Grand central apply for new routes

[cle]

According to the RAIL article Alton Towers resort support the Piccadilly-St Pancras service as Uttoxeter is only 10 miles from the resort, which could be the market for stopping there as it could potentially encourage people to get there by train instead of car (the only thing that would need to happen is a shuttle bus to meet the trains from the resort).

Would that be enough of a market to justify the service and pass the abstraction test?

There used to be a combined London-Stoke + bus + park ticket, and this is far closer. I am sure it wouldn't hurt demand if marketed well, same with the racetrack (23-25 races per year) - admittedly mostly day trips but might be spread across 1-2 days.

 

[anthony263]

Just seen a few screenshot of their application for the Bristol Tm to Waterloo service basically a 2 hourly frequency which was better than what south West trains ran. It was a popular service especially if you wanted cheaper fares to london and didn't fancy national express.

Megabus even offered some cheap rail fares on it under the megatrain brand. It was also handy for south London etc.

Ive attached a screenshot of the Proposed timetable

 

[danielhogg2005]

Just seen a few screenshot of their application for the Bristol Tm to Waterloo service basically a 2 hourly frequency which was better than what south West trains ran. It was a popular service especially if you wanted cheaper fares to london and didn't fancy national express.

Megabus even offered some cheap rail fares on it under the megatrain brand. It was also handy for south London etc.

Ive attached a screenshot of the Proposed timetable

Is there one for the Manchester Piccadilly - London St Pancras route?

 

[Cach17]

Just seen a few screenshot of their application for the Bristol Tm to Waterloo service basically a 2 hourly frequency which was better than what south West trains ran. It was a popular service especially if you wanted cheaper fares to london and didn't fancy national express.

Megabus even offered some cheap rail fares on it under the megatrain brand. It was also handy for south London etc.

Ive attached a screenshot of the Proposed timetable

Those turnaround times at Waterloo are awfully tight, especially 1O01 to 1V02. Doubly so when a 180 is involved.

 

[anthony263]

Is there one for the Manchester Piccadilly - London St Pancras route?

Ive not seen it yet im afraid

 

[ExRes]

Anyone remember Project Rio? some of the trains were busy but the majority could have been operated under the Marie Celeste branding, the paths were at the expense of the normal stopping service not additional in any way, if this a serious proposal they must be looking for a tax write off

 

[TastyMaltesers]

I'm not sure that I see either of these being particularly workable. Stoke-on-Trent is already a bottleneck and as such NR have defined a capacity limit in the TPR which is already very close to being or has been reached, and I struggle to see the Waterloo trains as being anything other than purely abstractive.

 

[The Planner]

I'm not sure that I see either of these being particularly workable. Stoke-on-Trent is already a bottleneck and as such NR have defined a capacity limit in the TPR which is already very close to being or has been reached, and I struggle to see the Waterloo trains as being anything other than purely abstractive.

Those limits on NW5009 have been there for years and years, they have just been rewritten for clarity. We are a long way from hitting 13tph in each direction there.

 

[Farigiraf]

Just seen a few screenshot of their application for the Bristol Tm to Waterloo service basically a 2 hourly frequency which was better than what south West trains ran. It was a popular service especially if you wanted cheaper fares to london and didn't fancy national express.

Megabus even offered some cheap rail fares on it under the megatrain brand. It was also handy for south London etc.

Ive attached a screenshot of the Proposed timetable

Should note that Bristol-London via Salisbury low-cost fares do still exist, with both flexible and advance options.
GC's proposed service is only about 15-20 mins faster than the hourly 1-change option off the xx:22 GWR from Bristol and serves a lot fewer stations.

So any new growth would be obtained through either bargain basement fares or attracting travellers who refuse to ever change trains (noting that neither CLJ or WAT are in the City or West End, so you'd still have to change for the tube there). Though I expect passengers who are fine with journey times over an hour slower than GWR Intercity are also fine with changing trains.
Neither of these will reach the 30% new growth threshold.

