up Fast would trail

into the Up Bypass; the Up Slow would run south as the present layout.

A direct connection (an Up Slow Chord) could run from the Up Bypass to the Up Slow. This

would give direct access for an Up Bypass freight train to the Up Slow, to clear the route for

a following Up Bypass passenger routed to the Up Fast. This Up Chord would provide

standage for a 750m length train standing 25m from the protecting signal to the Up Chord /

diverted Up Slow merging turnout.

The Down Slow would continue north-westwards on its existing alignment towards Colwich

Junction. There would be a straight element placed in the Down Bypass to connect to the

present Down Fast towards Colwich, which would be re-aligned over about 1.5km to the

north. Bellamour Lane would not be altered, except for the inclusion of a new bridge to carry

the bypass over the lane.

The new route would rise on a 5m embankment. Subject to detailed landscape assessment

of the whole route, the embankment could be masked by extensive landscaping to raise the

surrounding ground levels, using excess spoil from the cutting, to visually reduce the impact

of the approach to the cutting. The route would enter a deep (up to 15m-17m) cutting,

passing east of Bishton Farm and west of Upper Morton. Access to Upper Morton would be

maintained by a new accommodation bridge. Near the crest of the vertical curve, a new

accommodation bridge would provide access to Lower Swansmoor Farm.

The route would then descend to pass just east of the Sewage Works, and unavoidably

involve the demolition of Grange Hill Farm. It could cross Church Lane at the lane’s present

level, with the road re-aligned to pass over the railway on a new structure. Pasturefields

Lane could possibly be retained and bridged over, or itself diverted into the diverted Church

Lane, with access to industrial premises maintained. The route would pass the western

edge of the village of Hixon, and would join the existing Colwich - Stone route immediately

south of New Road (the one re-aligned to eliminate Hixon Level Crossing).

The existing Down Main between Colwich Junction and Hixon would remain to act as a

freight loop; the Up Main would be abandoned. This would leave only a single-track railway

to the east of Little Haywood and Great Haywood. This remaining single line would trail into

the Down Bypass at a new Hixon Junction.

14.1.3 Hixon to Weston

Between Hixon and Weston, the route would use the existing railway (the RS12 section).




No track alignment, bridges or electrification would be moved. It might be necessary to re-

space signals to match those on the new, adjacent, sections of route, and to allow reduced

headways. There would be no land implications. Speeds would not rise, but there could be

some increase in noise levels as a result of the greater frequency of services.

14.1.4 Weston to Sandon Bank

The option would diverge from the existing Colwich – Stone line just north of the road bridge

carrying the A51 at Weston, at a locality termed Weston Junction. There would be a grade-

separated junction with the bypass as the through route, and links to the Manchester route.

The junction would be followed by a crossing of the Trent and Mersey Canal, and multiple

crossings of the River Trent, on a viaduct of 1490m length, and typically 10m height. This

viaduct would sever the existing minor road and bridge between Salt and the A51, and an

alternative route would need to be found, using the existing local network. North of the

valley crossing, the railway would pass under Sandon Bank in a tunnel of 760m length.

14.1.5 Sandon Bank to north of Norton Bridge

The route would rise on embankment up to 11m height, before passing into cutting to pass

below the A34, a dual carriageway, south of Yarlet School. Some traffic management works

would be needed on the A34. There would be some landscape issues of crossing a ridge-

line associated with this cutting; these could be addressed by the inclusion of a tunnel,

which was costed as a risk issue. If a tunnel were included, the opportunity would be taken

to reduce the height of the 11m embankment to perhaps 5m, again with landscape benefit.

From the summit, the route would then fall to pass south of Elmhurst, and would then pass

over the M6, about 800m south of the southbound-side Stafford Motorway Service Area

(MSA). During construction, traffic management measures would be needed on the M6, with

an overnight closure to allow bridge construction. The potential cost of additional structural

works should an M6 widening proceed were assessed as a risk issue.

West of the M6, the vertical alignment would follow the falling topography in the Greenhill

Farm area, passing to its north on shallow embankment, and crossing watercourses, which

would again be bridged. The route would bifurcate to provide a four-track railway, with fast

lines to the north, and slow lines to the south.

14.1.6 The Northern Junction

Following an initial site inspection, broadly three options for the northern junction presented

themselves:

• At Millmeece. The easterly “swing” of the WCML would allow the Up Bypass to

diverge naturally from the present Up Fast. The “Down” connections would be more

difficult to accommodate geometrically. The new route would have to run alongside

the present WCML in order to pass north of the roundabout at the junction of the

B5026 and the minor road to Coldmeece. This would involve effects on the Golf

Course, would have significant horizontal curvature, and would arguably throw the

route too far north. It would be the most lengthy of the options considered.

• Near Hill Farm on the Sturbridge – Coldmeece road. There is a gap in the Industrial

Estate that could comfortably accommodate the “Up Bypass” but the down

connections would be quite problematic. There are aggregate workings to the east

of the railway which are now ponds to an unknown depth. Any Down alignments

would have a major difficulty avoiding this difficult area. The side road would need

to be re-aligned over about 1.3km to accommodate all the various railway levels in

the flying junction. The bridge to carry the bypass lines would be close to existing

lines, and would probably require extensive masking the bridge

• Near the former Badnall Wharf. The reverse curvature of the WCML would allow a

diversion of the existing Up Fast to the east, and would also allow the construction

of the bridge carrying the Down Bypass over it “in the dry”. The Up Bypass would




adopt a straight alignment, with a 100mph diverging junction towards Stafford on

the Up Fast.

Overall, the Badnall Wharf junction appeared to be the most sensible northern junction.

14.1.7 Norton Bridge to Badnall Wharf

The bypass alignments would pass through the southern extremities of the Izaak Walton

Golf Club, severing some holes; replacement land was identified. The route would pass over

the Norton Bridge - Stone line and the B5026 at a point south of the roundabout at the

B5026/Coldmeece Lane junction south of White House Farm, and carefully selected so as

to allow a simple bridging solution over the road and railway, which are at the same level.

There would be separate structure over a brook tributary of the Meece Brook.

The topography of the hill on which Middle Heamies Farm and Upper Heamies Farm are

situated would allow the route to fringe along the contours, rather than involving substantial

earthworks. The Down Bypass and the Bypass Slow lines would pass over a re-aligned

WCML Up Fast and Down Fast, which would lie in cutting. The diverted lines would run from

the Sturbridge to Coldmeece road at Hill Farm to the B5026 near Norton Bridge, a distance

of about 2.5 km. All lines would pass over the Meece Brook on a series of separate

structures, at a variety of skews, to suit the meandering course of the Brook. This could

require careful environmental treatment.

14.2 Structures

14.2.1 Colwich Cut-off

The existing railway bridge on the WCML where Bellamour Lane crosses the route would

need to be re-decked to provide support to the tracks on their new alignment and grades.

The existing bridge is a series of half-through type decks with tracks supported on way

beams. This is normally necessary where structures have very sub-standard headroom. It

should be considered likely therefore that the local Highway Authority will seek an

improvement in the existing headroom provision if re-decking were carried out. Given the

proximity of the tie-in to the existing WCML, it is unlikely that any improvement to the

existing headroom would be possible unless it was by lowering Bellamour Lane instead.

This would be substantially more expensive than closing Bellamour lane. To carry the

diverted existing Up line, a new structure would be required to cross Bellamour Lane.

To permit the Bypass to depart from the WCML corridor, a new intersection bridge would be

needed to carry the diverted Up lines over the bypass. A two-span, half-through girder

structure was considered in this position. However, due to the high skew of the crossing, the

proposed span is on the extreme limit of economic viability and it may be more prudent to

substitute a reinforced concrete tunnel structure for it during development of the design or to

investigate ways of reducing the high skew of this type of intersection structure. This

structure would be constructed in a green-field site prior to commissioning the Up lines.

Further northwards, a number of minor watercourses, farm access tracks and small lanes

would cross the route, which would be largely in cutting through this area. As all of the route

would be constructed as a green-field site, it is proposed that these structures would be a

series of three-span bridges of similar form and using pre-cast concrete beams for their

superstructures.

The final bridge in this section is Church Lane that would cross the route at high skew south

of the existing industrial area at Hixon. This bridge would be a three-span, pre-cast beam

structure similar to the accommodation bridges but would be somewhat wider because it

would carry the main local road.

14.2.2 Weston Junction

The new Up link would cross the existing WCML at a high skew. The headroom at the

crossing point is limited by the gradients of the bypass and a half-through type structure




would be the most economic form of superstructure for this situation. The span is close to

the limit of economic viability for this form of structure, especially at high skew angles and it

is possible that a truss similar to the Midland Mainline Bridge of CTRL would prove to be a

better solution in the next stage of design development.

Construction access might require that the rail-over-rail bridge is constructed wider than

absolutely necessary for rail use in order to provide a construction access route over the live

railway giving access for the earthworks and viaduct works.

14.2.3 River Trent Viaduct

Issues associated with the Trent Viaduct were discussed in Chapter 9.

14.2.4 Farm Accommodation Bridges

A number of small field access tracks, footpaths and ditches cross the route between

Weston and the M6. Where appropriate the scheme assumes that these would be carried

across the route using a small accommodation or footbridge. Ditches will be incorporated

into the route drainage or will be channelled across the route using a small bridge.

14.2.5 A34 Overbridge

The route would cross the A34 about 7m below its existing level, and it would need to be

bridged under. The horizontal alignment of the existing dual carriageway and the presence

of properties suggests that a temporary diversion could be needed to allow an “on-line”

structure. The structure concept would be a single span integral bridge built in at the

abutments to achieve a “jointless” structure in accordance with current Highway’s Agency

practice.

14.2.6 A34 to M6

A number of farm access tracks, minor roads and ditches cross the route at intervals. The

minor roads and access tracks would be accommodated by the provision of overbridges,

generally along the existing alignment. Ditches would be incorporated into the track

drainage system as necessary.

14.2.7 M6 Crossing

At the point where the bypass would cross the M6, the route would be approximately 7m

below the level of the motorway. Given the strategic importance of the M6 and the large

traffic volumes currently carried, it is proposed that a tunnel would be jacked beneath the

motorway to carry the route. The tunnel has been overwidened to permit the maintenance

access track to continue through this structure as to omit it would mean that maintenance

access to this area would need to be provided from the road network. This may be difficult

as there are few suitable roads in the area.

Given the proximity of the new Stafford Services to both east and west of the M6 it is

considered unlikely that temporary diversions of the M6 to facilitate construction would be

possible.

A new Toll road running parallel to the M6 is under consideration by the Highways Agency.

At this time, the location of this proposed road is unknown, but it is known that where there

are existing services, the new road would be “widely spaced” to avoid the need to

reconstruct service areas. It would seem prudent for this project to make provision for the

construction of the bridge or tunnel that would be needed for the road within the current

project or vice-versa if the Toll road is more procedurally advanced. An allowance has been

made in the estimate for this structure without being specific about its form.

14.2.8 Eccleshall Road

The proposed route would cross the Eccleshall Road and the WCML (Norton Bridge to

Stone branch) just to the North of Meece Brook. In this area, the road and the railway are

close together with a narrow strip of pasture landlocked between them. It was considered at

this stage that a single structure crossing both the highway and the railway would be a more




economic solution than the construction of an isolated section of embankment between two

bridges.

The route would be relatively high in this area relative to existing levels and so it was

considered that a multi-beam deck structure would probably be the most economic bridge

form, particularly as the deck might need to be wider than is usual for a railway structure.

One advantage of using the multi-beam design form would be to allow future track slews to

be undertaken without the need to consider clearances to projecting bridge beams.

The construction of this structure would depend on good access being provided to both

sides of the railway as it would require the construction of piers and abutments to both sides

of the existing Stone line. It was considered that access to the east side of the railway would

need to be provided from Norton Farm which is close to the Izaak Walton Golf Course. It is

expected that temporary traffic management would be needed for erection of bridge beams

and concreting operations on the Eccleshall Road and that two weekend possessions and

several overnight possessions would be required for construction over the railway.

Abutment construction would be carried out with the protection of side screens next to the

railway and a weekend possession would be required for erection and dismantling of these

screens.

14.2.9 Badnall Wharf Area

The new route would connect to the existing route near Badnall Wharf. To facilitate the

construction of the grade-separated junction in this area, the Up line would be diverted

eastward to create an island site within which the junction would be built. The major junction

structure would be a closed concrete box tunnel constructed along the line of the diverted

Up line prior to diversion of traffic. The down bypass line would pass over this structure

before connecting in to the existing down WCML.

North of the tunnel structure, other structures would be needed to cross natural obstacles in

the area, the main obstacle being Meece Brook, which meanders, crossing and re-crossing

the route. No firm decision was taken on whether the brook would be realigned to rationalise

the crossings of the route or whether a number of small span bridges would be constructed

to preserve the current stream course and to provide the maximum opportunities for

illumination of the stream and banks. It was assumed that the earthworks in this area

around Upper Heamies Farm are internally balanced in that the volumes of material

excavated from the cutting areas will be used in the fill areas and any surplus material used

as landscaping material in the area between the tracks. Site access to this area would be

provided by a temporary additional exit from the roundabout at Eccleshall Road.

At the northern tie in to existing, the route would impinge on sand and gravel extraction

sites, now the location of large open water bodies; it was assumed that the ponds would be

in-filled as necessary with free draining materials suitable for placement underwater. It is

possible that retaining structures may be required to minimise the volume of pond that

would be taken. It would be expected that the Environment Agency would provide guidance

on this in the consultation process.

14.3 Signalling

Network Rail advised that the study should include the costs of converting the Colwich

interlocking to SSI in view of the signalling changes brought about, and they further advised

that Rugeley Interlocking should also be replaced with SSI. It was assumed that the new

junction arrangements could not be accommodated without these changes. Network Rail

provided the SEU count for the purposes of estimating. The costs were included in the

estimate.

At Bishton Junction, existing Signals CH105 and CH106 on the future Down Slow and Down

Fast would be moved 225m south to create space for the proposed Down Slow to Down

Fast crossover. This would reduce braking distances from the preceding signals to a tight




margin. Also, Signals CH50 and CH51 on the Up side could be influenced by the proposed

gradients on the horizontally- and vertically-realigned route. The new route would be longer

than the existing straight alignments, but the combination of length and gradient (falling or

rising as the case may be) would leave very little scope in terms of braking distances. More

effort will be needed to establish final gradients and link lengths before definitive statements

on braking distances can be made. It is likely, however, that the imposition of a 120mph limit

would be sufficient to achieve the required braking. The time penalty of 120mph instead of

125mph would be less than 10 seconds.

The Hixon to Sandon Junction route would be converted from 3-aspect to 4-aspect

signalling to improve headways and to avoid a 3-asepct “island”; a transition from 3- to 4-

aspect could be introduced for southbound signals approaching this area.

14.4 Electrification

The majority of the route would need new electrification throughout with modification of the

existing OLE at the interfaces with existing lines. The new OLE would be of the UK1 type

(at 25-0-25kV autotransformer system) to maintain commonality with the rest of the

upgraded equipment on the WCML. This design range would be suitable for speeds up to

140mph. Since this would be a 125mph PS line, the new OLE should be designed with a

constant contact wire height throughout with no reduction in contact wire height, or system

height, at structures crossing over the new lines. Therefore, these new structures would

need to be designed with normal electrical clearances to the OLE at normal contact and

catenary heights, including the negative 25kV feeder running on the outside of the OLE

support structures.

At both Bishton Junction and Badnall Wharf, there would be a need for advance OLE works

ahead of the main infrastructure works to clear structures from the new alignments similar to

those envisaged for the other options discussed previously. Modifications to the existing

OLE at Sandon will also be required to facilitate the new junction.

No additional feeder stations were anticipated for the new bypass since there would be no

net increase in traffic on the route; if there were, then it would affect the whole WCML route

and would require a separate route-wide traction power study. A new autotransformer (AT)

site would be required in the Bishton area on the bypass to maintain the 10km maximum

spacing between AT sites (the adjacent ones being Brereton Feeder Station and Sandon AT

site). The existing AT site at Sandon might require modification to connect the new OLE on

the bypass. No additional autotransformers would be required. An AT connection would be

required at Badnall Wharf and this could be achieved by running feeders in troughing along

the Stone Lines from the point at which the bypass crosses to the nearby Norton Bridge AT

site. This AT site would require modification to facilitate this and again no additional

autotransformers would be required.

14.5 Speeds

This option would achieve the following EPS speeds:

• From Bishton to Hixon: 186mph;

• From Hixon to Junction A location: 186mph dropping to 160mph;

• Through the junction on the bypass alignment: 186mph (not-usable in view of

160mph beforehand);

• To and from Manchester – 100mph;

• Immediately after the junction on the bypass: 186mph;

• Throughout the remainder of the bypass: 186mph.




14.6 Environmental Overview

14.6.1 Noise

Operation

There would be a noise benefit for those properties fronting the existing railway at Great

Haywood, by virtue of the removal of passenger train services. This could produce a

perceptible noise reduction. The use of the line for some northbound freights, at all times of

day and night, would offset this benefit, and might not result in a significant change in the

overall 18hr, dBLAeq level.

There would be approximately 909 people within 300m, who are considered likely to be

exposed to noise levels in excess of 55dBLAeq, 18 hour in the absence of mitigation. It

must be noted that many of these properties are at Weston, and are already within 300m of

the existing railway. Whilst there may be potential impacts identified in this assessment for

the operation of the route it is anticipated that all bar a few isolated properties could be

mitigated through design.

Construction

Construction would affect mainly rural areas through the construction of substantial lengths

of new railway corridor, with major civil engineering works required.

It was considered likely that the vast majority of the new alignment would be constructed in

normal, daytime, working hours, with only limited night working in close proximity to existing

railways. Based upon these assumptions, construction works could be undertaken without

many impacts and that where impacts occur they would be relatively isolated occurrences

that could easily be mitigated against through such measures as noise insulation to provide

relatively unconstrained construction progress.

Should this become the preferred option, detailed analysis would be needed to ascertain

exact mitigation requirements for the construction phase of the works.


There would be approximately 257 residential properties situated within 200m. There may

be a localised deterioration in air quality in areas close to road diversions, for example the

diverted road from the A51 to Salt village across the Trent Valley. The A34 and M6 would be

unaltered. It is expected that there would be a negligible effect on the local air quality.


