Marston Vale line suspension over - FULL services start running 19/02/24

[43096]

So how have SWR and TfW carried on yet WMT hasn't.

Because - as has been said before - SWR and TfW have not contracted Vivarail to be the maintainer.

 

[NewClee153]

A cheap "PRM lite" could be done easily enough, locking the toilets.

The reason 153s aren't used is that a single 153 doesn't have enough capacity fro the school trains and a double one won't fit some platforms. They were discussed before settling on the 230s. If they'd been selected, a flighted timetable would have had to operate at peak times.

153/9s operate Coryton - Radyr, perhaps TfW have been given dispensation to do so

 

[61653 HTAFC]

40m max unit length for some reason I don't quite understand (I checked the Sectional Appendix and only one platform would be an issue for longer units, though a few would require local door).

This may have been asked and answered before on the many Marston Vale related threads over the years, but how did Silverlink manage to run top and tailed 31s on the line back in the day? Were the rules less stringent then?

On the 153 question, PRM/TSI covers more than just toilets- also things like PIS screens and door alarms. Besides, any stored 153s will probably need a fair bit of work to get them going again, before any PRM work shy of sorting out the loos.

 

[tomuk]

Well, SWR carry out their own maintenance at Ryde St Johns Road depot, where the staff have years of experience with ex-LU stock, and TfW contracted out maintenance of their units to Stadler from the beginning, Stadler use Birkenhead depot for this. VivaRail never had maintenance contracts for either fleet, so their closing down has had no effect on operations. The Marston Vale trains were maintained by VivaRail at Bletchley, and obviously WMT have not been authorised by the DfT to take over the staff, spares, and equipment used. Interestingly the fourth service intended to use VivaRail's D-trains is the experimental fast-battery-charge unit for the Greenford branch. The DfT have authorised GWR to take this in-house and transfer the VivaRail staff involved, presumably because the experiment is considered very important for possible use by other stock types.

Vivarail had 10 staff at Birkenhead and 9 staff at Bletchley according to the Administrators.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This may have been asked and answered before on the many Marston Vale related threads over the years, but how did Silverlink manage to run top and tailed 31s on the line back in the day? Were the rules less stringent then?

The line was heavily refurbished when it was resignalled a few years after that, which involved moving a number of platforms the other side of the level crossing so they'd be closed for less time, plus the locations of some signals were changed. However I did look at the Sectional Appendix, the results of which are in this post* and I found only one platform was potentially an insurmountable issue if local door operation was acceptable and some special instructions were allowed to allow the driver to stop off the platform at some locations. However of the classes currently fully cleared (150, 153 and 156, it appears) there aren't any 150s and 156s available and the 153s need PRMing. 172s are only cleared without stepboards so work would be needed (otherwise these would be the obvious option) and 196s are cleared except Bedford P1A and no doubt will be throughout in time but again there aren't any available - replacing 170s is the priority.

I must admit that having done the mid 2000s refurb for 40m units only was one of those stupid penny-pinching things - it was known by then that there were not going to be new 40m DMUs, so goodness knows why the pennies necessary weren't spent to set it up for 46m units. Had this been done, they'd almost certainly just have used 2 car 172s from Tyseley, and 230s would never have been built, nor would any of this nonsense ever happened.

So I think 150s, when they become available, are genuinely the only sensible option. Doing any changes for 46/48m units needs to wait on whether the 5-station EWR option is to be taken or the stations left as they are - no point doing it if you're going to dig it all up again, and I suspect if the 5-station option is taken the new stations will have 4x24m platforms as e.g. Winslow does.

* https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/alternative-solutions-for-the-marston-vale-line.240231/

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The line was heavily refurbished when it was resignalled a few years after that, which involved moving a number of platforms the other side of the level crossing so they'd be closed for less time, plus the locations of some signals were changed. However I did look at the Sectional Appendix, the results of which are in this post* and I found only one platform was potentially an insurmountable issue if local door operation was acceptable and some special instructions were allowed to allow the driver to stop off the platform at some locations. However of the classes currently fully cleared (150, 153 and 156, it appears) there aren't any 150s and 156s available and the 153s need PRMing. 172s are only cleared without stepboards so work would be needed (otherwise these would be the obvious option) and 196s are cleared except Bedford P1A and no doubt will be throughout in time but again there aren't any available - replacing 170s is the priority.

I must admit that having done the mid 2000s refurb for 40m units only was one of those stupid penny-pinching things - it was known by then that there were not going to be new 40m DMUs, so goodness knows why the pennies necessary weren't spent to set it up for 46m units. Had this been done, they'd almost certainly just have used 2 car 172s from Tyseley, and 230s would never have been built, nor would any of this nonsense ever happened.

