East West rail, Bletchley to oxford line

[Bernard Lamb]

23 minutes ago, Pannier Tank said:

 

Wasn't one of them (fantasy)  "10 trains per hour and 100MPH running" !  !

That will require fantastic acceleration and good brakes and seat belts for the passengers, given the short distance between stations.

Bernard

[Nearholmer]

The consultation phase suggested that that problem would largely be dealt with by closing several stations, and having many of the trains whizz through those stations lucky enough to remain.

 

Back to a point I’ve made a few times about the Marston Vale section: to make it a good railway for people who are in a hurry to get somewhere far away, it has to be made a bad railway for people who want to get to somewhere nearby, and squaring that circle would cost more than anyone is ever likely to be willing to pay, and involve more construction disruption and alteration of populated places than anyone is ever likely to tolerate. It’s very different from re-opening a length of railway in a largely rural area.

 

Its not a new challenge either: if you look at the timetables from “back in the day” it’s evident that no previous administration could quite work out how best to operate Oxford-Cambridge while simultaneously tapping the market on the middle bit.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Tony Teague]

Accepting that recent operators of the line have done nothing to encourage local travel, isn't it fair to say that there would be almost no business case for most of the existing stations, and that the business case for EWR is therefore entirely based upon the longer distance through traffic?

[Ray H]

I see from the TV news that the National Audit Office are going to investigate the scheme funding.

[Nearholmer]

Depends how you look at it I suppose.

 

If you take present usage, which has been progressively trashed by a combination of things, culminating in years of having no train services, you’d be right.

 

But, if you look at what’s happened and happening in the area in terms of increased housing, increasing job opportunities, and the locations of schools and colleges, it’s a route ripe for increased patronage. The only station that I can think of that isn’t in a location where a stack of development of one kind or another is going on is Aspley Guise. If you look at both Central Beds and Milton Keynes development plans, you will see that the railway is envisaged to be a key local transport link for a series of “new villages” and employment hubs, some of which are already part-built.

 

If you look at where the stations are, most of them are quite unusually close, easy walking distance, to places that people travel to and from ….. it’s just that they don’t do it by train any more, because there aren’t any! Pre-Covid, it was quite well used, busy even, despite very little promotion.

 

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Nearholmer

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

There’s so much “fantasy railway building” in the consultation papers for the Bletchley-Bedford section that it’s hard to guess what might or might not happen in reality if it ever does go ahead!

Seems par for the course for Gedford - Betchley.  Part of the last lot of modernisation was the intention to increase line speed.  But as the signalling was designed somebody realised that you either had to correctly site signals to protect level crossings or site the signals for the higher line speed and keep several of the crossings closed to road traffic for more than twice as long as they had been in the past and longer than they would be if the signal siring suited the crossings.

 

So a compromise emerged - after the signalling design was completed (to suit the level crossings and stations and meet the scheme timescales) those in the stratosphere who had sidestepped making a decision were told that the line speed could not be raised to their required figure.    And that was that.

[Goodnight Sweetheart]

On 22/10/2023 at 19:15, Nearholmer said:

 

Very strange this, because Berry Lane is private road, and the crossing is user-operated, having first contacted the signaller. What I don’t know is whether its released by the signaller, I have a feeling not, so the phone call might be a tad optional.

 

Looking at the number of misuses here, well …….

 

https://abcrailwayguide.uk/berry-lane-private-level-crossing-central-bedfordshire

 

Here's a photo of it from your roving reporter, taken last August.

 

 

 

Classic case of “i know the timetable” and a bit of “there’s no trains until xxxxx” the call the signaller isn’t optional it’s compulsory, access can and has been withdrawn after persistent misuse.

[Nearholmer]

Today you get some pictures of an actual train, at Bow Brickhill:

 

 

 

Regarding my point about the line offering access to employment, there is a huge new distribution complex being built just to the left of the lower photo, and a new foot and cycle path into it has been created from just by the end of the platform. With that and what exists already, there are several thousand jobs within <10 minutes walk of this nowheresville station, including Red Bull Racing HQ. It’s also a potentially useful bus interchange point for the Aylesbury route.
 

Other point is the usual LC issue: it closes across the road ridiculously long before a train materialises. There is something still not optimal about line speed, signal locations, over-run distances etc.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Nearholmer

[stivesnick]

In the previous consultation, the options for the Beford to Bletchley section were:

 

1. Keep existing stations and an hourly stopping service between Bedford and Bletchley with two limited stop services. The stations would have to be closed for a period of time to make then suitable for longer trains.

2. Close most of existing stations and build a few new ones in between to create new transport hubs and run an half-hourly through stopping service between Bletchley and Cambridge plus the two limited stop services. 

 

The local rail user group appears to support the first option. 

 

The problem for the consultation is that the people who might benefit from the through service to Cambridge have not yet moved into the area as the houses have not been built yet. 

