Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Might that no longer be the case now the branch is a shuttle, though? It can take an hourly service and isn't constrained by much else at that end as it runs into the bay at Risborough and Aylesbury has more platforms than it needs. I suppose you could end up with poor connections onto Chiltern, though.
MKC-Princes Risborough services though would be driven by the gap available on the WCML, which would then drive (and import delay) into the Chiltern timetable, which also needs flexibility to work with the Met and other chiltern services at Marylebone. It's a classic 'looks good on paper' idea that then quickly comes up against more issues than it'd be worth the moeny to solve.
Running time is about half an hour to MKC, so three diagrams. I guess that probably means two 4 car diagrams and one 2, probably shouldn't be too hard to time those so the 2 isn't on any peak services (i.e. the diagrams are such that the two 4s leave both ends on the services departing closest to around 0800 and 1730). Though I do wonder if it'll end up being something else if Chiltern is going to operate it, as something already in their fleet (e.g. 170s which are near identical to 168s) would be easier if they can get them. And it is I suppose possible they'll just operate three pairs and swap the units round with Tyseley units for maintenance as the Marston Vale historically did, at the risk of short-forming in the event of a failure.
So four diagrams for a 2tph service. Either all 2-car with 1 spare and 1 on test/at Tyseley, or Provision for the busiest diagram to double up and if a unit needs a day in the shed they'll just cut the doubled service.
So are there Oxfords going through to MKC then ? I was under the impression it was the Aylesburys that would go to MKC and the Oxfords would turn round at Bletchley.
You are nearer to the action so you obviously be more clued up than I.
Plan has always been Oxford-MKC, it's sometimes been slightly confused as the EWR infrastructure works don't go beyond Bletchley, but the trains definitely will.
MKC-Princes Risborough services though would be driven by the gap available on the WCML, which would then drive (and import delay) into the Chiltern timetable, which also needs flexibility to work with the Met and other chiltern services at Marylebone. It's a classic 'looks good on paper' idea that then quickly comes up against more issues than it'd be worth the moeny to solve.
It wouldn't do anything to the Chiltern timetable because there's no longer (other than extremities of the day) a through service to Marylebone via that route. The conflicts are minimal, and Aylesbury has far more platforms than it needs, it could quite happily operate with one and a reversing siding but has three.
So four diagrams for a 2tph service. Either all 2-car with 1 spare and 1 on test/at Tyseley, or Provision for the busiest diagram to double up and if a unit needs a day in the shed they'll just cut the doubled service.
It wouldn't do anything to the Chiltern timetable because there's no longer (other than extremities of the day) a through service to Marylebone via that route. The conflicts are minimal, and Aylesbury has far more platforms than it needs, it could quite happily operate with one and a reversing siding but has three.
Wasn't the service all stations and hourly? Apparently when EWR starts some trains will not call at all MV stations. I am not sure if they plan to keep it hourly but unless they increase it to half hourly and run one fast Bletchley - Bedford in the style of the North Downs line, stations will lose frequency.
Initially there will be no change to the current service nor who operates it (i.e. the MV will remain a LNR service resourced from Bletchley and not be taken over by Chiltern). At some point there may be an hourly or half hourly semifast from Oxford to Bedford but this will be easy enough to fit between the stoppers.
The closure proposals relate to the situation once Cambridge has opened. They are detailed here:
East West Rail is a major infrastructure project which will connect communities between Oxford and Cambridge. Read more about the planning for the section of route from Bletchley to Bedford.
eastwestrail.co.uk
but in summary there are two options:
1. 5 services per hour between Bedford and Bletchley, 2 of which originate at BLY and 2 through from Oxford, plus the existing Bedford-Bletchley hourly stopping service being retained. All trains call at Ridgmont* and Woburn Sands.
2. 4 services per hour, 2 originating at BLY and 2 through from Oxford, all to Cambridge. 2 of them call at Woburn Sands and Ridgmont, 2 call additionally at Lidlington, Stewartby and Bedford St John's (some of which may be relocated), all other stations closed.
