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

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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.

If that be the case, why cannot railway staff wishing to go to the toilet approach the TOC that employs them instead?

 

[tomuk]

If that be the case, why cannot railway staff wishing to go to the toilet approach the TOC that employs them instead?

Because since Covid when all the TOCs were made bankrupt the DfT run the railway. The TOCs have no say anymore and are just paid by DfT to run the contracted service

 

[godfreycomplex]

If that be the case, why cannot railway staff wishing to go to the toilet approach the TOC that employs them instead?

Because they’ll insist on asking the DfT rather than using their own initiative and ample finances to open the toilet door

 

[tomuk]

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.

If there was a modern day BR, see GBR, a number of those in DfT would be part of it, indeed some of them now are ex railway rather than career civil servants.

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.

You are forgetting the hand of the West Midlands Rail executive the body that represents the local authorities, particularly the WMCA, in the franchising process. You may also note that the current Mayor and head of the WMCA was previously head of the local LEP who through the MEIF are owed £1.5m by Vivarail.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Apr 2023 ==

Because they’ll insist on asking the DfT rather than using their own initiative and ample finances to open the toilet door

They don't have any finances they would all be bankrupt of the hadn't signed up to the the ERMAs, EMAs and now National Rail Contracts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If there was a modern day BR, see GBR, a number of those in DfT would be part of it, indeed some of them now are ex railway rather than career civil servants.

I think if we're bringing BR into the discussion it's not entirely improbable that they may actually have closed the line entirely. Privatisation caused a moratorium on closures which up until that point had still been dripping through, and the feeling at the time (grab a copy of Victoria Wood's Great Railway Journey if you want to get a feel*) was that that would continue.

* It was impossible to watch that when first shown (1994ish I think?) and think that the Cumbrian Coast past Barrow and the Whitby line would still be open for passenger services today.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

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.

Surely it would make sense to transfer the borrowed Northern units from TfW directly to LNWR for the Marston Vale services?

Someone mentioned that some of the stations on the Marston Vale may close, have you thought of notifying the local rail users group and the MP that you'd rather see all stations retained but some get converted to "request stop" status just to avoid any form of total closure? The more locals who do this, the better chance you'll retain the stations and the line as a whole.

 

[tomuk]

I think if we're bringing BR into the discussion it's not entirely improbable that they may actually have closed the line entirely. Privatisation caused a moratorium on closures which up until that point had still been dripping through, and the feeling at the time (grab a copy of Victoria Wood's Great Railway Journey if you want to get a feel*) was that that would continue.

* It was impossible to watch that when first shown (1994ish I think?) and think that the Cumbrian Coast past Barrow and the Whitby line would still be open for passenger services today.

I assume you mean closing the line to passengers as it would still have been used for freight particularly to the landfill at Forders.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I assume you mean closing the line to passengers as it would still have been used for freight particularly to the landfill at Forders.

Yes.

 

[tomuk]

Surely it would make sense to transfer the borrowed Northern units from TfW directly to LNWR for the Marston Vale services?

Someone mentioned that some of the stations on the Marston Vale may close, have you thought of notifying the local rail users group and the MP that you'd rather see all stations retained but some get converted to "request stop" status just to avoid any form of total closure? The more locals who do this, the better chance you'll retain the stations and the line as a whole.

If you were a supporter of the line you would be for the proposed station closures, relocations and rebuilds prposed as part of EWR as they will provide a much better service and serve the local communities better.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely it would make sense to transfer the borrowed Northern units from TfW directly to LNWR for the Marston Vale services?

Those three are 150/2s, and I am fairly sure I recall reading somewhere that a /2 isn't acceptable because the cab door is a passenger door*, and it'd be off the platform at the shortest platform(s)**, which isn't acceptable as the door between the cab and the saloon isn't interlocked, or something like that. So those go back to Northern and three 150/1s (where the cab door is crew only) get sent to the MV instead.

* Very rare for anyone to realise and use it as such but I have once.

** I'd have to dig that thread I posted with their lengths out, but the shortest, which is the Bletchley bound platform at Kempston Hardwick, is I believe 37m long.

