Marston Vale Line Woes

[Lambton58]

 There was some discussion on the East West rail, Bletchley to Oxford Line thread a couple or three months back about what type of stock might be used for passenger services on the line.  Well, it won't be the current Class 230s!  Quite apart from the collapse of Vivarail last year, which resulted in buses replacing passenger trains on the Marston Vale line, it seems that the 230s were not reliable enough*.   Annoyingly, the situation isn't going to improve anytime soon and it looks like we may be getting Class 150s back**, but not until late Autumn!! 🙁🤬.  Anyway,  I share below some information posted a couple of  weeks by a local councillor on our local Facebook group.   

 

Frustrating is not the word.  You may hear the sound of teeth grinding and heads being  banged against walls here in Woburn Sands   

 

Ralph 

Lambton58

 

* Like many Marston Vale passengers, we've experienced that!  A 4-5 hour delay when trying to get to Bedford, several missed connections to London and misinformation from LNW.  The resulting compensation pretty well paid for our Two Together Railcard!

**  I've nothing against class 150s - frankly anything reliable, that can take bikes is welcome.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Marston Vale Line report by David Hopkins.

I was on a conference call this afternoon, hosted by London North Western (LNW), updating us on the issues regarding the lack of a rail service on the Marston Vale Line.

The brief history is that the class 230 trains that have been in use are (as you will recall) reused underground trains. They were originally built in 1978 but were upgraded for use on our line, on the Isle of Wight line and on a branch line in Wales.

The maintenance company Vivarail which maintained the trains has gone into Administration (last November to be precise).

It would appear very unlikely that these trains will return to service as they were proving unreliable, expensive to maintain and spare parts were becoming difficult to source.

Instead, LNW intends sourcing old Class 150 trains (see below) in May. This class to train operated on the line in the period up to 2018.

The replacement bus service (which has experienced accessibility issues and was unable to take cycles) is being ‘refreshed’ by LNW. They are aware of the other issues relating to that service and are addressing them as well. LNW is frequently updating its series of blogs on the Marston Vale web pages and will be holding update meetings with stakeholders every six week moving forward.

Issues

The 230’s experienced frequent generator unit failure

The 150’s are more than twice as reliable and are cheaper to operate

The revenue from the line is far less than the costs but this is manageable if there is certainty about costs (which has not proven to be the case)

Could the maintenance staff have been taken on by LNW direct? This was considered (TUPE) by LNW but this still would not have overcome the basic maintenance issues and costs.

The trains (230’s) are owned by Lombard and leased to LNW till 2026 (when the franchise ends) but with break clauses

It seemed this was a failure waiting to happen – did LNW have any risk assessment/management plans in place? Yes but these proved not to be adequate.

Kimberley College is concerned they could lose up to 50-100 students due to this failure (lost income to that trust would be up to £500K)

LNW will be circulating a FAQ sheet today (6th February) 

How long will the driver training take? The trains should be running with trained staff by the late autumn 2023. The drivers need to attend a Traction Conversion Course that lasts 3 months but they are already doing other training for the mainline trains hence the delay.

It could be a phased return (limited service) for a few weeks initially.

Trains have to be less than 40 metres in length to meet the platform length and not obstruct level crossings – very few trains meet this criteria hence the limited choice of replacement engines.

Can replacement buses run on days of industrial action? Not sure!

What will happen to the 230’s? – could be broken down for spare parts for the Welsh Service. What will happen to artwork on the trains? – LNW will look at that issue.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[08221]

They need to bring these back - warm, comfy and (usually!) reliable 🙂

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by 08221

[Nearholmer]

Late Autumn!!!

 

This is a serious indication of the dysfunctionality of the rail industry.

 

There are trains now, a couple of freights and ECS each day, and the blasted things have a habit of running very early in the morning, sounding horns at every place, and waking me up!

