Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway updates

[Zontar]

I hope ot works out for them, but can't help but think network rail are going to dampen their chips

 

[zwk500]

I hope ot works out for them, but can't help but think network rail are going to dampen their chips

To be fair to NR, they're just doing their job in that they have been asked to squeeze as much capacity out of the line between London and Rugby as possible and are now coming up against hard limits.

 

[Zontar]

To be fair to NR, they're just doing their job in that they have been asked to squeeze as much capacity out of the line between London and Rugby as possible and are now coming up against hard limits.

Yes this is what I meant. There's only so much they can squeeze capacity

 

[mikestone1952]

The paths seem to have little connection with the non-running Avanti Chester services and particularly on the down more utilisation of a common path with Lumo.
In was a bit surprised to see a 19.36 given that I would have expected the last Lumo to have utilised it if there was one, instead of being off pattern at 19.19.
;
I must admit I hadn't given it any previous thought but I am a bit surprised they haven't mentioned the ability to join the WCML without confliction but the fact the last up train appears to clash with 1M18 reminded me.

 

[weeklycommuter]

To be fair to NR, they're just doing their job in that they have been asked to squeeze as much capacity out of the line between London and Rugby as possible and are now coming up against hard limits.

This was clear in the ORR decisions published in July 2025 on the WSMR, Lumo Rochdale and Virgin applications to operate open access passenger train services to and from London Euston. Virgin have moved on to more interesting cross channel train services but both WSMR and Lumo have now submitted new applications to operate open access passenger train services to and from London Euston. The new Lumo application is at the following link on the ORR website. Why do WSMR and Lumo think they will get a different outcome with their new applications?

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-10/frsl-rochdale-form-p.pdf

Lumo proposes operating 4 return Rochdale services on weekdays and Saturdays and 3 return Rochdale services on Sundays. One weekday service from London-Euston terminates short at Manchester Victoria.

 

[Bald Rick]

AIUI the ORR can decline to consider applications that are similar to those previously submitted that were not awarded rights. In this case, the application appears to be fewer trains and an extra stop at Wellington. That doesn’t feel sufficiently different to me.

 

[Class 170101]

AIUI the ORR can decline to consider applications that are similar to those previously submitted that were not awarded rights. In this case, the application appears to be fewer trains and an extra stop at Wellington. That doesn’t feel sufficiently different to me.

But would that be wise after the mess the ORR have made regarding the 07:00 Manchester to London? Does the ORR almost need these applications, whether wise or not from the operators, to rebuild ORRs credibility?

 

[Bald Rick]

But would that be wise after the mess the ORR have made regarding the 07:00 Manchester to London? Does the ORR almost need these applications, whether wise or not from the operators, to rebuild ORRs credibility?

It doesn’t matter. It’s a different situation.

 

[Starmill]

It doesn’t matter. It’s a different situation.

It's an unrelated situation because the applicant isn't actually a rights holder, yes absolutely.

However. As to if it matters... I would suggest that the ORR and Network Rail, having staked out a position (a good one or a bad one...) in a hearing, and then capitulated to a rights holder who used the media to pressure them, rather does.

Other rights holders obviously view what happened to the 0700 as an abuse of the process. To me that doesn't seem at all unreasonable. I would suggest that will feed through into the system in some probably unpredictable ways.

 

[Harpo]

Other rights holders obviously view what happened to the 0700 as an abuse of the process. To me that doesn't seem at all unreasonable. I would suggest that will feed through into the system in some probably unpredictable ways.

Couldn’t agree more. The regulator is usually totally transparent. It will be interesting to see how the ‘07.00’ issue appears on ORR communications.

 

[Bald Rick]

However. As to if it matters... I would suggest that the ORR and Network Rail, having staked out a position (a good one or a bad one...) in a hearing, and then capitulated to a rights holder who used the media to pressure them, rather does.

That’s not what happened though.

 

[Starmill]

That’s not what happened though.

But it is a widely held view of the situation. At the end of the day, unless an official public explanation of why it happened in the way it did is forthcoming at some point, and I think we can be fairly confident the people involved don't fancy that, then most reasonable third parties will believe this interpretation. And I can see why.

 

[Bald Rick]

But it is a widely held view of the situation. At the end of the day, unless an official public explanation of why it happened in the way it did is forthcoming at some point, and I think we can be fairly confident the people involved don't fancy that, then most reasonable third parties will believe this interpretation. And I can see why.

It is already in the public domain, in letters on the ORR website, that NR supported the retention of the 0700 from Manchester.

 

[Starmill]

It is already in the public domain, in letters on the ORR website, that NR supported the retention of the 0700 from Manchester.

Nobody disagrees with that though. It was apparent to the people who were at the hearing too. But that doesn't mean it wasn't an abuse of process.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Nobody disagrees with that though. It was apparent to the people who were at the hearing too. But that doesn't mean it wasn't an abuse of process.

