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

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Lots of class 153 stored out of use at Ely. Pick the 4 in best condition. Lock out the toilet for staff only. Remove 4 seats near the door to accommodate wheelchairs.
Half hourly frequency Monday to Saturday. Hourly on Sunday.
Happy customers all round.

If members of our website can see this as an answer to the current operational problem, why have the professionals at the TOC not explored that possibility?

 

[zwk500]

If members of our website can see this as an answer to the current operational problem, why have the professionals at the TOC not explored that possibility?

Maybe they have, and the man from the Treasury he say '...no'.

 

[A0wen]

Lots of class 153 stored out of use at Ely. Pick the 4 in best condition. Lock out the toilet for staff only. Remove 4 seats near the door to accommodate wheelchairs.
Half hourly frequency Monday to Saturday. Hourly on Sunday.
Happy customers all round.

See tomuk's posts # 262, 255, 237

 

[Bletchleyite]

All DMUs that WMT currently have (170, 172 & 196) are too long for the platforms on the Marston Vale, utilising SDO wouldn't work either due to the positioning of signals and level crossings, effectively requiring a DMU that is no longer than 40m.

Wouldn't work due to one platform, the Bletchley bound one at Kempston Hardwick. A while back I looked them all up. The other short ones would need SDO or local door, but wouldn't block anything when they hung the back end off.

However neither 172s nor 196s can be used now because they're not cleared for the whole line. I forget about 170s. The classes that are cleared are 150, 153 and 156 if I recall.

Edit: the question is whether it would take longer to do the works to clear one of those classes and train Bletchley crews on them than just wait for the 150s, particularly if you'd then train them on 150s again afterwards, and if three* 172s or 196s can be spared.

* The service fell to bits almost daily when there was no hot spare at Bletchley.

 

[A0wen]

If members of our website can see this as an answer to the current operational problem, why have the professionals at the TOC not explored that possibility?

Perhaps because the members of such websites generally (though not all) don't actually understand all the issues ? And therefore what they view as a simple, almost binary problem, genuinely isn't - but they don't understand or refuse to understand that ? See the many posts on putting 379s on GN to cascade 387s, take your pick of the suggested re-openings or even the timetable changes.

If these posters are all so clever, why aren't they working in the rail industry ?....... Answers on a postcard.

 

[zwk500]

Wouldn't work due to one platform, the Bletchley bound one at Kempston Hardwick. A while back I looked them all up. The other short ones would need SDO or local door, but wouldn't block anything when they hung the back end off.

Still one platform though, although given the problems just running through and recirculating passengers would be a by far better solution than stopping the whole job.

 

[Bantamzen]

Perhaps because the members of such websites generally (though not all) don't actually understand all the issues ? And therefore what they view as a simple, almost binary problem, genuinely isn't - but they don't understand or refuse to understand that ? See the many posts on putting 379s on GN to cascade 387s, take your pick of the suggested re-openings or even the timetable changes.

That can be very much a two way street, the people making the final decisions may not understand the issues or the consequences of their decisions.

If these posters are all so clever, why aren't they working in the rail industry ?....... Answers on a postcard.

Remind me again why the railway industry has been in dispute with it's employers / DfT? Perhaps the answer to question lies therein....

 

[RailWonderer]

Perhaps because the members of such websites generally (though not all) don't actually understand all the issues ? And therefore what they view as a simple, almost binary problem, genuinely isn't - but they don't understand or refuse to understand that ? See the many posts on putting 379s on GN to cascade 387s, take your pick of the suggested re-openings or even the timetable changes.

If these posters are all so clever, why aren't they working in the rail industry ?....... Answers on a postcard.

The 379s don't have ETCS, that was the only reason why they never went to GN (besides leasing costs). Some of us have no desire to work in the rail industry.

 

[43066]

Perhaps because the members of such websites generally (though not all) don't actually understand all the issues ? And therefore what they view as a simple, almost binary problem, genuinely isn't - but they don't understand or refuse to understand that ? See the many posts on putting 379s on GN to cascade 387s, take your pick of the suggested re-openings or even the timetable changes.

If these posters are all so clever, why aren't they working in the rail industry ?....... Answers on a postcard.

This post should be made into a sticky and prominently displayed at the top of every thread .

 

[Bletchleyite]

Still one platform though, although given the problems just running through and recirculating passengers would be a by far better solution than stopping the whole job.

Yes, I do agree with that. Kempston Hardwick isn't the busiest of stations (though less quiet than it was due to housing developments) but it wouldn't be hard to just put on an accessible taxi shuttle between there and Stewartby. This is what they always do for Cheddington when there are RRBs on that section of the WCML anyway.

