Two new open-access cross-country proposals

[ShadowKnight]

Only on the end to end journey, this will take about an hour longer than the average East Midland + XC route with a change. I doubt if many people will be doing the full length though, and there may be opportunities to accelerate the route a little. For example the current training on E-W is regularly operating 10 minutes faster than timetabled

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2025 ==



We shouldn't be protesting that a private sector company is prepared to take the risk of operating a service linking Nottingham, Leicester, Bedford, Universal, Bletchley, Bicester Village, Oxford, Didcot, Swindon Outlet, Bath & Bristol.

We should be protesting that the state is so risk averse that they can't see the benefit of connecting some of the UK's current and future most beloved destinations.

It isn't a direct parallel routeing yes.
But as you mentioned it does seem to have ambition and opportunity to mind.

Two opportunities that I can think of is the new universal theme park in Bedford. Leisure travelers particularly prefer one seat journeys over changing at Bedford/bletchley/Oxford etc.

The second is perhaps similar where travellers want to avoid changing at Birmingham for long distance travelling. Given the reputation new street station seems to have as a busy and confusing interchange.

 

[JamesT]

Is the GWR Oxford - Bristol idea a DfT thing, or are they taking a commercial risk of their own?

Since Covid the DfT take all of the revenue risk. Perhaps the idea will have come from GWR, but the DfT will have had to approve it.

 

[The Planner]

Has the Universal theme park actually been given any sort of permissions yet? Its got to be at least 5 or 6 years from opening.

 

[Zomboid]

I don't think the Nottingham Bristol thing is really duplicating an existing offer. Especially south of Leicester on the MML it's not a straightforward trip to get to anywhere other than MML destinations. It'd be a good use of the oversubscribed spare voyagers, in my opinion. And an even better use of some kind of Bi-mode if it turned out to be a success.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2025 ==

Has the Universal theme park actually been given any sort of permissions yet? Its got to be at least 5 or 6 years from opening.

Don't think it's anything more than an idea yet.

 

[The Planner]

I don't think the Nottingham Bristol thing is really duplicating an existing offer. Especially south of Leicester on the MML it's not a straightforward trip to get to anywhere other than MML destinations. It'd be a good use of the oversubscribed spare voyagers, in my opinion. And an even better use of some kind of Bi-mode if it turned out to be a success.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2025 ==


Don't think it's anything more than an idea yet.

It is abstractive on several sections, it isn't end to end that counts. If some other bid gets the Voyagers then lots of aspirations fall over.

 

[Zomboid]

It is abstractive on several sections, it isn't end to end that counts. If some other bid gets the Voyagers then lots of aspirations fall over.

Yes, but any journey which goes past either Bedford or Oxford won't be abstractive, and there are plenty of those options and potential custom.

 

[cle]

It is barely abstractive to XC. Which is a Birmingham focused network.

Even the Cardiff-Nottingham doesn’t route the same way.

If anything it abstracts other routes (GWR new service, Chiltern/EWR itself, MML somewhat - but they are so London centric now you could argue)

It links a ton of new places and avoids Birmingham.

 

[HSTEd]

It does if it's "cream-skimming" behaviour, yes. It doesn't if it is something genuinely new, when it actually assists the state with track access sales.

Track access charges cover so small a fraction of Network Rail's actual costs that I am not even sure they would cover the marginal expenditures.

So I'm not even sure Open Access Operators are positive in that sense, even ignoring abstraction etc.

 

[Starmill]

Track access charges cover so small a fraction of Network Rail's actual costs that I am not even sure they would cover the marginal expenditures.

So I'm not even sure Open Access Operators are positive in that sense, even ignoring abstraction etc.

The marginal cost on the infrastructure that's already there, resulting from one more passenger multiple unit running over a line that already exists, is very tiny per train. It's one single cycle of compression and tension on the rails, the structures, the overhead wires... So the only other "costs" are things like performance and punctuality.

 

[Snow1964]

It is the DfT that specifies the service, and it will be GBR to specify it in the future. Competition of this nature is just likely to extract funds from the state specified railway that makes it more difficult to justify subsidy to improve services.

DfT has not really specified any service changes for 30 years, yes there have been frequency increases locally, but virtually nothing has been added on long secondary routes.

Of course in today's leisure oriented market segment, people visit different places nowadays to what they did 3 or 4 decades ago. So if an open access operator spots a gap that DfT hasn't chosen to fill (and therefore doesn't take the potential revenue),then the DfT and new Secretary of State hasn't got much of a case regarding revenue extraction.

There are two ways of looking at this, not just revenue side, if DfT might not like size of subsidy, as it is big because trying to keep a historic service pattern going (even if demand has fallen), rather than running trains where people actually want to go in late 2020s then subsidy will remain high, and revenue lower.