Edited February 15, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Ray H]

4 hours ago, Lambton58 said:

Trains have to be less than 40 metres in length to meet the platform length and not obstruct level crossings – very few trains meet this criteria hence the limited choice of replacement engines.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Am I missing something here?

 

As quoted above there are (currently) unlikely to be any passenger trains until much later in the year due to the limited lengths of the platforms limiting the choice of train that can be used. To my mind that means that the platforms won't see much if any use in the intervening time.

 

Question 1: How long (timewise) would it take to increase the platform lengths?

Question 2: Whilst I understand that there is to be some potential rationalisation of stations between Bletchley & Bedford that will bring about some station closures, will the above mentioned short platforms continue to limit the stock to be used once the Bletchley/Bicester section is open or will the remaining platforms need to be lengthened before then anyway?

Question 3: Will any new build work - platform extensions or new station platforms - mean further periods of no trains and/or possessions?

[charliepetty]

4 hours ago, Ray H said:

 

Am I missing something here?

 

As quoted above there are (currently) unlikely to be any passenger trains until much later in the year due to the limited lengths of the platforms limiting the choice of train that can be used. To my mind that means that the platforms won't see much if any use in the intervening time.

 

Question 1: How long (timewise) would it take to increase the platform lengths?

Question 2: Whilst I understand that there is to be some potential rationalisation of stations between Bletchley & Bedford that will bring about some station closures, will the above mentioned short platforms continue to limit the stock to be used once the Bletchley/Bicester section is open or will the remaining platforms need to be lengthened before then anyway?

Question 3: Will any new build work - platform extensions or new station platforms - mean further periods of no trains and/or possessions?

IF someone cared, 2 x Class 153's could be borrowed from Transport for Wales OR  2 X Class 150s from Northern, you can operate I believe one carriage only with its doors.

 

BUT its probably cheaper to run a bus !!!!!, OR nothing.

[Ray H]

And hidden behind this is no doubt a shortage of LNW crews with the branch crews being used to fill gaps in the Euston service. One of these days new franchisees will learn that there has to be a level of extra staff (apparently over and above the rostered number) to cover leave, short term absence and promotion/retirement.

 

I'm sure some of the longer serving LNW staff must have worked the Class 150s & 153s - the latter incidentally must be shorter than the platforms - so if there was a will I doubt it would take too long for their stock refresher training and, with a little persuasion of the relevant unions, could involve the setting up of a short term small dedicated link primarily to work the "branch" whilst the remaining crews went through the full stock training.

 

One thing that needs doing sooner rather than later is to start routinely running something - a light loco might suffice - to keep the crews road trained otherwise the autumn re-start will get pushed back even further because although the crews will be stock trained, their route knowledge will have expired (and by the time everyone's road training is complete) they will, no doubt, require stock refresher training.

[Lambton58]

1 hour ago, Ray H said:

I'm sure some of the longer serving LNW staff must have worked the Class 150s & 153s

The line has been operated with Class 230s since 2018. Given that, the disruption caused by the pandemic and other staffing issues/policies, it's quite possible that there aren't that many suitably qualified crew left.  But I'm guessing really.  

 

So here's a question or three about driver training; mention was made in the Councillor's report of drivers needing to do a Traction Conversion Course.  Once passed, how long does this remain valid?  Is there something similar for route knowledge and how long does that last before it needs refreshing? 

[Lambton58]

19 hours ago, 08221 said:

They need to bring these back - warm, comfy and (usually!) reliable 🙂

 

 

 

Agreed - especially if you can get a seat at the front end and the driver's left the curtain up!  

[Talltim]

11 hours ago, charliepetty said:

IF someone cared, 2 x Class 153's could be borrowed from Transport for Wales OR  2 X Class 150s from Northern, you can operate I believe one carriage only with its doors.

 

BUT its probably cheaper to run a bus !!!!!, OR nothing.

But do they have them to spare?

