Two new open-access cross-country proposals

[DDB]

I hope the Nottingham to Bristol via Oxford one goes ahead as it would be useful for me personally!
It would allow me to make cross country lesuire journeys without having to use the CrossCountry (the train company)'s full and overpriced trains.
Initially I wondered if there are enough people like me then I remembered how overcrowded CrossCountry (the TOC)'s trains and think therefore there might be. Taking those passengers off XC would help ease overcrowding for the remainder.

It is a long way round Nottingham to Bristol but I would probably take it for a quieter and cheaper train avoiding London and Birmingham New Street. Any ideas how long the end to end journey would likely be?

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm quite surprised they haven't thought of running over, and reopening stations on, the Leicester-Burton line to justify their application for creating new links.

That would immediately kill the business case.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Apr 2025 ==

It would allow me to make cross country lesuire journeys without having to use the CrossCountry (the train company)'s full and overpriced trains.

The “full and overpriced” trains that lose money. Which implies that any competitor will also lose money…

 

[BlueLeanie]

The Government run half hourly passenger train service to be operated by Chiltern on the reopened railway between Oxford and Milton Keynes has not even started yet and already this reopened railway is part of an open access passenger train service application.

It's disappointing it's taken this long!

If the Government isn't going have an existing franchised operator deliver inter-city services on the new route, then OA operators should be fast-tracked.

 

[tomuk]

But a 5 coach 197 costs a lot more to lease!

Yes. Cheaper than Stadler 745s though I assume.

 

[FGWHST43009]

The Rhoose to Liverpool one is certainly interesting. While a direct Cardiff-Liverpool makes sense, heading along the VoG only as far as Rhoose makes no sense. There isn't a turnback facility at Rhoose, so the train would need to run down to Aberthaw to reverse, at which point it's more logical to extend to Bridgend or even Swansea, although extending to Swansea would require using platform 1 at Bridgend in both directions as there's no connection from platform 2 to the VoG. The service will need to leave Barry just before the xx.13 or the xx.43 in the Cardiff direction and just before the xx.38 in the Rhoose direction to avoid catching up with locals.

 

[JonathanH]

If the Government isn't going have an existing franchised operator deliver inter-city services on the new route, then OA operators should be fast-tracked.

It would be interesting to see what the passenger modelling is that suggests there is demand for intercity services over this route sufficient to pay for an open access operation.

just because it is a new route doesn't warrant an open access operator running services any more than something like Leeds to Cambridge or Manchester to Leicester would.

 

[The Planner]

The Government run half hourly passenger train service to be operated by Chiltern on the reopened railway between Oxford and Milton Keynes has not even started yet and already this reopened railway is part of an open access passenger train service application.

Not sure why thats an issue, they are just trying to bid into white space they think is there.

 

[LLivery]

Well, the EWR-Nottingham semi-fast idea sounds very familiar...

Although, missing Wellingborough is almost funny at this point

 

[robspaceman]

Apologies if I’m being blind, but what happened to the original WSMR thread from which this new one was split?

*edit… ignore the above sorry, have found it

 

[cle]

If there is space on the new route, great. Someone should take it.

EWR maybe getting to Cambridge in 20 years should not preclude optimization the use of our new mainline capacity today.

Covers off Bedford-Oxford before 2030, ha… now who is abstractive?

 

[BlueLeanie]

It would be interesting to see what the passenger modelling is that suggests there is demand for intercity services over this route sufficient to pay for an open access operation.

just because it is a new route doesn't warrant an open access operator running services any more than something like Leeds to Cambridge or Manchester to Leicester would.

Are there any OA operators that aren't Inter-city operators (apart from the Jacobite)?

I suspect there is considerable suppressed demand East-West. Peak pricing going the long way round via London is eye-wateringly expensive, and the "9F" restrictions on Cross Country unhelpful for leisure travel.

Not forgetting the A43 and other cross country routes are absolutely awful.

It doesn't have to be an OA operator. The Government can add an appendix to the franchise for one of the existing operators to include a new route.

