East West rail starting date?

[PLY2AYS]

You did not say 'currently'.
They are perfectly capable of DOO operation.
It only needs agreement to do so by making rhe relevant choices / exacting the right capabilities.

This has been investigated fully.
Hearsay: when the 196s were ordered there was an instruction to include bodyside cameras for DOO.
CAF were informed by WMT that they would be operating with guards so the specification of the cameras was not important, therefore the most basic were installed and the system never operated.
This has since been revised and procurement for a new camera system is under way.
The combination of WMT being renationalised, the length of sub-lease to Chiltern, transfer of rolling stock to Porterbrook, communication between CAF, EWR, Chiltern and the new camera company, added to the overall cost has, as you can imagine, been glacial at best.

As you say, the agreement would be the next biggest sticking point, because RMT and ASLEF (rightly or wrongly) both oppose the extension of DOO.
Combine that with the lack of infrastructure at Winslow, and the unverified claim that the station itself is unfit for passengers, has made this entire situation farcical.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Mar 2026 ==

What exactly needs to be done? I find it hard to believe such a recently built station isn’t accessible.

Supposedly station boundaries are encroaching onto private land, including fire exits. And the fittings internal to the station itself aren’t accessible. I don’t have any technical details sadly.

 

[800002]

has made this entire situation farcical.

We can agree on one thing. Yes - farcical.

 

[iamraymond]

Why not start service and not stop at Winslow for the time being? Farce

 

[Rail Quest]

How many worms fit into a single can?

I agree with everyone above: utter farce. A totally embarrassing state of affairs for all involved. I don't see how any parties (DfT, Chiltern or the unions) come out of this in a good light. It is in all of their interests and, most importantly, the interests of the future EWR beneficiaries, to sort this out. The public probably don't care how the EWR service is run, provided it's safe, convenient and cost effective so for crying out loud, agree on a solution, and fast before the people loose more faith in public transport.

Thanks everyone for your explanations.

 

[WTT Gremlin]

I'm surprised that there hasn't been more attention paid to this palaver given it's not that far north of Watford Gap.

Indeed... it is so 'not that far north of Watford Gap' that it is 20+ miles to the south...

 

[fgwrich]

How many worms fit into a single can?

I agree with everyone above: utter farce. A totally embarrassing state of affairs for all involved. I don't see how any parties (DfT, Chiltern or the unions) come out of this in a good light. It is in all of their interests and, most importantly, the interests of the future EWR beneficiaries, to sort this out. The public probably don't care how the EWR service is run, provided it's safe, convenient and cost effective so for crying out loud, agree on a solution, and fast before the people loose more faith in public transport.

Thanks everyone for your explanations.

And yet, how we look at Scotland and Leven / A to B & other projects with complete and utter envy.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Why not start service and not stop at Winslow for the time being? Farce

Because it's not just Winslow affected. The DOO issue also affects both Bletchley and Milton Keynes Central, noting that EWR services would be the only ones at the latter two stations not to have a Guard on-board.

 

[PLY2AYS]

I don't see how any parties (DfT, Chiltern or the unions) come out of this in a good light.

The East West Rail company itself are also a party left out here.

That’s a massive oversight of a lot of people.

 

[Kingham West]

Driver Only Operation or DOO (apologies I double “operation”ed on my previous post. I’m sure we’ve all said PIN number before)
But Chiltern do have guards on their Class 68 and Mk5 services and every passenger service north of Banbury.

Why did we not have the RMT insisting on door opening to Oxford ?

 

[PLY2AYS]

Why did we not have the RMT insisting on door opening to Oxford ?

DOO already exists at Oxford.

 

[JamesT]

Why did we not have the RMT insisting on door opening to Oxford ?

DOO was established south of Banbury back in BR days. So the RMT wouldn’t be able to object to its use on Oxford to Bicester. As we saw from the Aslef GTR dispute, the union ultimately loses trying to argue against what’s already in their contract.

 

[Kingham West]

DOO already exists at Oxford.

Do individual drivers mind DOO, is this just an RMT matter?

 

[JamesT]

Because it's not just Winslow affected. The DOO issue also affects both Bletchley and Milton Keynes Central, noting that EWR services would be the only ones at the latter two stations not to have a Guard on-board.

Is there any evidence that DOO is the issue with Winslow, rather than it not being finished?
The DOO dispute appears to be merely one of principle, rather than there being any technical issue preventing its use at locations.

 

[dk1]

Do individual drivers mind DOO, is this just an RMT matter?

In the 27 years I was in ASLEF from 1998 there was always a policy to oppose any further extension to DOO although a few got through I seem to recall.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Supposedly station boundaries are encroaching onto private land, including fire exits.

Are the neighbours called Appleby and Howe, perchance?

 

[The Planner]

The line is bi-directional. There is no safe way to dispatch trains from Winslow in either direction on either line because 196s are not capable of DOO operation.
WestMids RMT staff do not support an extension of DOO into MKC, and neither do ASLEF.

Its not bidi.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Because it's not just Winslow affected. The DOO issue also affects both Bletchley and Milton Keynes Central, noting that EWR services would be the only ones at the latter two stations not to have a Guard on-board.

DOO was established south of Banbury back in BR days. So the RMT wouldn’t be able to object to its use on Oxford to Bicester. As we saw from the Aslef GTR dispute, the union ultimately loses trying to argue against what’s already in their contract.

AIUI all West Midlands Trains services have second onboard staff including the Marston Vale service which will be replaced by East West Rail.

The East West Rail train service Oxford to Milton Keynes and the future Oxford to Bedford and Cambridge train services will all be regional train services, they will not go to or through London, and regional train services generally have second onboard staff. The Chiltern driver only operation train services all go to London.