[Oldddudders]

I'm sure some diehards would like to return to the heady days of twin Fragonset 31s sandwiching some LH coaches.... Even I was persuaded to have a ride on that. Then there were my friend Catherine's bubble cars - she managed the leases. 

[DY444]

3 hours ago, Ray H said:

And hidden behind this is no doubt a shortage of LNW crews with the branch crews being used to fill gaps in the Euston service. One of these days new franchisees will learn that there has to be a level of extra staff (apparently over and above the rostered number) to cover leave, short term absence and promotion/retirement.

 

I'm sure some of the longer serving LNW staff must have worked the Class 150s & 153s - the latter incidentally must be shorter than the platforms - so if there was a will I doubt it would take too long for their stock refresher training and, with a little persuasion of the relevant unions, could involve the setting up of a short term small dedicated link primarily to work the "branch" whilst the remaining crews went through the full stock training.

 

One thing that needs doing sooner rather than later is to start routinely running something - a light loco might suffice - to keep the crews road trained otherwise the autumn re-start will get pushed back even further because although the crews will be stock trained, their route knowledge will have expired (and by the time everyone's road training is complete) they will, no doubt, require stock refresher training.

 

No such thing as franchises or franchisees any more.  The TOCs that are not being run by the so-called Operator of Last Resort are all on management contracts with literally just about every penny of expenditure requiring DfT authorisation and minimising costs the only objective. 

 

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the intermediate stations were just closed.  Ditto Stourbridge Town branch due to the ailing PPMs. 

Edited February 16, 2023 by DY444

[08221]

58 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

I'm sure some diehards would like to return to the heady days of twin Fragonset 31s sandwiching some LH coaches.... Even I was persuaded to have a ride on that. Then there were my friend Catherine's bubble cars - she managed the leases. 

With the coaches being named “Annie” and “Clarabel” - they were fun times on the branch!

[Lambton58]

2 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

I'm sure some diehards would like to return to the heady days of twin Fragonset 31s sandwiching some LH coaches.... Even I was persuaded to have a ride on that. Then there were my friend Catherine's bubble cars - she managed the leases. 

Now there's a thought!  

[Ray H]

3 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

No such thing as franchises or franchisees any more.  The TOCs that are not being run by the so-called Operator of Last Resort are all on management contracts with literally just about every penny of expenditure requiring DfT authorisation and minimising costs the only objective. 

 

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the intermediate stations were just closed.  Ditto Stourbridge Town branch due to the ailing PPMs. 

 

And who would put money on DfT having the same thoughts as the franchisees?

[phil-b259]

On 16/02/2023 at 13:11, DY444 said:

 

No such thing as franchises or franchisees any more.  The TOCs that are not being run by the so-called Operator of Last Resort are all on management contracts with literally just about every penny of expenditure requiring DfT authorisation and minimising costs the only objective. 

 

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the intermediate stations were just closed.  Ditto Stourbridge Town branch due to the ailing PPMs. 

 

Closing stations is NOT quick, easy or cheap!

 

Tanks to the requirements baked into the privatisation legislation that needs further acts of Parliament to change them) Any station closure has to go through an incredibly beaurocratic process with all sorts of opportunities to frustrate the process.

 

Thats why its usually far more efficient for the Government to sponsor a permanent rail replacement bus service for years and years.

 

Norton Bridge station saw its last train in 2004 - yet it took until 2017 before the DfT finally managed to close it permanently!

[pete_mcfarlane]

25 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Closing stations is NOT quick, easy or cheap!

Which is presumably why stations like Peartree and Elton & Orston survive, as it's cheaper to not close them. 

 

As for the Marston Vale issues, surely the real problem here is that, being a non-electrified branch line surrounded by electrified main lines, it's operationally awkward and needs a small fleet of dedicated and non-standard (for the operator) trains?

 

If LNW had loads of similar lines in the area, they'd be running them all with a big fleet of 15x units and we wouldn't have this problem. Ditto if the line was electrified. 

