Alternative solutions for the Marston Vale Line

[zwk500]

Even trailing vehicles have to be maintained, and the owner would have to agree to such a use.

It wasn't entirely serious...

 

[43096]

LSL will be making more money from using theirs on charters than on the Marston Vale.

You’d make far more hiring out for daily operation than on cheese butty specials! A moot point anyway, as PRM compliance is not optional.

 

[mike57]

Weren't the Cumbrian Coast sets top & tailed?

I think they were to start with, then used a driving trailer, certainly was a driving trailer the last time I used it. Pre Northern there was a set in DRS colours, I think that was used on the Workington North service and some Sellafield staff specials around that time, but details are hazy, I can remember returning to Glasgow from Sellafield around 2009 and getting a loco hauled service from Sellafield to Carlisle. Cant remember if it was top and tailed or driving trailer, but it was winter and almost dark, and the weather was typically West Cumbian so I wasn't hanging about on the platform.

I think its a sad reflection on the way that things have developed since privatisation that short term 'make do and mend' solutions to overcome unexpected events are just no longer possible. Whatever ideas we suggest here I suspect the reality is it will be a replacment bus or nothing for a protracted period of time.

 

[A0wen]

I think they were to start with, then used a driving trailer, certainly was a driving trailer the last time I used it. Pre Northern there was a set in DRS colours, I think that was used on the Workington North service and some Sellafield staff specials around that time, but details are hazy, I can remember returning to Glasgow from Sellafield around 2009 and getting a loco hauled service from Sellafield to Carlisle. Cant remember if it was top and tailed or driving trailer, but it was winter and almost dark, and the weather was typically West Cumbian so I wasn't hanging about on the platform.

I think its a sad reflection on the way that things have developed since privatisation that short term 'make do and mend' solutions to overcome unexpected events are just no longer possible. Whatever ideas we suggest here I suspect the reality is it will be a replacment bus or nothing for a protracted period of time.

Such 'make do and mend' was on the way out long before privatisation.

Fleets were being standardised, particularly passenger ones, with multiple units, so drivers didn't need to sign half a dozen different loco types long before privatisation.

The reality with the Marston Vale line is that it's a relatively lightly used line which probably doesn't cover its costs in normal operating times. Dredging up some old stock from somewhere plus a driver who can drive that, a route conductor as the driver probably isn't passed for the route, plus guard doesn't come cheap.

TBF to the rail industry they have done things when there have been significant short term problems e.g. when the 321s had to be withdrawn due (was it bogie cracks or something like that ?) back in the early '00s when other units were drafted in to provide a skeleton service, but that was on the WCML between Northampton and London, not the Marston Vale.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Well some started life a 2 car units, power car and driving trailer, and in the Southern Region (and Railway pre 1948) there was a logical 'everything will work with everything' policy which certainly resulted in all sorts of odd formations over the years to meet varying needs so there is a precedent, but I dont know if todays railway would allow it.

Another thought would be a single 37 (or something using the same MU system) and a single driving trailer, simlar to that used on the Cumbrian coast until recently without the intermediate trailers. I know 'light engines' are often speed restricted due to lack of brake power but I cant imagine speed being an issue on this route. From what I can remember when I travelled on them between Sellafield and Carlisle a couple of times they have window bars and some basic form of door interlocking, but I may be wrong on door interlocking, memories are hazy.

My bold. The six car Hastings units always had a driving motor at each end but they did not always have 4 intermediate coaches according to my memory. But what you are thinking of are the 3-car non-Hastings units built to standard gauge. Some of them started life without their centre trailer but I am not sure if one from preservation is available ?.

It will all be too much trouble at the moment. I think most likely is bus with the quickest alternative being 230s. But 230 support might be too expensive (and complicated) so bus until some 153s or 150s are freed up. In my view it will come down to driver training and availability of 153/150 vs taking on responsibility for a micro fleet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It will all be too much trouble at the moment. I think most likely is bus with the quickest alternative being 230s. But 230 support might be too expensive (and complicated) so bus until some 153s or 150s are freed up. In my view it will come down to driver training and availability of 153/150 vs taking on responsibility for a micro fleet.

What is the present plan for East West Rail? I read that the 196 idea had been binned?

 

[Energy]

What is the present plan for East West Rail? I read that the 196 idea had been binned?

Last I heard was the 8 196s were being loaned temporarily. The number of ETCS L2 DMUs isn't very big, a loan of 755s (GA have a lot) would make sense if they can be maintained somewhere easily.

 

[zwk500]

Last I heard was the 8 196s were being loaned temporarily. The number of ETCS L2 DMUs isn't very big, a loan of 755s (GA have a lot) would make sense if they can be maintained somewhere easily.

EWR is going to be TCB with Signals and AWS/TPWS rather than ETCS though, I thought? so why does ETCS-fitted come into it?

 

[Peter Sarf]

What is the present plan for East West Rail? I read that the 196 idea had been binned?

Good question, possibly just a rumour of not using 196s. However that does bring up the option of getting that part of the route ready for 196s now/sooner rather than later with EWR. That would be an even slower but better solution (electrification further off).

How much water has passed under the bridge since the 230s were expected to be a quick/early/interim solution for the Marston Vale line while waiting for EWR (and now also 196s) to come along ?.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good question, possibly just a rumour of not using 196s. However that does bring up the option of getting that part of the route ready for 196s now/sooner rather than later with EWR. That would be an even slower but better solution (electrification further off).

How much water has passed under the bridge since the 230s were expected to be a quick/early/interim solution for the Marston Vale line while waiting for EWR (and now also 196s) to come along ?.

