Grand Central apply for Newcastle - Brighton direct

[30907]

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.

Which is where it all started in 1980(ish). 2330 off Manchester IIRC.

 

[A S Leib]

My real POV is that GWR should jump in and make the Bristol-Oxford hourly, and extend it to Moor St.

Given reliability concerns (I don't think the Great Western Main Line's brilliant as it is) and the small number I suspect would be making cross-Oxford journeys, I think that would be better kept as separate services.

 

[driverd]

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

What I'm getting at is that there must be clear evidence that this bid isn't going to fall foul of being primarily abstracive. That doesn't mean all parties will agree on the matter - just that it shouldn't be dismissed as such on face value. GC must have what they see as solid ground for this being a credible bid, likely as a result of modelling using industry standard tools.

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

As I say, they have as much right to  ask for the use of any path as anyone else (referencing the original post saying a 5 car unit was a waste).

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.

Why would that be the case? XC don't have the resources to fulfil the current timetable and the remaining paths (as you say) have been partially used by freight, which may well mean the resultant paths don't work to form anything like a clockface timetable in keeping with the other services or work in terms of unit balancing - which is where a bespoke operation which deviates from the other services provided by XC may well be better suited.

Given both operations are under the arriva banner, I would also speculate that XC will have been well aware of this application prior to it being public.

 

[stadler]

I thought this was a late April Fools Day joke when i first saw it. Imagine putting 180s on the Brighton Main Line route. That is a just a recipe for a disaster. I am certain there will be multiple occasions when they break down or set on fire and cause massive disruption on the Brighton Main Line all day. So if it is 180s then i am very against this plan.

Also it seems odd to skip out Burgess Hill and Dorking in the calling pattern. These are decent sized towns so i whilst expect the service to call there. It is planned to call at Haywards Heath which is the same size.

 

[Russel]

I thought this was a late April Fools Day joke when i first saw it. Imagine putting 180s on the Brighton Main Line route. That is a just a recipe for a disaster. I am certain there will be multiple occasions when they break down or set on fire and cause massive disruption on the Brighton Main Line all day. So if it is 180s then i am very against this plan.

That's a very good point, the 180s poor reliability is well known and given the route this service will take, do we really want a 180 self combusting and taking out the core Cross-country route or Birmingham New Street, Brighton Mainline, Reading etc...

I to am against this if 180s are the plan.

 

[Iskra]

That's a very good point, the 180s poor reliability is well known and given the route this service will take, do we really want a 180 self combusting and taking out the core Cross-country route or Birmingham New Street, Brighton Mainline, Reading etc...

I to am against this if 180s are the plan.

GC have ordered IET’s and have an option to order more. Is there any evidence they would use 180’s over an add on order of IET’s?

 

[Watershed]

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.

That's the first thing that came to mind when I saw the calling pattern. The DfT really don't seem keen on XC's Reading/Newcastle axis services being reinstated in full. If they won't run the services, I'd be glad to see someone else do so.

That said, it's a shame if it ends up being run by GC. They really need to up their game in terms of rolling stock reliability. 180s would be a disaster waiting to happen on such busy corridors, especially since they are almost all 2-track unlike most of the sections of the ECML that GC use.

The ORR also need to make any further track access approvals conditional on GC demonstrating a big improvement on their compliance with their existing PRO licence obligations. They currently leave a lot of customers in the lurch when there are cancellations.

 

[trainmania100]

How long can we expect this to take before it gets the go ahead ?

 

[Class15]

How long can we expect this to take before it gets the go ahead ?

You’re assuming that it gets the go ahead at all - I wouldn’t be so sure.

 

[Snow1964]

BBC article on Gatwick second runway, as part of Secretary of State being minded to approve Gatwick had to come up with aircraft noise reduction plans and getting 54% to/from airport by public transport.

Anyone else spot the obvious conflict of interest in SoS decision, encourage ORR to rapidly approve application to help increase public transport share, or continue being negative because of abstraction from nationalised railways

The airport also said it accepts a requirement to have 54% of passengers using public transport before it brings the Northern Runway into operation - but it needs support.
Gatwick said it needs help from third parties, including the Department for Transport, to support delivery of the conditions and improvements required to meet the target.
This would include reinstating the full Gatwick Express train service, the airport said.