Someone mentioned that some of the stations on the Marston Vale may close, have you thought of notifying the local rail users group and the MP that you'd rather see all stations retained but some get converted to "request stop" status just to avoid any form of total closure? The more locals who do this, the better chance you'll retain the stations and the line as a whole.

Request stops don't really make sense in the context of the MV. They only work when passenger numbers are so low that you can get a pair of stations where on a typical run you'll only see passengers at one of the two so you can basically just put the time in for one stop and accept that on the rare occasion you get a passenger at both you'll run a bit late. The MV is a very quiet line, but other than on the late evening runs there usually are one or two at each, even Kempston Hardwick (which is no longer the least used UK station as housing estates are growing nearby).

The idea of the closures is to speed the service and consolidate the two lines plus provide better stations with better facilities, though I don't really agree (and DarloRich won't either) with the specific choice of them. There's plenty of discussion on a dedicated thread if I recall, the proposal has been around for a few years now.

 

[zwk500]

If you were a supporter of the line you would be for the proposed station closures, relocations and rebuilds prposed as part of EWR as they will provide a much better service and serve the local communities better.

I believe this point would be somewhat contested!

I personally do support the proposed changes, but I don't think it will serve local communities better by getting rid of their stations and trains.

 

[godfreycomplex]

They don't have any finances they would all be bankrupt of the hadn't signed up to the the ERMAs, EMAs and now National Rail Contracts.

My heart bleeds

(I’m also deeply skeptical if that actually would have been the case, it smacked even at the time of the people who have bled billions out of the railway whipping out the begging bowl, but there we are)

 

[nanstallon]

This is all so pathetic. There seem to be so many excuses for not running a rail service these days. Whatever happened to the saying, "where there's a will, there's a way"?

The old British Rail was by no means perfect, but at least there was some effort to provide a public service.

 

[tomuk]

My heart bleeds

(I’m also deeply skeptical if that actually would have been the case, it smacked even at the time of the people who have bled billions out of the railway whipping out the begging bowl, but there we are)

Well whether you have sympathy for the owning groups or not the reality is they would have closed the doors and handed the keys back to the DfT and there would be no railway until the DfT worked out how to operate it.
As examples see the collapse of Monarch or FlyBe.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

If you were a supporter of the line you would be for the proposed station closures, relocations and rebuilds prposed as part of EWR as they will provide a much better service and serve the local communities better.

I'm against any station closure, even Cottingley which I objected to the closure and even suggested that it should become a request stop instead. Why? Because it would mean retaining the station and keeping it open thus allowing those who live nearby a rail service without having to walk a fair distance to its replacement.

 

[al green]

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.

I was on a Zoom call about MV with LNR last week. I raised the issue of 153s in storage and why they are not being used on MV. I was told that 153s in storage are not PRM compliant and so would require upgrading before they could be used, which would take time (probably longer than waiting for 150s) and money.

 

[Class142sbad]

Are the 150's for the Marston vale coming from TFW?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are the 150's for the Marston vale coming from TFW?

Northern, displaced by EMR 156s and/or the return of the three /2s on loan to TfW.

 

[RailWonderer]

Request stops don't really make sense in the context of the MV. They only work when passenger numbers are so low that you can get a pair of stations where on a typical run you'll only see passengers at one of the two so you can basically just put the time in for one stop and accept that on the rare occasion you get a passenger at both you'll run a bit late. The MV is a very quiet line, but other than on the late evening runs there usually are one or two at each, even Kempston Hardwick (which is no longer the least used UK station as housing estates are growing nearby).

The idea of the closures is to speed the service and consolidate the two lines plus provide better stations with better facilities, though I don't really agree (and DarloRich won't either) with the specific choice of them. There's plenty of discussion on a dedicated thread if I recall, the proposal has been around for a few years now.

Wasn't the service all stations and hourly? Apparently when EWR starts some trains will not call at all MV stations. I am not sure if they plan to keep it hourly but unless they increase it to half hourly and run one fast Bletchley - Bedford in the style of the North Downs line, stations will lose frequency.

