East-West Rail (EWR) countdown to entry into service

[800002]

Yes, I did look first, and no updates for Oxford to Manchester Piccadilly at the current time.

Reassuring, but at the same time disappointing.
Although one expects their ready to go (i know, I'm optimistic that this level of coordination is possible).

Using those times, you'd leave OXP at 1148 or BIT at 1157 and arrive Euston 1317, which is competitive with Chiltern journey times.

Really? I genuinely would not have thought that. Im guessing due to the frequency of Avanti service at MKC. I don't know how 'fast' the LNWR be from Bletchely so that might be worth some investigation when I have a little time.
I didn't realise the Chiltern had become that slow from Bicester/ OXP.

 

[Zomboid]

idn't realise the Chiltern had become that slow from Bicester/ OXP

It's not as slow as via EWR, but it's close enough that if Euston is significantly more convenient than Marylebone then it might make sense to go that way.

Bicester North is quite a bit faster than Bicester Village, too.

 

[CyrusWuff]

I didn't realise the Chiltern had become that slow from Bicester/ OXP.

The off-peak Gerrards Cross, Princes Risborough, Bicester North and Banbury terminators have never been restored post-pandemic, so the intermediate calls have been picked up by the Oxford and Birmingham services. Oxford services mostly being 165s instead of 168s or 172s doesn't help either.

One Oxford per hour used to be non-stop from Marylebone to High Wycombe and the other used to be non-stop from Marylebone to Haddenham & Thame Parkway. In both cases, they then ran non-stop to Bicester Village.

 

[positron]

Indeed but Greater Anglia GWR & SWR originally wanted the flexibility of an agreement similar to Southern permitting no second staff member under certain defined circumstances, but presumably compromised to end the strikes, but when opening a brand new railway with new staff surely you go for the most flexible option.

How long do you let brand new infrastructure go unused (and revenue left untapped) before you also compromise to get the thing running? This is a strategic route, they either need some legal mechanism to overrule RMT (a bad idea all round), or they realistically need to accept a 2nd member of staff as a safety critical role.

It's surprising to see many blame RMT here and elsewhere. They have an established policy, people are trying to go directly against that, the end result is an unhappy RMT who whether people like it or not have a lot of leverage.

 

[800002]

they either need some legal mechanism to overrule RMT (a bad idea all round), or they realistically need to accept a 2nd member of staff as a safety critical role.

Just to clarify, who do you name as 'they'?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Aug 2026 ==

It's surprising to see many blame RMT here and elsewhere. They have an established policy, people are trying to go directly against that, the end result is an unhappy RMT who whether people like it or not have a lot of leverage.

And why should the RMT standpoint be the method operandi for everyone else?

Just ridiculous they (RMT) have been allowed to procure so much perceived 'leverage'.

 

[iamraymond]

Just to clarify, who do you name as 'they'?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Aug 2026 ==


And why should the RMT standpoint be the method operandi for everyone else?

Just ridiculous they (RMT) have been allowed to procure so much perceived 'leverage'.

I concur, I don't think I'd get much sympathy in my office Monday morning if I asked my boss to hire an extra member of staff, just to open the door for me, because im not capable of pressing a button.

And yet we entertain this on the railway, brilliant.

 

[800002]

I concur, I don't think I'd get much sympathy in my office Monday morning if I asked my boss to hire an extra member of staff, just to open the door for me, because im a lazy herbert.

And yet we entertain this on the railway, brilliant.

It appears to be quite the emotive subject, and personally i think there needs to be a degree of realism employed.

If there wasn't so much distraction (as I'm going to call it) the railway would have been operational by now, save a few technical issues induced along the way from its inceptors / conceptors).
There will be no passenger service anytime soon all the while this particular distraction is ongoing.

 

[yorkie]

How long do you let brand new infrastructure go unused (and revenue left untapped) before you also compromise to get the thing running?

That's a question for the RMT, as it is they who need to compromise.

This is a strategic route, they either need some legal mechanism to overrule RMT (a bad idea all round), or they realistically need to accept a 2nd member of staff as a safety critical role.

I completely disagree; taxpayers and farepayers should not be held to ransom by the RMT.

It's surprising to see many blame RMT here and elsewhere.

It's refreshing and excellent to see the vast majority of people have a sensible view on this and don't fall for the RMT's weasel words.

