Chiltern Railways selected as operator for the first stage of East West Rail - Oxford to Milton Keynes

[zwk500]

And rightly so… there’s a lot of questions that need answering from the higher ups about this whole debacle.

Accountability is required from those who naively overpromised and/or neglected to plan properly.

A significant responsibility for the delay lies with the politicians who didn't formally take the decision for Chiltern to be announced as operator for far too long. I hope the transport select committee take them to task.

 

[PLY2AYS]

A significant responsibility for the delay lies with the politicians who didn't formally take the decision for Chiltern to be announced as operator for far too long. I hope the transport select committee take them to task.

Entirely agree.

Irrespective of my views of privatisation; other TOCs were lined up, vying to jump on the service delivery. It seems unfair for them to have missed out to a competitor who hasn’t been able to deliver.

 

[zwk500]

Irrespective of my views of privatisation; other TOCs were lined up, vying to jump on the service delivery. It seems unfair for them to have missed out to a competitor who hasn’t been able to deliver.

It was only ever going to be Chiltern. No other TOC would have had an easier ride with the Unions and stock.

 

[yorkie]

If anyone wants to suggest another TOC should be operating the service, please do create a thread in the Speculative Discussion forum section. Thanks

 

[Wyrleybart]

It was only ever going to be Chiltern. No other TOC would have had an easier ride with the Unions and stock.

The odds were heavily stacked towards Chiltern but I didn't rule out WMR/LnWR.

In my view though it was always intended for Oxford - Bletchley and maybe Milton Keynes to be DOO. Chiltern fitted that and LnWR didn't.

The fact that CAF 196s were built with DOO panels, but had them isolated for use by WMR, and now presumably uncovered again for Chiltern, tells us more about the intransigence of the DfT who have been micro managing the operation.

 

[Carlisle]

And rightly so… there’s a lot of questions that need answering from the higher ups about this whole debacle.

Accountability is required from those who naively overpromised and/or neglected to plan properly.

The RMTs moving of the goalposts from being largely indifferent throughout the whole project to now suddenly wanting to declare a dispute won’t have helped things either.

 

[PLY2AYS]

The RMTs moving of the goalposts from being largely indifferent throughout the whole project to now suddenly wanting to declare a dispute won’t have helped things either.

It may have helped if any of the unions were consulted in the first place.

I don’t see how a union can “move the goalposts” when it hasn’t even been included in proposals or planning

 

[MatthewHutton]

I suspect part of the issue is that these east west trains are likely to go a lot further in the future so if the unions agreed to DOO it would be a Trojan horse.

That said driver operated doors with a guard booked on every train as in South West trains seems like a reasonable compromise.

 

[hwl]

It may have helped if any of the unions were consulted in the first place.

I don’t see how a union can “move the goalposts” when it hasn’t even been included in proposals or planning

Why would a union representing guards need to be included in proposals or planning for a new DOO operation??? They can't move the goal posts if they aren't even on the sportsground!

 

[PLY2AYS]

Why would a union representing guards need to be included in proposals or planning for a new DOO operation??? They can't move the goal posts if they aren't even on the sportsground!

Not sure about you, but I’m pretty sure Oxford and Milton Keynes have platform staff and Chiltern have guards.
But I take your point!

 

[ainsworth74]

Nope! We're not doing DOO for the umpteenth time thank you very much. Anyone who cannot contain themselves is welcome to review any of the dozens of threads that have existed over the years and enjoy the delights of arguing about something that everyone has strong feelings about and no-one changes their minds about and we all lose when everyone hates everyone else as a result.

We're not talking about whether or not DOO is a good or bad thing, whether something is or is not the thin end of the wedge, or anything else.

 

[185143]

Nope! We're not doing DOO for the umpteenth time thank you very much. Anyone who cannot contain themselves is welcome to review any of the dozens of threads that have existed over the years and enjoy the delights of arguing about something that everyone has strong feelings about and no-one changes their minds about and we all lose when everyone hates everyone else as a result.

