Marston Vale line suspension over - FULL services start running 19/02/24

[OhNoAPacer]

I get why LNWR dont want to use the 153. However from a passenger point of view we could have a service restored sooner if they did. it is almost like this line is a PITA they want rid of

Presumably it us a PITA that doesn't make them enough bread

I'll get my coat.

 

[12LDA28C]

It's as much about crossings being blocked by trains at stations, but yes- if the cab of the leading loco is beyond the signal, the driver obviously won't be able to see the aspect of the signal.

In which case the driver takes the aspect of the signal as being what it was when they passed it.

 

[yorkie]

Just a reminder to stick to actual updates in this thread please; any posts of a speculative nature can be made in the appropriate forum section. Thanks

 

[merry]

In which case the driver takes the aspect of the signal as being what it was when they passed it.

Unfortunately, no. Rules are quite clear: If, for whatever reason, the front of the train has passed the signal but the rear has not fully passed the signal and it cannot be clearly seen that it is showing a 'proceed' aspect, then the driver must obtain permission to proceed from the signaller. (not the exact text, but near enough I think). So it potentially increases signaller workload, as well as risk of error or misunderstanding. Whether that's acceptable will depend on the other things/area (s) the signaller is responsible for, and the scale of risk.

 

[zwk500]

Unfortunately, no. Rules are quite clear: If, for whatever reason, the front of the train has passed the signal but the rear has not fully passed the signal and it cannot be clearly seen that it is showing a 'proceed' aspect, then the driver must obtain permission to proceed from the signaller. (not the exact text, but near enough I think). So it potentially increases signaller workload, as well as risk of error or misunderstanding. Whether that's acceptable will depend on the other things/area (s) the signaller is responsible for, and the scale of risk.

Presumably it would be possible for a Local instruction to override this?

 

[skyhigh]

Unfortunately, no. Rules are quite clear: If, for whatever reason, the front of the train has passed the signal but the rear has not fully passed the signal and it cannot be clearly seen that it is showing a 'proceed' aspect, then the driver must obtain permission to proceed from the signaller. (not the exact text, but near enough I think). So it potentially increases signaller workload, as well as risk of error or misunderstanding. Whether that's acceptable will depend on the other things/area (s) the signaller is responsible for, and the scale of risk.

Sorry, no. S7 clearly states:

2.2 Train stopped before the whole train has passed a signal that is showing ‘proceed’
driver (or person controlling train movements)

If you have stopped the train before the whole train has passed a signal that is showing ‘proceed’, you may act on the aspect or indication that was being displayed when you passed the signal. This applies unless you are instructed that the train is not to proceed.

 

[Falcon1200]

If, for whatever reason, the front of the train has passed the signal but the rear has not fully passed the signal and it cannot be clearly seen that it is showing a 'proceed' aspect, then the driver must obtain permission to proceed from the signaller. (

No, as @skyhigh says. Apart from anything else, if the signal operates on a 'first wheel replacement' basis it will return to danger when the front of the train passes it!

 

[12LDA28C]

Unfortunately, no. Rules are quite clear: If, for whatever reason, the front of the train has passed the signal but the rear has not fully passed the signal and it cannot be clearly seen that it is showing a 'proceed' aspect, then the driver must obtain permission to proceed from the signaller. (not the exact text, but near enough I think). So it potentially increases signaller workload, as well as risk of error or misunderstanding. Whether that's acceptable will depend on the other things/area (s) the signaller is responsible for, and the scale of risk.

Rules are indeed quite clear. Back to school for you I'm afraid.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

You neglect the freight services that use the line: there is a several times per week stone train from Peak Forrest, a car train from Toton to Dolands Moor and back, there is an irregular Hope sidings to (generally) Dagenham stone ( i assume) train. There are semi regular Derby/Chaddesdon to Wembley moves of various types, as well as various unit moves from Derby to London and from Kettering to Northampton. Finally there are semi regular OTM movements from Bletchley to all over and ad hoc IM trains as required.

Obviously, all of those services can be rerouted but paths have to be found. I suggest them using the Vale in the first place means paths are not readily available.

Also it is worth noting the passenger service has been mothballed to all intents and purposes over the last 3 years! The RRB is unreliable and inconvenient for any journey other than the "express" run from Bletchley to Bedford and back. Availability on the mini bus that serves the rest of the stations is patchy at best and takes at least twice as long as the train would. The timetable work of fiction and many times at the smaller stations the RRB simply sail past being full.

