Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway updates

[Zomboid]

But as NR I'd see it as fair for the sake of contingency measures for a badly run WCML

I'd say that trying to squeeze a train into every possible gap is more "badly run" than trying to preserve some contingency. Or any delay in the morning becomes unrecoverable and things are still broken come the evening.

The fact is that things happen every day, even as simple as needing the access ramp at a station with a nominal 60sec dwell meaning the call takes 2 minutes. And then that needs to be recovered by the time the train hits some crucial junction.

Put too many trains in and it may work in theory, but not in reality.

 

[diffident]

I'd say that trying to squeeze a train into every possible gap is more "badly run" than trying to preserve some contingency. Or any delay in the morning becomes unrecoverable and things are still broken come the evening.

The fact is that things happen every day, even as simple as needing the access ramp at a station with a nominal 60sec dwell meaning the call takes 2 minutes. And then that needs to be recovered by the time the train hits some crucial junction.

Put too many trains in and it may work in theory, but not in reality.

There are still gaps in the WCML timetable as a result of Avanti thinning out their services. Those paths, granted, are protected. They shouldn't be. If someone else wants to come in and use them, they should be allowed to. Especially if Avanti withdraw their Wrexham extender, they should lose that path.

It appears that in an open economy society, the railway wants to run in a closed economy environment. That's not conducive for the passengers, which is what the railway largely exists for.

 

[Bald Rick]

Very interesting development from NR, however the ORR can also be influenced by political influences as the Shropshire MPs are fully promoting the WSMR application

ORR can not be influenced by politics. It can be influenced by Government.

and the Dft are supporting the application in 'principle'.

subject to it not causing an increase in taxpayer support or worsening performance.

But as NR I'd see it as fair for the sake of contingency measures for a badly run WCML...

A long distance mixed traffic railway that plans to use all spare capacity is the very foundation of one that is “badly run”

There are still gaps in the WCML timetable as a result of Avanti thinning out their services. Those paths, granted, are protected. They shouldn't be. If someone else wants to come in and use them, they should be allowed to.

Ok. How do you decide who uses them, when many different proposals are submitted?

1) the one most likely to happen ?
2) the one that can be done quickest ?
3) the one with the best impact on taxpayer funding ?
4) the one with the best impact on performance ?
5) the one that provides most seats ?
6) the one with most benefit to society?
7) the one that shouts loudest ?

The answer to 1-6 is likely to be Avanti reinstating their services (see December timetable).

 

[AlanL]

Avanti reinstating their services in the proposed December timetable will do nothing to provide better connectivity for the passengers of Shropshire (and Wrexham) wanting an easy (without changes) and comfortable direct rail service to London. Avanti were 'instructed' to withdraw their previous direct train service from Shrewsbury by the DFT a year ago (the original franchise agreement was for 2 return trains a day), so if an open access provider can offer a more regular service at affordable fares, the WSMR will be warmly welcomed by local rail travellers. On a wider note obviously NR need to ensure that any new services fit into the very busy and complicated existing timetable, but they need to take a more 'can do' approach to boosting rail travel and journey opportunities. I still believe Political pressure on the DFT/Govt by local MPs/pressure groups will play a part in deciding this issue and I think we will know the outcome fairly soon.

 

[The Planner]

Avanti reinstating their services in the proposed December timetable will do nothing to provide better connectivity for the passengers of Shropshire (and Wrexham) wanting an easy (without changes) and comfortable direct rail service to London. Avanti were 'instructed' to withdraw their previous direct train service from Shrewsbury by the DFT a year ago (the original franchise agreement was for 2 return trains a day), so if an open access provider can offer a more regular service at affordable fares, the WSMR will be warmly welcomed by local rail travellers. On a wider note obviously NR need to ensure that any new services fit into the very busy and complicated existing timetable, but they need to take a more 'can do' approach to boosting rail travel and journey opportunities. I still believe Political pressure on the DFT/Govt by local MPs/pressure groups will play a part in deciding this issue and I think we will know the outcome fairly soon.