There was an early proposal whereby only about three all stations services would have operated, roughly the school trains plus one around lunchtime, with everything else semifast, but this seems to have been dropped in favour of the five station proposal.
Personally I'm of mixed views. I think there should be an east MK station - a relocated Bow Brickhill renamed Caldecotte and Tilbrook with better parking etc should in my view be added (sorry DarloRich, I don't think Fenny would make the cut) and Bedford St Johns I'd close as it's just not that far from Midland (particularly if another proposal to relocate it the other side of the road bridge was to be carried out). I'm also half inclined to think a 6 station proposal with some skip stopping may be better, as it keeps things properly clockface. I also think as part of the closure of Aspley Guise there should be a lit foot- and cycle path built alongside the line directly to either Woburn Sands or the new Ridgmont, as the walk/cycle from there is rather tortuous.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's basically 2tph to London via Amersham, 1tph very quiet times and Sundays, and the hourly branch shuttle. You don't need three platforms to do that - it may be easier, sure, but you don't need three. Merseyrail operate 4tph from Ormskirk, Kirkby, Hunts X and Chester to Liverpool using one platform at each - sure Southport is I'm sure easier to operate with four, but they don't need four.
Might that no longer be the case now the branch is a shuttle, though? It can take an hourly service and isn't constrained by much else at that end as it runs into the bay at Risborough and Aylesbury has more platforms than it needs. I suppose you could end up with poor connections onto Chiltern, though.
Not sure what makes you say that - All 3 platforms at Aylesbury are very busy all day, even if one was taken out of use that would cause major problems and disruption to services.
Not sure what makes you say that - All 3 platforms at Aylesbury are very busy all day, even if one was taken out of use that would cause major problems and disruption to services.
You don't need three platforms to operate 2tph to London and a branch shuttle. Merseyrail operate 4tph from several termini with one at each, and plenty of other stations reverse 2tph in one platform the whole country over, including MKC, Rose Hill Marple.....
It no doubt makes things easier to diagram and shuffle around, and they might find it easier to leave units in the platform that might otherwise be shifted more promptly to the depot, but they could easily manage it with two, or one and a reversing siding.
Thus, they could easily have an hourly service from Risborough to MKC waiting in one for a period each hour without it causing the whole thing to collapse.
Running time is about half an hour to MKC, so three diagrams. I guess that probably means two 4 car diagrams and one 2, probably shouldn't be too hard to time those so the 2 isn't on any peak services (i.e. the diagrams are such that the two 4s leave both ends on the services departing closest to around 0800 and 1730). Though I do wonder if it'll end up being something else if Chiltern is going to operate it, as something already in their fleet (e.g. 170s which are near identical to 168s) would be easier if they can get them. And it is I suppose possible they'll just operate three pairs and swap the units round with Tyseley units for maintenance as the Marston Vale historically did, at the risk of short-forming in the event of a failure.
You don't need three platforms to operate 2tph to London and a branch shuttle. Merseyrail operate 4tph from several termini with one at each, and plenty of other stations reverse 2tph in one platform the whole country over, including MKC, Rose Hill Marple.....
It no doubt makes things easier to diagram and shuffle around, and they might find it easier to leave units in the platform that might otherwise be shifted more promptly to the depot, but they could easily manage it with two, or one and a reversing siding.
Yes, you do. You seem to be forgetting that only one platform (Platform 2) can be used for freight coming off the single line heading to Quainton / Calvert which is the same platform required to transfer units from the Depot to the south sidings and vice versa, of which there are many moves every day. You simply could not manage with any less than 3 platforms without thinning out the train service and/or completely recasting the timetable to include much shorter turnrounds with the resulting drop in provision for absorbing any delays.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'm afraid this is absolute rubbish, for the reason I gave above. Late at night when the units arrive at Aylesbury for maintenance, repairs, fuelling, cleaning etc it's not unusual to see all 3 platforms fully occupied with trains, especially on a day when there's a Wembley event on and train lengths are strengthened.
