Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway updates

[KashmireHawker]

I very much doubt that.

Unless it came from a demand by the Secretary of State, I imagine the chances are somewhere between 0 and 1%.

 

[Ellis101]

It is disappointing, though entirely predictable. I find it interesting that the Treasury continues to have Avanti reduce services over the summer, with further cuts planned for December 2026, yet they still cannot accommodate WSMR.

 

[embers25]

Much as we all loved the original Wrexham and Shropshire service, it is gone and this proposal was and always ahs been utter madness. It was never going to be approved, nor should it have been. Extending even 1 or 2 trains Avanti a day to Shrewsbury also makes no sense and is a poor use of scarce resources. Its a simple 1 change service now which is perfectly adequate. The proposed service was only ever viable using extracted revenue. Why should the taxpayer pay extra for this service to succeed when its just not needed. As someone said, Crewe is often the quickest way and so improve connections there, which are not great, give or take a few tight connections.

 

[Snow1964]

Much as we all loved the original Wrexham and Shropshire service, it is gone and this proposal was and always ahs been utter madness. It was never going to be approved, nor should it have been. Extending even 1 or 2 trains Avanti a day to Shrewsbury also makes no sense and is a poor use of scarce resources. Its a simple 1 change service now which is perfectly adequate. The proposed service was only ever viable using extracted revenue.

That assumption of extracted revenue, rather than growing rail use and increasing overall revenue, is one even ORR didn't buy into.

Open access is about 0.5% of fare revenue, if introduce new route will hopefully gain some new customers. Yes some might switch, but that frees up seats elsewhere which if existing operators yield management is working will then fill those vacated seats.

Why should the taxpayer pay extra for this service to succeed when its just not needed. As someone said, Crewe is often the quickest way and so improve connections there, which are not great, give or take a few tight connections.

The taxpayer is not being asked to pay for the new service, the existing service will continue to cost the same to operate, just it will have different opportunities to attract fare revenue.

 

[cj_1985]

That assumption of extracted revenue, rather than growing rail use and increasing overall revenue, is one even ORR didn't buy into.

Open access is about 0.5% of fare revenue, if introduce new route will hopefully gain some new customers. Yes some might switch, but that frees up seats elsewhere which if existing operators yield management is working will then fill those vacated seats.


The taxpayer is not being asked to pay for the new service, the existing service will continue to cost the same to operate, just it will have different opportunities to attract fare revenue.

Worth pointing out, and I freely admit i'm not sure if it's just Lumo (ECML), but my understanding was that new OAOs paid a higher track access fee, to more faily cover access and maintenance of the line... as I say, I'm not sure if it's just the ECML Lumo service that this applies to... but I know it was mentioned either in the press or to do with a track access request to the ORR.
Obviously this may not have yet been applied to older OAOs like HT and GC due to when their agreements were granted/extended. (I'm assuming that it will be applied to them in the future), so the argument that OAOs are costing the country/network money argument will hold less water

 

[Bald Rick]

That assumption of extracted revenue, rather than growing rail use and increasing overall revenue, is one even ORR didn't buy into.

Not so. They just didn’t need to write about it in the letter.

The taxpayer is not being asked to pay for the new service

It kinda was, that’s the point.

 

[DaveyJones]

Avanti actually have the 805s for the route, as the fleet was ordered when Shrewsbury had a through service with 221s.
However, the DfT will have instructed Avanti (during Covid) to cut the Shrewsbury extension off to save money, and that stance hasn't changed.
I wouldn't put it past DfT to reinstate the service once Avanti is gone next year.
It's still often quicker changing at Crewe, anyway (thanks to TfW).

I believe an 805 went to Shrewsbury Once... I'll see if i can find the photo

 

[dk1]

I believe an 805 went to Shrewsbury Once... I'll see if i can find the photo

It’s normally policy to clear them for all possible routes. We even tested 745s here in East Anglia on the Southend Victoria branch although there is next to no chance of using them on it.

 

[snail]

Bid to run new trains between London and Blackpool rejected

Plans for more trains would “likely increase delays and cancelled trains", the rail regulator says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Plans for new train services between London and Wrexham, Rochdale and Blackpool have been rejected by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR).
The proposal to add more trains on the West Coast Main Line would "likely increase delays and cancelled trains for passengers", the regulator said.
It rejected Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway's application for four daily Wrexham to London Euston return services, as well as Lumo's proposal for up to four return services between Rochdale and Euston on weekdays and Saturdays, and three on Sundays.
Avanti West Coast's plans for additional services between Blackpool and Euston were also denied by the ORR.
The regulator said: "Gaps in the current timetable need to provide important space for trains to recover when disruption occurs, minimising delays to passengers.
"ORR concluded that adding more services into these windows in the timetable for recovery would reduce that resilience, increasing the risk of disruption spreading to other services and affecting more passengers."