There wont be any passengers for the trains to carry at this rate!

@Bletchleyite has it right on the buses/road network btw.

Minibus? They don’t even bother to give you a proper one??

 

[Bletchleyite]

Minibus? They don’t even bother to give you a proper one??

It isn't possible to reach all the local stations other than by very roundabout routes using a full size coach. Some of the roads are very narrow and tight.

 

[zwk500]

Minibus? They don’t even bother to give you a proper one??

A minibus is well suited to the number of passengers. Taxi drivers (who LNR have used to cover short-notice disruption) have told me they can often get full at a station, but are only leaving 1 or 2 behind - i.e. 4 or 5 travellers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A minibus is well suited to the number of passengers. Taxi drivers (who LNR have used to cover short-notice disruption) have told me they can often get full at a station, but are only leaving 1 or 2 behind - i.e. 4 or 5 travellers.

There is also a full size coach (which is quite a bit nicer than a 230 or 150!) doing a semifast service.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It isn't possible to reach all the local stations other than by very roundabout routes using a full size coach. Some of the roads are very narrow and tight.

I wouldn’t expect a coach but a regular bus?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn’t expect a coach but a regular bus?

They are using a coach for the fast services. I guess it's down to what you can get. The standby vehicle used to be a Centrebus low floor bus, but maybe they won't do a short term contract.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

They are using a coach for the fast services. I guess it's down to what you can get. The standby vehicle used to be a Centrebus low floor bus, but maybe they won't do a short term contract.

Mmm, I just can’t help feeling annoyed at the whole situation on the behalf of its users, which I guess include you and DarloRich (I don’t know how often you used it). Little used line or not, how raving mad I’d be if my local service was very long term bustituted all because my local TOC set up some vanity project trains on the route and then lost the access to operating them, and then couldn’t even provide a proper bus, rather a glorified van.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Mmm, I just can’t help feeling annoyed at the whole situation on the behalf of its users, which I guess include you and DarloRich (I don’t know how often you used it). Little used line or not, how raving mad I’d be if my local service was very long term bustituted all because my local TOC set up some vanity project trains on the route and then lost the access to operating them, and then couldn’t even provide a proper bus, rather a glorified van.

Its not really much different to Norton Bridge, Stone, Barlaston and Wedgwood which lost their services when the WCML route mod was completed, mainly because Central Trains could no longer get timetable paths between the 125mph services. Stone was particularly ridiculous given the size of the town, although of course it’s now well served by LNR. Norton Bridge was officially closed several years after the station was physically demolished, and Wedgwood only really served the factory. Barlaston seems to have just fallen off the map! Last time I was there, it had CIS dot matrix screens and help points installed, but no services (or platform edging.)

 

[zwk500]

Mmm, I just can’t help feeling annoyed at the whole situation on the behalf of its users, which I guess include you and DarloRich (I don’t know how often you used it). Little used line or not, how raving mad I’d be if my local service was very long term bustituted all because my local TOC set up some vanity project trains on the route and then lost the access to operating them, and then couldn’t even provide a proper bus, rather a glorified van.

I never used the line itself but knew people who did, and it had a surprising amount of healthy flows in peak commuting times (office and school). The Marston Vale has been done over badly at least three times as well - they had long closures for level crossing failures, then the 230 introduction problems and now this. And that's before you get to the rarely held connections, and being booted out to P6 at Bletchley.

 

[D365]

... all because my local TOC set up some vanity project trains on the route and then lost the access to operating them, and then couldn’t even provide a proper bus, rather a glorified van.

You're right that the ongoing service provision is complete rubbish, and that the Marston Vale just seems to be bouncing between interim solutions while waiting for EWR. But the Class 230 was not a vanity project, there simply aren't a lot of options available for the operational constraints that the line is faced with.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're right that the ongoing service provision is complete rubbish, and that the Marston Vale just seems to be bouncing between interim solutions while waiting for EWR. But the Class 230 was not a vanity project, there simply aren't a lot of options available for the operational constraints that the line is faced with.

There weren't many but there were some, e.g. buying Northern 3 more 195s in return for 3 150s. Would feel raw paying for new and getting old though.

 

[zwk500]

There weren't many but there were some, e.g. buying Northern 3 more 195s in return for 3 150s. Would feel raw paying for new and getting old though.

Might have been cheaper to pay for an extra 5-10m of platform at each station to be able to take 2x23m.

 

[DarloRich]

I am on my long run up here. Right arm, fast, depot end..................