This post should be made into a sticky and prominently displayed at the top of every thread .

So should one pointing out that the railway and indeed RUK can be, and often is, wrong. I could point to a long, long list of things that people on here said were impossible then happened.

 

[RailWonderer]

Yes, I do agree with that. Kempston Hardwick isn't the busiest of stations (though less quiet than it was due to housing developments) but it wouldn't be hard to just put on an accessible taxi shuttle between there and Stewartby. This is what they always do for Cheddington when there are RRBs on that section of the WCML anyway.



So should one pointing out that the railway and indeed RUK can be, and often is, wrong. I could point to a long, long list of things that people on here said were impossible then happened.

There is a big can't do mentality on this forum as much just as much as misguided optimism.

 

[Wolfie]

It's the law. I'm not sure deciding not to break it makes someone a "jobsworth".

Indeed, given the jibes at DfT, it should be noted that the Civil Service Code specifically prohibits deliberate law breaking.

Any submission asking Ministers to agree a derogation (and just how many years after full implementation of the legislation should that be an option?) would have to include an equality impact assessment and legal advice.

 

[zwk500]

So should one pointing out that the railway and indeed RUK can be, and often is, wrong. I could point to a long, long list of things that people on here said were impossible then happened.

However it's also very common for people who know what they're doing to say 'this is very difficult' which is taken to mean 'this is impossible', and then when the very difficult thing happens people say 'ha we told the doom-mongers so' when in fact the professionals were pretty much spot on.
I'd also point out that the incidences of professionals acknowledging what they don't know or when they are wrong is significantly higher than the crayonistas admitting they've been ridiculously over-optimistic even when study after study points out a big pile of housing in the way of their favourite reopening.

 

[Wolfie]

It's one thing getting a derogation to slightly extend the use of units that had already been in use for many years - basically maintaining the status quo for a little longer. Are they likely to get approval to reintroduce units that aren't compliant when the the entire network has been compliant for a couple of years now?

Absolutely.

 

[43066]

So should one pointing out that the railway and indeed RUK can be, and often is, wrong.

Wrong on here generally just means whatever is being discussed isn’t approved of. Eg you think the railway is wrong not to hold connections, many posters think the railway attempting to deal with fare evasion is wrong, because they don’t agree with it having the power to do so in the first place. There’s also an overwhelming tendency for badly informed opinions to be stated as if they were fact.

I could point to a long, long list of things that people on here said were impossible then happened.

Generally not the people who are in a position to *actually* know, and in many case they will avoid making absolute predictions.

However it's also very common for people who know what they're doing to say 'this is very difficult' which is taken to mean 'this is impossible', and then when the very difficult thing happens people say 'ha we told the doom-mongers so' when in fact the professionals were pretty much spot on.
I'd also point out that the incidences of professionals acknowledging what they don't know or when they are wrong is significantly higher than the crayonistas admitting they've been ridiculously over-optimistic even when study after study points out a big pile of housing in the way of their favourite reopening.

Indeed. Just as any attempt to explain why things happen a certain way, or why seemingly obvious solutions won’t work is met with accusations of defending the railway, being “anti-customer”, being a jobsworth etc.

Indeed, given the jibes at DfT, it should be noted that the Civil Service Code specifically prohibits deliberate law breaking.

Any submission asking Ministers to agree a derogation (and just how many years after full implementation of the legislation should that be an option?) would have to include an equality impact assessment and legal advice.

Thanks. So in other words almost certainly not feasible and/or likely to be seen as value for money in the timescales required. There’s yet another example of an “obvious” solution that won’t work for perfectly sensible reasons - that are outside the railway’s control - yet “British jobsworths” are apparently to blame.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wrong on here generally just means whatever is being discussed isn’t approved of. Eg you think the railway is wrong not to hold connections, many posters think the railway attempting to deal with fare evasion is wrong, because they don’t agree with it having the power to do so in the first place. There’s also an overwhelming tendency for badly informed opinions to be stated as if they were fact.

Though importantly there's more than one way to skin a cat, as it were. You can run a railway like ours, or you can run one like SNCF, or you can run one like Amtrak - they're all very different from one another. Part of the difference is legislative framework of course, but part is also just how people in management positions feel it should run. Very little is absolute, even the law can be changed where necessary.

Which means that if someone wanted to, there'd be a way of getting trains back on the MV a lot quicker. It just isn't considered worth the money given the low usage.

I do also half-wonder if there is some "nefarious motivation" there per what DarloRich suggested. That is, that if it's closed for ages the "five station" proposal could go ahead with very little objection.

