Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway updates

[TUC]

The West Midlands has competing train services to London operated by Chiltern, London Northwestern Railway and Avanti West Coast.

I know that, but this would extend that competition. Fares on too many parts of the WCML are still far too high.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jun 2025 ==

The WCML, through the LNR option, has significantly lower fares than the ECML does, which doesn't have an equivalent.

The ECML, on different sections of route, has Lumo, TPE, LNER, Cross Country, Grand Central and Hull Trains all competing.

 

[A S Leib]

I know that, but this would extend that competition. Fares on too many parts of the WCML are still far too high.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jun 2025 ==


The ECML, on different sections of route, has Lumo, TPE, LNER, Cross Country, Grand Central and Hull Trains all competing.

Given low frequency of Lumo, Grand Central and Hull Trains and the lack of CrossCountry-only flexible / high cost of advance fares (at least on the ECML itself), I think Thameslink's the closest ECML equivalent apart from TPE.

 

[Bald Rick]

I know that, but this would extend that competition. Fares on too many parts of the WCML are still far too high.

Not really. The only stations proposed to be regulalrly by this proposal that are currently served by Avanti on more than once a day basis are Wolverhampton, Nuneaton and MK. All have cheaper LNW / WMT fares than Avanti (some are very cheap), and in the case of the latter two, the journey times are comparable to Avanti. It is not at all clear to me how WSMR could compete on price in a meaningful way that would lower fares for those stations, let alone any others served by Avanti.

And the price of these (perhaps) lower fares will be worse punctuality for all users of the line. Doesn’t seem like a good deal to the travelling public overall, in my opinion.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

The ECML, on different sections of route, has Lumo, TPE, LNER, Cross Country, Grand Central and Hull Trains all competing.

The WCML, on different sections of route, has Avanti, LNWR, Northern, TPE, Cross Country, Chiltern, and Caledonian Sleeper. (7) + Future Lumo Stirling (8)
and to a lesser extent, TfW, Overground, Southern and EMR (12)

Also I'd say the ECML list is missing Thameslink, and Great Northern. (8)
and to a lesser extent, EMR and Northern. (10)

 

[The Middle]

The WCML, on different sections of route, has Avanti, LNWR, Northern, TPE, Cross Country, Chiltern, and Caledonian Sleeper. (7) + Future Lumo Stirling (8)
and to a lesser extent, TfW, Overground, Southern and EMR (12)

Also I'd say the ECML list is missing Thameslink, and Great Northern. (8)
and to a lesser extent, EMR and Northern. (10)

So in the future reality if sticking to long distance high speed we have GBR & Lumo on the WCML, then GBR, Lumo, Hull Trains & GC on the ECML

 

[alistairlees]

So in the future reality if sticking to long distance high speed we have GBR & Lumo on the WCML, then GBR, Lumo, Hull Trains & GC on the ECML

Also Caledonian Sleeper and, for small stretches, ScotRail. Plus freight, of course. And TfL (via London Overground) for some stretches.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

So in the future reality if sticking to long distance high speed we have GBR & Lumo on the WCML, then GBR, Lumo, Hull Trains & GC on the ECML

HS2 might make space for WSMR (or other OA).

Or they'll just keep finding new level crossings to call a problem.

 

[The Middle]

HS2 might make space for WSMR (or other OA).

On the southern end perhaps but space is going to have to be found for those HS2 services when they join the conventional WCML further north.

 

[Zomboid]

Also Caledonian Sleeper and, for small stretches, ScotRail. Plus freight, of course. And TfL (via London Overground) for some stretches.

They won't really be really competing with GBR, though. A handful of station pairs in common, but you'd only do Watford Jn to Euston on the DC lines if you had no time pressure...

There'll be no reason why GBR can't offer a range of fares, because rail isn't really competing with other trains, it's competing with driving, coaches and air for longer distance journeys.