They have an established policy, people are trying to go directly against that, the end result is an unhappy RMT who whether people like it or not have a lot of leverage.

By that logic, the RMT should get everything they ever demand; this only serves to give them even more leverage. The reason they have so much leverage is because they have been pandered to, over the years.

 

[Carlisle]

It's surprising to see many blame RMT here and elsewhere. They have an established policy, people are trying to go directly against that, the end result is an unhappy RMT who whether people like it or not have a lot of leverage.

So essentially the RMT couldn’t care less whether trains & railway’s exist unless they’ve a pre determined degree of leverage in their operations.

 

[YorkshireBear]

How long do you let brand new infrastructure go unused (and revenue left untapped) before you also compromise to get the thing running? This is a strategic route, they either need some legal mechanism to overrule RMT (a bad idea all round), or they realistically need to accept a 2nd member of staff as a safety critical role.

It's surprising to see many blame RMT here and elsewhere. They have an established policy, people are trying to go directly against that, the end result is an unhappy RMT who whether people like it or not have a lot of leverage.

If this was Northern where everything is currently operated with a full blown guard, then I think it would be a different viewpoint. But Chiltern are proposing to use an operational method that they use elsewhere on their network already, and have done for years, and no staff are proposed to have their role change as part of it. So I don't see a lot of sympathy for the RMT.

 

[Bald Rick]

So essentially the RMT couldn’t care less whether trains & railway’s exist unless they’ve a pre determined degree of leverage in their operations.

I don’t thnink that is fair.

It is often forgotten that the primaryobjective of the RMT is to best serve the interests of its members. Not necessarily the travelling public or ‘the railway’.

If those interests align, then great.

 

[fishwomp]

I don’t thnink that is fair.

It is often forgotten that the primaryobjective of the RMT is to best serve the interests of its members. Not necessarily the travelling public or ‘the railway’.

If those interests align, then great.

Rather like the TOCs then. They serve the interests of shareholders.

The only difference is that one makes money by running trains, the other doesn't.

There is no alignment for the union and operating trains, except that if there were no railway, there would be no union - and its members make no money when they strike.

One has been nationalized as a matter of policy so that the government can run the trains, and the other hasn't.

 

[Falcon1200]

It is often forgotten that the primary objective of the RMT is to best serve the interests of its members.

Of course, and generally the RMT do that well, but surely it is time to drop their longstanding objection to DOO, on the basis of its longevity and widespread use; AFAIK absolutely no-one is suggesting that existing DOO routes should return to full Guarded operation. There is plenty of blame to go round, for sure, but the primary reason we still do not have a service on the route seems to be the RMT?

 

[JonathanH]

Of course, and generally the RMT do that well, but surely it is time to drop their longstanding objection to DOO, on the basis of its longevity and widespread use; AFAIK absolutely no-one is suggesting that existing DOO routes should return to full Guarded operation.

The RMT policy is to see a second person on all trains, including those which are already DOO. They just have no leverage to make it happen.

 

[Falcon1200]

The RMT policy is to see a second person on all trains,

Which is what now seems to be proposed for East-West Rail as per Post #834, yet rejected by the RMT as per Post #880!

 

[positron]

Which is what now seems to be proposed for East-West Rail as per Post #834, yet rejected by the RMT as per Post #880!

The proposal doesn't mandate the second member of staff be present. That's RMTs objection, they seem perfectly willing to allow for the driver to actually operate the doors, they just want a second member of staff to be required on the trains.

A lot of the public agree with this too. Now yes you've always got the guards that just hide in the cab half the time anyway but I'm sure there's ways around that too.

 

[CyrusWuff]

The RMT policy is to see a second person on all trains, including those which are already DOO. They just have no leverage to make it happen.

A second safety critical person, i.e. a Guard.

So if no Guard is available, you risk cancelling at least one train. Whereas if no CSI is available, the train could (presumably) still run under Chiltern's proposal but there'd be no on-board Revenue Protection.

 

[BrianW]

This is getting crazy. So it's ok for a 12-car train with several hundred passengers to have one 'safety critical' member of staff- the driver; but a new service of probably 2 cars needs two staff? Perhaps one should carry a red flag and walk ahead of the train?

 

[positron]

It's not crazy because no one who wants the guard is saying it is alright that a 12 carriage train runs with only a driver.

Also it's crazy that you think it's at all comparable to some ancient practice on the railways.