 

[tspaul26]

I do also half-wonder if there is some "nefarious motivation" there per what DarloRich suggested. That is, that if it's closed for ages the "five station" proposal could go ahead with very little objection.

I think I can at least set your mind at rest on this: there is no grand scheme of that nature.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think I can at least set your mind at rest on this: there is no grand scheme of that nature.

I suppose I should have applied "never assume a conspiracy..." to it Thanks.

 

[nanstallon]

Indeed, given the jibes at DfT, it should be noted that the Civil Service Code specifically prohibits deliberate law breaking.

Any submission asking Ministers to agree a derogation (and just how many years after full implementation of the legislation should that be an option?) would have to include an equality impact assessment and legal advice.

We can go and on about the whys and wherefores, but the railways have become ridiculously tangled up in red tape and regulations. It is much easier to run a bus service. I prefer trains to buses, but there are limits to human patience when the railways are in 'no can do' mode. It used to be the trains which always got through, but these days rail is the first to cave in.

 

[43066]

Though importantly there's more than one way to skin a cat, as it were. You can run a railway like ours, or you can run one like SNCF, or you can run one like Amtrak - they're all very different from one another. Part of the difference is legislative framework of course, but part is also just how people in management positions feel it should run. Very little is absolute, even the law can be changed where necessary.

Part of the issue with that is that there is no “you” in the sense of a one stop shop guiding mind which is able to come up with sensible ideas, authorise the funding, and bring about the changes required to implement them.

You also fundamentally can’t run an SNCF (let alone a Swiss) style railway if you have a government who starve it of funding because they would rather subsidise motorists and wealthy pensioners!

We can go and on about the whys and wherefores, but the railways have become ridiculously tangled up in red tape and regulations. It is much easier to run a bus service. I prefer trains to buses, but there are limits to human patience when the railways are in 'no can do' mode. It used to be the trains which always got through, but these days rail is the first to cave in.

It isn’t about the railway being in “no can do mode”, the issues have been clearly outlined above. It’s much more about a lack of money and political will - presumably the DfT would simply have bailed out Vivarail if it was considered important enough to keep the Marston Vale open.

Complaints about red tape and regulations and how much better things used to be in some mythical sepia toned past rarely stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Wolfie]

We can go and on about the whys and wherefores, but the railways have become ridiculously tangled up in red tape and regulations. It is much easier to run a bus service. I prefer trains to buses, but there are limits to human patience when the railways are in 'no can do' mode. It used to be the trains which always got through, but these days rail is the first to cave in.

Neither the railway nor bus companies are exempt from complying with legislation. They are both, in different ways, budget constrained too.

 

[zwk500]

I do also half-wonder if there is some "nefarious motivation" there per what DarloRich suggested. That is, that if it's closed for ages the "five station" proposal could go ahead with very little objection.

That would imply a continuity of thought at a strategic level that simply isn't justified on the surrounding evidence!

It's bad luck is all it is. The MV has had far more than it's share for the last 5 or 6 years when I lived there. Probably because in Spreadsheet land it doesn't get above the scroll point on the screen...

 

[A0wen]

There is a big can't do mentality on this forum as much just as much as misguided optimism.

Are you speaking as somebody who works in the industry or simply as an armchair expert ?

Many of those who work or have worked in the industry (and full disclosure, I haven't) usually come on here pointing out the practicalities or realities of what needs to be done, only to see those points dismissed as "insignificant" by people who don't know any better.

In my line of work - many people could argue "oh, it's very simple, just do 'x'" - once again, usually from a point of ignorance and not understanding what issues, processes and controls, virtually all of which exist for a very good reason and can't just be circumvented for convenience.

 

[Bogallan]

Still one platform though, although given the problems just running through and recirculating passengers would be a by far better solution than stopping the whole job.

Kempston Hardwick AHB worked well in class 150/153 days. The 230s gave the barriers a wobble due to Track circuit problems and a flagman was appointed. The up direction was somehow fixed and the flagman withdrawn, however in the down direction the driver was required to call the Signalbox at Ridgmont once he was at a stand at the station and the barriers were then lowered by the signalman and the signal cleared. In former times when the old traction ran, the protecting signal in the down direction was invariably showing a green aspect with the barriers raised It should be noted. Quite why it is not possible to re-instate a flagman to protect the crossing so a local door can be used I have no idea. As has been stated before in this group, I am pretty sure BR would not have allowed the present state of affairs to continue - unfortunately, there seem few visionary railway operators these days.

 

[A0wen]

Remind me again why the railway industry has been in dispute with it's employers / DfT? Perhaps the answer to question lies therein....

Not all of the rail industry has been.

