The rail regulator's recent admission regarding the decision to operate a 'ghost train' service between Manchester and London has sparked considerable discussion. It openly acknowledged that it lacked essential information when it chose to prohibit passengers from boarding a peak-time train on this route.
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) revealed that critical details were missing at the time the decision was made, which would have allowed the train to run daily without carrying any passengers for an extended period.
John Larkinson, the chief executive of the ORR, explained that they were unaware the train would be fully staffed and that it would depart from Manchester Piccadilly instead of a depot. Additionally, it needed to reach Euston to transition into the 09:30 GMT service heading to Glasgow.
"The information that became available later indicated that our initial assumptions were incorrect," Larkinson stated.
This revelation follows a wave of criticism directed at the ORR in November after it decided to permit the highly sought-after 07:00 train to operate, albeit exclusively with staff on board. This ruling, which was intended to take effect in mid-December, faced immediate backlash, notably from Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander, leading to a swift reversal.
Initially, the ORR justified its decision by claiming the service had to run empty to maintain a scheduled gap—a so-called firebreak—in the timetable designed to accommodate potential delays. However, in a subsequent letter to Ruth Cadbury, chair of Parliament's Transport Committee, Larkinson admitted that the newly uncovered facts meant this scheduling slot should no longer be viewed as an effective firebreak.
He noted that the ORR team responsible for reviewing the application failed to request additional information from Avanti, which could have clarified the situation from the outset. Larkinson suggested that had the team reached out, they might have arrived at a different conclusion. He acknowledged that the staff were under pressure, trying to handle multiple complex decisions simultaneously, with 82 competing applications for track access at the time.
Even when the train operating company raised concerns in early November, those issues were not escalated appropriately, according to Larkinson's letter. He characterized the situation as "unusual, but one from which we will learn valuable lessons."
Taking full responsibility, he mentioned that the ORR is taking steps to enhance their processes to prevent similar oversights in the future.
In response, Cadbury, representing the Labour party for Brentford and Isleworth, expressed that the public found the ORR's decision puzzling. She remarked, "It seemed illogical not to allow the 7:00 a.m. fast service from Manchester to London to carry passengers, particularly when a fully staffed train was already running. This was a perplexing decision, especially considering the train's popularity and profitability, raising numerous questions for the Transport Committee."
With some answers now in hand, she welcomed the detailed explanation and acknowledgment of accountability from the ORR. Cadbury stated that the committee would seek measures to prevent such incidents from recurring as the government moves forward with the establishment of Great British Railways.
