Grand central apply for new routes

[brad465]

Moderator note: split from

Grand Central apply for Newcastle - Brighton direct

Application now made to ORR https://news.arriva.co.uk/news/arri...ect-newcastle-and-brighton-via-london-gatwick Arriva have posted the announcement on their website. Arriva Group has today announced it is submitting an open access application to the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) to introduce a...

www.railforums.co.uk

If this is better off in a new thread, happy for this to be split, but went here as it's the same Open Access Operator.

According to the latest RAIL edition, GC have applied for two new OA routes, one from St Pancras-Manchester, and the other from Waterloo-Bristol Temple Meads.

The former is proposed to call at Luton Airport Pkwy (pickup/set down only), Wellingborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Derby, Uttoxeter, Stoke-on-Trent, Congleton, Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester Picc.

The latter is Clapham Jct, Salisbury, Warminster, Westbury, Trowbridge, Bradford-on-Avon, Bath Spa, Bristol TM.

Both services have raised concerns about available paths (and platform space at St Pancras), as well as potential revenue abstraction.

If they were to be somehow approved, the 180s would transfer to the Manchester services when 820s are in service, while new stock would have to be procured for Waterloo-Bristol.

 

[Howardh]

If this is better off in a new thread, happy for this to be split, but went here as it's the same Open Access Operator. According to the latest RAIL edition, GC have applied for two new OA routes, one from St Pancras-Manchester, and the other from Waterloo-Bristol Temple Meads. The former is proposed to call at Luton Airport Pkwy (pickup/set down only), Wellingborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Derby, Uttoxeter, Stoke-on-Trent, Congleton, Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester Picc. The latter is Clapham Jct, Salisbury, Warminster, Westbury, Trowbridge, Bradford-on-Avon, Bath Spa, Bristol TM.

Both services have raised concerns about available paths (and platform space at St Pancras), as well as potential revenue abstraction. If they were to be somehow approved, the 180s would transfer to the Manchester services when 820s are in service, while new stock would have to be procured for Waterloo-Bristol.

Which level would the former arrive @ St Pancras? Think the lowest is Thameslink only?

 

[Failed Unit]

Taken from

Grand Central apply for Newcastle - Brighton direct

Do Cross Country still hold the rights to the paths they are not operating?

www.railforums.co.uk

If this is better off in a new thread, happy for this to be split, but went here as it's the same Open Access Operator. According to the latest RAIL edition, GC have applied for two new OA routes, one from St Pancras-Manchester, and the other from Waterloo-Bristol Temple Meads. The former is proposed to call at Luton Airport Pkwy (pickup/set down only), Wellingborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Derby, Uttoxeter, Stoke-on-Trent, Congleton, Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester Picc. The latter is Clapham Jct, Salisbury, Warminster, Westbury, Trowbridge, Bradford-on-Avon, Bath Spa, Bristol TM.

Both services have raised concerns about available paths (and platform space at St Pancras), as well as potential revenue abstraction. If they were to be somehow approved, the 180s would transfer to the Manchester services when 820s are in service, while new stock would have to be procured for Waterloo-Bristol.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jun 2026 ==

That is an interesting route, Not sure how it will pass the abstraction tests. The Luton Airport stops will probably be welcome. Leicester / Derby - Manchester a reasonable flow but challenging paths to find.

Waterloo - Bristol can’t be that lucrative otherwise SWR would still be running it.

 

[Trainguy34]

Which level would the former arrive @ St Pancras? Think the lowest is Thameslink only?

Presumably it would have to be high-level as it would be practically impossible to find space to turn a train around in those platforms in normal service.

 

[devon_belle]

I don't have RAIL. Any indication of service frequency?

My gut tells me Waterloo-Bristol won't happen as SWR are planning a major timetable rewrite. They will want all the paths they can get on the London end.

 

[The Planner]

So where are all the 180s coming from, as well as the paths in and out of Manchester?

 

[Trainguy34]

So where are all the 180s coming from,

Presumably cascaded from the ECML services when the 820s they have in order from Hitachi enter service.

 

[brad465]

So where are all the 180s coming from, as well as the paths in and out of Manchester?

The 180s are said to be GCs cascaded when the 820s arrive. The pathing has been questioned though, as well as lack of platform capacity at St Pancras.

 

[duffield]

Moderator note: split from

Grand Central apply for Newcastle - Brighton direct

Application now made to ORR https://news.arriva.co.uk/news/arri...ect-newcastle-and-brighton-via-london-gatwick Arriva have posted the announcement on their website. Arriva Group has today announced it is submitting an open access application to the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) to introduce a...

www.railforums.co.uk

If this is better off in a new thread, happy for this to be split, but went here as it's the same Open Access Operator.

