Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway updates

[A S Leib]

I think Nuneaton only has 2 tph.

Yes, the Trent Valley and one of the Manchester via Stoke services. At least they're spread evenly; xx:11 and xx:43 southbound and xx:13 and xx:46 northbound.

 

[Harpo]

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

Useful but still not faster* even for Wolves with its hourly 1h 37 via Stafford.

I’m guessing it’s not going to attract many who weren’t using previous through trains?



*Of their suggested 3h 5m timing I guess that roughly means:
Shrewsbury - London 2h 30
Telford 2h 10
Wolves 1h 50

 

[robspaceman]

1 hour drive Shrewsbury-Stafford plus 1 hour 20 min on the train to Euston: 2h 20.

So just an extra ten mins for a through train without the hassle of driving and parking etc., I think that’s potentially quite attractive.

 

[Zomboid]

1 hour drive Shrewsbury-Stafford plus 1 hour 20 min on the train to Euston: 2h 20.

So just an extra ten mins for a through train without the hassle of driving and parking etc., I think that’s potentially quite attractive.

Depends how long it takes to get to Shrewsbury station and then the comparative costs of fare + parking + fuel.

Time wise it's not completely uncompetitive as you describe it

 

[AlanL]

Network Rail have sent their final response to the ORR regarding the application of WSMR and the have refused to support this open access application due to conflicting paths especially around Nuneaton and issues with a level crossing at Chirk. However, its the ORR who makes the final decision and they are under political pressure to do so fairly quickly one way or another!

 

[The Planner]

Network Rail have sent their final response to the ORR regarding the application of WSMR and the have refused to support this open access application due to conflicting paths especially around Nuneaton and issues with a level crossing at Chirk. However, its the ORR who makes the final decision and they are under political pressure to do so fairly quickly one way or another!

If the paths don't work then its going to be difficult for the ORR to say yes unless they tell NR to move Avanti around.

 

[Chippychips]

Network Rail have sent their final response to the ORR regarding the application of WSMR and the have refused to support this open access application due to conflicting paths especially around Nuneaton and issues with a level crossing at Chirk. However, its the ORR who makes the final decision and they are under political pressure to do so fairly quickly one way or another!

Already? I thought they said w/c 19th May according to one of the posts and letters above. That was quick then.

If the paths don't work then its going to be difficult for the ORR to say yes unless they tell NR to move Avanti around.

Is this something the ORR will do? Probably helps that Avanti are/going to be taken by the DfT as part of nationalisation, and the DfT have already put their support and endorsement in writing so you would assume would have no major objections to "some" flexing of Avanti services? Maybe? I'm just thinking out loud.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Network Rail have sent their final response to the ORR regarding the application of WSMR and the have refused to support this open access application due to conflicting paths especially around Nuneaton and issues with a level crossing at Chirk. However, its the ORR who makes the final decision and they are under political pressure to do so fairly quickly one way or another!

Network Rail has indeed submitted the final representations for the Lumo, Virgin Trains and WSMR applications to operate open access passenger train services on the West Coast Mainline and these are now published on the ORR website. Network Rail does not support any of the three applications for similar reasons as shown in the extracts below. The Office of Rail and Road will decide whether or not each application is approved.

Network Rail's final representation for the WSMR application:

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-05/2025-05-09-nr-final-representations-wsmr-s17.pdf

In this representation letter we have confirmed that we do not support this application for a TAC and the access rights sought in this application. Network Rail is not supportive of additional access rights on the West Coast Main Line South Fast Lines for the reasons set out in the two WCML general representations (dated 07 February 2025 and 25 April 2025) and further evidenced in this representation letter, namely performance, passenger flows at Euston, timetable capacity, and congested infrastructure. Additional services on the Fast Lines of the WCML South would have a significant detrimental impact to performance where the current quantum of services, combined with the realities of operating a mixed traffic railway, already have significant performance challenges and contribute to delivering performance at a level below expected levels.
In addition, the proposed services would create significant increased risk on a high-risk level crossing and mitigations would need to be implemented before any additional traffic commenced.