We're not talking about whether or not DOO is a good or bad thing, whether something is or is not the thin end of the wedge, or anything else.

Oh come on... it's been a good few years now since the last one!

 

[fgwrich]

The odds were heavily stacked towards Chiltern but I didn't rule out WMR/LnWR.

In my view though it was always intended for Oxford - Bletchley and maybe Milton Keynes to be DOO. Chiltern fitted that and LnWR didn't.

The fact that CAF 196s were built with DOO panels, but had them isolated for use by WMR, and now presumably uncovered again for Chiltern, tells us more about the intransigence of the DfT who have been micro managing the operation.

And this is where we come back to again (not the DOO arguments before I cause the thread to be shut down), the micromanaging and interfering of the Department for Transport.

Look at the difference between Leven and EWR. Granted, there was always only going to be one TOC for that, but the smoothness in getting Leven rebuilt and reopened, whilst planning for the future with OHLE, vs the slow speed for EWR to reach the same point where it is now effectively a freight only line until the issues between the DfT / Chiltern & Unions can all be ironed out with little future-proofing for OHLE and indecision about the next phase shows where we’re still at. It’s frustrating to say the least.

 

[Wyrleybart]

And this is where we come back to again (not the DOO arguments before I cause the thread to be shut down), the micromanaging and interfering of the Department for Transport.

Look at the difference between Leven and EWR. Granted, there was always only going to be one TOC for that, but the smoothness in getting Leven rebuilt and reopened, whilst planning for the future with OHLE, vs the slow speed for EWR to reach the same point where it is now effectively a freight only line until the issues between the DfT / Chiltern & Unions can all be ironed out with little future-proofing for OHLE and indecision about the next phase shows where we’re still at. It’s frustrating to say the least.

What really really blows me away though is Oxford and Cambridge - the extremities of the Varsity line house the two real centres of economics / thinking. Yet the solution is a gold-plated yet unelectrified route upon which they run 2 car DMUs which were never (officially) acquired for the route and which have had to be modified twice in the 2.5 year life to accommodate the whims of the DfT. At the same time the same section of "Varsity" route is operating 40 year old DMUs because the infrastructure owners decided to plant signals in the middle of platforms.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0266292,-0.5943031,3a,75y,218.31h,75.75t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9-VrJFWTHXD6w4HQnXN0aw!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=14.252117066384102&panoid=9-VrJFWTHXD6w4HQnXN0aw&yaw=218.31184272198905!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTExNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

Not sure if this link will work

 

[zwk500]

What really really blows me away though is Oxford and Cambridge - the extremities of the Varsity line house the two real centres of economics / thinking. Yet the solution is a gold-plated yet unelectrified route

Which elements of Oxford-MK do you consider to be gold-plating?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which elements of Oxford-MK do you consider to be gold-plating?

I think there's an argument that Winslow station is, given that it's essentially a wayside halt which isn't likely to be that busy yet has a large car park and a full size, staffed building (it's all a bit Aylesbury Vale Parkway). The rest of it seems just a standard new build two track regional railway.

 

[jfowkes]

I think there's an argument that Winslow station is, given that it's essentially a wayside halt which isn't likely to be that busy yet has a large car park and a full size, staffed building (it's all a bit Aylesbury Vale Parkway). The rest of it seems just a standard new build two track regional railway.

Would we expect some major housebuilding to happen in Winslow over the next few decades to make use of the station? If so, seems to be not so much gold-plating as forward planning.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would we expect some major housebuilding to happen in Winslow over the next few decades to make use of the station? If so, seems to be not so much gold-plating as forward planning.

I would have thought that likely, yes, but nonetheless it's still a much bigger development than I expected it to be.

 

[DarloRich]

Winslow will be busy - there is loads of housing planned in the local area

 

[thedbdiboy]

Winslow serves a wide footprint including Buckingham, so even without further housing it acts as a parkway for an area long deprived of a train service

 

[zwk500]

I think there's an argument that Winslow station is, given that it's essentially a wayside halt which isn't likely to be that busy yet has a large car park and a full size, staffed building (it's all a bit Aylesbury Vale Parkway). The rest of it seems just a standard new build two track regional railway.