I am not sure that changing the 0700 Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston from empty coaching stock to a passenger train service can be used to justify any claims to paths as this train was still due to run and take a path. The other Avanti services no longer running in the December 2025 timetable which are no longer taking any paths have not been reinstated.

However the Government have made clear their view that the initial ORR decision to require this train to run as empty coaching stock not transporting fare paying passengers shows that the current track access regime is not working in the interests of rail passengers and taxpayers.

The Government are using this case as a reason to change the track access regime with the Railways Bill.

Any claims that the ORR changing their decision so this train transports fare paying passengers is an abuse of process under the current track access regime would just further the point that the current track access regime is not working in the interests of rail passengers and taxpayers and the Government is right to change it with the Railways Bill.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The way it came across to me was that the 0700 rights had been short term/ expiring/ expired.

If that train had ceased running there would effectively have been two firebreak paths quite close to each other. This would have been wasteful, especially at a peak time.

The open access bid for the Preston service would have used one of the paths, still leaving a firebreak.

I thought that empty stock workings were Ancillary Movements that don’t have a firm right to a particular path, especially a ‘purple carpet’ one. But Network Rail appear to have told Avanti that it could use (and thus extinguish) the firebreak anyway.

That’s the bit that doesn’t appear to be ‘due process’ to me. (This is quite apart from Ministerial arm-twisting by the current Passenger-in-Chief.)

Happy to be corrected.

 

[weeklycommuter]

The train used to operate the 0700 service from Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston is then used to operate an Avanti West Coast service from London Euston so it needs to be moved from Manchester to London for that reason. However even if this 0700 train from Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston can be made to vanish completely it would only free one path which would be of no help to the new WSMR open access application or the new Lumo Rochdale open access application. I cannot see how the ORR can approve either of these two new open access applications as nothing has changed since July 2025 when the ORR rejected the previous open access applications from the same operators.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The train used to operate the 0700 service from Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston is then used to operate an Avanti West Coast service from London Euston so it needs to be moved from Manchester to London for that reason. However even if this 0700 train from Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston can be made to vanish completely it would only free one path and would be of no help to the new WSMR open access application or the new Lumo Rochdale open access application. I cannot see how the ORR can approve either of these two new open access applications as nothing has changed since July 2025 when the ORR rejected the previous open access applications from the same operators.

I quite agree. There is no spare (or even firebreak) path at that time of the day. Even if the 0700 movement was no longer required in whatever form it could only restore the firebreak. The Stirling (and associated early morning Preston) open access services have effectively taken the last WCML Fast Line paths, at least in the morning.

Neither of these points undermines my contention that the 0700 saga has seriously undermined the credibility of the current track access process. As such it hardly bodes well for the fairness and transparency of GBR's future internal processes whether they are in relation to open access passenger, TfL, TfW, Merseyrail, Nexus, ScotRail, Caledonian Sleeper, freight or charters.

 

[Starmill]

Any claims that the ORR changing their decision so this train transports fare paying passengers is an abuse of process under the current track access regime would just further the point that the current track access regime is not working in the interests of rail passengers and taxpayers and the Government is right to change it with the Railways Bill.

Both points are true at the same time. It was an abuse of process. It does undermine the value of the rights. And the process is poorly managed and implemented.

 

[weeklycommuter]

The new application from WSMR is now on the ORR website at

Current track access applications | Office of Rail and Road

All documents relating to track access applications we are currently considering. This may include application forms, draft agreements, any related documents and responses we make public.

www.orr.gov.uk

The Form P is at the following link

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-12/wsmr-ltd-s17-form-p.pdf

 

[NorthWalian]

The new application from WSMR is now on the ORR website at

Current track access applications | Office of Rail and Road

All documents relating to track access applications we are currently considering. This may include application forms, draft agreements, any related documents and responses we make public.

www.orr.gov.uk

The Form P is at the following link

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-12/wsmr-ltd-s17-form-p.pdf

Does seem like a bad proposal in some aspects.

The 7:03 Avanti gets into Euston for 9:32 - the same time as the proposed 06:05

 

[robspaceman]

Does seem like a bad proposal in some aspects.

The 7:03 Avanti gets into Euston for 9:32 - the same time as the proposed 06:05

True but the target market is really Shrewsbury and stations east to London, rather than Wrexham.
And the fare offer from Wrexham will presumably significantly undercut Avanti too, making up for the slower journey.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Does seem like a bad proposal in some aspects.

The 7:03 Avanti gets into Euston for 9:32 - the same time as the proposed 06:05

True but the target market is really Shrewsbury and stations east to London, rather than Wrexham.
And the fare offer from Wrexham will presumably significantly undercut Avanti too, making up for the slower journey.

To be honest their proposed timetable and their intended target market are academic.

