Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway (WSMR) how could the proposals be improved?

[XCTurbostar]

Response from Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway:

03.07.2025
A spokesperson for Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway said: “We are extremely disappointed with the Office of Rail and Road’s decision to reject our application – the only current application to receive support from the Department for Transport. We have spent the past two years demonstrating that capacity and performance concerns can and would be negated by the industry working together to deliver a better railway for passengers. WSMR would have set new standards for how open access operators can and should work alongside nationalised rail services.“Since our application was submitted in March 2024, we have received overwhelming support from local people, businesses, councillors and MPs, who all recognise the urgent need for this connectivity.
We will now urgently seek to reengage with the ORR and determine our next steps regarding the future of this vital passenger service.”

What action could WSMR take in this scenario, I assume another OA application will just be a waste of their time and money.

 

[Bald Rick]

What action could WSMR take in this scenario, I assume another OA application will just be a waste of their time and money.

1) reapply with a different proposition (ie not using congested infrastructure)
2) High Court
3) pack up

 

[zwk500]

Response from Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway:

This part:

We have spent the past two years demonstrating that capacity and performance concerns can and would be negated by the industry working together to deliver a better railway for passengers. WSMR would have set new standards for how open access operators can and should work alongside nationalised rail services.

Does not square very well with the ORR's letter:

We received unsupportive comments from across industry objecting on grounds of capacity, failure to account for paths allocated to other operators, impact on operational performance, rolling stock availability, commercial risk and revenue implications, freight performance, WCML capacity and performance, and concerns over stabling and platforming issues.

 

[weeklycommuter]

1) reapply with a different proposition (ie not using congested infrastructure)
2) High Court
3) pack up

I suppose they could try the Chiltern Line to London Marylebone.

 

[philosopher]

I suppose they could try the Chiltern Line to London Marylebone.

That route did work very well last time it was tried. I think very long journey times over three hours between London and Shrewsbury were the issue.

 

[Harpo]

That route did work very well last time it was tried. I think very long journey times over three hours between London and Shrewsbury were the issue.

Anything via Wolverhampton is going for a market that isn’t bothered about journey times.

 

[The Planner]

I suppose they could try the Chiltern Line to London Marylebone.

I doubt they would find the paths through the West Mids to Tyseley now.

 

[Bald Rick]

I doubt they would find the paths through the West Mids to Tyseley now.

Must be a chance via Sutton Park thence St Andrews? With some liberal use of pathing time perhaps.

Journey time would be ‘unambitious’ to say the least, but if would give the opportunity for an OA operator to lose a load of money doing what others have tried and failed to do.

 

[Harpo]

Journey time would be ‘unambitious’ to say the least, but if would give the opportunity for an OA operator to lose a load of money doing what others have tried and failed to do.

Where’s that ‘like’ button?

 

[DavidGrain]

I suppose they could try the Chiltern Line to London Marylebone.

I used the old Wrexham and Shropshire a few times from Tame Bridge Parkway. Biggest problems were the 30mph speed limit on the Aston Stechford Line, the 15 minute wait with the doors locked at Birmingham International to allow a Virgin train to pass and the single track from Coventry to Leamington.

 

[Energy]

1) reapply with a different proposition (ie not using congested infrastructure)

They're already going via Nuneaton, they could go via the MML from there.

I don't really understand why WSMR think they can make it work financially while not stopping at any major stations (apart from MK). Avanti/Virgin only worked on high-priced business travel, and that's just an extension from Birmingham.

 

[Wolfie]

Response from Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway:

What action could WSMR take in this scenario, I assume another OA application will just be a waste of their time and money.

Possibly a judicial review of the ORR decision.

 

[Bertie the bus]

A judicial review would be a waste of money and the court's time.

You can't challenge a decision simply because you don't like it, but because the authority didn't follow procedures or act rationally.