NR are taking a "can do" approach, but if those proposals end up making the existing performance to take a nose dive then its the correct thing to say no.

 

[zwk500]

On a wider note obviously NR need to ensure that any new services fit into the very busy and complicated existing timetable, but they need to take a more 'can do' approach to boosting rail travel and journey opportunities.

If the railway is full, what do you expect NR to do? Building more tracks requires political backing for both funding and approvals.

 

[ainsworth74]

If the railway is full, what do you expect NR to do? Building more tracks requires political backing for both funding and approvals.

If only someone had thought to build a new railway between say London - Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester to take the large bulk of the long distance limited stop services off the existing West Coast Mainline and freeing up capacity for additional services to allow less major flows to benefit from improved connectivity or frequencies. And seeing as it's a new railway passenger railway you might as well build to modern standards which requires higher speeds.

Ah well, shame no-one thought to do that...

 

[Harpo]

If the railway is full, what do you expect NR to do?

I agree with you in principle, however….

The WCML is now populated by quite a few short Avanti trains that are nowhere near full. My most recent trip into Euston was a 5 car 805 just after the morning peak that was about 70% full.

The railway is full, but nowhere near maximum carrying capacity. I’m sure the applicants will be monitoring that closely.

 

[zwk500]

I agree with you in principle, however….

The WCML is now populated by quite a few short Avanti trains that are nowhere near full. My most recent trip into Euston was a 5 car 805 just after the morning peak that was about 70% full.

The railway is full, but nowhere near maximum carrying capacity. I’m sure the applicants will be monitoring that closely.

Maybe, but I struggle to believe the WSMR trains will be carrying more passengers than Avanti.

 

[The Planner]

I agree with you in principle, however….

The WCML is now populated by quite a few short Avanti trains that are nowhere near full. My most recent trip into Euston was a 5 car 805 just after the morning peak that was about 70% full.

The railway is full, but nowhere near maximum carrying capacity. I’m sure the applicants will be monitoring that closely.

WSMR want to use 5 car 221s?

 

[Harpo]

WSMR want to use 5 car 221s?

A bit different to the incumbent operator obliterating white space with small under-utilised trains.

 

[zwk500]

A bit different to the incumbent operator obliterating white space with small under-utilised trains.

1. How is WSMR running 5-Car diesels different to Avanti running 5-car Bi-Modes and 2. How well-loaded do you expect WMSR trains to be? Running 70% full 5-Cars at 125mph is hardly obliterating white space.

 

[The Planner]

A bit different to the incumbent operator obliterating white space with small under-utilised trains.

As @zwk500 says, how is it different?

 

[Harpo]

As @zwk500 says, how is it different?

In having a majority user on the route that is eliminating the white space available to minority users by running passenger services sub-optimally. It’s exactly how it was with sectorisation and the prime user concept.

However, I’m not in favour of OAOs personally through the inherently poor fit of having cherry-picking operators on a publicly subsidised network.

 

[NorthernTech]

If only someone had thought to build a new railway between say London - Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester to take the large bulk of the long distance limited stop services off the existing West Coast Mainline and freeing up capacity for additional services to allow less major flows to benefit from improved connectivity or frequencies. And seeing as it's a new railway passenger railway you might as well build to modern standards which requires higher speeds.

Ah well, shame no-one thought to do that...

Indeed..

 

[weeklycommuter]

Network Rail make the following statement in their letter to ORR dated 7 February 2025 identifying nine paths a day each way on the West Coast Mainline between Rugby and London Euston. Clearly this would mean the Virgin application would not work as it requires too many paths. Enough paths would be available for either the WSMR application which requires five paths a day each way or the Lumo application which requires six paths a day each way but not both. This only covers paths between Rugby and London Euston so the rest of their proposed routes would also have to be considered.

However Network Rail then makes the statements below in their letter to ORR dated 25 April 2025 that they cannot support the applications.

