Lumo Expansion - FirstGroup make further applications

[SeanM1997]

I saw this. It's quite an interesting regional service, and I would think that many in the North of Birmingham / inner Staffs area would appreciate a direct link to Manchester Airport (plus all the connections of Crewe, and fast connects to Manchester without going to BNS) - and serving new stations, it opens up a lot of possibilities. Presumably Tame Bridge Parkway too on the way to New St.

Do we think it would avoid, or go via Wolverhampton, on the way to Stafford?

I would be shocked if this does not replace the Shrewsbury-Tame Bridge-Birmingham service - due to slot timings needed to get through Birmingham. I believe Darlaston/Willenhall are only planned to have 2 trains an hour each way - one being Wolverhampton-Walsall fast and one bring Wolverhampton-Tame Bridge-Birmingham.

I could see (not a guarantee) the Shrewsbury local stopper terminate at Wolverhampton's northbound bay platform (P5?), or for 1 of the 2 Walsall-Birmingham-Wolverhampton services extended to Shrewsbury to compensate for this

 

[The Planner]

I would be shocked if this does not replace the Shrewsbury-Tame Bridge-Birmingham service - due to slot timings needed to get through Birmingham. I believe Darlaston/Willenhall are only planned to have 2 trains an hour each way - one being Wolverhampton-Walsall fast and one bring Wolverhampton-Tame Bridge-Birmingham.

I could see (not a guarantee) the Shrewsbury local stopper terminate at Wolverhampton's northbound bay platform (P5?), or for 1 of the 2 Walsall-Birmingham-Wolverhampton services extended to Shrewsbury to compensate for this

No, Willenhall and Darlaston get the Shrewsbury, that isn't planned to alter. You cannot terminate at the north bay at Wolves, there isn't a connection. Walsall Wolves extensions would have to become diesel as no bi-modes at WMT.

 

[cle]

That makes sense re paths. The Shrewsbury local can probably be a shuttle to Wolvo, which has tons of onward connectivity... maybe in time it could aim towards 2tph to compensate, if ever needed. And they have their 2tph direct to New St still, which feels enough.

No, Willenhall and Darlaston get the Shrewsbury, that isn't planned to alter. You cannot terminate at the north bay at Wolves, there isn't a connection. Walsall Wolves extensions would have to become diesel as no bi-modes at WMT.

I think they meant p6 used to do a Wolvo-Shrewsbury shuttle instead, and the new service runs through.

 

[JonathanH]

I think they meant p6 used to do a Wolvo-Shrewsbury shuttle instead, and the new service runs through.

Platform 6 at Wolverhampton requires a complicated shunt to access at present. It can't be accessed directly by terminating trains which prevents a shuttle operating.

 

[ShadowKnight]

Sure, if you are wanting to visit the Highlands and Islands then Stirling makes a lot of sense as a Motorail terminal, you can drive off the train and onto main roads heading north, north-east or north-west, giving you easy access to everywhere beyond the central belt from one station. But that only works when you've got a car. If you're looking at taking tourists up to Scotland by train without their car then you need to take them to the places they want to go to. And while Stirling is a pleasant place to visit for a day or so, it's unlikely to be a big draw for tourists – nothing like the big cities of Glasgow or Edinburgh, and not much better for the Highlands and Islands than taking people to one of those two for an onward connection.

Stirling is pretty much the Central point of the 7 Scottish cities (technically 8 now with Dunfermline) with a major railhead and capacity. (Hence ScotRail's Inter7ity branding). There is also large road capacity into Stirling from from all major directions and is quite central on the Scottish bus and coach network which are pretty thorough for an Inter city network.

I'd say there is good reason to bid for an extension just on that basis.

 

[Brubulus]

On WCML capacity, Lumo's new services have led to 5 Avanti services losing their paths.

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/a...it-can-t-run-five-wcml-services-from-december

"Avanti West Coast must stop running five services in December after requests to make temporary rights permanent were rejected.

The 0700 Manchester Piccadilly-Euston, 1932 Chester-Euston (weekdays), 1753 Holyhead-Euston (Sundays) and the 0939 Euston-Blackpool North and 1252 return (weekdays) will all be removed in the December timetable change."