The Colwich bypass element would cut across the grain of the landscape between Bishton

and Hixon, where the Grange Hill farm south of Hixon would be demolished. The alignment

would cross through the Special Landscape Area (SLA) in the Weston / Sandon Park area

to cross the River Trent flood plain and the Trent and Mersey Canal on a viaduct 1490m x

10m high, at an awkward, oblique angle, close to the village of Salt. The effect on Sandon

Bank, where the route would pass in tunnel, would be limited. The route would enter an 18m

deep cutting beneath the A34 would further limit adverse effects, but a tunnelled alternative

would further reduce visual effects. Further north the route would rise on 11m high

embankment to cross over the M6 motorway. An embankment 8m high over the B5026 to

the north of Norton Bridge would affect the Izaak Walton Golf Club.


There would be impacts to the setting and context of the heritage resource at a number of

points along the route alignment. The Trent and Mersey Canal would be bridged, which may

destroy some part of the heritage structure, and historic field patterns and boundaries would

be severely compromised. These impacts would be permanent, and in most cases unlikely

to be greatly alleviated over time. There is a possibility that as yet unidentified archaeology

could be affected, particularly those that are included on the Local Authority held Sites and




Monuments Record (SMR), which have not been accessed for this WebTAG appraisal. In

summary there would be effects on:

• 3 Conservation Areas;

• 28 Listed Buildings;

• 2 Registered Parks and Gardens;

• 27 SMR features (approximately, within 1km of study area).

14.6.5 Biodiversity

It is likely that there would not be a significant ecological effect on the Special Area of

Conservation (SACs). The route alignment would affect floodplain grazing marsh, lowland

meadow, ancient and/or species-rich hedgerows, broad-leaved/mixed woodland and

rivers/streams. In particular there would be significant ecological effects on Shallowford

Gorse and New Plantation Sites of Biological Interest (SBI). The Trent Valley crossing would

affect lowland grazing marsh which is of high biodiversity value.


The route would have slight adverse impacts on the water attributes because the proposal

may result in a degradation of the water environment. The significant negative impacts

were assessed to be the crossing of the Trent and Mersey Canal, the meander of River

Trent which is crossed three times over a 750m section of the alignment, and the crossing

of the Meece Brook.

14.7 Traffic and Highways Impacts

14.7.1 Bellamour Lane

A new railway bridge over Bellamour Lane would be needed to the east of the existing rail

bridge, and demolition and replacement of the existing rail bridge over Bellamour Lane. This

would require the closure of Bellamour Lane at the site for approximately four months during

the works. This would require the introduction of a temporary road closure and diversion

route via the A51, Rugeley Northern Bypass and B5013. (Rugeley bypass is scheduled for

completion by the end of 2007).

14.7.2 Bishton Lane

Access for heavy farm vehicles from the A51 to Moreton Farm and other properties north of

the new railway would need to be maintained throughout the 2 to 3 month construction

period, and a permanent bridge would need to be provided over the new railway. Heavy

construction plant would not need to use Bishton Lane.

14.7.3 Tolldish Lane & Moreton Lane

Access for heavy farm vehicles from the A51 to these farms would need to be maintained

throughout the construction period, and permanent bridges would need to be provided over

the new railway in the completed scheme.

The new railway would follow, in cutting, the alignment of Moreton Lane between Lower

Swansmoor Farm and Moreton Farm. A new access road would need to be provided to

Moreton Farm during construction and in the completed scheme.

Heavy construction plant would access these sites along the line of the proposed railway,

and would not need to use Tolldish Lane & Moreton Lane.

14.7.4 Church Lane, Hixon

The proposals include an easterly realignment of Church Lane to cross over the new

railway; possibly the railway’s vertical alignment could be raised to allow Church Lane to

remain at broadly ground level.




If diverted, the new Church Lane alignment could achieve a design speed of 85/100kph,

compatible with the existing speed limit of 60mph, except at the northern end of the new

road where it would enter Hixon village. A 50/60kph design speed was used for the bend

where the new road would tie into the existing carriageway, which would act as a traffic

calming device on the immediate approach to the existing 30mph speed limit. It would be

appropriate to seek the agreement of the highway authority to extend the 30mph speed limit

southwards to encompass this feature.

Although the design of the new road would be compatible with the existing 60mph speed

limit, parts of the unaltered alignment of Church Lane near the A51 are substandard.

Furthermore, an existing speed limit of 50mph applies on the A51 through the junction with

Church Lane, and thus it is suggested that the speed limit on Church Lane should be

revised downwards to 50mph from the A51 to the edge of Hixon.

A number of properties are served by the section of existing Church Lane north of the

proposed railway that would be bypassed by the new alignment. The truncated section

would be tied back into the realigned carriageway at a new priority T-junction. The

necessary visibility requirements would be achievable, provided an area north of the road is

adopted as highway verge on the inside of the bend.

The access to the sewage works would need to be modified slightly to tie in to the realigned

Church Lane. Visibility splays of 160m would be achievable at the modified sewage works

access, which would be one step below desirable minimum for the existing 60mph speed

limit on Church Lane and would meet the desirable minimum for the proposed 50mph speed

limit on Church Lane.

During construction of the realigned section of Church Lane, the existing alignment would

remain open. A period would be needed to tie in the new alignment to the existing during

which period, half the carriageway would remain open at all times under alternate one-way

working managed by temporary traffic signals.

14.7.5 Pasturefields Lane

The line would either cross Pasturefields Lane at grade, severing the route onto Church

Lane, Hixon or it could be diverted into Church Lane. This is the sole means of vehicular

access to the highway network for these properties.

A new access would be created by constructing a short highway link between the severed

section of Pasturefields Lane and the existing alignment of Church Lane south of the new

railway. The south end of the new access road would join the realigned section of Church

Lane at a new priority T-junction. Visibility splays of 160m would be achievable, which

would be one step below desirable minimum for the existing 60mph speed limit on Church

Lane and would meet the desirable minimum for the proposed 50mph speed limit on Church

Lane.

14.7.6 Weston / Salt

The existing A51 at Weston would be unaffected. The minor road from Salt village to the

A51 would be severed, with no easy adjacent replacement. Traffic would need to divert over

local roads.

14.7.7 A34

The A34 would be unaffected, as the new line would pass beneath it.

14.7.8 Green Lane and Pirehill Lane

It is likely that an accommodation bridge suitable for farm traffic and equestrian use could

need to be provided during the construction works and in the finalised scheme.

14.7.9 M6 Crossing

This route would pass below the M6 just to the north of the Stafford southbound motorway

service area. The construction of the railway crossing would have no impact on traffic




capacity on the M6 main line, and it is not anticipated that the Highways Agency would

require a temporary speed restriction while works are being undertaken beneath the

motorway.

The proposed construction access from the M6 Stafford South Service Area would require

construction traffic to use the motorway off-slip and on-slip, and to route along the some of

the internal roads within the service area that are used by public traffic. This could result in

very minor delays to the public following slow-moving construction traffic within the internal

roads, but all junctions between construction traffic and public traffic would occur on low

speed sections of the internal roads.

If this rail scheme were to progress, the method and alignment of the M6 improvement

scheme should be known, enabling the widened or additional M6 Expressway crossing to

be built into the railway design. No traffic impact is anticipated.

14.7.10 B5026

Construction of the proposed rail bridge over the B5026 and the WCML Norton Bridge to

Stone branch would require closure of the B5026 for a 48 hour possession to allow works

over the highway. A viable diversion route from Cold Norton to Eccleshall is available via

Meece Lane and the route between Coldmeece and Sturbridge. Both roads exceed 6.0m in

width and currently carry significant HGV flows. Access to properties along the B5026

between Norton Bridge and Eccleshall would be via Eccleshall.

Essential access would be required to the properties along the B5026 between Station

Road and the Meece Road roundabout.

A temporary speed restriction would be implemented during the period of operation of the

signal controlled site access across the B5026, which would be needed to construct the

bridge pier between the B5026 and the existing railway. A temporary speed restriction would

also be required to undertake the concreting work on the bridge deck.

14.8 Implementation Planning and Outline Possession Requirements

14.8.1 Construction and Staging

Option HSAN would be constructed largely remote from the existing railway in genuine

green-field or “Green Zone” conditions.

The summary table below presents the possession requirements. It makes no reference to

the activities that have no impact on the railway, or on the highway.

It was assumed that certain works could be achieved on weekday evenings in preparation of

the activities requiring possessions listed below. There is a remit within Network Rail to

maximise the operational hours of the railway and minimise the maintenance / closed hours.

This may not be possible upon the introduction of Efficient Engineering Access (EEA) in

2008. EEA may require the introduction of bi-directional signalling to facilitate maintenance.

Network Rail were to advise on the changes necessary.

TABLE 14.1: STAGING – HSAN

Location Principal Activities Possession Requirements

“End-on” slews and commissioning of Up TV Fast

and Up TV Slow on diverted alignment.

Install and commission Up Cut-Off turnout in

diverted Up TV Fast

2 x 52-hour all lines Bishton Junction

Commission replacement Rugeley and Colwich 2 x 52-hour possession – all lines




interlockings.

Install S&C on remainder of layout, including

Rugeley North Junction new ladders

7 x 52-hour all lines

1 x 52-hour DF

Hixon, southwards

on existing line to

Colwich

Remove redundant Up Stoke infrastructure

between Hixon and Colwich Junction.

1 x 52-hour of Up lines at

Colwich Junction

Junction on RS12 Install protective screens, bridge beams and S&C

units

Re-space signals on RS12

4 x 52-hours both lines

12 x overnights both lines

Note: trains diverted via Stafford

Note: Canal closure required –

seasonal

M6 Crossing For overbridge, close motorway overnight to

place beams assuming single span.

For jacked box, close each carriageway with 2+2

on open carriageway, for 1 week.

About 20,000 vehicles affected.

Install screens and bridge deck over Stone lines 3 x 52-hours Up and Down Main

(to and from Stone)

Northern Junction

(Badnall Wharf)

Slew WCML lines and install S&C 1 x 52-hour UF/DF

1 x 52-hour DF

2 x 52-hour US

1 x 52-hour DS


Note: In all cases, Fast lines can

be used when Slow lines under

possession, and vice-versa

14.8.2 Duration

The southern section (Bishton – Hixon) would take approximately 30 months with Bishton

Junction followed by decommissioning part of the Manchester route between Hixon and

Colwich, which takes a further 2 – 3 months. The northern section would take just over 3

years.

The staging and possession requirements at the junctions were not specifically related to

Bank Holidays, or blockade opportunities, or other projects’ timescales, as the timescales

are high-level only. The overall construction programme would be about 33 months.

14.8.3 Use of Rail for Construction Purposes

The programme was based on the assumption that both sections run concurrently and do

not take into consideration a rail-based haulage strategy for construction materials. It is

conceivable that a rail depot to supply both sites could be established at Basford Hall Yard,

Crewe.

One railhead could be established north of Badnall Wharf junction and another east of

Bishton Junction either a) on land outside the boundary on a temporary lease or b) within

operational land vacated by diverted tracks.




In case a), railheads could be available for use approximately 9 – 12 weeks after the start of

the works, dependent on the extent of enabling and accommodation works and the detailed

sequence of concurrent permanent works. Provided adequate rail / road access were

available some structural materials could be delivered by rail without lengthening the

programme. If it were required to delivery a greater proportion of structural material, the

programme for each section would be lengthened by approximately 6 months. Note the

caveat that some structural elements would be out-of-gauge.

In case b), railheads could be established approximately 24 – 30 weeks after the start.

Whilst this would be too late for any civil or structural works, it would be in time for railway

materials to be delivered by rail and transferred to rail- or road/rail- equipment within the

site. The overall duration would not be increased. Road traffic would be affected less than a

road-only delivery strategy.

If it were required that the southern site should be supplied by rail from Crewe via the

northern bypass to avoid Stafford, the overall project period would increase to approximately

5 years. Note that additional traffic at the existing Colwich Junction would cause delay to

trains.

14.8.4 Construction Traffic Accesses

A high-level study was undertaken of potential construction accesses, and these could

possibly be located at;

• B5013 Colton Road

• Hixon (Pasturefields Lane);

• Weston;

• A34;

• M6 (via the Stafford South MSA);

• B5026

• Sturbridge to Coldmeece road.




15 Option HSBN

Option HSBN is shown on the plan below.

15.1 Description

Option HSBN would be identical to Option HSAN between Bishton and Hixon.

The route would pass through Weston, then diverge at Sandon Park, where the minor road

from Salt to the A51 is located. The junction would be situated so as to utilise a relatively

straight section of the existing line. This location is referred to as Sandon Park Junction.

Sandon Park Junction would be a grade-separated junction, with the bypass route aligned

as the “main line” (and aligned on a straight) and the Manchester route diverging from it.

There would be a diversion of the existing Up Stoke to the north, parallel to, and close to,

the A51. The minor side road referred to above would be severed as in Option HSAN.

The route would then cross the Trent and Mersey Canal, and the River Trent on a viaduct of

1200m length and of typical 10m height, before swinging left to pass under the B5066 at

Pea Hill.

At Pea Hill, there would be a visually awkward cutting up to 16m deep into the “bluff” of land

between the bypass and the B5066 crossing of the Trent. A cut-and-cover tunnel here could

have a number of landscape advantages over a cutting. It could allow a shallower radius

and avoid the “bluff”. It could restore the alignments of the side road, but would still require a

temporary road alignment, and would still incur the demolition of perhaps 4 properties

situated on the B5066. This tunnel alternative was addressed as a risk issue.

The route would emerge from cutting on embankment, passing south of Enson and New

Enson Farm. It would rise, on a gradient of 1:100, before encountering rapidly-rising land in

the Yarlet Hall area. The route would unavoidably need to be placed in a 1315m Yarlet Hall

Tunnel, to pass below the A34. The topography, and the avoidance of impact on the A34

and property make this the natural solution. A steeper gradient of 1:75 was considered, but

a tunnel would still be required, although potentially of reduced length.

The route would emerge from tunnel near the property known as Elmhurst, almost at the

summit of the climb, before descending at 1:100, and following the alignment of Option

HSAN through to the Badnall Wharf Junction on the WCML.

15.2 Structures, Signalling and Electrification

These issues would be very comparable to Option HSAN.




15.3 Speeds



• From Hixon to Junction B location: 186mph dropping to 160mph, then to 140mph;


140mph beforehand);


• Immediately after the junction on the bypass (at Pea Hill): 186mph;



15.4.1 Noise


exposed to noise levels in excess of 55dBLAeq, 18 hour in the absence of mitigation.

Whilst there may be potential impacts identified in this assessment for the operation of the

route it is anticipated that all bar a few isolated properties could be mitigated through design.


There would be approximately 51 residential properties situated within 200m. Whilst there

may be a localised deterioration in air quality in those areas close to road diversions, these

would be temporary in nature and therefore would have a negligible effect on local air

quality.


The Colwich bypass would cut across the grain of the landscape between Bishton and

Hixon, where the Grange Hill Farm south of Hixon would be demolished. The route would

cross through the Special Landscape Area (SLA) at Sandon Park to cross the River Trent

flood plain and the Trent and Mersey canal on a viaduct 1200m x 10m high, at an awkward

oblique angle. The Pea Hill cutting through Sandon Bank would be visually awkward and

would be compounded by the busy, constricted location. The route alignment would sit

lower in the landscape than Option HSAN to cross the A34, with restricted effect, in tunnel

under Yarlet Hill. Further north the route would cross the M6 on 12m high embankment. An

embankment 8m high over the B5026 to the north of Norton Bridge would affect the Izaak

Walton Golf Club.



points along the route. The Trent and Mersey Canal would be bridged, which could destroy

some part of the heritage structure, and historic field patterns and boundaries would be

severely compromised. These impacts would be permanent, and in most cases unlikely to

be greatly alleviated over time. There is a possibility that as yet unidentified archaeology

could be affected, particular those which are identified on the Local Authority-held Site and

Monuments Record, which remain unknown for the purposes of this WebTAG appraisal. In

summary the main impacts would be on:




• 32 SMR features (approximately within 1km of the study area).




15.4.5 Biodiversity


Conservation (SACs). This route would affect floodplain grazing marsh, lowland meadow,

ancient and/or species-rich hedgerows, broad-leaved/mixed woodland and rivers/streams.

In particular, there would be significant ecological effects on the following Sites of Biological

Importance (SBI), Shallowford Gorse, New Plantation, Maggies Fields and Maggies Ditch.

The Trent Valley crossing would affect lowland grazing marsh which is of high biodiversity

value.


The route is summarised as having slight adverse impacts on the water attributes because

the proposal may result in a degradation of the water environment. The features that are of

greatest significance would be;

• the Trent and Mersey Canal, which the route crosses and runs adjacent to for

approximately 1300m;

• the crossing of the River Trent which is extended due to the rivers meandering

section.


Option HSBN would have virtually identical effects as Option HSAN.




16 Option HSCN

Option HSCN is shown on the plan below.

16.1 Description

Option HSCN would be identical to HSAN and HSBN between Bishton and Hixon, where it

would join RS12. Option HSCN would then diverge from the existing Colwich – Stone line at

Sandon. This location was termed Sandon Junction.

There would be a grade-separated junction, with the bypass as the through alignment, and

there would be connections to the Manchester route. The existing Sandon Station House

would be located between the Up Bypass and the Up Main in such a situation that

demolition would be the only realistic possibility. The B5066 would be closed where it

crosses the existing railway, and diverted to the north to pass over the existing tracks, and

the bypass alignment, on a combined structure. It would connect to the A51 at a new T-

junction at the northern end of Sandon village. More local connections would be made to

serve local property.

The route would head west, to cross the Trent and Mersey Canal, the River Trent near

Burston and the remainder of the Trent valley a viaduct of 1700m length, typically 10m in

height.

The railway would then rise to follow the natural contours. It would pass under the A34, a

dual carriageway, between Wood Farm and Astonhill Farm. The vertical alignment of the

railway would necessitate the horizontal and vertical re-alignment of the A34. Enson Lane,

and some minor accesses to individual properties and a hockey club, would be re-aligned.

The route would probably involve the demolition of Pirehill Cottage Farm, but could possibly

be moved south to avoid the need for demolition.

The route would continue to rise towards the M6, passing below it just north of the

southbound-side Stafford Motorway Service Area (MSA). West of the M6, the vertical

alignment would follow the falling topography in the Norton Farm area, passing to its south

on shallow embankment, and crossing watercourses, which would again be bridged.

The route would continue to fall towards the Badnall Wharf area, joining the alignment of

Options HSAN and HSBN, and forming the Badnall Wharf Junction.

