WCML Open Access Applications Rejected

YorkRailFan · Thursday at 16:12

I'm not surprised. Obviously the lack of capacity on the WCML, which is well documented, was the main reason for these rejections but all three certainly had other factors against them.
Virgin's was seen as abstractive and unrealistic from the start.
Lumo's had the potential to be abstractive to/from Manchester, although the Rochdale extension was an attempt to mitigate this.
WSMR had failed before so questions regarding its feasibility were always going to be up in the air.

RailUK Forums

35B · Thursday at 16:19

Harpo said:
Shrewsbury to London services have failed on three occasions in three decades. Until a means is found of making through trains faster than railheading at Stafford, the definition of insanity is available for testing for a fourth time.

WSMR failed, West Coast pulled back under Covid - what was the other?

Demand exists, as railheading to Stafford is a hassle.

Harpo · Thursday at 16:24

35B said:
WSMR failed, West Coast pulled back under Covid - what was the other?

Demand exists, as railheading to Stafford is a hassle.

InterCity’s original withdrawal. (Edit) But thats possibly nearer 4 decades ago??

I worked with the guy who pulled the plug on that occasion and at any meeting where our train catering provided the food I’d shuffle a packet of Fruit Shrewsburys in front of him. :lol:

Bletchleyite · Thursday at 16:30

35B said:
Demand exists, as railheading to Stafford is a hassle.

Changing at Birmingham International is hardly that much of an issue (cross platform one way, over the bridge the other), and you can do it hourly. You can change at New St three times an hour now too, with a choice of costlier but faster Avanti or cheaper but slower WMT, though obviously people might prefer to avoid that.

35B · Thursday at 17:20

Bletchleyite said:
Changing at Birmingham International is hardly that much of an issue (cross platform one way, over the bridge the other), and you can do it hourly. You can change at New St three times an hour now too, with a choice of costlier but faster Avanti or cheaper but slower WMT, though obviously people might prefer to avoid that.

As TfW through to International is unreliable, and New St is, well, New St, Telford residents I know continue to look to Stafford. Especially when considering the journey home.

Starmill · Thursday at 17:22

Bletchleyite said:
Changing at Birmingham International is hardly that much of an issue (cross platform one way, over the bridge the other), and you can do it hourly. You can change at New St three times an hour now too, with a choice of costlier but faster Avanti or cheaper but slower WMT, though obviously people might prefer to avoid that.

On one of those three you can change at Wolverhampton rather than Birmingham New Street if you wish to. Regulars would be well aware of both options. Online journey planners sometimes don't suggest these two stations even though they're substantially easier for most passengers than Birmingham New Street. The quid pro quo is you get a far inferior choice of shops and cafés than Birmingham has.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 17:27 ==

35B said:
As TfW through to International is unreliable, and New St is, well, New St, Telford residents I know continue to look to Stafford. Especially when considering the journey home.

I did make the suggestion quite some years ago of combining the express WMR service with an Avanti service instead of trying to shoe-horn more trains in for little benefit to anyone. Nowadays it would be hard to achieve without a little bit of waiting time at Wolverhampton which may add several minutes to the Shrewsbury - Birmingham New Street run time vs today, the payoff being one fewer platform occupied in Birmingham each hour.

All irrelevant now as the Avanti rolling stock order of hybrids was sized such that it can run their Chester and North Wales services but with nothing significant left over. Of course, it's an easy enough round trip from Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury when considering battery capacity available today but that's a long term question really.

weeklycommuter · Thursday at 17:37

Bald Rick said:
The letter is clear that the DfT letter had no bearing on their decision. Indeed the ORR letter is quite point about that.

The following decision letter for the three rejected WCML applications, published on the ORR website with the rest of the documents for each of the three rejected applications, includes the following points which makes it clear that the reason for the rejections is the lack of capacity on the WCML. Letters from the DfT and funds available to the Secretary of State for Transport were not relevant to the decision.

