Grand central apply for new routes

The Ham said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are showing growth in the market, not the impact of OA.

Bald Rick said:

You are showing growth in the market, not the impact of OA.

Click to expand...

Indeed, although it's an area where OA could have a negative impact and when comparing a franchise with 3 OAO's, including the launch of the third, it's growth has out performed a franchise without any.

The point of linking at the data is that, if OA doesn't appear to impact earnings growth, then even if they "take" passengers from the franchise TOC, then the fact that there's (for example) a higher frequency of services means that rail is more attractive and so more people travel and so the franchise still has a reasonable growth in income.

It should also be noted, that for the last year for which there's data, not only did LNER see growth in income Lumo saw it's income fall 0.6% and Grand Central saw it's income rise at 4.7% vs LNER's 8.7%. Currently, ORR has no data for Hull Trains.

It maybe that without OAO's LNER might have done a little better, but that's an unknown. What is clear is that it's still doing well, due example it's growth last year was higher than the national average and higher than the Elizabeth Line which "only" managed 5.2%.

The above only compares fare income.

What other metric should we be looking at? Given that a key criticism is that OAO's could mean that the rail subsidy increases and so the impact on income is likely to be a factor.

I deliberately didn't look at passenger numbers, because it's easy to increase those by selling lots of cheap tickets.

Farigiraf said:

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.

Click to expand...

My point was also about new growth in the market, the London Manchester market - which I believe is massively suppressed through super high fares. Why can't that be explored for Manchester, when it has for Edinburgh? Which is an identical route.

Ultimately that would also be a gain to GBR if net new journeys were instigated. Especially with finite capacity on the WCML (final Stockport-Manc stretch notwithstanding!)

cle said:

My point was also about new growth in the market, the London Manchester market - which I believe is massively suppressed through super high fares. Why can't that be explored for Manchester, when it has for Edinburgh? Which is an identical route.

Ultimately that would also be a gain to GBR if net new journeys were instigated. Especially with finite capacity on the WCML (final Stockport-Manc stretch notwithstanding!)

Click to expand...

If London Manchester was a real issue, the 4th path would have been looked at already.

cle said:

My point was also about new growth in the market, the London Manchester market - which I believe is massively suppressed through super high fares.

Click to expand...

Is the most efficient way of growing that market really to run a trainload of London-Manchester passengers, half of which (optimistic estimate) would've otherwise not travelled by train, through the Manchester-Stoke line and MML every other hour? The MML could do with enough growth as it is (more trains to Derby/Nottingham would fill up quickly), same with the line through Stoke and Macclesfield, but if you run a train that's full of Manchester passengers on this route, you're denying GBR/EMR the chance of doing that in the future.

If you do want to encourage more rail travel between London and Manchester, the best way is to create more capacity, through HS2, and also look at fairer pricing models than the current scenario where you can either attempt your luck at the advance ticket lottery, or pay up £200 for a walk-up fare. In the meantime, attempted growth between London and Manchester via alternatives methods (such as OAOs via the MML) will harm growth elsewhere.

cle said:

Why can't that be explored for Manchester, when it has for Edinburgh? Which is an identical route.

Click to expand...

It was possible to fit in extra London-Edinburgh paths on the ECML, on a fast route that's even faster than LNER. GC takes over 1h longer than Avanti here.
The WCML is entirely full - adding any fast Manchester trains will require cutting other services.
If you want to compare it with Edinburgh, imagine an OAO service from St Pancras to Edinburgh via Sheffield. Would certainly allow for more London-Edinburgh growth, at the expense of most other stations on the line.

A lot of stations on GC's proposed route that really aren't reaching their potential - such as Luton Airport Parkway and Wellingborough (no trains to the Midlands) or Congleton and Uttoxeter (sizeable towns with an underwhelming service level), but if you check the planned timetable, you'll realise that they don't even plan to stop all trains there. I'd guess that there won't be a lot of competitive fares to/from these places (compared to the number of London-Leicester, London-Stoke or London-Manchester fares) either.