So I think 150s, when they become available, are genuinely the only sensible option. Doing any changes for 46/48m units needs to wait on whether the 5-station EWR option is to be taken or the stations left as they are - no point doing it if you're going to dig it all up again, and I suspect if the 5-station option is taken the new stations will have 4x24m platforms as e.g. Winslow does.

* https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/alternative-solutions-for-the-marston-vale-line.240231/

As you say that decision seems monumentally short-sighted. A similar thing happened on the Penistone line where platforms were recently extended for 60m class 150 formations (3-car). Once those units get to the point where they can't be kept going economically, there will need to be a further round of extensions meaning a new set of contracts for the work to be carried out- when just going to 70m in the first place would be more cost-effective in the long run. I just hope that when the big rebuild at Huddersfield happens, the buffer stops will be moved back enough to allow for future growth. As the saying goes, buy cheap, buy twice.

 

[Falcon1200]

This may have been asked and answered before on the many Marston Vale related threads over the years, but how did Silverlink manage to run top and tailed 31s on the line back in the day?

IIRC the loco-hauled trains consisted of two coaches only.

 

[Bletchleyite]

IIRC the loco-hauled trains consisted of two coaches only.

They did but would still be too long for the present arrangements.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

IIRC the loco-hauled trains consisted of two coaches only.

Which is still longer than a single class 150, hence me asking what had changed (which has already been answered- the line was resignalled).

 

[Efini92]

However of the classes currently fully cleared (150, 153 and 156, it appears) there aren't any 150s and 156s available and the 153s need PRMing. 172s are only cleared without stepboards so work would be needed (otherwise these would be the obvious option) and 196s are cleared except Bedford P1A and no doubt will be throughout in time but again there aren't any available - replacing 170s is the priority.

Is it too late to bring back pacers?

….I’ll get my coat.

 

[Intercity110]

what livery will the 150s be in? as they could be more permanent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

what livery will the 150s be in? as they could be more permanent.

I'd imagine priority will be to get them in service!

 

[Spartacus]

Is it too late to bring back pacers?

….I’ll get my coat.

Pity 144012 was scrapped...

 

[DarloRich]

Are 150's confirmed/official then?

what livery will the 150s be in? as they could be more permanent.

I don't care! I just want a train to get to work!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are 150's confirmed/official then?

Yes, this came from WMT, though the date they will arrive isn't yet (and if the TfW 175s keep catching fire then is likely to slip later).

 

[paul1609]

From the tax payers point of view the best solution would be to mothball the line at least until EW progresses and provide a semi Permanent RRB that actually served the centres of population along the route including MKC and prehaps even Woburn Abbey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From the tax payers point of view the best solution would be to mothball the line at least until EW progresses and provide a semi Permanent RRB that actually served the centres of population along the route including MKC and prehaps even Woburn Abbey.

I'm not sure it actually would, because of the number of buses providing a workable service would actually require. The present RRB requires I believe 8 vehicles (or maybe it was 6, but it's a lot more than two DMUs). There's a good reason why United Counties saved the line by refusing to operate a replacement bus service - the road layout there is simply not conducive to serving all the settlements in an anything like reasonable period of time - you can just go up the old A421 but there are almost no settlements on it.

The settlements basically are on the railway, anyway, other than Marston Moretaine and Wootton, and Woburn Abbey is so far away as to be borderline irrelevant though an integrated connecting bus at Woburn Sands or Flitwick wouldn't be a terrible idea. The tiny village of Millbrook is a long way from the station but a lot nearer to the MML where Ampthill really should have a station, it's as big as Flitwick!

 

[12LDA28C]

From the tax payers point of view the best solution would be to mothball the line at least until EW progresses and provide a semi Permanent RRB that actually served the centres of population along the route including MKC and prehaps even Woburn Abbey.

That might be an idea if passenger trains were the only traffic on the line, but they aren't. Bear also in mind that EWR trains over the Marston Vale are several years away yet.

 

[paul1609]

Id suggest 8 buses is one hell of a lot cheaper than 2 DMUs even before you take in to account all the infrastructure savings that could be made by mothballing the line and junctions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Id suggest 8 buses is one hell of a lot cheaper than 2 DMUs even before you take in to account all the infrastructure savings that could be made by mothballing the line and junctions.

The line is used for freight so cannot be mothballed. The cost of the passenger service is thus just the DMUs, diesel, staff and station maintenance (of which there's hardly any). I would be very surprised, thus, if two DMUs wasn't cheaper overall than eight buses, or at least a similar cost, and you'd be needing more than 8 if you were going to run it to a load of places nowhere near the line.

You could I suppose redesign the entire network around there (e.g. putting the through Woburn Sands-MK bus back on is probably more use than a train to Bletchley) but there's no guiding mind such as a combined authority or PTE to manage that, and it'd only be short term so you wouldn't have the 5 or so years it tends to take for new bus services to get enough patronage to be viable.