I do not understand what Network Rail is trying to achieve here. The problem surely from a legal point of view is that they make the statement in their earlier letter that nine paths a day each way are available. WSMR or Lumo could surely use this statement in a judicial review to assert that paths are available and there is no justification for refusing their application. If Network Rail's view is that these nine paths cannot be used because using them would make the timetable impossible to operate surely they should not have made the statement in their letter of 7 February 2025 that there is a theoretical available capacity of 9 Up direction paths and 9 Down direction paths.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-02/20250213-nr-letter-on-wcml-south-applications-dated-7-february-2025.pdf

The ATT assessment indicated a theoretical available capacity of 9 Up direction paths and 9 Down direction paths on the Fast Lines after the inclusion of Euston-Stirling and the 2nd Liverpool services which have rights. These figures include paths identified in the December 2022 Concept Train Plan (CTP) but currently not associated with any access rights currently held by operators. The ATT assessment looked at capacity solely between London Euston and Rugby, and did not consider the feasibility of whether end to end paths for origins / destinations sought further north could be accommodated; linking them to form a coherent service to/from locations beyond Rugby may prove to be a challenge due to capacity constraints elsewhere. Within the unsupported applications there are 46 paths in the down direction and 50 in the up direction either originating or arriving at London Euston, far more that the potential theoretical capacity available.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-04/nr-representations-wcml-2025-04-25.pdf

Network Rail believes the concerns outlined in this representation together with the representation dated 07 February 2025, on the South section of the WCML provides the ORR with a significant suite of material to support it in its relevant determinations. Network Rail will provide you with final representations in relation to the applications listed below. We expect to provide ORR with these week commencing 19th May 25 (where possible we will seek to expedite).

Given the current evidence and analysis our current position of not being supportive of the applications is unlikely to change.

 

[The Planner]

Network Rail make the following statement in their letter to ORR dated 7 February 2025 identifying nine paths a day each way on the West Coast Mainline between Rugby and London Euston. Clearly this would mean the Virgin application would not work as it requires too many paths. Enough paths would be available for either the WSMR application which requires five paths a day each way or the Lumo application which requires six paths a day each way but not both. This only covers paths between Rugby and London Euston so the rest of their proposed routes would also have to be considered.

However Network Rail then makes the statements below in their letter to ORR dated 25 April 2025 that they cannot support the applications.

I do not understand what Network Rail is trying to achieve here. The problem surely from a legal point of view is that they make the statement in their earlier letter that nine paths a day each way are available. WSMR or Lumo could surely use this statement in a judicial review to assert that paths are available and there is no justification for refusing their application. If Network Rail's view is that these nine paths cannot be used because using them would make the timetable impossible to operate surely they should not have made the statement in their letter of 7 February 2025 that there is a theoretical available capacity of 9 Up direction paths and 9 Down direction paths.

You have answered it yourself, there are 9 theoretical paths. That doesn't mean that they will not be a detriment to the overall running. Lots of timetabling works on paper, but the reality is that it doesn't need a lot for it to go wrong and take forever to recover the service. Theoretically on a 3 minute headway you can run 20 trains per hour, you wouldn't do it though.

 

[Watershed]

You have answered it yourself, there are 9 theoretical paths. That doesn't mean that they will not be a detriment to the overall running. Lots of timetabling works on paper, but the reality is that it doesn't need a lot for it to go wrong and take forever to recover the service. Theoretically on a 3 minute headway you can run 20 trains per hour, you wouldn't do it though.

That's fine and good but unless there is something in the TPRs that specifically limits the number of trains per hour (as in the case of Stafford to Crewe IIRC) then it is tricky to nebulously wave your hand and say that a compliant path is too bad for performance.

 

[Harpo]

it is tricky to nebulously wave your hand and say that a complaint path is too bad for performance.

Timetabled firebreaks are possibly the only bit of performance contingency that doesn’t have an on-cost. The avaricious natures of both DfT and TOCs have progressively ground out all of those which came with cash savings.

It wouldn’t be the first time that performance considerations have killed new service proposals nor would it be the first for Telford/Shrewsbury - it happened with the proposal via Oxley Chord and Stafford, an excellent idea for journey times which mirrored what many already do by car.

