WCML Open Access Applications Rejected

[Class 170101]

The problems are that 2tph isn't enough for London to Hemel or Northampton, especially given how urgently HS2 was – is – needed, I don't think replacing slow path services is appropriate for a London to Welsh Borders route, and I don't know if that would cut enough for capacity not to be an issue past Rugby anyway.

I'm confused, thats what Northampton has now 2tph. Hemel to London is 4tph.

Extra services to destinations north of Rugby won't change by reducing services on the slow lines south Milton Keynes.

 

[A S Leib]

I'm confused, thats what Northampton has now 2tph. Hemel to London is 4tph.

I should have said that fewer services to Hemel or Northampton would be too few.

Extra services to destinations north of Rugby won't change by reducing services on the slow lines south Milton Keynes.

Agreed.

 

[Class 170101]

I'm not sure the stopping train down the WCML followed by a glacial trundle round the WLL will attract many people to get to Gatwick that way.

Whilst there is a point at which your argument is true I would point out that direct trains are more popular than where you have to change.

 

[Zomboid]

Whilst there is a point at which your argument is true I would point out that direct trains are more popular than where you have to change.

True, but I would be surprised if the old Southern service would have actually appeared in journey planners for stations north of Watford considering how slow it was (unless you specify via Shepherds Bush as a route). A short hop on the Victoria Line From Euston to Victoria would probably have come out faster.

 

[43074]

West Midlands Trains are in absolutely no position to extend any of their services to either Manchester Airport or Manchester city centre - and won't be for years. That idea will eventually just fade away. I suspect their announcement that they would look at this was little more than a PR exercise during a time Abellio/Transport UK were still hoping to apply pressure to keep TOCs in private hands.

Bold claim - contradicts informed posts earlier on in the thread suggesting Manchester Airport was the more likely of the two to happen, and indeed that it was at quite an advanced stage of development.

 

[A S Leib]

True, but I would be surprised if the old Southern service would have actually appeared in journey planners for stations north of Watford considering how slow it was (unless you specify via Shepherds Bush as a route). A short hop on the Victoria Line From Euston to Victoria would probably have come out faster.

Journey planners would give a 44 minute connection time for Euston to Victoria compared to a five minute minimum between Southern services at Clapham Junction. The National Rail journey planner gives 1:12 for leaving Watford Junction at 12:56 or at least 1:27 via Victoria.

 

[Starmill]

Bold claim - contradicts informed posts earlier on in the thread suggesting Manchester Airport was the more likely of the two to happen, and indeed that it was at quite an advanced stage of development.

They've obviously put some work into modelling it and they obviously believe there's a positive business case.

What there's apparently not is an answer for how to ensure no loss of capacity and journey opportunities for Alderley Edge, Holmes Chapel and Sandbach. It will be impossible to sell the benefits if that involves cutting Sandbach - Crewe down to 1tph and no direct services to Manchester Airport any more, for example.

 

[Watershed]

Bold claim - contradicts informed posts earlier on in the thread suggesting Manchester Airport was the more likely of the two to happen, and indeed that it was at quite an advanced stage of development.

Posts by the user you quoted are often written in authoritative terms, but turn out to not quite reflect the full picture...

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

They've obviously put some work into modelling it and they obviously believe there's a positive business case.

What there's apparently not is an answer for how to ensure no loss of capacity and journey opportunities for Alderley Edge, Holmes Chapel and Sandbach. It will be impossible to sell the benefits if that involves cutting Sandbach - Crewe down to 1tph and no direct services to Manchester Airport any more, for example.

They've done no such thing.

At most, they've had a look if the paths exist in theory, and issued a press release at a very coincidental time that Transport UK was lobbying extensively for private sector involvement in GBR.

There's no business case and no formal application. There's no stock clearance, no traincrew plan, no recruitment to increase headcount, no negotiations on station facility agreements etc.

They may have had some early engagement discussions with Network Rail, which they are required to do prior to submitting an application, which has never arrived months and months after their so called announcement.

Nobody on this forum said that Manchester Airport was more likely -I believe The Planner stated that the paths are essentially possible, but had absolutely no view on the probability of it actually progressing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 23:58 ==

Posts by the user you quoted are often written in authoritative terms, but turn out to not quite reflect the full picture...

Rubbish, please provide a source that does show the full picture then. Isn't it a forum rule to provide sources for assertions? The lack of any authoritative source should tell you all you need to know about this so called expansion!

 

[357]

Runs through when overhead power is available, gives up and expects LNER to pick up the slack when an unelectrified route is involved in the solution.

In my own experience the problem more often than not for LNER is lack of bi-mode units.

More than once I've left thousands of passengers and many LNER units behind at Kings Cross while I trundle through sections of dead overheads.

