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

[nanstallon]

The 153s aren't PRM cleared - so it can't "be done". Nor can top'n'tail class 31 and Mk2 coaches as was done 20 or so years ago. This is a side effect of some of the accessibility legislation - such legislation isn't designed to be flexible, in part because some organisations would never seek to meet it and in part because noisy, vocal campaigners would endlessly whinge about the "inequality" of it was. So, I'm afraid, what is now in place is equal for all and equally **** for all - but that's what equality legislation achieves - the lowest common denominator.

The only suitable stock are class 150s owing to platform lengths and signal siting - so other DMUs which might have been suggested aren't suitable either.

The line isn't being closed, nor is there any attempt to close it. LNWR have confirmed they're getting a couple of 150s - these are being freed up from Northern as part of a wider cascade and will be available in just over a month if all goes to plan.

All rather pathetic.

 

[A0wen]

Yet fouling up passengers journeys for months on end doesn't seem to have any negative effect on optics these days.

Let's put this in context:

The line is very lightly used bar one or two trains a day.

Very few travel the full length of the line.

The time penalty of a bus replacement is not significant - there are 2 buses according to NRES, one which takes an hour and covers some stations and one which takes longer serving all stations. The train journey was slow owing to a mix of a station roughly every 2 miles and relatively slow accelerating units.

So - you have a choice - discrimination by using non accessible trains or no discrimination by providing a bus. So you prefer discrimination. But the legislators (of both political stripes) don't agree with you and have legislated accordingly. You lose.

All rather pathetic.

Well quite. Which is what critics of such legislation pointed out would be the effect, but the equality lobby seem to be more important nowadays. So we all have to live with the consequences of equality.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No indeed, and that is ridiculous, and overall bad for the railway!

What I’ve perhaps missed is why the demise of Vivarail has meant these trains had to be withdrawn while TfW have pressed ahead with introducing theirs into service this month. I assume the difference must be down to the maintenance arrangements, and that LNWR had outsourced maintenance to the manufacturer?

That's exactly it I believe, yes.

 

[A0wen]

No indeed, and that is ridiculous, and overall bad for the railway!

What I’ve perhaps missed is why the demise of Vivarail has meant these trains had to be withdrawn while TfW have pressed ahead with introducing theirs into service this month. I assume the difference must be down to the maintenance arrangements, and that LNWR had outsourced maintenance to the manufacturer?

Well, only for the relatively few who use the line. Even pre the 230s, most of the time the 150 / 153s ran less than half empty - I used to be sble to watch them pass by from my desk !

The TFW ones also have different engines IIRC ? But yes, TFW must have taken on the maintenance, in the same way SWR have for the 484s.

 

[Bantamzen]

Let's put this in context:

The line is very lightly used bar one or two trains a day.

Very few travel the full length of the line.

The time penalty of a bus replacement is not significant - there are 2 buses according to NRES, one which takes an hour and covers some stations and one which takes longer serving all stations. The train journey was slow owing to a mix of a station roughly every 2 miles and relatively slow accelerating units.

So - you have a choice - discrimination by using non accessible trains or no discrimination by providing a bus. So you prefer discrimination. But the legislators (of both political stripes) don't agree with you and have legislated accordingly. You lose.



Well quite. Which is what critics of such legislation pointed out would be the effect, but the equality lobby seem to be more important nowadays. So we all have to live with the consequences of equality.

So for the record, what aspects of using 153 would lead to discrimination?

 

[DerekC]

This is, I think, a precursor of the decisions that will be presented for every single lightly used line over the next few years. Expensive rail versus cheap bus. The accessibility issue is just a distraction.

 

[josh-j]

Can the 153s be used with locked out toilets without any derogation paperwork?

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is, I think, a precursor of the decisions that will be presented for every single lightly used line over the next few years. Expensive rail versus cheap bus. The accessibility issue is just a distraction.

I don't think closure has been proposed any any point during this, which seems to be the undertone of your statement?