.

 

[The exile]

It appears that in an open economy society, the railway wants to run in a closed economy environment. That's not conducive for the passengers, which is what the railway largely exists for.

Neither is a free-for-all with no capacity for out of course running and loads of budget airline style “point to point” only operators.

 

[Zomboid]

The railway is not an open economy free for all. It receives government subsidy in order to provide a service to the majority of the country, and that is is primary function.

 

[The Planner]

That's fine and good but unless there is something in the TPRs that specifically limits the number of trains per hour (as in the case of Stafford to Crewe IIRC) then it is tricky to nebulously wave your hand and say that a complaint path is too bad for performance.

Depends if anyone has gone through the entire process and performance modelled via Railsys etc. There are no constraints in the TPR for the WCML as a whole apart from a historic one for single line working that doesn't happen.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A bit different to the incumbent operator obliterating white space with small under-utilised trains.

My impression is that there is more off-peak double-set operation with the 805s than there was with 221s (compared to the service before the covid cutbacks).
Single 5-car 221s on Scotland-Birmingham trains have also been eliminated.
The Shrewsbury situation is rather different, as Avanti must have the 805s for it, but not the permission to operate.
Wrexham still has its daily through service via Chester, though not the promised Gobowen extension.

 

[Bertiethebobby]

Maybe, but I struggle to believe the WSMR trains will be carrying more passengers than Avanti.

When all is said and done re paths etc it seems unlikely to me that WSMR will be able to make it pay. The original (Chiltern) Wrexham and Shropshire service collapsed because unfortunately it didn't pay and that was only 2 trains a day. They're hoping to pick up revenue from intermediate stations but I have doubts regarding Darlaston, Nuneaton and MK, which already has plenty of direct trains to Euston.

 

[sprinterguy]

The original (Chiltern) Wrexham and Shropshire service collapsed because unfortunately it didn't pay and that was only 2 trains a day.

Wrexham & Shropshire operated five trains each way per day at their peak, latterly reduced to four (and finally three, for the last six weeks of their operation).

 

[robspaceman]

When all is said and done re paths etc it seems unlikely to me that WSMR will be able to make it pay. The original (Chiltern) Wrexham and Shropshire service collapsed because unfortunately it didn't pay and that was only 2 trains a day. They're hoping to pick up revenue from intermediate stations but I have doubts regarding Darlaston, Nuneaton and MK, which already has plenty of direct trains to Euston.

You’re not comparing like with like. The original WSMR went right round the houses taking forever to get to London. it had admittedly delicious - - but unnecessary and very cheap - meals from the onboard kitchen, which must have cost it £££ to provide. As noted above it operated five trains per day, not two.

The new proposal’s competitive journey time will finally offer a serious alternative to the Stafford rail head which many people in Shropshire use.

 

[weeklycommuter]

When all is said and done re paths etc it seems unlikely to me that WSMR will be able to make it pay. The original (Chiltern) Wrexham and Shropshire service collapsed because unfortunately it didn't pay and that was only 2 trains a day. They're hoping to pick up revenue from intermediate stations but I have doubts regarding Darlaston, Nuneaton and MK, which already has plenty of direct trains to Euston.

Darlaston has not yet opened, it is under construction and due to open next year. The planned West Midlands Trains service is an hourly service between Walsall and Wolverhampton and an hourly service between Birmingham New Street and Wolverhampton. WSMR will provide the only direct train service between Darlaston and London Euston if their application is approved by ORR.

 

[TamedShrew]

That was me.

 

[Bertiethebobby]

Darlaston has not yet opened, it is under construction and due to open next year. The planned West Midlands Trains service is an hourly service between Walsall and Wolverhampton and an hourly service between Birmingham New Street and Wolverhampton. WSMR will provide the only direct train service between Darlaston and London Euston if their application is approved by ORR.

Yes, sorry I didn't word the last sentence well. I knew about Darlaston but was referring to Nuneaton which has 3 tph and MK approx 8 tph to Euston

 

[midland1]

I think Nuneaton only has 2 tph.