Realistic Open Access Possibilities

[The Prisoner]

Whether we are fans or not of OA it seems to be here to stay, but many of the applications seem to essentially duplicate large parts of existing services (such as the recent First and Virgin WCML apps), or offer a minor tweak on an existing service with path issues thrown in to boot (Wrexham and Shropshire, Grand Central Newcastle to Brighton).

So my question is what viable routes are there with a) capacity and b) no significant abstraction to the DfT and existing routes?

One I had thought of was Glasgow - Carlisle - Lancaster - Preston - Wigan - Warrington - Crewe - Milton Keynes - Bicester Village - Oxford - Swindon - Bath Spa - Bristol TM using the East West route. You'd probably need make things pick up only to Crewe and then set down only from Bicester, Oxford or Swindon?

Would open up new journey opportunities and connect towns and cities with sizeable populations - most of those are 100k plus (bar Bicester, but there is a pull for the outlet village, or you might omit) with 650k Glasgow and 500k Bristol being decent start and end points. Looking at existing paths it should be doable in around 6 and a quarter hours (4 hours to MK, 1 hour on to Oxford then 1 and a quarter hour from there to Bristol).

London is the obvious honey pot, but surely paths and abstraction rule that out (though I do wonder with the WCML apps whether the slow lines could be used from MKC for the sake of 10-15 mins added to journey time if the fast has literally no capacity?)

 

[Bald Rick]

We get a thread like this every year or so, eg

Future routes for Open Access operators

Following from the success of Lumo, Grand Central and Hull Trains, I was wondering what routes could be viable for open access operators. My suggestion would be Norwich to Leeds, my calling points would be Norwich Thetford, Peterborough, Stamford, Oakham, Melton Mowbray, Derby, Chesterfield...

www.railforums.co.uk

They key to being able to answer is an understanding of what is meant by “viable”.

If it is finding valid paths that do not cause revenue abstraction (above the limit) and making a profit, it’s reasonable to assume that the recent rash of applications covers the potential bases.

Re your proposal, it runs over two sections that have been (or are likely to be) declared congested infrastructure, so there isn’t capacity.

 

[A S Leib]

Re your proposal, it runs over two sections that have been (or are likely to be) declared congested infrastructure, so there isn’t capacity.

For reference's sake in case this thread is going to keep going, I think the list of those declared congested as of February 2026 is

• Castlefield Junction to Manchester Piccadilly East Junction
• WCML fast lines between Camden South and Ledburn junctions
• Wrexham to Bidston
• Northallerton Longlands Junction to King Edward Bridge, Newcastle
• Doncaster to Marshgate and Leeds Copley Hill West junctions
• Huntingdon North Junction to New England North Junction and Peterborough
• Weaver Feeder Area
• Willenhall Feeder Area

There's early warning signs for, amongst others, Foxhall to Wotton Bassett Junction, and I don't think the EMR platforms at St. Pancras really have spare capacity, which doesn't leave many options involving London.

 

[Topological]

Suggests paths out of Paddington, Liverpool Street, Marylebone and then the South Eastern terminals. I assume there are actually some paths available in the South East because of the commuter downturn. No idea where you would send a 3rd rail train to, but you could.

So I am going for Newport - Bristol Parkway - Wooton Bassett** - Didcot - Reading - Slough - Old Oak Common - Paddington. I will schedule on the slows from Reading, ideally departing just ahead of an Elizabeth Line train. Newport will use Platform 1 so that there is some space. Didcot might be swapped for a different station if this build new stations in order to get permission idea works. A new station would be between Swindon and Didcot.

It is quite hard to fit much profitable in.

 

[DS25]

No idea if this is realistic, but a Cardiff - Edinburgh via the Marches
Stopping at: Newport, Abergavenny, Hereford, Ludlow, Shrewsbury, Crewe or Chester?, Preston, Oxenholme, Carlisle and Edinburgh

 

[The Prisoner]

No idea if this is realistic, but a Cardiff - Edinburgh via the Marches
Stopping at: Newport, Abergavenny, Hereford, Ludlow, Shrewsbury, Crewe or Chester?, Preston, Oxenholme, Carlisle and Edinburgh

Would have thought anything from Scotland to the South West or South Wales would have a half decent business case, but probably from Glasgow rather than Edinburgh as the latter is well served (numerically if not actually) by XC services.

It gets laughed out of the room, but before the service requirements ex-communicated Crewe north from XC those trains to the south west and south coast were often busy. Even if they directed the Manchester services to Bristol and the south coast alternately via Crewe the North Wales coast would be brought back into play (am aware that a token Manchester XC goes via Crewe at some daft hour assumedly for route knowledge retention).