Gatwick Airport accepts 'stricter' limits on noise for expansion

Gatwick has responded to the Secretary of State's request for feedback on additional conditions.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[JonathanH]

Anyone else spot the obvious conflict of interest in SoS decision, encourage ORR to rapidly approve application to help increase public transport share, or continue being negative because of abstraction from nationalised railways

No. The public transport share at Gatwick Airport could be increased simply by running better services from the local area, rather than some open access operator disrupting timetable patterns with five trains a day from far flung destinations.

It is notable that the article you quoted has the airport viewing increasing Gatwick Express back up to 4tph as the step that would increase public transport share, despite all the criticism that operation gets on this forum, rather than five through trains a day from the Midlands and the North.

 

[Bald Rick]

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?

None.

AIUI, the cross country paths are largely coming back in the timetable changes that are being worked on now. Arriva will know this.

I must say I find this one very odd, IMHO.

 

[Snow1964]

I must say I find this one very odd, IMHO.

I think this is a reflection of society change.

Many older of partly infirm people don't like changing trains, no longer like long distance driving, and would rather a through train to close to destination when visiting relatives when they can be met or get taxi.

At same time many of the younger generation (in 20s) don't drive and want to be able to get from A to B without having to go via London, or to/from the tech hub areas where their school / university friends are now based so they can visit them.

XC is basically operating a pared down early 1990s route network, it hasn't (with DfT resistance) caught up.

Although I don't have the data I bet if you compared the 500 biggest flows (origin to destination station) with data from 35 years ago it would reveal lots of changes, but train routings haven't been recast to reflect them. That's why others can crunch the data and spot gaps between demand and service provided, presumably gaps that are big enough to justify multiple direct trains each day. I think someone on here did some origin-destination crunch (can't find it) but would be interesting to see numbers between the suggested stations. Really should probably be looking at each as a railhead and adding the alternative local stations within say 3-4 miles into each planned to be served station.
.

 

[Mikey C]

Most of Gatwick's flights are short haul ones, of the sort replicated across the country. Someone in Birmingham or Newcastle would find many of the same destinations available from their local airport.

 

[dastocks]

It is notable that the article you quoted has the airport viewing increasing Gatwick Express back up to 4tph as the step that would increase public transport share, despite all the criticism that operation gets on this forum, rather than five through trains a day from the Midlands and the North.

Gatwick Express is now only useful for people who want to get/from to Victoria, which is actually quite a limited market. For most of the rest of London, and onward journeys to the rest of the country, the journey planners direct travelers to Thameslink or other Southern services for South and SW London.
As a frequent GX user I find the current half-hourly service is lightly loaded north of Gatwick in comparison to Thameslink, which has many more useful connections in central London.

 

[Magdalia]

Most of Gatwick's flights are short haul ones, of the sort replicated across the country. Someone in Birmingham or Newcastle would mind many of the same destinations available from their local airport.

This isn't correct. The different London area airports serve different portfolios of destinations.

For example, here in the Fens I have a neighbour who visits family in Spain. The local airport in Spain only has flights from Gatwick, so they fly from Gatwick instead of flying from Stansted or Luton with a much more inconvenient onward journey in Spain.

 

[Class15]

This isn't correct. The different London area airports serve different portfolios of destinations.

For example, here in the Fens I have a neighbour who visits family in Spain. The local airport in Spain only has flights from Gatwick, so they fly from Gatwick instead of flying from Stansted or Luton with a much more inconvenient onward journey in Spain.

Correct. Vueling probably? (They only serve Gatwick IIRC)

 

[williamn]

I’m always amazed at how many people just won’t travel by train if they have to change trains. Doing a hop across London with luggage on the tube is probably doubly unappealing. So I’m sure this would open up direct journeys to a lot of change phobic passengers.

 

[The Planner]

What I'm getting at is that there must be clear evidence that this bid isn't going to fall foul of being primarily abstracive. That doesn't mean all parties will agree on the matter - just that it shouldn't be dismissed as such on face value. GC must have what they see as solid ground for this being a credible bid, likely as a result of modelling using industry standard tools.

Go Op have tried that for the last 10 years. So has Ian Yeowart. Still hasn't worked

As I say, they have as much right to  ask for the use of any path as anyone else (referencing the original post saying a 5 car unit was a waste).

They do, the same rights as anyone who fancies setting up an OAO with no cash or assets. They still have to be looked at.

Why would that be the case? XC don't have the resources to fulfil the current timetable and the remaining paths (as you say) have been partially used by freight, which may well mean the resultant paths don't work to form anything like a clockface timetable in keeping with the other services or work in terms of unit balancing - which is where a bespoke operation which deviates from the other services provided by XC may well be better suited.