 

Regards 

 

Nick 

 

[Nearholmer]

I reckon there’s a third possibility, which would be to run a half hourly fast and a half hourly all stations, with the all stations departing immediately after the fast. The next fast would then catch up with the slow at the junction, so passengers from the intermediate stations going forward to more distant points could step off one train, and get onto the one following it a few minutes later.

 

Having 2x two car stoppers an hour would provide a far more attractive service than 1x four (or however many) car as has been proven multiple times over on many rail and bus routes - customers respond better to more frequent services.

 

No lengthening of stations needed either.

 

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Nearholmer

[cctransuk]

6 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Having 2x two car stoppers an hour would provide a far more attractive service than 1x four (or however many) car as has been proven multiple times over on many rail and bus routes - customers respond better to more frequent services.

 

Would  there not be significant staffing issues?

 

CJI.

[Nearholmer]

Not if you employed and trained some.

 

Part of the mess that is the Marston Vale line is that it’s been regarded, operated, and staffed as a sort of dispensable appendage. That might have been OK while the area was in post-industrial decline, but we thankfully seem to be coming out of the other side of that, to the point where the very many brown-field sites are variously being landscaped, having houses built on them, or becoming employment and education centres. If the line is to be a decent local transport artery, it needs to become a solid thing ….. that’s how transport, land use planning, and redevelopment work.

 

(Apologies if my many years spent working for TfL come through too much here, but I do find the strange “can’t do” view that seems to pervade national rail very odd indeed)

[cctransuk]

12 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Not if you employed and trained some.

 

Part of the mess that is the Marston Vale line is that it’s been regarded, operated, and staffed as a sort of dispensable appendage. That might have been OK while the area was in post-industrial decline, but we thankfully seem to be coming out of the other side of that, to the point where the very many brown-field sites are variously being landscaped, having houses built on them, or becoming employment and education centres. If the line is to be a decent local transport artery, it needs to become a solid thing ….. that’s how transport, land use planning, and redevelopment work.

 

(Apologies if my many years spent working for TfL come through too much here, but I do find the strange “can’t do” view that seems to pervade national rail very odd indeed)

 

12 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Not if you employed and trained some.

 

Part of the mess that is the Marston Vale line is that it’s been regarded, operated, and staffed as a sort of dispensable appendage. That might have been OK while the area was in post-industrial decline, but we thankfully seem to be coming out of the other side of that, to the point where the very many brown-field sites are variously being landscaped, having houses built on them, or becoming employment and education centres. If the line is to be a decent local transport artery, it needs to become a solid thing ….. that’s how transport, land use planning, and redevelopment work.

 

(Apologies if my many years spent working for TfL come through too much here, but I do find the strange “can’t do” view that seems to pervade national rail very odd indeed)

 

That was my point - more staff equals more expense equals can't do!

 

CJI.

[Nearholmer]

Of course, but any transport link in an area with latent demand or other potential for growth will attract significantly more users if it offers more frequent, and crucially rock-solidly reliable services ….., clearly Step 1 on the MV has to be to deliver the existing timetabled service properly, not as some half-@rsed thing that is under resourced on all fronts, and first to get chopped in any crisis. Rebuild basic patronage. Regain trust.

 

That would give a platform on which to build when thinking about the development of the district, and how the local service might relate to EWR.

 

My suggestion would be that Step 2 should be to up the service to half-hourly, not extend the stations and run one longer train an hour. The capital cost would be lower, the local acceptability higher, although, yes, the revenue cost would be greater, but it’s about trying to start s virtuous circle of increasing patronage, and it might be that pump-priming revenue support is a better way to spend money than on steel and concrete.

 

Step 3, interleave the half-hourly local service with a half-hourly regional service when that rocks up.

 

And, solve the level crossing problems on the basis of a prolonged campaign, rather than attempt a full frontal attack, because most of the solutions will eventually be road overpasses. In the most brownfield locations, they could be got in soon, before other development occurred, but getting them into some of the other places in question will be pig difficult (Woburn Sands I think is a really, really tough one, for instance)……. Opposition to the construction of big, ugly concrete things needs to be eroded by a combination of building positivity around the railway, and allowing people to get so sick to death of sitting in traffic jams that they will stomach the ugly things.

Edited October 25, 2023 by Nearholmer

[rodent279]

13 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Of course, but any transport link in an area with latent demand or other potential for growth will attract significantly more users if it offers more frequent, and crucially rock-solidly reliable services ….., clearly Step 1 on the MV has to be to deliver the existing timetabled service properly, not as some half-@rsed thing that is under resourced on all fronts, and first to get chopped in any crisis. Rebuild basic patronage. Regain trust.

 

That would give a platform on which to build when thinking about the development of the district, and how the local service might relate to EWR.

 

My suggestion would be that Step 2 should be to up the service to half-hourly, not extend the stations and run one longer train an hour. The capital cost would be lower, the local acceptability higher, although, yes, the revenue cost would be greater, but it’s about trying to start s virtuous circle of increasing patronage, and it might be that pump-priming revenue support is a better way to spend money than on steel and concrete.

