Lumo applies to operate Rochdale - London

800001 said:

Yes, wasn’t it extending there Stafford to Crewe services through to Manchester?

Or the London to Crewe extended, therefore not using any additional paths on the core WCML.?

Click to expand...

WMT are proposing extending their London-Crewe semi-fast Trent Valley service to Manchester Victoria via Winsford.

They're also proposing extending the Stafford/Stoke to Crewe service to Manchester Airport via Styal. These will eventually start back from Birmingham and go via Bescot.

How long do these things take to be decided whether they will go ahead?

Several months, at the very least.

I personally hope that the WMT application gets selected over any of the open access ones if it's a choice between one or another as it will allow for a much easier and hopefully cheaper Manchester to London service as an alternative to the Avanti service from Piccadilly. It's also logistically easier capacity-wise given that it doesn't add any additional trains running south of Crewe.

It'll especially be welcomed by the those who live in North Manchester and currently have to trudge along the city centre from Victoria to Piccadilly.

Adam Evans said:

I personally hope that the WMT application gets selected over any of the open access ones if it's a choice between one or another as it will allow for a much easier and hopefully cheaper Manchester to London service as an alternative to the Avanti service from Piccadilly. It's also logistically easier capacity-wise given that it doesn't add any additional trains running south of Crewe.

It'll especially be welcomed by the those who live in North Manchester and currently have to trudge along the city centre from Victoria to Piccadilly.

Click to expand...

One more-feasible opportunity I think OA is really missing is to run Manchester Airport-Euston semi-fast services.

The platforms there are due to be lengthened soon, and the station has a large catchment of residential South Manchester & North Cheshire, which has a substantial London market which the HS2 airport station was designed to serve. Whilst this is no replacement it would improve capacity, and (in theory) result in less congestion between Wilmslow through Stockport to Piccadilly which is a real bottleneck.

You could potentially have the existing Avanti service run fast from Stockport to Crewe flighted in front of the TfW service, thereby (again in theory) allowing another fast service between Wilmslow & Crewe (Originating at the airport) to be flighted behind it whilst not losing the line's stopper.

Having lived in South Manchester and North Cheshire, 8x out of 10 it's more convenient and faster to access the airport station than Piccadilly anyway, so it'd also be operationally beneficial in reducing pressure on the city centre termini a bit too. Adding extra London services using any of the existing central termini seems impossible to timetable without importing risk of delays.

Not to mention an airport service would be beneficial for passengers from the West Midlands who might prefer/need to access Manchester over Birmingham International or London airports.

Whilst a service via Victoria might be of more utility for people in North Manchester, the delays it risks importing onto an already highly congested city centre network are serious. You can bet if something goes delayed the OA operator will get priority over the (arguably more social-mobility important) local services. Instead the focus should be on re-timetabling the city centre through-running services to have an additional services over the Chord. That means a Castlefield service would need to be moved to Victoria yes, but from an operational and utility standpoint it would me a much better compromise imo.

Ultimately everything is a sticking plaster until central Manchester sees the east-west relief tunnel it so desperately needs, but that's another topic!

GJMarshy said:

One more-feasible opportunity I think OA is really missing is to run Manchester Airport-Euston semi-fast services.

The platforms there are due to be lengthened soon, and the station has a large catchment of residential South Manchester & North Cheshire, which has a substantial London market which the HS2 airport station was designed to serve.

Click to expand...

First North Western did. It was very much one man, dog and bicycle.

The problem that kills that is parking. That well off hinterland wants to drive the Rangie, the Jag or these days the Tesla and park it at the station, but airport parking is swingeingly expensive, killing most of any saving compared to driving to Stockport and taking Avanti. Yet there's no dedicated railway car park.

If the airport parkway station doesn't have rail dedicated parking priced around £12 or so (2024 prices) then it too will fail.

Reopened for @YorkRailFan to post an update

Thank you!

The ORR has rejected Lumo's proposal in a letter this morning detailing Open Access Operators on the West Coast Main Line.
You can read the full letter here: https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2026-10/2026-10-08-orr-wcml-decision-letter.pdf

Some of the key parts of said letter regarding Lumo's application are as follows:

We have rejected the applications from Lumo NW and WSMR in their entireties.

Click to expand...

14.Network Rail did not support the application and provided its timetable assessment which identified substantial capacity and planning conflicts across the proposed route. A large number of timetable conflicts were identified across the proposed timetable and Network Rail concluded that many of these conflicts would require significant timetable restructuring which could not be resolved through minor timetable adjustments alone. 15.Conflicts were identified on the WCML South fast lines, at Manchester Victoria, and at Rochdale itself, with the latter being a location experiencing significant levels of reactionary delay from late-running services. Network Rail stated there were also potential interactions with future HS2 services.

Click to expand...

.In response to Network Rail’s representations Lumo NW and WSMR insisted that current performance challenges of the existing WCML timetable structure should not preclude them gaining access. They dispute the need for firebreaks in the timetable Page 5 of 12 and contest that if granted access, their evidence shows them to have robust performing timetable plans.

Click to expand...