I checked the Sectional Appendix and the only part 196s aren't cleared for is Bedford P1A, which I'd imagine is fairly easily resolved. Then there's the issue of Kempston Hardwick platform length (mothball until housing development would pay for improvements?) and crew training, but it would make a lot of sense for it to be operated using 196s (or whatever else they end up using, e.g. ex-TfW ETCS 158s) by the EWR operator.

 

[Energy]

EWR is going to be TCB with Signals and AWS/TPWS rather than ETCS though, I thought? so why does ETCS-fitted come into it?

Thought it was etcs l2?

 

[zwk500]

Thought it was etcs l2?

It may have been at one point, but I'm fairly sure (but can't confirm) that it's been dropped. Normal TCB Signalling etc.,

 

[Trainbike46]

This may be an odd question, but if you're building a line from new (as EWR effectively is for the most part), why wouldn't you use ETCS?

 

[zwk500]

This may be an odd question, but if you're building a line from new (as EWR effectively is for the most part), why wouldn't you use ETCS?

Because it'd be an ETCS island in the middle of TCB which isn't scheduled for replacement for a long time. The madder decision is not to wire EWR from the beginning, but that's a different thread.

 

[gingertom]

What about a 2 car 755?
There's only doors are in the centre of the carriage,so could accommodate a small platform with no need for SDO.
At a rough guess the doors would be sited at 11m and 38m.

I was thinking the same. A 755/2, only needs one powered bogie, power pod with 2x engines and some batteries- sorted. Just a small question of cost.

 

[zwk500]

I was thinking the same. A 755/2, only needs one powered bogie, power pod with 2x engines and some batteries- sorted. Just a small question of cost.

And training, and maintenance, and clearance...

 

[gingertom]

And training, and maintenance, and clearance...

which would be required regardless of whatever stock ends up here.

 

[Haywain]

which would be required regardless of whatever stock ends up here.

The build cost for something like that would be high though, because it would be a very small fleet - albeit one suitable for the St Albans Abbey branch as well. The cheapest option for the Marston Vale is likely to be to take over the Vivarail trains and take on the displaced staff for maintenance (even if as contractors to train up existing LNR maintenance staff).

It's a pity that we don't have a joined up railway that could have looked at the 755s and seen that they are an excellent train for branch lines, providing better accessibility as well as being flexible, and therefore ordered more of them for wider use.

 

[The Planner]

Thought it was etcs l2?

No, lights on sticks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, lights on sticks.

Ooh, interesting. Given the talk of 175s to Chiltern...

 

[DaveN]

I'm amazed Stewartby is that high - what is most of the usage there driven by? Schoolkids?

Kimberley Sixth Form College I believe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Kimberley Sixth Form College I believe.

Makes sense, it's right next to the station.

 

[zwk500]

which would be required regardless of whatever stock ends up here.

True, but LNWR already have competency in maintaining some units that are already cleared on the line.

 

[Energy]

No, lights on sticks.

Nevermind then

 

[al green]

(Looking on a map the area immediately north of Wolverton also seems to be quite empty - can that be developed a lot further?)

No, no and no again. Greedy developers tried to get that into the last Local Plan. It was fought off. Work has started on the next Local Plan and I expect that they will try again, hopefully with the same outcome. The Gt Ouse flood plain is about 1km wide, more in places, so any development would have to jump that leaving a big gap which would be bad for sustainable transport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, no and no again. Greedy developers tried to get that into the last Local Plan. It was fought off. Work has started on the next Local Plan and I expect that they will try again, hopefully with the same outcome. The Gt Ouse flood plain is about 1km wide, more in places, so any development would have to jump that leaving a big gap which would be bad for sustainable transport.

Milton Keynes is going to expand and there's no reason it should not expand that way, though I would go with the Marston Vale area first due to the extant railway.

I can see no reason why leaving a gap for the floodplain should pose any kind of issue, what you're saying is like saying Hyde Park is a problem for sustainable transport in London. And don't forget there's a similar gap (for the same reason) running from Willen Lake down to Bow Brickhill - it's parkland and it's nice enough.

If you're a NIMBY I would really suggest that anywhere within about 5-10 miles of the outer boundary of MK is a really, really bad place to live, because MK will expand whether you like it or not.

 

[zwk500]

Milton Keynes is going to expand and there's no reason it should not expand that way, though I would go with the Marston Vale area first due to the extant railway.

I can see no reason why leaving a gap for the floodplain should pose any kind of issue, what you're saying is like saying Hyde Park is a problem for sustainable transport in London. And don't forget there's a similar gap (for the same reason) running from Willen Lake down to Bow Brickhill - it's parkland and it's nice enough.

If you're a NIMBY I would really suggest that anywhere within about 5-10 miles of the outer boundary of MK is a really, really bad place to live, because MK will expand whether you like it or not.

Building on the Great Ouse floodplain is the wrong answer, there's other land to build on. Filling in between Newport Pagnell and the M1 is an obvious place, also there's room on the west side behind Tattenhoe, etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Building on the Great Ouse floodplain is the wrong answer, there's other land to build on. Filling in between Newport Pagnell and the M1 is an obvious place, also there's room on the west side behind Tattenhoe, etc.

I didn't say build on the floodplain. I said extend north but leaving a gap as parkland, as per the Ouse Valley from Willen to Bow Brickhill.

 

[Mag_seven]

Reminder - thread is to discuss alternative solutions for the Marston Vale Line

thanks

 

[ashkeba]

Last I heard was the 8 196s were being loaned temporarily. The number of ETCS L2 DMUs isn't very big, a loan of 755s (GA have a lot) would make sense if they can be maintained somewhere easily.

The 755s are needed to restore the Norwich in 90 services without borrowing airport or commuter units. The airport is picking up again, too. Go steal the Welsh flirts or order new, please.