It's a unique situation of a line that can only, in practice*, use one class of rolling stock due to some stupid decisions ages ago. Were no 150s to become available it might have been threatened - see Sinfin - but not many branches are in that position (though the northern Cumbrian Coast is one, however that's one of the busier sections so is unlikely to close). Similarly were it not for EWR there may have been a problem.

* 153s aren't great as they're not big enough for the school traffic. Which at the moment is probably mostly going by car.

Can the 153s be used with locked out toilets without any derogation paperwork?

No, there are other PRM modifications as well, e.g. PIS.

 

[43066]

Well, only for the relatively few who use the line. Even pre the 230s, most of the time the 150 / 153s ran less than half empty - I used to be sble to watch them pass by from my desk !

The TFW ones also have different engines IIRC ? But yes, TFW must have taken on the maintenance, in the same way SWR have for the 484s.

It’s just particularly ridiculous that we are discussing decrepit stock being used on a line (or not being used, in this case) when serviceable and PRM compliant stock* is in existence, but is presumably parked up somewhere.

It’s a shame the relevant staff couldn’t simply have been TUPEd across or some other relatively low impact intervention made to keep it running.

*I had written “perfectly good new stock”, but then realised that’s hardly an accurate description of the 230s!

 

[Bogallan]

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time a 153 was used on this route?

I have a cutting showing the introduction of the 230s in September 2018. The last recorded picture I have one on the branch is May 2019, so it was sometime after this.

 

[A0wen]

So for the record, what aspects of using 153 would lead to discrimination?

Bletchleyite's post #368 mentions some of it.

I've found this detail on DB's site of modifications made to the Class 156s to meet PRM

• Modified seating layout to include Priority Seating
• Wheelchair space provision with retention
• Provision of ‘Call-for-Aid’ device (in wheelchair space and toilet cubicle)
• Removal of internal doors
• Installation of internal and external door sounders
• Floor plan design of contrasting colour scheme
• Installation of Passenger Information System (PIS) in all vehicles and cabs
• Installation of Universally Accessible Toilet (UAT) and effluent retention tank (CET)
• PRM compliant handrails
• Specification for boarding ramp and stowage device
• Specification for full-coach PRM labels and notices
• Certification of modifications to TSI, through Railway Approvals Limited
• Comprehensive modifications pack, including written installation instructions.

Class 156 PRM Modifications

dbesg.deutschebahn.com

So even if you locked the toilet out of use, there are still a number of other modifications which would be required to meet this.

This is, I think, a precursor of the decisions that will be presented for every single lightly used line over the next few years. Expensive rail versus cheap bus. The accessibility issue is just a distraction.

No - because other "lightly used lines" - such as the Borderlands line, Colne branch, St Albans Abbey line etc have stock which is available and is PRM compliant.

The issue with the MV is twofold - the stock needs to be PRM compliant *and* there are infrastructure limitations which mean it needs to be 2 x 20m or 1 x 23m unit - 2 x 23 can't be used due to things like signal siting etc.

 

[yorksrob]

Could they not put together a scratch set of mk 4's and haul those !

 

[A0wen]

It’s just particularly ridiculous that we are discussing decrepit stock being used on a line (or not being used, in this case) when serviceable and PRM compliant stock* is in existence, but is presumably parked up somewhere.

It’s a shame the relevant staff couldn’t simply have been TUPEd across or some other relatively low impact intervention made to keep it running.

*I had written “perfectly good new stock”, but then realised that’s hardly an accurate description of the 230s!

I think it might also be down to the ownership of the stock as well - maybe the LNW units were directly leased from Vivarail whereas the 484s for example were bought outright ?

Once Vivarail went into administration if they were leased by them, then their use would have to cease unless the administrators agreed to run the business as a going concern - but a new contract would have been needed as the original entity which was the leasor was no longer trading, that would be a standard legal requirement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

EDIT: Friday 2nd December was the first day of the bus service:

Vivarail: London Northwestern Railway suspends Bedford to Bletchley service

London Northwestern Railway has confirmed that it has suspended Marston Vale Line services between Bedford and Bletchley until further notice.

www.railadvent.co.uk

London Northwestern Railway has confirmed that it has suspended Marston Vale Line services between Bedford and Bletchley until further notice.