 

[Wyrleybart]

No, Willenhall and Darlaston get the Shrewsbury, that isn't planned to alter. You cannot terminate at the north bay at Wolves, there isn't a connection. Walsall Wolves extensions would have to become diesel as no bi-modes at WMT.

Was this mooted at one time as Shrewsbury-Moor St via Walsall, Sutton Park and St Andrews chord ?

 

[The Planner]

On WCML capacity, Lumo's new services have led to 5 Avanti services losing their paths.

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/a...it-can-t-run-five-wcml-services-from-december

"Avanti West Coast must stop running five services in December after requests to make temporary rights permanent were rejected.

The 0700 Manchester Piccadilly-Euston, 1932 Chester-Euston (weekdays), 1753 Holyhead-Euston (Sundays) and the 0939 Euston-Blackpool North and 1252 return (weekdays) will all be removed in the December timetable change."

Thats a rights issue, not sure what Lumo had to do with that. The 0700 is still there as an ECS.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Oct 2025 ==

That makes sense re paths. The Shrewsbury local can probably be a shuttle to Wolvo, which has tons of onward connectivity... maybe in time it could aim towards 2tph to compensate, if ever needed. And they have their 2tph direct to New St still, which feels enough.

No way will Shrewsbury lose a through service to New St.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Oct 2025 ==

Was this mooted at one time as Shrewsbury-Moor St via Walsall, Sutton Park and St Andrews chord ?

Not that I know of. There was talk of the Camp Hill service being tagged on to the Shrewsbury.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

On WCML capacity, Lumo's new services have led to 5 Avanti services losing their paths.

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/a...it-can-t-run-five-wcml-services-from-december

"Avanti West Coast must stop running five services in December after requests to make temporary rights permanent were rejected.

The 0700 Manchester Piccadilly-Euston, 1932 Chester-Euston (weekdays), 1753 Holyhead-Euston (Sundays) and the 0939 Euston-Blackpool North and 1252 return (weekdays) will all be removed in the December timetable change."

Lumos paths had absolutely nothing to do with that decision.

 

[weeklycommuter]

The Rochdale doesn't stand a chance. The Cardiff York will be trying to get the paths XC aren't using on the Reading Newcastle.

Proposed stopping pattern is
Cardiff Central, Newport, Severn Tunnel Junction, Chepstow, Gloucester,
Cheltenham Spa, Worcestershire Parkway, Bromsgrove, Birmingham New
Street, Tamworth, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield, Doncaster, York.

Though Cheltenham, Worcestershire Pkwy, Bromsgrove, Tamworth and Chesterfield are not necessarily to be called at by all services.

The Form P for this Lumo Cardiff to York service application states there will be six trains a day each way. I can see that the Birmingham to York part could use paths that the XC Reading York service is not using (it has paths for an hourly service but in the December 2025 timetable it will still be only around one train every two hours) but will there be available paths for the Cardiff to Birmingham part?

The withdrawn Alliance Rail application for five return Cardiff to Edinburgh services a day would have used the same route Cardiff-Birmingham-Sheffield-Doncaster-York but perhaps that application was withdrawn because there was no prospect of paths being available for the York to Edinburgh part of that application with the East Coast Mainline having no available capacity.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-10/frsl-cardiff-to-york-form-p.pdf

Lumo’s new Cardiff–York route will reduce travel time to around 4 hours 30 minutes. The operator will run six services each weekday – currently, this route sees one direct return service each weekday. Rail’s mode share on this route is only 15% compared to 51% on well-served comparable flows. The new services are designed to capture mode share from car.
Bringing Lumo’s low-cost model to the Cardiff–York corridor will support the communities FirstGroup proposes to serve. Cardiff, Birmingham, Derby, Sheffield, and York had a combined population of over 2.5 million people in 2021.
Lumo’s new Cardiff–York route is uniquely positioned to join up the entire GB rail network. The five main cities on the route – Cardiff, Birmingham, Derby, Sheffield, and York – will enable Lumo to connect to all four main lines across the rail network ranging from the Great Western Main Line to the East Coast Main Line.
The plans also will deliver more capacity on an increasingly congested corridor while delivering intermediate connectivity across the route. The services are planned to start from December 2028 with a five-year agreement running until December 2033.

