Grand Central apply for Newcastle - Brighton direct

[swt_passenger]

The big advantage is that you don’t have to go via London which is typically cheaper and means you avoid going to London.

Avoiding London is a fairly big draw.

It isn’t typically cheaper these days. XC turned that on its head years ago. Avoiding London is one of those unsubstantiated railway myths in my opinion.

 

[YorkRailFan]

I’m not sure if you’re agreeing this GC proposal is a waste of space as it will still be much quicker for passengers from the NE to change in London as they do now, than to go round the houses via Birmingham and Reading?

The NE-Reading service provides additional capacity between Birmingham and Reading, and Birmingham and Newcastle. Also provides some helpful connections between Sheffield and Reading. Not agreeing that its a waste of space, I just think that GBR could provide better boosts in capacity using those paths. Such as between Birmingham and Reading.

The big advantage is that you don’t have to go via London which is typically cheaper and means you avoid going to London.

Avoiding London is a fairly big draw.

For some, yes, not changing and avoiding London is far more convenient. For those going to/from Gatwick, the timings will matter most as it will be centered around their flight.

It isn’t typically cheaper these days. XC turned that on its head years ago. Avoiding London is one of those unsubstantiated railway myths in my opinion.

Ah yes, the old XC Super Savers, back when you could do York-Exeter for £24 if you booked in advance! Those days are long gone.

 

[BranstonJnc]

Or Redhill to Brighton.



The only passenger rolling stock permitted through the core is Class 319s, 377s, 387s, 700s, and 717s. No diesels, and no trains with coaches longer than 20 metres.

I am not in any way advocating anything going through Central London. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[Fincra5]

Surely this is aimed at 2 Markets. Brighton to Birmingham and then say Reading to York & Newcastle (XC competition).

But using 1 service. I doubt many would actually do End to End.

 

[BranstonJnc]

Surely this is aimed at 2 Markets. Brighton to Birmingham and then say Reading to York & Newcastle (XC competition).

But using 1 service. I doubt many would actually do End to End.

It's a very strange proposal, which appears to lack merit, and which almost certainly will fail the not primarily abstractive test. Add in a piddly 5 car running five times per day, it won't generate anything. The idea of having to find a compliant path from Redhill to Brighton, somehow probably with a regular set of departure times, doubtful. Then there's the Downs, then there's Moreton Cutting / Didcot East, then you've got the Cherwell Valley, reversals in Birmingham New Street, the section from Derby to Sheffield, and the north ECML. Whatever modelling is being done, even if there is somehow five compliant paths each day, you'd have to say the benefit of leaving the space as a punctuality firebreak or even leaving it available for freight in some places...

 

[A S Leib]

Ah yes, the old XC Super Savers, back when you could do York-Exeter for £24 if you booked in advance! Those days are long gone.

I don't know how long ago that was, but if fares had gone up no higher than inflation, the current cheapest York to Exeter advance (no railcard, no split tickets) would have been £24 in 2002.

 

[Goldfish62]

As long as XC or its GBR successor are unwilling or incapable of providing sufficient capacity on the Reading - Birmingham corridor then I'm rather enthusiastic about this application. And I'm not a particular Open Access fan.

 

[YorkRailFan]

I don't know how long ago that was, but if fares had gone up no higher than inflation, the current cheapest York to Exeter advance (no railcard, no split tickets) would have been £24 in 2002.

Sorry, that was with a railcard back in 2014. Still good value though.

 

[trainmania100]

Sounds like a rediculously long service, what I'm guessing for a single unit would be the longest single end to end journey (despite reversals), of any UK multiple unit passenger train?

 

[JonathanH]

Sounds like a rediculously long service, what I'm guessing for a single unit would be the longest single end to end journey (despite reversals), of any UK multiple unit passenger train?

Seven hours would be less than Aberdeen to Plymouth which is eleven and a half

 

[djox]

It won't be a massive draw. A random, five trains per day, limited ticket operator is nothing compared to a simple DfT-mandated half-hourly service from Reading to Birmingham, in the form of CrossCountry. Look at the aviation industry to see what success looks like: frequency trumps most else.

