Alternative solutions for the Marston Vale Line

[Bletchleyite]

Thought I would chuck this in to avoid too much speculation in the main thread.

Obviously "buses" are one option, but this is to look at other options.

As a start, I've found the relevant Sectional Appendices:

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sectional-appendix/Sectional%20Appendix%20full%20PDFs%20December%202022/London%20North%20Western%20(South)%20Sectional%20Appendix%20December%202022.pdf

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sectional-appendix/Sectional%20Appendix%20full%20PDFs%20December%202022/London%20North%20Eastern%20Sectional%20Appendix%20December%202022.pdf

...and here are the platform lengths and other relevant information with possible issues in bold. Up is towards Bletchley, down is towards Bedford.

Bletchley P6 - 129m - not an issue

Fenny Stratford 76m - not an issue

Bow Brickhill - 37m both ways. HOWEVER there is no signal at the end of either platform, so I'd imagine the S board could be moved to overhang away from the crossing and local door or ASDO be used.

Woburn Sands 68m down, 62m up - not an issue

Aspley Guise - 37m down, 50m up. There is no signal on the down platform thus presumably SDO/local door could be used with the front overhanging here too.

Ridgmont - 61m down, 61m up - not an issue

Lidlington - 66m down, 51m up - not an issue

Millbrook - 73m down, 73m up - not an issue

Stewartby - 37m down, 51m up. There is no signal at the down platform end - it's quite a way further along. So again, I can't see an issue with SDO/local door on a 2x24m unit.

Kempston Hardwick - 45m down, 37m up. Both platforms on the same side of the crossing, so down isn't an issue that I can see. Up may be a problem - I can't see how far past the platform end the signal is from Google Maps. However usage at this station is incredibly low, so temporary closure pending housing development which could pay for improvement by planning gain, or unidirectional operation could be an option.

Bedford St John's - 41m. However there is no level crossing at either end of the station, so again I can't see why SDO/local door couldn't be used. Or even temporarily close the station; the students who mostly use it won't stop travelling just because they have to walk over from Midland.

Bedford Midland P1A - 81m - not an issue

So what's going on here? It appears to me that there is only one platform which might actually be an issue for a 2x24m unit if S boards could be placed past the platform end, and that's at the least used station on the whole line, which could be long term taxistuted if moving the one (1) potentially affected signal a few metres along wasn't affordable.

Looking at unit clearances, obviously 153s are permitted (used before), and from reading the Sectional Appendices (I'm admittedly not used to reading these) it looks like 156s are also OK though not 158s, and 172s are permitted with the steps removed (which suggests that the modifications required to accommodate them would be minor), and - and this is the surprising one - 196s are permitted throughout other than into the platform at Bedford, which I guess would again be a small mod because they presumably clout something.

So why do these 230s exist again, then?

 

[cle]

what's the topic/split off from for this thread?

 

[zwk500]

what's the topic/split off from for this thread?

Class 230s have had to temporarily stop running on the Marston Vale line because of Vivarail going into administration.

Thanks for this, @Bletchleyite

Kempston Hardwick - 45m down, 37m up. Both platforms on the same side of the crossing, so down isn't an issue that I can see. Up may be a problem - I can't see how far past the platform end the signal is from Google Maps. However usage at this station is incredibly low, so temporary closure pending housing development which could pay for improvement by planning gain, or unidirectional operation could be an option.

Worth noting that there's nothing stopping a train drawing past a signal at a station so long as the route can be safely set. At Kempston Hardwick you wouldn't be triggering a crossing sequence or blocking a junction by setting the route, so drawing forward is perfectly possible should it be wanted.

So why do these 230s exist again, then?

It was a convenient place to test them

 

[PeteFLT]

Class 09 and a DBSO?

 

[pdeaves]

Class 230s have had to temporarily stop running on the Marston Vale line because of Vivarail going into administration.

Have they? RTT seems to show normal running for the past week (unless I have missed something obvious).

 

[Watershed]

Yesterday was the last day of operation - trains stopped running in the afternoon. See here.

 

[pdeaves]

Yesterday was the last day of operation - trains stopped running in the afternoon. See here.

OK, thanks, I didn't check today's running!

 

[Pete_uk]

Tarted up class 150's or a two car 19x variant.

 

[Dai Corner]

Close the line and introduce DRT?

 

[JamesT]

Close the line and introduce DRT?

Might cause a small problem when EWR comes along and wants to use the line…

Talking of EWR, what happened to the proposals to bin various stations along the Marston Vale and build at least some new stations? I’m assuming those would be built to a decent standard to take modern trains? If finding stock to replace the 230s is difficult given the constraints of the existing platforms, maybe accelerate the EWR plans whilst you have an empty railway?

 

[zwk500]

Might cause a small problem when EWR comes along and wants to use the line…

Talking of EWR, what happened to the proposals to bin various stations along the Marston Vale and build at least some new stations? I’m assuming those would be built to a decent standard to take modern trains? If finding stock to replace the 230s is difficult given the constraints of the existing platforms, maybe accelerate the EWR plans whilst you have an empty railway?

I don't think they've announced their preferred option for the Marston Vale section, let alone begun the design and planning process.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I cannot believe some stock (150 or 153) has not been robbed to run something. At least by the end of this coming week. Long term, sadly, I think the chances of 230s on the vale are slipping away.

I just hope the staff and some of Vivarails ideas and results are of future use.

 

[bramling]

I cannot believe some stock (150 or 153) has not been robbed to run something. At least by the end of this coming week. Long term, sadly, I think the chances of 230s on the vale are slipping away.

