Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The team were made redundant and got other jobs. Perhaps WMT might have managed it if they were a bit quicker. But the units were not very good (mechanically) anyway.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Marston Vale line suspension over - FULL services start running 19/02/24
- Thread starter DarloRich
- Start date
- Status
The team were made redundant and got other jobs. Perhaps WMT might have managed it if they were a bit quicker. But the units were not very good (mechanically) anyway.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DarloRich
Veteran Member
both. Also the team of fitters/engineers/mechanics will have found new jobs.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think the 5-station option is near certain anyway, which sadly means losing Fenny...
Also quite possible if the further cut goes ahead of not serving MKC at all (madness, but it was being talked about) then it could just be Oxford-Bedford with the EWR units, though usage would be much poorer and Stagecoach would be happy!
DarloRich
Veteran Member
it will have to be pried from my cold dead hand!
The MKC stuff is madness. Stagecoach will be laughing all the way to the bank
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,274
I’d be very surprised if they did. EWR does not need access to P6 for their own service patterns, either initially or in future.
Another Marston Vale local here, happen to live along the route in one of the smaller villages.
I had the "fun" of a big holiday coach up to Bletchley last week. It seemed to take ages, especially considering I was going to MKC so had a wait at Bletchley too.
When the 230 incident first happened, A blacked out van full of people picked me up - surreal experience that was! My partner was literally saying she was happy I was with her, as she would not have got in there alone.
Luckily, the coaches stop here nowadays, but I did truly fear being left behind if the van was full! The one I was on was not even bothering to really check if anyone was left behind and was just driving past every stop.
Is anyone here a member of the rail user group?
I had the "fun" of a big holiday coach up to Bletchley last week. It seemed to take ages, especially considering I was going to MKC so had a wait at Bletchley too.
When the 230 incident first happened, A blacked out van full of people picked me up - surreal experience that was! My partner was literally saying she was happy I was with her, as she would not have got in there alone.
Luckily, the coaches stop here nowadays, but I did truly fear being left behind if the van was full! The one I was on was not even bothering to really check if anyone was left behind and was just driving past every stop.
Is anyone here a member of the rail user group?
Last edited:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I am not a member of the users group as I find them a little too polite in their public criticism of both London Midland and LNWR. They do a good job in promoting the line and have made real improvement to the ambience of the stations. The café at Ridgmont is very good to.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I can be converted with a promise to keep my station open
There are several that could close but I would be very suspicious of using the published ticket sales data to do that. As you will know the whole line has often been " free to play" in the past. it is why I don't trust the published passenger figures for the whole line.
flitwickbeds
Member
- Joined
- 19 Apr 2017
- Messages
- 771
I notice there is an excursion train in the next few weeks:
Which states:
Didn't realise it had become a rusty, overgrown piece of track already!
Which states:
Didn't realise it had become a rusty, overgrown piece of track already!
zwk500
Veteran Member
tbf, It's rarely used for charters.
No they don't.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Sadly it is rarely used at present: a bit of freight, stock transfers, track machines and the odd test train.
agreed - and even rarer to see a steamer.
MK Tom
Established Member
This actually calls at Ridgmont. That'll be the first train to do so in 2023.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
The thread title says "Class 150s to return". When?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Towards the later end of the year, once Northern can spare them, which I believe requires TfW to give the ones they've borrowed back first.
birchesgreen
Established Member
I walked to Fenny Stratford (from Bletchley) at the weekend. Lovely little station, just needs some trains. 
D6130
Established Member
Presumably Northern will have at least one - and possibly two - units spare when the Huddersfield-Wakefield service ceases at the end of May?
87015
Established Member
They are transferring the units on Monday after May timetable change.
And then presumably drivers/guards to [re]train and sign the stock and then maintenance?
anamyd
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,038
What do you mean by "half as much again as a Sprinter uses"? Each vehicle of the 2-car 230 had 2 engines that were the equivalent of a 6.4-litre twin-turbo 10 cylinder engine for 400hp, whereas each vehicle of a Sprinter has a 14-litre single-turbo 6 cylinder engine for 285hp.
norbitonflyer
Established Member
400/285 = 1.4, so the 230s do indeed have nearly half as much power again ( I.e. 1.5 times as much) as the 150s
DarloRich
Veteran Member
All parties involved in this situation are taking the pi$$
Marston Vale Line trains not returning till autumn, says LNR
Buses will continue to replace train services between Bedford and Bletchley, a rail firm says.
www.bbc.co.uk
100andthirty
Member
This whole saga shows the railway in a very bad, "can't do, won't do" light. It is, of course very sad that Vivarail failed, but to take a whole year to find just three units to operate this service is absolutely incredible!
zwk500
Veteran Member
It's a perfect storm of a neglected or marginal branch line, some short-sighted cost saving measures a few years ago, and the railway's finances being squeezed oh so tightly since Covid started.