 

[TUC]

They won't really be really competing with GBR, though. A handful of station pairs in common, but you'd only do Watford Jn to Euston on the DC lines if you had no time pressure...

There'll be no reason why GBR can't offer a range of fares, because rail isn't really competing with other trains, it's competing with driving, coaches and air for longer distance journeys.

The reality is that there are lower fares where there is competition. Those lower fares then support rail in competing with other modes of transport.

 

[43066]

The reality is that there are lower fares where there is competition. Those lower fares then support rail in competing with other modes of transport.

Not sure this is the case at all - people regularly complain about high fares on the ECML despite Lumo, GC being long established etc. There is very little genuine competition between operators. That is by design in the case of the OA operators, who are supposed to be developing new markets and not be abstractive.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Wouldn't mind seeing her solutions to "they don't fit"

The Network Rail responses make clear they do not support any of the three West Coast Mainline open access applications from WSMR, Lumo and Virgin. Network Rail state that nine paths each way could be found on the West Coast Mainline between Rugby and London Euston but they do not want any more train services which use these paths because the route is already congested and running more train services would make this worse and adversely affect the services already agreed and operating. This is an important point. It is up to the ORR to decide whether to refuse all three applications for this reason.

Reading the letters on the WSMR application I do not see any specific show stopping issues, just this nevertheless important concern about worsening congestion and performance between Rugby and London Euston. Considering just the nine paths stated to be available the ORR could approve either WSMR (five paths) or Lumo (six paths) but not both. The Virgin application requires too many paths anyway. The ORR may decide that if they have to approve one of the applications WSMR is the one they should approve as it requires the smallest number of paths and only uses paths on the WCML South of Nuneaton whereas the other two applications require paths on the WCML North of Nuneaton where there are additional very serious capacity constraints.

Approving WSMR may also remove some available rolling stock which some other open access applications are relying on. Approving the WSMR application would give the ORR very good reasons not to approve the Lumo and Virgin WCML applications. We must wait to see what decisions the ORR make at their next Board meeting.

 

[The Planner]

The Network Rail responses make clear they do not support any of the three West Coast Mainline open access applications from WSMR, Lumo and Virgin. Network Rail state that nine paths each way could be found on the West Coast Mainline between Rugby and London Euston but they do not want any more train services which use these paths because the route is already congested and running more train services would make this worse and adversely affect the services already agreed and operating. This is an important point. It is up to the ORR to decide whether to refuse all three applications for this reason.

Reading the letters on the WSMR application I do not see any specific show stopping issues, just this nevertheless important concern about worsening congestion and performance between Rugby and London Euston. Considering just the nine paths stated to be available the ORR could approve either WSMR (five paths) or Lumo (six paths) but not both. The Virgin application requires too many paths anyway. The ORR may decide that if they have to approve one of the applications WSMR is the one they should approve as it requires the smallest number of paths and only uses paths on the WCML South of Nuneaton whereas the other two applications require paths on the WCML North of Nuneaton where there are additional very serious capacity constraints.

Approving WSMR may also remove some available rolling stock which some other open access applications are relying on. Approving the WSMR application would give the ORR very good reasons not to approve the Lumo and Virgin WCML applications. We must wait to see what decisions the ORR make at their next Board meeting.

There has been some serious flexing then if they had made them fit, which in itself could impact performance regardless of WSMR being there.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

A curiosity of the Weston Rhyn level crossing issue is that the train frequency is still basically hourly each way (TfW)*.
The old WSMR trains were extra, and were accommodated without issues.
The new WSMR proposals only restore the same frequency as the old OA TOC, but somehow is now problematic.
Avanti in its franchise bid did propose extending the Wrexham via Chester service to Gobowen, over the same level crossing - not implemented, of course.
The Gobowen-Shrewsbury section has also been upgraded from 60/70mph to mostly 90mph in recent years, unlike the Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton section.

* it's unclear to me what provision has been made for an increased TfW frequency for the proposed extension of Liverpool-Chester services to Shrewsbury or beyond.