Stephanie Tobyn, from the ORR, said: "New services, destinations and greater choice can bring real benefits for passengers and communities.
"But the West Coast Main Line is already under significant pressure, with performance reflecting limited resilience on a heavily used part of the rail network.
"Our detailed analysis has shown that adding more trains to the current timetable would reduce the ability to recover when disruption occurs, increasing the risk of delays spreading and making reliability of the network worse for all passengers."
The ORR said its assessment and decision came after similar applications were rejected in 2025.

 

[pr1]

Blackpool was always going to be the "ginger step-child". Getting paths north of Preston when the physical track space is limited, let alone spaces in the timetable, is nigh-on impossible (look at the meagre crumbs given to Lumo).

HS2 isn't the saviour here, either, just because it might free up some space when it opens (physically and logistically) doesn't mean every bid on the WCML will suddenly become available!

 

[YorkRailFan]

In the BBC article above, WSMR provides the following statement:

A spokesperson for WSMR said it was "disappointed" by the decision, "especially after the effort we've made to overcome the concerns raised by statutory consultees over the past two-and-a-half years".

"Improving connectivity is a driver of economic growth and productivity, and WSMR would have unlocked much-needed educational, leisure and work opportunities for communities between north Wales, Midlands and London corridor.

"Since our application was submitted in March 2024, we have received overwhelming backing from local people, businesses, councillors and MPs, who all recognise the urgent need for this improved connectivity. We are very grateful for this support."

Bid to run new trains between London and Blackpool rejected

Plans for more trains would “likely increase delays and cancelled trains", the rail regulator says.

www.bbc.co.uk

HS2 isn't the saviour here, either, just because it might free up some space when it opens (physically and logistically) doesn't mean every bid on the WCML will suddenly become available!

HS2 will open up capacity on the southern WCML but under current plans, not the northern WCML though.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Surely an extension of a few Birmingham semi fasts a day might work?

I was going to ask that but assumed I'd missed the obvious flaw. Rolling stock aside of course.

 

[A S Leib]

HS2 will open up capacity on the southern WCML but under current plans, not the northern WCML though.

Would running via Bescot be enough to avoid capacity issues, or is there too much going that way, through Wolverhampton and (especially pre-Midlands Rail Hub completion) New Street unless avoiding there?

 

[Farigiraf]

I agree, even if it is immensely disappointing.

The fact in 2026, a whole county can’t have a single direct rail service down to the nation’s capital, should be a source of the most immense shame and absurdity for all those bods sitting in swanky offices in Whitehall.

Let’s see if Avanti coming into public ownership or future timetable reconstructions as suggested in the letter by the ORR makes any difference.

I am sadly not holding my breath…

First of all, the goal should be to make the rail network less London-centric, not more so. If a place is not at (or on the way to) a convenient point to terminate trains from London, then most of the time a well-timed connection with a train that does make sense to run through to London is the better solution.

Looking at nearby counties: Hereford is at the end of the Cotswold line (which is a sensible place to extend Oxford fasts), though even then most GWR trains turn at Malvern. Chester is on the way to North Wales and Holyhead, and also a convenient place to turn a Crewe express. Even Wrexham has its once-daily Avanti service which is a bit random but still just an easy extension of a Chester terminator. Other nearby counties are along a mainline. Shrewsbury happens to be at the end of a long unelectrified branch of the electified WCML, which wasn't convenient before bi-mode and battery technology became a thing.

If the Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury line was electrified (which it definitely would have been if town planners of Telford took things seriously) then I'm fairly confident that the Avanti service terminating at Wolves every hour would continue on to Shrewsbury. Wouldn't just be useful for Shropshire but also Aberystwyth, Newtown, etc. If it were a long-established service I think it'd probably be well used, and might make sense to give a go again using 805s (as long as there is capacity alongside WMT/TFW.

If the (relatively) light loadings along the North Wales Coast justifies Everos then a Shrewsbury service (with well-timed connections in all directions at Shrewsbury) does too. A once-a-day barely advertised Avanti service to a county with very low public transport usage, without much cheap Advances available due to the expectation that the train will anyway fill up through the West Midlands, still managing to carry an average of 50pax/day is pretty decent so a frequent, reliable service with a greater catchment would encourage quite a lot more usage. That's not to say that the current transfer at Birmingham International isn't perfectly adequate, but if it's a case of conveniently extending an existing service (unlike e.g. LNER to Skipton/Harrogate which is just London trains for the sake of it) then I don't see the problem.