For whoever does get it, they'd better be ready for heavy loadings. Connecting Bath, Oxford, Bicester Village, Universal Studios! It'll be full to standing from April to October - and that's without the Nottingham and Leicester E-W flows.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Not sure why thats an issue, they are just trying to bid into white space they think is there.

Just making the point that open access operators appear to make decisions and get things done a lot more quickly than Government controlled rail operations. I strongly support East West Rail Oxford-Milton Keynes-Bedford-Cambridge but I find it very frustrating that it is taking such a long time to get done. We wait endlessly even for the first train service, half hourly between Oxford and Milton Keynes, to start. The Nottingham to Bristol via Oxford open access train service would be very useful and makes use of both the reopened railway from Oxford to Bletchley and the Marston Vale Line from Bletchley to Bedford. Clearly they have noticed the proposal for the Universal Studios Theme Park at Stewartby. However this does prompt the question as to why we have to wait several years for a regular half hourly train service between Oxford and Bedford.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Are there any OA operators that aren't Inter-city operators (apart from the Jacobite)?

It depends if you count the embarrassing Go-Op situation

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are there any OA operators that aren't Inter-city operators (apart from the Jacobite)?

It's hard to make a profit from regional services. Across Europe regional services are generally tendered and subsidised, while InterCity operates more commercially. This is just because of the cost of staff's time (one of the biggest costs) vs. the level of fares that can realistically be charged.

 

[swt_passenger]

If there is space on the new route, great. Someone should take it.

EWR maybe getting to Cambridge in 20 years should not preclude optimization the use of our new mainline capacity today.

Covers off Bedford-Oxford before 2030, ha… now who is abstractive?

In the EWR TWA inspectors report, he states that DfT had removed the requirement for ‘cross country type’ services from the signalling design, ie the intended Oxford to Milton Keynes and to Bedford/Cambridge frequencies, plus the possible freights, are using the full capacity of the route.

 

[weeklycommuter]

In the EWR TWA inspectors report, he states that DfT had removed the requirement for ‘cross country type’ services from the signalling design, ie the intended Oxford to Milton Keynes and to Bedford/Cambridge frequencies, plus the possible freights, are using the full capacity of the route.

It will be interesting to see what the MCWR proposal says about that.

 

[driverd]

It depends if you count the embarrassing Go-Op situation

Why do you say embarrassing?

I find Go-op very admirable, if not for anything other than their resilience and determination in getting a rail service up and running, using a structure that isn't focused on making money and is, rather, driven by public need.

 

[cle]

However this does prompt the question as to why we have to wait several years for a regular half hourly train service between Oxford and Bedford.

It’s beginning with 1tph in 2030. On a railway that exists now. Cant preserve rights for such modest ambition.

They should come in and eat EWR’s lunch. It’s a piece of infrastructure we should support, vs an operator. And it’s useable today. So have at it.

Caveats on pathing and stock as ever.

This service also addresses some of the Bedford => North MML lack / Corby only criticism too on EMT. Wellingborough I would think worth adding for same reason - sweep up any Leicester and Notts demand.

GWR might not be happy re Bristol-Oxford growth plans.

 

[Bald Rick]

They should come in and eat EWR’s lunch.

That’s fine, so long as they pay the full cost of that taxpayer funded lunch.

(My opinion).

 

[Sorcerer]

Economics and practicalities aside, it would be nice to have some Welsh and South West England connections back at Liverpool Lime Street, though I'm not quite sure which rolling stock would be suited for it. I feel if these were given to a TOC it would either fall under CrossCountry or Transport for Wales, or perhaps one covering one route each. But if capacity is at a premium then given a choice, I'd personally rather opt for the second London service over the Cardiff and Bristol ones.

Are there any OA operators that aren't Inter-city operators (apart from the Jacobite)?