 

[Zomboid]

new WSMR proposals only restore the same frequency as the old OA TOC, but somehow is now problematic

What did NR think of the old OA request in terms of that crossing? They might have objected at that time and been told to run the trains anyway. Or they might have reassessed the risk since then and come do a different conclusion to the original assessment.

 

[Chippychips]

Wouldn't mind seeing her solutions to "they don't fit"

Well none of us know, but clearly she and WSMR have ideas, plans, or some inside-knowledge for her to say such a statement with confidence.
Regarding Euston Capacity, I believe WSMR/Alstom can have the option to run from Wembley (depot), so as to not take up platform space- if this helps their case..maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

Crossing issues, I'm sure there will be funding implemented to make the ones raised by NR safer (as mentioned, one of the ones complained about is being fitted with lights in December- there may be other plans or proposals for other crossings in the pipeline).

Another solution may be, flexing of Avanti services. Apparently (maybe someone can correct me or confirm this) the Avanti 800 stock are limited to 100/110mph on the WCML because they don't tilt like the Pendos and Voyagers resulting in a constant string of delays/late trains as the timetable Avanti runs is based on running at LS. If this speed issue is an evident problem, then could it be possible that conversations will need to be had between relevant parties across the board, and with the DfT running things (and evidently supportive of WSMR) maybe they will remove/modify some paths or keep some of the unused avanti paths 'unused' or something along those lines?

If 9 paths are there. They can fit.
It's just a matter of making them fit 'comfortably' which is the issue. Which means its these other factors that need looking into. Difficult but certainly not impossible.

 

[The Planner]

Well none of us know, but clearly she and WSMR have ideas, plans, or some inside-knowledge for her to say such a statement with confidence.
Regarding Euston Capacity, I believe WSMR/Alstom can have the option to run from Wembley (depot), so as to not take up platform space- if this helps their case..maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

Crossing issues, I'm sure there will be funding implemented to make the ones raised by NR safer (as mentioned, one of the ones complained about is being fitted with lights in December- there may be other plans or proposals for other crossings in the pipeline).

Another solution may be, flexing of Avanti services. Apparently (maybe someone can correct me or confirm this) the Avanti 800 stock are limited to 100/110mph on the WCML because they don't tilt like the Pendos and Voyagers resulting in a constant string of delays/late trains as the timetable Avanti runs is based on running at LS. If this speed issue is an evident problem, then could it be possible that conversations will need to be had between relevant parties across the board, and with the DfT running things (and evidently supportive of WSMR) maybe they will remove/modify some paths or keep some of the unused avanti paths 'unused' or something along those lines?

If 9 paths are there. They can fit.
It's just a matter of making them fit 'comfortably' which is the issue. Which means its these other factors that need looking into. Difficult but certainly not impossible.

When I took an initial cursory look at the time of proposal, they certainly didn't work at Nuneaton. The MU speed differential will be sorted sooner rather than later, and isn't a WTT issue. Fitting on a graph does not equal it works.

 

[Bertie the bus]

In her letter she goes on in some depth about the economic benefits to the Midlands area and opportunities WSMR will bring.

Presumably you mean goes into some depth about the economic benefits she claims WSMR will bring.

If direct services to London bring such economic benefits then why does Shrewsbury keep getting direct services and then lose them? Presumably it is because it brings little benefit because few people use it and the only real benefit is some kind of warped civic pride of having a direct service to London.

 

[zwk500]

Well none of us know, but clearly she and WSMR have ideas, plans, or some inside-knowledge for her to say such a statement with confidence.

It does not automatically follow that a MP making a statement with confidence has any knowledge to base such confidence on.

 

[Bertiethebobby]

Presumably you mean goes into some depth about the economic benefits she claims WSMR will bring.

If direct services to London bring such economic benefits then why does Shrewsbury keep getting direct services and then lose them? Presumably it is because it brings little benefit because few people use it and the only real benefit is some kind of warped civic pride of having a direct service to London.