People can only dream of half-hourly from Oxford or Reading to Birmingham, with seats. XC destroying the route will mean it will take a while to attract people back to the route who now just drive.

 

[trainmania100]

Seven hours would be less than Aberdeen to Plymouth which is eleven and a half

Forgot about that one.

Makes me wonder where GC would stable their trains down south, assuming they wouldn't run an ECS from up north, they'd need to run through the night for the service to actually be viable for passengers , a lot would intend to travel north early AM like 5am-9am,

 

[Bob Price]

A post from Rail magazine on Bluesky mentions that they are proposing to use the 180's freed up by introducing the new Bi Modes on their core services. Unfortunately you need to have a subscription to read the article. However the mention of 180's means diesel along a route that has overhead and third rail.

RAIL Magazine (@railmagazine.bsky.social)

New Grand Central bid for direct Newcastle-Brighton service submitted Complete route will launch under 100% diesel traction with 180s https://www.railmagazine.com/news/2025/04/25/new-grand-central-bid-for-direct-newcastle-brighton-service-submitted

bsky.app

 

[Iskra]

Anything providing additional capacity on the XC core should be welcomed in my opinion. Slightly ironic that only now are Arriva finally doing something to address this issue…

 

[JonathanH]

Makes me wonder where GC would stable their trains down south, assuming they wouldn't run an ECS from up north, they'd need to run through the night for the service to actually be viable for passengers , a lot would intend to travel north early AM like 5am-9am,

Given the nature of Airport travel, it might make sense to run overnight towards Brighton instead of stabling there, then have an early departure back north. The first Reading to Gatwick train currently is 0430. If the train could slot in before, it would allow early arrivals at Brighton (although I note that engineering work means this train starts at Guildford some weeks). In VXC days, the first train north from Gatwick was about 0515, but there isn't an obvious stabling location now.

 

[Class 317]

Anything providing additional capacity on the XC core should be welcomed in my opinion. Slightly ironic that only now are Arriva finally doing something to address this issue…

Unfortunately as XC their hands are tied by DFT

 

[Iskra]

Unfortunately as XC their hands are tied by DFT

So XC couldn’t have used OA previous to now?

 

[JonathanH]

Anything providing additional capacity on the XC core should be welcomed in my opinion. Slightly ironic that only now are Arriva finally doing something to address this issue…

There is some difference to what Arriva can propose as an open access operator to how the service is specified to a DfT operator.

Arriva wouldn't be able operate XC as a going concern without government support. An open access operation has different economics (at the moment).

So XC couldn’t have used OA previous to now?

It doesn't work like that. TOC resources can't be used to support open access.

I think what you are suggesting is that XC could have sourced some more trains itself and filled the gaps in the XC timetable or provided longer trains by leasing more rolling stock. It couldn't just do that.

 

[MotCO]

Would a Thameslink core service ever be allowed or would it be refused on the basis of no paths?

Wouldn't it just be easier to extend Thameslink to Newcastle

 

[driverd]

It's a very strange proposal, which appears to lack merit, and which almost certainly will fail the not primarily abstractive test. Add in a piddly 5 car running five times per day, it won't generate anything.

GC are a long established OA operator who have successfully bid for, introduced and made good on proposals, why would they waste the time and money throwing together a bid that they think won't stand up to scrutiny?

As all operators do, they will have access to the necessary software and datasets to establish how abstractive a service would be ahead of time, and will, no doubt, be able to make a solid case for this service.

The idea of having to find a compliant path from Redhill to Brighton, somehow probably with a regular set of departure times, doubtful. Then there's the Downs, then there's Moreton Cutting / Didcot East, then you've got the Cherwell Valley, reversals in Birmingham New Street, the section from Derby to Sheffield, and the north ECML. Whatever modelling is being done, even if there is somehow five compliant paths each day, you'd have to say the benefit of leaving the space as a punctuality firebreak or even leaving it available for freight in some places...

