Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway updates

[12LDA28C]

Also the previous WSMR couldn’t make it pay with one train each way.
Why were they unable to make it pay?.

This was already discussed upthread. Mainly due to the UK going into recession and the trains not being permitted to stop at several key stations.

 

[Bald Rick]

Sounds like it's about to get interesting.

New Shrewsbury-to-London rail service given a 'boost' - here's when services could begin

A new rail service connecting Shrewsbury to the capital has received the backing of the Department for Transport, an MP has said.

www.shropshirestar.com

It’s not approved.

That's from the MP.

AFICS all that is new is 'confirmation of support' from DfT. What does that actually amount to as the authorisation is ORR's?

It‘s not even that!

 

[weeklycommuter]

This is the section of the letter dated 4 February 2025 to the Office of Rail and Road from the Department for Transport about the WSMR application. The Department for Transport also state they do not support any of the other eight open access applications referred to in the letter. The Office of Rail and Road will make the decision whether or not to approve each of the nine open access applications including the WMSR application. The Department for Transport make clear their view on each application but they do not make the decision on whether or not to approve any of the applications.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-02/2025-02-04-live-open-access-applications-dft-letter.pdf

Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway (WSMR), Section 17
This application seeks approval to introduce a new Open Access service between Wrexham General and London Euston, with intermediate stops at Gobowen, Shrewsbury, Telford Central, Wolverhampton, Darlaston, Walsall, Coleshill Parkway, Nuneaton and Milton Keynes. The Department provided a response to the original Network Rail consultation regarding this application on 19 December 2023.
As stated in that original response, DfT’s analysis suggests that WSMR’s application will meet the 0.3 NPA threshold specified in ORR’s guidance. The proposed services would also provide new direct services between North Wales, the West Midlands and London, enhancing connectivity and providing tangible benefits for these communities, particularly those in a wide hinterland that can then access direct long distance services from Gobowen. We also recognise that WSMR’s proposals include the potential reintroduction of direct services from Shrewsbury and Telford to London, improving regional connectivity following removal of the unviable and limited Avanti West Coast service, and would also offer new connectivity at Nuneaton to and from the East Midlands and the WCML.
We do have concerns over the operational impacts of WSMR’s proposed services, particularly where they would join the WCML and operate into Euston, where capacity is already constrained and maintaining performance is often challenging. Similar performance risks and capacity constraints apply around Water Orton, Kingsbury and Whiteacre Junction. We would therefore expect that Network Rail should carry out a thorough assessment of capacity and performance impacts across the West Midlands and West Coast Mainline and that its findings are carefully considered by ORR. Subject to an appropriate performance assessment the Department is of the view that broader benefits to passengers particularly on the northern section of the route before joining the WCML may outweigh these risks.
The Department also notes the utilisation of this path on the WCML for this service may impact the realisation of benefits from the Government’s significant investment in HS2 and, in this case, released capacity for local services on the southern end of the WCML.
While the Department does have performance concerns as outlined above, we note the benefits that this proposed service could provide to passengers. We therefore remain supportive in principle of this application from WSMR, subject to full analysis being undertaken by Network Rail to fully understand these risks to performance and ensure that they are mitigated as far as is possible.

 

[Chippychips]

Well that's interesting...
It certainly helps to have the endorsement of the DfT.

 

[victormildrew]

Not clogging up the WCML too much. And giving passengers from Wrexham, Wolverhampton and Walsall etc a service to London Euston hopefully.

 

[AlanL]

It could be a useful and convenient rail service for passengers from Shropshire, but it needs to reconsider its stopping pattern as the present plan does not include Wellington (a busy market town 30,000 pop and almost 700,000 passengers a year) but does include Darlaston (not even built) and Coleshill Parkway (only 187,000 passengers last year). It will need all the passengers it can get to be financially viable!

 

[XCTurbostar]

These OA operators always follow a rough pattern:
Get a service approved > Look to increase stops on the existing route now that it has been shown to be successful > Increase Services > Add more routes
Grand Central is a great example of this.

Regarding Wellington, I suspect if the service runs, political pressure may force this at a later date especially since it will be a London-bound service. Alstom/SLC will likely know of the importance of Wellington but have held off including it due to competition with WMR and TfW.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not clogging up the WCML too much.

Well on current progress it won‘t clog up the WCML at all, because - as was reported upthread sometime ago - almost all the paths proposed do not work. The WCML is a rather full stretch of railway.

