WCML Open Access Applications Rejected

[weeklycommuter]

This is the ORR press release rejecting the three WCML open access applications (WSMR, Lumo Rochdale, Virgin).

Rail regulator rejects West Coast Main Line applications due to insufficient capacity | Office of Rail and Road

The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has rejected applications from three companies seeking track access contracts with Network Rail to run services on the West Coast Main Line (WCML).

www.orr.gov.uk

Rail regulator rejects West Coast Main Line applications due to insufficient capacity
3 July 2025
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has rejected applications from three companies seeking track access contracts with Network Rail to run services on the West Coast Main Line (WCML).
ORR concluded there is insufficient capacity on the West Coast Main Line southern section for the introduction of any of the proposed services: from East Coast Trains Limited (Lumo NW); the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway Company Limited (WSMR); and Virgin Management Limited (Virgin). To introduce any of these proposals would be detrimental to performance on the WCML and therefore all passengers and freight customers.
ORR determines all track access applications in accordance with its statutory duties. In the case of these three applications, lack of capacity and the anticipated impact on performance alone meant we could not approve them. As such, our duty to have regard to the funds available to the Secretary of State was not relevant to this decision.
ORR’s assessment of these applications included their operational viability, the benefits the services would generate, and the often-supportive views of passengers and local stakeholders. These factors did not alter our fundamental conclusion that the proposed services cannot be introduced due to insufficient space on the network and the likely detriment to train performance.
Stephanie Tobyn, ORR’s director of strategy, policy and reform, said:
"After thorough assessment of each application, it was clear that there was insufficient capacity to approve any of the services without a serious negative impact on the level of train performance that passengers experience on the West Coast Main Line.
“We recognise the potential advantages of competition on the West Coast Main Line, which is why we approved in 2024 the new London-Stirling services that First Group are due to start operating in 2026. However, it is clear that the southern end of the route requires space in the timetable to provide resilience. Additional services within the current timetable structure and planned capacity use would further weaken punctuality and reliability, not just at the south end of the WCML but elsewhere as well.”

 

[The Planner]

I don't think anyone will be that surprised?

 

[Zontar]

Rail regulator rejects West Coast Main Line applications due to insufficient capacity | Office of Rail and Road

The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has rejected applications from three companies seeking track access contracts with Network Rail to run services on the West Coast Main Line (WCML).

www.orr.gov.uk

The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has rejected applications from three companies seeking track access contracts with Network Rail to run services on the West Coast Main Line (WCML).

 

[Harpo]

On to the appeals process and, no doubt, challenges about DfT interference, moved goalposts, etc.. One last hurrah for the fee earners who’ve done very well out of railway privatisation.

 

[XCTurbostar]

I don't think anyone will be that surprised?

I doubt it, the writing was on the wall after NR reported expected performance losses with any of them.

 

[Class15]

Virgin was a plainly unrealistic application and was never going to be approved.

The two serious applications:

Lumo NW looked very abstractive Manchester - London.

WSMR is the one that surprised me. It looked like it would be a boost to the region and not be abstractive. I expect it would probably be approved in a post-HS2 world? (Considering the fact it wouldn’t interact with HS2 trains unlike the other applications). The DfT actually said they supported this application in principle.

 

[Bald Rick]

On to the appeals process and, no doubt, challenges about DfT interference, moved goalposts, etc.. One last hurrah for the fee earners who’ve done very well out of railway privatisation.

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

 

[Scanderina]

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

It's also commented on the letter's impact on the upcoming ECML decisions: https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-07/2025-07-03-open-access-letter-to-dft.pdf

 

[Harpo]

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

Fee earning fog-knitters won’t be put off by that I suspect.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

All three Open Access applications to run on the WCML have been rejected by the ORR on performance grounds.
That means Wrexham Shropshire & Midlands Railway (Wrexham-Nuneaton-Euston), Lumo NW (Rochdale-Euston) and Virgin (Liverpool/Birmingham/Manchester/Rochdale/Preston-Euston) will not operate.
This leaves the Stirling-Euston (First/Lumo) service, starting in 2026, as the only approved WCML open access operator.