 

[Snow1964]

ORR has published some Network Rail response letters dated 5th December.

I might be missing something, but I do feel someone has been tasked with creating the longest list of objections possible.

Examples include extra train increases risk of a level crossing
Performance on time) by other operators is only 48% so extra train every few hours is unmanageable

What about this one, which suddenly happened end of November, a few days before the letter

Declaration of Congested Infrastructure for the Weaver feeding area, between Weaver Junction and Crewe Neutral section (all lines) on West Coast mainline on 26th November 2025

What exactly changed that required a Declaration that wasn't needed a week/month/year earlier before Network Rail started compiling its objection letters.

Am I just being cynical, or are there people employed just to be difficult to anything that is not nationalised rail

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-12/frsl-new-rolling-stock-network-rail-representations.pdf

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-12/frsl-cardiff-to-york-network-rail-representations.pdf

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-12/frsl-rochdale-network-rail-representations.pdf

 

[The Planner]

ORR has published some Network Rail response letters dated 5th December.

I might be missing something, but I do feel someone has been tasked with creating the longest list of objections possible.

Examples include extra train increases risk of a level crossing
Performance on time) by other operators is only 48% so extra train every few hours is unmanageable

What about this one, which suddenly happened end of November, a few days before the letter

What exactly changed that required a Declaration that wasn't needed a week/month/year earlier before Network Rail started compiling its objection letters.

Am I just being cynical, or are there people employed just to be difficult to anything that is not nationalised rail

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-12/frsl-new-rolling-stock-network-rail-representations.pdf

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-12/frsl-cardiff-to-york-network-rail-representations.pdf

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-12/frsl-rochdale-network-rail-representations.pdf

You are being cynical with the congested infrastructure one. That takes time to get sorted and would happen regardless of any OAO bid or even Avanti or a FOC wanting to run extra electrics up there. It also means that NR has to have a plan to sort it.

 

[Snow1964]

You are being cynical with the congested infrastructure one. That takes time to get sorted and would happen regardless of any OAO bid or even Avanti or a FOC wanting to run extra electrics up there. It also means that NR has to have a plan to sort it.

I just thought the timing was odd, not happened months earlier, not when a timetable change took place. Perhaps I should accept it was just coincidence that it happened days before and found its way into the letter.

Part of the reason why I am cynical, is in normal businesses if a potential new customer comes along, and is happy to pay the published rate for your services, then business accepts the revenue, not dream up a huge list of excuses why not, and if they have a capacity pinchpoint they internally expedite sorting any blockers that they were considering doing anyway.

But the more you read those letters they are long lists of negatives, with no suggestions of alternatives, or work arounds or solutions. OK, there are occasional comments that even though there is a current known problem Network Rail might (only might, not definitely) fix it in 5-10 years just smacks of conspiracy to discourage the newcomer by all means possible. A monopoly doing its utmost to be anti-competitive. I hope ORR lawyers are wise and can see through this unbalanced view.

 

[DDB]

It does read like "The network would be fine if it wasn't for the pesky trains". Network Rail have repeated their standard claim about there not being enough 222s to go around for all the applications despite First specifically stating they would be the Sterling ones cascaded. They also felt the need to ask lots of questions about company numbers and First group's corporate structure which doesn't feel like it is a good use of taxpayer money for Network Rail to worry about.

 

[Helvellyn]

They also felt the need to ask lots of questions about company numbers and First group's corporate structure which doesn't feel like it is a good use of taxpayer money for Network Rail to worry about.

That feels like standard questions given the number of speculative Open Access applications that haven't gone anywhere. The Stirling rights were also a quites by First (as were Carmarthen). Level playing field means you treat all applicants equally - you can't say do due diligence on Tony's Trains but ignore First Group.

 

[The Planner]

I just thought the timing was odd, not happened months earlier, not when a timetable change took place. Perhaps I should accept it was just coincidence that it happened days before and found its way into the letter.

Part of the reason why I am cynical, is in normal businesses if a potential new customer comes along, and is happy to pay the published rate for your services, then business accepts the revenue, not dream up a huge list of excuses why not, and if they have a capacity pinchpoint they internally expedite sorting any blockers that they were considering doing anyway.