Yes, you do. You seem to be forgetting that only one platform can be used for freight coming off the single line heading to Quainton / Calvert which is the same platform required to transfer units from the Depot to the south sidings and vice versa, of which there are many moves every day. You simply could not manage with any less than 3 platforms without thinning out the train service and/or completely recasting the timetable to include much shorter turnrounds with the resulting drop in provision for absorbing any delays.
Is it not a simple case that the inbound from MYB (either into Vale Parkway or Aylesbury itself) forms the outbound, so you could run the whole half hourly MYB service from the main platform adjacent to the building (best for accessibility anyway)?
If not, then it's incredibly wasteful, you could do that with a 20 minute layover which would be plenty. That leaves you two for your stock shuffles and an hourly MKC-Risborough.
But we aren't proposing removing a platform, anyway, just occupying one for a period of each hour to match up the paths north and south of Aylesbury - one that's already occupied by the branch shuttle laying over that we're proposing replacing! And we've also got Risborough bay, which itself is dedicated to the branch so layovers there can be as long as desired.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'm afraid this is absolute rubbish, for the reason I gave above. Late at night when the units arrive at Aylesbury for maintenance, repairs, fuelling, cleaning etc it's not unusual to see all 3 platforms fully occupied with trains, especially on a day when there's a Wembley event on and train lengths are strengthened.
So Chiltern chooses to do cleaning in the station, which it might as well do because it's got the platforms. That's very, very different from not being able to live without them.
Is it not a simple case that the inbound from MYB (either into Vale Parkway or Aylesbury itself) forms the outbound, so you could run the whole half hourly MYB service from the main platform adjacent to the building (best for accessibility anyway)?
If not, then it's incredibly wasteful, you could do that with a 20 minute layover which would be plenty. That leaves you two for your stock shuffles and an hourly MKC-Risborough.
But we aren't proposing removing a platform, anyway, just occupying one for a period of each hour to match up the paths north and south of Aylesbury - one that's already occupied by the branch shuttle laying over that we're proposing replacing! And we've also got Risborough bay, which itself is dedicated to the branch so layovers there can be as long as desired.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So Chiltern chooses to do cleaning in the station, which it might as well do because it's got the platforms. That's very, very different from not being able to live without them.
I suggest you actually come and spend a Saturday night after a Wembley event at Aylesbury station so you can see what goes on. You might find it enlightening. Still, I've only been working there for 25 years so what do I know?
You'll be aware that there is still some semblance of a 'peak' on the Chiltern line so more frequent than a half-hourly service at certain times of day. Also, where do you suggest Chiltern stable the hourly Risborough shuttle when a freight comes over the branch, or stock arrives for tyre turning, or a move needs to be made from the Depot to the sidings? In the third platform, that's where. Also, cleaners only board the trains whilst they are in the platform, before the units get moved to the Depot or sidings. In the early mornings, all 3 platforms have trains berthed waiting for the first departures.
Of course, maybe if Aylesbury Depot wasn't expected to maintain a fleet twice the size it was when the depot was built, space wouldn't be at such a premium, but that's an entirely different discussion.
So Chiltern chooses to do cleaning in the station, which it might as well do because it's got the platforms. That's very, very different from not being able to live without them.
Hmmm Sounds like the same situation as the Highland capital in Scotland, which despite having carriage sidings for the sleeper service, has agreement with Network Rail to leave them in a long platform all day, which inhibits Scotrail's "own" HST 7capitals service
Station platforms are for serving the passengers, not for rollingstock convenience
I've got to think that EWR has to be integrated with the rest of the Network like any other stretch of track and not treated so individually. It would be a good route to run some avoiding London Services.
A Bristol to Cambridge could be good or if the Bedford-Cambridge section drags on a Bristol-Bedford service.
The stock for just EWR services should be either along the lines of the 195's or 756's to future proof electrified rolling stock
Hmmm Sounds like the same situation as the Highland capital in Scotland, which despite having carriage sidings for the sleeper service, has agreement with Network Rail to leave them in a long platform all day, which inhibits Scotrail's "own" HST 7capitals service
Station platforms are for serving the passengers, not for rollingstock convenience
I've got to think that EWR has to be integrated with the rest of the Network like any other stretch of track and not treated so individually. It would be a good route to run some avoiding London Services.