Rail regulator rejects West Coast Main Line applications due to insufficient capacity | Office of Rail and Road

The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has rejected applications from three companies seeking track access contracts with Network Rail to run services on the West Coast Main Line (WCML).

www.orr.gov.uk

ORR concluded there is insufficient capacity on the West Coast Main Line southern section for the introduction of any of the proposed services: from East Coast Trains Limited (Lumo NW); the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway Company Limited (WSMR); and Virgin Management Limited (Virgin). To introduce any of these proposals would be detrimental to performance on the WCML and therefore all passengers and freight customers.

ORR determines all track access applications in accordance with its statutory duties. In the case of these three applications, lack of capacity and the anticipated impact on performance alone meant we could not approve them. As such, our duty to have regard to the funds available to the Secretary of State was not relevant to this decision.

ORR’s assessment of these applications included their operational viability, the benefits the services would generate, and the often-supportive views of passengers and local stakeholders. These factors did not alter our fundamental conclusion that the proposed services cannot be introduced due to insufficient space on the network and the likely detriment to train performance.

The applications failed at the first (performance) hurdle, and the financial impact on DfT-mandated services was not a factor in the decision.
It rather begs the question as to whether even the Stirling service would have been approved using the current performance measures.

 

[Djgr]

All these yesterday companies lingering over the rail industry like a bad smell.

 

[Sorcerer]

Not the least bit surprising to be honest. If only one of those operators could've been approved I would've said WSMR for London-Wrexham would've been the best choice since it's the least abstractive. Lumo can at least take solace in having Stirling next year even if they lose out on Rochdale now, but Virgin's application was just straight up bonkers. They were a great franchise operator, but it's kind of rich how they weren't too keen on open access operations then but have changed tune now they stood to gain from it. Sad as it may be to some, I think Virgin's days on the network have passed.

 

[John R]

All these yesterday companies lingering over the rail industry like a bad smell.

I don't think Alstom, who were behind WSMR's bid, is a yesterday company, by any means.

 

[Wyrleybart]

All these yesterday companies lingering over the rail industry like a bad smell.

Not so sure you can pin that epitaph on Fitst Group with their FHT and Lumo brands apparently doing well.

Indeed, I reckon it smells more of DfT flip flopping from one decision to another.

 

[coppercapped]

Not the least bit surprising to be honest. If only one of those operators could've been approved I would've said WSMR for London-Wrexham would've been the best choice since it's the least abstractive. Lumo can at least take solace in having Stirling next year even if they lose out on Rochdale now, but Virgin's application was just straight up bonkers. They were a great franchise operator, but it's kind of rich how they weren't too keen on open access operations then but have changed tune now they stood to gain from it. Sad as it may be to some, I think Virgin's days on the network have passed.

Virgin was required by the DfT to oppose open access applications on its patch. It had no choice in the matter.

 

[styles]

Given they're already having to accommodate First Group's London-Stirling service on WCML, it's hardly surprising. It's hardly undocumented that WCML struggles for capacity, given it's, ya'know, the main reason for HS2.

 

[A S Leib]

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)?

 

[DarloRich]

Given they're already having to accommodate First Group's London-Stirling service on WCML, it's hardly surprising. It's hardly undocumented that WCML struggles for capacity, given it's, ya'know, the main reason for HS2.

exactly - but a conspiracy is much more fun!

 

[Sorcerer]

Virgin was required by the DfT to oppose open access applications on its patch. It had no choice in the matter.

I am aware of the old Moderation of Competition clause but I do not believe that Virgin would've otherwise accepted competition if given the choice. They might've tried to keep up with the competition, evidenced by their daily Wrexham services via Chester to compete with Wrexham & Shropshire, but I think they'd have much happier having their patch to themselves. Not exactly unique to any business.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Not the least bit surprising to be honest. If only one of those operators could've been approved I would've said WSMR for London-Wrexham would've been the best choice since it's the least abstractive.

Except that when the ORR crunched the numbers, it wasn’t. Virgin was £64.1m, WSMR was £11.7m and Lumo was £3.4m, all per annum figures.

That isn’t so surprising as FG have years of experience when it comes to OA applications and revenue prediction.

 

[Sorcerer]

Except that when the ORR crunched the numbers, it wasn’t. Virgin was £64.1m, WSMR was £11.7m and Lumo was £3.4m, all per annum figures.