It's painstakingly obvious that London-Manchester traffic is #1 priority for GC here and everything else is just done to convince the ORR to approve the application - it isn't that encouraging new travellers onto the railway isn't an admirable thing, but you do need to consider the consequences of it as well. Railway lines in Italy or France where there's a lot of spare capacity on a segregated fast line that the state is underutilising are a different bag to mixed-use capacity-constrained railways like the MML.

The Planner said:

If London Manchester was a real issue, the 4th path would have been looked at already.

Click to expand...

It would be: same operator, same fares, same egregious peak definitions, same experience - I didn't say that capacity was the issue, but that price-sensitive suppressed demand might be.

cle said:

It would be: same operator, same fares, same egregious peak definitions, same experience

Click to expand...

Why would it be? And I would rather be on a 390 than a 180....

The Planner said:

Why would it be? And I would rather be on a 390 than a 180....

Click to expand...

I imagine your ticket on an Avanti train would be significantly (vastly?!) cheaper than what the vast majority of folk end up paying!!

What would be the journey time for the proposed Grand Central St Pancras to Manchester service compared with the cheaper option of using London Northwestern to Crewe for either TfW or Northern to Manchester (depending which ticket you get)?

As a Macclesfield station user I’d be very much against Grand Centrals proposal. I’m annoyed enough about the current Express dominant service for the station which I believe surpresses demand on by the far the biggest destination (Manchester) with inadequate “metro” style services for the 20-30min trip.

Kite159 said:

What would be the journey time for the proposed Grand Central St Pancras to Manchester service compared with the cheaper option of using London Northwestern to Crewe for either TfW or Northern to Manchester (depending which ticket you get)?

Click to expand...

The xx46 from Euston to Crewe then TfW to Manchester takes 3h27, with 36 minutes to discover what Crewe station has to offer. The 0629 from St Pancras is proposed to arrive in Manchester 3h26 later at 0955. So no meaningful difference.

The Trent Valley stopper route has a change, is available every hour through the day and a super off peak single is £42.90. GC will be direct, less frequent and the fare is TBA.

Zomboid said:

The xx46 from Euston to Crewe then TfW to Manchester takes 3h27, with 36 minutes to discover what Crewe station has to offer. The 0629 from St Pancras is proposed to arrive in Manchester 3h26 later at 0955. So no meaningful difference.

The Trent Valley stopper route has a change, is available every hour through the day and a super off peak single is £42.90. GC will be direct, less frequent and the fare is TBA.

Click to expand...

What's the price like if you split ticket into the Avanti Manchester at xx.10 at Crewe? That knocks it to less than three hours.

At a glance the Bristol idea looks great. However why not run via Newbury and into Paddington as SWR already cover Westbury-Waterloo? Direct London services have reduced from some B&H stations so maybe there is a small niche there?

The Planner said:

What's the price like if you split ticket into the Avanti Manchester at xx.10 at Crewe? That knocks it to less than three hours.

Click to expand...

Avanti off peak walk up fare for Crewe seems to be £72.60, then £17 for Crewe to Manchester. So about £90.

There's also a 1240 (today )from Kings Cross that with a split ticket at Doncaster will get you into Manchester in 3h25 for £49. So that's the kind of thing that GC will be competing with. I think that's a walk up fare.

Zomboid said:

Avanti off peak walk up fare for Crewe seems to be £72.60, then £17 for Crewe to Manchester. So about £90.

There's also a 1240 (today )from Kings Cross that with a split ticket at Doncaster will get you into Manchester in 3h25 for £49. So that's the kind of thing that GC will be competing with. I think that's a walk up fare.

Click to expand...

The xx.46 tickets are cheaper than that, they are around the £46 area, so £63 in total.

The Planner said:

Why would it be? And I would rather be on a 390 than a 180....

Click to expand...

I meant regarding your suggestion of why not the 4tph Pendo path from Euston per hour, which I directly quoted. A bit disingenuous.

I realise that it is not the reason that this application has gone in. But say the application wasn't all the way to London, but to one of the stations just north (but on Thameslink) - for example Luton Airport Parkway or St Albans. What would this do to 1) the abstraction and 2) the economics of the service?

Or through to Stratford, rather than St Pancras?

The Planner said:

Why would it be? And I would rather be on a 390 than a 180....

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with a 180 as long as it doesn't combust and disintegrate.