I fully understand the reasons the ORR have given for rejecting these three WCML open access applications but I am a bit puzzled as to why in that case the ORR approved the Grand Union Trains (GUT) Limited (London to Stirling) open access application on 7 March 2024.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-07/2025-07-03-applications-for-access-to-the-west-coast-main-line-decision.pdf

Dear applicants and Network Rail,
Applications for access to the West Coast Main Line (WCML)
1. We have carefully considered the applications for track access contracts with Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail) made by East Coast Trains Limited (Lumo NW), The Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway Company Limited (WSMR) and Virgin Management Limited (Virgin). These were submitted to us under section 17 of the Railways Act 1993 (the Act) between March and May 2024.
2. We have rejected each of these applications. We considered whether any of the three applications could be approved. We also considered the three Virgin service groups in their own right. We have arrived at the same conclusion for each application and rejected them on the grounds that there is insufficient capacity on the network and the introduction of these services would be detrimental to performance on the West Coast Main Line (WCML). This letter explains in detail the reasons for our decision.

13. In this instance, the duty to have regard to the funds available to the Secretary of State was not relevant because capacity and performance were the determinative factors for each application.

18. Late on 20 June 2025 we received a letter from DfT “for consideration at our June Board hearing”. Much of the letter reiterated the Department’s previously stated position with regard to Open Access. However, in the context of the impact of the applications on
the Secretary of State’s funds, it stressed the need for ORR to take “steps to fully understand and consider the cumulative scale and impacts of abstraction when it assesses Open Access applications”.
19. An email from DfT received on 23 June provided partial clarification of the letter, stating that DfT is aware that ORR considers the impact on Secretary of State funds when making decisions, “but we are not aware of a formal statement of how it does this”. DfT went on to say that it did not see this as a reason to hold up decisions, “rather that we believe ORR should have regard to cumulative impact from these current applications (reflecting its duty to consider the impact on SoS funds) and that it would be helpful to set out a means of doing this in the future. We of course recognise that the decision on how to consider statutory duties remains one for the ORR.”
20. Our Board considered both the letter and the email from DfT at its meeting on 24 June 2025. It concluded that neither was a relevant consideration given the Board accepted the factors of capacity and performance were determinative in each application. In particular, the Board did not have cause at any stage in its discussion to consider its duty relating to the funds available to the Secretary of State.

Bertie the bus · Thursday at 17:45

A S Leib said:
Would anybody, Lumo included, try to apply for a Wrexham – Hereford – Paddington route in the knowledge that they wouldn't have competition via Telford (despite being an hour and a half longer than changing at Chester and skipping Telford)?

Lumo certainly wouldn't. FirstGroup are in rail to make money not because it might be nice for Aunt Mable to have a direct train from Wrexham to Hereford to see her nephews. The WSMR bid would have gone under in a few years, your suggestion wouldn't last a few months.

Starmill · Thursday at 17:45

weeklycommuter said:
The following decision letter for the three rejected WCML applications, published on the ORR website with the rest of the documents for each of the three rejected applications, includes the following points which makes it clear that the reason for the rejections is the lack of capacity on the WCML. Letters from the DfT and funds available to the Secretary of State for Transport were not relevant to the decision.

I fully understand the reasons the ORR have given for rejecting these three WCML open access applications but I am a bit puzzled as to why in that case the ORR approved the Grand Union Trains (GUT) Limited (London to Stirling) open access application on 7 March 2024.

The person who signs the letter can include the details of what they had for breakfast as a justification for the decision if they want to. The Minister cares about the decision, not the wording in use in the letter. Nobody will have a shred of evidence that what they've written isn't true, so nobody can do anything about it regardless of what they were actually motivated by or not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 17:46 ==

Bertie the bus said:
Lumo certainly wouldn't. FirstGroup are in rail to make money not because it might be nice for Aunt Mable to have a direct train from Wrexham to Hereford to see her nephews.

She's already got a pretty good choice of direct trains to be fair!

AJDesiro · Thursday at 18:06

Starmill said:
All irrelevant now as the Avanti rolling stock order of hybrids was sized such that it can run their Chester and North Wales services but with nothing significant left over. Of course, it's an easy enough round trip from Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury when considering battery capacity available today but that's a long term question really.

There were enough 805s to run the Shrewsbury extension, it was ditched by the DfT due to low passenger numbers. In fact, there’s a double 805 diagram on the Euston-Birminghams pretty much all day.

Starmill · Thursday at 18:11

AJDesiro said:
There were enough 805s to run the Shrewsbury extension, it was ditched by the DfT due to low passenger numbers. In fact, there’s a double 805 diagram on the Euston-Birminghams pretty much all day.

Enough to run two trains at odd times, yes. I could have worded that differently.

But that's not enough to be the first bit useful for anything, hence the reason why nobody was using it...