A Bristol to Cambridge could be good or if the Bedford-Cambridge section drags on a Bristol-Bedford service.
The stock for just EWR services should be either along the lines of the 195's or 756's to future proof electrified rolling stock
I think that might well be a future of it - but likely as extensions to the existing frequencies.
For example, if 1tph Cambridge lines up well with the Ipswich - there is your cross country service, but I wouldn't expect a more express stopping pattern.
More greenfield thinking - there might be a world where a Bedford terminator could run to Corby or to Nottingham. Or that an Oxford can start back at Reading (more aspirational than Bristol). Or MKC on to Northampton - modest things like that.
Once upon a time, there was a Reading - MKC - Manchester type intent for this, but that path was scrubbed and I don't see anything like that happening, in an 'intercity' capacity - more as extensions of the Oxford-MKC and Oxford-Bedford-Cambridge services.
Once upon a time, there was a Reading - MKC - Manchester type intent for this, but that path was scrubbed and I don't see anything like that happening, in an 'intercity' capacity - more as extensions of the Oxford-MKC and Oxford-Bedford-Cambridge services.
Although this appears to be a speculative thread, the stock to be used on Oxford - MKC services has already been decided, so saying it 'should be' 195s or 756s is pointless unless you're specifically referring to Bletchley - Bedford - Cambridge.
As explained by the TWA Inspector:
“Removal of ‘inter-regional’ passenger service and replacement of it with a second hourly Oxford to Milton Keynes service as a result of an instruction issued by the DfT to NR in January 2017, due to timetable analysis work which demonstrated that there was insufficient capacity on the WCML between Bletchley and Hanslope Junction and north of Crewe to provide paths for an hourly service to Manchester Piccadilly.”
(I don’t have a link to an online version of the TWA inspector’s report.)
As explained by the TWA Inspector:
“Removal of ‘inter-regional’ passenger service and replacement of it with a second hourly Oxford to Milton Keynes service as a result of an instruction issued by the DfT to NR in January 2017, due to timetable analysis work which demonstrated that there was insufficient capacity on the WCML between Bletchley and Hanslope Junction and north of Crewe to provide paths for an hourly service to Manchester Piccadilly.”
(I don’t have a link to an online version of the TWA inspector’s report.)
This feels like it might work in a post-HS2 world where Colwich-Stoke is a ghost town. The comment mentions Crewe interestingly. But maybe one day it gets to Northampton and Rugby at least.
'Scrubbed' wasn't prescriptive either way, I know it didn't work.
This feels like it might work in a post-HS2 world where Colwich-Stoke is a ghost town. The comment mentions Crewe interestingly. But maybe one day it gets to Northampton and Rugby at least.
I guess it would need to reach the fasts ideally. Maybe if EWR is a big hit, that elusive 5th track from Bletchley (and/or another platform at MKC) might come in the longer term, which could be useful here.
I guess it would need to reach the fasts ideally. Maybe if EWR is a big hit, that elusive 5th track from Bletchley (and/or another platform at MKC) might come in the longer term, which could be useful here.
Certainly extending Bedford terminators to Kettering would be very useful for destinations such as Leicester or Nottingham, given the stopping pattern with EMR.
In an ideal world, they'd put in a single-lead S-E chord at Manton Junction and run 1tph service Oxford-Bedford-Peterborough.
Certainly extending Bedford terminators to Kettering would be very useful for destinations such as Leicester or Nottingham, given the stopping pattern with EMR.
EWR to Kettering would be an interesting one because it misses the two main non-radial flows - Kettering to Northampton and MKC, so it depends what the change at Bletchley would be like to persuad people to switch from bus/drive to Northampton and LNR down.
EWR to Kettering would be an interesting one because it misses the two main non-radial flows - Kettering to Northampton and MKC, so it depends what the change at Bletchley would be like to persuad people to switch from bus/drive to Northampton and LNR down.