16.2 Speeds



• From Hixon to Junction C location: 186mph dropping to 160mph then to 140mph;





140mph beforehand and the 140mph thereafter);





16.3.1 Noise


exposed to noise levels in excess of 55dBLAeq, 18 hour in the absence of mitigation. Whilst

there may be potential impacts identified in this assessment, for the operation of the route it

is anticipated that all bar a few isolated properties could be mitigated through design.


There would be approximately 61 residential properties situated within 200m. There could

be a localised deterioration in air quality in those areas close to road diversions, such as the

B5066 at Sandon.



Hixon, where the Grange Hill farm south of Hixon would be demolished. The route would

then cross the floodplain on a 1700m x 10m high viaduct at an awkward, oblique angle and

would remain in the flood plain for a longer length than other alternative routes. There would

be adverse effects on Burston village and on the River Trent / Trent and Mersey Canal

corridor with the towpath and footpaths considered to be of high recreational value. There

would also be an adverse effect on Hockey Club at Aston-by-Stone. The route would follow

an unsympathetic straight alignment through the landscape from Sandon to pass under the

M6 and the A34 in cutting and on embankment to cross the B5026 with an effect on the

Izaak Walton Golf Club.



points along the route. Burston Hall would be severely compromised by the impact on its

setting and context. The Trent and Mersey Canal would be bridged, which may destroy




could be affected, particularly that held on the Local Authority Sites and Monuments Record,

which remain unknown to this WebTAG appraisal. A summary of the main issues would be:




• 40 SMR features (approximately, within 1km of the study area).

16.3.5 Biodiversity


Conservation (SACs). This route alignment would affect floodplain grazing marsh, lowland

meadow, ancient and species rich hedgerows and a collection of rivers and streams

proximal to the route. The Trent Valley crossing would affect lowland grazing marsh which

is of high biodiversity value.





The route would have a slight adverse impact on the water attributes because the proposal

may result in a degradation of the water environment. The features that are of greatest

significance are the Trent and Mersey Canal. The route alignment would run adjacent to the

Canal for an initial 400m, whilst being within the 1 in 100 year flood plain of the River Trent,

from where it crosses north of Upper Enson farm. The crossing of the Meece Brook and its

associated floodplain, west of the Heamies would also be significant issues for the water

environment.


Option HSCN would have virtually identical effects to Options HSAN and HSBN.




17 Option HSDN

Option HSDN is shown on the plan below.

17.1 Description

Option HSDN would identical to HSAN, HSBN and HSCN between Bishton and Hixon,

where it would join RS12. It would then diverge from the existing Colwich – Stone line north

of Burston, near Aston-by-Stone.

There would be a grade-separated junction, with the bypass as the through alignment, as a

projection of the straight northwards from Sandon. There would be grade-separated

connections to the Manchester route, with the Down Stoke remaining on its present

alignment.

The route would then swing west, to pass over the Trent and Mersey Canal and the River

Trent on a viaduct of approximately 1950m length, and typically 18m high. The viaduct

would extend over the flood plain. The route would cross the A34 between Field House

Farm and Aston Hill Farm, and would be very close to residential property on the eastern

side; there would appear to be insufficient room to accommodate an embankment, thus

necessitating the continuation of the viaduct. An alternative scheme would lower the height

of the viaduct, with the railway crossing the A34 at-grade. The A34 would be moved onto a

westerly permanent diversion of about 2km length, and carried over the ground-level

railway. The lowered vertical alignment would place the route in tunnel under Pire Hill. This

alternative was costed as a risk issue.

The railway would then rise at 1:100 to follow the natural contours and would pass just

south of Pirehill House. The route would continue to rise towards the M6, passing below it

just north of the southbound-side Stafford Motorway Service Area (MSA) in an identical

position to Option HSCN. It would then fall, at a gradient of 1:100 to follow route HSCN to

the Badnall Wharf Junction.

17.2 Speeds



• From Hixon to Junction D location: 186mph dropping to 160mph, then to 140mph;


140mph beforehand);








17.3.1 Noise

There would be approximately 229 people within 300m, likely to be exposed to noise levels

in excess of 55dBLAeq, 18 hour in the absence of mitigation. Whilst there may be potential

impacts identified in this assessment for the operation of the route, it is anticipated that all

bar a few isolated properties could be mitigated through design.


There would be approximately 64 residential properties situated within 200m of the route

alignment. Whilst there may be a localised deterioration in air quality if minor road diversions

were required, these would be minor in nature and would have a negligible effect on the

local air quality.


The Colwich bypass would cut across the grain of the landscape between the Bishton and

Hixon area, where the Grange Hill farm south of Hixon would be demolished. The route

alignment would move further away from the village of Burston than the existing alignment,

generally in cut. The route would cross the flood plain, the Trent and Mersey canal and the

A34 on a viaduct 1950m x 18m high. The crossing of the river / canal corridor would be at

an awkward, oblique angle and would involve the longest and highest viaduct of all the HS

options. This would result in an adverse effect on the recreational value of the river/ canal

corridor. The route would traverse a narrow gap at the A34 crossing on 9.5m high viaduct

with effect on property immediately adjacent to the route. The route would continue under

the M6 motorway in a 9m deep cutting, emerging on embankment to cross the B5026 with

an effect on the Izaak Walton Golf Club.



points along the route. The Trent and Mersey Canal would be bridged, which may destroy




could be affected, particularly those which are held on the Local Authority Sites and

Monuments Record, which remain unknown for this WebTAG appraisal. In summary the

main issues would be:




• 16 SMR features (approximately, within 1kmof the study area);

• The severe impact on the form and context of non designated heritage features.

17.3.5 Biodiversity


Conservation (SACs). This route alignment would affect floodplain grazing marsh, lowland

meadow, ancient and species rich hedgerows, and the rivers and streams proximal to the

route. In particular there would be significant ecological effects on Aston Hall Farm Wetland

Reserve. The Trent Valley crossing would affect lowland grazing marsh which is of high

biodiversity value.





The route would have a slight adverse impact on the water attributes because the proposal

may result in a degradation of the water environment. The features that are of greatest

significance would be:

• The crossing of the Trent and Mersey Canal;

• The crossing of the River Trent and its associated flood plain;

• The crossing of the Meece Brook and its associated floodplain, west of Heamies.


Option HSDN would have virtually identical effects to Options HSAN, HSBN and HSCN.




18 Option HSAS

The location of the route is shown on the plan below.

18.1 Description

Option HSAS would, like Option HSAN, include the Colwich Cut-Off between Bishton and

Hixon, and would use RS12 to an identical divergence point at Weston. It would, again as in

Option HSAN, have an identical Weston Junction, and would also pass under Sandon Bank

in a slightly more southerly tunnel. From the western tunnel portal, it would then adopt a

different horizontal and vertical alignment.

It would rise on shallow fill, severing Marston Lane, which would need to be bridged over the

route. It would enter into cutting before passing under Yarlet Lane, which would be carried

over the route on a bridge. The route would still rise, to pass below the A34, a dual

carriageway, south of Whitgreave Manor. The route would then fall, and emerge from

cutting, to pass under the M6, about 600m south of Whitgreave. There was some

uncertainty about ground levels and the topographical model in this area, and it could be

possible that the route would pass over the M6 on an overbridge, a cheaper option than a

thrust box. This matter was addressed as a risk/opportunity issue.

West of the M6, the route would swing north, on a falling gradient, to pass north of Worston

Hall, on an embankment up to 7m height. It would rise to pass over Worston Lane, the

existing WCML and the River Meece.

A number of options for the connection to the WCML in the Norton Bridge area were

developed, and any could be attached to the alignment of this option. These layout options

are discussed in Chapter 23.

18.2 Speeds



• From Hixon to Junction A location: 186mph dropping to 160mph;

• Through the junction on the bypass alignment: 186mph (potentially not-usable in

view of 160mph beforehand);

• To and from Manchester – a compliant 100mph or a non-compliant 125mph;







18.3.1 Noise



there may be potential impacts identified in this assessment for the operation of the route, it



There would be approximately 243 residential properties within 200m. There may be a

localised deterioration in air quality in areas close to road diversions, for example the

diverted road from the A51 to Salt village across the Trent Valley. The A34 and M6 would be

unaltered. It is expected that there would be a negligible effect on the local air quality.


The Colwich bypass element would cut across the grain of the landscape between Bishton

and Hixon, where the Grange Hill farm south of Hixon would be demolished. The alignment

would cross through the Special Landscape Area (SLA) in the Weston / Sandon Park area

to cross the River Trent flood plain and the Trent and Mersey Canal on a viaduct 1490m x

10m high, at an awkward oblique angle, close to the village of Salt. The effect on Sandon

Bank, where the route would pass in tunnel would be limited. The alignment would pass

under the A34 in 7m deep cutting and under the M6 motorway. The route would cross the

B5026 on a 7m high embankment to the south of Norton Bridge.





severely compromised. Conservation areas would suffer visual intrusion. These impacts

would be permanent, and in most cases unlikely to be greatly alleviated over time. There is

a possibility that as yet unidentified archaeology could be affected, particularly that which is

held on the Local Authority Sites and Monuments Record, which remains unknown for the

purposes of this WebTAG appraisal.

18.3.5 Biodiversity


Conservation (SACs). The alignment would affect floodplain grazing marsh, lowland

meadow, ancient and species-rich hedgerows, broad-leaved and mixed woodland, and the

rivers and streams proximal to the route. No designated nature conservation sites would be

directly affected. The Trent Valley crossing would affect lowland grazing marsh which is of

high biodiversity value. In particular there be significant ecological effects on Yelds Rough

(Ancient Woodland) SBI.


The impacts were assessed as slight adverse to the water environment. The negative

impacts would be caused primarily by the Trent and Mersey canal, which the alignment

would cross. The crossing of the River Trent would result in four crossings within 1km.

There would also be a crossing of the major aquifer between Pitts Colum (Sandon Park) to

Sandon Bank.




19 Option HSBS

The location of the route is shown on the plan below.

19.1 Description

Option HSBS would, like Option HSBN, include the Colwich Cut-Off between Bishton and

Hixon, and would use RS12 to an identical junction at Sandon Park. It would, again as in

Option HSBN, pass through Pea Hill to pass under the B5066, with the visually awkward

cutting and the demolition of perhaps 4 properties situated on the B5066.

The route would then swing south-west on a rising gradient to pass north of Marston. It

would pass over Marston Lane, which would need to be bridged. It would enter into cutting,

before passing under Yarlet Lane, which would remain. It would then fall to pass below the

A34, a dual carriageway, south of Whitgreave Manor. The route would emerge from cutting,

to pass under the M6, about 600m south of Whitgreave.

West of the M6, the route would swing north, on a falling gradient, to pass north of Worston

Hall, on an embankment. It would rise to pass over Worston Lane, the existing WCML and

the River Meece.

19.2 Speeds



• From Hixon to Junction B location: 186mph dropping to 160mph;

• Through the junction on the bypass alignment: 186mph (potentially not-usable in

view of 160mph beforehand);

• To and from Manchester – a compliant 100mph or a non-compliant 125mph;




19.3.1 Noise









There would be 31 residential properties situated within 200m of the route alignment. Whilst

there may be a localised deterioration in air quality in those areas close to road diversions,

these would be temporary in nature and would have a negligible effect on local air quality.



Hixon, where the Grange Hill farm south of Hixon would be demolished. The route

alignment would cross through the Special Landscape Area (SLA) at Sandon Park to cross

the River Trent flood plain and the Trent and Mersey canal on a viaduct 1200m x 10m high,

at an oblique angle. The Pea Hill cutting through Sandonbank would be visually awkward

and compounded by the busy, constricted location. The route would continue north-west,

alternating between embankment and cutting, before passing beneath the M6 motorway in a

6m deep cutting. The alignment would proceed in a cutting 10m deep under the B5026 to

the west of Norton Bridge.





severely compromised. Conservation areas are likely to suffer visual intrusion. These

impacts would be permanent, and in most cases unlikely to be greatly alleviated over time.

There is a possibility that as yet unidentified archaeology could be affected, particularly that

which is held on the Local Authority Sites and Monuments Record, which remains unknown

for the purposes of this Web TAG appraisal. The route would impact the following features:




• 18 SMR features (approximately, within 1km of the study area).

19.3.5 Biodiversity


Conservation (SACs). This route would affect floodplain grazing marsh, lowland meadow,

ancient and species rich hedgerows, broad-leaved and mixed woodland, and the rivers and

streams proximal to the alignment. In particular there would be significant ecological effects

on Yelds Rough (Ancient Woodland) SBI, New Plantation, Maggies Fields and Maggies

Ditch SBIs.


The route would have a slight adverse impact on the water attributes. The impacts that are

of greatest significance would be:

• The Trent and Mersey canal, which the route would cross and run adjacent to for

approximately 1300m.

• The crossing of the River Trent which would be extended due to the meandering

nature of this section of the river. This could be reduced to one single short crossing

nearer to Sandon Park;

The Meece Brook running adjacent to the Trent and Mersey canal for approx 1300m, that

concludes with the alignment making a long crossing of the canal.




20 Option ER8+

20.1 Description

20.1.1 Introduction – Elements Required

Along the existing rail corridor, there are capacity problems at:

• Colwich Junction;

• Through Shugborough Tunnel.

• At Whitehouse Junction, where Up Trent Valley Slow services needed to cross

Down Fast services;

• At Stafford;

• Between Great Bridgeford and Norton Bridge, where track occupation was an issue;

• At Norton Bridge where junction margins were a problem;

The infrastructure solutions to the above capacity issues would, respectively, be:

• The Colwich Cut-off;

• 4-tracking through Shugborough Tunnel;

• Whitehouse flyover;

• Six-tracking through Stafford;

• A flyover near Great Bridgeford;

• A 5th track between Great Bridgeford and Norton Bridge.

It was found the Shugborough Tunnel 4-tracking would be only marginally effective at

improving capacity, but would incur a high adverse environmental impact, and a high cost.

The other infrastructure elements were therefore added to produce Option ER8+.

20.1.2 Colwich Cut-Off

This part of Option ER8+ would be identical to Options HSAN, HSBN, HSCN and HSDN.

There would be a grade-separated junction near Bishton, and a two-track new length of

railway between there and Hixon. The route would join the existing Colwich - Stone route

immediately south of New Road.

20.1.3 The Whitehouse Flyover

Shugborough Tunnel would remain unchanged. West of Milford, in the Whitehouse Junction

area, it would be necessary to construct a new flyover and approach retained-fill

embankments to carry the present Up Slow over the Up Fast and Down Fast. This new

flyover would lie in open land between Milford and the easterly Stafford suburbs in the

Baswich area. In order to accommodate the construction of this flyover, there would need to

be a permanent diversion of the Down Slow to the south. The Staffordshire and

Worcestershire Canal would need to be permanently re-aligned over a length of about

600m. Construction traffic access would be problematic, with a new access road needed,

and possibly a temporary Bailey bridge to gain access to the island site.

West and north of Whitehouse Junction, there would be no change to the existing railway as

far as Stafford, and the existing four-track Trent Valley lines round the Queensville curve

would remain.

20.1.4 Rickerscote to Trent Valley Junction

There would be a diversion of the two existing lines to the west. At Rickerscote, residential

gardens and allotments would be acquired. Rowley Grove Bridge would need to be replaced

by a bridge constructed to the south of the existing bridge. The new bridge would be a




single span structure to provide maximum flexibility for the works and would connect to the

existing ramps via new approach ramps. At present it is not clear whether the DDA

regulations apply to this structure as the existing ramps are already steeper than the

regulations would permit. If it were decided that the regulations should be applied, then

there would be a need to construct considerably more new ramp than is currently proposed.

The location of the new bridge would inevitably require additional land and it is probable that

two properties would need to be purchased, one on each side of the railway corridor.

20.1.5 Trent Valley Junction

In Trent Valley Junction area, the two lines from Birmingham would be slewed to the west to

form a separate twin-track route. Trent Valley Junction would be abolished; the two new

lines would run alongside the existing four tracks to form a six-track route. The base scheme

assumes that it would be possible to signal the new tracks from Stoke Control Centre. There

would be no connections between the Trent Valley and Birmingham lines. Should

connections be required, it is possible that this could trigger complete resignalling of Stafford

No 4 and No 5 areas.

20.1.6 A449 Wolverhampton Road Bridge

At the A449, the two new lines would be located in an independent structure to be jacked

under the southerly approach embankment. They would probably be at a lower level than

existing, but this would be of no implication as the new tracks would not be connected to the

existing layout. The jacking would probably take place over 2 weekend closures of the road.

It is possible that it would be necessary to close the railway during the pushing of the box

underpass.

If the jacked box option were not possible, it would be necessary to consider a realignment

of the A449, with a wholly new structure placed over the railway at a right-angle. This would

involve, on the northerly side, the demolition of a motorcycle shop, petrol filling station, a

Public House, and 14 residential properties. If required, the new bridge would be

constructed on land to the west of the required location. This area is currently used as

sidings for the station area and the p-way in this area would need to be adjusted to provide

the necessary space. Additional land outside of Network Rail property would also need to be

acquired in order to provide sufficient construction space. It is probable that the new bridge

would be constructed on the partially-constructed approach embankment. Once

constructed, the new bridge would be launched into position from the pre-built abutments

during a possession. To facilitate the launch a temporary pier may need to be constructed in

the sidings area and a temporary launch nose would need to be fitted to the front of the

structure and dismantled upon landing at the northern abutment.

20.1.7 Newport Road

At Newport Road, it would be necessary to close the existing road for about 9 months, in

order to allow the demolition and on-line reconstruction of a replacement highway structure.

It was seen as unlikely that an off-line temporary structure could be constructed, given the

constraints of the site. This closure would cause considerable disruption to Stafford’s traffic

flows.

20.1.8 Stafford Station

All six tracks would continue through Stafford station, with Platform 7 being introduced into

public use, and the Birmingham line services being confined to Platforms 6 or 7. Platform 7

(the current Royal Mail platform) would be completely rebuilt with new passenger facilities

and access to the existing station. It is possible that the works to platform 6 could trigger

DDA compliancy works on Platform 5, and possibly throughout the whole station. In the

station area, it is likely that a number of OLE support structures would need to be replaced,

as existing supports would be affected by the works. This would require all-line blocks to

install the new supports, and to re-register over existing lines.




20.1.9 Castle Street

At Castle Street, the existing road bridge would be demolished, and replaced by a

pedestrian / cycle structure, with vehicular access to the premises west of the railway being

achieved by the construction of a new connection from the roundabout at Martin Drive.