 

[Amos]

It is starting to feel that way. The simple truth is no one cares about this line or us poor users.

Other than asking a question has our illustrious MP not raised this any further?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wasn't the service all stations and hourly? Apparently when EWR starts some trains will not call at all MV stations. I am not sure if they plan to keep it hourly but unless they increase it to half hourly and run one fast Bletchley - Bedford in the style of the North Downs line, stations will lose frequency.

There's discussion of this in this thread and some older ones:

East-West Rail (EWR): what service (frequency, train type/length) should be provided?

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/east-west-rail-ewr-oxford-bletchley-construction-progress.216561/ Perhaps, but in the lifetime of the station building the town is expected to grow to rather a lot more than 5,000 people. It's also presumably expected to take a...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[DarloRich]

I was on a Zoom call about MV with LNR last week. I raised the issue of 153s in storage and why they are not being used on MV. I was told that 153s in storage are not PRM compliant and so would require upgrading before they could be used, which would take time (probably longer than waiting for 150s) and money.

I know the 153's are not PRM compliant but that is simply another excuse to do nothing. The journey is 45 minutes from end to end. Lock the toilets out of use. The 153's served the line before and had ramp access available and while pretty rotten are better than a shoddy bus with 6 seats.

it is simple in my mind: Do a deal with the DfT to get a derogation for a short period AND GET SERVICES RUNNING! The truth is no one involved in this situation cares enough to even try. It is easier to do nothing and hope the issue goes way.

I wish LNWR would do a meet the manager event down this way.

EDIT - I KNOW it isn't simple just to do a deal with a recalcitrant DfT but I just don't believe anyone has even tried. It is so frustrating and I am pig sick of it.

Other than asking a question has our illustrious MP not raised this any further?

Nowt that I have seen on his website.

If you were a supporter of the line you would be for the proposed station closures, relocations and rebuilds prposed as part of EWR as they will provide a much better service and serve the local communities better.

As an actual supporter of the line may I say this is nonsense. E-W does nothing for most of the communities along the line despite what we were promised.

I believe this point would be somewhat contested!

Just a tad

 

[MML]

I was on a Zoom call about MV with LNR last week. I raised the issue of 153s in storage and why they are not being used on MV. I was told that 153s in storage are not PRM compliant and so would require upgrading before they could be used, which would take time (probably longer than waiting for 150s) and money.

Yes, another perfect excuse to do nothing. No wonder the industry run by the DfT is in a state of managed decline. It's like the BR days when some bright spark decided to close the Varsity Line as a line between Oxford and Cambridge isn't required.

The rail replacement vehicles currently operating this service are no more accessible than an unmodified class 153. They don't have any toilets let alone an accessible toilet and take even longer to complete the journey.

Spending money refurbishing Class 153 with minimum required accessibility modifications (no toilet) may not be considered worthwhile if those units are to be withdrawn and replaced by class 150 in a matter of months. But class 150 will achieve an inferior hourly service with poor acceleration compared to the class 230.
4 x class 153 long-term would allow an improved half hourly frequency which would be more likely to stimulate future growth. Nothing worse than waiting an hour for the next train, when 30 minute interval is near enough turn up and go.

As for rail replacement continuing until next year, they will have deterred most locals from ever using the line again.

 

[Bletchleyite]

150s won't offer an inferior timetable to 230s. It is in fact 230s that lose time because of the extremely slow door operation, one of their many faults. The timetable is designed for 15x.

 

[nanstallon]

Yes, another perfect excuse to do nothing. No wonder the industry run by the DfT is in a state of managed decline. It's like the BR days when some bright spark decided to close the Varsity Line as a line between Oxford and Cambridge isn't required.

The rail replacement vehicles currently operating this service are no more accessible than an unmodified class 153. They don't have any toilets let alone an accessible toilet and take even longer to complete the journey.

...

As for rail replacement continuing until next year, they will have deterred most locals from ever using the line again.