This is all very different to a private operator running 4 services a day over winding freight lines through the WM suburbs using any path they can get (i.e. zero timed connections at SHR) though. I suspect most of the profitability relied on abstracting WM-London passengers (or even encouraging motorists to switch modes, which is not a bad thing if done right) by offering dirt-cheap fares to Walsall, Wolverhampton and Coleshill, with the Wrexham/Shropshire bit mainly being there for publicity and ORCATS raid purposes.

 

[Class15]

First of all, the goal should be to make the rail network less London-centric, not more so.

What an odd comment.

By “less London-centric”, presumably you mean that people’s journeys to where they actually want to go (ie London) are harder, but making journeys to other major cities easier?

Making the rest of the country better-off does not mean we need to disadvantage rail links into London.

 

[AlterEgo]

What an odd comment.

By “less London-centric”, presumably you mean that people’s journeys to where they actually want to go (ie London) are harder, but making journeys to other major cities easier?

Making the rest of the country better-off does not mean we need to disadvantage rail links into London.

Indeed. We have a London centric network because the UK is a highly centralised country centred on London.

 

[A S Leib]

then I'm fairly confident that the Avanti service terminating at Wolves every hour

They don't exist. Under the current (and next) timetable, every Wolverhampton to Euston service after 07:00 starts at Crewe or further north, and the same goes for every Euston to Wolverhampton service arriving before 20:00.

 

[Farigiraf]

By “less London-centric”, presumably you mean that people’s journeys to where they actually want to go (ie London) are harder, but making journeys to other major cities easier?

That's not what's meant by London-centric. I'm specifically thinking of the many journeys avoiding London, most of which are currently made by car, that require a long and expensive detour via London to be done by rail at the moment. The few operators that do provide this service (XC, EMR, TPE) are ridiculously low on capacity.

Making the rest of the country better-off does not mean we need to disadvantage rail links into London.

A frequent 1-change option is always going to be a better use of capacity than 4 trains a day to the end of every branch line. With a decent quality transfer at a station (accessible and reliable) the only downside is just a feeling of minor inconvenience, though I suspect it's less convenient when one of the 4 direct trains get cancelled (fully or in part) with there being no convenient alternative.

And by the way, I did post about 2 paragraphs about how to deliver Shrewsbury a proper London service which makes your (presumably quickly posted after reading 1 sentence) comment particularly strange to read. I do hope it's easy enough to understand that it's not a zero-sum game though and I really don't see the point in debating whether opting for either of the two 'extremes' is practical.

There's anyway only a small number of places with London services where improving the local train service and transfer reliability would IMO be better (Beverley, Skipton, Pontefract to name three) - if there's a significant number of London passengers from these stations who would shift to driving if needing to change trains (without a notable journey time increase), then colour me surprised.

Most of these extensions are logical enough to keep, Blackpool (extension of a Preston terminator) or Middlesbrough (York terminator) for instance are both good ideas. But e.g. diverting one of the London-Holyhead services to Llandudno to give it a direct train to the city where everything happens raises a few questions about whether we want a rail network or something more akin to an airline.

The fact that London's one of the hardest cities to drive & park in does factor into the equation as well - I know quite a few people who only use the train to get to London for this exact reason, that's not to say it isn't the highest-demand city but things do also happen decently often in Manchester or Birmingham too, yet rail's mode share for long-distance travel is way below London. If other cities follow suit over time then there'll be even more demand by rail to secondary cities.

They don't exist. Under the current (and next) timetable, every Wolverhampton to Euston service after 07:00 starts at Crewe or further north, and the same goes for every Euston to Wolverhampton service arriving before 20:00.

Well then I guess it wouldn't work as well, though London-Scotland via Birmingham services don't have much through travel anyway so reworking it into 2 services (London-Shrewsbury and Birmingham-Scotland) wouldn't be that unpopular, even if it does require HS2 phase 1 to get the paths required for it. Good thing there's a 15-20 minute same platform transfer at International then.

 

[Harpo]

They don't exist. Under the current (and next) timetable, every Wolverhampton to Euston service after 07:00 starts at Crewe or further north, and the same goes for every Euston to Wolverhampton service arriving before 20:00.

The direct services from London to Wolverhampton are slower than a change at Stafford although the latter is often more expensive.

Unsurprising then that railheading at Stafford is a popular option, and a useful pointer to as why through services via the West Midlands failed - Repeatedly.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Some more points included in the ORR's letter: https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2026-10/2026-10-08-orr-wcml-decision-letter.pdf

16.Network Rail stated that it currently did not support any application seeking to use additional capacity on the WCML South fast lines. All the proposed paths had conflicts against the base timetable, which Network Rail stated would have significant impacts on other services and service patterns across the geography.
17.Network Rail expressed particular concern that WSMR’s plans would use firebreak paths and could be accommodated only with significant retiming of other services in the same area. Other concerns Network Rail cited related to adverse impacts on network performance, on overall network resilience and services, on punctuality and reliability across the affected routes, and on congestion issues at key junctions and high utilisation areas of the network.