I expect the ORR will reject this application on the same grounds of no available capacity on the West Coast Mainline as they rejected the previous application from WSMR.

I honestly do not understand why WSMR have filed this new application for paths on the WCML to London Euston. Have WSMR not read the reasons the ORR gave for rejecting their previous application?

 

[NorthWalian]

True but the target market is really Shrewsbury and stations east to London, rather than Wrexham.
And the fare offer from Wrexham will presumably significantly undercut Avanti too, making up for the slower journey.

Their proposal is to have the Avanti service scrapped

 

[The Planner]

Their proposal is to have the Avanti service scrapped

That will be a brave decision by whoever approves that.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Their proposal is to have the Avanti service scrapped

Yes, I see the following in the Form P.

The Government have made clear their view of the limited role for open access passenger train operators in future under Great British Railways and taking business or parts of a route away from Great British Railways passenger train services will clearly not be something than open access passenger train operators will be permitted to do.

The Government are clearly not going to give up an Avanti West Coast daily train to and from Wrexham to enable WSMR or any other open access passenger train operator to provide the service and get the fare revenue instead.

On assuming the Government would do this and assuming that they can have paths on the WCML that were refused by ORR on 3 July 2025 WSMR are just not living in the real world.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-12/wsmr-ltd-s17-form-p.pdf

Commercial impact on other operators
Revenue analysis indicates that the WSMR service proposition meets the ORR’s benchmark NPA criteria – in other words, it is not primarily abstractive. The assumptions underpinning the revenue analysis are shared separately with the ORR.
The new WSMR train service will provide passengers with more choice, attractive and flexible fares and higher levels in customer service and quality. This represents an opportunity for WSMR to grow the market for rail travel within the service’s catchment area. In addition, WSMR services could offer potential cost savings to the DfT if these enable re-deployment of train, staff, and route-knowledge resources away from the single contracted Avanti train per day on the Wrexham-Chester-London Euston route (noting that this has already occurred with the daily Shrewsbury/Telford-London service withdrawal in 2024 which followed WSMR’s first March 2024 track access application).

WSMR Customer and Stakeholder Benefits
WSMR will provide:

• An opportunity for DfT to reduce Avanti franchise operator costs through the removal of the need to provide 1 service per day between Wrexham and London.

 

[robspaceman]

If Avanti/DfT can’t make their Wrexham service pay (no idea whether that’s the case or not, but the pisspoor Avanti Shrewsbury service probably didn’t pay, as it was so uselessly timed, extortionately priced, and frequently cancelled) then they should be only too happy to let an OA operator take on the risk.

Paths permitting…

 

[NorthWalian]

If Avanti/DfT can’t make their Wrexham service pay (no idea whether that’s the case or not, but the pisspoor Avanti Shrewsbury service probably didn’t pay, as it was so uselessly timed, extortionately priced, and frequently cancelled) then they should be only too happy to let an OA operator take on the risk.

Paths permitting…

It seems that they are using the paths of the existing Avanti Wrexham service to make some room

The challenge will be to convince them to give up the path fully rather than use it to say Liverpool

 

[weeklycommuter]

If Avanti/DfT can’t make their Wrexham service pay (no idea whether that’s the case or not, but the pisspoor Avanti Shrewsbury service probably didn’t pay, as it was so uselessly timed, extortionately priced, and frequently cancelled) then they should be only too happy to let an OA operator take on the risk.

Paths permitting…

It seems that they are using the paths of the existing Avanti Wrexham service to make some room

The challenge will be to convince them to give up the path fully rather than use it to say Liverpool

The Avanti services from Wrexham General to London Euston at 0703 and from London Euston to Wrexham General at 1802 are regular hourly Avanti services between London Euston and Chester extended to/from Wrexham General. The Wrexham General to London Euston service at 0703 joins at Chester with the 0548 Holyhead to London Euston.

This looks to be a very efficient use of rolling stock so I doubt if there is significant extra cost but it may generate significant additional fare revenue from the convenience of a direct train service Wrexham General to/from London Euston. I cannot see any reason why Avanti or the Government would want to stop running this one extension a day each way Chester to/from Wrexham General.

 

[NorthWalian]

The Avanti services from Wrexham General to London Euston at 0703 and from London Euston to Wrexham General at 1802 are regular hourly Avanti services between London Euston and Chester extended to/from Wrexham General. The Wrexham General to London Euston service at 0703 joins at Chester with the 0548 Holyhead to London Euston.

This looks to be a very efficient use of rolling stock so I doubt if there is significant extra cost but it may generate significant additional fare revenue from the convenience of a direct train service Wrexham General to/from London Euston. I cannot see any reason why Avanti or the Government would want to stop running this one extension a day each way Chester to/from Wrexham General.

Good point. I can’t imagine the 0548 being given up so easily.

This will be dead in the water (at least to Euston)