This is typical of the stupidity of British jobsworths with their mindless obsession with rules, and 'no can do' mentality -
1. Better to put everyone onto buses that have no toilets than to use 153 trains which do have a toilet, but are not DDa compliant.
2. Better to put everyone onto the road, which surely is far less safe than using trains, even if those trains are not ideal.

 

[Carlisle]

150s won't offer an inferior timetable to 230s. It is in fact 230s that lose time because of the extremely slow door operation.

I’ve not heard of similar problems on the Island Line or TFW D trains .

 

[tomuk]

This is typical of the stupidity of British jobsworths with their mindless obsession with rules, and 'no can do' mentality -
1. Better to put everyone onto buses that have no toilets than to use 153 trains which do have a toilet, but are not DDa compliant.
2. Better to put everyone onto the road, which surely is far less safe than using trains, even if those trains are not ideal.

DDA isn't just about toilets. If the train has no toilet or it is locked out of use it is compliant regards PRM-TSI. For example see the TfW PRM lite 153s that had no toilet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve not heard of similar problems on the Island Line or TFW D trains .

Well, as a Marston Vale regular I can confirm it absolutely is the case. 150s and 153s ran on time, 230s always lost time on exactly the same timings. 150/1s are probably the best because of the manual cab door which can be opened in half a second rather than the 2-3 seconds it takes for a 230 door to open (so stop to passenger doors open would be maybe 5-6 seconds, compared to 1-2 seconds on a manual cab door 150/1, then add the same on departure). A bit of it was mitigated by working from the cabs which have smaller, quicker doors, but they still lost time.

There were even bits of minor poor design that slowed it by a second or two further. For instance, the guard controls by the passenger doors face inward, rather than sideways on the 150s, so the guard would have to open the local door, alight, check it was safe then reboard before they could see where the open buttons were, wheras on a 150 they're visible from standing on the platform so that check would be maybe 1-2 seconds quicker. On a route with so many stops, seconds count - my usual example is that when hustle alarms were fitted to Merseyrail's 50x in about 1995 they had to add two minutes to Ormskirk to Liverpool times to deal with persistent late running it caused!

The difference with the others will be that the IoW units have replaced extremely sluggish and slow-doored 1930s stock (plus there are only a few stations), and the TfW stock is battery and diesel so may well be quicker off the mark than the diesel-only Marston Vale units.

 

[tomuk]

Well, as a Marston Vale regular I can confirm it absolutely is the case. 150s and 153s ran on time, 230s always lost time on exactly the same timings. 150/1s are probably the best because of the manual cab door which can be opened in half a second rather than the 2-3 seconds it takes for a 230 door to open (so stop to passenger doors open would be maybe 5-6 seconds, compared to 1-2 seconds on a manual cab door 150/1, then add the same on departure). A bit of it was mitigated by working from the cabs which have smaller, quicker doors, but they still lost time.

There were even bits of minor poor design that slowed it by a second or two further. For instance, the guard controls by the passenger doors face inward, rather than sideways on the 150s, so the guard would have to open the local door, alight, check it was safe then reboard before they could see where the open buttons were, wheras on a 150 they're visible from standing on the platform so that check would be maybe 1-2 seconds quicker. On a route with so many stops, seconds count - my usual example is that when hustle alarms were fitted to Merseyrail's 50x in about 1995 they had to add two minutes to Ormskirk to Liverpool times to deal with persistent late running it caused!

The difference with the others will be that the IoW units have replaced extremely sluggish and slow-doored 1930s stock (plus there are only a few stations), and the TfW stock is battery and diesel so may well be quicker off the mark than the diesel-only Marston Vale units.

Experience so far with the TfW 230s is that the doors are still slow and are contributory to late running requiring the drivers to give it more beans and use the better acceleration of the 230s to make up.

 

[craigybagel]

This is typical of the stupidity of British jobsworths with their mindless obsession with rules, and 'no can do' mentality -

It's the law. I'm not sure deciding not to break it makes someone a "jobsworth".

I’ve not heard of similar problems on the Island Line or TFW D trains .

There have been notable issues the D trains with keeping to time at both Island line and on the Bidston line.