Minibus? They don’t even bother to give you a proper one??

The minibus is best suited to the local roads serving most of the stations. A bigger coach has been used for the local stations but it means differing/ less than ideal access routes to several stations and an even more elongated journey time. See below for one of the issues though:

A minibus is well suited to the number of passengers. Taxi drivers (who LNR have used to cover short-notice disruption) have told me they can often get full at a station, but are only leaving 1 or 2 behind - i.e. 4 or 5 travellers.

The minibus is generally fine for the local stations BUT because they use an accessible coach ( essentially a massive Mercedes sprinter) it only has about 6 seats and when it is full it is full. The times it simply hasn't turned up at my station cant be counted. I have been unable to board at Bletchley on several occasions as have other people.

I am lucky in that I can walk home. Those from further down the line cant.

Mmm, I just can’t help feeling annoyed at the whole situation on the behalf of its users, which I guess include you and DarloRich (I don’t know how often you used it). Little used line or not, how raving mad I’d be if my local service was very long term bustituted all because my local TOC set up some vanity project trains on the route and then lost the access to operating them, and then couldn’t even provide a proper bus, rather a glorified van.

I wouldn't call the 230's a vanity project. There wasn't a practicable alternative imo. The trains inside are really nice and a massive step up on the urine soaked 153 or the 150 and the PR around thier arrival was such a boost for the line that created a buzz and got people wanting to use the service. Then it collapsed over and over and over again.

I never used the line itself but knew people who did, and it had a surprising amount of healthy flows in peak commuting times (office and school). The Marston Vale has been done over badly at least three times as well - they had long closures for level crossing failures, then the 230 introduction problems and now this. And that's before you get to the rarely held connections, and being booted out to P6 at Bletchley.

I used the line everyday for more than a decade. When I started I was the only user of my station. By the end there were 5 or 6 regulars and the train at peak times was busy in a way it never was . It is maddening that has all been lost. I KNOW the numbers are not 1000 people on a Crossrail train but many of those people were making longer trains journeys and I bet almost all of that revenue has been lost.

We also had a long shut down for Bletchley remodelling that we were promised would result in direct trains to MKC. One has run. We were promised a Sunday service to. That all seems a long way off.

The use of P6 is also maddening. There are no lifts and the platform is simply not accessible. P5 is available and the dwell time is generally short. The reason given for not using this is the occupation of P5 blocks access to the carriage sidings and the loops. If the WCML cant mange with a 10 minute access window to one secondary bit of track we are in a mess! It is an excuse to offer a really poor service.

Worth noting we also had, basically, a 2 year + covid based shutdown.

You're right that the ongoing service provision is complete rubbish, and that the Marston Vale just seems to be bouncing between interim solutions while waiting for EWR. But the Class 230 was not a vanity project, there simply aren't a lot of options available for the operational constraints that the line is faced with.

Agreed. The issue was reliability, not just of the trains!

@Bletchleyite and @DarloRich are both taking it in good stride, if it was my local line I would be livid.

I am LIVID but no one cares. I have written to my MP ( the guy in the first post), the media, the council, the TOC and the pope. no one cares.

I hope LNWR hold a meet the manager event at MKC soon. I will be giving them both barrels. Perhaps it will be like the last time they held one at Belthcley when the 230 failed and they all vanished PDQ rather than face irate passengers. The good news was at least some of them were stuck on the broken train. Made no difference mind.

But guess what - i have done what everyone else has done and started driving to work. Will I go back to the train? Not sure tbh.

 

[zwk500]

I used the line everyday for more than a decade. When I started I was the only user of my station. By the end there were 5 or 6 regulars and the train at peak times was busy in a way it never was . It is maddening that has all been lost. I KNOW the numbers are not 1000 people on a Crossrail train but many of those people were making longer trains journeys and I bet almost all of that revenue has been lost.

With the best will in the world, the revenue probably wasn't worth chasing in the scheme of things.

We also had a long shut down for Bletchley remodelling that we were promised would result in direct trains to MKC. One has run. We were promised a Sunday service to. That all seems a long way off.

Very much the story of this line. Could have had a very solid usership but sold a pup every time.

The use of P6 is also maddening. There are no lifts and the platform is simply not accessible. P5 is available and the dwell time is generally short. The reason given for not using this is the occupation of P5 blocks access to the carriage sidings and the loops. If the WCML cant mange with a 10 minute access window to one secondary bit of track we are in a mess! It is an excuse to offer a really poor service.