20.1.10 Doxey Road to Cresswell

Doxey Road would be realigned onto a permanent new alignment to the immediate south of

the existing. This would involve the demolition of adjacent factory premises.

The new pair of lines would run alongside the existing four through the Doxey area, to the

M6 Cresswell Viaduct. Residential property in the Baxter Green area of Doxey would be

affected. It would be necessary to demolish possibly 6 properties, and a further 10 might

lose a proportion of their gardens, depending on the separation between the existing four

and the proposed two new lines.

The route would be carried over Doxey and Tillington Marsh SSSI on a shallow viaduct, with

higher cost provision to minimise the effects on the SSSI.

20.1.11 Cresswell to Great Bridgeford

Just south of M6 Cresswell Viaduct, the new twin-track route would bifurcate to form a 4-

track route to allow the vertical separation of lines needed to create a flyover south of Great

Bridgeford.

At the flyover, it would be necessary to create a diversion of the Up Fast and Down Fast,

slewing them to the east to allow a new junction.

Two of the four lines would run from the west side of the layout to the east, to provide a

grade-separated route for trains from the Birmingham direction to access the Fast lines in

this area. The Down Flyover line would be taken over the Slow lines, and would then

descend on retained fill to merge into the diverted Down Fast. The other two lines would

create a direct connection to the Slow lines, to allow the Birmingham services to run Slow-

line north of Great Bridgeford.

20.1.12 Great Bridgeford to Norton Bridge 5Th Track

The Great Bridgeford flyover would carry an Up Birmingham Fast line from a new 5th track

on the east side of the layout. This 5th track would become the Up route from the

Stone/Norton Bridge direction. It would be necessary to demolish the A5013 bridge over the

railway to accommodate the 5th track, and a permanent diversion onto a new side road

overbridge would be needed. The additional track would require embankment and cutting

widenings, and the reconstruction of the road overbridge at Little Bridgeford. These works

would affect perhaps 6 residential properties.

The existing Up Fast would become bi-directional between the flyover and Norton Bridge.

Down trains towards Manchester would therefore run bi-directionally on the Up Fast, before

turning towards Stone. This arrangement would allow some parallel moves towards Crewe

and Stone.

20.2 Speeds

This option would provide:

• A virtual elimination of Stafford Trent Valley Junction and hence a major capacity

gain;

• A grade-separated movement for trains between the Birmingham and Fast lines;

• 125mph between Stafford and Norton Bridge.





20.3.1 Noise




Construction

Given that the construction of this route option is alongside an existing operational railway

line, some major elements of work would have to be undertaken during night-time

possessions. Undertaking such works during the night-time periods over a sustained period

of time is likely to give rise to adverse noise impacts on the properties located immediately

in the wayside of the route.

It is considered likely that noise barriers would need to be erected to mitigate construction

noise levels and even then it may still be necessary to place further restrictions on operating

hours in order to mitigate significant noise impacts.

Operation

This option theoretically suggests that a 50% increase in railway traffic could be achieved;

the addition of two extra lines will also move the railway closer to a considerable number of

properties

The potential increase in rail traffic movements would give rise to no more than 1dB

increase in noise levels at properties and the change in proximity the properties is unlikely to

result in more than 1-2 dB change in noise levels. Therefore the overall change in

operational noise levels is not anticipated to be of significance.


There are 1991 houses within a distance of 200m on either side of the proposed route.

The effect on local air quality is thought likely to be greatest through the construction phase,


work.

Operational air quality issues might arise through the increased frequency of diesel-hauled

trains proximal to residential properties and on the overall air quality objectives for the

Stafford Borough. The pollutants likely to be under consideration from the emissions of

diesel hauled trains are Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Particulates (PM10).


This option would have a limited impact within the urban section, resulting mainly from the

road realignments required, together with their associated earthworks.

Towards Great Bridgeford there would also be visual impact from the new flyover structures

and the associated approach ramps; this would also occur in a sensitive location adjacent to

the River Sow, but is not close to any designated landscapes.





20.3.5 Biodiversity



• Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC) 5km to the south-east; and,

• Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC 7km to the north-east.






• Doxey and Tillington Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which would

be directly affected; and

• Rowley Grove Site of Biological Interest (SBI).

The crossing of the SSSI at Doxey would be challenging, but not insurmountable, and there

might be significant cost implications.









The option would follow the existing railway, which follows the 1% floodplains of the River

Sow and the Rising Brook for virtually its entire length.

Any widening of the existing rail corridor would impinge on the existing flood plains and

likely affect their conveyance and storage characteristics. Any impingements would need to

be compensated and may require considerable mitigation works. A flood defence has been

constructed on the southern fringes of Stafford to protect it from the River Sow; however, it

is thought that the proposed works would not affect this structure.

The route would pass through the Doxey and Tillington Marshes Site of Special Scientific

Interest, which is an area densely populated with land drains and smaller watercourses.

Any widening of the existing rail corridor through this area would need to be carefully

assessed to determine the effect on both the marshes and the existing drains and

watercourses. There may be a significant impact to the protected local water environment.

The route would pass through minor aquifer which is thought to be ‘possibly at risk’ from

diffuse pollution. The route would not pass through any groundwater protection zones.

20.4 Geotechnical Overview

This option would require little or no earthworks between Rickerscote and just north of

Stafford Station, but would then cross the Doxey Marshes. There would be some

engineering challenge here, with a variety of treatments which could be adopted to provide

a foundation for the railway consistent with the biodiversity and water environment issues

associated with the Marsh. Founding conditions may be poor, and there may be a

requirement for extensive ground improvement, geotextile solutions, low-level structures, all

with an understanding of settlement and aquatic issues. For costing purposes, it was

assumed that a low-level viaduct structure would be required to preserve watercourse

linkages to the maximum possible extent.

Near Great Bridgeford, the alignment would traverse the western edge of the River

Sow/Penk valley bottom, and is underlain by Alluvial deposits and a late glacial River

Terrace deposit. Beneath the fluvial deposits a poorly defined buried ‘glacial channel is

present. This feature is incised into the Mercia Mudstone to a depth of 23 – 30m, and is

infilled with Glaciolacustrine Silts and Fluvioglacial gravels.






Option ER8+ would be constructed largely remote from the existing railway in “Green Zone”

conditions.









TABLE 20.1: STAGING – OPTION ER8+





diverted Up TV Fast


Commission replacement Rugeley and Colwich

interlockings.


Bishton Junction




1 x 52-hour DF

Hixon, southwards

on existing line to

Colwich

Remove redundant Up Stoke infrastructure

between Hixon and Colwich Junction.


Colwich Junction

Canal diversion Closure required – seasonal

Erect protective screens 1 x 52-hour UF

1 x 52-hour DS

Place beams and permanent formwork 7 x 52-hour all lines

Whitehouse

Flyover

Connect turnouts and slews 1 x 52-hour DS

1 x 52-hour US

1 x 52-hour UF

Rickerscote to

Great Bridgeford

(approx 7km)

Erect protective / palisade fence alongside Down

Slow to create segregated worksite

70 x 8-hour overnights of Down

Birmingham / Down Slow

Rickerscote Area Preparation of formation for, and end-on slews

of, Birmingham lines into new 5th

/6th

tracks (at

same time as connections at Great Bridgeford)

2 x 52-hour of Birmingham lines

Wolverhampton

Road

Thrust box under southern approach

embankment

No impact on railway operations

unless risk assessments requires

all-line block of 2 x 52-hour




Possible weekend closure of

A449

Salop Sidings Remove connections to main lines 1 x 52-hour Up and Down

Birmingham/Slow

Platform 5 Erect protective screen to segregate Platform 5

passengers from Platform 6 works

Alter OLE support structures

Undertaken in conjunction with

Rickerscote to Great Bridgeford

fence


Demolish deck 1 x 52-hour all lines

Strengthen piers 12 x 52-hours all lines

Place beams 2 x 52-hours all lines

Shuttering 1 x 52-hour all lines

Newport Road

Note: Newport Road closed to road and

pedestrian traffic for approx 9 months

Demolition of road bridge 1 x 52-hour all lines

Place beams for new footbridge 1 x 52-hour all lines

Castle Street

Deck formwork 1 x 52-hour all lines

Erect protective screens at location of

replacement bridge

1 x 52-hour UF

1 x 52-hour DS

Place beams 1 x 52-hour all lines


Doxey Road

Demolish existing bridge 1 x 52-hour all lines


2 x 52-hour DS



Slew UF/DF 1 x 52-hour UF, DF and US

Install S&C 2 x 52-hour DS, US

Great Bridgeford

Install S&C 1 x 52-hour DF


1 x 52-hour DS



Demolish existing bridge 1 x 52-hour all lines

A5013 road

overbridge

replacement

Slew UF, DF 1 x 52-hour UF, DF, US

Norton Bridge Install S&C 1 x 52-hour UF




21 Option GF2

Option GF2 is shown on the plan below.

21.1 Description

Option GF2 would be very similar to the Option HS alignments over the first 2.5km north

from Bishton Junction.

The route would then pass to the south of Tithebarn Farm. A grade-separated junction

would be provided to allow Manchester-bound services to gain access to the existing

railway near Hixon. This junction would have Option GF2 as the through route at an

unrestricted speed, with a 100mph turnout on the diverging route to Manchester. The Down

Manchester would have to be placed in tunnel to lower it sufficiently to pass under the

bypass. This would create large, complex earthworks in that locality, as the bypass would

already be in cutting.

The main route would then cross the A51, the existing Colwich – Stone railway, the River

Trent and the Trent and Mersey Canal on an elevated structure of 1250m length, typically

10m high, virtually perpendicular to the obstacles.

The route would then rise on embankment up to 6m height, to pass through the southern

extremity of Ingestre Golf Course. It would avoid woodland enclosing Lion Lodges. It would

then rise to a summit near Hanyards. In the Ingestre area, the route potentially impacts on

the northerly fringe of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); a further northerly

move could avoid this issue, probably at the cost of introducing a short Hanyards Tunnel

and affecting the woodland.

The route would then be virtually level, running in cuts up to 9m deep, and on embankments

up to 9m height to carry the route over the A518 near Stafford Lodge.

The route would pass into the 350m length Beacon Hill Tunnel, and emerge onto

embankment up to 12m in height, and would then fall to pass about 500m south of the

village of Hopton. It would pass through part of the RAF housing at Hopton, but it is not

known with any certainty how many properties could be affected; possibly 2. The route




would cross a diverted B5066, to pass immediately north of the RAF Fuel Depot and south

of Newbuildings Farm and north of Marstongate Farm.

The route would then lie at or about ground level, and would be on a rising gradient to pass

under the A34 immediately south of Whitgreave Manor.

The route would then fall gently to pass over the M6 motorway south of Whitgreave,

continuing to fall to cross over the Little Bridgeford to Shallowford road and the WCML south

of Shallowford (and hence south of Norton Bridge).

It would then pass to the west of Norton Bridge, and would be in very close proximity to

Rodgeley Lodge. It would then pass east of Scamnell Farm, before re-joining the existing

WCML near Baden Hall. In order to form the grade-separated junction, it would be

necessary to divert the existing WCML Slow lines between Worston Hall and Baden Hall,

and to divert the existing Down Fast over some of this length. The only line remaining in the

existing corridor from Baden Hall to Norton Bridge would be the Up Fast; south of Norton

Bridge there would only be the Up Fast, and the Down Stone towards Stoke and

Manchester.

21.2 Speeds


• On the main alignment from Bishton to Norton Bridge: 186mph;


• Existing speeds on RS12.


21.3.1 Noise






There would be 22 residential properties within 200m. There may be a localised

deterioration in air quality in areas close to the permanent B5066 diversion near Hopton

Farm. Other minor roads might be temporarily diverted during construction, but these effects

would be temporary in nature and would have a negligible effect on the local air quality.


As with all the HS options, the removal of the existing railway west of Colwich, between the

Haywoods and Shugborough Park, would have a beneficial impact on the local landscape.

The route would initially be as for Options HSAN to HSDN, but would then cross the

floodplain of the River Trent, the A51 north of Great Haywood, and the river/canal

recreational corridor on a 1250m long viaduct x 10m high. The angle of this crossing,

approaching 90°, would reduce the adverse effects at this sensitive location. Between the

A51 and the A34, the route could affect the corner of the Cannock Chase Area of

Outstanding National Beauty (AONB), and the Ingestre Golf Club before entering an 18m

deep cutting. The effect on the AONB would produce a Large Adverse score (on the

WebTag analysis) and the boundary of the AONB in this area would require clarification with

the statutory authorities.

The alignment would pass through the well-wooded RAF base on embankment, severing

some housing from the other areas of the base. The alignment would then run, generally in

cutting, to the A518 proceeding via a 340m long tunnel under Beacon Hill. Views from the




elevated properties in Hopton (Kings Drive) would be affected in this vicinity. From the A34

to the tie-in with the WCML, the route would proceed in a 10m cutting under the A34 and on

a 9m embankment over the M6 motorway. Further to the north-west, the route would

generally be in cutting, rising to cross the River Sow on a 390m long x 8m high viaduct.


The effects would be as for the HS options over the first 2.5 km, but the route would then lie

to the north of the Conservation Area for Colwich and Little Haywood which are sandwiched

between the A51 and the River Trent. There would be views northwards towards the

railway.

The route could affect:


• the Conservation Area of Great Haywood and Shugborough;

• Shugborough Park;

• the Trent Valley’s archaeological remains;

• the Pasturefields Special Area of Conservation (but not to the degree of Option

GF1);

• the small Conservation Area of Tixall;

• Ingestre and the Conservation Area.

• Marston Brook’s preserved archaeological remains;

• the Conservation Area of Chebsey;

• Meece Brook’s archaeological and geo-archaeological material.

21.3.5 Biodiversity



• Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC) 2.5km to the south-west;

• Chartley Moss (part of the West Midlands Mosses SAC) 4.5km to the north; and,

• Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC 1.5km to the north.





• Tixall Park Pool SBI;


• Hopton Pools SBI;

• Yelds Rough Ancient Woodland;

• Drumble Wood Ancient Woodland; and,

• Meece Brook SBI.












This option would traverse the 1% flood plains of the River Trent, and the Meece Brook and

its tributaries.

The alignment would cross the Trent and Mersey Canal west of Great Haywood, the

proposals are not anticipated to affect the canal, although a bridge structure would be

required.

The route would cross the River Trent just to the west of Great Haywood. The proposed

perpendicular crossing is likely to be preferred by the Environment Agency to an oblique

crossing, especially if river or canal diversions could be avoided. The proposed alignment

would be elevated at this point, and therefore any structures located within the floodplain

would need to be checked to determine their affect on the floodplains conveyance and

storage characteristics. Any effects would be significant and need to be mitigated for, and

any loss in floodplain storage would need to be compensated for on a volume for volume,

level for level basis and may require considerable mitigation works.

The route would cross the Meece Brook just south of Shallowford. At this location there is a

formal flood defence, which the alignment would cross; this would require particular

attention. The works should not lower the level of protection afforded by this defence. The

alignment would then run parallel to the 1% floodplain of the Meece Brook south of

Heamies; any encroachment on the floodplain either as cutting or embankment would

require considerable mitigation works.

The proposed alignment would cross a number of land drains and other smaller

watercourses such as the Marston Brook and these would either need to be culverted or

realigned to ensure the existing drainage regime is maintained.

The route would pass over both minor and major aquifers, the minor aquifers being located

in the corridors of the Trent Valley and the Meece Brook, and the major aquifer being

located between Beacon Hill and Shugborough. However, groundwater for the entire route

was identified as being ‘possibly at risk’ from diffuse pollution, with the alignment in the

vicinity of Hanyards being identified as ‘at risk’. This would need to be considered in the

implication of any pollution control measures and disposal of surface waters. It should be

noted that the two tunnel sections on this option would pass across the major aquifer. No

part of this option would pass through any groundwater protection zones.



Option GF2 would be constructed largely remote from the existing railway in genuine green-

field or “Green Zone” conditions.












TABLE 21.1: STAGING – OPTION GF2





diverted Up TV Fast

2 x 52-hour possessions of US,

UF and DF

Commission replacement Rugeley and Colwich

interlockings.

2 x 52-hour possession – all lines

Bishton Junction




1 x 52-hour DF

Hixon to Colwich Remove redundant Up Stoke infrastructure

between Hixon and Colwich Junction


Colwich Junction

M6 Crossing For overbridge, close motorway overnight to

place beams assuming single span.

For jacked box, close each carriageway with 2+2

on open carriageway, for 1 week.

About 20,000 vehicles affected.

Screens and bridge construction for bypass

bridge over WCML


Or

Open two lines on diversion

alignment, and divert all trains to

these.

Slew WCML lines and install S&C on diversion 1 x 52-hour US and DS

3 x 52-hour UF and DF

Northern Junction

(south of Norton

Bridge)

Slews of remaining infrastructure in existing

corridor

1 x 52-hour all remaining lines

(Up Stone / Down Stone / UF)




22 Transposition

22.1 The Concept

One of the factors that could benefit performance was “transposition”, which could be

combined with the HS or GF options.

The concept of transposition was based around the train service pattern after a bypass was

complete. After the bypass, the majority of the remaining trains approaching Stafford from

the Trent Valley direction would be freight or stopping passenger services. These could be

routed almost exclusively to the present Fast lines north of Stafford. Equally, trains from the

Birmingham direction could be routed to the present Slow lines. This would vastly reduce

conflicts at Trent Valley Junction, and would avoid the costly and disruptive impact of

providing grade-separation in this area. Effectively, the layout through Stafford would

become two parallel, two-track railways, with no conflicts. The layout at Stafford would be

transposed from its present arrangements.

22.2 Schematic Layout

The schematic below presents transposition in its most simplistic, stylised form.

There would be no track or signalling changes at Stafford; transposition would simply be a

matter of routing. A further benefit would be that this reduction in conflicts could give the

opportunity to simplify the layout to something more appropriate to the residual movements,

possibly in conjunction with re-signalling.

22.3 Untransposition – Restoring the Existing Pattern of Trains

There would have to be “un-transposition” somewhere between Stafford and Badnall Wharf,

to re-establish the current pattern of movements from there northwards to Crewe.

It would be difficult, costly and environmentally poor to achieve untransposition between

Stafford and the Creswell area (the M6 viaduct location). It would be possible between the

M6 and the A5013 at Great Bridgeford, within a junction at Norton Bridge, or within a

junction at Badnall Wharf. Some type of grade separation would be needed to carry two

“Trent Valley” tracks over the “Birmingham” tracks.