Ultimately, if they can prove there is a path available and it is compliant with the industry planning rules, they have as much right as anyone else to ask for that space on the graph.

 

[Russel]

Did GC throw two darts at a map of the UK and think, "that'll do"?

 

[The Planner]

GC are a long established OA operator who have successfully bid for, introduced and made good on proposals, why would they waste the time and money throwing together a bid that they think won't stand up to scrutiny?

As all operators do, they will have access to the necessary software and datasets to establish how abstractive a service would be ahead of time, and will, no doubt, be able to make a solid case for this service.

Virgin have tried the same with the WCML and walked away.

Ultimately, if they can prove there is a path available and it is compliant with the industry planning rules, they have as much right as anyone else to ask for that space on the graph.

They can ask for that space, but if its proven its a massive performance killer, they won't be given it.

 

[bengley]

Why has this been moved to speculative when it's clearly an actual announcement by Arriva?

 

[JonathanH]

Why has this been moved to speculative when it's clearly an actual announcement by Arriva?

An actual announcement but highly speculative that it will get approved.

 

[LittleRedTrain]

As I said - if this was run out of Moor St, and hit Didcot / missed Banbury... I think it might be much more tight.

Adding Didcot (for interchange for Swindon/Bristol) might be worthwhile, but I wouldn't miss out Banbury.

It's the Banbury-Oxford section which is suffering heavily from XC's inability to provide a decent service, because there isn't a good quality alternative option (the GWR stopping service is so slow and infrequent that it's mostly useless).
The two largest population centres in Oxfordshire really deserve to be linked by a 2tph all-day service with proper capacity for local commuter/leisure traffic.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Virgin have tried the same with the WCML and walked away.

Virgin had been left with nothing though, so it seemed a case of clutching at straws in the hope of taking anything they could get.

 

[jayah]

It will be interesting to see what they are expecting to be flexed to make this work. I wonder if they are looking for the slots the XC are currently not using.

5 trains each way would literally be the 5 alternate hours Newcastle to Birmingham 'paths' that XC don't use.

York to Oxford is only served 5 times a day.

 

[The Planner]

5 trains each way would literally be the 5 alternate hours Newcastle to Birmingham 'paths' that XC don't use.

York to Oxford is only served 5 times a day.

In which case XC will find a way of running them and its dead in the water (even though some freight paths have flexed into them I believe). I expect they will try and get NR on not using Part J again.

 

[cle]

Adding Didcot (for interchange for Swindon/Bristol) might be worthwhile, but I wouldn't miss out Banbury.

It's the Banbury-Oxford section which is suffering heavily from XC's inability to provide a decent service, because there isn't a good quality alternative option (the GWR stopping service is so slow and infrequent that it's mostly useless).
Two of the biggest population centres in Oxfordshire really deserve at least a 2tph all-day service with proper capacity for local commuter/leisure traffic.

I was thinking for the abstraction thing - Didcot has famously been off XC forever and it is busier than Banbury. Also for a competitive journey time, more so than XC - which is not so express.

Reading - Didcot - Oxford - Warwick - New St as a pattern.

Oxford-Banbury should be served by XC reinstating full service, plus locals/peak extras.

My real POV is that GWR should jump in and make the Bristol-Oxford hourly, and extend it to Moor St.
Then you would have ownership of the Bath/Chippenham/Swindon to Birmingham demand, it would negate some Didcot calls on services like this, and you get a slice of Oxford-Birmingham. It fends off EWR doing a similar service too. Brisol-B'ham end to end of course is not competitive, but you'd be offering Bristol-Banbury and a few other new combinations - and Moor St has capacity. You can evenb chalk up Oxford-Solihull too, as a pair - and own that properly also. It would probably kill the case for this, as well as the Nottingham-EWR-Bristol too.

 

[NCT]

How much of this is (I'm entirely speculating) XC getting told 'no' by the DfT for restoring the pre Covid timetable and the parent company deciding the bypass the DfT through another of its outfits?