And in many areas, there is a resistance to change, which is quite interesting. The unions seem more intent on job protection, rather than job improvement and improving the performance of the employers - of course employers which perform better then have more money to spend on things like wages.....

 

[43066]

Not all of the rail industry has been.

The dispute has been created, provoked and prolonged by the government.

The unions seem more intent on job protection, rather than job improvement and improving the performance of the employers

For anyone who understands what a union actually is, and what it is supposed to do, that should come as no surprise. The unions are also not resistant to change, as many decades of experience has shown, they are resistant to change at the expense of their members.

It’s clear that union is a dirty word on here…

 

[A0wen]

You also fundamentally can’t run an SNCF (let alone a Swiss) style railway if you have a government who starve it of funding because they would rather subsidise motorists and wealthy pensioners!

SNCF is also being subject to budget challenges and job reductions https://www.connexionfrance.com/art...e-axed-as-French-railways-open-to-competition.

And SNCF's CEO is demanding 100 billion Euros from the French state - something tells me he won't get that either.

Taxing motorways to finance rail infrastructure? SNCF CEO says yes

To finance the 100-billion-euro plan announced last month by French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne, SNCF CEO Jean-Pierre Farandou insists that “all accessible sources of funding must be used”. He even proposes taxing motorways and airports to finance the more environmentally responsible train...

www.railtech.com

 

[zwk500]

I am pretty sure BR would not have allowed the present state of affairs to continue - unfortunately, there seem few visionary railway operators these days.

Which era BR are we talking about? Everybody's saying 'oh BR would never have allowed this' but then there were plenty of lines with a handful of trains and no maintenance at stations for years under BR.

And in many areas, there is a resistance to change, which is quite interesting.

The management are just as resistant to spending money on proper change as the unions are to half-baked ideas that wil lcost more in the long run

The unions seem more intent on job protection, rather than job improvement and improving the performance of the employers

The unions are, of course, paid to secure people's jobs. Although I believe @Taunton has raised the interesting point before that US unions are funded by a % contribution from the employee's salary rather than a fixed fee per employee, and so are motivated to increase salaries rather than number of employees.

Of course employers which perform better then have more money to spend on things like wages.....

But they never do. Trickle-down is a fallacy designed to stop people from questioning why super-rich billionaires are allowed to hoard statistically significant portionso fo the global wealth.

 

[A0wen]

The dispute has been created, provoked and prolonged by the government.

Aided and abetted by some pretty incompetent unions though.

For anyone who understands what a union actually is, and what it is supposed to do, that should come as no surprise. The unions are also not resident to change, as decades of experience has shown, they are resistant to change at the expense of their members.

It’s clear that union is a dirty word on here…

I have no issue with employees having an organisation which is focussed on improving the lot of its members and looking to improve the conditions in which their members work. But most (if not all) the UK unions and most definitely the rail unions have a political agenda against a government they don't agree with politically.

The problem with arguing no change "at the expense of their members" is that basically is blocking any change or improvement - so you had the nonsenses that some diesel trains had to have 2 men in the cab because that's what a steam loco had or the debate about whether the driver or the guard presses the button to close the doors. The unions also don't help their cause by defending the indefensible - not a rail example, but in a previous life I worked for a retailer which had unionised warehouses - this is a direct quote from one of the Ops Managers at one of those sites "most of the guys who join the union don't care about the union's political campaigns. They only join the union to get them out of the **** when they do something stupid".

Conscious we're heading a bit OT - so to bring it back on topic.

The issue with the MV line is it is relatively lightly used - upgrading the infrastructure just to support longer units won't make a sensible business case whilst humans walk on this earth. And it has too many stations for the length of the line - having 10 intermediate stops on a 16 mile line. That's the kind of station spacing you find on an inner suburban line into London, not a rural backwater line.

So EWR's approach to thin out the stations makes complete sense - and doing that sensibly would allow some reasonable infrastructure changes which could address the limitations in terms of units which can be used on the line.

But they never do. Trickle-down is a fallacy designed to stop people from questioning why super-rich billionaires are allowed to hoard statistically significant portionso fo the global wealth.

That's not true - as you can see on any industrial park when a new company sets up and offers more than the existing companies on there.

People are mobile, they will change job if they can secure more money.

If your statement were true, then every company would be paying minimum wage for everything - and that's not the case.

 

[Bogallan]

Which era BR are we talking about? Everybody's saying 'oh BR would never have allowed this' but then there were plenty of lines with a handful of trains and no maintenance at stations for years under BR.

We are talking about an era when operators would not throw the towel in at the first opportunity and run buses. When was the last time you saw Single Line working in operation to facilitate working, or a case on my line, pilotman working when Fenny Stratford LC was a failure?