 

[cle]

Anyone remember Project Rio? some of the trains were busy but the majority could have been operated under the Marie Celeste branding, the paths were at the expense of the normal stopping service not additional in any way, if this a serious proposal they must be looking for a tax write off

I do.... and I don't believe it has any bearing on whether an alternative London-Manchester routing would work today. Many things succeed now that didn't, in what is a completely different time, in terms of how we all live, work and communicate. No relevance.

Population growth has been massive since that short term, badly advertised service out of a then-backwater terminus. Manchester's economy, city centre population, jobs growth - all of these things would see higher usage than a moment 20+ years ago.

If Chiltern can maintain Moor St through much smaller intermediate points (Birmingham also has LNR) - why can't a second option to as large a market not work?

also - People maintain that e.g. Doncaster or Middlesbrough or random places like Cleethorpes or Barrow need a direct service to Manchester, but Leicester and Derby (bigger places, Derby much closer) don't?

 

[The Planner]

I do.... and I don't believe it has any bearing on whether an alternative London-Manchester routing would work today. Many things succeed now that didn't, in what is a completely different time, in terms of how we all live, work and communicate. No relevance.

Population growth has been massive since that short term, badly advertised service out of a then-backwater terminus. Manchester's economy, city centre population, jobs growth - all of these things would see higher usage than a moment 20+ years ago.

If Chiltern can maintain Moor St through much smaller intermediate points (Birmingham also has LNR) - why can't a second option to as large a market not work?

also - People maintain that e.g. Doncaster or Middlesbrough or random places like Cleethorpes or Barrow need a direct service to Manchester, but Leicester and Derby (bigger places, Derby much closer) don't?

They don't, they happen to go through places that Cleethorpes and Barrow customers need to get to and then pick up those who need Manchester such as Preston and Sheffield.

 

[ainsworth74]

Had a bit of a poke around Network Rail's site and have found a few bits and bobs, some posted, some I think not. Main thing (to me anyway) is the proposed St Pancras - Manchester timetable that I've not see before. Intrigued at the 0735 departure from Piccadilly, Avanti might have a few issues considering they also have an 0735 departure...

But there's also the Form P for Waterloo - Bristol (doesn't seem to be one for St Pancras - Manchester) and also the F3s (the proposed working timetable) for both proposed services.

The Form P for Waterloo - Bristol summarises the application as follows:

Background and reasons for application
Through this application, GC is seeking to introduce new open access services between London
Waterloo and Bristol Temple Meads via the SWML , Salisbury and the Wessex Main Line, providing both new connectivity and increased competition on long distance flows with the intention of attracting new demand to rail.

The proposal responds to both changes in the rail offering following post pandemic timetable
adjustments and existing constraints in network capacity. The Great Western Main Line (GWML) is the principal route between London and Bristol but is increasingly capacity constrained and subject to multiple live and accepted open access applications. In contrast, the SWML and associated routes present an opportunity to make effective use of available capacity to introduce a new long distance service, avoiding the most constrained parts of the network.

Prior to 2021, passengers travelling to and from stations on the proposed route benefited from direct services to London Waterloo; however, these services were withdrawn as part of post‑pandemic timetable changes, reducing connectivity and removing this alternative route to London. The proposed services will restore these connections while also providing improved journey opportunities on core sections of the route, including enhanced links between London and Salisbury.

At the same time, the current market offering between London and Bristol is focused primarily on a single congested corridor using the GWML, resulting in limited effective competition for a number of flows, particularly for price sensitive and discretionary passengers as well as where rail is not currently considered as an option. The proposed GC service introduces a differentiated, value focused alternative, providing an additional travel option, increasing competition. This includes targeting under-served stations along the route, including Warminster, Westbury, Trowbridge and Bradford on Avon. GC will additionally explore extending services to Portishead, with the restored railway targeted to open from 2028. These locations have limited to no direct long distance connectivity and are well aligned to GC’s established approach of developing and growing demand in underserved markets through the introduction of new direct journey opportunities and competitive fares.

Services and operation

GC is seeking to operate up to seven full return services per weekday and six full return services per day on a Sunday between London Waterloo and Bristol Temple Meads. Services would call at Clapham Junction, Salisbury, Warminster, Westbury, Trowbridge, Bradford on Avon, Bath Spa and Bristol Temple Meads.

