Alliance Rail Claims ‘Vindication’ Despite Second Rejection of Open Access Proposal

Alliance Rail says it feels vindicated after the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) acknowledged problems in the way information was presented during its original review of the company’s proposed open access services between Marchwood, Southampton Central and London Waterloo.

The regulator has reconsidered the application but has again decided not to approve it.

The proposal, submitted by Alliance Rail, would have introduced services linking Marchwood and Southampton Central with London Waterloo. However, after reassessing the case, ORR maintained its position that the application should be rejected.

In its updated assessment, ORR accepted that its earlier review “did not accurately reflect underlying analysis of available capacity”. It also acknowledged that figures used in the original board paper and decision letter “did not align with the deconfliction work” carried out between Alliance and Network Rail, which concluded in December 2025.

Alliance Rail Managing Director Ian Yeowart had strongly criticised the first decision, describing the original rejection letter as “shoddy, unevidenced and, concerningly, factually incorrect in many areas”.

Following ORR’s admission, Yeowart said the company felt “vindicated in what we said”, particularly after the regulator had previously raised concerns about a “lack of credible evidence on the financial viability relating to the required investment in infrastructure”.

Speaking to RAIL, he said: “They have said it themselves, they didn’t do everything properly.”

He added: “It’s as if every opportunity to twist the knife, they have taken it. To be in effect told we don’t know what we are doing didn’t go down well with the team.”

Yeowart confirmed that Alliance intends to submit the proposal again in future. However, he said the 18-month process had “cost a fortune” and left the company “months behind where we should be” in its efforts to secure approval.

One of the central issues in the dispute is capacity. ORR’s original decision suggested that only two of Alliance’s 41 weekday paths could be accommodated. That assessment has now been revised. Network Rail’s later review of 33 paths found that 12 would require major timetable changes, four would require moderate changes, and 17 would need only minor or no changes.

Despite that revised position, ORR said Network Rail’s formal view had not changed. The regulator stated: “NR confirmed that, despite this representing a significant improvement upon the initial submission, its formal position remained unchanged, and it did not support Alliance’s application on capacity grounds.”

Yeowart continues to dispute the capacity argument, pointing to the 33 paths as evidence that a compliant timetable is achievable. He also questioned how the South Western Main Line could be considered capacity constrained when an upcoming timetable recast is expected to increase South Western Railway fleet mileage by 8%.

After the initial rejection, he told RAIL: “If 8% more mileage is planned, how has the route not got more capacity?”

Alliance had also challenged ORR’s references to reinstating bay Platform 5 at Southampton Central, an option the company said it had already dropped. The regulator has now removed those references from its revised decision.

However, ORR continues to argue that there remains a major funding gap between Alliance’s proposed infrastructure investment and the cost Network Rail believes would be required to restore the Marchwood line to passenger standards.

ORR said: “The difference (of several millions) in the estimates shows the need for an agreed funding plan for the works.”

Alliance says it has allocated £4 million for improvements, including new barriers at Marchwood’s locally controlled level crossing and upgrades to the town’s disused station, based on work carried out by Amey. Yeowart said Network Rail had estimated the required works at £10 million, but that Alliance had not seen the detailed calculations behind that figure.

Revenue abstraction also remains a sticking point. ORR has retained its forecast that the services would abstract between £21.5 million and £22.5 million from South Western Railway, despite Alliance saying its own expected revenue would be around £14 million.

The regulator remains unconvinced that the proposal would meet the Not Primarily Abstractive threshold, which requires a ratio of at least 0.3. Alliance’s own analysis put the figure at 0.56, but ORR said the application “lacked sufficient evidence of how much more new revenue would be generated”.

ORR also referred to an estimate that at least 20% of journeys from Marchwood would be new to rail, which it said would produce an NPA ratio of 0.25.

Yeowart questioned that assumption, noting that Marchwood station is currently disused and arguing that ORR had not benchmarked the proposal against other reopened lines.

The choice of rolling stock has also remained under scrutiny. Alliance has proposed using Class 769 DC electric/diesel bi-mode trains, which it says can operate at the South Western Main Line’s 100mph line speed.

ORR said: “Our considered view is that Alliance Rail’s analysis of the Class 769 trains does not provide robust evidence that they have the same capabilities, such as acceleration, as the Class 450 trains.”

The regulator said differences in sectional running times meant it did “not agree” that the Class 769s could currently meet the timings Alliance had used in its timetable work, creating a potential risk to performance.

Yeowart said real-time sectional running times, rather than timings rounded up to the nearest 30 seconds, show a much closer comparison. However, he accepted that further work is needed and said Alliance would be keen to operate test trains.

After reconsidering the case, ORR said its board had upheld the rejection.

An ORR spokesperson said: “The Board has reaffirmed its decision not to approve the Alliance application. Based on the evidence submitted, we carefully considered the beneficial aspects of this application as well as potential performance impacts, lack of capacity and concerns over operational viability.”

The spokesperson added: “We regret that capacity information was inaccurately presented to the Board initially, and we took the important and necessary step to reconvene the Board to present accurate information. Through this we also reflected that Platform 5 at Southampton was not part of our analysis and we clarified uncertainty in revenue and abstraction forecasts to ensure they were confident of the decision. Our underlying analysis was accurate, but presentation of it to the Board was not.”

ORR also confirmed it is reviewing how such decisions are prepared, saying: “We are reviewing internal processes around quality assurance and drafting and will make the necessary improvements. This includes an independent review from an outside party.”