DynamicSpirit · Thursday at 18:35

Harpo said:
Shrewsbury to London services have failed on three occasions in three decades. Until a means is found of making through trains faster than railheading at Stafford, the definition of insanity is available for testing for a fourth time.

Shrewsbury to Stafford is about an hour's drive (and 30 miles distance) - long enough to be pretty inconvenient for someone who wants a train journey to London! So even a slower service should attract custom. I would think the issue is not so much the competition from Stafford but more that Shrewsbury by itself is too small to be able to fill regular trains to London: To make a London-Shrewsbury service worth doing, you need the trains to serve other big destinations en-route, so that the trains get filled up by the combination of destinations - which is of course how rail usually works! I would imagine for example that extending some of the Avanti London-Birmingham trains to Shrewsbury, stopping at Wolverhampton and Telford, would work well - if only Avanti had the spare trains and there was capacity + electrification on the lines to allow that. But of course an Open Access operator can't run a route that serves big destinations like Birmingham because of the abstraction rules, so it has to rely on lots of stops in small towns that, even when combined, are never really going to generate the revenue - especially for an infrequent service.

LNW-GW Joint · Thursday at 19:17

Harpo said:
InterCity’s original withdrawal. (Edit) But thats possibly nearer 4 decades ago??
I worked with the guy who pulled the plug on that occasion and at any meeting where our train catering provided the food I’d shuffle a packet of Fruit Shrewsburys in front of him.

ICWC pulled back from Shrewsbury-Euston twice - once when Virgin took over (using Mk3/47) and binned Blackpool and Salop (around 2000); then after restarting with Voyagers stopped again during Covid (Avanti).
They added Wrexham-Euston (via Chester), initially as an OA service but later added to the franchise map.
WSMR pulled out of Wrexham-Shrewsbury-Marylebone after heavy losses.
Some of the WSMR Mk3 vehicles and locos were then used on the Holyhead-Wrexham-Shrewsbury-Cardiff premier service by WG/ATW (also initially as an OA service).

35B · Thursday at 19:30

LNW-GW Joint said:
ICWC pulled back from Shrewsbury-Euston twice - once when Virgin took over (using Mk3/47) and binned Blackpool and Salop (around 2000); then after restarting with Voyagers stopped again during Covid (Avanti).
They added Wrexham-Euston (via Chester), initially as an OA service but later added to the franchise map.
WSMR pulled out of Wrexham-Shrewsbury-Marylebone after heavy losses.
Some of the WSMR Mk3 vehicles and locos were then used on the Holyhead-Wrexham-Shrewsbury-Cardiff premier service by WG/ATW (also initially as an OA service).

DfT pulled back, not Virgin/Avanti. The distinction is important

Tetchytyke · Thursday at 19:31

weeklycommuter said:
I fully understand the reasons the ORR have given for rejecting these three WCML open access applications but I am a bit puzzled as to why in that case the ORR approved the Grand Union Trains (GUT) Limited (London to Stirling) open access application on 7 March 2024.

Political pressure.

The Conservatives wanted OA operators, the ORR were directed to make it happen, and so Lumo (East Coast Trains) in 2016 and Lumo (Grand Union) in 2024 got their licences. Both licences are ridiculous, the Lumo ECML particularly so, but the pressure was on to get them approved before the general election.

We’re now under a different government, one that sees subsidising OA operators to undercut GBR as a ridiculous proposition, and so the ORR decide differently.

Bradford1 · Thursday at 19:33

With Lumo to Manchester now off, what happened to LNR to Manchester?

Tetchytyke · Thursday at 19:34

LNW-GW Joint said:
WSMR pulled out of Wrexham-Shrewsbury-Marylebone after heavy losses.

The losses weren’t that big. What happened was that Chiltern tried to use W&S to meet Chiltern’s franchise obligations and this was (belatedly) found to be a breach of Chiltern’s franchise agreement. Once that little ruse was closed down, DB Regio quickly lost interest.

The Planner · Thursday at 20:25

Bradford1 said:
With Lumo to Manchester now off, what happened to WMR to Manchester?

Still not dead, but I reckon it will only be the airport extension proposal that gets anywhere.

Brubulus · Thursday at 21:17

Tetchytyke said:
Political pressure.

The Conservatives wanted OA operators, the ORR were directed to make it happen, and so Lumo (East Coast Trains) in 2016 and Lumo (Grand Union) in 2024 got their licences. Both licences are ridiculous, the Lumo ECML particularly so, but the pressure was on to get them approved before the general election.