There is also the prospect of GWR train services connecting Bristol, Swindon, Oxford and Milton Keynes and they will certainly have second onboard staff.

I cannot see the DfT winning the argument that the new East West Rail train services connecting Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bletchley, Bedford and Cambridge must be driver only operation. It appears that the only result of trying to insist on driver only operation is rail passengers still do not have a train service on the Oxford to Milton Keynes railway which cost over one billion pounds to rebuild and reopen.

 

[JamesT]

AIUI all West Midlands Trains services have second onboard staff including the Marston Vale service which will be replaced by East West Rail.

The East West Rail train service Oxford to Milton Keynes and the future Oxford to Bedford and Cambridge train services will all be regional train services, they will not go to or through London, and regional train services generally have second onboard staff. The Chiltern driver only operation train services all go to London.

There is also the prospect of GWR train services connecting Bristol, Swindon, Oxford and Milton Keynes and they will certainly have second onboard staff.

I cannot see the DfT winning the argument that the new East West Rail train services connecting Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bletchley, Bedford and Cambridge must be driver only operation. It appears that the only result of trying to insist on driver only operation is rail passengers still do not have a train service on the Oxford to Milton Keynes railway which cost over one billion pounds to rebuild and reopen.

Existing services may well be guarded. But that’s not a reason why they should be forever more. If you go back far enough, every service was guarded, but now some have been running for over 40 years DOO.

But this is not a thread regarding the merits of DOO, but why this dispute has been preventing the start of service. We appear to have heard a lot from the RMT, but not anything from Aslef who would actually be running the trains.

 

[deltic]

And we wonder why the Treasury dispairs of rail schemes.

 

[Kingham West]

And we wonder why the Treasury dispairs of rail schemes.

Yes

 

[mmh]

We appear to have heard a lot from the RMT, but not anything from Aslef who would actually be running the trains.

That makes sense - it's RMT members who'd be impacted, not ASLEF members.

 

[Purple Train]

Indeed... it is so 'not that far north of Watford Gap' that it is 20+ miles to the south...

Yes, of course. Apologies. Serves me right for trying to write posts on here while I'm tired...

 

[JamesT]

That makes sense - it's RMT members who'd be impacted, not ASLEF members.

How are RMT members impacted? They’re not losing any jobs, these are new services.

 

[mmh]

How are RMT members impacted? They’re not losing any jobs, these are new services.

Any increase in DOO (including new services) is seen as eroding the security of existing guards in the long term.

 

[Llandudno]

There are a lot of sticking points around Winslow station, both with platforms and the station build as a whole.
So even if the dispute with unions around door operation was to end instantly, most of the station interior needs a refit to be accessible as well as a supposedly a local land owner compensated due to boundaries and emergency egresses encroaching onto private property.
Yet to verify the last part though…

Could the line not open but trains not call at Winslow…?

 

[800002]

Could the line not open but trains not call at Winslow…?

Yes, but first the trains have to start running.

 

[DavidGrain]

Chiltern had said that Winslow was not fit for purpose when they took it over. Surprising comment as it was an open secret that Chiltern would be the operator for long before the official announcement so surely they must have had input on the design. From comments on this forum they completed the 'rebuilding' some time ago.
As for the comment we are now hearing about platform length, the initial allocation of Class 196 units are just 2 cars with insufficient number of units to operate 4 car trains on a regular basis. I am aware that EWR have been tasked with sourcing 5 car units so I would have expected Winslow to have been built with the capability of taking this length of train.
The point about certain parts of the station having been built on private land in one that I have not heard before. EWR have compulsory purchase powers so it is just a matter of fixing a price for which there are laid down procedures.

 

[800002]

Chiltern had said that Winslow was not fit for purpose when they took it over. Surprising comment as it was an open secret that Chiltern would be the operator for long before the official announcement so surely they must have had input on the design. From comments on this forum they completed the 'rebuilding' some time ago.

Surely one cannot have involvement in a project design and operational features before being offered the keys by the government.
The overriding issue is a company trying to build infrastructure which it cannot/ will not operate and has (my own opinion) little operational knowledge or experience relevant to operating the assets they are specifying/ delivering.

As for the comment we are now hearing about platform length, the initial allocation of Class 196 units are just 2 cars with insufficient number of units to operate 4 car trains on a regular basis. I am aware that EWR have been tasked with sourcing 5 car units so I would have expected Winslow to have been built with the capability of taking this length of train.

It's only become five cars since:
Theme park.
Concerns about gross levels of oversubscribed services.

 

[PLY2AYS]

The overriding issue is a company trying to build infrastructure which it cannot/ will not operate and has (my own opinion) little operational knowledge or experience relevant to operating the assets they are specifying/ delivering.

Whilst I completely resonate and understand the frustrations with this, sadly Chiltern seem to be bearing the brunt of it, however it is becoming more and more clear that the overarching body of EWR, the East West Rail company itself seem to have made some severe errors and oversights which would have been easily rectified with consultation experienced industry workers and partners.

 

[JonathanH]

As for the comment we are now hearing about platform length, the initial allocation of Class 196 units are just 2 cars with insufficient number of units to operate 4 car trains on a regular basis. I am aware that EWR have been tasked with sourcing 5 car units so I would have expected Winslow to have been built with the capability of taking this length of train.

One thing that has always seemed a little odd about the 196 situation (as we have exchanged before) is that East West Rail ran a tender for 12-14 three car units in 2020 and ended up with 6 two car units that were ordered in 2018 - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...k-procurement-updates-non-speculative.211423/