Again where Lumo operate and LNER often cancel is because the train crew of Lumo are prepared to work trains, where as LNER crew often refuse to work a service because of the delay putting them over there hours.

The way you get treated by managers has a direct impact on how willing you are to help out during disruption.

 

[43074]

There's no business case and no formal application. There's no stock clearance, no traincrew plan, no recruitment to increase headcount, no negotiations on station facility agreements etc.

Most of those negotiations wouldn't take place in public, so unless you are a well placed internal source you wouldn't be aware of them anyway.

 

[weeklycommuter]

The odd thing about the proposal for London Northwestern train services to be extended to Manchester is that I see the following on the London Northwestern website but I cannot find any application for this on the Office of Rail and Road website.

Destination Manchester

Read our exciting proposal for our trains to begin serving Manchester for the first time.

www.londonnorthwesternrailway.co.uk

Destination Manchester
As a progressive rail operator we’re always looking to develop our services and timetables to provide a better travelling experience for our customers. We are ambitious and our team seek innovative solutions to create new journey opportunities.
That's why we have developed proposals for our trains to begin serving Manchester for the first time. Under the plans, our existing hourly service between Crewe and London Euston would be extended to Manchester city centre from summer 2026.
Following the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2, these proposals will provide much-needed connectivity between Manchester, the West Midlands and London, with thousands of extra seats every day.
The plan will create:
Additional capacity and comfortable, affordable journeys to and from Manchester city centre
A great alternative to car and coach travel, with fares up to 50% cheaper than the main intercity train operator
New regular direct services to Warrington for passengers at Milton Keynes, Rugby and Lichfield
New regular direct services to Manchester for passengers at Rugeley, Lichfield, Tamworth and Atherstone
If approved, we’ll run the service into Manchester Victoria via Warrington Bank Quay using our brand new Class 730 electric trains with a total journey time to London of 3 hours 10 minutes. Our modern trains feature comfortable seats, on-board WiFi, ample luggage space and at-seat power points. Manufactured in the Midlands, the trains can carry more than 1,200 passengers when running with the maximum 10 carriages, bringing much-needed extra capacity to Manchester.
Why London Northwestern Railway?
We are aware of other proposals to bring additional capacity to Manchester. However, with platform space at London Euston in short supply, we believe the common sense solution is to extend our existing services between Crewe and London Euston, rather than adding more trains onto the busy West Coast Main Line. Unlike the Open Access model, the extra revenue generated should our plans get the go-ahead will be returned to the taxpayer, creating a win-win for passengers.
Our plans are also designed to protect performance along the West Coast Main Line by providing longer station stops on the way, preventing the spread of delays into and out of Manchester and ensuring passengers both on this service and across the network will have more reliable journeys.
What happens next?
We will submit our detailed proposals to the Office for Rail and Road for consideration in the second half of 2024. In the meantime we will work closely with other train operators, Network Rail and partners in the Manchester area to iron out the finer details of the proposal. If approval is granted we will begin training our drivers and senior conductors on the new route - and appoint some new ones – as soon as possible so we are ready to begin running trains from summer 2026.
Anything else?
As well as the proposal to extend our London Euston-Crewe services to Manchester Victoria, we are also proposing to begin running trains to Manchester Airport. This will involve extending our existing service between Stafford and Crewe, providing direct connectivity to the airport from Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire. More details on this proposal will be announced in due course.

 

[A S Leib]

New regular direct services to Warrington for passengers at Milton Keynes, Rugby and Lichfield
New regular direct services to Manchester for passengers at Rugeley, Lichfield, Tamworth and Atherstone

Milton Keynes had an hourly Warrington service pre-Covid so it isn't that new, whilst I don't think Atherstone, Nuneaton or Tamworth have had a regular service there before (of course they'd generally focus on the bigger flows in communications). Via Atherstone is 30-40 minutes quicker than via New Street on Avanti services for Crewe at the moment though.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

With WMT being a DfT TOC, won't most of this Manchester Victoria/Airport debate vanish into the new bureaucracy of GBR in due course?
It will be up to a regional GBR management to decide how to deploy its resources and line capacity, not a local TOC.
Transport for the North and Mr Mayor Burnham will surely be part of the decision-making process, not ORR.
But as the vacuum that is GBR structure and powers currently, we can only speculate until publication of the Railways Bill.

 

[Starmill]

They've done no such thing.

At most, they've had a look if the paths exist in theory, and issued a press release at a very coincidental time that Transport UK was lobbying extensively for private sector involvement in GBR.

There's no business case and no formal application. There's no stock clearance, no traincrew plan, no recruitment to increase headcount, no negotiations on station facility agreements etc.

They may have had some early engagement discussions with Network Rail, which they are required to do prior to submitting an application, which has never arrived months and months after their so called announcement.

Nobody on this forum said that Manchester Airport was more likely -I believe The Planner stated that the paths are essentially possible, but had absolutely no view on the probability of it actually progressing.