The announcement comes because of the recent announcement that Vivarail, the company that maintains the Class 230 trains that operate services on the line, has filed a ‘Notice Of Intention To Appoint Administrators'.

LNR says this therefore means that there is no guarantee of maintenance for the trains on the route.


A rail replacement bus service will operate from tomorrow (Friday 2nd December) until further notice.

 

[Trainbike46]

Well, only for the relatively few who use the line. Even pre the 230s, most of the time the 150 / 153s ran less than half empty - I used to be sble to watch them pass by from my desk !

The TFW ones also have different engines IIRC ? But yes, TFW must have taken on the maintenance, in the same way SWR have for the 484s.

TfW outsourced maintenance to stadler, SWR does it in-house, and LNWR outsourced it to Vivarail (or it was included in the lease contract, what matters is that the result is that it was vivarail doing the maintance).

As I understand it, no other companies wanted to take over the maintance department of vivarail, which could have been a solution for LNWR, because the maintenance turned a loss. This could have been resolved either by LNWR taking over the maintenance staff and doing it in-house (like how GWR took over the greenford trial, including staff and equipment), or by renegotiating the maintenance contract. However, it seems like DfT/Treasury was unwilling to bear the costs of that.

 

[A0wen]

TfW outsourced maintenance to stadler, SWR does it in-house, and LNWR outsourced it to Vivarail (or it was included in the lease contract, what matters is that the result is that it was vivarail doing the maintance).

As I understand it, no other companies wanted to take over the maintance department of vivarail, which could have been a solution for LNWR, because the maintenance turned a loss. This could have been resolved either by LNWR taking over the maintenance staff and doing it in-house (like how GWR took over the greenford trial, including staff and equipment), or by renegotiating the maintenance contract. However, it seems like DfT/Treasury was unwilling to bear the costs of that.

You can't "renegotiate" a contract with a company which is in administration unless the administrators are agreeable to that.

The responsibilities of the administrators is to stem the financial losses and ensure the business trades in a solvent fashion until it is either sold, exits administration, closes or is passed to the receivers. If the administrators decided not to do anything with the maintenance division and closed it to stem the losses, there's nothing LNWR could have done about that. It wasn't in their hands - and as a customer, you have no negotiating leverage with the administrators - that's really not how it works. I speak from experience having worked for a company which went through administration some years ago - the "normal" commercial rules no longer apply at that point.

 

[swt_passenger]

…I assume the difference must be down to the maintenance arrangements, and that LNWR had outsourced maintenance to the manufacturer?

Exactly, as has been mentioned in earlier threads, it’s basically the same with the DC version of the trains that are still being maintained by SWR staff on the Isle of Wight.

 

[43066]

I think it might also be down to the ownership of the stock as well - maybe the LNW units were directly leased from Vivarail whereas the 484s for example were bought outright ?

Quite possibly, I haven’t followed the exact arrangements.

Once Vivarail went into administration if they were leased by them, then their use would have to cease unless the administrators agreed to run the business as a going concern - but a new contract would have been needed as the original entity which was the leasor was no longer trading, that would be a standard legal requirement.

Yes, but that shouldn’t have been an automatic blocker as the lease would have had value and some sort of novation arrangement might have been possible. That would have required the administrator to find another suitable organisation that was willing to take it on, of course, and it’s clear that didn’t happen; quite possibly because of the small numbers of (unreliable) units involved, and the fact that the whole project appeared to be a bit of a basket case with lots of risk for little financial reward.

Still a pity, though!

 

[zwk500]

Yes, but that shouldn’t have been an automatic blocker as the lease would have had value and some sort of novation arrangement might have been possible. That would have required finding another suitable organisation that was willing to take it on, of course, and it’s clear that didn’t happen; quite possibly because of the small numbers of (unreliable) units involved, and the fact that the whole project appeared to be a bit of a basket case with lots of risk for little financial reward.