 

Step 3, interleave the half-hourly local service with a half-hourly regional service when that rocks up.

But where's the incentive for LMR (or whoever runs it currently) to develop business for another incoming operation?

[Nearholmer]

Nowhere.

 

This is why watching it is so incredibly frustrating. 
 

As I said above, I’ve spent too long in London, where the basic lessons of integrating land use planning, transport provision, and development were long ago learned.

 

The model currently applied in this case (three local authorities trying to juggle a regional development plan between them, and crucial elements of the transport provision to underpin it being in the hands of distant civil servants and disinterested train service contractors) simply isn’t fit for purpose. It’s rubbish!

[Ray H]

We shouldn't forget freight capacity - OK overnight but there'll be a need for day time paths as well.

 

Is it worth looking at 2 trains per hour instead of every 30 minutes - say a 20 + 40 minute interval?

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Ray H
To change should to shouldn't

[stivesnick]

The response from E-W Rail was that two fast and two stopping trains would not work, hence the option of closing some of the stations. 

 

Not seen a detailed timetable to check how true this is.

 

Regards 

 

Nick 

[Tony Teague]

All of this is very interesting, but the consultation on this stretch has closed and whether or not it will go ahead, and on what basis, will depend on a government minister who will not be guided by what is said on here.

[Nearholmer]

24 minutes ago, stivesnick said:

Not seen a detailed timetable to check how true this is.

I’m not convinced it is true, and spent an hour earlier sketching pathing graphs to test my suspicion that it is possible. It is tight, it depends on whether the fasts stop at some intermediate stations (they can’t really afford to), on some sectional timings for the stoppers (one of which seems excessive for reasons that I don’t understand), and on things like track layouts at each end. Whether it might be workable also hinges a lot on how potential users respond to changing trains at nodal points, which can be heavily affected by the nature of the change. 
 

In summary, I think it could be done, but not without effort snd risk.

[Nearholmer]

8 minutes ago, Tony Teague said:

All of this is very interesting, but the consultation on this stretch has closed and whether or not it will go ahead, and on what basis, will depend on a government minister who will not be guided by what is said on here.

And when did that sort of thing stop people fulminating on RMWeb?

 

It is though, exactly the sort of stuff that writ large, is currently making big politics in the north of England, where the unfitness for purpose of present structures and arrangements is hobbling the development of areas far bigger than one corner of Bedfordshire, and possibly lies behind a key contender to be the next PM talking about ripping-up the current planning arrangements around brownfield development.

 

Marston Vale is a microcosm of a bigger mess.

[Grovenor]

This is worth a look.

 

[1E BoY]

150139 was on the 0945 Staff training working to Bedford this morning (25 October). It looks smart in its new livery and hopefully services will commence again in the not too distant future.

[rodent279]

10 hours ago, Grovenor said:

This is worth a look.

 

Having just come back to backwards Britain after 5 days in the Netherlands,  the contrast with the UK in general, the Marston Vale line in particular, could not be greater. Everything is clean, everything is integrated, well thought through & works*. Cycle lanes are proper dedicated two lane affairs, in some cases on each side of the road, not the weedy half-footpath, half-cycle lane we get over here.

We stayed in Den Haag, and visited Scheveningen, Utecht and Dordrecht (and Zuiderpark parkrun, the main objective of the trip). The car was driven from HoH to the Holiday Inn express in the Hague, and stayed in the underground car park until it was time to go back to HoH for the boat. Everything else was done by public transport, even parkrun, which was a 5 min walk & 15 min tram ride. I got the impression that traffic in the cities is about 15% private car, the rest bus/train/tram & bike. Cars seem to have equal priority with bikes, pedestrians & buses and trams. I thought Britain was only an hour behind Europe,  but no, its more like 40 years.

 

*There was one bus that didn't turn up at Utrecht on our way to the Spoorwegmusuem, due to lack of drivers. We waited 40 min, but hadn't realised that 3 other buses could have taken us there, plus there is the train shuttle to Maliebaan as well! So that is down to our own ignorance as much as anything.

And I'm aware of the problems with the Dutch HSL and the Fyra trains that had to be returned- but at least they got the darn thing built!

Edited October 26, 2023 by rodent279

[Nearholmer]

This is more of why it is so frustrating to watch the MV: an opportunity to create this sort of truly liveable environment is being fumbled. There are bright spots, planners are trying hard, but the legislative, procedural, and administrative environment that they operate in ties at least one hand behind their back.
 

Some bits of Milton Keynes are “very Dutch”, to the degree that when I went to Medemblik I got confused and thought I’d returned home, and in a more sensible world the learning from that could and would be rolled forward.

 

Anyway, I will try hard today not to rant about this any more; I’m aware that I’ve  diverted and rather misused this thread, for which I apologise.