Sounds like you've had zero conversations with either them or Northern to me, and yet you still allege you know what they're thinking. In any case half of your issues are well premature. You wouldn't recruit train crew or have a station access agreement at this stage in the process.

 

[TheWalrus]

Disappointing the WSMR didn’t get approved- I thought that was looking likely but I didn’t expect Virgin to get approved.

Could WSMR revisit Marylebone or even Paddington off-peak?

Could Lumo join and split at Crewe for the Manchester services? Obviously this would need more 222s or more stock.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Sounds like you've had zero conversations with either them or Northern to me, and yet you still allege you know what they're thinking. In any case half of your issues are well premature. You wouldn't recruit train crew or have a station access agreement at this stage in the process.

You are living in a fantasy world here if you think this is a genuine proposal.

They have less than a year - they say Summer 2026.

They don't have enough staff (or trains) for their existing services, let alone new extensions.

It is not premature at all, those issues all need to be addressed or have a plan to be addressed by now. They won't commit to trains or staff unless they have ORR approval. They have not even started the ORR approval process. Even if they submitted their application now, it would take months and months to work through consultations, objections, tweaks and a final decision. ORR as part of that application wants to know how you're going to staff it, what fleet you're going to use. Network Rail wants to understand the performance impact, which stations need modifying, stop car markers, route clearance etc.

There doesn't appear to be any discussion with GBR at all either.

You definitely don't just apply for paths and decide you'll do the rest later.

That business will be so focused on handing over to GBR, and all the admin and stress that a transfer involves, that any service extensions like this will be so far down their list of priorities, they'll be forgotten about forever.

 

[Starmill]

You are living in a fantasy world here if you think this is a genuine proposal.

They have less than a year - they say Summer 2026.

They don't have enough staff (or trains) for their existing services, let alone new extensions.

It is not premature at all, those issues all need to be addressed or have a plan to be addressed by now. They won't commit to trains or staff unless they have ORR approval. They have not even started the ORR approval process. Even if they submitted their application now, it would take months and months to work through consultations, objections, tweaks and a final decision. ORR as part of that application wants to know how you're going to staff it, what fleet you're going to use. Network Rail wants to understand the performance impact, which stations need modifying, stop car markers, route clearance etc.

There doesn't appear to be any discussion with GBR at all either.

You definitely don't just apply for paths and decide you'll do the rest later.

That business will be so focused on handing over to GBR, and all the admin and stress that a transfer involves, that any service extensions like this will be so far down their list of priorities, they'll be forgotten about forever.

Correct. They haven't bid for anything yet. As the several posts above already suggested. Nobody has claimed they have.

 

[Zomboid]

Disappointing the WSMR didn’t get approved- I thought that was looking likely but I didn’t expect Virgin to get approved.

Could WSMR revisit Marylebone or even Paddington off-peak?

Could Lumo join and split at Crewe for the Manchester services? Obviously this would need more 222s or more stock.

WSMR mk1 showed that Marylebone wasn't really a winner, and I doubt Paddington would offer any worthwhile benefits if there were any chance of paths.

Given that Stafford seems to be the fastest way in, perhaps that's the way to try. What would journey times be like if they went Wrexham - Shrewsbury - almost Wolverhampton - Stafford - Euston? Notwithstanding the fact that the paths aren't actually available...

 

[A S Leib]

I don't suppose London Northwestern would consider Shrewsbury – Crewe – Euston, especially if Manchester's approved and given that for every three Euston passengers from Shrewsbury, there's two from Telford and Wellington?

 

[JonathanH]

I don't suppose London Northwestern would consider Shrewsbury – Crewe – Euston, especially if Manchester's approved and given that for every three Euston passengers from Shrewsbury, there's two from Telford and Wellington?

Lack of suitable trains would be a big challenge for them.

 

[TheWalrus]

WSMR mk1 showed that Marylebone wasn't really a winner, and I doubt Paddington would offer any worthwhile benefits if there were any chance of paths.

Given that Stafford seems to be the fastest way in, perhaps that's the way to try. What would journey times be like if they went Wrexham - Shrewsbury - almost Wolverhampton - Stafford - Euston? Notwithstanding the fact that the paths aren't actually available...

I think Virgins protection of competition didn’t help W&S, they were unable to pick up at Wolverhampton southbound/drop off Northbound and couldn’t call at places like Birmingham International or Coventry, or run via New Street.

I wonder if Paddington or Marylebone could be accessed with going via New Street? New connections could be opened up at places like Oxford and Reading but may take too long.

Another way of making Shrewsbury-Euston work would be splitting Euston-Chesters at Crewe with the rear unit reversing down to Shrewsbury via Nantwich?

