Imagine a scenario where a vital train service disappears, yet somehow, the train itself keeps running—completely empty. That’s exactly what’s happening with one of the UK’s most notable and lucrative early-morning connections between Manchester and London. While the route remains operational, this particular service will no longer be accessible to passengers, prompting widespread frustration and raising serious questions about the future of rail travel—and how decisions are made.
Here’s the reality: starting in mid-December, the 7am train operated by Avanti West Coast from Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston will be halted for passenger service. Yet, curiously, the train will still travel between these two cities each weekday morning—empty, crewed, and on schedule—simply because it needs to reposition itself for subsequent duties on the new timetable. This unusual setup means that for at least five months, possibly longer, the train will run over 100 times without carrying any passengers at all. Rail insiders are universally upset about this decision, which was made by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR).
This change is particularly painful for business travelers. The early train, which used to depart after Stockport and arrive in London just before 9am, was popular for its speed and convenience. With current fares climbing up to nearly £200 for a one-way ticket in peak times—more than what many would consider reasonable—the loss of this direct, non-stop service represents a significant inconvenience and a financial hit to passengers and stakeholders alike.
Tony Miles, a seasoned rail industry expert, commented on this strange development, saying: “It will be on the platform—people will see it, touch it, watch it depart—yet they won’t be able to ride it. Meanwhile, taxpayers continue to fund these empty trains five days a week.” This service first launched in 2008 when Virgin Trains operated it on the west coast mainline. Its suspension during COVID-19 and subsequent challenges under Avanti’s management then led to its partial reopening in 2024. For years, it was celebrated as a major selling point—evidenced by the fact that the journey was just under two hours, making it the fastest link between London and the North.
Both Network Rail and Avanti supported maintaining the service, emphasizing that the train’s capacity would be put to use regardless of passenger occupancy on the network. A senior source summed it up, stating, “People paid a lot of money for that service. If we ever needed proof of how important a guiding hand is in the railway, this situation is it.”
The reason behind the service’s removal lies in the ORR’s broader effort to improve overall railway reliability amidst major timetable adjustments. The upcoming schedule will primarily affect the east coast mainline, but concerns linger about potential disruptions—recalling the chaos caused by the May 2018 timetable overhaul—an incident teeming with cancellations and delays that shook public confidence.
The ORR justified its decision by citing a need for better performance management. New open-access services, like the one launched by First Group’s Lumo to Stirling, are scheduled to start operating concurrently, and these are expected to take revenue away from traditional operators. As a result, the revenue that once flowed to the Department for Transport will now go directly to these private companies.
Avanti has expressed disappointment, with a spokesperson explaining that it will still run the fastest service with crew, but—crucially—without passengers. They lamented the ORR’s decision not to grant access rights for four weekday services, including this crucial early-morning connection, as well as requiring the Holyhead to London service to terminate at Crewe—a move they say will impact existing customers.
The ORR responded by underlining its reliance on evidence from Network Rail, which suggested that adding services within the 'firebreak'—planned gaps in the timetable to accommodate disruptions—would harm overall performance. Running the trains empty allows for more flexibility, such as delays or rerouting, helping to manage disruptions more effectively.
Looking ahead, the new timetable will see the fastest trains between Manchester and London taking approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes, which is a considerable increase from before. Travelers aiming to arrive in London by 9am will now need to catch the early train at 6:29am.
This controversial move has sparked strong criticism from Northern business leaders. Henri Murison, head of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, argued that the ORR’s backing of open-access operators “denies Manchester’s business community access to a vital, fast peak service,” ultimately undermining revenue and economic growth. He also suggested that the regulator’s decisions appear to favor competition over the interests of taxpayers and regional prosperity.
There’s no doubt: these developments raise important questions about the priorities driving UK rail policy. Should profit and competition outweigh passenger convenience and regional economic development? Or is this an example of short-term thinking risking long-term sustainability? Share your views—do you agree with the ORR’s strategy, or do you believe more passenger-focused decisions should take precedence?