Network Rail's final representation for Lumo application for six trains a day each way between London Euston and Rochdale:

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-05/2025-05-04-nr-final-representations-east-coast-trains-s17.pdf

In this representation letter we have confirmed that we do not support this application for a TAC and the access rights sought in this application. Network Rail is not supportive of additional access rights on the West Coast Main Line South Fast Lines for the reasons set out in the two WCML general representations (dated 07 February 2025 and 25 April 2025) and further evidenced in this representation letter, namely performance, passenger flows at Euston, timetable capacity, congested infrastructure and interactions with TRU, HS2 and Manchester programmes. In addition, the proposed electric services would create a power supply risk on the WCML.
Any additional services on the Fast Lines on the WCML South would utilise firebreaks within the timetable and have a significant detrimental impact to performance where the current quantum of services, combined with the realities of operating a mixed traffic railway, already have significant performance challenges and contribute to delivering performance at a level below expected levels.

Network Rail's final representation for Virgin Trains application:

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-05/2025-05-09-nr-final-representations-virgin-trains-s17.pdf

In this representation letter we have confirmed that we do not support this application for a TAC and the access rights sought in this application. Network Rail is not supportive of additional access rights on the West Coast Main Line South Fast Lines for the reasons set out in the two WCML general representations (dated 07 February 2025 and 25 April 2025) and further evidenced in this representation. Network Rail’s position is based on evidence in relation to timetable capacity, performance, congested infrastructure, passenger flows at Euston and interactions with TRU, HS2 and Manchester programmes. Network Rail have concluded that the access rights proposed cannot be accommodated when assessed against both the May 2025 timetable and a timetable base with all access rights (as they currently stand) accommodated. Furthermore, any additional services on the Fast Lines on the WCML South would utilise firebreaks within the timetable and have a significant detrimental impact to performance where the current quantum of services, combined with the realities of operating a mixed traffic railway, already have significant performance challenges and contribute to delivering performance at a level below expected levels.

 

[Zontar]

Am I reading correctly from that letter from NR, that even if approved, WSMR won't be able to start in Dec 2025 and would have to wait until May 2026?

 

[weeklycommuter]

Am I reading correctly from that letter from NR, that even if approved, WSMR won't be able to start in Dec 2025 and would have to wait until May 2026?

That appears to be the meaning of the following section of Network Rail's final representation on the WSMR application.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-05/2025-05-09-nr-final-representations-wsmr-s17.pdf

May 2025 and December 2025 Priority Date Notification Statement
WSMR submitted access proposals for the May 2025 and December 2025 Timetables. WSMR’s Access Proposals were not included in the May 2025 Working Timetable and will not be accommodated in the New Working Timetable for December 2025.

 

[Zontar]

That appears to be the meaning of the following section of Network Rail's final representation on the WSMR application.

Is this NR opinion/preferences or could ORR overrule this?

 

[XCTurbostar]

This is NR's rationale and has been written to support the ORR in their ultimate decision. As Appendix 2 states for other applications, OA applications are directed by the ORR.

 

[Harpo]

Is this NR opinion/preferences or could ORR overrule this?

It’s ORR’s decision not NR. NR is just submitting an opinion and its supporting evidence.

 

[Bald Rick]

It’s ORR’s decision not NR. NR is just submitting an opinion and its supporting evidence.

It’s not quite that simple.

ORR determines whether access rights will be granted, and a date from which they may apply.

Network Rail decides how the train paths applied for (which may or may not have access rights) can be accommodated in the timetable. If they can not be accommodated, that is NRs decision. That decision is made in accordance with ’Decision Criteria’, set out in Part D of the Network Code. A decision not to accommodate paths can be appealed by the operator that applied for them to an industry disputes committee. If that committee agrees with NRs decision the operator can appeal further to the ORR, who can then instruct NR to accommodate the paths.

 

[Wolfie]

It’s not quite that simple.

ORR determines whether access rights will be granted, and a date from which they may apply.

Network Rail decides how the train paths applied for (which may or may not have access rights) can be accommodated in the timetable. If they can not be accommodated, that is NRs decision. That decision is made in accordance with ’Decision Criteria’, set out in Part D of the Network Code. A decision not to accommodate paths can be appealed by the operator that applied for them to an industry disputes committee. If that committee agrees with NRs decision the operator can appeal further to the ORR, who can then instruct NR to accommodate the paths.