Edited February 17, 2023 by pete_mcfarlane

[woodenhead]

51 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

If LNW had loads of similar lines in the area, they'd be running them all with a big fleet of 15x units and we wouldn't have this problem. Ditto if the line was electrified. 

But it won't be because once the East-West services begin it will be it's own TOC and new diesel units, The East West Railway will be responsible for lengthening the platforms to cope with whatever trains they order along with signalling improvements, level cross replacements and station closures.  I'll also bet they close the line and replace it with buses for the 12-24 months it will take them to redo the line.

 

The DFT and LNW are I imagine hoping to manage it as a status quo albeit without 230s until then.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

As for the Marston Vale issues, surely the real problem here is that, being a non-electrified branch line surrounded by electrified main lines, it's operationally awkward and needs a small fleet of dedicated and non-standard (for the operator) trains?

 

If LNW had loads of similar lines in the area, they'd be running them all with a big fleet of 15x units and we wouldn't have this problem. Ditto if the line was electrified. 

 

Back in NSE days this realisation is what saw the St Albans Abbey and Upminster - Romford lines wired. Unfortunately the nature of the Marston vale line meant it could never be a candidate for such 'tidying up' schemes

[Mike_Walker]

I know it sounds crazy to the lay person that no trains can be provided until possibly the autumn but there are several issues here that need to be considered.

 

First: The line is plagued by short platforms at stations which can only accept a train of approximately 40m length.  This is aggravated by the presence of level crossings in close proximity to the platform ends (in some cases between the staggered up and down platforms) and the position of signals at the departure end of the platform.  It is not considered acceptable to have the rear of the train blocking a crossing - assuming it has selective door operation (SDO) - and equally it is no longer acceptable for the front of the train to stop beyond the signal.  The driver must be able to see it at all times to avoid what is known as a SASPAD; Starting Against Signal Passed At Danger.

 

Second: Lengthening the platforms would be time consuming and expensive.  Modern standards require a much higher degree of design and approval before any work can be carried out and, in addition, a large amount of signalling alterations would need to be carried out involving a lot more than what might just seem a simple move of a signal and a few bits of cable.  Again the work has to be designed, approved by a Signal Sighting Committee and then signed off.

 

Third:  Because of the 40m limit the only practical stock that can be used is the Class 150 but neither London Northwestern Railway or its sister company West Midlands Railway now have any of these in their fleets.  The only available units look likely to be 150/2s coming from Transport for Wales but they are unable to release these (and some to GWR) until more of their new Class 197s and the Flirt Class 231s are in service.  The former are now coming on stream on a daily basis but the latter have yet to although it is thought to be only a matter of a few weeks before they do but it will probably be the summer before TfW are prepared to release the units.

 

There will then be a period whilst the Bletchley-based drivers, conductors and maintenance staff are trained on the units.  Their previous competency on they type, which in any case was on 150/1s which are not the same, having expired 6 months after they departed last time.  Even with such a small team, this training takes time and that supposes the current industrial action is resolved by then;  ASLEF refused to allow GWR drivers to train on the 769s whilst the strikes were ongoing.

 

Some have suggested 153s or 156s but the simple fact, ignoring the fact that they are too long, is that the operational fleets of these types are fully employed and cannot be spared.  Yes, there are examples of both types in long term storage but they would need heavy overhauls just to make them fit for service.  The interiors of some long-term stored stock have been described as resembling mushroom farms!  On top of this, many of the stored units have not received the PRM modifications.  So, even if the length issue wasn't a problem, deploying these would take longer to achieve and you'd still need the same training programme.

 

I can imagine how totally frustrating the situation must be for the Marston Vale users but perhaps it would be more appropriate to point one's anger in the direction of the DafT who enforced the 230s on the line rather than the TOC and who must therefore bear responsibility.