Remember the administrators are effectively working for the creditors, so outgoings would have had to be reduced as quickly as possible. It would have required the DfT, Treasury and LNWR to move extremely quickly to have attempted to buy the parts of the company they needed outright before the administrators closed it down. And that's assuming the administrators were able to secure that sale without prejudicing other creditor's interests.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, but that shouldn’t have been an automatic blocker as the lease would have had value and some sort of novation arrangement might have been possible. That would have required the administrator to find another suitable organisation that was willing to take it on, of course, and it’s clear that didn’t happen; quite possibly because of the small numbers of (unreliable) units involved, and the fact that the whole project appeared to be a bit of a basket case with lots of risk for little financial reward.

Still a pity, though!

I suspect because of the unreliability of the units WMT was looking for a get-out, and one presented itself. If all this had been done, there wouldn't have been a get-out.

 

[43066]

Remember the administrators are effectively working for the creditors, so outgoings would have had to be reduced as quickly as possible. It would have required the DfT, Treasury and LNWR to move extremely quickly to have attempted to buy the parts of the company they needed outright before the administrators closed it down. And that's assuming the administrators were able to secure that sale without prejudicing other creditor's interests.

I suppose the other option of mutually agreeing to terminate the leases, with LNWR agreeing to buy the units, TUPEing over the staff etc. (so effective bringing maintenance in house) would have been considered too expensive/risky by the DfT for such a tiny fleet - perhaps justifiably. Albeit that would likely have been a better option for the Vivarail creditors than parking unused units up (have they been sold on? Who is paying for the storage costs? etc.).

 

[zwk500]

I suppose the other option of mutually agreeing to terminate the leases, with LNWR agreeing to buy the units, TUPEing over the staff etc. (so effective bringing maintenance in house) would have been considered too expensive/risky by the DfT for such a tiny fleet - perhaps justifiably. Albeit that would likely have been a better option for the Vivarail creditors than parking unused units up (have they been sold on? Who is paying for the storage costs? etc.).

Quite possibly. the Administrators may also have felt that there simply wasn't enough cash in the bank to maintain the staff until the deal could go through. Even if a deal like that may have provided better value for creditors, there still needs to be some method of payment and who'd give credit to a company that's just gone under to allow them to sell one of their only stable sources of income?

 

[Bantamzen]

Bletchleyite's post #368 mentions some of it.

I've found this detail on DB's site of modifications made to the Class 156s to meet PRM

• Modified seating layout to include Priority Seating
• Wheelchair space provision with retention
• Provision of ‘Call-for-Aid’ device (in wheelchair space and toilet cubicle)
• Removal of internal doors
• Installation of internal and external door sounders
• Floor plan design of contrasting colour scheme
• Installation of Passenger Information System (PIS) in all vehicles and cabs
• Installation of Universally Accessible Toilet (UAT) and effluent retention tank (CET)
• PRM compliant handrails
• Specification for boarding ramp and stowage device
• Specification for full-coach PRM labels and notices
• Certification of modifications to TSI, through Railway Approvals Limited
• Comprehensive modifications pack, including written installation instructions.

Class 156 PRM Modifications

dbesg.deutschebahn.com

So even if you locked the toilet out of use, there are still a number of other modifications which would be required to meet this.

OK thanks for the info. So the (hypothetical) question is, which of these have not been completed on the 153s and which would cause serious discrimination, & which could not be mitigated for if a derogation were applied to allow them to cover this line?

 

[43096]

Can the 153s be used with locked out toilets without any derogation paperwork?

For the nth time, no. Not sure how many times we have to go over PRM compliance being much more than toilets.

 

[A0wen]

OK thanks for the info. So the (hypothetical) question is, which of these have not been completed on the 153s and which would cause serious discrimination, & which could not be mitigated for if a derogation were applied to allow them to cover this line?

I would assume none of it has been done on the available (i.e. stored ex Northern units or EMR) because Northern's workaround was to run them paired with a PRM compliant Class 150 and EMR withdrew them and replaced them with Class 156s which were PRM compliant. It appears from Wikipedia only the TFW ones have had PRM mods made. Scotrail are using them as Northern did - paired with a PRM compliant unit, 156s in this case.