When the previous Wrexham/Shrewsbury/Marylebone service was wound up I went to a meeting where the management showed us a revenue graph that was flat-lining below the point at which it was profitable. I remember the words he used "people from Shropshire just don't want to travel to London" Whilst there certainly are many who do (or would with a decent train service), myself included, maybe not in sufficient numbers to make a reasonable profit.

A solution that has been discussed before mightbe to extend the Euston to Wolverhampton service to Shrewsbury, maybe every 2 or even 3 hours. I'm sure there are many reasons why this isn't feasible and I'm equally sure that the good folk on this forum will say why.

For me, a slighter slower journey without changing is infinitely preferable to the faffing around at Wolverhampton/Birmingham/Crewe especially on the return journey late at night. At present this is sufficiently of a turn off for me not to travel unless absolutely necessary.

 

[A S Leib]

A solution that has been discussed before mightbe to extend the Euston to Wolverhampton service to Shrewsbury, maybe every 2 or even 3 hours.

So the situation up until last year, but hoping that a more frequent service encourages more passengers (like with Blackpool, Bradford or Harrogate)?

 

[jj1314]

For me, a slighter slower journey without changing is infinitely preferable to the faffing around at Wolverhampton/Birmingham/Crewe especially on the return journey late at night. At present this is sufficiently of a turn off for me not to travel unless absolutely necessary.

Likewise. Avanti's awful performance on the Shrewsbury-London Euston route, and subsequent withdrawal, was enough for me to bin off rail altogether. I now share a car that regularly manages 55 mpg and if I'm honest, I only ever look into rail travel if I plan to fly from Birmingham International. Even then, reluctantly.

 

[robspaceman]

This argument has been done to death on this, and other, threads. There is plenty of demand if the price, reliability, and journey time, is right. But hitherto there has simply not been such a service so we’re not comparing apples with apples.

The most recent Avanti “offering” was just a solitary peak time and hence ludicrously expensive and frequently cancelled one train per day. Useless for leisure trips or anyone other than business people with expense accounts.

Previous iterations under Virgin required a loco change at Wolverhampton and the commensurate delay- if indeed the service made it beyond there and wasn’t just cancelled again due to unavailability or failure of said loco.

Meanwhile the old WSMR took an absolute *age* to get to Marylebone and while it was a delight to travel on with its freshly cooked meals etc, was a very expensive thing to run and was therefore unsustainable at such low fares and high journey time.

The solution is something in the middle of the two: a sub 2h45 journey time, with a basic onboard offering, running at times normal people want to travel, at realistic prices, and with a fairly high likelihood the train will actually show up. Such a service hasn’t existed for thirty five years (and even then required a loco change), in which time the population of Shrewsbury and Telford has ballooned.

The new WSMR has the potential to offer this and should be given the chance.

 

[Bertiethebobby]

So the situation up until last year, but hoping that a more frequent service encourages more passengers (like with Blackpool, Bradford or Harrogate)?

Well almost.
The Avanti Voyager service was only ever 2 return journeys. Silly o'clock in the morning and 15.24 (I think) to London and returns at 10.30 ish and 18.30ish. This was reduced to just one return a day during/after Covid (the early morning out journey with 18.30 return) however, this ended up being cancelled more often than not to the point of being effectively useless and was then killed off, probably through lack of customers!

 

[Zomboid]

The obvious thing to do to see if there's actually latent demand which can be stimulated would be to extend the Wolverhampton service at a high enough frequency to be useful (how many times a day is Hereford served?)

If that doesn't work then the idea should go back into it's box for a while.

Maybe this idea will work better than the original WSMR did, but I'm yet to be convinced that an infrequent trundle along the Sutton Park line is going to bring anyone any profit, but might do a good job of messing up the WCML timetable.