22.4 The Options to which Transposition Could Apply

The options to which transposition could apply were:

• The “N” variants of the HS series of options, as they would join the WCML north of

Norton Bridge;

• The “S” variant of the HS options or the GF2 option, as all would join the WCML

south of Norton Bridge.




22.4.1 Transposition in the “N” Variant

For the “N” variants, the untransposition could occur:

• within the Badnall Wharf junction;

• at Great Bridgeford.

Operational modelling showed that transposition ending within the Badnall Wharf Junction

would be ineffective, as the Birmingham to Manchester services would have left the network

towards the Stone line at Norton Bridge. It would need to be south of Norton Bridge to be

effective, possibly improving Birmingham - Manchester axis movements in addition.

Decisions on the number of freight trains routed via the bypass, or remaining on the existing

route via Stafford would also have an influence on the value of transposition. Only

transposition at Great Bridgeford would be meaningful in conjunction with an “N” variant.

22.4.2 Transposition in the “S” and GF Options

For the “S” variants or GF2, the untransposition could be

• within the junction of the bypass and the existing lines;

• at Great Bridgeford.

The variant within the junction would take the present Fast lines to the east of Little

Bridgeford / Worston, before merging with the twin-track bypass approaching from the

south. This would create a 4-track route northwards, and the present Fast lines would

emerge on the western, Slow, side of the 4-track layout towards Crewe. The remaining

existing Slow lines would be the only two tracks needing to remain between Great

Bridgeford and Norton Bridge. They would simply sweep round the curves at Norton Bridge

and on towards Stone on an uninterrupted manner, with Norton Bridge Junction having

been abolished. This would give the freedom to improve the alignments and speeds.

22.5 The Business Case for Transposition

Transposition was estimated to cost between £15m-77m. It would offer the opportunity to

rationalise the residual layout at Stafford, particularly in the Trent Valley Junction area, with

potential savings at a later re-signalling.

Only Network Rail/DfT can assess which outweighs the other, whether transposition is

justified, and what degree of inter-relationship there might be with the residual layout at

Stafford after the introduction of a bypass.

This report cannot resolve this issue, and can make no recommendations on whether

transposition should form part of the solution to the capacity issues at Stafford.




23 Layouts at Norton Bridge - the “NB” Options

23.1 Introduction

For any bypass option south of Norton Bridge (HSAS, HSBS or GF2), there were a number

of layout options for connecting the bypass to the existing railway.

These variants would achieve varying degrees of conflict resolution, speed improvement,

grade separation, cost and environmental impact. Some would incorporate the concept of

transposition. All options would achieve 125mph on the bypass alignments.

This chapter addresses only a proportion of the potential layouts, and should not be

regarded as a comprehensive study of all potential options. Indeed, it was recognised that

none of the layouts discussed could be regarded as optimal, nor was the list exclusive.

23.2 Environmental Effects

The environmental effects of these NB options were addressed in the section relating to the

“S” variants of the HS options or Option GF2.

Within the Norton Bridge junction area, the northerly connections would potentially affect the

River Meece flood plain, and a westerly move might be needed, lengthening the route; this

was addressed as a risk issue. This issue would apply to all NB options.

23.3 Option NB1

North from Little Bridgeford to Baden Hall, the existing WCML would be affected. Three of

the four existing tracks (Down Slow, Up Slow and Down Fast) would be diverted to form an

almost straight alignment between these points. They would be on level gradient, and would

lie in a cutting of typically 9m depth, passing close to Rodgeley Lodge, and south of

Scamnell Farm.

In the southbound direction, the existing Up Fast would remain on its present alignment

southwards from Baden Hall to Norton Bridge, leaving it as the only one remaining track

over this length. The Up and Down Main towards Stone would then join a considerably

simplified Norton Bridge Junction to form a two-track route within the existing four-track

formation, giving scope for realignment and an increase in speed to 75mph on the Stone

route.

The Down Bypass would merge into the diverted Down Fast; the Up Bypass would diverge

from the Up Fast near Baden Hall. North of the merge of the Down Bypass and the diverted

WCML, there would be at-grade parallel connections between the Fast and Slow lines, to

allow trains from the bypass to access the Slow lines.




23.4 Option NB2

Between Little Bridgeford and Baden Hall, all four of the existing WCML lines would be

diverted to form an almost straight alignment. They would be on level gradient, and would lie

in a cutting of typically 9m depth, passing close to Rodgeley Lodge, and south of Scamnell

Farm.

Southwards from Baden Hall to Norton Bridge, no lines would remain; this length of railway

would be abandoned. South of Norton Bridge Junction (which would cease to exist), the Up

and Down Main towards Stone would be the only remaining tracks within the existing four-

track formation, giving scope for realignment and an increase in speed to 75mph on the

Stone route.

Approaching the junction, the bypass would bifurcate to form a 3-track route, giving grade-

separated connections to the Fast lines as in Option NB1, with the third, bi-directional track

giving grade-separated access to the Slow lines on the WCML diversion.

23.5 Option NB3

At Little Bridgeford, this variant would take present Fast lines to the east, to pass to the east

of Little Bridgeford/Worston, before running alongside the bypass approaching from the

south. The diverted Fast lines would share the structure carrying the bypass over the

existing route. The bypass and diverted Fast lines would then form a grade-separated

junction.

On the Slow lines north from Little Bridgeford, there would be a double junction, with the

Slow lines continuing north towards Baden Hall as in NB1 and NB2, while the Manchester

route would sweep round the curves towards Norton Bridge and on to Stone in an

uninterrupted manner, with Norton Bridge Junction having been abolished. This would give

the freedom to improve the alignments and speeds. This option would allow Birmingham to

Manchester services to run on the Slow line north from Stafford without conflict with Trent

Valley services.




Approaching the junction, the bypass would bifurcate to form a 3-track route, with the third,

bi-directional track giving grade-separated access to the Up Slow, and a flat connection to

the Down Slow.

23.6 Option NB4

Option NB4 would be similar in layout to Option NB3 in the sense of having a diversion to

the east of Little Bridgeford/Worston. The operational usage would be different, as this

option would include the transposition concept.

At Little Bridgeford, the present Fast lines would again pass to the east of Little

Bridgeford/Worston, before running alongside the bypass approaching from the south. The

diverted Fast lines would share the structure carrying the bypass over the existing route.

The bypass and diverted Fast lines would not merge, but the diverted lines would then run

to the westerly side of the layout, to adopt the position of the Slow lines north from Baden

Hall. This would create the transposition, such that Trent Valley services approaching

Stafford from the south would run on the Fast lines to this junction, but would then be

carried to run Slow line north to Crewe.

The Slow lines north from Little Bridgeford would sweep round the curves towards Norton

Bridge and on to Stone, with the freedom to improve the alignments and speeds. This option

would include the benefit of allowing Birmingham to Manchester services to run on the Slow

line north from Stafford without conflict with Trent Valley services.

There would be grade-separated connections from the Fast lines north of Baden Hall to the

slow lines at Little Bridgeford.

Approaching the junction, the bypass would bifurcate to form a 3-track route, with the third,

bi-directional track giving grade-separated access to the Up Slow and a flat connection to

the Down Slow.




23.7 Option NB5

Option NB5 would totally abandon all four tracks of the present WCML between Little

Bridgeford and Baden Hall. Along with this abandonment, Norton Bridge Junction would be

abolished, not just as a junction, but in its entirety.

There would be a complex, almost all-moves, grade-separated junction near Rodgeley

Lodge. It would be a transposed layout, giving operational advantages. It would create a

wholly new route for the Birmingham to Manchester movements, tying into the present

Stone lines north of Norton Bridge.

23.8 Environmental Appraisal

Within Options NB3 and NB4, there would be a diversion of the easterly pair of WCML lines

to pass east of Little Bridgeford / Worston, before adopting the bypass corridor.

This section appraises the environmental effects of ONLY this section of route to the east of

Little Bridgeford / Worston.

23.8.1 Noise

There would be approximately 762 people falling within 300m, likely to be exposed to noise

levels in excess of 55dBLAeq, 18 hour in the absence of mitigation. This ‘option’ would skirt

around the eastern side of the Worston, surrounding the village by two railway lines. The

construction and operation are likely to have an effect in terms of noise.


There would be approximately 191 residential properties within 200m. No roads would be

permanently affected, so there should not be any deterioration in air quality.

23.8.3 Landscape/Townscape

An agricultural landscape rises from the floodplain of the River Sow, where existing railway

infrastructure is evident in the small village of Worston; the village being mainly to the west

side of a minor road. This sub-option would provide a new railway corridor in cutting to

north-east with limited impact and would have an adverse effect on Bridgeford Hall and Little

Bridgeford. The new rail corridor would also sever rural footpaths.

23.8.4 Heritage of Historic Resources

Although not designated as part of the historic local landscape, the settlement of Worston

would be affected by railway tracks on both sides. The form, setting and context of the

heritage would be impacted, and non designated features such as historic field boundaries

would be lost. There is a strong possibility that as yet unidentified archaeology could be

affected, particularly that which is held on the local authority Sites and Monuments Record

(SMR) data, which remain unknown for the purposes of this TAG appraisal. The

conservation area of Chebsey would also be affected. The main features of heritage that

would be affected are:




• 1 Conservation Area;


• 9 SMR features (approximately within 1km of the study area).

23.8.5 Biodiversity

It is likely that there will not be a significant ecological effect on the SACs. This route would

affect ancient and species rich hedgerows and rivers/streams. No designated nature

conservation sites would be directly affected.

23.8.6 Water Environment

The eastern section of the transposition would have a slight adverse impact on the water

environment. The main areas of impact would be the crossing of the River Sow and the

close proximity and encroachment of its 1 in 100yr flood plain. Within a 150m stretch of the

railway, the meander of the River Sow would be crossed three times.

23.9 Summary of Preferences

Of the NB options, some would involve transposition, while others would remove varying

amounts of the existing infrastructure between Badnall Wharf and Little Bridgeford. In the

work done to date, it would appear that Option NB5 would be preferred if transposition were

needed, or Options NB2 or NB5 if it were not needed. These options were at the higher end

of the cost range.

23.10 Further Work Requirements

It must be repeated that this chapter addresses only a small proportion of the potential

layouts, and should not be regarded as a comprehensive study of all potential options.

Indeed, it was recognised that none of the layouts discussed could be regarded as optimal,

nor was the list exclusive. More layout work is needed, together with costing and

environmental appraisal.

In addition, particularly as some of the NB layouts feature transposition, more work is

needed in the Trent Valley Junction area to determine a rationalised Stafford layout more

appropriate to the changed pattern of train flows.




24 Costing and Risk Assessment

24.1 Capital Costs

24.1.1 Introduction

In order to build up the cost of each option, costs were calculated for separate geographical

sections, to allow easy aggregation into complete routes.

24.1.2 Prices and Quantities

The following were measured and costed:

• Site Clearance was based on a simple area measurement of the area to be cleared.

• Fencing was assumed as post and wire, unless high security fencing was needed in

urban areas.

• Drainage was assumed as a linear measure, adjacent to one or both sides of the

track lengths.

• Earthworks quantities were calculated from the drawings. Allowances were made

for the excavation and disposal of contaminated material, and for special ground

improvement measures such as stone columns or soil nailing.

• Permanent way plain line was calculated on a per-km basis. Turnout costs were

based on the speed of the proposed turnout; allowance was made for the laying of

turnouts in greenfield, or possession.

• OLE alterations were costed on a per-km basis for de-wiring, re-wiring, or providing

new OLE in a greenfield situation.

• Structures/retaining walls etc costs were individually calculated for each structure,

making an assessment of concrete volumes, anchors, foundation conditions, and

jacking / temporary works. Tunnelling costs were derived as described earlier,

dependent on cross-sectional area;

• Highways costs were estimated on a “per sq.m” basis for side roads, including all

roadworks items except earthworks, which were measured separately.

• Signalling works were estimated on the basis of new signals, amended signals, and

changes to interlockings / relay rooms. An SEU count was undertaken to determine

these costs;

• Communications costs were estimated on the basis of the change/re-siting required

to existing equipment.

• Service diversions were purely estimates based on site observations, not detailed

estimates from the utility companies.

The total of the above was regarded as “Net Construction Cost”.

• Ancillary Items such as environmental mitigation were added at 2%.

• Land and property costs were calculated using “in-house” historic data, based on

area measurements for categories of land. The land valuations were net costs,

allowing for re-sale values.

• Possession costs were estimated from historic knowledge of similar schemes. The

above items add to the “Total Construction Cost”.

• Risk Allowances were made, based on the 50%-ile point of the cost-risk distribution.

The above items add to the “Total Cost Including Risk”.




The estimates did NOT include for the following, as these valuations were incorporated into

the Business Case model built by the DfT:

• “Optimism Bias”, in accordance with HM Treasury’s “Green Book”;

• Escalation costs for inflation adjustments;

• TOC/FOC compensation, which was valued as “genuine” values of time losses to

passengers, not Schedule 4 compensation values.

24.1.3 Tunnelling Costs

It was assumed that tunnelling costs would be £500 per sq.m giving a cost of £30,000 per

metre run (£30m/km) for a 60sq.m/125mph tunnel, and £50,000 per metre run (£50m/km)

for a 100sq.m/186mph tunnel. Considerable cost savings could potentially be achieved by

the inclusion of airshafts, the cost of each shaft being approximately £250,000. Any air

shafts would introduce some adverse environmental impact (both visual and audible)

especially if they were unavoidably situated near residential property.

The engineering feasibility of such proposals and the environmental and cost implications

need to be assessed in detail. Fundamental to any decisions are confirmation of the train

types to be considered and the most likely combinations, and the probability of passing

through the tunnel coincidentally. Detailed value engineering and risk assessment would

need to be undertaken in order to enable significant reductions to be made on the

construction costs.

24.1.4 Price Base

The costs were assumed to be at Q1, 2006. The costs were required at 2002 prices for

input to the Business Case, as this uses 2002 values of time etc in the benefit calculations.

Network Rail / DfT undertook this deflation calculation.

24.1.5 Risk Allowance

Cost-risk analysis was undertaken for all options, and the resulting P (mean) figure was

added to the Total Construction Cost to give the Estimated Total Cost.

24.1.6 Comparison with Trent Valley 4-Tracking Estimates

The scheme now under construction to widen the railway between Tamworth and Armitage

(known colloquially as “TV4”) has had recent tendered costs for civil engineering elements.

Later tenders will provide data on track, signalling and electrification. This cost data was

used to provide a validation of the methodologies.

24.1.7 Accuracy of Alignments and Corresponding Cost Estimates

For the option development, alignments were prepared on the basis of spot heights in the

ground model at 10m centres, at an accuracy of about ±0.5m. While this accuracy gave a

reasonable ground profile in a gently-sloping field, it was problematic for a discrete

obstruction such as a road, whose level could be identified with considerably less accuracy

than 0.5m. It should therefore be noted that a lateral movement of a centre-line could result

in a noticeable change in the ground profile, and hence the assumed cutting / embankment

heights. In some areas, visual inspection of the surrounding features was such that it could

be possible that taking the vertical profile over a road rather than under it, especially if a

road diversion were needed, might be a more cost-effective solution.

The lateral position of options in the more open country sections was not optimised; efforts

were concentrated in more sensitive areas such as Burston, Pea Hill and certain designated

sites. There remains some way to go on refining alignments in order to avoid individual

property constraints or to minimise impacts on designated environmental sites whose

boundaries are not known with accuracy.




No major attempts were made to optimise earthworks balance, and there remains some

scope for adjustment of those alignments which might emerge from the selection process.

Equally, earthworks quantities and bridging options suggest that costs could move.

It would not be wise to dismiss or retain routes simply because of the impact shown on the

drawings; moving an alignment by 50m could result in cost changes (either positive or

negative).

24.1.8 A Note of Warning

Network Rail undertook estimates of the items not included in Arup’s costs and made other

adjustments to inform their Business Case analysis.

It is therefore quite likely that, when comparing cost data from this report and from Network

Rail’s own work, the reader of this report will encounter differing costs, apparently for an

identical scheme. It must be remembered that all the costs in this report are essentially

capital construction costs only, but are consistent in undertaking relative comparisons of one

option against another.

24.2 Risk Assessment Methodology

24.2.1 Introduction

The risk assessment methodology concentrated on capital cost risk exposure and was in

broad compliance with recognised guidance, principally from Network Rail’s GRIP Project

Management Manual PM10 and the Department for Transport’s Transport Appraisal and the

New Green Book TAG Unit 2.7.1.

24.2.2 Qualitative/Semi-Quantitative Risk Assessment

A Risk Workshop was held to identify a comprehensive list of capital cost risks of each

option. The Workshop was attended by suitably qualified and experienced staff from both

Network Rail and the Arup project team. Risk-related information was recorded in an MS

Excel-based risk register.

Risks were initially qualified/semi-quantified in terms of their probability and severity to

prioritise Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA). The agreed risk classification scheme is shown

in Table 24.1. The probability or percentage bands (Columns 1 & 2) equate to a value

(Column 3). Judgements were made as to the most appropriate probability band for each

identified risk and the ‘value’ recorded in the risk register. The same was true of assessing

risk severity: the quantified bands (Columns 5 & 6) were used as guides for assigning the

appropriate value (Column 8).

TABLE 24.1 - PROJECT RISK CLASSIFICATION SCHEME

Probability of occurrence ( P ) Severity on the project (S)

Scale Typical Range

Value Scale Cost Ranges Programme Ranges

Safety Value

Nil 0%-1% 0 Nil 0k 0 Single minor injury 0

Very Low 1%-5% 1 Very Low £1 - £500k <l week Single major injury 1

Low 5%-10% 2 Low £500k - £2.5m 1 week – 1month Multiple major injuries

2

Médium 10%-25% 3 Médium £2.5m - £10m 1month – 3months Single fatality 3

High 25%-50% 4 High £10m - £50m 3months – 6months Multiple fataliies 4

Very High >50% 5 Very High >£50m >6months 5




24.2.3 Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA)

Table 24.1 was used to prioritise capital cost risks for quantitative analysis. The table

presents values of exposure (RE) for combinations of likelihood and severity. It has a linear

scale for increasing probability and a logarithmic scale for increasing severity. It therefore

re-orders the more significant risks, placing greater emphasis on risks with a high severity

rather than a high probability. The original values from Table 24.1 are shown in

parentheses.