There is no way a derogation will be reasonably granted - the only 'workround' item will be to lock the toilet out of use - once again, the perversity of the legislation means it's better to have something unavailable to everyone than only available to some.

 

[nanstallon]

This is, I think, a precursor of the decisions that will be presented for every single lightly used line over the next few years. Expensive rail versus cheap bus. The accessibility issue is just a distraction.

I hear the sound of a hammer hitting a nail on the head.

 

[josh-j]

No, there are other PRM modifications as well, e.g. PIS.

Bletchleyite's post #368 mentions some of it.

I've found this detail on DB's site of modifications made to the Class 156s to meet PRM

Thanks. Not so simple then

It does seem like in the end it would still be better to get a derogation to use the old units rather than bustitution for this length of time. I know it might not be possible but I the circumstances it would make sense, it'd be a very clearly time limited measure with a full plan already existing for ending the use of the units, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[zwk500]

Thanks. Not so simple then

It does seem like in the end it would still be better to get a derogation to use the old units rather than bustitution for this length of time. I know it might not be possible but I the circumstances it would make sense, it'd be a very clearly time limited measure with a full plan already existing for ending the use of the units, if I'm not mistaken.

While I agree a temporary derogation could be the lesser evil, politically the DfT won't want to set the precedent of being able to backslide away from the regulations. Because what happens in 6 or 12 months when there's another delay, you have to extend the derogation and suddenly you're faced with the prospect of withdrawing the service arbitrarily or being backed into a corner to extend the derogation.

There's a flyover at Lewisham that was 'temporarily' rebuilt in the 50s after a crash. It's still there. Plenty of lines have been 'temporarily' out of use for decades. The fear will be that a 12-month derogation becomes an excuse for TOCs to avoid disability legislation, which will look very bad for the Government.

 

[Trainbike46]

You can't "renegotiate" a contract with a company which is in administration unless the administrators are agreeable to that.

The responsibilities of the administrators is to stem the financial losses and ensure the business trades in a solvent fashion until it is either sold, exits administration, closes or is passed to the receivers. If the administrators decided not to do anything with the maintenance division and closed it to stem the losses, there's nothing LNWR could have done about that. It wasn't in their hands - and as a customer, you have no negotiating leverage with the administrators - that's really not how it works. I speak from experience having worked for a company which went through administration some years ago - the "normal" commercial rules no longer apply at that point.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, what I meant was that, instead of the maintenance division being sold on and a maintenance contract being agreed with the new owners under the same/similar terms, new (more expensive for LNWR) terms would have had to be agreed. I fully agree that isn't an easy thing to do, and costs would certainly have gone up for LNWR.

I would suspect the administrators will have asked LNWR if they had interest in taking over the maintenance division and the 230s (it would be a potential source of income to pay creditors), but I suspect that bletchleyite is right here, and LNWR didn't want to buy the units and maintenance division outright:

I suspect because of the unreliability of the units WMT was looking for a get-out, and one presented itself. If all this had been done, there wouldn't have been a get-out.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The whole PRM thing is important of course, but I do get the feeling that it's sometimes used as an excuse for operators to not try hard... and it also appears that compliance with the letter of the law overrides compliance with the spirit of the law. For example are the platforms on the MV all step-free? If not, that strikes me as a bigger problem than the temporary use of 153s that don't quite tick all the boxes. All of Northern's trains are now compliant, but plenty of the stations those trains serve are only partially accessible, and in some cases are accessible on paper but not actually suitable for a wheelchair user to access without great difficulty- Slaithwaite (though that's TPE) and Shepley spring to mind.
I'm reminded of the old TPE plan to use the former Pretendolino coaches, which in the end got shot down by a particularly militant disability rights activist. I don't blame the activist for kicking up a stink, but TPE's plan to run the two sets on successive diagrams, and their decision to half-a**e the mitigation*, played right into the hands of the activists.

*= if I recall correctly, taxis would only be provided in the event of two successive services being inaccessible. It wouldn't exactly have bankrupted FirstGroup to just provide a taxi immediately in the event of a passenger not being able to board.