But the more you read those letters they are long lists of negatives, with no suggestions of alternatives, or work arounds or solutions. OK, there are occasional comments that even though there is a current known problem Network Rail might (only might, not definitely) fix it in 5-10 years just smacks of conspiracy to discourage the newcomer by all means possible. A monopoly doing its utmost to be anti-competitive. I hope ORR lawyers are wise and can see through this unbalanced view.

ORR lawyers coming up with a conclusion that is different still doesn't solve the problems. As I said in my post, no operator is going to get extra electric paths accepted north of Crewe at the current point in time.

 

[Snow1964]

That feels like standard questions given the number of speculative Open Access applications that haven't gone anywhere. The Stirling rights were also a quites by First (as were Carmarthen). Level playing field means you treat all applicants equally - you can't say do due diligence on Tony's Trains but ignore First Group.

But First Group plc publish all their financials (on their website and Companies House) so available, whereas Tony's train startup don't.

Asking for information that is publicly available as a reason in a letter is an excuse, not a reasonable reason.

 

[Helvellyn]

What exactly changed that required a Declaration that wasn't needed a week/month/year earlier before Network Rail started compiling its objection letters.

Am I just being cynical, or are there people employed just to be difficult to anything that is not nationalised rail.

It could more be that given the number of applications in the last couple of years for West Coast access someone was tasked to do a more thorough review of all potential choke points and this declaration is the output. Rather then react to each new bid someone thought let us be proactive and review the lot. Yes, the outcome is a negative in terms of congestion but equally look at the "Ghost Train" headlines of a couple of weeks ago where a longstanding Avanti Manchester-Euston service was to become ECS because of potential congestion/reliability issues caused by a yet to start Lumo service!

 

[Bald Rick]

I just thought the timing was odd, not happened months earlier, not when a timetable change took place. Perhaps I should accept it was just coincidence that it happened days before and found its way into the letter.

The offciial declaration of congested infrastructure has been a long time in the mix, there was an early warning of same a long time ago.

The simple facts are that on a busy railway, more trains mean worse performance, all else being equal. The ORR has set the railway targets to improve performance. To deliver momre trains and improve performance means capital investement. Funders have made it clar that isn’t coming any time soon.

What would you do?

 

[weeklycommuter]

I do not understand why First Group have made another application for paths from Rochdale to/from London Euston when on 3 July 2025 the ORR rejected the previous application along with two other applications for paths on the West Coast Main Line to London Euston because there is no more capacity on the West Coast Main Line. Why do First Group think that there is any possibility that this new application for paths from Rochdale to/from London Euston would be approved?

Making another application for paths on the West Coast Main Line to London Euston sends the message that First Group do not want to face the reality that no more applications for paths on the West Coast Main Line to London Euston will be approved because there is no more available capacity. This undermines their credibility not just on this new application but all their other new applications.

First Group have also really submitted too many new applications for paths for more new open access passenger train services. By doing this First Group are creating a lot of work for the already overloaded Office of Rail and Road and inviting a stronger clamp down on open access in the Great British Railways legislation. First Group would be wiser to focus on delivering their existing open access passenger train services and their planned new services for which paths are approved.

 

[Snow1964]

First Group have also really submitted too many new applications for paths for more new open access passenger train services. By doing this First Group are creating a lot of work for the already overloaded Office of Rail and Road and inviting a stronger clamp down on open access in the Great British Railways legislation. First Group would be wiser to focus on delivering their existing open access passenger train services and their planned new services for which paths are approved.

I can see this both ways, if First Group are denied paths for trains that they say in their application will have minimum 375 seats, then why on earth were paths granted to operate relatively low capacity 4car EMUs, or 4car voyagers.

Historic paths that were allowed before route became congested should not be a permanent entitlement to indefinitely continue underutilising that path in favour of a higher capacity replacement.

There really ought to be more use it or lose it for paths. Or for sections deemed congested, a requirement to match the capacity or lose the historic paths held, approach by ORR.

 

[The Planner]

I can see this both ways, if First Group are denied paths for trains that they say in their application will have minimum 375 seats, then why on earth were paths granted to operate relatively low capacity 4car EMUs, or 4car voyagers.