People shout down that you can change at Birmingham New Street, and I do think the marrying together of Scotland - Preston - New Street and one of the London services from there has been beneficial, but I think that has happened by accident as there was a good 10 years post XC being removed from the Northern WCML that those services were truncated in both directions at New Street.

Quite certain a Glasgow - NW - Bristol/Cardiff/South West service a few times a day would sell well and not abstract.

 

[Iskra]

For reference's sake in case this thread is going to keep going, I think the list of those declared congested as of February 2026 is

• Castlefield Junction to Manchester Piccadilly East Junction
• WCML fast lines between Camden South and Ledburn junctions
• Wrexham to Bidston
• Northallerton Longlands Junction to King Edward Bridge, Newcastle
• Doncaster to Marshgate and Leeds Copley Hill West junctions
• Huntingdon North Junction to New England North Junction and Peterborough
• Weaver Feeder Area
• Willenhall Feeder Area

There's early warning signs for, amongst others, Foxhall to Wotton Bassett Junction, and I don't think the EMR platforms at St. Pancras really have spare capacity, which doesn't leave many options involving London.

The term congested infrastructure is meaningless; the Doncaster-Leeds line has been declared as such for sometime, but yet they’ve found space for the Yorkshire Flyer, Leeds-Knottingley services and a number of ECS moves from Doncaster to Leeds and vice versa. So, it can’t have been that congested can it?

It’s just an effortless, vacuous retort for the unimaginative and the unwilling.

 

[JonathanH]

Would have thought anything from Scotland to the South West or South Wales would have a half decent business case, but probably from Glasgow rather than Edinburgh as the latter is well served (numerically if not actually) by XC services.

Quite certain a Glasgow - NW - Bristol/Cardiff/South West service a few times a day would sell well and not abstract.

Crewe to Glasgow is a seven hour round trip of almost 500 miles with an existing service. From Warrington it runs at least hourly, and from Preston many hours there are two trains an hour. Crewe to Cardiff is a service that runs hourly.

While there are undoubtedly potential through passengers across Crewe, it is difficult to see how a service which parallels existing offerings is not abstractive, since it also has to make revenue on journeys that don't cross Crewe.

 

[A S Leib]

Quite certain a Glasgow - NW - Bristol/Cardiff/South West service a few times a day would sell well and not abstract.

Crewe to Glasgow is a seven hour round trip of almost 500 miles with an existing service. From Warrington it runs at least hourly, and from Preston many hours there are two trains an hour. Crewe to Cardiff is a service that runs hourly.

While there are undoubtedly potential through passengers across Crewe, it is difficult to see how a service which parallels existing offerings is not abstractive, since it also has to make revenue on journeys that don't cross Crewe.

I think an Edinburgh to Liverpool or Liverpool to Cardiff / Bristol service (if it could be introduced before TfW's Liverpool to Cardiff ones which keep seem to be being delayed) would have a better chance of not being abstractive, if not with better luck in finding sufficient paths.

 

[The Planner]

The term congested infrastructure is meaningless; the Doncaster-Leeds line has been declared as such for sometime, but yet they’ve found space for the Yorkshire Flyer, Leeds-Knottingley services and a number of ECS moves from Doncaster to Leeds and vice versa. So, it can’t have been that congested can it?

It’s just an effortless, vacuous retort for the unimaginative and the unwilling.

That isn't what its for, it means NR have to come up with either a different timetable plan which doesn't make things worse, or an intervention that solves it. Its far from a get out of jail free card.

 

[Topological]

I think an Edinburgh to Liverpool or Liverpool to Cardiff / Bristol service (if it could be introduced before TfW's Liverpool to Cardiff ones which keep seem to be being delayed) would have a better chance of not being abstractive, if not with better luck in finding sufficient paths.

There is presumably a Marches path in the hours that the Holyhead does not run. There possibly is space for one more path as well. The problem is long headways that mean that there are tough limits on the number of trains. From memory the worst is between Abergavenny and Hereford at 19 minutes. That would support 3tph, but the existence of 2tph in the Holyhead hours makes things tight.

Could Bristol to the North West via Shrewsbury make money? I am not so sure that it could. Unless you were an open access operator who gets hold of some DMUs and then you only have 2 carriages to fill.

Any Marches train from Bristol would need a path through Severn Tunnel, and to think about what to do at Newport as well. Crewe can use Platform 12 if heading to the North West. The diesel would not add to the power constraints on the line, but then where would the destination be? What would happen with running a small train amongst the big trains north of Preston? You could do Liverpool, but then would it have been better via Chester? Manchester might work, but a big part of the draw of the new OA would be cheaper trains than the CrossCountry routes.

 

[DS25]

Any Marches train from Bristol would need a path through Severn Tunnel, and to think about what to do at Newport as well. Crewe can use Platform 12 if heading to the North West. The diesel would not add to the power constraints on the line, but then where would the destination be? What would happen with running a small train amongst the big trains north of Preston? You could do Liverpool, but then would it have been better via Chester? Manchester might work, but a big part of the draw of the new OA would be cheaper trains than the CrossCountry routes.