My mistake. I seemed to have assumed that London to Manchester Victoria/Rochdale would've been more abstractive since it shared most of it's route with Avanti compared to WSMR which only went as far as Nuneaton. Good job I'm not the one crunching the numbers. That said I do think it still might've been the best option as far as passenger services go, but perhaps that's not the case. I can at least confidently say it was more realistic than Virgin's bid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My mistake. I seemed to have assumed that London to Manchester Victoria/Rochdale would've been more abstractive since it shared most of it's route with Avanti compared to WSMR which only went as far as Nuneaton. Good job I'm not the one crunching the numbers. That said I do think it still might've been the best option as far as passenger services go, but perhaps that's not the case. I can at least confidently say it was more realistic than Virgin's bid.

I guess the thing about Lumo is that it won't necessarily appeal to everyone who presently uses Avanti because of its poor quality* accommodation, infrequent service and stringent luggage policy. It's more likely to abstract from the WMT Crewe services in the likes of the student market than anything else. (The difference with Manchester being that there isn't much of an air market - most people flying from Manchester to London are doing so to connect to a long haul flight these days and aren't going to switch to rail even if it's cheaper).

The Virgin proposal was for a genuinely duplicative service of a similar standard to Avanti which would have done lots of abstraction.

* I know they're the same seats but the density is much higher.

 

[35B]

It's also commented on the letter's impact on the upcoming ECML decisions: https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-07/2025-07-03-open-access-letter-to-dft.pdf

A response that says both "get your tanks of my lawn" and "Yes, Minister".

 

[NorthWalian]

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)?

Perhaps it will lead to the old Wrexham and Shropshire route into Maryleborne

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Not the least bit surprising to be honest. If only one of those operators could've been approved I would've said WSMR for London-Wrexham would've been the best choice since it's the least abstractive. Lumo can at least take solace in having Stirling next year even if they lose out on Rochdale now, but Virgin's application was just straight up bonkers. They were a great franchise operator, but it's kind of rich how they weren't too keen on open access operations then but have changed tune now they stood to gain from it. Sad as it may be to some, I think Virgin's days on the network have passed.

Virgin can now concentrate on their bid to compete with Eurostar (which is not a public company).
The problem there is maintenance capacity rather than track capacity or route performance.
HS2, when it comes, will also offer new capacity, at least to Birmingham.

 

[STINT47]

My memory may be playing tricks but I thought that there was an open access operator running from Wrexham and Shropshire to London who went bust?

 

[styles]

My memory may be playing tricks but I thought that there was an open access operator running from Wrexham and Shropshire to London who went bust?

There's never been an OAO running Wrexham to London.

An application was submitted in May, after a local MP and the PM expressed support for it in the Commons.

Network Rail objected to it on safety grounds (level crossings).

The ORR has now rejected it.

It's open to appeal mind.

Edit: I stand corrected. Wrexham & Shropshire was an OAO which I'd forgotten, and ran Wrexham General to London in 2008-2011. The company didn't go bust, but it was clear it wasn't going to turn a profit.

 

[cj_1985]

There's never been an OAO running Wrexham to London.

An application was submitted in May, after a local MP and the PM expressed support for it in the Commons.

Network Rail objected to it on safety grounds (level crossings).

The ORR has now rejected it.

It's open to appeal mind.

Edit: I stand corrected. Wrexham & Shropshire was an OAO which I'd forgotten, and ran Wrexham General to London in 2008-2011. The company didn't go bust, but it was clear it wasn't going to turn a profit.

I think they mean the  Original WSMR.... thar ran from Wrexham to London Marylebone

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I am surprised that all of them have been binned. I have a suspicion that if it was just Lumo or just Wrexham, then one of them may have been successful. Virgin went so over the top that it was never going to be successful and I fear somewhat poisoned the well for others, regardless of what ORR has written.

I do wonder whether, assuming Lumo gets it's Hereford paths, if this makes extending to Shrewsbury (or indeed Wrexham) more viable, given there would clearly be lots of local support, including from politicians. It's a long way round, but still useable.

Alternatively, will Alstom now look at a business case / paths into Paddington or Marylebone.

 

[Harpo]

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.