The proposed timetable has been developed based on the May 2026 timetable and is designed to make efficient use of available capacity on the SWML and connecting routes, with only limited adjustments required to existing services. GC has undertaken timetable and capacity analysis which demonstrates that the proposed services can be accommodated within current infrastructure capability, subject to normal industry processes and performance assurance.

The service will be operated using 100mph capable rolling stock. GC intends to secure appropriate off lease rolling stock for the operation of the services and will undertake the necessary investment to prepare the fleet for entry into service. Stabling is proposed at Arriva TrainCare Eastleigh, with additional facilities at Bristol to support efficient operation of the timetable.

The proposed calling pattern has been designed to balance long distance journey opportunities with the provision of improved connectivity for intermediate stations, restoring direct links toLondon while integrating with existing regional services. In particular, the inclusion of Clapham Junction enables a wide range of interchange opportunities, strengthening connectivity between the South West, South London and the wider South East.

Access rights sought

Under this application, GC is seeking firm access rights under a new Track Access Contract for up to eight return services per day between London Waterloo and Bristol Temple Meads. This application is made under Section 17 of the Railways Act 1993. GC will continue to work collaboratively with Network Rail and industry stakeholders throughout the consultation process to refine the proposal and demonstrate that capacity and performance impacts are acceptable in the context of the benefits delivered.

 

[TastyMaltesers]

I notice from the F3s that the Waterloo-Bristol timings are based on a class 159 (90mph) rather than a 22x (125mph), which potentially increases the possible options for rolling stock.

 

[Zomboid]

I notice from the F3s that the Waterloo-Bristol timings are based on a class 159 (90mph) rather than a 22x (125mph), which potentially increases the possible options for rolling stock.

Frees up the 180s to break down at St Pancras or Manchester...

 

[oic]

Anyone remember Project Rio? some of the trains were busy but the majority could have been operated under the Marie Celeste branding, the paths were at the expense of the normal stopping service not additional in any way, if this a serious proposal they must be looking for a tax write off

The journey took approximately 3 hours and 20 minutes. It ran continuously from Leicester to Stockport without any stops. While it was often quiet, it occasionally became quite crowded.

I wonder if line upgrades implemented since 2003 would significantly reduce this travel time and at least offset the increased number of calls between Leicester and Manchester. Even with it not going via Hope.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Had a bit of a poke around Network Rail's site and have found a few bits and bobs, some posted, some I think not. Main thing (to me anyway) is the proposed St Pancras - Manchester timetable that I've not see before. Intrigued at the 0735 departure from Piccadilly, Avanti might have a few issues considering they also have an 0735 departure...

But there's also the Form P for Waterloo - Bristol (doesn't seem to be one for St Pancras - Manchester) and also the F3s (the proposed working timetable) for both proposed services.

The Form P for Waterloo - Bristol summarises the application as follows:

The Manchester timetable has 3 northbound departures at the same time as current EMR departures to Nottingham - e.g. 1005.

So, for instance, the 1005 EMR IC to Nottingham would need to leave earlier, in which case so does the 1002 Sheffield. And without tweaking Thameslink timetables, that would be even more prone to catching up a TL service around Harpenden. There's not really scope to go later as the 1005 IC has a TL service 3 minutes behind it at West Hampstead TL.

All this increases the chance that both EMR IC catch up with the 0945 EMR Connect around Wellingborough.

Others have mentioned platform capacity at St Pancras platform, but passenger-side, on busy days you get a lot of people milling around the P1-4 gateline because the Nottingham & Sheffield services are flighted together. Adding a potential additional 50% of people also feels like a recipe for chaos. I think we'd see more managed queuing.

Out of the detail, the main thing I like is improved East Mids to Manchester/Northwest connectivity. I'm sure EMR were at one point threatening to do something like this with an additional Nottingham-Crewe.

 

[Snow1964]

I notice from the F3s that the Waterloo-Bristol timings are based on a class 159 (90mph) rather than a 22x (125mph), which potentially increases the possible options for rolling stock.