You can agree or disagree but come on.

 

[duffield]

This is getting crazy. So it's ok for a 12-car train with several hundred passengers to have one 'safety critical' member of staff- the driver; but a new service of probably 2 cars needs two staff? Perhaps one should carry a red flag and walk ahead of the train?

Some of us don't think it's OK for that 12-car train to run hundreds of miles in that manner. Some of us think that's completely wrong.

 

[iamraymond]

This is getting crazy. So it's ok for a 12-car train with several hundred passengers to have one 'safety critical' member of staff- the driver; but a new service of probably 2 cars needs two staff? Perhaps one should carry a red flag and walk ahead of the train?

Throw in the revival of Network SouthEast liveries with that, times change - people need to get over it.

 

[Snow1964]

I don’t thnink that is fair.

It is often forgotten that the primaryobjective of the RMT is to best serve the interests of its members. Not necessarily the travelling public or ‘the railway’.

If those interests align, then great.

Although not operating trains, needing less staff, and thus less membership of RMT seems to be seen as preferable to having some members working on an additional service.

Maybe that is ok short term, but hardly sustainable long term

 

[yorkie]

The RMT policy is to see a second person on all trains, including those which are already DOO. They just have no leverage to make it happen.

The RMT is opposed to driver only operation; plenty of DOO services have a second person on board. The RMT object to the concept of any second person not being a safety critical Guard.

Some of us don't think it's OK for that 12-car train to run hundreds of miles in that manner. Some of us think that's completely wrong.

The argument against DOO was lost decades ago. It's time to move on.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Aug 2026 ==

Although not operating trains, needing less staff, and thus less membership of RMT seems to be seen as preferable to having some members working on an additional service.

Maybe that is ok short term, but hardly sustainable long term

The RMT dispute with Chiltern is completely non-sensical and unsustainable, but remember we are talking about Eddie Dempsey and chums; dubious individuals such as Eddie Dempsey don't think in the same way that ordinary people do and have a completely different ideology.

 

[800002]

The RMT dispute with Chiltern is completely non-sensical and unsustainable, but remember we are talking about Eddie Dempsey and chums; dubious individuals such as Eddie Dempsey don't think in the same way that ordinary people do and have a completely different ideology.

And just to point out that Chiltern is by no means driving this.
Chiltern is solely (micro)managed by the DfT.
The DfT has specifically said DOO operation.

The RMT dispute is with Chiltern in the same sense that if I found a frog in my bag of salad it would be me taking my complaint to the retailer who merely sold it to me. The complaint lies ultimately with the firm who packaged it and gave it to the retailer.

 

[Carlisle]

It appears to be quite the emotive subject, and personally i think there needs to be a degree of realism employed.

Realism by who?
How many times have the RMT re run the same DOO dispute over the last 30 years must be at least 40 times by now..

 

[800002]

Realism by who?

I was going to say on both sides... the union and the government.

How many times have the RMT re run the same DOO disputes over the last 30 years must be at least 40 times.

But yes, that would seem to fly in the face of earlier statements made.

If you say the government should have seen this coming, you end up with the union taking advantage.
If you say the government should fight the union, you end up with the situation we're in and the criticism there.
Who wins and who looses?

 

[Bald Rick]

Rather like the TOCs then. They serve the interests of shareholders.

The shareholders of almost all TOCs are us, the taxpayer.

 

[800002]

The shareholders of almost all TOCs are us, the taxpayer.

Now, yes.

 

[fishwomp]

The shareholders of almost all TOCs are us, the taxpayer.

Indeed, I was meaning historically - the much demonized TOCs.. obviously still a small handful are private for now.

RMT has been one of the biggest proponents for nationalisation of them. At least the TOCs were/are incentivized to running trains. Not necessarily with enough seats, nor for free, but at least running trains.

 

[800002]

All the while, previously, toc owning groups could take a substantial income from their operations agreeing to the unions' demands was simpler, easier, and just led to redrawing the profit / loss / income boundaries.
Their costs went up / profit went down, income was increased to compensate, surely.

They didnt need nor want the fight.

It's all been turned on its head in recent years as we all know now who holds the purse strings and who sees the revenue.
There is no longer the incentive to throw money at the issue because of whose money the owner would be throwing.
Make no mistake, the government has owned the railway operations (by direct involvement in financial matters) since the defacto nationalisation during the pandemic.