According to the latest RAIL edition, GC have applied for two new OA routes, one from St Pancras-Manchester, and the other from Waterloo-Bristol Temple Meads.

The former is proposed to call at Luton Airport Pkwy (pickup/set down only), Wellingborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Derby, Uttoxeter, Stoke-on-Trent, Congleton, Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester Picc.

The latter is Clapham Jct, Salisbury, Warminster, Westbury, Trowbridge, Bradford-on-Avon, Bath Spa, Bristol TM.

Both services have raised concerns about available paths (and platform space at St Pancras), as well as potential revenue abstraction.

If they were to be somehow approved, the 180s would transfer to the Manchester services when 820s are in service, while new stock would have to be procured for Waterloo-Bristol.

As far as St. Pancras to Manchester is concerned, I thought all possible paths at the southern end of the MML were already occupied by Thameslink and EMR?

 

[Bald Rick]

As far as St. Pancras to Manchester is concerned, I thought all possible paths at the southern end of the MML were already occupied by Thameslink and EMR?

Thamselink and EMR in the peak, plus freight off peak.

 

[Farigiraf]

Not even going to touch on the fact that many of the included lines are full or nearly full.

Which markets would either of these services grow to the extent that it's worth running the extra trains?

The only new direct London links are to Uttoxeter, Congleton, Trowbridge and Bradford-on-Avon. Trowbridge and BOA have decent connectivity already, Uttoxeter doesn't have much London traffic, and few people in Congleton would use such an indirect route.

It seems like it's around 90% abstraction, 10% growth, even factoring in potentially cheap fares. In my opinion, it's not worth approving an open access operator if it isn't at a minimum 75/25.

 

[duffield]

Thamselink and EMR in the peak, plus freight off peak.

So I'm baffled as to what the point is of going to the expense of making an application for this route when there is absolutely zero chance of approval.

 

[Bald Rick]

In my opinion, it's not worth approving an open access operator if it isn't at a minimum 75/25.

The rule is 70/30. For now. That could conceivably change.

Re the Manchester service. When this was first mooted a month or do ago, I understood it would not call at Derby, but would run Loughboro’ - Trent Junctions - Castle Donnington - Uttoxeter. Including Derby will bump up the abstraction a lot, both for MML stations to Derby and Derby - Uttoxeter - Stoke.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jun 2026 ==

So I'm baffled as to what the point is of going to the expense of making an application for this route when there is absolutely zero chance of approval.

GC will, I guess, have claimed to have found some paths, albeit by flexing existing services to make them fit.

In my opinion it would be disastrous for reliability, which is hardly brilliant on the MML or approaches to Piccadilly as it is.

 

[Zomboid]

How slow is that Manchester route? Obviously not going to compete on time with the WCML, but how will it stack up against walking?

 

[Snow1964]

I don't have RAIL. Any indication of service frequency?

My gut tells me Waterloo-Bristol won't happen as SWR are planning a major timetable rewrite. They will want all the paths they can get on the London end.

Last time I looked SWR were not using some of the former paths they operated 7 years ago. eg Hounslow loop from 4 per hour to 2 per hour.

Fairly sure there was 22 or 24 tph at peak times into Waterloo in the past, current timetable is less frequent. There is also a question of the slow line capacity (which was supposed to be increased once suburban services went over to 701s, with faster acceleration and automatic door opening. (Basically SWR will be arguing line capacity is limited because haven't bother to implement features provided on their newer trains).

Of course the 450s could also accelerate faster, but are currently capped on power draw to about 70% of design power rating limiting their acceleration. Line capacity of fast lines into Waterloo (how quick signal section is freed up) is determined by the relatively sluggish acceleration performance of 159s compared to the electric fleet

And of course SWR decided (with DfT meddling) to drop their direct trains to Bristol about 4 years ago. Can hardly complain about revenue abstraction if they didn't want the revenue themselves (although bound to object on principle)

 

[brad465]

Last time I looked SWR were not using some of the former paths they operated 7 years ago. eg Hounslow loop from 4 per hour to 2 per hour.

Fairly sure there was 22 or 24 tph at peak times into Waterloo in the past, current timetable is less frequent. There is also a question of the slow line capacity (which was supposed to be increased once suburban services went over to 701s, with faster acceleration and automatic door opening. (Basically SWR will be arguing line capacity is limited because haven't bother to implement features provided on their newer trains).