To suggest that the railway simply can't be bothered and is refusing to help is slightly missing the mark.
100andthirty
Member
zwk500. I see your point, but a joined up railway would have found a way. I also probably should have made it clear that those who control permission to do stuff have to be seen as part of the railway. Their decisions or, more likely lack of them, will probably have contributed to all this.
zwk500
Veteran Member
But as I've pointed out, this is a legacy of decisions some 15 or 20 years ago, when it was decided to build platforms less than 46m long. The person who made that decision may very well have moved on or out or up and the people now with the power to do something are left with what we have.
Had the line been built with 50m platforms, then in all likelihood the Class 230 programme wouldn't have included the Marston Vale, with instead any standard 2-car DMU from the LNR/WMT fleet being used with the Class 196s being the eventual goal.
However, because only 40m platforms were built (even if it's only 1 or 2) we are left in the position where rolling stock has to be chosen carefully, and as it's a non-standard length (now, 1-car trains were more common 20 years ago) there aren't many units available. Extending platforms will cost a fortune because there's signals and level crossings to consider (even just checking they're not a problem will cost something), so it's back to what trains are there that can fit. It turns out (not surprisingly) that the only units that are in a condition to run on the line are already in passenger service, so replacement units for *them* must be found because it's not a passenger-friendly railway to tell people in Wales to get stuffed because the people in Bucks/Beds have it harder.
The Marston Vale has also suffered from a series of infrastructure failures that took a long time to repair because the Level crossings used old/non-standard equipment that was difficult to procure. Again, that is a decision that was made by 'the railway' but by a person who is possibly no longer with the company.
While I object to the 'can't do, won't do' label I will acknowledge that this shows the railway as very inflexible and rigid, that it has institutional problems with sensible investment and cost management, and that it is struggling to keep going on less-critical parts of the network in the face of serious financial and organisational pressures. None of which are a 'good look' for passengers.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
It is starting to feel that way. The simple truth is no one cares about this line or us poor users.
There are 153's in sidings that could be running on the line by now with staff trained if anyone cared. Instead we are waiting until, checks notes, next bloody year before we see a proper service.
That will be 4 years of alleged train service with about 5 minutes of running in that time. Not good enough.
Last edited:
zwk500
Veteran Member
It's had shockingly bad luck and I would agree that at DfT/Whitehall level of 'the railway' indeed it does get overlooked. The maddening thing is that I bet 50m platofrms wouldn't have even been noticed in the final budget of the modernisation programme if they'd been scoped from the start.
Do you know they're ready for service, or could have been refurbed in time?
On this point I am 100% with you. I lived in MK when the level crossing problems were there. It was a farcically slow response then.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I am so pi$$ed of with all of this. This will turn into an excuse to close the stations and hand the line over to E-W. I am afraid i am no longer willing to give anyone the benfit of the doubt.
The truth is it is too hard to do a deal and/or requires £3.50 spending on some Castrol GTX which the DfT wont allow.
give them a clean, fill up the oil, slap some stickers on, run the engine for half an hour and get them rolling. They were fresh out of service in December. They didn't need a full rebuild then!
The truth is it is too hard to do a deal and/or requires £3.50 spending on some Castrol GTX which the DfT wont allow.
The platforms are an excuse to do nothing. There are solutions but they operator and the DfT aren't interested.
Last edited:
Wyrleybart
Established Member
I think we need to recognise "the railway" as distinct from the DfT, simply because railway staff cannoty even go to the toilet without authority from the DfT. They are in charge of the whole kit n caboodle, but haven't the experience to make things happen.
Plain facts are the Marston Vale line has a couple of platforms which are less than the length of most trains that could operate the route. It was the DfT who signed WMR / LNR's franchise to operate the services including the use of the 230s. The whole franchising system was strictly scrutinised by the DfT so they knew exactly what they were doing with ther Marston Vale line and clearly placed their trust in Vivarail delivering the unique product.
The 2 car 150s and single 153s exited the WMR service and they were then stuck with the 230s, with the inevitable result.
But is it really that clear cut ? Supposing WMR to move a couple of 23m class 172s to Bletchley, trained the crew, and ran the service with "not to stop" instructions for the couple of stations which are "substandard". What would happen ? Obviously the stations would be temporarily closed and passengers advised to seek alternate stations, but just what would happen ?
Passengers could actually travel on trains, which is why they choose to. The WMR crew would be operating and maintaining their skills and competencies, and most people would be relatively happy with their lot. It surely has to be far safer having passengers travelling on trains rather than be carted around Bedfordshire on RRBs.
There is a reason why, and I cannot put my finger on it.
- Status