FirstGroup details criticism of Rochdale Lumo rejection – key reason “not a justification”

FirstGroup has said using performance firebreaks until 2028 is not a justification for turning down its open access application for the West Coast Main Line.

Its bid to run Lumo services between London Euston and Rochdale has been rejected by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), along with other open access bids from Virgin and Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway.

FirstGroup has now written to the regulator to request more information about the decision.

The letter, seen by RAIL, says the decision “fails to recognise the service levels which Network Rail (NR) should provide, misunderstands or misapplies ‘firebreaks’ which are not included in the current industry rules, enshrines poor delivery of the infrastructure, withdraws the incentive on Network Rail to improve its services, fails to take due account of ORR’s dues to promote the use of the network and results in economic impoverishment” of the Rochdale area.

In its letter rejecting all three applications, ORR focused on WCML capacity south of Rugby and said nine firebreak paths were needed to help the schedule recover when needed.

Writing to Chief Executive John Larkinson, First Rail’s Managing Director, Steve Montgomery, suggested the decision is “legally and factually flawed”, saying Network Rail’s need for firebreaks go beyond that’s contained in industry rules.

Montgomery wrote that the need for firebreaks was not raised when the bit was submitted in May last year nor when the Euston-Stirling open access application was approved two months earlier.

Referring to ORR’s comment that firebreaks help create a robust timetable, Montgomery said that accepting NR’s submission “would be rewarding it for failure” and the applications were rejected “on the basis that NR cannot reliably provide access to the full capacity of its network”.

“By assuming that NR may maintain clear space which could be used for passenger services, NR is not incentivised to improve performance or capacity overall,” his letter said.

“The ‘net’ capacity of the network will decline over time if, at each test, the infrastructure manager may argue it is entitled to keep capacity to mitigate the consequences of its failure to provide robust infrastructure.”

FirstGroup also said there was “no rationale for why nine performance firebreaks are the right number”, saying the WCML is not being utilised to its full potential and claiming they mask issues.

Montgomery also said to ORR that Lumo planned to introduce services from 2028, “giving NR over three years from the application to manage preparations for the introduction of the services through its CP7 funding”.

Montgomery also claims Lumo would have paid £40 million in Infrastructure Capacity Charge over ten years; lost charges if the application remains rejected.

FirstGroup has requested internal ORR records showing the matters which were considered in the decision and any internal discussions relating to the duty to promote the use of the network and its development to the greatest extent that it considers economically practicable.

It also wants to see records showing analysis and discussions around NR’s firebreaks submission and communication between the regulator and infrastructure owner over the level of performance the WCML should be capable of.

Other requests include ORR’s consideration of the Train Planning Rules and an explanation of the assumed level of network performance with it considers should be the baseline for NR service provision at the date services are due to start (May 2028).

FirstGroup has not decided if it will contest the decision but noted in its letter that the appeals process within the Railways Regulations 2016 “does not allow such a challenge from a decision of the regulator itself”.

ORR is currently reviewing the requests made by FirstGroup.