Random idea and probably unfeasable but Exeter or even Paington/Plymouth to Liverpool via Chester?

 

[MikeFromLFE]

I wonder if there's scope for a Leicester to Manchester (/ Manchester Airport) service? - with shades of Project Rio.
I imagine the constraints are around capacity at the Manchester end.

 

[Bald Rick]

I wonder if there's scope for a Leicester to Manchester (/ Manchester Airport) service? - with shades of Project Rio.
I imagine the constraints are around capacity at the Manchester end.

And the Leicester end, and most of the middle too.

 

[Brubulus]

And the Leicester end, and most of the middle too.

Assuming you went via New Mills Central, wouldn't the primary constraint be Trent Junction?

 

[thenorthern]

Given that so far all the open-access operators that have actually operated trains have involved London (Eurostar, Grand Central, Heathrow Express, Hull Trains, Lumo and Wrexham & Shropshire) I think for the foreseeable future open access services involving London will remain the main market.

I could see a market for direct services from Kent and Essex to the Midlands/North as thus far neither have been very well connected by direct services to anywhere other than London. Although not an open access service the London Crosslink I think could have worked better if there was more capacity for it to use.

At the present moment open-access operators of course have to prove they are mostly bringing passengers to the railways that would not have otherwise used the trains and not just extract revenue from existing services. Will this still be the case with GBR? Depending on how Lumo West Coast works out I can see more "no frills" services popping up.

 

[Bald Rick]

Will this still be the case with GBR?

Yes, and i can see the rules on abstraction and performance being tightened.

 

[SeanM1997]

Liverpool & South Wales Railway have revised their planned track access application Liverpool - Cardiff route from December 2026. Now to operate via Crewe Independent Lines instead of Chester/Wrexham unless capacity improves. Sunday services also appear to call at Nantwich. Crewe does not get served:

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sale-of-access-rights/Consultations/Current%20Track%20Access%20Consultations/24.04.2026%20-%20Liverpool%20&%20South%20Wales%20Railway%20-%20Section%2017%20-%20Closes%2015.05.2026/Form%20P%20S17_LIV-LUD-CDF_TO%20ORR_30_04_26_ISSUE%203.pdf

 

[The Planner]

Liverpool & South Wales Railway have revised their planned track access application Liverpool - Cardiff route from December 2026. Now to operate via Crewe Independent Lines instead of Chester/Wrexham unless capacity improves. Sunday services also appear to call at Nantwich. Crewe does not get served:

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sale-of-access-rights/Consultations/Current%20Track%20Access%20Consultations/24.04.2026%20-%20Liverpool%20&%20South%20Wales%20Railway%20-%20Section%2017%20-%20Closes%2015.05.2026/Form%20P%20S17_LIV-LUD-CDF_TO%20ORR_30_04_26_ISSUE%203.pdf

No one is getting a Dec 26 proposal in if its just been put forward with alterations. Again, where are all the 22x coming from?

 

[VItraveller]

How about a service from Birmingham Moor Street to Swansea, calling at Stourbridge Junction, Kidderminster, Worcester, Great Malvern, Hereford, Abergavenny, Cardiff and Swansea.
it would have the benefit of providing faster journeys from Birmingham to Hereford without becoming a stopper, and another service each hour to Cardiff and Swansea.

 

[The Planner]

How about a service from Birmingham Moor Street to Swansea, calling at Stourbridge Junction, Kidderminster, Worcester, Great Malvern, Hereford, Abergavenny, Cardiff and Swansea.
it would have the benefit of providing faster journeys from Birmingham to Hereford without becoming a stopper, and another service each hour to Cardiff and Swansea.

It probably won't be any quicker as you just get caught behind one of the 4tph from Moor St to Stourbridge. Then just as likely to catch one of the 2tph to Worcester that stop at Hagley, Blakedown etc..

 

[Zomboid]

It wouldn't be hourly either. At least no existing OAO is anywhere near that frequency.

 

[A S Leib]

It wouldn't be hourly either. At least no existing OAO is anywhere near that frequency.

I know this thread is focusing on realistic new open access routes; how realistically could Hull Trains increase services to hourly, or at least to ten trains per day in each direction?

Eurostar between London and Paris, and Heathrow Express, are effectively hourly or more frequently, but for reasons (Channel Tunnel monopoly; airport funding) which don't apply to others.

 

[JonathanH]

I know this thread is focusing on realistic new open access routes; how realistically could Hull Trains increase services to hourly, or at least to ten trains per day in each direction?

