The plan sounded like a parody of Britain's beleaguered railways: from 15 December, the fastest morning train from Manchester to London would run as normal, but with one critical difference – no passengers would be allowed on board. After a swift and fierce public backlash, the regulator performed a sharp U-turn, but the episode has exposed the deep-seated conflicts and capacity crises plaguing the network.
The 'No Passengers' Plan That Sparked Outrage
The service in question is the 07:00 Avanti West Coast express from Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston. Covering the 184-mile journey in just one hour and 59 minutes, it is the only train of the day to connect the two cities in under two hours, making it a vital asset for business travellers needing to reach the capital before 9am. Many passengers pay the steep £193 'anytime' fare for this privilege.
However, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), the industry regulator, initially ruled that from mid-December, this train should run as 'empty coaching stock'. The reason centred on the allocation of precious train 'paths' – akin to airport slots – on the congested West Coast Main Line. Network Rail had designated this particular path as a 'firebreak', a buffer in the timetable to help recover services during disruptions like signal failures.
The ORR's original position was that an empty train could be moved or delayed flexibly to aid overall performance, whereas a passenger service had to stick rigidly to its schedule. The decision seemed to prioritise theoretical network fluidity over the very real demand from fare-paying passengers and taxpayers.
A Costly Reversal and Lingering Questions
The notion of running a 500-tonne, 125mph train empty for nearly 200 miles – incurring huge energy costs, wear and tear, and staff wages – was widely condemned as wasteful and illogical. The train operator, Avanti West Coast, expressed its disappointment, highlighting clear passenger demand for the service.
Facing days of public and media outrage, the ORR abruptly reversed its decision. A spokesperson stated: "We recognise its importance and popularity and will support its continued operation." While this was a victory for common sense, it left unresolved the fundamental issue of capacity.
The episode raises critical questions about who ultimately controls Britain's railways. The Department for Transport (DfT) prescribes most services, but the ORR adjudicates on competitive access. This conflict is exemplified by new 'open access' operators, like the proposed Lumo service from Stirling to London, competing for the same scarce paths that Avanti needs.
A Symptom of a Bigger Crisis: The Ghost of HS2
Analysts were quick to point out that this 'ghost train' saga perfectly articulates the need for increased rail capacity. The long-term solution, a dedicated high-speed line between Manchester and London, was precisely the plan for HS2 until Prime Minister Rishi Sunak axed the northern leg to Manchester in 2023. The incoming Labour government has not revived it.
Without new infrastructure, such conflicts are destined to recur. The incident also cast a light on other 'ghost trains' across the UK – services that run infrequently, sometimes just once a week, not for passengers but to fulfil legal obligations or maintain driver route knowledge. An example is the Saturday-only Northern service from Stalybridge to Stockport, which has no return journey.
This is not the first bizarre timetable story. In the late 1990s, services on the West Coast Main Line were deliberately held for up to ten minutes to allow a 'ghost' Eurostar train to overtake them – a service that was timetabled but never actually ran, leaving passengers waiting pointlessly for a train that didn't exist.
The reversal on the 07:00 from Manchester is a reprieve, but it is a temporary fix. It underscores a network operating at the edge of its capacity, where the needs of passengers, operators, and infrastructure managers are increasingly at odds, with no easy solution in sight.
