The recent admission from the rail regulator regarding its decision to operate a so-called 'ghost train' service from Manchester to London has raised significant eyebrows. In a striking revelation, the Office of Road and Rail (ORR) has acknowledged that it "lacked essential information" when it chose not to permit passengers on this key peak-time route.
John Larkinson, the chief executive of ORR, pointed out that the decision was made in the absence of several critical details. Specifically, the regulator did not realize that the train would be fully staffed, would depart from Manchester Piccadilly station instead of a depot, and that it was intended to arrive at Euston to transition into the 09:30 GMT service bound for Glasgow.
Larkinson stated, "The insights we received afterward showed that our earlier assumptions were inaccurate." This comes on the heels of a backlash the ORR faced in November when it opted to allow the well-frequented 07:00 train to operate but only with crew members onboard, effectively rendering it non-passenger service.
Originally set to take effect in mid-December, this controversial decision was swiftly reversed following widespread criticism, notably from Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander. The ORR had previously justified their stance by claiming that running the train without passengers was necessary to keep an open slot in the timetable, which would act as a buffer in case of delays.
However, in a communication to Ruth Cadbury, chair of Parliament's Transport Committee, Larkinson clarified that the information that emerged later indicated the time slot could no longer serve as an effective delay management tool. He further explained that the ORR team responsible for evaluating the application had failed to seek additional clarification from Avanti, the train operating company. Had they done so, he suggested, their conclusion might have differed. He noted that the team was already overwhelmed with 82 "complex and competing" track access requests at that time.
Even after the operating company raised concerns in early November, those points were not escalated properly within the ORR, as outlined in Larkinson's letter. He described this situation as "atypical, yet one we can learn from" and took full accountability for the oversight. He added that the organization is committed to improving its processes to ensure such errors are not repeated.
In response, Cadbury, a Labour MP representing Brentford and Isleworth, expressed her astonishment at the ORR's initial decision. She stated that the public found it perplexing to understand why a fully crewed train was not allowed to accommodate passengers, especially given its popularity and profitability.
Cadbury emphasized that now, with the regulator’s acknowledgment and detailed explanation of the circumstances, there is a clearer understanding of the issue. She mentioned that the Transport Committee would actively seek solutions to prevent similar occurrences as the government moves toward establishing Great British Railways.