The WCRC case showed the ORR does follow procedures and acts rationally and even if the court ruled in WSMR's favour, by some miracle as random people and businesses wanting a service doesn't mean the service should get the go ahead, it couldn't grant WSMR the rights it is seeking but just direct the ORR to reappraise its submission, and it would no doubt come to the same conclusion which is the correct conclusion.

The WCML has regular serious issues and recovery of service regularly doesn't happen until the next day as we stand, so throwing additional services into the mix would just exacerbate the problems.

 

[Bald Rick]

They're already going via Nuneaton, they could go via the MML from there.

Great if you want to go to Bedford. Not if you want to go to London.

 

[Wolfie]

A judicial review would be a waste of money and the court's time. You can't challenge a decision simply because you don't like it but because the authority didn't follow procedures or act rationally. The WCRC case showed the ORR does follow procedures and acts rationally and even if the court ruled in WSMR's favour, by some miracle as random people and businesses wanting a service doesn't mean the service should get the go ahead, it couldn't grant WSMR the rights it is seeking but just direct the ORR to reappraise its submission, and it would no doubt come to the same conclusion which is the correct conclusion. The WCML has regular serious issues and recovery of service regulalry doesn't happen until the next day as we stand so throwing additional services into the mix would just exacerbate the problems.

I personally agree - at least unless they have evidence that the issues could be addressed. However, the question that l answered essentially asked what WMSR could do next, not what l thought that they should do...

 

[FrontSideBus]

Of course it was going to be rejected... I mean a private company who wants to have a good go at it and hopefully make some money.... under this infernal government? Hahahah.
The clock is ticking for other open access operators like Hull Trains, Lumo and Grand Central I reckon!

 

[ThePeakNed]

Of course it was going to be rejected... I mean a private company who wants to have a good go at it and hopefully make some money.... under this infernal government? Hahahah.
The clock is ticking for other open access operators like Hull Trains, Lumo and Grand Central I reckon!

Err.

I don’t think it is, given they’re pretty long standing (well GC and HT at least) and seem to do pretty well financially.

 

[FrontSideBus]

They'll find some way to nationalise them I bet!

 

[DelW]

That route did work very well last time it was tried. I think very long journey times over three hours between London and Shrewsbury were the issue.

For clarity, was that meant to say "... did not work very well ..."? Otherwise your two sentences seem to contradict each other.

 

[duffield]

Of course it was going to be rejected... I mean a private company who wants to have a good go at it and hopefully make some money.... under this infernal government? Hahahah.
The clock is ticking for other open access operators like Hull Trains, Lumo and Grand Central I reckon!

Did you read the ORR decision?

It was the absolute clear-cut lack of capacity on the WCML that put a stop to all three of the applications they turned down. A capacity problem which is pretty much indisputable and is why the remains of HS2 are still going ahead.

The ORR could see that the current timetable is barely operable and falls apart at the slightest disruption, and that it would be madness to introduce extra services in these circumstances. They didn't even have to consider other factors such as the effect on public finances via fare abstraction etc.

It's absolutely clear this application would have been rejected by the ORR under any government.

 

[victormildrew]

Did you read the ORR decision? It was the absolute clear cut lack of capacity on the WCML that put a stop to all three of the applications they turned down. A capacity problem which is pretty much indisputable and is why the remains of HS2 are still going ahead. The ORR could see that the current timetable is barely operable and falls apart at the slightest disruption, and that it would be madness to introduce extra services in these circumstances. They didn't even have to consider other factors such as the effect on public finances via fare abstraction etc.

It's absolutely clear this application would have been rejected by the ORR under any government.

If the ORR knew this all along, as you say, then why did it take nearly 18 months to reject these applications?.

 

[LittleRedTrain]

I suppose they could try the Chiltern Line to London Marylebone.

The old WSMR folded before the Chiltern services to Oxford commenced.
I'm not sure if there are even the fast paths available to do this any more between Bicester and Marylebone, especially with the flat junction at Bicester South, or platforms at Marylebone.