 

[Bertiethebobby]

This argument has been done to death on this, and other, threads. There is plenty of demand if the price, reliability, and journey time, is right. But hitherto there has simply not been such a service so we’re not comparing apples with apples.

The most recent Avanti “offering” was just a solitary peak time and hence ludicrously expensive and frequently cancelled one train per day. Useless for leisure trips or anyone other than business people with expense accounts.

Previous iterations under Virgin required a loco change at Wolverhampton and the commensurate delay- if indeed the service made it beyond there and wasn’t just cancelled again due to unavailability or failure of said loco.

Meanwhile the old WSMR took an absolute *age* to get to Marylebone and while it was a delight to travel on with its freshly cooked meals etc, was a very expensive thing to run and was therefore unsustainable at such low fares and high journey time.

The solution is something in the middle of the two: a sub 2h45 journey time, with a basic onboard offering, running at times normal people want to travel, at realistic prices, and with a fairly high likelihood the train will actually show up. Such a service hasn’t existed for thirty five years (and even then required a loco change), in which time the population of Shrewsbury and Telford has ballooned.

The new WSMR has the potential to offer this and should be given the chance.

An excellent summary of the whole sad situation.
Tbh, when I first moved to Shrewsbury in the 80's I liked the loco hauled solution although as you say it added time at Wolves but with young kids and luggage was better then changing trains. I didn't find it was unreliable.
I didn't mind the "slow boat to China" WSMR, I think it was 3.5 hours? it was competitive with car and wasn't a lot longer once you took into account the time that needed to be allowed for a change at Wolves or Brum.
As you say, the new service could solve all those things. I do think that if it gets approval (a big if) they will struggle to make it pay, I don't think they can rely on the revenue from intermediate stations after Wellington.

 

[A S Leib]

how many times a day is Hereford served?

(All referring to weekdays) Hereford is 4tpd, first service to London 05:23-08:24 and last from London 19:53-22:57.

Sunderland is 6tpd, first service to London 06:46-10:14 and last from London 19:27-22:52.

Bradford Interchange is 4tpd, first service to London 06:59-10:07 and last from London 19:48-22:29.

Hull is 7tpd Hull Trains + 1tpd LNER, first service to London 06:27-09:14 and last from London 20:30-22:59.

The anytime return from Hereford to London via Evesham is £125; the equivalent from Shrewsbury via Birmingham is £229.

 

[diffident]

A lot of talk here is about demand from Shrewsbury, but the train starts at Wrexham, where unlike before, there is much more demand now.

Kelloggs is a huge employer and did use the previous iteration fairly regularly, and now DWP have a big presence in the city, so potential civil servant trips to and from Caxton House in London would be an almost certainty.

That's without the leisure demand around the football club, and the popularity of the city and surrounding areas which has exploded in recent years.

 

[A S Leib]

A lot of talk here is about demand from Shrewsbury, but the train starts at Wrexham, where unlike before, there is much more demand now.

As a budget option, it's probably preferable to changing at Crewe from / to LNR and at Chester, but wouldn't a lot of demand keep going north first to reach London?

 

[Llandudno]

A curiosity of the Weston Rhyn level crossing issue is that the train frequency is still basically hourly each way (TfW)*.
The old WSMR trains were extra, and were accommodated without issues.
The new WSMR proposals only restore the same frequency as the old OA TOC, but somehow is now problematic.
Avanti in its franchise bid did propose extending the Wrexham via Chester service to Gobowen, over the same level crossing - not implemented, of course.
The Gobowen-Shrewsbury section has also been upgraded from 60/70mph to mostly 90mph in recent years, unlike the Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton section.

* it's unclear to me what provision has been made for an increased TfW frequency for the proposed extension of Liverpool-Chester services to Shrewsbury or beyond.

I think TFW have quietly dropped the idea of a Liverpool -Shrewsbury-Cardiff service…

They seem to be putting their eggs in a Liverpool-Bidston-Wrexham basket every 15 minutes!
(Won’t happen, of course but there is an election in the spring!)