There are many tourist cities, Bath, York, Chester etc where cannot get to from large parts of the country without 2 or more changes, or very slow trains. DfT keeps acting like they will never be served easily unless in London

 

[tomuk]

That's rather a pessimistic view of this.
Crosscountry are the only end to end operator between the southwest and midlands. Doing nothing is worse that competition as I see it. It is an operator that is anecdotally only mentioned in the negative in terms of cleanliness, value for money, reliability and overcrowding. Particularly between the midlands and Southwest

A good example are all the east coast OA operators competing with LNER, which seems to have motivated LNER to lower cost and/or improve service on competing routes.

Competition could also justify why further funding or investment is needed for XC

XC country operate exactly what DfT tell them to do. The franchise has been a management contract since Virgin days. Any lack of quality or service is sanctioned by DfT.

 

[Starmill]

Yes, but any journey which goes past either Bedford or Oxford won't be abstractive, and there are plenty of those options and potential custom.

It would be to some extent, as some such users are likely to be existing rail users who do a change of train who swap that for a hypothetical direct option. It's just it would be a smaller proportion.

 

[Zomboid]

There are many tourist cities, Bath, York, Chester etc where cannot get to from large parts of the country without 2 or more changes, or very slow trains. DfT keeps acting like they will never be served easily unless in London

Being from Oxford I've tried to make several journeys where XC should be part of it, and often it's worked out that via London is much faster. York and Newcastle have direct trains, but via KX was faster and more convenient. From Glasgow the timings for the return trip made London the better route.

I don't know what the way to improve that is, but XC isn't a great way to get between two places that have a good London service.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Being from Oxford I've tried to make several journeys where XC should be part of it, and often it's worked out that via London is much faster. York and Newcastle have direct trains, but via KX was faster and more convenient. From Glasgow the timings for the return trip made London the better route.

I don't know what the way to improve that is, but XC isn't a great way to get between two places that have a good London service.

Looking at the proposed timetables, you should soon be able to finish work in Glasgow City Centre at 5pm walk to Glasgow Central, grab the 17:30 service to Milton Keynes, and arrive there for 21:52, ready to catch the local service to Oxford.

From the City Centre at 17:00 the earliest realistic Heathrow flight would be the 19:35, arriving 20:50, then the 21:30 coach to Oxford taking about 80 minutes.

So should be little difference between the two methods.

 

[The Planner]

Looking at the proposed timetables, you should soon be able to finish work in Glasgow City Centre at 5pm walk to Glasgow Central, grab the 17:30 service to Milton Keynes, and arrive there for 21:52, ready to catch the local service to Oxford.

From the City Centre at 17:00 the earliest realistic Heathrow flight would be the 19:35, arriving 20:50, then the 21:30 coach to Oxford taking about 80 minutes.

So should be little difference between the two methods.

2½ hours from central Glaagow to flight departing? Seems excessive, even with Glasgow's sluggish security section.

 

[Starmill]

2½ hours from central Glaagow to flight departing? Seems excessive, even with Glasgow's sluggish security section.

Some people take what their airline suggests about arriving 90/120 minutes before departure seriously.

 

[craigybagel]

2½ hours from central Glaagow to flight departing? Seems excessive, even with Glasgow's sluggish security section.

Don't forget how congested the M8 can get, especially at that time of the evening.

 

[BlueLeanie]

2½ hours from central Glaagow to flight departing? Seems excessive, even with Glasgow's sluggish security section.

Even if GARL had progressed, there's no way you'd be able to board a service at Central around 17:00 and be able to catch the 17:30 shuttle to Heathrow.

The 18:35/18:20 service only operates on a Thursday and Friday, so the next reasonable service for a quote is the 19:xx. With the best will in the world, I'm not confident that you could board a bus at St Vincent Street at 17:15, and be sure to be at the airport and through security before the gate closes.

I honestly think E-W will be a considerable game changer for people travelling from Glasgow to Oxford. When Virgin ran the Voyagers to the South, I think you could to it in 5h19m. So unless there was some kind of Christmas shopper service running from Oxford to Milton Keynes that happened to connect with an APT service at Milton Keynes or Bletchley in the early 1980s, then this will probably be the first time you've been able to get from Glasgow to Oxford in under 5 hours by rail.

But pushing back to the Open-Access proposals to get things back on thread. This is a massive opportunity to deliver new cross-country (lower case) routes avoiding both London & Birmingham and I hope that B&N and others will be a success.

 

[cle]

Will Manchester or Liverpool - Oxford be comparable via MKC?