 

[The Planner]

I think Virgins protection of competition didn’t help W&S, they were unable to pick up at Wolverhampton southbound/drop off Northbound and couldn’t call at places like Birmingham International or Coventry, or run via New Street.

I wonder if Paddington or Marylebone could be accessed with going via New Street? New connections could be opened up at places like Oxford and Reading but may take too long.

Another way of making Shrewsbury-Euston work would be splitting Euston-Chesters at Crewe with the rear unit reversing down to Shrewsbury via Nantwich?

It would be horrifically long, I doubt you'll find capacity east of Reading, or at Proof House/New St.

 

[Zomboid]

Given that Stafford seems to be the fastest way in, perhaps that's the way to try. What would journey times be like if they went Wrexham - Shrewsbury - almost Wolverhampton - Stafford - Euston? Notwithstanding the fact that the paths aren't actually available...

Answering my own question, TfW trains take 40 minutes for Shrewsbury - Wolverhampton with stops at Wellington and Telford. Wolverhampton to Stafford is about 20 minutes.

If we assume the train skips Wolverhampton and goes via the curve to Stafford then you can probably call it 60 minutes to Stafford. With reversal and a stop or two that's probably 1h30 to Euston, so Shrewsbury to Euston via Stafford is around 2h30.

Is that competitive?

 

[TheWalrus]

Probably about the same as via Birmingham?

 

[43074]

You are living in a fantasy world here if you think this is a genuine proposal.

They have less than a year - they say Summer 2026.

They don't have enough staff (or trains) for their existing services, let alone new extensions.

It is not premature at all, those issues all need to be addressed or have a plan to be addressed by now. They won't commit to trains or staff unless they have ORR approval. They have not even started the ORR approval process. Even if they submitted their application now, it would take months and months to work through consultations, objections, tweaks and a final decision. ORR as part of that application wants to know how you're going to staff it, what fleet you're going to use. Network Rail wants to understand the performance impact, which stations need modifying, stop car markers, route clearance etc.

There doesn't appear to be any discussion with GBR at all either.

You definitely don't just apply for paths and decide you'll do the rest later.

That business will be so focused on handing over to GBR, and all the admin and stress that a transfer involves, that any service extensions like this will be so far down their list of priorities, they'll be forgotten about forever.

Worth pointing out you need quite a detailed plan for what you are going to do before you start negotiating with ORR, DfT, NR/GBR, other TOCs etc - otherwise there's no point, and that in itself can take months and indeed years to take place. Just because there's no public evidence doesn't mean it's not happening.

They need to establish where they will call, which routes drivers and conductors need to learn, how many drivers and conductors to recruit, which unit types need to be cleared, whether there is even a business case, impact on other operators etc.

There is an awful lot to work through before getting anywhere near bidding paths and applying for access rights which is when things start surfacing publicly with Form P applications and Vehicle Change etc.

 

[snookertam]

The way you get treated by managers has a direct impact on how willing you are to help out during disruption.

Appreciate this is off topic and apologies for that, but I can’t let this go by without comment. It always amazes me how often managers within the railway cannot grasp this. It’s a universal truth no matter what industry you work in and what sort of team you have. Basically, it’s human nature, yet train crews get castigated for it.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Worth pointing out you need quite a detailed plan for what you are going to do before you start negotiating with ORR, DfT, NR/GBR, other TOCs etc - otherwise there's no point, and that in itself can take months and indeed years to take place. Just because there's no public evidence doesn't mean it's not happening.

They need to establish where they will call, which routes drivers and conductors need to learn, how many drivers and conductors to recruit, which unit types need to be cleared, whether there is even a business case, impact on other operators etc.

There is an awful lot to work through before getting anywhere need bidding paths and applying for access rights which is when things start surfacing publicly with Form P applications and Vehicle Change etc.

So why did they announce Summer 2026?

Or is it just coincidental timing that Transport UK was on a huge PR campaign and lobbying effort at exactly the same time, to try to hold off GBR from taking over?

 

[Zomboid]

Probably about the same as via Birmingham?

The fastest journey in the next couple of hours for Shrewsbury to London on national rail enquiries is in fact changing at Wolverhampton and Stafford and takes 2h38.

Just changing at Wolverhampton is 2h41, and bus Crewe is 2h44.

So all much of a muchness. If I were going to have another go at an OA service I'd try routing it via Stafford or Crewe. Though the paths aren't actually there at present, the journey time would at least be competitive.

 

[Watershed]

So why did they announce Summer 2026?

Because it was the intended introduction date at the point the announcement was made? You will know perfectly well that planned dates often slip in the industry, whether that's timetable changes, new trains or stations opening.

Or is it just coincidental timing that Transport UK was on a huge PR campaign and lobbying effort at exactly the same time, to try to hold off GBR from taking over?

Do you actually have any evidence that this was part of their lobbying effort? Or are you, once again, making claims that you don't actually know are true?