As it is, any minor issue on the south end of the Chiltern line affects services for hours as queues rapidly build up and there are very few opportunities to let a fast train past a stopper.

It's unfortunate that the chord at Smethwick Galton Bridge points the wrong way, otherwise you could possibly extend some of the Chiltern Birmingham services on to Wolverhampton/Shrewsbury that way, avoiding the congestion at New St.

 

[Clarence Yard]

If the ORR knew this all along, as you say, then why did it take nearly 18 months to reject these applications?.

Because they were waiting for NR to comment, much to everyone’s frustration.

 

[A S Leib]

The old WSMR folded before the Chiltern services to Oxford commenced.
I'm not sure if there are even the fast paths available to do this any more between Bicester and Marylebone, especially with the flat junction at Bicester South, or platforms at Marylebone.

The slower Marylebone to Snow Hill services (~××:36 from Marylebone) are down from 1tph pre-Covid to 1tp2h and none of the Stratford services run through to London anymore, so shouldn't that provide sufficient paths, at least as far as Kings Sutton?

 

[Zomboid]

The slower Marylebone to Snow Hill services (~××:36 from Marylebone) are down from 1tph pre-Covid to 1tp2h and none of the Stratford services run through to London anymore, so shouldn't that provide sufficient paths, at least as far as Kings Sutton?

And then, in the spirit of the old WSMR, it could run to Oxford, Reading, Wokingham, Guildford, Redhill and Victoria.

 

[The Planner]

It's unfortunate that the chord at Smethwick Galton Bridge points the wrong way, otherwise you could possibly extend some of the Chiltern Birmingham services on to Wolverhampton/Shrewsbury that way, avoiding the congestion at New St.

Careful, the rose tinted brigade will want Wolverhampton Low Level back next.

 

[Topological]

Careful, the rose tinted brigade will want Wolverhampton Low Level back next.

Be fair, Wolverhampton Low Level would avoid conflict with trains between Smethwick and Stafford.

You could even re-route the WMR and TfW trains to Snow Hill and use their current paths for a 350/2 operated service to Manchester and a CrossCountry to Liverpool.

Or, in the real world, board a local train in Wrexham or Shrewsbury, make a single connection, and get to London faster.

 

[DavidGrain]

The old WSMR folded before the Chiltern services to Oxford commenced.
I'm not sure if there are even the fast paths available to do this any more between Bicester and Marylebone, especially with the flat junction at Bicester South, or platforms at Marylebone.

As it is, any minor issue on the south end of the Chiltern line affects services for hours as queues rapidly build up and there are very few opportunities to let a fast train past a stopper.

It's unfortunate that the chord at Smethwick Galton Bridge points the wrong way, otherwise you could possibly extend some of the Chiltern Birmingham services on to Wolverhampton/Shrewsbury that way, avoiding the congestion at New St.

Stratford upon Avon lost its London service because the paths from Bicester to London were required for the Oxford Services.

The chord at Smethwick Galton Bridge faces the correct way for its historic traffic and is still used on a daily basis by 3 Cross Country trains, 1 WMR train, freight trains and excursions / stock movements to SVR. I doubt that there would be capacity on the Stour Valley Line for Chiltern trains to Wolverhampton.

 

[zwk500]

Be fair, Wolverhampton Low Level would avoid conflict with trains between Smethwick and Stafford.

You could even re-route the WMR and TfW trains to Snow Hill and use their current paths for a 350/2 operated service to Manchester and a CrossCountry to Liverpool.

Or, in the real world, board a local train in Wrexham or Shrewsbury, make a single connection, and get to London faster.

The trams would be rather upset.

 

[Topological]

The trams would be rather upset.

Could build them some new lines to play on. You are right that the plan does not consider all those gloating passengers from Shrewsbury who disembark at Snow Hill and laugh at the poor trams confined to shuttling to the New Street shopping centre.

Too many speculative threads fail to take into account the feelings of old stock. It is great we have the DfT to protect the rights of the old stock to keep going.