Of course the 450s could also accelerate faster, but are currently capped on power draw to about 70% of design power rating limiting their acceleration. Line capacity of fast lines into Waterloo (how quick signal section is freed up) is determined by the relatively sluggish acceleration performance of 159s compared to the electric fleet

And of course SWR decided (with DfT meddling) to drop their direct trains to Bristol about 4 years ago. Can hardly complain about revenue abstraction if they didn't want the revenue themselves (although bound to object on principle)

I expect GC are having to hope for some more electrification to make the Bristol proposal work, and another TOC (like GWR) ordering a batch of tri-mode stock covering third rail, OHLE and battery that they can just do a follow-on order for. Otherwise ordering a micro-fleet that's very bespoke is going to be really costly. They would probably need Temple Meads to be electrified to provide some charge at that end, maybe also some of the mainline to Bath Spa, and an OHLE island at either Westbury or Salisbury. Failing this, they'll have to hope something like 170s become available from one of the TOCs planning DMU replacements, but this is probably even further off.

 

[duffield]

How slow is that Manchester route? Obviously not going to compete on time with the WCML, but how will it stack up against walking?

I make it about 3 hours for St. Pancras to Manchester Piccadilly via the MML and Uttoxeter, versus around 2 hours from Euston via the WCML.

I suppose if it was cheap enough you'd get some traffic.

 

[Snow1964]

I expect GC are having to hope for some more electrification to make the Bristol proposal work, and another TOC (like GWR) ordering a batch of tri-mode stock covering third rail, OHLE and battery that they can just do a follow-on order for. Otherwise ordering a micro-fleet that's very bespoke is going to be really costly. They would probably need Temple Meads to be electrified to provide some charge at that end, maybe also some of the mainline to Bath Spa, and an OHLE island at either Westbury or Salisbury. Failing this, they'll have to hope something like 170s become available from one of the TOCs planning DMU replacements, but this is probably even further off.

Short term I presume they will have spare displaced units when their 9 new tri-mode units enter service. (anyone know roughly which month they expected to enter service)

But I guess they could order a variant of the new units with third rail. I don't think line south of Westbury is currently cleared for 26m vehicles (are new units this length ?), would they be able to get 26m clearance approved or would they need shorter vehicles

 

[brad465]

Short term I presume they will have spare displaced units when their 9 new tri-mode units enter service. (anyone know roughly which month they expected to enter service)

But I guess they could order a variant of the new units with third rail. I don't think line south of Westbury is currently cleared for 26m vehicles (are new units this length ?), would they be able to get 26m clearance approved or would they need shorter vehicles

The 180s are 23m carriages and maybe some could be displaced here, however they are earmarked for the Manchester proposal, so if most of the 10 units GC use were needed for this, not enough will be available for anything else. There are 4x 180s in storage, but I'm guessing these are too knackered to be of any help, otherwise GC would have them instead of the 2x 221s they're currently using.

The other possibility is GC take the 6x 221s in store along with the 2x they currently use. However XC have put in a request for the ones in store and, while not guaranteed, are far more likely to get approval then any OAO.

 

[357]

However XC have put in a request for the ones in store and, while not guaranteed, are far more likely to get approval then any OAO.

They will go to the highest bidder.

 

[Kilopylae]

So I'm baffled as to what the point is of going to the expense of making an application for this route when there is absolutely zero chance of approval.

It does feel like there's something we don't know about their wider ambitions here.

 

[Snow1964]

It does feel like there's something we don't know about their wider ambitions here.

Yes, same with First Group applications, if money to be made from routes which national operator doesn't want to operate, looking at them.

DfT is sending mixed messages, one minute indicating open access is bad, next it is telling Operators like Avanti and Thameslink to pare down some services over the summer to save costs. What it is not doing is asking them to operate alternative routes to increase revenue with the equipment and staff they have.

So in a way DfT is saying they don't want the extra revenue if it requires new routes. Although I am unclear if that is because don't want to add services (even if revenue exceeds costs), or they are very risk adverse and find keeping pattern of services from 20, 30, 40 years ago as an easy option (even though world and passenger flows have changed) and it costs big subsidy. Of course might be as simple as they have no strategic vision so keep muddling on much same.

 

[swt_passenger]

Didn’t all the SWT/SWR Bristol services split or join at Salisbury? In other words their absence from today’s timetable doesn‘t free up any paths or platforms at the Waterloo end.

I understood it was a DfT decision to remove it, for similar reasons to GWR Brightons. Infrequent and off piste.

 

[Zomboid]

I wonder if the Waterloo application would stand a better chance if it were more like the original Regional Railways service and ran through to South Wales.

 

[Kilopylae]

Of course might be as simple as they have no strategic vision so keep muddling on much same.

