The East Midlands sits on a main line to London — yet remains one of the UK’s most expensive places from which to reach the capital.
Derby will soon host the national headquarters of Great British Railways (GBR) — a symbolic return of Britain’s rail heart to the city where trains have been designed and built for generations.
And yet Derby, the city chosen to guide the future of UK rail, suffers from some of the highest long-distance fares in the country.
This is not because Derby is far away.
It is not because infrastructure is unusually costly.
It is not because rail travel to or from London here is uniquely difficult to operate.
It is because Derby has no rail competition.
And this absence is not a coincidence. It is the predictable outcome of a regulatory structure that restricts new operators from serving profitable intercity routes.
The result?
Fares that actively suppress economic growth in a region that should be thriving.
1. The Real Cost: £80–£110 to Reach the Capital
Real fares checked this week1 show:
- Off-peak Derby → London return: £80.80
- Monday peak arrival (07:05 → 08:38): £110.50 (and only three tickets left at that price, indicating demand-based price escalation)
This is airline-style surge pricing without airline-style competition.
Manchester’s Monday morning fares, for comparison, often reach £127–£185 — showing that monopolistic routes produce some of the most extreme pricing in the UK, irrespective of distance.
But unlike Manchester, Derby isn’t a 2½–3 hour rail journey.
Derby sits just 1 hour 30 minutes from London.
2. Why Derby Is Expensive: There Is Only One Operator
Between Derby and London, there is just one long-distance operator:
East Midlands Railway (EMR).
By contrast, Birmingham enjoys multiple competing operators:
- Avanti West Coast
- West Midlands Trains
- Chiltern Railways
- CrossCountry
- plus partial overlap with open-access operators on parallel corridors
This multiplicity allows Birmingham → London fares as low as £15–£35.
Derby → London fares do not fall in the same way because Derby’s route is not open to genuine competition.
3. Why Other Operators Don’t Run Through Derby
Britain technically allows “open-access” rail services — private operators running on the national network outside franchising. Examples include:
- Lumo (Edinburgh / Newcastle ↔ London)
- Grand Central (Sunderland / Bradford ↔ London)
- Hull Trains (Hull ↔ London)
These services operate on the East Coast Main Line, where capacity is available and their business models were approved.
None of these operators serve Derby because their access is governed by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), which assesses new applications on two main tests:
a) The revenue-impact test (“not primarily abstractive”)
A new operator must prove it will generate new journeys, not merely take revenue from the existing operator.
b) Network capacity and timetable compatibility
New services must fit into existing infrastructure and timetables without major disruption.
These tests are transparent and public — but applications and their outcomes are not always published in detail, and there is no central repository of all rejected applications.2
What can be truthfully said:
- No open-access operator currently serves Derby or East Midlands Parkway.
- No open-access operator lists Derby as a calling point on any published timetable.
- ORR’s published guidance makes it clear that applications on profitable corridors face higher scrutiny because of the revenue-impact test.
- The absence of open-access services on Derby’s corridor is not due to lack of demand, but due to the regulatory environment combined with limited path availability.
- There is no publicly confirmed case of an operator being approved to serve Derby — meaning the market is, in practice, closed.
This is evidence-by-absence, not speculation.
4. The Economic Consequences for Derby
High fares do not simply inconvenience passengers. They change behaviour in ways that harm the region:
People avoid rail altogether
When a single ticket can cost £80–£110, people choose:
- the car
- the challenger coach companies (e.g., FlixBus)
- the traditional coach network (National Express)
- or simply not travelling at all
Workers relocate to better-connected cities
Derby residents regularly move to places such as:
- Lichfield
- Tamworth
- Sutton Coldfield
- Birmingham suburbs
…because rail access to London is cheaper and more frequent.
The region loses inward tourism and visitor spend
London-based visitors are discouraged by high rail prices — meaning money does not flow back up the line into Derbyshire’s hotels, museums, events and retail. It suppresses tourism to the region from London and stops London money “trickling up the track” to Derby.
Businesses factor rail cost into their location decisions
A city that costs £100 to reach at 10am on a Monday is at a structural disadvantage when competing with Birmingham or Manchester.
East Midlands Parkway did not relieve Derby’s pricing pressure
Though intended to be a park-and-ride solution, East Midlands Parkway is too remote from Derby and Nottingham, and — crucially — is operated by the same franchise. It offers no meaningful price competition and has never strongly changed travel-to-work patterns for Derby and Nottingham city centre users.
5. Competition Works: Evidence From the UK and Europe
Where open-access operators have been approved, the results are documented:
- On routes served by Lumo, Hull Trains and Grand Central, rail’s market share rises significantly — creating new demand rather than simply displacing incumbent operators.3
- Hull Trains has generated substantial additional rail revenue over its lifetime, rather than merely cannibalising existing services.3
- Italian high-speed liberalisation (Italo vs Trenitalia) reduced fares and increased ridership across the board.4
- Spanish and Swedish liberalisation produced similar outcomes, with competition linked to lower average fares and higher passenger numbers.4
These are published findings, not conjecture.
6. The GBR HQ Paradox
The irony is stark:
The headquarters of Britain’s new rail body is located in a city where many people cannot realistically afford to use the service they are meant to celebrate.
It is not a matter of principle — it is a matter of price.
For many, Derby → London rail is not a public service; it is a premium product.
7. What Needs to Change
A truthful, evidence-based policy direction would call for:
1. Reforming the revenue-impact test
Shift from “does this harm the incumbent?” to:
“does this increase total system ridership?”
2. Greater transparency
Create a public database of all open-access applications — approved, rejected, or withdrawn — to allow scrutiny and accountability.
3. Strategic competition on intercity routes
Allow new operators where demand exists and infrastructure allows — even if it means reallocating or adjusting existing paths.
4. Recognising that rail competes with cars and coaches, not just other trains
High fares push people onto the roads — increasing congestion, emissions and lost productivity.
8. The Conclusion: Derby’s Prices Are a Choice
Derby’s £80–£110 fares are not:
- unavoidable
- natural
- distance-based
- cost-based
They are the predictable outcome of:
- a monopoly operator
- regulatory mechanisms that restrict competition
- lack of transparency on route access decisions
- a market that cannot correct itself
Derby deserves a rail system that matches its economic role and engineering heritage.
Let competition in.
Let fares fall.
Let the East Midlands grow.
Notes
1 Prices from Trainline.com, checked on 05/12/2025.
2 The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) publishes guidance on open-access applications and tests such as the “not primarily abstractive” revenue test and capacity constraints. However, not all individual applications or rejections are published in detail, and there is no single public database listing all unsuccessful applications by route or station. Public timetables and operator maps confirm that no open-access operators currently serve Derby or East Midlands Parkway.
3 See, for example, published analysis on the impact of UK open-access operators (Lumo, Hull Trains, Grand Central) on net rail journeys and revenue, which shows that open-access services have increased total rail use and generated additional revenue, rather than merely displacing incumbent operators.
4 Industry analyses of European rail liberalisation (including Italy, Spain, France and Sweden) show that the introduction of competition on high-speed and intercity routes has generally led to lower average fares and increased ridership across the network.