Three-point estimates (i.e. minimum, most likely and maximum cost values) were gathered

for capital cost risks with a medium or high rating (RE≥0.8). These estimates were modelled

and analysed using @RISK. Five thousand iterations were run using the Latin Hypercube

sampling method. Direct costs were assessed separately from programme delay costs to

reduce the likelihood of overestimating contingencies. No correlation modelled between

risks was modelled at this stage.

TABLE 24.2 – RISK MATRIX

Risk Likelihood

Nil 0.05 (0)

Very Low 0.25(1)

Low 0.45(2)

Medium 0.65(3)

High 0.85(4)

Very High 1.00(5)

Very High 1.6(5)

0.08 0.4 0.72 1.04 1.36 1.68

High 0.8(4)

0.04 0.2 0.36 0.52 0.68 0.84

Medium 0.4(3)

0.02 0.1 0.18 0.26 0.34 0.42

Low 0.2(2)

0.01 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.17 0.21

Very Low 0.1(1)

0.005 0.025 0.045 0.065 0.085 0.1

Ris

k S

ever

ity

Nil 0.05(0)

0.0025 0.013 0.023 0.033 0.043 0.05

24.2.4 “Other Option Risk” Items

As described above, a risk analysis was undertaken to identify issues over and above the

risks included in the generic % add-on described above. This work aimed at identifying

major cost elements which any option might have to include. Such issues might be the

inclusion of a tunnel to allow a route re-alignment for higher speed, which could be regarded

as a different option, not a “risk” on the one being analysed.

24.2.5 Risk Allowances

The full sources of cost risk include:

• Constraints on construction works leading to programme delay;

• Delays to acceptance;

• Objections lead to increased capital cost of scheme;

• Delays in decision-making;

• Increased cost of providing suitable facilities;

• Poor definition of land in TWA Order;

• Increased objections to be dealt with during TWA process;

• Project Delays;

• Scarcity of resources;




• Constraints of working, need for accommodation works & redesign;

• Injury to workers;

• Impositions by external authorities;

• Duration of accommodation works;

• Cost of accommodation works;

• Possessions overruns;

• Key possessions missed;

• Unplanned speed restrictions leading to TOC compensation;

• Dramatic increase in construction cost;

• Dramatic increase in construction programme;

• Injury to passengers;

• Varied cost of design & construction;

• Objections to construction of scheme;

• Settlement due to natural solution features;

• Increased drainage & dewatering required;

• Significant cost variation from spot cost estimate;

• Variation to cost of spoil disposal/treatment;

• Controls of discharges & potential treatments;

• Rapid movement of contaminants due to high water table;

• Increased analysis and design to achieve EA consent;

• Increased cost of mitigation measures;

• Risk of stop notice restricting hours of working;

• Requirement for noise insulation or temporary re-housing;

• Unknown effects on area of archaeology and cultural heritage;

• Mitigation following EIA;

• Prolonged CPO process;

• Increased land acquisition & compensation cost;

• Cost of compensating those affected;

• Network change not accepted;

• Residual signalling risks in layout;

• Inflated costs of signalling resource;

• Additional OLE power feeds required;

• Power costs different than expected.

In addition to these risks, further QRA was undertaken on content changes, as described

below.

24.2.6 Risk Assumptions

In the creation of the estimates, a number of key assumptions were made, as follows:




• The potential to re-site the fuel pipeline in the Bishton to Hixon corridor (£1m

allowed, but could be exceeded);

• the contracting strategy will be the same as TV4, ie a “construction only” contract

awarded soon after TWA Order confirmation;

• The options may be more risky than the % referred to above;

• Estimating uncertainty was not allowed for in the estimate;

• There will need to be an extension to the Stoke SCC as there will be no room in

Stoke to take the additional signalling

• All excess spoil (unsuitable or excess cut) would be taken off site;

• The estimate is based on current NR standards;

• Bi-directional signalling on the bypass between Bishton and Norton Bridge was

excluded;

• No allowance was made for the potential removal of Norton Bridge Station;

• 10% was allowed for an “architectural” design of the Trent Viaduct;

• Accuracy of mapping in relation to the vertical alignment;

The existing railway requires no works where connecting to the bypass.

24.3 Cost and Risk Results

24.3.1 Geographical Splits

The geographical split of costs was used to build up the following capital cost estimates.

• Colwich Cut-Off (All options except GF2): £127m;

• Northern Bypass element of HSAN: £195m;

• Northern Bypass element of HSBN: £195m;

• Northern Bypass element of HSCN: £155m;

• Northern bypass element of HSDN: £157m;

• Northern Bypass element of HSAS: £218m

• Northern Bypass element of HSBS: £186m;

• GF2 (Bishton to south of Norton Bridge): £319m

• Badnall Wharf Junction Add-on to HS(N) options: £140m

• Norton Bridge Junction Add-On to GF2 (Range): £142m - £204m;

• ER8: £293m;

• Whitehouse Flyover Add-on to ER8: £52m.

24.3.2 Cost Summary

Risk valuations as described above were then added to give the following aggregated

capital costs. Those combinations where the same outputs could be achieved in a cheaper

manner are not discussed. For example, it would not be sensible to build an expensive

Norton Bridge junction that did not achieve transposition together with a flyover at Great

Bridgeford, if a Norton Bridge layout including transposition was cheaper.

The options considered were:

• HSAN: £482m;

• HSBN: £482m;




• HSCN: £452m;

• HSDN: £454m;

• HSAS: £507m - £568m (depending on Norton Bridge Add-On);

• HSBS: £477m - £533m (depending on Norton Bridge Add-On);

• GF2: £492m - £554m (depending on Norton Bridge Add-On);

• ER8: £504m.

24.3.3 Discussion

The following points can be deduced from the above data:

• The overall cost range is not huge (£452m - £568m); they range about +/-13% of

the average.

• Option HSCN and HSDN are, within the limits of the estimating method, equal and

cheapest, and about £30m cheaper than Options HSAN and HSBN (Note that £30m

is only 6% of the average cost - within the margin of costing uncertainty);

• Options HSAS, HSBS and GF2, which pass south of Norton Bridge, are more

expensive than their HSAN and HSBN equivalent if the preferred options at Norton

Bridge (Options NB2 or NB5) are added in;

• Options HSAS, HSBS and GF2 are effectively equal in cost to HSAN and HSBN

equivalent if a “light” Norton Bridge option (Options NB1) was added in;

• Option ER8+ is “mid-range”.




25 Planning Policy Assessment

25.1 National Planning Guidance

25.1.1 Policy Assessment

The national planning policies (PPS/PPG) sets out overriding principles for formulating

regional, sub-regional and local planning policies that will guide future development

programmes (major infrastructure projects of national, regional and local importance). The

national planning guidance supports the overall objectives of this scheme to promote

sustainable transport to provide improved public transport and accessibility in accordance

with the sustainable development objectives, however, the impact of the scheme on the

overall environment is considerable, particularly on the countryside and the natural, built and

historic environment.

Options in the HS Series and GF2

These options would run outside the main urban areas north of Stafford. The area is open

countryside without any specific designation of national importance. Whilst the alignments of

these options are outside any specific statutory designation, along certain sections of the

proposed route alignments fall close to areas of land with a number of designations such as

Green Belt, AONB, SSSI or Registered Parks and Garden, listed buildings, conservation

and areas of local landscape character.

Options ER8+

Options ER8+ would potentially impact Shugborough Park (Registered Park and Garden

and Cannock Chase AONB) where the existing route is in a tunnel. This is probably the

most environmentally sensitive, running through the AONB. A portion of the route would run

close to the residential areas of Weeping Cross and Baswich. The proposed option is close

to the AONB boundary and will therefore impact the visual amenity of the area.

It would partially pass through the urban area of Stafford and Stafford Station, and then

through an environmentally sensitive area with SSSI designation. The option would also run

close to residential areas.

25.1.2 Overview

All options are supportive of the overall sustainable development objectives set out in PPS1

will contribute to the improved performance of the railway network in this area which

underpins national planning and transport policy set out PPS13.

The options will also deliver the government’s sustainable communities agenda and in

particular support economic development. The options are also supportive of PPS6:

Planning for Town Centres as it will reduce congestion at the existing station and potentially

help to attract investment to the town. There may also be some conflicts with the policy

guidance for a number options if they affect the amenity within the town centre.

The options have the potential to run counter to elements of national policy guidance,

particularly relating to the natural and historic environment (PPS9 and PPG15, PPG16)

where the proposal is extension of the track through environmentally sensitive areas or a

new route through open countryside. The impact of these Options on the natural

environment and the countryside will need to be weighed against the potential benefits. All

options will need to be considered in terms of their impact on adjoining land uses, flood risk

(due to locations in or adjacent to flood plains), waste management, archaeology,

biodiversity and geology, noise and pollution. In this respect, it is reasonable to assume that

due to the amount of land take required in respect of all the options, they will have

considerable impact.




Most options will require considerable land take within an area of predominantly open

countryside, particularly the HS series and GF2. The biggest issue in respect of these route

options is compliance with national planning policy guidance, in particular guidance relating

to environmental impact and the impact on rural areas. Whilst there are no rural settlements

along these routes that are directly affected, the alignment of each route is through a

number agricultural land holding and buildings that will impact the rural/agricultural industry.

Option ER8 will require land take-up along the existing WCML, however some section of the

track for some the options is through environmentally sensitive areas such as the AONB

and SSSI. Whilst these options will deliver benefits and meet the national planning policy

objectives for urban renaissance, sustainability, economic development and regeneration,

the biggest issue is compliance with particular policies relating to impact on the natural and

historic environment of areas such as Cannock Chase AONB, SSSI and registered parks

and gardens and further extension of visual intrusion in the open countryside.

25.2 Regional Planning Policy


There is support in principle within the RSS for improvements to the WCML. All route

options will contribute to the improved performance of the railway network within the region,

supporting the delivery of the improvements to the transport infrastructure and delivering

associated economic, environmental and social benefits. The improved performance of

Stafford station should assist in supporting the growth of retail / economic development in

Stafford town centre. However, as all route options by-pass Stafford station, there is the

potential for these options to affect the delivery of some policies of the Regional Spatial

Strategy. It will be necessary to assess the impact of any adverse affect against the direct

and/or indirect benefits of the improvements to the transport network.

These options will require careful consideration in terms of their relationship to work

underway by the Highways Agency to deliver the widening of the M6 Junction 11a – 19

(Policy T12) or an alternative parallel Expressway scheme. All options will have an impact

on the quality of the environment, rural settlements through and adjacent to which the routes

will pass, adjoining land uses, areas where there are environmental assets etc, areas of

flood risk (due to locations in or adjacent to flood plains) etc. Due to the considerable linear

land take required for each of the cross-country route options, it is likely that they will have

the greatest impact on the natural environment of the open countryside.

Options HS and GF2

These options run through the open countryside. The whole length of the route will be

through the rural areas and will have considerable impact on the agricultural holdings and

farmsteads. These Options need to be assessed against the environment policy in the RSS,

particularly Policy QE1 Conserve and Enhance the Environment. They will also have

considerable an impact on the character of the landscape through which the routes will pass

and the environmental impact in terms of noise and pollution.

The options also need to be assessed against Policies T10 (Freight) and T12 (Priorities for

Investment) to ensure that the alignment of these routes do not adversely affect other

transports proposals, including the widening of the M6 or other highway improvement

proposals with the Regional Transport Strategy.

Option ER8+

This option requires works along and within close proximity to the existing track, however as

some sections of the railway track runs through designated areas and others sections of the

track very close to the environmentally sensitive areas, these options need to be assessed

against the environment policy in the RSS.




The options will increase the railway’s visual impact on the natural environment through

intensification of the transport corridor in the open countryside and through the

environmentally sensitive locations close to the AONB and registered parks and gardens.

The proposal will be subject to assessment against the Quality of Environment policies, in

particular policies QE5 (Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment), QE6

(The conservation, Enhancement and Restoration of the Region’s Landscape) and QE7

(Protecting, Managing and Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity and Nature Conservation

Resource) in terms of their impact on the natural and historic environment of the AONB and

the registered park and garden.

The options will require minimum land take along the existing WCML, however, a section is

through an environmentally sensitive area and further extension of the track will impact the

AONB. It will deliver benefits to Stafford station. Again the biggest issue is compliance with

regional planning policy guidance, in particular policies relating to the AONB.

The development through the urban area of Stafford and Stafford Station will have an

impact on the adjoining land and uses in terms of land take-up and increased noise and

pollution.

The section between Stafford and the M6 is an environmentally sensitive area with SSSI

designation. The extension of the track through this section will have considerable impact on

the environmental designation. This option will be subject to assessment against a number

of policies relating to the natural, built and historic environment as well as policies relating to

the transport and urban and rural renaissance.

25.2.2 Overview

These options will deliver the wider objectives of RSS, policies relating to the renaissance of

the urban centres and rural settlements, improved transport and accessibility in and through

the region. However, the options will also impact the policies relating to the natural and

historic environment, the countryside and the rural areas.

25.3 County Structure Plan


Whilst the policies and proposals of the Structure Plan have been ‘saved’ under the new

planning system, they are now somewhat dated, particularly in terms of the outcomes of the

MIDMAN Multi Modal Study (see above). However, in general terms, the Structure Plan

offers support in principle for all options, in particular from a transport perspective. However,

dependent upon alignment and location of the preferred route, there may be matters of

detail which are contrary to certain elements of policy.

Options HS and GF2

The whole length of these route options are through the rural environment and setting of the

countryside and affecting a number of farmsteads and agricultural holdings. Each route will

have considerable impact on the countryside and will lead to intensification of the visual and

physical impact on the character of the countryside and its landscape. Whilst this area is not

afforded any special protection, the impact of this option will need to be assessed against

the general structure plan policies relating to the countryside, natural and historic

environment and impact on the rural environment.

These route options running through the open countryside will have considerable impact on

the quality of rural life through noise and pollution. These options will need to be assessed

against the Structure Plan policies set out above.

The plan wide protection policies (listed above) have particular relevance for these options,

as the scheme passes through largely undeveloped countryside. There is potential for

negative impacts on settlements, landscape, natural and built heritage conservation,




floodplain and agricultural land etc, the extent of which will be subject to detailed

assessment.

Options ER8+

There are a number of designations on the structure plan diagram which affect the general

area through which these options pass, in particular the AONB and registered park and

garden, which has considerable relevance at Shugborough Park which is registered park

and garden and more importantly also within the Cannock Chase AONB.

The development and extension of the existing WCML through the urban area of Stafford

and Stafford Station will have an impact on the adjoining land and uses in terms of land

take-up and increased noise and pollution.

This section between Stafford and the M6 is an environmentally sensitive area with SSSI

designation. The extension of the track through this section will have considerable impact on

the environmental designation. This option will be subject to assessment against a number

of structure plan policies relating to the natural, built and historic environment as well as

policies relating to transport and managing change in the rural areas.

25.3.2 Overview

These options will deliver the Structure Plan policies relating to the renaissance of the urban

centres and rural settlements, improved transport and accessibility in and through the

region. However, the Options will also impact the policies relating to the natural and historic

environment, the countryside and the rural areas.

The plan wide protection policies have particular relevance for those options that are within

the designated landscape and affecting the natural and historic environment. The take-up of

adjoining land through largely undeveloped countryside will also impact the natural

environment and the wildlife along the existing transport corridors. There is a potential for

negative impacts on settlements, landscape, nature and build heritage conservation,

floodplain and agricultural land etc, the extent of this will be subject to detailed assessment.

25.4 Local Plan


Options HS and GF2

The whole length of these route options are through the rural environment and setting of the

countryside within Stafford Borough Council administrative area and would affect a number

of farmsteads and agricultural holdings. Each route will have an impact on the rural life and

economy through the intensification of the visual and physical impact and the character of

the countryside and its landscape. Whilst this area is not afforded any special protection, the

impact of these options will need to be assessed against the Stafford Borough Council Local

Plan policies set out above relating to the countryside, natural and historic environment and

impact on the rural environment. The eastern section of these route options will also be

assessed against the Lichfield District Local Plan as a small section of the route is within

Lichfield District Council and a number of land-use designation fall within the 5kM of the

proposed development.

The plan wide protection policies relating to the countryside, rural and natural environment,

landscape have particular relevance for these Options, as the scheme passes through

largely undeveloped countryside. There is potential for negative impacts on rural

settlements, landscape, natural and built environment, heritage and conservation, floodplain

and agricultural land etc, the extent of which will be subject to more detailed assessment

and evaluation. Route Option GF2 runs close to the built up areas of Stafford and will have

an impact on the amenity of the residential neighbourhood. Local Plan proposal for




employment and residential development on the north-western fringe of Stafford will be

particularly affected by this Option

Options ER8+

There are a number of designations on the local plan diagram which affect the general area

through which these options pass, in particular the AONB and registered park and garden,

which has considerable relevance for at Shugborough Park and Cannock Chase AONB. .

The Local Plan policies relating to the land-use designation for environment and

conservation are particularly relevant and these options will have adverse impact on the

area and will be contrary to these policies. The route options through the built-up areas are

very close to a number of residential and commercial users and extension of the track will

have considerable impact on the amenity of these users.

The extension through the urban area of Stafford and Stafford Station will have an impact

on the adjoining land and uses in terms of land take-up and increased noise and pollution.

This section between Stafford and the M6 is an environmentally sensitive area with SSSI

designation. The extension of the track through this section will, therefore, have

considerable impact on the environmental designation. This option will be subject to

assessment against a number of local plan policies relating to the natural, built and historic

environment as well as policies relating to the transport and managing change in the rural

areas.

25.4.2 Overview

These options will deliver the local plan policies relating to the regeneration and economic

development of the main urban centres of Stafford and will also benefit rural settlements

through improved transport and accessibility in the sub-region and through the West

Midlands Region. Whilst there is no direct implication on the local transport and

accessibility, however an improved national and regional railway service through Stafford

will reduce congestion. The wider impact may lead to greater economic development in the

town centre. The Options will also have an impact at the local level on land-use and land

designation for policies relating to the natural and historic environment, the countryside and

the rural areas.

The plan wide protection policies, listed above, have particular relevance for those Options

that are within the designated landscape and affect the natural and historic environment.

The take-up of adjoining land through largely undeveloped countryside will also impact the

natural environment and the wildlife. There is potential for negative impacts on settlements,

landscape, natural and built heritage/conservation, floodplain and agricultural land etc, the

extent of this will be subject to detailed assessment.

