Updated 09.36

Several open access proposals being considered by the Office of Rail and Road have been rejected. They include three from Virgin Trains as well as one each from Alstom and FirstGroup.

The ORR says the reason in each case was the lack of capacity on the congested West Coast Main Line south of Rugby. Network Rail had objected to all the applications for capacity reasons, and also because of power supply limitations.

Virgin would have used diesel units at first – probably Class 222s cascaded from the Midland Main Line – but was proposing to use new electric trains later on.

The Virgin routes would have been from London Euston to Manchester Piccadilly, Rochdale and Preston, from London Euston to Liverpool Lime Street, and from London Euston to Birmingham New Street. 

FirstGroup had been proposing to run six Lumo trains a day from London to Rochdale, using bi-mode rolling stock, and Alstom wanted to revive the London-Wrexham service which ceased in 2011, running diesel trains five times a day.

If all the applications had been granted they would have occupied 62 paths on the WCML, 31 in each direction, and Network Rail had told the ORR that ‘there is insufficient capacity for additional services on WCML South Fast Lines; any additional services will impact performance and erode what timetable resilience there is’.

The ORR’s director of strategy, policy and reform Stephanie Tobyn said: ‘After thorough assessment of each application, it was clear that there was insufficient capacity to approve any of the services without a serious negative impact on the level of train performance that passengers experience on the West Coast Main Line.

‘We recognise the potential advantages of competition on the West Coast Main Line, which is why we approved in 2024 the new London-Stirling services that First Group are due to start operating in 2026. However, it is clear that the southern end of the route requires space in the timetable to provide resilience.  Additional services within the current timetable structure and planned capacity use would further weaken punctuality and reliability, not just at the south end of the WCML but elsewhere as well.’

More applications are outstanding, including more from FirstGroup and one from Arriva to run between Newcastle and Brighton.

Reactions

Virgin Group said: ‘Virgin’s proposed services on the West Coast Main Line would have delivered excellent value for customers and taxpayers alike by adding five million additional seats every year from a trusted brand with a track-record for delivering award-winning, reliable train services for its customers.

‘Today’s decision is a blow for consumer choice and competition. We still believe, that given the opportunity, Virgin’s Open Access routes could play a valuable role in delivering the high-quality train services the British public deserve and GBR wants to encourage.

’Virgin Trains took the West Coast Main Line from eight million to 42 million passengers per year, all while increasing innovation, topping customer satisfaction surveys and trebling services. Anyone who remembers British Rail would rather forget it. Competition improves services, increases rail ridership, and drives better results for everyone, including the taxpayer.

‘For now, Virgin is focused on bringing much-needed competition to the cross-Channel route by igniting a new era in international rail services for travellers on both sides of the Channel.’

WSMR said it was ‘extremely disappointed’, especially as its bid had been ‘the only current application to receive support’ from the DfT.

It continued: ‘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.

‘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 re-engage with the ORR and determine our next steps.’

FirstGroup said: ‘We are disappointed at the ORR decision not to approve our application for new Lumo open access services between London and Rochdale via Newton-le-Willows and will continue to explore further potential opportunities for that route.’

Readers’ comments

Clearly ORR has taken heed of the input from NR with strong DfT support over the operational capability of WCML South of accommodating additional OA services with the existing infrastructure without compromising the performance of the current timetable. Also by rejecting all bids it avoids adjudicating over hypothetical paths where no doubt conflicting bids have been made for the same space in the timetable. Some bids have always looked more realistic than others, the Virgin bid being particularly fanciful especially the land grab for paths currently allocated to Avanti but unoccupied while the latter recovers from its past woeful performance and fully commissions and utilises its Eviro fleet. However I'm sure once the ORR decision has been digested challenges will be made from those with more realistic aspirations. A challenge also to DfT and its currently contracted TOCs. Under the pretence of cost saving Avanti was instructed to withdraw serving Shrewsbury. As much as anything this was a political decision by the previous government to open the door to the proposed OA operation. As strong political support exists for this extension of Euston-Wolves to be restored especially as Enviro fleet was procured with capacity to cover these services.

Chris Jones-Bridger, Buckley, Flintshire

There was a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report some ten years ago, date uncertain, which gave several possible solutions for the sharing of infrastructure (inevitable with multiple operators, both freight and passenger) on the privatised railway. The one that caught my attention was for the sale of ‘bundles of paths’ to be auctioned to the interested operators. They may well in this case, have had a ‘Dutch auction’ in mind, starting high and working down. That, of course, regards all aspiring operators as having an equal ‘right’, under just one legal position. 

David C. Smith, Bletchley, Milton Keynes

Do you have a comment on this story? Please click here to send an email to Platform at Railnews.