Isn't any high speed on the route, from memory fastest is some 100mph Brookwood-Basingstoke and part of Bath-Bristol, but majority is 70-90mph, with few slower sections

A local (unsubstantiated) rumour in Trowbridge and Bradford on Avon areas is they are looking at 769s that GWR improved, but then didn't use.

Timetable requires 3 trains, with about 10-15 minute turnaround at Waterloo and about 45 at Bristol. 2 overnight Salisbury (suggested to run empty to Eastleigh for servicing) and third overnights in Bristol area

 

[TastyMaltesers]

A local (unsubstantiated) rumour in Trowbridge and Bradford on Avon areas is they are looking at 769s that GWR improved, but then didn't use.

I thought this rumour related to Go-op?

 

[anthony263]

I thought this rumour related to Go-op?

I think k they also looked at them

 

[cle]

Out of the detail, the main thing I like is improved East Mids to Manchester/Northwest connectivity. I'm sure EMR were at one point threatening to do something like this with an additional Nottingham-Crewe.

Agreed, there are a few new things here other than London - Stockport and Manchester competition.

Leicester - Stockport/Manchester
Derby - Stockport/Manchester
Congleton and Uttoxeter to London direct
Wellingborough - Leciester/Derby/Manchester
Luton Airport Parkway - all points (aside from W'boro)

It's a good set of new direct journey opportunities. Might end up more like a XC service with rotating pairs and seat occupation than end to end.... much how the Marylebone-Birminghams can be - with hubs and demand into either end at peaks/offpeak.

 

[The Planner]

I notice from the F3s that the Waterloo-Bristol timings are based on a class 159 (90mph) rather than a 22x (125mph), which potentially increases the possible options for rolling stock.

Its a proxy to make the timetable aspect robust. No running times for 22x will exist for that route.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jun 2026 ==

Agreed, there are a few new things here other than London - Stockport and Manchester competition.

Leicester - Stockport/Manchester
Derby - Stockport/Manchester
Congleton and Uttoxeter to London direct
Wellingborough - Leciester/Derby/Manchester
Luton Airport Parkway - all points (aside from W'boro)

It's a good set of new direct journey opportunities. Might end up more like a XC service with rotating pairs and seat occupation than end to end.... much how the Marylebone-Birminghams can be - with hubs and demand into either end at peaks/offpeak.

Unless this is a dirt cheap ticket, most of those destination pairs are quicker on other services.

 

[cle]

Depends on the part of the hour, and also it's old as time that direct services are more appealing for many. Saving 10 mins by going via Nuneaton or Sheffield isn't a draw. Or pootling on the Norwich-Liverpool. That competition is the car, frankly.

 

[Bald Rick]

Agreed, there are a few new things here other than London - Stockport and Manchester competition.

Leicester - Stockport/Manchester
Derby - Stockport/Manchester
Congleton and Uttoxeter to London direct
Wellingborough - Leciester/Derby/Manchester
Luton Airport Parkway - all points (aside from W'boro)

It's a good set of new direct journey opportunities. Might end up more like a XC service with rotating pairs and seat occupation than end to end.... much how the Marylebone-Birminghams can be - with hubs and demand into either end at peaks/offpeak.

Let’s be honest, it’s all about nabbing a share of London - Manchester, and that quarter of a billion revenue for the flow.

 

[cle]

Provide a better service / fare / experience and it's differentiated IMO. I know you chaps don't agree in competition on the railways really. And may all become moot with GB.

But - iin many cases the above variables might stimulate new journeys - or take them from car / bus / plane as applicable. London-Manchester is pretty sewn up in rail - but I think fares are offputting (ie people don't drive, they prob cancel discretionary trips!) - so the price would be the stimulant.

So it's not just attrition / cannibalizing rail incumbents, it's competition against other modes (which has ethical gains - eg if Lumo displaces an EZ flight) - or instigating new travel entirely too.

 

[Bald Rick]

Provide a better service / fare / experience and it's differentiated IMO. I know you chaps don't agree in competition on the railways really. And may all become moot with GB.