Interesting. I assume that decisions of the ORR, as a public body, can be the subject of a judicial review.

I could easily see a scenario where an organisation caused issues by such an instruction to NR might consider such a course of action.

 

[robspaceman]

If the ORR decides not to grant access rights due to lack of paths, perhaps there's a chance that the DfT, bearing in mind the minister's stated support for WSMR, will instead instruct Avanti to restore the Shrewsbury extensions to some of the Birmingham/Wolverhamptons instead - thereby not increasing any pressure on the south WCML.

As I understand it the test runs of the 805s to Shrewsbury had begun just prior to the service being abandoned.

This would require Avanti to have solved its staffing issues of course.

 

[AlanL]

That would be the sensible answer to provide Shropshire with a direct service 'if' the WSMR plan just cannot get going and Avanti 'could' provide 5 trains a day by extending some of the Hitachi 805 journeys from Birmingham back to Shrewsbury (or even diverting some of the Avanti Holyheads?). It would at least take pressure off the congested southern section of the WCML, but the challenges are Avanti staffing and the Dft agreeing, (especially as it was the Dft that instructed Avanti to stop the previous direct Shropshire service - it was not Avanti's decision, but that was under the previous Government!). As always politics plays a part.

 

[Harpo]

There’s no point reinstating the previous version of Shrewsbury services and good reasons why through trains have died three times - Driving to Stafford is faster.

Try Wolves to London on journey planners and they’ll return ‘via Stafford’ as the fastest option, albeit with inflated fares.

Shrewsbury needs competitive journey times (Wolves too!) but I presume that HS2 will make the situation even worse.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Interesting. I assume that decisions of the ORR, as a public body, can be the subject of a judicial review.

I could easily see a scenario where an organisation caused issues by such an instruction to NR might consider such a course of action.

Correct. Very rarely happens - the 2006 GNER case is the best known example.

 

[Wolfie]

Correct. Very rarely happens - the 2006 GNER case is the best known example.

TY

 

[weeklycommuter]

It’s not quite that simple.

ORR determines whether access rights will be granted, and a date from which they may apply.

Network Rail decides how the train paths applied for (which may or may not have access rights) can be accommodated in the timetable. If they can not be accommodated, that is NRs decision. That decision is made in accordance with ’Decision Criteria’, set out in Part D of the Network Code. A decision not to accommodate paths can be appealed by the operator that applied for them to an industry disputes committee. If that committee agrees with NRs decision the operator can appeal further to the ORR, who can then instruct NR to accommodate the paths.

Network Rail's final representation on the WSMR application states the WSMR train services, if approved by the ORR, will not be accommodated in the May 2025 timetable or the December 2025 timetable so I assume if WSMR disagree they would have to follow this appeal procedure. However the time taken by the appeal procedure may mean that the May 2026 timetable is the earliest possible start to WSMR train services in any case if the ORR approves their application. WSMR also need to acquire the trains and recruit the staff to run their train services.

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting. I assume that decisions of the ORR, as a public body, can be the subject of a judicial review.

Yes, but anyone taking that route will want to be very sure of their ground before doing so, as it gets expensive quickly.

If the ORR decides not to grant access rights due to lack of paths, perhaps there's a chance that the DfT, bearing in mind the minister's stated support for WSMR

The Secretary of State’s support was qualified; in my opinion I would be surprised if that support is still there

WSMR also need to acquire the trains and recruit the staff to run their train services.

And that is a factor - NR has a duty when developing the timetable to enable operators to use their assets efficiently. If, to accommodate paths applied for by an operator that is unlikley to have the requisite assets (crew and stock), requires operators that do have them to be shifted around the timetable, the latter operators can rightly claim that they are being forced to use their assets inefficiently.

Put another way, to obtain paths on a busy and congested railway for a given timetable change date, you need to be able to demonstrate you have a reasonable expectation of actually being able to run the services in that timetable.

 

[alistairlees]

I'm sure they will have the assets.