 

[The Planner]

Not clogging up the WCML too much. And giving passengers from Wrexham, Wolverhampton and Walsall etc a service to London Euston hopefully.

Wolves has a service to Euston.

 

[Bald Rick]

Wolves has a service to Euston.

as does Wrexham

 

[Class 170101]

The right way was extending an existing Birmingham / Wolverhampton to / from Shrewsbury and not adding paths along the WCML but clearly people won't use their common sense.

 

[Wolfie]

The right way was extending an existing Birmingham / Wolverhampton to / from Shrewsbury and not adding paths along the WCML but clearly people won't use their common sense.

The right way for who? Certainly not for an OA company wishing to turn a profit.

 

[Bald Rick]

The right way was extending an existing Birmingham / Wolverhampton to / from Shrewsbury and not adding paths along the WCML but clearly people won't use their common sense.

The right way for who? Certainly not for an OA company wishing to turn a profit.

Nor for an existing long distance TOC making effective use of resources (as we have established several times!)

 

[A S Leib]

Nor for an existing long distance TOC making effective use of resources (as we have established several times!)

Going off of the previous fates of Euston – Northampton – Birmingham – Rugeley Trent Valley and Liverpool Lime Street services, I'd guess that LNR wouldn't want to try a through London to Shrewsbury service either? (Even if it would be slower than the Avanti service south of Birmingham, people prioritising speed would go via Crewe / Stafford in some cases anyway).

 

[JonathanH]

Going off of the previous fates of Euston – Northampton – Birmingham – Rugeley Trent Valley and Liverpool Lime Street services, I'd guess that LNR wouldn't want to try a through London to Shrewsbury service either?

They don't have any appropriate rolling stock to even contemplate trying it. They do offer through fares on the corridor for use only in their services (and TfW connections).

 

[Wolfie]

Going off of the previous fates of Euston – Northampton – Birmingham – Rugeley Trent Valley and Liverpool Lime Street services, I'd guess that LNR wouldn't want to try a through London to Shrewsbury service either? (Even if it would be slower than the Avanti service south of Birmingham, people prioritising speed would go via Crewe / Stafford in some cases anyway).

LNWR have no diesel or mixed mode stock. Options are limited until Wolvo to Shrewsbury is wired.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Feb 2025 ==

They don't have any appropriate rolling stock to even contemplate trying it. They do offer through fares on the corridor for use only in their services.

Not entirely true - the Brum to Salop section covers use of TfW services too. I use those tickets regularly.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The right way was extending an existing Birmingham / Wolverhampton to / from Shrewsbury and not adding paths along the WCML but clearly people won't use their common sense.

But Avanti (no doubt with DfT approval) canned the Voyager service which did that, before the 805s arrived.
Shrewsbury-Euston is faster via a change at Crewe, even more so when HS2 opens.

 

[robspaceman]

But Avanti (no doubt with DfT approval) canned the Voyager service which did that, before the 805s arrived.
Shrewsbury-Euston is faster via a change at Crewe, even more so when HS2 opens.

Faster - but more expensive than the default ‘via Birmingham’ Avanti ticket. Hopefully that unfairness will cease once HS2 arrives, but in the meantime WSMR could be a welcome option if priced well.

 

[A S Leib]

I don't know how well the connection times work out, but are the LNR/WMR/TfW fares valid via the Trent Valley stopper?

 

[Class 170101]

The right way for who? Certainly not for an OA company wishing to turn a profit.

Surely for the industry as a whole as @Bald Rick keeps telling us there is no capacity on the trunk WCML for more trains.

Nor for an existing long distance TOC making effective use of resources (as we have established several times!)

Well is it effective? The original Bid had these services included and the trains to match. Now of course WSMR needs a new path on the core WCML section Nuneaton to Euston which you tell us there isn't any.

Going off of the previous fates of Euston – Northampton – Birmingham – Rugeley Trent Valley and Liverpool Lime Street services, I'd guess that LNR wouldn't want to try a through London to Shrewsbury service either? (Even if it would be slower than the Avanti service south of Birmingham, people prioritising speed would go via Crewe / Stafford in some cases anyway).

Wrong train type - no Bi modes on West Midlands Railway operation.

But Avanti (no doubt with DfT approval) canned the Voyager service which did that, before the 805s arrived.
Shrewsbury-Euston is faster via a change at Crewe, even more so when HS2 opens.