WideRanger said:

I realise that it is not the reason that this application has gone in. But say the application wasn't all the way to London, but to one of the stations just north (but on Thameslink) - for example Luton Airport Parkway or St Albans. What would this do to 1) the abstraction and 2) the economics of the service?

Or through to Stratford, rather than St Pancras?

Click to expand...

1) abstraction would be reduced in absolute terms, but probably not much in % terms.
2) it would kill the economics.

It would be a very long way round to Stratford, be horrible (possibly impossible) to path, and would need platform capacity there that doesn’t exist.

The Mercian said:

As a Macclesfield station user I’d be very much against Grand Centrals proposal. I’m annoyed enough about the current Express dominant service for the station which I believe surpresses demand on by the far the biggest destination (Manchester) with inadequate “metro” style services for the 20-30min trip.

Click to expand...

As a Macclesfield resident myself I'm mildly positive towards the proposal, as it introduces some direct trains to Derby that I'd find occasionally convenient. Though it's entirely academic as there's no way the service will ever happen with the pathing conflicts and capacity pressures it creates, and the existing connection time at Stoke is really quite good anyway.

And personally I prefer being able to catch one of three fast trains an hour to Manchester rather than the one slow one; regular fast direct services to a range of major cities including the nearest is one of the benefits of living in Macc as far as I'm concerned, though for the intermediate stations between Macc and Stockport I can appreciate the desire for an increased frequency of stoppers.

Ignoring the abstraction arguments, if there had been a scheduled service from Leicester to Manchester for the last 50 years, withdrawing it would cause no end of outrage. Yes, it would be a relatively slow trundle if it was allowed to continue to London, but this does seem to offer a decent set of connections.

WideRanger said:

I realise that it is not the reason that this application has gone in. But say the application wasn't all the way to London,

Click to expand...

One option might be Wellingborough P3 which sees very few passenger calls - EMR training runs are currently doing this without ruining everything (albeit only once or twice a day).
But obviously, if everybody gets tipped out there and piles onto the non-reservation Connect services, it's completely undone the benefits compared to e.g. TfW/LNWR option.

Palmerston said:

Ignoring the abstraction arguments, if there had been a scheduled service from Leicester to Manchester for the last 50 years, withdrawing it would cause no end of outrage. Yes, it would be a relatively slow trundle if it was allowed to continue to London, but this does seem to offer a decent set of connections.

Click to expand...

First point I'd make is that Leicester <-> Manchester is not that badly served as there are (depending on your time sensitivity) at least 1 option per hour via Nuneaton, 1-2 via Sheffield and a further option via Derby/Stoke.

A direct service via Nuneaton probably would be about 90 minutes. It's not much more now as it's quite a slick change at Nuneaton. This would beat a direct Hope/Chesterfield, even if it omitted Sheffield, and would be a lot quicker than via Stoke/Castle Donington. And to do any of these routes, you've got to persuade yourself that the direct to Leicester demand is so strong, that it's worth bypassing bigger demand drivers (Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield).

"Continue to London" hits all the capacity issues further south that I think will torpedo what GC have applied to do.
You could consider extending existing IC service (e.g. STP-Nottingham-Chesterfield-Hope Valley-Manchester), or a STP-Derby-Sheffield (rev) -Manchester. But then you need to persuade somebody to do a top up order of 810s, but these are expensive trains and the market you are targeting is price-sensitive, or an inter-regional market you're already serving with cheaper 170s, and doesn't require 125mph stock.

InTheEastMids said:

A direct service via Nuneaton probably would be about 90 minutes. It's not much more now as it's quite a slick change at Nuneaton. This would beat a direct Hope/Chesterfield, even if it omitted Sheffield, and would be a lot quicker than via Stoke/Castle Donington. And to do any of these routes, you've got to persuade yourself that the direct to Leicester demand is so strong, that it's worth bypassing bigger demand drivers (Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield).

Click to expand...

Way off-topic since GC have not proposed it, but Nottingham - Leicester is only 30 minutes making a Notitngham - Leicester - Nuneaton - Manchester competitive. IF you throw in a call at Nuneaton it opens up many connection options for Nottingham and may (may) actually do OK as a service. Path via Stafford and Crewe and you get quite a lot of useful options for Nottingham passengers.