The advantage an Open Access Operator has is not having to provide journeys at times when they don't expect to be able to fill a train. As we have seen Hull Trains can make more revenue from their fleet strengthening a key journey with a second unit than running an extra train. Would hourly services to Hull (if there were paths) make Hull Trains more money, or just spread the demand?

 

[Zomboid]

Isn't there one open access path an hour from kings cross? Hull, Lumo and GC effectively share it.

 

[MatthewE707]

Isn't there one open access path an hour from kings cross? Hull, Lumo and GC effectively share it.

There are two paths per hour: one shared by Lumo and GC (Bradford) and the other shared by Hull Trains and GC (Sunderland). But the point still stands that there are no spare open access paths.

 

[TheWierdOne]

I know this thread is focusing on realistic new open access routes; how realistically could Hull Trains increase services to hourly, or at least to ten trains per day in each direction?

Eurostar between London and Paris, and Heathrow Express, are effectively hourly or more frequently, but for reasons (Channel Tunnel monopoly; airport funding) which don't apply to others.

Eurostar have the advantage that they are a monopoly provider (for now) on the Chunnel Run. Virgin are planning to almost match Eurostar’s service frequency (albeit with trains half as long as Eurostar) so it will be interesting to see how sustainable that overall level of service is. Eurostar reportedly has around a 90% market share on the Paris route and 80% for Brussels. If Virgin can find a way to make their fares noticeably lower then I suspect the market will segment itself into business and high end (Eurostar) and more budget conscious (Virgin) and numbers will rise enough for both companies to run happily enough. Otherwise I wonder who will fold first and reduce services to remain profitable. Trenitalia entering the market is a further complication.

 

[swt_passenger]

There are two paths per hour: one shared by Lumo and GC (Bradford) and the other shared by Hull Trains and GC (Sunderland). But the point still stands that there are no spare open access paths.

I believe in all the track access correspondence discussed since the 2016 application, the ultimate allocation for long distance paths to/from Kings Cross has been 6.5 tph for LNER, and 1.5 tph for the combined open access operators and their routes.

AIUI LNER have still got firm intentions to run a train to Middlesbrough every 2 hours. Unless anyone knows different?

 

[Sorcerer]

When it comes to finding open-access routes that are profitable, non-abstractive, and have available paths, there are unfortunately limited numbers of options. London is where the money is made but those trunk routes are already very well packed, and more specifically it'll be premium intercity routes that get the applications because regional and commuter traffic aren't generally profitable.

On that basis I'm not sure where else there is a market for OAO operations, though I do wonder if perhaps there could be some paths available for extra Liverpool to Glasgow services when TPE aren't running one of three daily services, or even Edinburgh which would be faster than travelling via Newcastle on the East Coast Main Line.

If Virgin can find a way to make their fares noticeably lower then I suspect the market will segment itself into business and high end (Eurostar) and more budget conscious (Virgin) and numbers will rise enough for both companies to run happily enough. Otherwise I wonder who will fold first and reduce services to remain profitable. Trenitalia entering the market is a further complication.

Truthfully I can't see Virgin wanting to brand themselves as the budget-friendly option if the competition between British Airways and Virgin Atlantic is anything to go by. In that sense Virgin would probably want to offer better value for the premium product while generally being broadly competitive. HS1 track access charges don't lend themselves to a budget-friendly operation either. Of course I must acknowledge airline economics are different from rail transport.

 

[stevieinselby]

The term congested infrastructure is meaningless; the Doncaster-Leeds line has been declared as such for sometime, but yet they’ve found space for the Yorkshire Flyer, Leeds-Knottingley services and a number of ECS moves from Doncaster to Leeds and vice versa. So, it can’t have been that congested can it?

The problem with Doncaster—Leeds is the difference in running time between the stoppers and the intercity services, meaning that it is difficult to path any additional services between Doncaster and Leeds without flighting them with another train on the same stopping pattern (which is not helpful in terms of providing a useful passenger service), having two trains 3 minutes apart and then a 27 minute gap to the next one.

Running additional fast trains as far as Moorthorpe is easier because you can flight them with an LNER train and it isn't shadowing the service in the same way – and running only as far as Wakefield is even easier.

I know this thread is focusing on realistic new open access routes; how realistically could Hull Trains increase services to hourly, or at least to ten trains per day in each direction?

It would be great if HT could increase to hourly, although I'm not convinced the passenger numbers would stack up – the trains usually seem a lot quieter beyond Doncaster – but during the day the path they use on the off hours is generally used by Grand Central. I suspect that increasing HT to hourly would only be possible at the expense of removing other trains, whether GC or LNER, given how intensively used the ECML is now. Given that the new timetable has given HT a load of bum paths through the day, with journey times noticeably extended compared with previous years despite the same calling pattern, and trains regularly sitting at Doncaster for 10 to 15 minutes, I don't think that adding new HT paths will be a high priority for anyone just now.