Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway updates

[KashmireHawker]

Julia Buckley MP told me they had to wait a week before announcing due to legal reasons, which makes it today.

Was thinking that.

Regardless, if a decision has been made, they should get on with it and announce it.

I am too eager to know!

 

[cj_1985]

Unless the DfT overlords are instructing them to change their decision, should they have disagreed with the ORRs initial decision? I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[Zontar]

It's not like they've been short of time to make a decision....

 

[cj_1985]

Maybe it's just me, but I think given that if my team/department was going to be swallowed up/have it's independence stripped away... I would perhaps be inclined to make a decision fully knowing it would go against what my new boss would dictate. IF I was being spiteful that is, and after the bully boy tactics used in previous letters from DfT

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Wednesday at 11:12 ==

Not suggesting pushing through an application the network couldn't support, but if it could...

 

[Clarence Yard]

0700 tomorrow morning is when it will be announced.

 

[Zontar]

0700 tomorrow morning is when it will be announced.

Random. How do you know just out of interest?

 

[Class15]

Random. How do you know just out of interest?

The user who said that is involved in the industry.

 

[KashmireHawker]

0700 tomorrow morning is when it will be announced.

Thanks very much and as it’s being done before the Stock Markets open, I would not be surprised if this comes along with a bunch of other OAA’s too, with Lumo (First) and Grand Central (Arriva) waiting for decisions.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Lumo Rochdale and Avanti (1 Blackpool return and 1 Chester, iirc) will also feature in the announcement.

 

[KashmireHawker]

Application rejected:

The rail regulator rejected applications from the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway Company (WSMR) for four return Wrexham-London Euston services and Lumo’s up to four return Rochdale-Euston services. It also rejected Avanti West Coast’s application for additional Blackpool-Euston services.

ORR’s assessment following detailed and extensive analysis is that the capacity and performance of the southern section of the West Coast Main Line has not materially changed since similar applications were rejected in 2025. An external review commissioned by ORR also supported this conclusion.

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.

ORR has however approved access for Avanti’s weekday 19:29 Chester to Euston service to carry passengers until December 2030. This train already runs as a fully crewed empty service and will continue to do so, so the decision does not add another train to the route but will instead add benefit for passengers.

ORR rejects new West Coast services over capacity constraints and risk of worsening delays for passengers | Office of Rail and Road

Proposals for new train services between London and Wrexham, Rochdale and Blackpool have been rejected by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) after its assessment found adding more trains to the West Coast Main Line would likely increase delays and cancelled trains for passengers.

www.orr.gov.uk

 

[AlterEgo]

No great surprises then.

 

[Snow1964]

One part that many might find surprising because of perception is (in appendix referring to stakeholder comments)

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.

But this bit of letter seems rather odd, a lot of basis for rejecting seems to be congestion, created by the number of trains already permitted, and way it is worded implies they have previously allowed this congestion, and are prioritising late running services having gaps in timetable over the potential new services.

26. We commissioned external analysis to supplement our own assessment and ensure our capacity and performance conclusions were robust. This analysis identified that using the paths proposed would increase congestion, increasing the number of trains operating at or near the minimum allowable planned separation (headway) without any breaks. This would further reduce recovery time for late-running services and increase the likelihood of disruption, with consequent impacts on passengers and freight.

27. Our assessment identified there is still a significant, pre-existing performance issue caused by general congestion ....

Is it just me, or are they actually saying rejected because others are entitled to run late, rather than having to cancel if they miss their timetable slot

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

 

[Harpo]

So, a fourth attempt to connect Shrewsbury with London via a slow stagger through the West Midlands won’t get to prove Einstein’s definition of madness.

Hopefully this decision will focus minds on identifying ways to provide Shrewsbury & Telford with faster, regular ways of reaching London via reliable connections.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is it just me, or are they actually saying rejected because others are entitled to run late, rather than having to cancel if they miss their timetable slot

It’s just you.

 

[dk1]

Oh, that’s that then.

 

[cj_1985]

One part that many might find surprising because of perception is (in appendix referring to stakeholder comments)


But this bit of letter seems rather odd, a lot of basis for rejecting seems to be congestion, created by the number of trains already permitted, and way it is worded implies they have previously allowed this congestion, and are prioritising late running services having gaps in timetable over the potential new services.

Is it just me, or are they actually saying rejected because others are entitled to run late, rather than having to cancel if they miss their timetable slot

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

I dunno, to an extent it could be read that way

 

[KashmireHawker]

Oh, that’s that then.

I get that sense in WSMR’s response:

“We are disappointed with the Office of Rail and Road’s decision to reject our application, 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. WSMR complements plans for Great British Railways by introducing direct connectivity that will attract new passengers to the rail market.

“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.”

Response to the decision from Office of Rail and Road – 8 October 2026 - WSMR

The Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway (WSMR) has issued a statement following the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) rejecting its application on 8 October 2026 to run services between North Wales, Shropshire, the Midlands and London: “We are disappointed with the Office of Rail and Road’s...

www.wsmr.co.uk

 

[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 open access operators paid a higher track access fee, to more fairly 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 open access operators 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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.