We’re now under a different government, one that sees subsidising OA operators to undercut GBR as a ridiculous proposition, and so the ORR decide differently.

I don't think it's this - I genuinely think that it's a case of WCML performance issues. FG is very good at designing applications to minimise abstraction, at least in theory, which helps their case on abstractive routes.

The issue is simply that Network Rail can't keep any semblance of reliability on the West Coast, and that adding even more paths to that does cause issues, though I am surprised the WSMR application wasn't approved, but given how poor WCML performance already is, I can see the problem.

I suspect FG could plan on resurrecting this long term, by splitting at Nuneaton using their current paths, however I am unsure how profitable that would be, especially given that this was not their idea, but Alstom's.

Bald Rick · Thursday at 22:03

35B said:
DfT pulled back, not Virgin/Avanti. The distinction is important

Sort of. DfT instructed it in the first place. It didn‘t work. So it got stopped. It’s important to rememebr that almkst all services on the network in the TOCs under DfT specification are instructed by DfT in some form or another.

Bradford1 said:
With Lumo to Manchester now off, what happened to WMR to Manchester?

well WMR to Manchester has never really been on.

Brubulus · Thursday at 22:07

Bald Rick said:
well WMR to Manchester has never really been on.

Do the paths into Manchester even exist?

Bradford1 · Thursday at 22:16

Bald Rick said:
well WMR to Manchester has never really been on.

Sorry, meant LNR to Manchester

Bald Rick · Thursday at 22:20

Brubulus said:
Do the paths into Manchester even exist?

If they do, they’re magic

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 22:20 ==

Bradford1 said:
Sorry, meant LNR to Manchester

Potato / Potato!

GeekyJamez · Thursday at 22:22

Bad news for passengers as competition would definitely help reduce fares and introduce new direct routes, hopefully the Lumo and WSMR proposals will be approved on appeal

JonathanH · Thursday at 22:25

Bald Rick said:
well WMR to Manchester has never really been on.

What business did LNR have announcing it then? Was it just a blocker to indicate to ORR that there was a DFT approved alternative to the true open access applications? Surely they would have needed DfT approval to start suggesting speculative services?

Tetchytyke · Thursday at 22:38

Brubulus said:
FG is very good at designing applications to minimise abstraction, at least in theory

In theory, definitely. They’re good at writing bids. We see that with Grand Union, where the ORR reckoned they’d abstract a few million whereas their competitor applicant would abstract £100m. I’d say the latter figure is probably more realistic for both of them tbh.

In reality? Look at Lumo on the ECML. Anyone who says they’re bringing genuine new passengers to the railway is living in La-La Land.

Bald Rick · Thursday at 22:51

JonathanH said:
Surely they would have needed DfT approval to start suggesting speculative services?

Youd think so wouldnt you.

pokemonsuper9 · Thursday at 23:04

Brubulus said:
Do the paths into Manchester even exist?

They probably exist (especially since Northern aren't using all the paths off-peak), it's just a question of how long you have to wait at Earlestown.

Edit: I completely forgot the Crewe-Warrington bit (especiallly with the power limitations), that's probably trouble too!

Clarence Yard · Thursday at 23:19

Tetchytyke said:
Look at Lumo on the ECML. Anyone who says they’re bringing genuine new passengers to the railway is living in La-La Land.

Stop the hate because it isn’t persuading anyone.

Lumo has grabbed quite a bit of the London-Edinburgh air market, according to air analysts who study the domestic air market. Rail market share of the total London-Edinburgh transport market has risen in greater % numbers than on other comparable flows. Total rail revenue is up.

Lumo seems to earning very decent average journey yields from that market too because it seems, headline figures apart, it isn’t really competing seriously with LNER. It appears to be price pointing the bulk of its tickets against air.

Something is happening here which needs some serious industry analysis because it could become a pricing/yield model for similar IC flows, especially those that have gone for bums on seats rather than yield per journey.

Silverlinky · Thursday at 23:30

Brubulus said:
Do the paths into Manchester even exist?

Paths into Manchester are indeed the issue. LNR faced the same difficulties with capacity as these open access bids, no more paths means they can only extend an existing service rather than add a completely new one.
They already have the paths London to Crewe, the last bit is the hurdle.

The proposed Manchester Airport service is at a more advanced stage than the Victoria service.

WCML Open Access Applications Rejected

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member