This is what I suspect - Open Access is complex and upsets existing TOCs so why waste time and energy on it when there's no big-picture vision for it to contribute to?

 

[Snow1964]

Didn’t all the SWT/SWR Bristol services split or join at Salisbury? In other words their absence from today’s timetable doesn‘t free up any paths or platforms at the Waterloo end.

To put this in perspective fast line service departing Waterloo 5pm to 6pm (evening peak) on Tuesday (one of busier days) is following

17:00 to Portsmouth Harbour
17:02 to Guildford (fast to Surbiton)
17:05 to Weymouth
17:09 to Portsmouth Harbour via Eastleigh
17:15 to Portsmouth and Southsea
17:20 to Southampton
17:23 to Exeter St Davids
17:25 to Alton
17:30 to Portsmouth Harbour
17:32 to Guildford
17:35 to Weymouth
17:39 to Guildford
17:45 to Portsmouth and Southsea
17:50 to Basingstoke
17:53 to Yeovil Pen Mill
17:55 to Alton

Just 16 trains in the hour, departing from platforms 7 to 15 (nine platforms), on a route signalled for 2-2.5 minute headways, does not suggest to me that timetable is full, and no room for a 17th train. Off peak would be even easier to find a timetable gap.

 

[MatthewHutton]

So where are all the 180s coming from, as well as the paths in and out of Manchester?

Also platforms at St Pancras.

 

[Bald Rick]

So in a way DfT is saying they don't want the extra revenue if it requires new routes.

It’s really not the case, nor that simple. See Oxford - Bristol.

I’ll try and put it as simply as I can, with made up round numbers.


A DfT funded TOC, let’s call them ‘Presto’ has income of £500m pa and costs of £500m pa, ie it breaks even.

An Open Access operator, let’s call them ‘Noxo’, identifies a potential opportunity with a new service that covers some of the lines of route that ‘Presto’ serve. This would realise Noxo a total of £50m revenue pa, at a cost (to them) of £40m pa. Clearly with that potential profit margin of 20%, they will want to progress it. Nice earner.

The £50m revenue that Noxo would receive is £30m abstracted, £20m newly generated Leaving to one side for a moment all the other things that an Open Access operator needs to demonstrate in order to get access rights, this revenue mix would pass the ORRs abstraction test (being 60% abstraction, 40% new, ie better than the 70/30 rule).


Now look at it from the DfT / Presto point of view. Two scenarios :

1) Noxo get the access rights. Presto sees £30m of it’s revenue disappear almost overnight, but none of its costs, meaning it goes from a TOC that breaks even to one losing £30m a year; money that the DfT would have to fund as a direct result of the Noxo service. (Alternatively, DfT could require Presto to make cost savings, which means cutting services and jobs). Meanwhile Noxo runs the services proposed, and pays its shareholders £10m a year.

2) DfT could ask Presto to run the services that Noxo propose, by doing so nullifying the Noxo proposal who then don’t run. Presto gains the £20m generated revenue, but obviously not the abstracted revenue (it can’t abstract from itself!). But that would mean that whilst Presto’s revenue would rise to £520m, it’s costs rise to £540m, meaning it requires an extra £20m of Government funding.


Essentially, either way, in this example the presence of the new services, whether provided for by Presto (funded by Government) or Noxo (funded by Open Access), ends up costing the taxpayer money.


Clearly this is illustrative, and it is a lot more complex and nuanced. But this is the principle at stake for open access proposals with high but permitted levels of abstraction.

 

[JonathanH]

Just 16 trains in the hour, departing from platforms 7 to 15 (nine platforms), on a route signalled for 2-2.5 minute headways, does not suggest to me that timetable is full, and no room for a 17th train. Off peak would be even easier to find a timetable gap.

Leaving space in the timetable is a good thing. It means recovery from disruption is quicker. It means fewer trains need to be cancelled in perturbatuon.

Open access really confuses the matter because those trains aren't fully integrated with the rest of the service.

The whole point of GBR is to have one railway with less confusion about different operators, central planning, and more reliability, all matters which are in the interest of the passenger.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Leaving space in the timetable is a good thing. It means recovery from disruption is quicker. It means fewer trains need to be cancelled in perturbatuon.

Open access really confuses the matter because those trains aren't fully integrated with the rest of the service.

The whole point of GBR is to have one railway with less confusion about different operators, central planning, and more reliability, all matters which are in the interest of the passenger.

The main challenge with public ownership is that you get extremely conservative culture and stuff like e.g Perpignan-Barcelona or London-Hull before hull trains lands up with an extremely weak service.

Open access keeps the government honest.