Currently requires a 125mph bi-mode, but not the daftest suggestion ever.

Topological said:

Way off-topic since GC have not proposed it, but Nottingham - Leicester is only 30 minutes making a Notitngham - Leicester - Nuneaton - Manchester competitive. IF you throw in a call at Nuneaton it opens up many connection options for Nottingham and may (may) actually do OK as a service. Path via Stafford and Crewe and you get quite a lot of useful options for Nottingham passengers.

Currently requires a 125mph bi-mode, but not the daftest suggestion ever.

Click to expand...

What would it be for? What connections does Nuneaton provide people from Nottingham?

Topological said:

Way off-topic since GC have not proposed it, but Nottingham - Leicester is only 30 minutes making a Notitngham - Leicester - Nuneaton - Manchester competitive. IF you throw in a call at Nuneaton it opens up many connection options for Nottingham and may (may) actually do OK as a service. Path via Stafford and Crewe and you get quite a lot of useful options for Nottingham passengers.

Click to expand...

I think that if you've gone to the trouble of setting up a Nottingham-Nuneaton service, the place where people from Notts and Leicester are more likely to want to go is not Manchester, but Coventry (which is a Midlands priority, but then so was MMLE, A38 Derby Junctions, A46 Newark Bypass, Newark Flat Crossing, HS2 Toton Hub and God knows how many other transport schemes that get cancelled or booted into the long grass because there aren't enough marginal constituencies here)

It's not telling me to set up an open access operator that goes via this rather circuitous route, it's telling me that the direct EMR service isn't actually very good

The Planner said:

What would it be for? What connections does Nuneaton provide people from Nottingham?

Click to expand...

Coventry as @InTheEastMids then mentions, anywhere served by the Trent Valley stopper (so Rugby, Milton Keynes, ...)

For a long time there was a Nottingham to Coventry via Leicester (and I think a Birmingham, but that might be wrong), but the Ivanhoe line stub split and the WCML modernisation cut off Coventry from Leicester.

My post was also a response to a suggestion of Manchester to Leicester via Nuneaton. I merely suggest that if you are doing that, you might as well extend to Nottingham as it brings in more options.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jul 2026 ==

InTheEastMids said:

I think that if you've gone to the trouble of setting up a Nottingham-Nuneaton service, the place where people from Notts and Leicester are more likely to want to go is not Manchester, but Coventry (which is a Midlands priority, but then so was MMLE, A38 Derby Junctions, A46 Newark Bypass, Newark Flat Crossing, HS2 Toton Hub and God knows how many other transport schemes that get cancelled or booted into the long grass because there aren't enough marginal constituencies here)

It's not telling me to set up an open access operator that goes via this rather circuitous route, it's telling me that the direct EMR service isn't actually very good

Click to expand...

I think that is part of the point as well. Nottingham to Manchester via Sheffield involves two other big flows, is slow, and does not always have the best capacity.

Given we are talking about on open acess service, the route has to be different as well. So the fact the circuitous route works in a similar time should make it an option for OA.

I also do not expect that it would happen, but Nottingham makes more sense than Leicester for this "not London" fantasy OA.

Having lived in Uttoxeter there is certainly some demand for direct Manchester services. However given the signal box times on the Stoke-on-Trent to North Staffs Junction opening times and given that open-access operators tend to operate services at off-peak times it's unlikely that the new services would serve the morning commuters in Uttoxeter very well.

duffield said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'd take it. Comparable to the Northern/LNR via Crewe I took Friday. If it's cheap enough, of course!

Jamesrob637 said:

I'd take it. Comparable to the Northern/LNR via Crewe I took Friday. If it's cheap enough, of course!

Click to expand...

Is it ever going to cheap enough to win out over the LNR / Northern option, for which advance single fares, splitting at Crewe, can often sit below £15-£20 at quieter times?

Euston to Crewe on LNR is now a high capacity service at most times at the apparent benevolence of the taxpayer. Unless the fares were to increase significantly, I don't see how the benevolence of Grand Central running a roundabout service is able to compete.

Farigiraf said:

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.

Click to expand...

Surely such services are likely to already be provided by the TOC because there is enough demand for it?