Winslow has been built for the size of the settlement it is projected to become, IMO.

Otherwise, the only argument I can see for over-specifying is it being 100mph not 90 and that's silver-plating at best. It isn't electrified, and it's conventional colour-light signalling not ETCS. It's double track throughout (required for the intended final service level) with 1 loop at Claydon (plus the reception siding for the future HS2 IMD), which is part of it's freight role. W12 is required for the freight clearances, and the RA is RA8 from Bicester to Bletchley, so again pretty much the bare minimum for heavy aggregates freight flows.

 

[fishwomp]

. Yet the solution is a gold-plated yet

Don't say that so loud - when the tracks were left unused and in situ for mothballing in the 90s, they got stolen.. and with the price of gold these days..

 

[hwl]

Winslow has been built for the size of the settlement it is projected to become, IMO.

Otherwise, the only argument I can see for over-specifying is it being 100mph not 90 and that's silver-plating at best. It isn't electrified, and it's conventional colour-light signalling not ETCS. It's double track throughout (required for the intended final service level) with 1 loop at Claydon (plus the reception siding for the future HS2 IMD), which is part of it's freight role. W12 is required for the freight clearances, and the RA is RA8 from Bicester to Bletchley, so again pretty much the bare minimum for heavy aggregates freight flows.

Which structure or structures limit it to RA8? Presumably RA10 is possible at lower speeds over the problem structures?

 

[zwk500]

Which structure or structures limit it to RA8? Presumably RA10 is possible at lower speeds over the problem structures?

The bit of the sectional appendix I've checked does not specify and I do not have sight of either the structural reports or the freight books to see HAW restrictions. It's quite possible it's actually RA10 compliant and the paperwork has not been done. The Table D lists RA8 from the GW/NW&C route boundary to the former Flyover Jn (1/4 mile west of Bletchley West Jn), then RA7 from Flyover Jn to Denbigh Hall Jn.

 

[Travelmonkey]

Has it been confirmed Winslow will be staffed full time from 1st to last train?

 

[class442]

The bit of the sectional appendix I've checked does not specify and I do not have sight of either the structural reports or the freight books to see HAW restrictions. It's quite possible it's actually RA10 compliant and the paperwork has not been done. The Table D lists RA8 from the GW/NW&C route boundary to the former Flyover Jn (1/4 mile west of Bletchley West Jn), then RA7 from Flyover Jn to Denbigh Hall Jn.

There are RT3973 HAW forms that allow RA10 between Bicester-Bletchley.

 

[zwk500]

There are RT3973 HAW forms that allow RA10 between Bicester-Bletchley.

Is there any obvious reason it couldn't go into the Table D?

 

[hwl]

There are RT3973 HAW forms that allow RA10 between Bicester-Bletchley.

Cheers!

 

[class442]

Is there any obvious reason it couldn't go into the Table D?

I don't there is any EWR specific reason, just general Heavy Axle Weight convention. Publishing RA10 into the Sectional Appendix sort of makes it a right of the FOCs' access to run trains at RA10, which makes it very difficult to lower the published RA. Managing HAW through RT3973 forms makes it easier to withdraw HAW RA8+ permission if the infrastructure was to decline.

 

[DavidGrain]

I think there's an argument that Winslow station is, given that it's essentially a wayside halt which isn't likely to be that busy yet has a large car park and a full size, staffed building (it's all a bit Aylesbury Vale Parkway). The rest of it seems just a standard new build two track regional railway.

Coming back to Winslow. Chiltern has declared that Winslow as built was not fit for purpose* and is ONE of the reasons that services have not started. I don't know how much work Chiltern have had to do at Winslow but the indication is that it is significant.

*See The thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ountdown-to-entry-into-service.275902/page-27
post 794