 

[5021]

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.

This service looks a complete non starter to me. TfW already has long held intentions to run a Liverpool - Cardiff service over the SAME route and calling at much the same stations. What has held it back is limited track capacity between Chester and Shrewsbury, in particular Wrexham and Gobowen which requires intermediate block signals that NR hasn't so far found the money for. If the WS&MR proposal comes off, which is another SLC project, that will also take paths between Wrexham and Shrewsbury; dovetailing the two services just for that section would hardly seem practicable! SLC must know all this which makes you wonder what they're playing at??

 

[Zomboid]

Will Manchester or Liverpool - Oxford be comparable via MKC?

Liverpool probably (if the Avanti stops at MK), the direct train XC from Piccadilly is probably fast enough to remain the best route.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Will Manchester or Liverpool - Oxford be comparable via MKC?

The current connection to/from Liverpool is 3h5m.
The current direct service to Manchester is 2h50m

The journey from MK to Liverpool is 1h48m.
The journey from MK to Manchester is 1h44m

So if the E-W journey plus connection time is less than 1h17m to connect with a Liverpool, or less than 1h06m to connect with a Manchester, you'd be better off connecting at MK.

And never forget about "9F"!

 

[ShadowKnight]

This service looks a complete non starter to me. TfW already has long held intentions to run a Liverpool - Cardiff service over the SAME route and calling at much the same stations. What has held it back is limited track capacity between Chester and Shrewsbury, in particular Wrexham and Gobowen which requires intermediate block signals that NR hasn't so far found the money for. If the WS&MR proposal comes off, which is another SLC project, that will also take paths between Wrexham and Shrewsbury; dovetailing the two services just for that section would hardly seem practicable! SLC must know all this which makes you wonder what they're playing at??

I would imagine they would consider stumping up some of the cash to upgrade the signalling on condition of having access rights

 

[LUYMun]

I would imagine they would consider stumping up some of the cash to upgrade the signalling on condition of having access rights

Same thoughts regarding some of these proposals. No doubt the WCMR may help pay the way for getting Bletchley-Bedford upgraded.

 

[cle]

Bletchley-Bedford is just 60mph - and 16 miles. It's not such a bad slog with a few calls, but on a non-stop run, as promised (no Universal yet, and that is basically at the Bedford end) - the low line speed will be painful. However should be relatively easy to path, re all the crossings being non-stop, and less downtime than the various adjacent station calls.

 

[The Planner]

I would imagine they would consider stumping up some of the cash to upgrade the signalling on condition of having access rights

That would put a severe dent in their start up costs.

Same thoughts regarding some of these proposals. No doubt the WCMR may help pay the way for getting Bletchley-Bedford upgraded.

I doubt that too.

 

[JonathanH]

However should be relatively easy to path, re all the crossings being non-stop, and less downtime than the various adjacent station calls.

Not so easy through the two low speed single line sections (Fenny Stratford and Bedford St Johns), and indeed into and through Bedford.

 

[weeklycommuter]

With XC having 12 more 221s from Avanti, that takes their total to 36 sets with GC having 2 sets leaving only 6x 221 sets available for open access. Of course there are 27 Meridians so in total there are 33 trains to go round the 4 open access applications that want Voyagers/Meridians.

Previous postings suggest that the 222s are stitched up for Euston to Stirling (5 units) and Scotrail HST replacement (the rest).
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/first-rail-stirling-lumo-rolling-stock.283347/#post-7209967

There’s rather more than 4 open access applications that want those trains. I reckon they are now over subscribed by at least twice.

Network Rail raise this point in their letter dated 28 March 2025 to the Office of Rail and Road about the now withdrawn Alliance Rail application to operate five trains a day each way between Cardiff and Edinburgh via the East Coast Mainline.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-04/alliance-rail-s17-nr-representations-2025-03-28.pdf

We would like to highlight to ORR that there have been numerous applications both directed by ORR or currently being considered by ORR which state the intention to use either Class 221s or Class 222s. ORR should consider whether there is enough rolling stock availability for any application directed in support of the requested access rights.

 

[cle]

Not so easy through the two low speed single line sections (Fenny Stratford and Bedford St Johns), and indeed into and through Bedford.

There is a tiny amount of traffic on the line, really - even for the single sections.
Bedford gets trickier, especially crossing over.

 

[DDB]

Network Rail raise this point in their letter dated 28 March 2025 to the Office of Rail and Road about the now withdrawn Alliance Rail application to operate five trains a day each way between Cardiff and Edinburgh via the East Coast Mainline.

That feels slightly cheeky by Network Rail. Surely getting the rolling stock is the applicants problem and for ORR to judge.