 

Long term, if East West Rail extends to Bedford and beyond then there will be consolidation of stations which will get proper length platforms and the crossings will be replaced by bridges or closed if this is not possible.

 

LATE NEWS:  I'm now seeing an unconfirmed report that three 150/1s might be coming on hire from Northern in April or May but if so there will still be the issue of retraining to consider which could take two to three months.

Edited February 18, 2023 by Mike_Walker
Additional details added.

[Pannier Tank]

2 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

The line is plagued by short platforms at stations which can only accept a train of approximately 40m length. 

 

How many stations on the branch have 'short platforms' ?

 

Surely it would be better to run trains avoiding stopping at the  'short platforms' than to replace all trains with Busses ?

I understand that's how they run the bus service, the slow bus service calls at all stations and the fast bus service misses several stops.

[Davexoc]

11 minutes ago, Pannier Tank said:

 

How many stations on the branch have 'short platforms' ?

 

Surely it would be better to run trains avoiding stopping at the  'short platforms' than to replace all trains with Busses ?

I understand that's how they run the bus service, the slow bus service calls at all stations and the fast bus service misses several stops.

 

A bit of digging finds this;

 

Fenny Stratford (Platform) - 76m
Bow Brickhill (Down) - 37m
Bow Brickhill (Up) - 37m
Woburn Sands (Down) - 68m
Woburn Sands (Up) - 62m
Apsley Guise (Down) - 37m
Apsley Guise (Up) - 50m
Ridgmont (Down) - 61m
Ridgmont (Up) - 61m
Lidlington (Down) - 66m
Lidlington (Up) - 51m
Millbrook [Bedfordshire] (Down) - 73m
Millbrook [Bedfordshire] (Up) - 73m
Stewartby (Down) - 37m
Stewartby (Up) - 51m
Kempston Hardwick (Down) - 45m
Kempston Hardwick (Up) - 37m
Bedford St Johns (Platform) - 41m

Down = Towards Bedford.
Up = Towards Bletchley.
 

[Wheatley]

Half of them then. I can see why the bus is a more attractive proposition. 

 

I don't know about anyone else's but the ex-Northern 153s are certainly not PRM compliant so cannot be used without extensive alterations. 

[D9020 Nimbus]

The shortest platform is 37 metres — I didn't know that class 153s were longer than that!

 

As for PRM on 153s, can't they just lock the toilet permanently out of use?

[Wheatley]

55 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

As for PRM on 153s, can't they just lock the toilet permanently out of use?

No, otherwise they'd still be in use on Northern;  the plan (on at least one version of the pre-covid rolling stock strategy) was to couple them to 150s with a compliant toilet to make 3 car sets. 

 

I can't remember the ins and outs of why it wasn't acceptable, I have enough trouble keeping up with the bits if PRM I am supposed to know about ! 

Edited February 18, 2023 by Wheatley

[The Stationmaster]

42 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

The shortest platform is 37 metres — I didn't know that class 153s were longer than that!

 

As for PRM on 153s, can't they just lock the toilet permanently out of use?

They aren't!  In fact a 2 car 150/2 is only just a bit over 38 metres so would fit all the platforms.  I'm trying hard to remember the various problems we went through ISA'ing the resignalling and to what extent there are signals at the departure end of the platforms because in several cases the signals had to be moved back in rear of platforms because of the level crossings and braking distance issues.   There was  a right rigamarole over line speeds because the spec had been to increase the line speed and we found that several signals on the original plan were under-braked - I've an idea that in the end the speed increase didn't go as high as originally intended.

 

The whole scheme was a real headache for everyone involved and certain parts of Railtrack got really hacked off with it.  That probably explains why I finished up having to wtite the emergency operating instructions for the level crossings because they claimed they didn't have anybody able to convert the signalling contractor's technical instructions into railway operator's instructions.    i think my employer's charged them a week for my time so it was a rather pricey set of Instructions (but obviously of superb quality👀)