Given both operations are under the arriva banner, I would also speculate that XC will have been well aware of this application prior to it being public.

XC are bidding to put the paths back.

 

[Watershed]

XC are bidding to put the paths back.

It's one thing to bid for the paths again (which I suspect they'll struggle to get in places, having abandoned them for several years), but do they actually have the DfT funding to run them?

Actions speak louder than words; I'll believe the plans when I see the trains running.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's one thing to bid for the paths again (which I suspect they'll struggle to get in places, having abandoned them for several years), but do they actually have the DfT funding to run them?

yes. But that was the wrong question!

 

[Railwaysceptic]

They propose going the long way round:

From Newcastle, serving Durham, Darlington, Northallerton, York, Doncaster, Sheffield, Derby, Burton-on-Trent, Birmingham New Street, Warwick Parkway, Banbury, Oxford, Reading, Wokingham, Guildford, Redhill, London Gatwick, Haywards Heath then Brighton

Thank you.

 

[Mikey C]

This isn't correct. The different London area airports serve different portfolios of destinations.

For example, here in the Fens I have a neighbour who visits family in Spain. The local airport in Spain only has flights from Gatwick, so they fly from Gatwick instead of flying from Stansted or Luton with a much more inconvenient onward journey in Spain.

Not all, but a significant number of Gatwick destinations are served by northern airports.

How many people from Newcastle say regularly fly from Gatwick, and would benefit from a direct train?

 

[Snex]

Must say from a North East perspective, I'd much rather see something like

North East - Doncaster - Sheffield - Derby - Leicester - Bedford - Bletchley - Bicester Village - Oxford - Down to Brighton

Be quite a useful service as getting from the North East to the East Midlands is quite difficult currently, due to the problems with Crosscountry. Would be useful for Luton airport aswell as it's just a quick hop on Thameslink to Bedford for connections and makes use of the new East-West line. Not to mention all the links in between like Bicester Village and what not. Ideally Nottingham would be better than Derby but that would involve a turn back.

This proposed service imo is completely useless and is wasting more limited paths on the ECML.

 

[supervc-10]

Gatwick does have some longer flights that aren't offered from elsewhere in the country (see BA's long-haul operations there, for example, or secondary airlines like Nigeria's notoriously misnamed Air Peace), but they don't make up the majority of passengers. Most people will be flying somewhere with other options available from other airports across the country. There are some closer Gatwick exclusives, like @Magdalia 's neighbours trips to Spain, but they make up a minority.

Looking at the top-10 destinations from Gatwick listed on Wiki, we have Barcelona, Malaga, Dublin, Rome, Dubai, Faro, Alicante, Milan, Geneva, Antalya (in that order). I am quite sure you can fly direct on most of those routes from Heathrow, Manchester, Birmingham, or Newcastle.

I feel like this would be a classic 'XC' type route - a bunch of smaller trips combined into one train, with very few if any making truly long journeys on it.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Is there a link? The ORR website can be a right pain in the proverbial to navigate!

It is on the Network Rail Consultation webpages Current Track Access Consultations at the following link, not the main ORR website. In addition to whether the paths will be available or the service attractive to rail passengers compared to the Midland and East Coast Mainlines and Thameslink route I wonder about the availability of the specified rolling stock.
The proposed Birmingham to Gatwick Airport and Brighton service via Oxford, Reading and the North Downs Line may be more interesting than the Birmingham-Doncaster-Newcastle route which already has the Cross Country Trains service and the proposed service to Gatwick Airport and Brighton from the Midland and East Coast Mainline stations which have the routes via Thameslink. Cross Country Trains covers the route between Reading and Birmingham but there is no direct train from Birmingham and Oxford to Gatwick Airport.

Sale of access rights - Network Rail

All passenger and freight train operators who want to use our network require a track access contract, dealt with by our customer teams.

www.networkrail.co.uk

Consultations
Current Track Access Consultations
25.04.2025 - Grand Central Railway Company Limited - Section 17 - Closes 25.05.2025

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sale-of-access-rights/Consultations/Current%20Track%20Access%20Consultations/25.04.2025%20-%20Grand%20Central%20Railway%20Company%20Limited%20-%20Section%2017%20-%20Closes%2025.05.2025/passenger-access-application-form-p%20-%20Grand%20Central%20-%20Newcastle-Brighton.pdf