31. In June 2026 WSMR provided additional evidence it had commissioned. We have considered this carefully for consistency with the report we commissioned externally. Our view is that the WSMR report does not demonstrate the proposed WSMR timetable can be robustly accommodated within the existing timetable structure. Our external report reinforces our concern that using the WSMR proposed paths would further increase risks to resilience and performance unless the wider timetable is reviewed and rolling stock assumptions are resolved.
32. The WSMR evidence submission proposed that additional capacity exists on WCML and describes that an alternative timetable is possible to create further available capacity. A significant timetable recast is being considered by industry on the WCML, but it is not sufficiently progressed for anyone to reach conclusions as to whether it might unlock additional capacity.
33. We consider a timetable may theoretically be constructed for WSMR’s services. However, in applying our duties, we need to consider whether the application is Page 7 of 12 implementable, compliant with industry rules, resilient within the current structure, and acceptable for existing users under both normal and disrupted conditions. Our external commissioned analysis on the WCML South supports our assessment that the route is already highly constrained by the current timetable structure, and this is consistent with the evidence Network Rail provided and assessments of current performance on WCML. Therefore, we consider that WSMR could not be accommodated at present without a substantial detriment to users of the line.

There is also a list of oppositions to WSMR's proposals:

• London TravelWatch expressed concern with the proposals, particularly Concerned about Euston capacity and congestion and how station capacity will be managed.
• Transport for Wales (TfW) expressed concerns about capacity, revenue abstraction, stabling and maintenance of rolling stock, and staffing.
• West Midlands Trains (WMT) did not support based on concerns about performance, fleet maintenance, revenue abstraction, SRTs and dwell time, and timetable validation.
• CrossCountry Trains (XCT) did not support because of concerns about performance and the vagueness of timetabling information provided.
• AWC firmly opposed the proposal because it assumes that there will be a greater amount of capacity available than is the case. It also cites HS2 implications and concerns over viability of the assumed paths in the application.

London TravelWatch's concerns are also mentioned under the appendix for Lumo's application.

Furthermore, WSMR opposed Avanti's proposals and instead wanted the ORR to accommodate their own proposal, and also didn't want Network Rail to give "preferential treatment" to Avanti.

WSMR objected to the proposals and particularly argued that its own proposals should be accommodated instead. WSMR objected on grounds of capacity, performance and power supply, and argued that decisions should be considered on the best use of capacity in a wider social/economic sense. WSMR viewed that AWC’s proposals should not be given preferential treatment by Network Rail.

 

[A S Leib]

The direct services from London to Wolverhampton are slower than a change at Stafford although the latter is often more expensive.

More expensive just looking at Avanti? Without checking, I'd still expect LNR Stafford to London tickets to be more than Wolverhampton to Euston due to flexible ones being valid via Wolverhampton, but not much more.

Unsurprising then that railheading at Stafford is a popular option, and a useful pointer to as why through services via the West Midlands failed - Repeatedly.

A point I think I've made before is that a service reversing at Crewe might work better for Shrewsbury in theory, but we're not in that constraint-free world. There's also three London journeys from Wellington and Telford for every five from Shrewsbury, which wouldn't be well-served via Crewe.

 

[DaveyJones]

The direct services from London to Wolverhampton are slower than a change at Stafford although the latter is often more expensive.

Unsurprising then that railheading at Stafford is a popular option, and a useful pointer to as why through services via the West Midlands failed - Repeatedly.

How feasible would a Shrewsbury-intermediate stops-Oxley Chord-Stafford-Trent Valley-Euston be?

 

[Harpo]

How feasible would a Shrewsbury-intermediate stops-Oxley Chord-Stafford-Trent Valley-Euston be?

Virgin (I think?) proposed that. Wasn’t it also to combine with another service at Stafford?

Rejected for performance reasons I think?

 

[The Planner]

How feasible would a Shrewsbury-intermediate stops-Oxley Chord-Stafford-Trent Valley-Euston be?

The trundle around Oxley chord and the reversal at Stafford would hurt it.

 

[40129]

Virgin (I think?) proposed that. Wasn’t it also to combine with another service at Stafford?

Rejected for performance reasons I think?

It's a shame that the Wellington - Stafford line no longer exists as that would have provided a direct route from Shrewsbury and Telford (the town not Central station pre se) that would avoid the West Midlands conurbation and the need to reverse at either Stafford or Crewe