I admire your optimism that it will get to Crewe, which I cannot see happening before 2040 even if the old route is resurrected.

 

[The Planner]

I admire your optimism that it will get to Crewe, which I cannot see happening before 2040 even if the old route is resurrected.

It will likely still be quicker with just phase 1.

 

[LUYMun]

LNWR have no diesel or mixed mode stock. Options are limited until Wolvo to Shrewsbury is wired.

That’s unless if they acquire/hire 57s to pull/push them on the Wolv-Shrew section.

 

[The Planner]

That’s unless if they acquire/hire 57s to pull/push them on the Wolv-Shrew section.

Good luck with that....

 

[Bald Rick]

Well is it effective? The original Bid had these services included and the trains to match.

Indeed. That was pre-Covid when Business traffic was rather healthier than it is now. I was fortunate enough to be party to the costs / revenue / other benefits of some of the extensions, and post covid the equation changed dramatically (and shows no signs of changing back).

Now of course WSMR needs a new path on the core WCML section Nuneaton to Euston which you tell us there isn't any.

What I’ve said is that the paths applied for largely do not work, which is a slightly different thing. A ‘path’ is a curious thing; I bet paths could be found but they would be unlikely to be commercially attractive and would quite obviously add to the congestion issues on the south end of the WCML. Even now, any late running on the fast lines causes delays to other services, the more services you put in the worse that will get - exponentially. To be fair the ORR is in a difficult position here due to the conflicting incentives processes in the world of planning and performance in the current contractual and legislative regime.

 

[tomuk]

I don't know how well the connection times work out, but are the LNR/WMR/TfW fares valid via the Trent Valley stopper?

Yes. £44.70 return. 3hrs 25 vs 2hrs 36 ish on Avanti and connections. Southbound can either go Wolves then Stafford or New Street and Rugby onto the stopper. Same journey time. Northbound via Stafford and Wolves is 3hrs 7 vs 3hrs 26

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Feb 2025 ==

Good luck with that....

Class 93s?

 

[Wolfie]

That’s unless if they acquire/hire 57s to pull/push them on the Wolv-Shrew section.

Talk about an economic basket case....

 

[zwk500]

Class 93s?

Doesn't solve the problem of either getting the locos on and off at Wolves, or running a loco-hauled push-pull set in a very tight path between Euston and Rugby.

The most sensible option for the stock would be a follow-on order to the 805s.

 

[Watershed]

Faster - but more expensive than the default ‘via Birmingham’ Avanti ticket. Hopefully that unfairness will cease once HS2 arrives, but in the meantime WSMR could be a welcome option if priced well.

How is it unfair to pay less for a cheaper, slower route (which is also shorter as it happens)? That is how most route restricted fares work.

If you reduced the "Any Permitted" fare you would undercut the fares from the likes of Crewe, Stoke and Stafford. So unless you are suggesting they should all get cheaper fares too, it's rather a non-starter.

I don't know how well the connection times work out, but are the LNR/WMR/TfW fares valid via the Trent Valley stopper?

Yes, it's not a route restriction, just a TOC restriction - so you can change onto the TV stopper at the likes of Rugby, and it's often quicker (though it does mean an additional change).

Theoretically there is a negative easement that prevents you from using the "LNR/WMR/TfW only" fare via Crewe (which is often the fastest route), but in practice I doubt that staff on the ground are aware of it...

 

[Chippychips]

Can someone advise me in my understanding please.

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/defaul...-south-applications-dated-7-february-2025.pdf

Does this letter by NR say they have identified they have 9 'theoretical' paths on the WCML up/down fast? Or have I misunderstood?

full link to all docs and appendix' here: https://www.orr.gov.uk/rail-guidanc...rail/current-applications/competing/passenger

 

[Watershed]

Can someone advise me in my understanding please.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/defaul...-south-applications-dated-7-february-2025.pdf

Does this letter by NR say they have identified they have 9 'theoretical' paths on the WCML up/down fast? Or have I misunderstood?

full link to all docs and appendix' here: https://www.orr.gov.uk/rail-guidanc...rail/current-applications/competing/passenger

Yes, 9 Fast Line paths between Euston and Rugby. They do caveat it by stating they're not verifying whether corresponding paths exist north of Rugby, or whether platforming is feasible at Euston - although in reality I suspect both of those are lesser constraints than the Fast Line paths.

Obviously with 48 paths being applied for in total across all of the applications, something will have to give...