P6 would be fine if they put in a lift. It's maddening that plenty of desolate country branch line stations got AFA money yet Bletchley couldn't even be given a lift to all platforms. The MV should have used P5 in the peaks though, when the depot doesn't need to shunt and cross-platform interchange would have been quite valubale

I am LIVID but no one cares. I have written to my MP ( the guy in the first post), the media, the council, the TOC and the pope. no one cares.

It will certainly need divine intervention at this stage to rescue the line...

But guess what - i have done what everyone else has done and started driving to work. Will I go back to the train? Not sure tbh.

Inevitable, and understandable. Hopefully things pick up once the line becomes part of a Bedford-Oxford service. Not that I hold much hope for the local service, sadly...

 

[Bletchleyite]

With regard to using P6, they did use 5 for a while when the 230s first came along then went back to 6, I suspect it wasn't not being able to plan around not having access to the carriage sidings for part of the hour, but rather the high risk of the unit sitting down and blocking it for hours?

They could reduce the Bletchley layover and increase Bedford, of course, if the Bletchley layover was too long - P1A is dedicated and doesn't block anything.

 

[zwk500]

With regard to using P6, they did use 5 for a while when the 230s first came along then went back to 6, I suspect it wasn't not being able to plan around not having access to the carriage sidings for part of the hour, but rather the high risk of the unit sitting down and blocking it for hours?

They could reduce the Bletchley layover and increase Bedford, of course, if the Bletchley layover was too long - P1A is dedicated and doesn't block anything.

Tbf they could have been using P5 to allow easy shunting to the depot if a unit sat down. The Reliefs aren't really used that much at Bletchley, but 5 is a handy bolt-hole for late-running 350s to turn back towards London as well as having the depot access.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tbf they could have been using P5 to allow easy shunting to the depot if a unit sat down. The Reliefs aren't really used that much at Bletchley, but 5 is a handy bolt-hole for late-running 350s to turn back towards London as well as having the depot access.

There are also a number of Bletchley starters and terminators in the morning peak and mid-evening. These used to use 4 but haven't been able to since the platform extensions. So it'd be quite hard to fit the 06xx/07xx Marston Vale services into 5 at least.

6 should just be sorted out by adding a lift. Should have been done years ago.

 

[zwk500]

6 should just be sorted out by adding a lift. Should have been done years ago.

Totally agree, will EWR sort this out?

 

[DarloRich]

With the best will in the world, the revenue probably wasn't worth chasing in the scheme of things.

Agreed - my point being it wasn't just point to point journeys along the line. It fed into other services. I wonder what the season ticket destinations were from the stations along the line. I bet most were Euston or MKC.

it was interesting that towards the end of the service there were a number of red bull employees on the train. There had been one for many years but suddenly a number of younger employees started using the train - they have all been lost - i use this as an example of the variation in people we got on the service.

( they are visible as Red Bull people as they ALWAYS travel in full RB kit/uniform and the factory is behind Bow Brickhill station - I am certain I saw a Mr C Horner more than once on chug!)

Very much the story of this line. Could have had a very solid usership but sold a pup every time.

Agreed. No cares given

P6 would be fine if they put in a lift. It's maddening that plenty of desolate country branch line stations got AFA money yet Bletchley couldn't even be given a lift to all platforms. The MV should have used P5 in the peaks though, when the depot doesn't need to shunt and cross-platform interchange would have been quite valubale

It needs a lift to be accessible. We shouldn't be using platforms that are not accessible to all passengers, especially not at a main line station!

Inevitable, and understandable. Hopefully things pick up once the line becomes part of a Bedford-Oxford service. Not that I hold much hope for the local service, sadly...

I fear this shut down will be the tool to end the local service.

I suspect it wasn't not being able to plan around not having access to the carriage sidings for part of the hour, but rather the high risk of the unit sitting down and blocking it for hours?

I was told it was both!

 

[geoffk]

Not local to the area but have made odd trips on the line. I don't really understand why WMT can't just take on the Vivarail team which maintained and serviced the 230s. Is it just about cost, has the team been disbanded or what?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Totally agree, will EWR sort this out?

Probably not initially, but if the 5-station option goes ahead and the Cambridge service runs, then I can't see them having that terminate in a non-accessible platform, unless the high level station is set up for reversals too?

 

[DarloRich]

Totally agree, will EWR sort this out?

no plan seen thus far so i suspect: nope!