25.5 Conclusion

All options will all deliver a number of national, regional and local objectives in terms of

improved and efficient railway through Stafford and Stafford station that will have a positive

impact in meeting the policy objectives relating to sustainable development, improved

accessibility and choice of transport mode, economic development and urban and rural

renaissance.

Most options will also have an impact on the natural, built and historic environment of the

urban and rural areas, in particularly areas of the countryside with statutory and local

designation of AONB, SSSI, Green Belt, Registered Park and Garden, Area of Green

Network and Areas of Landscape Value.

The options will undermine a number of national, regional and local environmental and

conservation policies in particular areas where there is statutory environmental designation.




26 Operational Analysis Results – Summary

26.1 Basic Approach

As described earlier, a free-standing report on operational analysis was prepared; this

chapter summarises key data from that study.

The principal aim of the development of infrastructure options was to achieve a Capacity

Utilisation Index (CUI) of about 75% or below. This objective was one of the principal drivers

that demonstrated that the existing layout at Stafford would not cater adequately with

forecast 2015 train service flows.

Train graphs were prepared from the 2015 train service specification provided in the Project

Functional Specification. Train graphs were plotted, using established timetabling rules, and

placed at minimum intervals to establish the proportion of the hour needed to deliver the

hourly cycle of trains. Where trains could be accommodated in 36 minutes out of the 60, this

would give a CUI of 60%. Where the hourly pattern could not be accommodated in the hour,

a total of 66 minutes might be needed; this would represent a CUI of 110%.

These graphs were then translated by specially-developed software to produce a Network

Utilisation Model, which gave a geographical representation of the loading of links and

junctions, colour-coded to represent degrees of loading. These significantly aided analysis

and option optimisation.

26.2 Issues

Three key issues need to be highlighted. This report:

• makes no attempt to provide the reasoning behind the choice of the 75% value, this

having been determined by Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) work on Route Utilisation

Studies. It should also be noted that the value of 75% was contained in the Project

Functional Specification;

• includes infrastructure solutions which achieve 75%. Any “overcapacity” (eg 85%

CUI) could always be improved if trains were removed from the proposed timetable.

This would, however, negate the level playing-field nature of this study. If the project

remit were to be changed to remove trains, any number of other infrastructure

options could be assessed;

The assessment was based on a “busiest hour” which, for Stafford meant the evening Down

peak trains from Euston coinciding with a flow of Up freights heading towards Willesden etc.

This could skew the infrastructure solutions, and CUI values (and hence infrastructure

solutions) need checking for a corresponding Up passenger / Down freight pattern.

26.3 Key Findings

The key findings from the operational modelling are:

• the 2015 timetable would not perform satisfactorily on the 2008 infrastructure;

• adding Colwich Cut-Off only to 2008 would not provide sufficient capacity;

• a “simple” bypass alone would not deliver sufficient capacity in the Up direction. It

would also be very restrictive on train presentation throughout the network;

• adding an up Slow Chord only at Bishton Junction gains timetabling flexibility;

• a 3rd

track from Hixon to Bishton shows “Up” improvements but there were still

complex presentation issues;

• transposition ending within the Badnall Wharf Junction would be ineffective;




• transposition south of Norton Bridge would be highly effective;

• satisfactory CUI values could be achieved by routing all freight via Stafford and

reducing the northern junction to a 2-track (rather than 4-track) tie-in;

• remodelling Norton Bridge would not affect CUI but would achieve time savings;

• decisions on the number of freight trains routed via the bypass, or remaining on the

existing route via Stafford, would adjust CUI values; there was no simple answer to

this conundrum;

• all the HS options’ A to D locations were assumed to give a common CUI value

(within the limits of the process);

• options in the “S” series (or GF2) were assumed to offer comparable CUI values to

the “N” options;

• ER8+ needs to include all the infrastructure elements defined.

• Option ER8+ would have no realistic flexibility to cater for further growth; it would be

very difficult to further enhance it, unlike a bypass option where additional facilities

could be added;

• the initial impression that the Wolverhampton to Stafford corridor was critical to the

overall CUI score was found not to be supported by the analysis;

• relief of Colwich Junction is required in all options, particularly in ER8+ where there

is a high Up usage through Shugborough Tunnel;

• Colwich Cut-Off was essential in ALL options;

• Options including Colwich Cut-Off, a bypass and transposition would generate the

highest journey time benefits which would improve the Business Case.

Again, it is emphasised that the Operational Analysis Results Report needs to be fully

understood to appreciate the subtleties.




27 Summary Tables

This section presents a summary of the main attributes of each option. It does not list ALL

attributes, as some, such as the Business Case analysis, were undertaken by others.

27.1 WebTAG – Environmental Effects

Table 27.1 below sets out the overall aggregated appraisal scores for all options for all

environmental sub-objectives.

TABLE 27.1: SUMMARY OF WebTAG ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL SCORES

HSAN HSBN HSCN HSDN GF2 HSAS HSBS Trans ER8+

Noise Needs traffic data – property count at 300m used as proxy

Local Air

Quality

Needs traffic data – property count at 200m used as proxy

Greenhouse

Gases

Needs data from transport model to fully assess

Landscape Moderate

Adverse

Large

Adverse

Large

Adverse

Large

Adverse

Large

Adverse

Large

Adverse

Large

Adverse

Slight

Adverse

Large

Adverse

Townscape Moderate

Adverse

Slight

Adverse

Large

Adverse

Moderate

Adverse

Moderate

Adverse

Moderate

Adverse

Slight

Adverse

Slight

Adverse

Moderate

Adverse

Heritage of

Historic

Resources

Large

Adverse

Large

Adverse

Large

Adverse

Large

Adverse

Large

Adverse

Large

Adverse

Large

Adverse

Moderate

Adverse

Moderate

Adverse

Biodiversity Moderate

Adverse

Moderate

Adverse

Slight

Adverse

Moderate

Adverse

Moderate

Adverse

Slight

Adverse

Moderate

Adverse

Slight

Adverse

Large

Adverse

Water

Environment

Slight

Adverse

Slight

Adverse

Slight

Adverse

Slight

Adverse

Slight

Adverse

Slight

Adverse

Slight

Adverse

Slight

Adverse

Large

Adverse

Physical

Fitness

No data - but minor issue

Journey

Ambience

No real relevance to rail schemes

27.2 WebTAG - The Accessibility Objective

Table 27.2 below sets out the overall aggregated appraisal scores for all options for the

accessibility sub-objectives.

TABLE 27.2: SUMMARY OF WebTAG ACCESSIBILITY APPRAISAL SCORES


Severance Slight

negative

Slight

negative

Slight

negative

Slight

negative

Slight

negative

Slight

negative

Slight

negative

Slight

negative

Neutral

Access to

transport system

Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral




27.3 WebTAG - The Integration Objective

Table 27.3 below sets out the overall aggregated appraisal scores for all options for the

integration sub-objectives. It can be seen that there would be no difference between

options.

TABLE 27.3: SUMMARY OF WebTAG INTEGRATION APPRAISAL SCORES


Land-Use Policy Local: Adverse / Regional: Beneficial / National: Beneficial (for all options)

27.4 Property Effects

Table 27.4 below presents a summary of the number of residential properties potentially

affected by each option.

TABLE 27.4: PROPERTY EFFECTS

HSAN HSBN HSCN HSDN GF2 HSAS HSBS ER8+

Land required

(ha)

86 76 68 66 116 79 81 62

Properties

probably directly

affected by

demolition.

1

(Grange

Hill Farm

– on

Colwich

Cut-off)

5

(Grange

Hill Farm,

plus

possibly

4 at

Sandon

Bank)

3

(Grange

Hill Farm,

Sandon

Station

House,

Pirehill

Cottage

Farm)

1

(Grange

Hill Farm)

2

(RAF

Hopton)

1

(Grange

Hill

Farm –

on

Colwich

Cut-off)

5

(Grange

Hill

Farm,

plus

possibly

4 at

Sandon

Bank)

13 (27)

(Grange

Hill Farm,

6 at Baxter

Green, 6

at

Bridgeford)

(plus

possibly

14 at A449

if diverted)

Properties within

200m (approx)

257 51 61 64 22 243 31 1991

People within

300m (approx)

909 276 238 229 189 910 172 6995

Note: Transposition at Little Bridgeford / Worston would add up to 191 properties when calculated in

accordance with the WebTag methodology, but many of these would be “double-counted” since they

are already within 20m of the existing railway.

27.5 Route Lengths

Table 27.5 below presents a summary of the total journey lengths from south of Bishton to

north of Badnall Wharf, for all route options. The table shows the length of new construction

and the total route length.




TABLE 27.5: ROUTE LENGTHS

HSAN HSBN HSCN HSDN GF2 HSAS HSBS ER8+

Total Route Length 25.7 25.8 26.1 26.4 25.7 26.0 26.5 27.7 (existing)

Length of New

construction

22.5 21.5 19.2 18.7 23.7 22.5 22.0 N/A

27.6 Trent Viaduct Lengths and Heights

Table 27.6 below presents a summary of the length and height of the proposed Trent Valley

viaduct for the appropriate route options.

TABLE 27.6 : TRENT VIADUCT DIMENSIONS

HSAN

HSAS

HSBN

HSBS

HSCN HSDN GF2 HSAS HSBS

Length 1490m 1200m 1700m 1950m 1250m 1490m 1200m

Typical Height 10m 10m 10m 18m 10m 10m 10m




28 Discussion of the Options - The Decision Tree

This report now presents a discussion of the above findings, attempting to find a logical path

through the decision process.

28.1 Option ER8+

The issues surrounding Option ER8+are:

• It was the least favoured environmentally;

• Making the most of the existing transport corridor is a point in its favour;

• It was mid-range in costs;

• It is in close proximity to the largest number of people;

• Its construction would involve prolonged traffic effects in a congested urban area,

particularly by the closure of Newport Road; these effects are not modelled in the

Business Case – pedestrians could be very adversely affected;

• Construction would cause the greatest disruption to the existing railway, and hence

would have the greatest TOC compensation (to be added by Network Rail outside

this study);

• It would offer the lowest time savings, and it would seem self-evident that it could

not offer the same Business Case benefits (it does offer London-Manchester

savings via the Colwich Cut-off, but no savings to the North-West or Scotland);

• It would not be as flexible as a bypass, offering no routing alternatives during

maintenance or disrupted operation;

• It would require the demolition of most houses, almost certainly 13, possibly up to

27;

• There would be only limited opportunities to further enhance this option by the

addition of further infrastructure should further growth occur;

• There could be signalling control issues arising from its potential impact on Stafford

signal box control areas.

It is therefore felt that Option ER8+ should not be considered further.

A corollary of this conclusion is that a bypass is required.

This is the main conclusion of this study.

28.2 HS Options - Locations A to D

Locations A or B cost about £30m more than Locations C or D, when a favoured Norton

Bridge junction is added, but all location costs are within 15% of the mean.

Location A would involve multiple crossings of the River Trent, and would be somewhat

close to the village of Salt.

Location A might require tunnelling at the A34 as a noticeable landscape improvement.

Location B brings with it an unfortunate landscape impact at Pea Hill that could potentially

be mitigated by a tunnel.

Location C would have particularly adverse environmental effects on Burston, but Location

A would have adverse effects on Salt; this is difficult to assess without more detailed study,

especially of the effects of the Trent Viaduct;

Locations C and D could not sensibly be combined with an “S” option for the alignment

towards Norton Bridge; they would be less flexible




Locations C and D could not offer speeds higher than 125mph. Although 125mph is the

remitted speed requirement, Locations A or B are more adaptable for possible future

operational scenarios.

Location D has the largest Trent viaduct.

It is understood that the Business Case analysis does not reflect the route lengths, and

these gradually from A to D, D being the longest route and hence the poorest in terms of

benefit calculations.

If A or B were preferred, and higher speeds than 125mph were to be seriously considered:

• tunnel diameters would need to be increased;

• works on RS12 would be needed;

• RS12 works would add costs, making Option GF2 an attractive alternative.

Provision of the tunnel at Pea Hill, and its size, are therefore key decisions.

28.3 Option GF2

Option GF2 would cost between £492m and £554m (depending on Norton Bridge Add-On).

This is at the higher end of all options.

Option GF2 offers a very direct alignment from Bishton to south of Norton Bridge and looks

a “natural” solution when drawn on a large-scale map.

It is the shortest route between Bishton and Badnall Wharf, a fact which is not reflected in

the Business Case calculations, where all HS and GF options were assumed to have

identical benefits;

Although closest to Stafford, it affects fewest people.

The most notable adverse environmental impacts are in the Ingestre area, where it could

impact on an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and it would pass through Yelds

Rough, an area of Ancient Woodland. It might, however, be possible to avoid both of the

constraints by moving the route further north, with a greater effect on Ingestre Golf Course.

There would be an intrusive cutting on the Colwich Cut-Off where the Manchester route

diverges from the through alignment between Bishton and Hixon.

The crossing of the Trent Valley is advantageously perpendicular in GF2 rather than oblique

in the HS options, with some advantage.

It offers an identical CUI value to all other HS options.

It passes south of Norton Bridge, offering operational advantages, so do other routes in the

“S” series.

GF2 could offer higher speeds, up to 186mph, an advantage which is outside the scope of

the study but which just might be an over-riding factor if other circumstances and network

developments were to prevail.

Overall, it would be difficult to dismiss Option GF2 on this report’s evidence.

28.4 “N” or “S” options north or south of Norton Bridge

This issue is difficult for this report to resolve.

The report concludes that Options HSAS, HSBS and GF2 are generally more expensive,

but not when compared with transposed N options. Those additional costs will be offset by

additional benefits of journey time savings on the Birmingham to Manchester axis.




This report cannot resolve this issue. Only Network Rail/DfT can assess which outweighs

the other, and whether the “N” or “S” variant is preferred.

28.5 Discussion – the NB Options

A number of NB options were developed, with a wide range of attributes. Some would

involve transposition, while others would remove varying amounts of the existing

infrastructure between Badnall Wharf and Little Bridgeford. In the work done to date, it

would appear that Option NB5 would be preferred if transposition were needed, or Options

NB2 or NB5 if it were not needed.

28.6 The Effect of Transposition

Transposition would cost an incremental £15-77m, but these costs would be offset by

benefit gains that are to be assessed by the DfT. Transposition would offer the opportunity

to rationalise the residual layout at Stafford, particularly in the Trent Valley Junction area,

with potential savings at a later re-signalling.

This report cannot resolve this issue. Only Network Rail/DfT can assess which outweighs

the other, and whether transposition is justified.

28.7 The Preferred Option

It must be emphasised that this report cannot make any recommendations on a preferred

option, principally because there are other deciding factors outside the scope of the above

discussions.

Appendix A

Planning Policies



Page A1 Ove Arup & Partners LtdIssue 3 26 June 2007

A1 Planning Policies

A1.1 National, Regional and Local Planning Policies and Plans

The route options were assessed against all the relevant planning policy guidance and

development plans and all policies that apply are summarised below. The exercise has

been desk based, and relies on published documents only. The assessment is based on

the current available planning policies and plans, however the content of the local

development plans and policies are undergoing rapid change as progress is made in

preparing Local Development Framework (LDF).

A1.2 National Planning Guidance

Planning Policy Statements (PPS) are issued by central Government and are gradually

replacing the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) notes. The PPSs / PPGs set out the

Government's national policies on different aspects of land use planning in England and

need to be taken into account by Regional Planning Bodies in the preparation of Regional

Spatial Strategies (RSS), and by Local Planning Authorities in the preparation of the LDFs.

They may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications.

The PPSs and PPGs considered relevant to this development have been examined from the

perspective of the Options being considered.

The following Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance notes have been

identified as most likely to be relevant to the proposal. These documents are high level and

non site specific and provide a framework for the lower level development plans:

• Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development. PPS1 sets out

the overarching framework for planning policies on the delivery of sustainable

development through the planning system. It recognises the need for high quality

development to deliver sustainable development and secure sustainable

communities and emphasises the role of national planning policies, the RSS and

the LDFs in providing the framework for planning and managing sustainable

development effectively.

• Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts. PPG2 sets out the aims of Green

Belt policy and establishes a general presumption against inappropriate

development within a Green Belt, except where there are special circumstances to

justify that development. It notes (para 3.13) that “When any large-scale

development or redevelopment of land occurs in the Green Belt (including

…….infrastructure developments or improvements), it should, so far as possible

contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green

Belts……...”

• Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing (2000), Updates (2003 and 2005) and

Consultation Paper on a New Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (Dec 2005).

The main objective of PPG 3, updates and the recent consultation paper on a new

PPS3, are to promote more sustainable patterns of development and make better

use of previously developed land, with the focus for additional housing being in

existing towns and cities.

• Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres. This PPS focuses on a

range of issues relating to town centres, and aims “to promote their vitality and

viability by planning for the growth and development of existing centres; promoting

and enhancing existing centres, by focusing development in such centres; and

encouraging a wide range of services in a good environment, accessible to all.”




• Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. PPS7 sets

out the role of planning in facilitating and promoting sustainable patterns of

development and sustainable communities in rural areas. Where significant

development of agricultural land is unavoidable any adverse effects on the

environment should be minimised.

• Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. This PPS

sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological resources

through the planning system. It seeks to promote sustainable development through

the enhancement of biodiversity and geological resources as part of economic,

social and environmental development in that planning authorities should ensure

that appropriate consideration is attached to designated nature conservation sites,

biological and geological features of different value. PPS9 makes clear that the aim

of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological

interest.

• Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. This

PPG looks to achieve more sustainable waste management and requires that

“Proposed new development should be supported by site waste management plans

of the type encouraged by the Code of Practice published by the DTI.” These

should “identify the volume and type of material to be demolished, and / or

excavated, opportunities for reuse and recovery of material and to demonstrate how

off-site disposal of waste will be minimised”.

• Planning Policy Statement 11: Regional Spatial Strategies. PPS11 sets out the

processes and procedures to guide the preparation of Regional Spatial Strategies

(RSS) and Regional Transport Strategies (RTS). The RTS sets out a strategic

framework for regional and local transport planning, including rail services, to

ensure integration with spatial planning considerations at a regional or sub-regional

level.

• Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Development Frameworks. This sets out the

Government's policy on the preparation of Local Development Documents (LDDs)

which will comprise the Local Development Framework (LDF). It emphasises the

need for consistency and integration between LDDs and local transport plans. It

also states that where there are land-use implication of the local transport plan, then

these should be addressed in the LDD. Scheme commitments should be included

where there is a strong commitment to delivery from the relevant Agency.

• Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport. The objective of this PPG is to integrate

planning and transport at a national, regional and local level to:

• • “Promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving

freight;

• • Promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public

transport, walking and cycling;

• • Reduce the need to travel, especially by car.”

• It is recognised that an effective transport system is necessary for the benefit of the

local and national economy. Important routes should be maintained to allow good

levels of mobility.

• Annex C (Para 8-10) deals with Planning for New Railways, Tramways and Inland

Waterways and notes that “The Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) provides a

strategic steer on the role and future development of new railways, tramways and

inland waterways.” Annex C also deals with mitigating the impact of new transport

infrastructure and notes that “Care must be taken to avoid or minimise the




environmental impact of any new transport infrastructure projects, or improvements

to existing infrastructure; this includes the impacts which may be caused during

construction (including the need to transport materials to and from the site, and

dispose of spoil).”

• Planning Policy Guidance 14: Development on Unstable Land. This PPG explains

briefly the effects of land instability on development and land use, and may be

relevant if ground conditions indicate a potential problem.

• Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment. This PPG

sets out policies for the identification and protection of historic buildings,

conservation areas, and other elements of the historic environment and the role of

the planning system in their protection. It highlights the impact that “major new

transport infrastructure developments can have on the historic environment, not just

visually and physically, but indirectly, for example by altering patterns of movement

or commerce and generating new development pressures or opportunities in

historic areas”. There is a need to identify any features of the historic environment

and wherever possible keep new infrastructure away from them, however the PPG

acknowledges that at times a balance has to be struck between this need and that

of the environment, economics, safety and engineering feasibility.

• Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning. This PPG sets out the

government’s policy on archaeological remains on land and how they should be

preserved or recorded both in an urban setting and in the countryside. It provides

advice on the handling of archaeological remains and discoveries, including the

weight to be given to them in planning decisions and planning conditions. An

explanation is given of the importance of archaeology and of procedures in the

event of remains being discovered. It aims to ensure that the impact of development

on areas of archaeological interest is kept to a minimum and there is a presumption

in favour of preservation ‘in situ’.

• Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control. This PPS

emphasises the need for Local Planning Authorities, when considering proposals for

development, to take into account the risks of and from pollution and land

contamination, and how these can be managed or reduced.

• Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise. This PPG provides advice and

guidance on matters to be taken into account when considering activities which will

generate noise, the impact on residential areas and planning conditions to minimise

the impact of noise. Local Planning Authorities are encouraged to locate noise

sensitive developments away from noise generators and vice versa. Where this is

not possible, mitigation measures should be considered.

• Planning Policy Guidance 25: Development and Flood Risk. Consultation on

Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (Dec 2005). PPG 25

makes clear the importance of the management and reduction of flood risk, acting

on a precautionary basis and taking account of climate change. It makes clear that

a catchment-wide approach should be taken, and assuming the use of flood plains

for their natural purpose. The Environment Agency has the lead role in providing

advice on flood issues, and developers should fund flood defences where required

as a consequence of the development.

A1.3 Other Relevant National Policy Guidance

In preparing their development plans, local planning authorities and regional planning

bodies are also required to take into account other relevant government policy. Of key

importance to this project are the following:




• Future of Transport White Paper 2005. This identifies the need that a transport

network can meet the challenges of a growing economy and the increasing demand

for travel, but can also achieve the government’s environmental objectives. In terms

of rail, this requires a network “providing a fast, reliable and efficient service,

particularly for interurban journeys and commuting into large urban areas”.

• Future of Rail White Paper 2005. This makes clear that the key priorities for the rail

industry are to control its costs and live within the level of public funding available to

it, and to improve its performance for passengers and freight users. When demand

grows faster than the supply of new transport services and infrastructure, problems

are likely to emerge such as road congestion and overcrowding on public transport

(which may in turn constrain economic growth). Investment in transport is needed to

alleviate and prevent these problems and rail has a vital and essential role in this.

Encouraging more people to use rail rather than road has a key role to play in

meeting the government’s environmental objectives and rail's environmental

advantage is at its highest when loadings are high. Decisions on where investment

should be focused, however, can only be taken as part of a wider strategy that looks

at all kinds of transport, and what part each should play in meeting an area or

community's needs. This means that rail should be considered alongside other

forms of transport, and decisions will also need to be linked with wider

considerations, such as planning, housing and regeneration.

A1.4 Regional Planning Policy

Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands - RSS 11. The Regional Spatial Strategy

(RSS) incorporates the Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) and guides the preparation of

local authority development plans and local transport plans, so that they can deliver a

coherent framework for regional development. The RSS will also be material to decisions

on individual planning applications and appeals.

The RSS sets out four main challenges for the region:

• Urban renaissance – developing the major urban areas in such a way that they can

increasingly meet their own economic and social needs in order to counter the

unsustainable outward movement of people and jobs;

• Rural renaissance – addressing more effective the major changes which are

challenging the traditional roles of rural areas and the countryside;

• Diversifying and modernising the region’s economy – ensuring that opportunities for

growth are linked to meeting needs and that they help reduce social exclusion; and

• Modernising the transport infrastructure of the West Midlands – supporting the

sustainable development of the region.

The location of the region, at the centre of the road and rail network is recognised, along

with the competing demands that this brings in accommodating national, regional and local

transport needs. In terms of the study area, the transport policies reflect the

recommendations of the West Midlands – North West (MIDMAN) Multi Modal Study, which

looked at transport along M6 corridor between Birmingham and Manchester, including the

study area.

In terms of heavy rail, the WCML is identified in the priority Trans-European Transport

(TEN). Policies T1 (Developing accessibility and mobility within the region to support the

spatial strategy), T5 (Public Transport) and T10 (Freight) support all options under

consideration in that they will deliver improvements to rail network within the region. Policy

T12 identifies the priorities for transport investment and includes the completion of works to

the West Coast Mainline and other schemes primarily focused on the conurbation.




The M6 Widening J11a – 19 is identified as a scheme within T12. This scheme would

involve the widening of the existing motorway between these junctions. An alternative

scheme to this is currently under investigation by the Highways Agency, the M6 Express

Way. The scheme option for a new motorway running parallel to the existing M6 is no long

being considered.

Policy RR1 deals with Rural Renaissance and draws attention to the relationship between

these areas and the larger cities and towns which serve them. Stafford is identified as a

county town and as such will continue “to act as a focus for new investment to support wider

regeneration and help meet the economic, social and cultural needs of the surrounding rural

areas”. Policy UR2 deals with Towns and Cities (which include both Rugeley (adjacent to

the south east corner of the study area, and Stafford) outside the major urban areas. The

rural parts of the study area do not fall within the Rural Regeneration Zone identified by

RSS. However much of the study area falls within open countryside and there are some

small villages which provide homes and jobs for the local population.

Stafford is identified as a strategic town centre within the region (Policy PA11), and as such

is a driver for the economy and a location for new retail, leisure and office development.

Stafford is also identified as a Market Town (Policy RR3), which are identified as the foci for

the rural renaissance in most parts of the region. It is intended that they should provide a

number of opportunities to their population including shopping, housing, training and

education “so that these benefits are widely available to people in the rural hinterland town

and with improvements to transport (particularly public transport),” para 5.14 o the RSS.

These improvements may be direct or may come about following improvements to other

parts of the network.

The RSS also contains a number of policies which seek to protect and conserve the region’s

natural and built heritage. Three of the four routes options are within 5KM of an Area of

Outstanding National Beauty (Cannock Chase) which Policy QE1 (Conserving and

Enhancing the Environment) seeks to conserve and protect.

Other relevant polices include QE5 (Protection and enhancement of the historic

environment), QE6 (Conservation, enhancement and restorations of the region’s

landscape), QE7 (Protecting, managing and enhancing the region’s biodiversity and nature

conservation resources), QE8 (Forestry and Wildlife) and QE9 (The water environment).

Within and /or adjacent to the study area RSS identifies a number of environmental areas of

enhancement including an Area of Concentrated Biodiversity Enhancement, Green Belt,

Strategic River Corridor for Enhancement, Canal, and environmental assets including

Cannock Chase AONB, Flood Plain, European Wildlife Site (West Midlands Region only) (at

Stafford) and a river basin catchment area.

A1.5 County Structure Plan Policy

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996 – 2011

The Structure Plan for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent was prepared jointly by

Staffordshire County Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council and covers the period 1996-

2011. The Plan was formally adopted in 2001. Under the new planning arrangements the

structure plan policies will be saved for 3 years. The aims of the Structure Plan are to:

• Increase the prosperity of Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent and reduce unemployment

levels;

• Maintain and enhance environmental quality

• Meet identified housing needs;

• Develop a more sustainable integrated accessibility strategy;




• Revitalise the image of Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent.

Urban regeneration is central to many of the policies of the Structure Plan. The Economy

and Transport Policies that are relevant are set out below:

Policy E9 – The Rural Economy: The policy supports the provision of small business units in

rural area.

Policy E10 – Agricultural Related Development: The policy supports the development

related to the operational requirements of the agricultural industry that will improve or

maintain the local economy and protect the local countryside character and the

environment.

Policy E11A – Tourism: The policy supports the development of new or expansion of

existing tourist attractions or facilities provided that the development is in keeping with

policies that conserve and promote the landscape, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area.

Policy T1A – Sustainable Location: The policy supports development that located, sited and

designed to be most convenient, safe and provide attractive choice of transport mode.

Policy T1B - An Integrated Transport Strategy: The policy seeks an integrated and

sustainable transport strategy which will reduce the growth in the length and number of

motorised journeys and improve the availability, accessibility, efficiency and attractiveness

of walking, cycling and public transport.

Policy T7 – Public Transport Provision: The policy seeks the provision of a a comprehensive

and integrated public transport network throughout Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, which

meets local and longer distance travel needs through partnership with operators.

Policy T8A – Improving the Rail Network: The policy seeks improvements to the rail network

in order to increase passenger journeys and movement of freight by rail, and encourages

the development of inter-regional and local services, the upgrading of the West Coast Main

Line and the modernisation and enhancement of other lines.

Policy T8B – New Stations: The policy seeks to open new or reopen old stations, including

support for strategic park and ride sites where they are justified.

Policy T10 – Freight Transport: The policy gives priority to reducing the environmental

impact of long distance freight movements.

Policy T14 – Routes of National and Regional Significance: The policy supports the free flow

of traffic on routes of national and regional significance, including the West Coast Main Line.

Policy T15A – Motorway, Trunk Road and National Rail Proposals: The policy seeks to

ensure that land is reserved for the implementation of improvements to the West Coast

mainline.

The key diagram in the Structure Plan identifies a number of policy designations within the

study area including :

• Strategic Highway Network (Policy T12),

• Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Policy NC3),

• Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty),

• Green Belt (Policy D5A),

• Development in the Green Belt (Policy D5B),

• National/Millennium Cycle Network, Urban Areas, Priority County and City Major

Transport Schemes (Policy T15B)

• Rugeley By-pass [Phase 2a and 2b]),




• Upgrade of Walsall-Rugeley Railway Line and the Motorway.

There are also a number of plan wide protection policies which need to be taken into

account in assessing the route options. Some of these policies will have an impact on the

route options and they will need to be addressed and considered. The wider policy in the

Plan that may apply in respect of each Option includes:

• Sustainable Forms of Development (D1),

• Design and Environmental Quality of Development (D2),

• Managing Change in Rural Areas (D4),

• Conserving Agricultural Land (D6),

• Providing Infrastructure Services, Facilities Mitigating Measures Associated with

Development (D8),

• Protection of the Countryside - General Considerations (NC1),

• Landscape Protection and restoration (NC2),

• Biodiversity (NC5),

• Important Semi-Natural Habitats (NC6 ),

• Sites of International Nature Conservation Importance (NC7A),

• Sites of National Nature Conservation Importance (NC7B),

• Sites of Local Nature Conservation Importance (NC7C),

• Habitats of Protected Species (NC8), Water resources (NC9),

• Flood Risk (NC10),

• Protection of Trees, Hedgerows and Woodlands (NC13),

• Sites of Archaeological Importance (NC14),

• Registered Historic Battlefields (NC16),

• Historic parks and Gardens: Protected (NC17A),

• Listed Buildings (NC18),

• Conservation Areas (NC19),

• The Tame and Trent Valley (R5B),

• Canal Facilities (R7).

There is also Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Planning for Landscape Change’

produced by the County Council. This does not have the status of an adopted development

plan, but is a material consideration which may be taken into account.

A1.6 Local Planning Policy

Adopted local planning policy in the study area is found in the following documents:


• Cannock Chase Local Plan March 1997


• Lichfield Local Development Framework Submission Documents

• Stafford Local Development Framework Submission Documents




With the exception of the emerging Stafford Local Development Framework Submission

Documents and Lichfield Local Development Framework submission documents, the plans

used were all prepared and adopted around 5 – 9 years ago and as such it is very likely

many of the specific sites identified for development may have since been delivered. As this

has been a desk based exercise this has not been checked.

The emerging Lichfield Local Development Framework was considered at an Examination in

Public during March and April 2006 and the emerging Stafford Local Development

Framework was considered at an Examination in Public in June 2006. The Planning

Inspectors’ decisions on both Local Development Frameworks have been received by the

local authorities. The recommendation of the Inspectorate is that they are not adopted as

the development plan documents are unsound. In view of this outcome, it is not considered

appropriate that these options should be assessed against the core policies in the

Development Plan Documents.

Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001

The Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001, adopted 1998, is the Council's statutory land-use

plan for the whole of the Borough. The Local Plan has been ‘saved’ for three years under

the new arrangements. In accordance with the new regulations for the LDF, Stafford

Borough Council has produced the Local Development Scheme and the Statement of

Community Involvement. These have been adopted by the Borough Council. The Local

Development Scheme sets out the work programme for preparing the LDF, which will

include a number of Local Development Documents covering a range of spatial planning

policies.

Until the Core Strategy Local Development Document is adopted, the Local Plan will remain

the development plan for the Borough and the Options will need to be assessed against

these policies. As the emerging Local Development Framework has not been supported by

the Planning Inspectorate as it is found to be unsound the Borough Council will be

reconsidering its position. It is, therefore, considered that the options should not be

assessed against emerging Stafford Local Development Framework.

Stafford Borough Proposals

The policies and proposals within the local plan that are relevant to the Options are:

• Policy MV7 Proposed New Road – Rugeley Eastern Bypass

Open Countryside and the Green Belt-

• Policy E and D7 (Development in the Countryside),

• Policy E and D8 ( Loss of High Quality Agricultural Land),

Protecting the Best of Built and Natural Environment –

• Policy E and D18 (Development Likely to Affect Conservation Areas),

• Policy E and D19 (Accommodating New Development within the Conservation

Area),

• Policy E and D20 (Demolition of Buildings in Conservation Areas),

• Policy E and D 26 (Protected Open Spaces),

• Policy E and D 27 (Green Network),

• Policy E and D 28 (Landscape Conservation),

• Policy E and D29 (Areas of Designated Landscape Value),

• Policy E and D31 (Cannock Chase AONB),




• Policy E and 32 (Development Proposals in Special Landscape Areas),

• Policy E and D33 (Preservation of Archaeological Remains),

• Policy E and D34 (Archaeological Evaluation),

• Policy E and D35 (Historic parks and Gardens),

• Policy E and D37 (Nature Conservation Sites of International Importance),

• Policy E and D38 (Nature Conservation Sites of National Importance),

• Policy E and D39 (Nature Conservation Sites of Regional/Local Importance), Policy

E and D 41 (Protected Species),

• Policy E and D42 (Tree Preservation Order),

• Policy E and D43 (Tree in Conservation Areas),

• Policy E and D44 (Developments Affecting Tree and Hedgerows),

• Policy E and D45 (Protection of Ancient Woodlands),

• Policy E and D46 (Forestry Proposals),

There are also proposals in the Inset plan relating to specific sites that are relevant and also

applicable to the Options being considered, these include:

Stafford Inset Plan

Housing Proposal (Proposal HP1 – Residential Development of Land at Former British

Reinforced Concrete Works, Silkmore Lane)

Retail Warehouse Park (plus RET2)

Green Network (Policy E and D27)

Protected Open Space (Policy E and D26 – Protected Open Space)

Conservation Area

Residential Development Boundary

Site in Sites and Monuments Record

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Proposal T2 – Hotel Development

Little Haywood and Colwich

Protected Open Space

Conservation Area

Registered Park and Garden

Scheduled Ancient Monument Site on Sites and Monuments Record

Edge of Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Great Haywood

Conservation Area

Registered parks and Gardens


Milford

Conservation Area




Part of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Green Belt

Edge of Registered Park and Garden

Salt


A1.7 Adjoining Districts

Policies relating to Options that will have an impact as the route is within 5KM of Local Plan

Policies of the adjoining Districts is set out below:

Cannock Chase Local Plan March 1997

• Policy T9 - Rail-Passenger and Freight Services (extension of a passenger service

from Hednesford to Stafford including new station at Rugeley Town and route

electrification)

Plan Wide Protection Policies

• Protection of International Sites of Nature Conservation and Ecological Importance

(C9)

• Protection of National Sites of Nature Conservation and Ecological Importance

(C10)

• Protection of Other Sites of Nature Conservation and Ecological Importance (C11)

• Ecological Assessments and Mitigation Actions (C12)

• Safeguarding of Protected Species (C13)

• Protected Trees (C15)

• Listed Buildings (B2)

• Ancient Monuments and Archaeology (B5)

• Design Principles for New Built Development (B8)

• Water Pollution Prevention (PEP1)

• Development of Contaminated Land (PEP2)

• Unstable Land (PEP5)

• Safeguarding Amenity (PEP7)

• Developer Contributions (IMP1)

Lichfield District Local Plan 1998

• Development in Conservation Areas - C2, C3, C5, C6, C7

• New Roads (NA 15) 1 Rugeley Eastern Bypass (part)

Plan Wide Protection Policies

• Development in Rural Areas (E6)

• Protection of Agricultural Land (E8)

• Fragmentation of Farm Holdings (E9)

• Water Habitats (E14)

• Flood Protection (E15)




• Development Affecting nature Conservation Sites (E18)

• National Sites (E18A)

• Protected Species (E19)

• Listed Buildings (C1)

• Amenity and Design Principles for Development (DC1)

• Amenity (DC2)

• Archaeological Assessment (DC15)

• Sites of Recognised Importance (Sites and Monuments sites) (DC14)

• Archaeological Assessment (DC15)

• Existing Trees and Hedges on Development Sites (DC17)

• New Tree Planting on Development Sites (DC18)