I have often thought that sending it to Corby could enable 1tph EMU from St P to run to Leicester - giving Lutons/Bedford access to all onward MML services at Leicester, and Leicester itself vs the Kettering/two change. It might enable a Market Harborough call to be dropped from a fast.
Equally, it would give Corby:
1tph long EMU to London
1tph shorter DMU to Oxford - still with 2tph to Kettering, Wellingborough and Bedford - but access to MK, the WCML, Bicester and Oxford also. Corby itself doesn't need 2tph to London especially - and it could connect into a fast at Kettering for a better London journey time, tbh. And the other stations get Leicester instead.
Manton - I can't see it, especially. Oakham and Stamford could do with 2tph (the B'ham-Leicester extended to P'boro as a start, easy) - but they'll always have a much better London service via Peterborough.
I have often thought that sending it to Corby could enable 1tph EMU from St P to run to Leicester - giving Lutons/Bedford access to all onward MML services at Leicester, and Leicester itself vs the Kettering/two change. It might enable a Market Harborough call to be dropped from a fast.
Equally, it would give Corby:
1tph long EMU to London
1tph shorter DMU to Oxford - still with 2tph to Kettering, Wellingborough and Bedford - but access to MK, the WCML, Bicester and Oxford also. Corby itself doesn't need 2tph to London especially - and it could connect into a fast at Kettering for a better London journey time, tbh. And the other stations get Leicester instead.
By all accounts the 2tph has been very well used, not just by Corbyites but by the other stations it serves, and there's not the paths to send 1tph to Leicester with or without a Market Harborough call.
Travel demand from Corby to MK is pretty much 0. I lived in MK for 5 years and the only people I knew to go to Corby were my rugby team for the 1 match a year we'd have against them at their place. Kettering on the other hand does have a small commuter flow to MK, but there is an existing option of the Bus/drive to Northampton and a quick train down to MKC, which EWR would be competing poorly against. I don't know what North Northants-Oxon travel demand is like, but given that the road between Bicester and Northampton isn't exactly busy I wouldn't have said it'd sustain a train service.
All this is before you get to the issues of unit utilsiation, more stock required, delay transferred, etc, etc.
By all accounts the 2tph has been very well used, not just by Corbyites but by the other stations it serves, and there's not the paths to send 1tph to Leicester with or without a Market Harborough call.
The other stations would have the St P-Leicester EMU. Paths aren't that tricky north of Kettering.
To be honest, Corby could have 1tph shuttle to Kettering, the EWR suggestion is generous. I'd rather it go to Leicester or Nottingham - or Northampton. But that EMU to a wired Leicester would be very useful.
True. It's only freigth paths that are tricky on the line through Market Harborough, as they get caught by the passenger services with no loops. There was a capacity study a few years ago that explained the details.
Agree. I wonder if EMR will take the opportunity to re-cast the MML timetable when the wires get to Leicester? Diverting one of the Corby EMUs to give a StP-Leicester EMU service would give a better overall pattern to the timetable and allow more fast trains to skip Kettering. (Though that would require more EMU stock.)
True. It's only freigth paths that are tricky on the line through Market Harborough, as they get caught by the passenger services with no loops. There was a capacity study a few years ago that explained the details.
Agree. I wonder if EMR will take the opportunity to re-cast the MML timetable when the wires get to Leicester? Diverting one of the Corby EMUs to give a StP-Leicester EMU service would give a better overall pattern to the timetable and allow more fast trains to skip Kettering. (Though that would require more EMU stock.)
Almost certainly, because by the time Leicester gets done the wires will be near Derby and Nottingham (Syston-Trent is being done before Wigston-Syston).
But I still don't think the operational disadvantages for passengers outweigh the benefits of a direct train for such a small market.
Almost certainly, because by the time Leicester gets done the wires will be near Derby and Nottingham (Syston-Trent is being done before Wigston-Syston).
Can any train switch power mode on the fly? As if they aren't wired to Leicester would they have to either all stop at Market Harborough engage/disengage or run Diesel all the way.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