Heathrow Express is the only open access operator in the UK not running an intercity service, but I expect the Heathrow traffic flowing in and out of central London is what makes it worth any revenue risk. Otherwise on a for-profit basis an intercity route makes the most sense, and in many cases it's intercity services that turn a profit to help subsidise the local services. Even open access operations owned by state-owned railways across Europe (ie. Iryo, Ougio in Spain) only tend to opt for city-to-city routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Heathrow Express is the only open access operator in the UK not running an intercity service, but I expect the Heathrow traffic flowing in and out of central London is what makes it worth any revenue risk. Otherwise on a for-profit basis an intercity route makes the most sense, and in many cases it's intercity services that turn a profit to help subsidise the local services. Even open access operations owned by state-owned railways across Europe (ie. Iryo, Ougio in Spain) only tend to opt for city-to-city routes.

And notably HEx charges very high fares - a fare that would get you much further on say GWR.

 

[Sorcerer]

And notably HEx charges very high fares - a fare that would get you much further on say GWR.

I feel this is definitely something you could only get away with on a London Airport Shuttle service, or at least just Gatwick and Heathrow. Otherwise you couldn't dream of charging such high fares for a local services. Even HEX has the Elizabeth Line to contend with, and perhaps the Piccadilly Line if time isn't an object for getting into Central London.

 

[Zomboid]

Airport Express services exist in a realm of their own. The Arlanda Express in Stockholm was ridiculous, I used the bus the next time I went

 

[JamesT]

Why do you say embarrassing?

I find Go-op very admirable, if not for anything other than their resilience and determination in getting a rail service up and running, using a structure that isn't focused on making money and is, rather, driven by public need.

They may have resilience and determination, but they seem very unlikely to get a rail service up and running. With less than two months to go, they've only raised 3% of the funds needed.

 

[cle]

That’s fine, so long as they pay the full cost of that taxpayer funded lunch.

(My opinion).

Are Chiltern adding to their TOC contribution for these services? The access fees are the same, correct?

The government paid for the railway to be used. The ROI by waiting/running no Bedford trains should be considered - i.e. a relatively empty mainline. Not to mention a societal benefit of running more 'cross country' services sooner. With XC in the toilet, and many new markets and pairs being connected here which would all be car journeys before. I would think there should be an easement.

 

[Bald Rick]

Are Chiltern adding to their TOC contribution for these services? The access fees are the same, correct?

Yes they are, because they will be paying a higher Fixed component of the access charges.

 

[Zomboid]

Are Chiltern adding to their TOC contribution for these services? The access fees are the same, correct?

The government paid for the railway to be used. The ROI by waiting/running no Bedford trains should be considered - i.e. a relatively empty mainline. Not to mention a societal benefit of running more 'cross country' services sooner. With XC in the toilet, and many new markets and pairs being connected here which would all be car journeys before. I would think there should be an easement.

The WCMR proposal certainly looks like something that should be given a chance. I don't know how much it'll impact capacity, but the busiest section of the Oxford to Bedford route will be between Bicester and Oxford, and even when EWR is fully operational there's only 6tph planned there, so a handful of additional services calling at pretty much the same places doesn't sound like something that'll be impossible to path. Oxford to Didcot and Bristol might well be harder, and I know nothing of the MML.

Even when EWR is running, Kettering to Bath is going to need at least 2 changes, and possibly 3 depending on what GWR do, which will do a great job if suppressing whatever demand there is for travel between those general areas. I suppose the full route from Nottingham or Leicester to Bristol is simpler via Birmingham, but all the intermediate trips are what it'll actually serve.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

It'll be interesting to know what stock is going to be used. 125mph is ideal for south of Swindon and north of Bedford.

 

[MikeFromLFE]

Odd they miss out Wellingborough when stopping pretty much everywhere else. Given EMR only serve Kettering/Corby North of there directly they could argue they are providing better journey options.

Or even run the occasional service through Corby and Melton Mowbray?

 

[JonathanH]

The WCMR proposal certainly looks like something that should be given a chance.

Taking revenue risk on something the state controlled railway considers not to be remotely viable is a bold move.

Further, if the open access operations that involve London are questioning whether they could be viable if they had to pay higher access costs, then this doesn't seem to have much prospect of being a worthwhile enterprise.