But - iin many cases the above variables might stimulate new journeys - or take them from car / bus / plane as applicable. London-Manchester is pretty sewn up in rail - but I think fares are offputting (ie people don't drive, they prob cancel discretionary trips!) - so the price would be the stimulant.

So it's not just attrition / cannibalizing rail incumbents, it's competition against other modes (which has ethical gains - eg if Lumo displaces an EZ flight) - or instigating new travel entirely too.

yes, but, for London to Manchester it will be abstraction and plenty of it. For clarity, ‘abstraction’ means ‘money that has to be found from taxpayers’. ie you and me.

 

[Zomboid]

I suppose it'd be interesting to see how it stack up without the abstraction or any Manchester / London custom - Only advertise the trains in London as going to Stockport, and pretend to terminate at Luton from Manchester.

 

[Farigiraf]

yes, but, for London to Manchester it will be abstraction and plenty of it. For clarity, ‘abstraction’ means ‘money that has to be found from taxpayers’. ie you and me.

Have there been any open access applications before with a 50/50 abstraction/new growth split or better? As in theory, such routes would provide value to passengers both through the tax bill and the train fare.

For example an OAO running a Marchwood-Southampton shuttle (random example) would likely primarily bring new users onto the railway. Though the model of open access competition sort of is that OAOs make use of already developed corridors that don't need more investment in them, and then up the service offering, which is where you get the abstraction issues. If an OAO had to take it upon themselves to upgrade the infrastructure on an underused line and then attempt to grow that line, then they can no longer offer bargain basement fares, and the operating model fails.

 

[cle]

I suppose it'd be interesting to see how it stack up without the abstraction or any Manchester / London custom - Only advertise the trains in London as going to Stockport, and pretend to terminate at Luton from Manchester.

But isn’t there also a sense of: if a market genuinely has two routes, which can be differentiated in many ways and it is not a finite market - why would you need to hide it?

Birmingham has three operators, and Chiltern is a different London terminus and mainline entirely, like this. Some ECML places have multiple operators. Why is this different? It’s the golden goose monopoly but no other reason.

 

[Farigiraf]

But isn’t there also a sense of: if a market genuinely has two routes, which can be differentiated in many ways and it is not a finite market - why would you need to hide it?

Birmingham has three operators, and Chiltern is a different London terminus and mainline entirely, like this. Some ECML places have multiple operators. Why is this different? It’s the golden goose monopoly but no other reason.

While in theory trying to price the GC London-Manchester service to incentivise e.g. Luton Airport-Derby, Loughborough-Manchester or Congleton-London passengers would bring more growth, chances are that they'll instead release a trainload of fares that undercut Avanti (An anytime single london-Manchester on avanti, even half-price, is still expensive) and fill their services with more profitable London-Manchester travellers. It's certainly worth looking at how many advances e.g. Grand Central release for London-York compared to London-Durham Coast.

 

[The Ham]

One thing to consider is how did the fare income compare between a TOC with open access competition vs one without.

For example Avanti saw growth of 6.8% for 2023/24 to 2024/25, and it has limited longer distance competition (yes to Birmingham there's a lot, but beyond there it's not got a lot of competition.

Conversely LNER has several OAO's who compete with it for long distance travel, it saw revenue growth of 8.7% for the same period.

Likewise if we compare pre covid (2018/19) Avanti is at 75.0% whilst LNER is at 86.6% of fare income (it's also worth noting that LNER fell to a low of 12.7% of pre covid fares whilst Avanti fell to 11.5%).

That includes the time when Lumo introduced their services in October 2021.

Likewise, the year 2021/22 to 2022/23 Avanti saw growth of 27.9% whilst LNER saw growth of 30.5%, which covers the specific year which Lumo started services.

Therefore, if OAO they are abstractive rather than growing the market fare income should be negatively impacted and yet it appears that LNER appears to be out performing Avanti.

Whilst there's multiple other factors which can impact these numbers (and to be fair there's a range of growth across TOC's, so each will preform differently) it does appear that OAO's aren't overly negatively impacting LNER.