I just hope the staff and some of Vivarails ideas and results are of future use.

Are there any spare 150s? Certainly GWR and TFW are short at the moment.

 

[DanNCL]

I cannot believe some stock (150 or 153) has not been robbed to run something. At least by the end of this coming week. Long term, sadly, I think the chances of 230s on the vale are slipping away.

The crew for the Marston Vale don’t sign 150s or 153s anymore.

Are there any spare 150s at the moment? Certainly GWR and TFW are short at the moment.

Doesn’t really make a difference, as in any case there’s no crew that could run them on the Marston Vale.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The crew for the Marston Vale don’t sign 150s or 153s anymore.

How liong would it take for them to run a refamiliarisation course? (Always assuming any units were available).
Or borrow a driver or two from elsewhere and operate with a conductor driver familiar with the route.
(yes, I know drivers don't grow on trees)

 

[Peter Sarf]

The crew for the Marston Vale don’t sign 150s or 153s anymore.


Doesn’t really make a difference, as in any case there’s no crew that could run them on the Marston Vale.

How liong would it take for them to run a refamiliarisation course? (Always assuming any units were available).
Or borrow a driver or two from elsewhere and operate with a conductor driver familiar with the route.
(yes, I know drivers don't grow on trees)

Yes. I expect the drivers on the route used to drive the previous units (150 & 153) so I imagine it is just a refresher required.

 

[DanNCL]

How liong would it take for them to run a refamiliarisation course? (Always assuming any units were available).
Or borrow a driver or two from elsewhere and operate with a conductor driver familiar with the route.
(yes, I know drivers don't grow on trees)

Yes. I expect the drivers on the route used to drive the previous units (150 & 153) so I imagine it is just a refresher required.

I think the time that’s passed since they last worked the route exceeds the threshold for that, so would be training from scratch.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes. I expect the drivers on the route used to drive the previous units (150 & 153) so I imagine it is just a refresher required.

Also the drivers don't exactly have much to do at the moment, although the instructors would presumably be busier with several much larger fleets coming in across the TOC.

 

[DarloRich]

. I cannot believe some stock (150 or 153) has not been robbed to run something. At least by the end of this coming week.

Who will drive them even if they could be found?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Who will drive them even if they could be found?

The same drivers as drive the 230s, assuming it was a long term replacement so making the training worthwhile.

 

[DarloRich]

The same drivers as drive the 230s, assuming it was a long term replacement so making the training worthwhile.

Point being that aint gonna happen anytime soon even if the vehicles were available on monday!

 

[craigybagel]

A question for those posters who think LNWR should find some replacement units immediately - Which line should see it's services either reduced or removed entirely to provide replacement units for Bletchley to Bedford instead?

 

[800001]

A question for those posters who think LNWR should find some replacement units immediately - Which line should see it's services either reduced or removed entirely to provide replacement units for Bletchley to Bedford instead?

Is there not stored 153s at Ely? Fully appreciate not just as easy as getting a unit, and crew and depot training would be needed again.

 

[DarloRich]

A question for those posters who think LNWR should find some replacement units immediately - Which line should see it's services either reduced or removed entirely to provide replacement units for Bletchley to Bedford instead?

From my point of view: any other line in the country! I dont care which. You pick.

 

[craigybagel]

Is there not stored 153s at Ely? Fully appreciate not just as easy as getting a unit, and crew and depot training would be needed again.

There may well be, but they aren't PRM compliant. The only 153s that are are already in use with TfW, and they don't have any spare to give up just yet.

From my point of view: any other line in the country! I dont care which. You pick.

If only the railway gods had given me that kind of power!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

There may well be, but they aren't PRM compliant. The only 153s that are are already in use with TfW, and they don't have any spare to give up just yet.

If only the railway had given me that kind of power!

I think, to most plain old passengers, they don't give a flip about non-compliance. Especially for a short period of time whilst a crisis is dealt with and a longer term solution is found. Derogations can be applied for. I was thinking @DarloRich might like a 37 and a directors saloon, as per the ones operated on the Kyle line, with or without the guide commentary.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I suppose that if 153s (etc) are not er borrowed soon then we can assume the favoured solution is getting the Marston Vale 230s back out on duty.

If TfW give up on their 230s then the 230s on Marston Vale would be very unlikely to re-appear. So whats happening these last few days with the TfW 230s (any teaining etc) as these seem more likely to plod on ?.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There may well be, but they aren't PRM compliant. The only 153s that are are already in use with TfW, and they don't have any spare to give up just yet.

Lock the bog, fiddle with the seat spacing and fit TrainFX, awful though it is. Doesn't require much more than that, does it?

In all seriousness, though, with the 197s coming into service, if the 230s can't be saved then the sensible option is probably to run buses until TfW can release three PRMed 150s. I would imagine Tyseley crews can remember how to hit them with a big hammer and gaffer tape stuff up as needed.

 

[zwk500]

Lock the bog, fiddle with the seat spacing and fit TrainFX, awful though it is. Doesn't require much more than that, does it?

Surely it'd be cheaper to buy the relevant property from Vivarail and set up a 'Marston Vale D-trains ltd' holding company?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Surely it'd be cheaper to buy the relevant property from Vivarail and set up a 'Marston Vale D-trains ltd' holding company?

I fear that with looming austerity that the ideal solution of getting 230s in house has to be a very quick an easy solution, otherwise the holders of the purse strings will chicken out.