 

[The Planner]

I'm sure they will have the assets.

They haven't yet though or confirmed they will. That will be part of the issue.

 

[Undiscovered]

There’s no point reinstating the previous version of Shrewsbury services and good reasons why through trains have died three times - Driving to Stafford is faster.

Try Wolves to London on journey planners and they’ll return ‘via Stafford’ as the fastest option, albeit with inflated fares.

Shrewsbury needs competitive journey times (Wolves too!) but I presume that HS2 will make the situation even worse.

I would also argue it needs competitive fares too, especially for families.

Perhaps have tickets for at least one adult and one child (up to a maximum of three per adult) that allow travel to London to arrive at a reasonable time, have a decent 'day out', and return, without being hammered by peak-time fares.
For example from Shrewsbury, to arrive in London at 1106 and leave at 1840 is £343.50 for 1Adult, 1Child, travelling on standard tickets. That's bonkers.

Yes, you can get cheaper fares on West Mids services, but they take an eternity and the 350s are not really desirable for such a distance, especially with young children.
A service with limited paths and timings is going to struggle even if they offer the convenience of direct travel, but none of the flexibility of a big operator. The people of Shropshire 'demand' their connection to the London, but in reality, as we have seen, after the novelty has worn off, the high fares erode passenger numbers.
If you can attract families, on a weekend and through the holidays, or offer special fares for certain groups, maybe it would work.

At this point, I'll hold my hands up and say I'm not overly versed in railway fare allocation and setting etc, so is such a process even possible?

 

[duffield]

...
For example from Shrewsbury, to arrive in London at 1106 and leave at 1840 is £343.50 for 1Adult, 1Child, travelling on standard tickets. That's bonkers.
...

With split tickets booked two weeks in advance, I can get that day trip** down to £140 total without using WMR, just change at Birmingham. If you're planning a day trip like that, surely you'd get advances?

** Arrival/Departure times slightly different presumably due to the pending timetable change but within about 20 minutes.

 

[NorthWalian]

With split tickets booked two weeks in advance, I can get that day trip** down to £140 total without using WMR, just change at Birmingham. If you're planning a day trip like that, surely you'd get advances?

** Arrival/Departure times slightly different presumably due to the pending timetable change but within about 20 minutes.

There is always the Avanti Superfare too at £12 each way from Stafford or Crewe

 

[Undiscovered]

With split tickets booked two weeks in advance, I can get that day trip** down to £140 total without using WMR, just change at Birmingham. If you're planning a day trip like that, surely you'd get advances?

** Arrival/Departure times slightly different presumably due to the pending timetable change but within about 20 minutes.

That fare would be more representative of my proposed WMSR offering: we can make it cheap, every day (rather than booking Advances) but you're limited to X number of trains a day on X operator only.

 

[Steve B]

With split tickets booked two weeks in advance, I can get that day trip** down to £140 total without using WMR, just change at Birmingham. If you're planning a day trip like that, surely you'd get advances?

** Arrival/Departure times slightly different presumably due to the pending timetable change but within about 20 minutes.

Personally, I go for cheapness rather than speed, and can spend a day in London (from Shrewsbury) arriving at Euston at 10:17 (change at New Street) travelling by WMR/LNW using their off peak return £46.80 (although I have a railcard so it's even cheaper).
Driving to Stafford (about an hour each way) to catch a train does not appeal to me at all.
A direct service to London would be nice but, for those on limited budgets, price is more important. I fear that re-nationalising the railways will lead to us losing these cheap fares.

 

[duffield]

Personally, I go for cheapness rather than speed, and can spend a day in London (from Shrewsbury) arriving at Euston at 10:17 (change at New Street) travelling by WMR/LNW using their off peak return £46.80 (although I have a railcard so it's even cheaper).
Driving to Stafford (about an hour each way) to catch a train does not appeal to me at all.
A direct service to London would be nice but, for those on limited budgets, price is more important. I fear that re-nationalising the railways will lead to us losing these cheap fares.

I'm pretty sure that for longer journeys there will still be a choice between cheaper & slower and expensive & faster, purely for demand management - to stop the fast trains being overcrowded while the slower ones are empty.