Any agreements are not in public domain, so don't know if there is a backstop date for getting the rolling stock, a date where they definitely have them to start the service. Or if it can potentially roll on a few years if current user is slow in accepting their new trains.
Why would anyone take paths off Avanti and give them to an OAO considering the loss of revenue, even if it is no longer a franchise per se?
The reported poor service by Government appointed operator Avanti WC has clearly encouraged Virgin and Lumo to file applications to operate open access train services on the West Coast Mainline routes. If Avanti WC had provided a good, reliable and therefore popular train service I doubt if these two open access applications would have been made. The Department for Transport in their letter dated 4 February 2025 assert reasons including claimed levels of abstraction as well as doubts about available paths as to why the Office of Rail and Road should not approve these two open access applications but the Office of Rail and Road has the legal responsibility to make the decision to approve or not based on their legal guidelines. If the Government including the Department for Transport and HM Treasury do not want these open access applications they should ensure that Government appointed operator Avanti WC provides a good, reliable and therefore popular train service on the West Coast Mainline routes. The Government could try to change the legal guidelines on open access but this requires another Act of Parliament and the passage of such new legislation is unlikely to be as smooth as the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act, especially if some Government appointed operators continue to provide poor service.
I'm not so sure. If London to Manchester is the most lucrative flow on the network, and there is perceived to be a spare path, it is attractive to an open access operator, no matter how popular or unpopular the franchised operator is.
The following on Virgin Form P makes this clear and I assume the letter dated 28 February 2025 from Avanti West Coast to Network Rail and the Office of Rail and Road sinks the Virgin open access application.
I think the Network Rail decision document is the following. It is dated 5 August 2024 and refers to access rights between London Euston and Liverpool Lime Street.
COVID says hello. No one would have hardly any rights left if that is the case unless someone said Part J didn't apply.
I suspect the legal framework was pre covid, and covid could be described as a force majeure situation. (an event beyond the control of the parties to the contract, making fulfilment impossible or impractical)
2026 was the expected date - see https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-350-2-withdrawal.275457/page-4#post-7094111 - but I guess your point is whether an application has been made.
It is that slot the are after.
There is an identified open access departure every hour from Euston however this would be a competing track access application against Lumo Rochdale, WSMR .etc. as well as being taken in some hours by Lumo Stirling which already has rights.
Going through the same track access applications as Lumo Rochdale, WSMR, Virgin Rochdale/Preston.
There isn't any appetite in government to allow this to happen, so ultimately it's not going to happen. Virgin might take it to court and conceivably be offered compensation, but in terms of being awarded the rights by a court there's basically no chance. They are looking to do something which is very much not in the public interest, on the basis that they should have the right to bid based on a narrow reading of laws which the government is already looking at removing. It's not like there's a European court they can appeal to.
I don't think you fully understand how the High (commercial) Court works. They have to apply the law as it stands, not consider preference / intention of possible future changes.
Personally, I doubt Virgin will get any paths regardless. NR could get a slap on the wrist for not following process properly if that is the case, but not a lot else.
If the High Court has a plan for getting extra trains down the Castlefield Corridor then I'm sure we'd all be excited to hear it.
I see it differently (having worked for a while in transport by International shipping). If they left themselves vulnerable by letting things drift, and failing to keep to their statutory requirements, which then stops a company using their facilities to make a commercial profit. Then Court will see it commercially (not some token slap on risk).
So, as everybody else said, they may well be awarded compensation, but there isn't any realistic prospect of them actually running trains.
SWR already have challenge… This new London-Marchwood service…
Indeed, as explained further back in the thread - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...en-access-operator.265663/page-2#post-6774096
I guess the volume varies over time, but at the quieter times opposite applies, still part of the job for which they get paid, and still getting paid when there are negligible applications must be an opposing upside.