34.Our conclusions are primarily based on the performance and capacity issues previously described stemming from our own and externally commissioned analysis. We consider that the proposed Lumo NW timetable does not work in the current timetable structure due to conflicts with other operators, and that using the Lumo NW proposed paths would further increase risks to resilience and performance. Our assessment is that a wider timetable review is needed to consider these services. 35.Network Rail's timetable assessment identified substantial capacity and planning conflicts across the proposed route which would require significant timetable restructuring, rather than through minor timetable adjustments alone. Our own analysis supports this view as well as our concerns regarding timetable resilience and the challenges of accommodating additional services on heavily used infrastructure. 36.In summary, our own and external commissioned analysis as well as Network Rail evidence suggest that the proposed Rochdale services are not currently operationally viable in the current timetable structure. There remain unresolved issues relating to capacity, timetable robustness and performance resilience. This leads us to consider that the proposed service could not be accommodated without creating significant operational and performance risks for the wider network.

Click to expand...

Since our July 2025 decisions on the WCML, punctuality delivered by the current timetable has further declined. The introduction of additional services in the paths currently used as firebreaks would likely have further negative impacts on timetable resilience, robustness and performance, for existing users of the line – passengers and freight. Therefore, our operational analysis does not support approval of the WSMR, Lumo NW or AWC Blackpool applications.

Click to expand...

There is now a thread where the ORRs approach of not permitting a few extra trains by a new operator, and rejecting application because they are prioritising keeping slots (on a busy network) for another operator to run late

No surprises there then.

Everytime someone complains about why we are building HS2 they should be referred to these decision letters and the lack of capacity on the rail network that the full HS2 would have helped relieve for WCML, ECML and MML. Another example of short termism blighting the UK's economy.

"their evidence shows them to have robust performing timetable plans."

The current performance of Lumo to Stirling, and the fact that circa 15% of their trains don't complete the full journey at the moment, would to my eyes suggest otherwise.

FirstGroup has released a statement about the ORR's decision:

FirstGroup is "considering its next steps". A spokesperson said: "Following the initial decision, we amended our plans in line with feedback and believe the revised proposal demonstrated strong economic benefits for passengers and communities.

“It would have delivered the benefits of competition, including greater choice, lower fares and new opportunities for growth across Manchester and the north west.

“Open access services have an important role to play in improving connectivity, attracting more people to rail and supporting economic development, all at no cost to the public purse.

“We remain convinced that this route offered a compelling case for investment and long-term benefits for communities, businesses and the wider regional economy.”

Click to expand...

waverley47 said:

The current performance of Lumo to Stirling, and the fact that circa 15% of their trains don't complete the full journey at the moment, would to my eyes suggest otherwise.

Click to expand...

Is that mostly due to services being cut short having been running late, or rolling stock issues?

Interestingly, DfT did not oppose this per decision letter, but actually supported in principle

• DfT stated support in principle, subject to the ORR and Network Rail being satisfied that the services can be accommodated without compromising network performance or resilience, and without adversely affecting the rights of other operators.

• We also received many supportive comments from MPs and local interest
groups on the proposed route who were keen to have services provided for their local area.

Click to expand...

Skim-reading this - it seems the problem goes beyond taking up firebreaks in the timetable - the fundamental issue being timetable conflicts couldn't be resolved in multiple locations.

Snow1964 said:

Interestingly, DfT did not oppose this per decision letter, but actually supported in principle

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2026-10/2026-10-08-orr-wcml-decision-letter.pdf

Click to expand...

Thats under comments for WSMR on page 12, not comments for Lumo NW. The DfT opposed Lumo's application. The comments for Lumo NW are as follows:

• London TravelWatch expressed concern with the proposals, particularly about Euston capacity and congestion and how station capacity will be mentioned.
• West Midlands Trains (WMT) opposed the application, based on performance, capacity, Euston platforming, rolling stock and abstraction concerns.
• East Midlands Railway (EMR) opposed the application based on capacity and performance concerns
• Northern Trains opposed the application based on capacity and performance concerns, and abstraction. In particular it raised concerns over compatibility with London Task Force plans.
• AWC opposed the application on capacity and performance grounds, and abstraction from its services. It also noted concerns about interactions with HS2 and long-term capacity planning.
• GB Railfreight (GBRf) opposed the application due to uncertainty over its impacts on freight capacity, and capacity at key WCML bottlenecks.
• Transport for Wales (TfW) opposed the plans on capacity and performance grounds, particularly around Crewe and Manchester, and also raised concerns about undermining Manchester Task Force Plans
• DfT opposed the application on grounds of capacity, performance, power supply, HS2 interactions and revenue abstraction. DfT's modelling predicted approximately £4m of revenue would be abstracted from other operators, with just £600k of new revenue generated, representing a 0.15 NPA ratio before the ICC is phased in.

Click to expand...

The last bullet point being key to your point.

Does anyone remember if this was submitted at the same time as the Cardiff-York proposal? I was wondering if the timing of this decision any clues to when there will be a decision on the Cardiff-York bid?

DDB said:

Does anyone remember if this was submitted at the same time as the Cardiff-York proposal? I was wondering if the timing of this decision any clues to when there will be a decision on the Cardiff-York bid?

Click to expand...

Yes, both were submitted in October 2025. The decision about London-Rochdale was announced along with the decisions about other WCML applications so might bear no relevance to a decision date on the Cardiff-York application.