1.5 Executive summary of the proposed contract or amendment:
Grand Central (GC) is seeking new access rights by way of a new Track Access Contract with Network Rail (NR), to operate up to 6 return services per day between Newcastle and Brighton via London Gatwick. GC is seeking a 7-year contract and will operate the services using Class 180 or Class 22x rolling stock.
Services are planned to commence at Dec-26 PCD calling at Newcastle and Brighton, with intermediate station calls at Durham, Darlington, Northallerton, York, Doncaster, Sheffield, Derby, Burton-on-Trent, Birmingham New Street, Warwick Parkway, Banbury, Oxford, Reading, Wokingham, Guildford, Redhill, Gatwick Airport and Haywards Heath.
Introduction of these services will allow for new direct rail connectivity between the South Coast, in particular London Gatwick and the Midlands and Northeast of England. This will remove the need for passengers to transit through London, offering a transformational benefit to passengers travelling between these regions. The services will also allow for a greater variety of environmentally friendly options for travel to Gatwick Airport. Where the proposed GC service runs in parallel with existing CrossCountry services, new station stops add to the passenger offering, providing new connectivity and to bring passengers the benefits of excellent customer service and value for money associated with existing GC services.

There is also a proposed timetable at the following link. Only four of the six proposed daily services go all the way between Newcastle and Brighton. One early morning Birmingham to Brighton and Birmingham to Newcastle, one late evening Brighton to Birmingham and Newcastle to Birmingham. The services between Newcastle and Birmingham are the same via Doncaster route as the Cross County Trains service between Reading and Newcastle.

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sale-of-access-rights/Consultations/Current%20Track%20Access%20Consultations/25.04.2025%20-%20Grand%20Central%20Railway%20Company%20Limited%20-%20Section%2017%20-%20Closes%2025.05.2025/Newcastle-Brighton%20-%20Application%20Timetable.pdf

 

[Snex]

Gatwick does have some longer flights that aren't offered from elsewhere in the country (see BA's long-haul operations there, for example, or secondary airlines like Nigeria's notoriously misnamed Air Peace), but they don't make up the majority of passengers. Most people will be flying somewhere with other options available from other airports across the country. There are some closer Gatwick exclusives, like @Magdalia 's neighbours trips to Spain, but they make up a minority.

Looking at the top-10 destinations from Gatwick listed on Wiki, we have Barcelona, Malaga, Dublin, Rome, Dubai, Faro, Alicante, Milan, Geneva, Antalya (in that order). I am quite sure you can fly direct on most of those routes from Heathrow, Manchester, Birmingham, or Newcastle.

I feel like this would be a classic 'XC' type route - a bunch of smaller trips combined into one train, with very few if any making truly long journeys on it.

Let's be honest no-one is going to travel 4 hours+ on a train to connect to a flight at Gatwick from the North of the England regardless as it makes absolutely no sense. It's not like you can judge it on anything else as it has no other purpose literally as it duplicates an existing service.

Anyone from the North East, for example, needing these long flights will be connecting via Heathrow, Amsterdam, Dubai or Frankfurt to do those type of journeys which will be cheaper aswell. I'm sure East Midlands will have similar flights for people down there, not to mention Birmingham and Manchester Airports are both nearby.

Even if the service somehow served Heathrow, the same problems would exist and it's not like you can go down the price route either as British trains are generally a rip off and that's ignoring the lack of any formal connection so if the train is delayed then that's your flight gone etc.

 

[NCT]

The miniscule number of passengers for whom Gatwick is the only airport of choice, the 4+ hour journey time to get there, and the small number of trains per day (you are either going to be too late or too early for your flight) make me think this Gatwick thing can only be a gimmick.

 

[The Planner]

It is on the Network Rail Consultation webpages Current Track Access Consultations at the following link, not the main ORR website. In addition to whether the paths will be available or the service attractive to rail passengers compared to the East Coast Mainline and Thameslink route I wonder about the availability of the specified rolling stock.




There is also a proposed timetable at the following link. Only four of the six proposed daily services go all the way between Newcastle and Brighton. One early morning Birmingham to Brighton and Birmingham to Newcastle, one late evening Brighton to Birmingham and Newcastle to Birmingham. The services between Newcastle and Birmingham are the same via Doncaster route as the Cross County Trains service between Reading and Newcastle.

So it is the XC paths if they are xx.33 and xx.27 off New St. The northbound paths clash at New St.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought that in one of the various ECML Dec 2025 threads it was stated that the existing XC TOC could not reinstate the entire hourly Reading to Newcastle service because of pathing conflicts between York and Newcastle. If that’s correct, how can GC use the same paths from Reading through New St and as far as York AND then extend to/from Newcastle?