Historic paths that were allowed before route became congested should not be a permanent entitlement to indefinitely continue underutilising that path in favour of a higher capacity replacement.

There really ought to be more use it or lose it for paths. Or for sections deemed congested, a requirement to match the capacity or lose the historic paths held, approach by ORR.

There is a use or lose it, its called Part J of the network code. However, you cannot just get rid of trains with firm access rights at a drop of a hat.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Use it or lose it is only one bit of Part J. The “Better Use” provisions later on in Part J allow for firm rights to be discontinued.

 

[The Planner]

Use it or lose it is only one bit of Part J. The “Better Use” provisions later on in Part J allow for firm rights to be discontinued.

Which most of the proposals seem to count on, they come across as complaining about the processes not being used more than anything.

 

[43074]

Am I just being cynical, or are there people employed just to be difficult to anything that is not nationalised rail

That's just Network Rail's corporate culture - lots of "Project Managers" employed to find every reason not to do anything.

 

[Snow1964]

There is a use or lose it, its called Part J of the network code. However, you cannot just get rid of trains with firm access rights at a drop of a hat.

Use it or lose it is only one bit of Part J. The “Better Use” provisions later on in Part J allow for firm rights to be discontinued.

Apologies my description was poor, it is these provisions that exist in part J that I was thinking about, but which rarely (if ever) seem to be used when an alternative with a high seat count is proposed.

There are plenty of examples where paths were originally issued based on 8-12 coach trains being run, but where the operator has shrunk down to 2-5 coach trains, with no action under part J, even where additional paths are being requested in these applications.

 

[Dr Hoo]

This is all about the general problem that significant sections of the network are now ‘full’, whether in terms of power supply, performance, platforms, level crossing risk (where relevant) or whatever.

GBR is going to face an immediate real challenge in respect of any service improvement aspirations of its own, let alone any more open access passenger on these routes.

The only thing we know is that a 75% growth in freight has to be allowed for. Metaphorically the Class 93 and 99 locomotives are humming and ready to start hauling more 750m intermodal trains from Southampton, London Gateway, Felixstowe, Daventry, Trafford Park/Parkside, etc. via the WCML, ECML, Ely, Syston-Wigston, you-name-it…

I await GBR’s new access framework with interest.

 

[The Planner]

The only thing we know is that a 75% growth in freight has to be allowed for. Metaphorically the Class 93 and 99 locomotives are humming and ready to start hauling more 750m intermodal trains from Southampton, London Gateway, Felixstowe, Daventry, Trafford Park/Parkside, etc. via the WCML, ECML, Ely, Syston-Wigston, you-name-it…

I await GBR’s new access framework with interest.

Probably one for the 2026 thread, but I can't see that being anything but watered down over time. The investment needed for that is huge.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Probably one for the 2026 thread, but I can't see that being anything but watered down over time. The investment needed for that is huge.

Ah! So I’m not the only one to think that.

I wonder who will tell the Secretary of State.

 

[Killingworth]

The only thing we know is that a 75% growth in freight has to be allowed for. Metaphorically the Class 93 and 99 locomotives are humming and ready to start hauling more 750m intermodal trains from Southampton, London Gateway, Felixstowe, Daventry, Trafford Park/Parkside, etc. via the WCML, ECML, Ely, Syston-Wigston, you-name-it…

I await GBR’s new access framework with interest.

I used my car over the festive period because public transport was totally impractical for visiting far flung relatives to the south. We encountered a tremendous number of fellow motorists probably doing the same thing and I doubt many could be wooed onto trains.

In particular we used the A127, M11, A14 and A1. On our return between Cambridge and the A1 we encountered two solid lanes of trucks from many nations with loads of containers and varied goods. The M11 hadn't been quite as bad but on one section of the 4 lane part of the A1(M) trucks were 3 abreast - this during the supposedly quiet period between Christmas and New Year.

I really do wonder how the railway can take substantial volumes of today's road traffic in ways that could make a noticeable difference to traffic volumes. 75% extra growth in freight and doubling of passenger numbers within 15-20 years could even be achieved, somehow, but most likely from increased numbers of longer passenger journeys and more widely travelled freight - with little removed from the roads

We've got too used to the convenience of door to door road transport that runs precisely when needed.