 

[DarloRich]

Id suggest 8 buses is one hell of a lot cheaper than 2 DMUs even before you take in to account all the infrastructure savings that could be made by mothballing the line and junctions.

You neglect the freight services that use the line: there is a several times per week stone train from Peak Forrest, a car train from Toton to Dolands Moor and back, there is an irregular Hope sidings to (generally) Dagenham stone ( i assume) train. There are semi regular Derby/Chaddesdon to Wembley moves of various types, as well as various unit moves from Derby to London and from Kettering to Northampton. Finally there are semi regular OTM movements from Bletchley to all over and ad hoc IM trains as required.

Obviously, all of those services can be rerouted but paths have to be found. I suggest them using the Vale in the first place means paths are not readily available.

Also it is worth noting the passenger service has been mothballed to all intents and purposes over the last 3 years! The RRB is unreliable and inconvenient for any journey other than the "express" run from Bletchley to Bedford and back. Availability on the mini bus that serves the rest of the stations is patchy at best and takes at least twice as long as the train would. The timetable work of fiction and many times at the smaller stations the RRB simply sail past being full.

There wont be any passengers for the trains to carry at this rate!

@Bletchleyite has it right on the buses/road network btw.

 

[Greybeard33]

You neglect the freight services that use the line: there is a several times per week stone train from Peak Forrest, a car train from Toton to Dolands Moor and back, there is an irregular Hope sidings to (generally) Dagenham stone ( i assume) train. There are semi regular Derby/Chaddesdon to Wembley moves of various types, as well as various unit moves from Derby to London and from Kettering to Northampton. Finally there are semi regular OTM movements from Bletchley to all over and ad hoc IM trains as required.

I imagine there can be a worthwhile saving in signal box opening hours while the passenger service is not running. Yesterday, for example, RTT shows that only four trains actually used the line all day, although there were seven more "as required" paths that remained unused.

If the line were temporarily downgraded to be for non-passenger traffic only, there could surely be a significant saving in infrastructure maintenance costs too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the line were temporarily downgraded to be for non-passenger traffic only, there could surely be a significant saving in infrastructure maintenance costs too.

That would be a false economy if it's likely to be reopened within 5 years at most.

 

[DarloRich]

I imagine there can be a worthwhile saving in signal box opening hours while the passenger service is not running. Yesterday, for example, RTT shows that only four trains actually used the line all day, although there were seven more "as required" paths that remained unused.

If the line were temporarily downgraded to be for non-passenger traffic only, there could surely be a significant saving in infrastructure maintenance costs too.

From what I have been told the signal box is open 24/7 to provide a diversionary route if required.

 

[Greybeard33]

That would be a false economy if it's likely to be reopened within 5 years at most.

Why a false economy? The cost of catch-up maintenance in 5 years time is unlikely to be as large as the extra cost of maintaining to passenger standards over the intervening 4 years.

I am sure the Treasury/DfT would be happy to see costs deferred to a future financial year.

 

[Trainbike46]

Why a false economy? The cost of catch-up maintenance in 5 years time is unlikely to be as large as the extra cost of maintaining to passenger standards over the intervening 4 years.

I am sure the Treasury/DfT would be happy to see costs deferred to a future financial year.

The actual savings are unlikely to be high

But a decision has been taken, and they're getting 150s to cover the line, so closing until EWR gets there is definitely not happening

 

[Falcon1200]

They did but would still be too long for the present arrangements.

Which is still longer than a single class 150, hence me asking what had changed (which has already been answered- the line was resignalled).

The whole train yes, but two Mark 2 coaches are not longer than a Class 150, are they? Presumably then the resignalling no longer allows a loco-hauled train to stop with the leading loco beyond the platform so that the coaches can be accommodated.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The whole train yes, but two Mark 2 coaches are not longer than a Class 150, are they? Presumably then the resignalling no longer allows a loco-hauled train to stop with the leading loco beyond the platform so that the coaches can be accommodated.

It's as much about crossings being blocked by trains at stations, but yes- if the cab of the leading loco is beyond the signal, the driver obviously won't be able to see the aspect of the signal. The length of the entire consist matters, not just the length of the passenger accommodation.

 

[D365]

With the operator’s hat on, I can see why they wouldn’t want to go down the 153 path. But from a passenger perspective, surely x3 1 car 153s would be better than RRB. Twelve months of trains missing in action is not inspiring any confidence.

 

[DarloRich]

With the operator’s hat on, I can see why they wouldn’t want to go down the 153 path. But from a passenger perspective, surely x3 1 car 153s would be better than RRB. Twelve months of trains missing in action is not inspiring any confidence.

I get why LNWR dont want to use the 153. However from a passenger point of view we could have a service restored sooner if they did. it is almost like this line is a PITA they want rid of