No Bedford trains to Milton Keynes during current LM franchise

[andyfrommk]

From my local paper

I can’t see anything happing about platform five (at Bletchley) during the London Midland franchise and we haven’t found a way to run trains to Milton Keynes.

Since you can't get to Milton Keynes from Platform 6 I assume there will be no Marston Vale services run to MKC until after 2017 if ever.

Anyone know why? was anyone at the meeting and can share some insight which the paper cannot be bothered to report?

(also amazed at the photographer, too cheap to buy a platform ticket, just takes some snaps from the carpark)

 

[DarloRich]

The bane of my life and a constant frustration & passenger growth retarder for the Marston Vale line, that and the less than helpful timetable connections at Bletchley

EDIT – there is a perfectly feasible way of running trains to MK from the Vale – that is to change the timetable and use platform 5. With a cack handed investigation I think there is enough slack, just, to squeeze an Bletchley – MKC - Bletchley leg in without impacting on anything else. Just. Perhaps the real issue is that LM don’t trust chug 1 or 2 to make it there and back within the available window and without failing!

The other issue is that the only connection, from the south, to the carriage sidings is through platform 5! This means you cant have the train sit in platform 5 at Bletchley for any length of time, especially on the shoulders of the peaks

 

[asylumxl]

I believe what DarloRich said above would work. Realistically, cascaded/new stock (170/172 etc) needs to be used. While I appreciate that platforms would need to be extended, with signals moved etc, I don't really think it would require much work.

I think in the end it won't happen because nobody is willing to stump the bill.

 

[The Planner]

If you are moving signals then the cost rises massively.

 

[asylumxl]

If you are moving signals then the cost rises massively.

While that's true, not every platform would require signals to be moved. Eventually such work will need to be done which would be cheaper sooner rather than later.

 

[andyfrommk]

While I appreciate that platforms would need to be extended, with signals moved etc, I don't really think it would require much work

But they've already extended the platforms.
Looking on brtimes.com It shows Platform 5 heavily used during the morning peak south(presumably coming in from the carriage sidings), as well as the first two marston vale trains and then unused for the rest of the day.

NR may have plans for the proposed high level platform to go to MKC thus avoiding going through the carriage sidings, seem like a waste of money to do all that work on P5 for very little gain.

 

[asylumxl]

But they've already extended the platforms.
Looking on brtimes.com It shows Platform 5 heavily used during the morning peak south(presumably coming in from the carriage sidings), as well as the first two marston vale trains and then unused for the rest of the day.

NR may have plans for the proposed high level platform to go to MKC thus avoiding going through the carriage sidings, seem like a waste of money to do all that work on P5 for very little gain.

Have they? I can't say I pay attention when going along the Marston Vale Line.

 

[cle]

They must - 1tph from both Marylebone and Oxford/Reading will stop there, and then continue to MKC.

 

[asylumxl]

They must - 1tph from both Marylebone and Oxford/Reading will stop there, and then continue to MKC.

I meant stations along the Marston Vale Line. Not at each end. Just to reiterate what I was asking, sorry if this is what you meant. I know there are various issues with level crossings and signals etc.

 

[DarloRich]

But they've already extended the platforms.

He means, i think, the platforms on the Marston Vale line. They have not been extended in any way. P 4/5 at Bletchley was extended to 12 car length during the re modelling.

Looking on brtimes.com It shows Platform 5 heavily used during the morning peak south(presumably coming in from the carriage sidings), as well as the first two marston vale trains and then unused for the rest of the day.

NR may have plans for the proposed high level platform to go to MKC thus avoiding going through the carriage sidings, seem like a waste of money to do all that work on P5 for very little gain.

The 2 Marston Vale line trains referred to (0531/0642) use p5 as there is now no connection into P.6 from the sidings. They then use P6 all day. The Marston Vale line trains only use 5 when they need to unload a wheelchair using passenger ( like tonight!)

I am unsure how LM shunt the final trains of the day into the carriage sidings. Do the trains terminate in P.6 and shunt via the depot back into p5 then reverse into the carriage sidings? Or do they terminate in P.5 and reverse into the sidings.

(In fact sometimes the trains seem to stable on the deport pad rather than the carriage sidings allowing them to access P.6 from the off)

P5 is then booked to be used by the 0538, 0634, 0713, 0739 services to Euston. It is used by freight from time to time in either direction and i assume some ECS movements.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/darlo2009/13588771343/
or
https://www.flickr.com/photos/darlo2009/12327338825

I still think the services to MK can be fitted into the current operation with a few minor changes to timetables and operating practices. It needs the will from all sides to make it happen. That will simply does not appear to be there

 

[andythebrave]

Whilst I would love a direct service to MK I don't see the point of it if it is to reverse at Bletchley. Convenient, yes but no significant journey time advantage if the connections are sorted out.

Also, scheduling would be difficult assuming any such service would use the bay at MK which is, also presumably, going to be mostly occupied with the twice hourly Southern trains.

Why the plan wasn't to somehow add another bay at MK and create a direct route to MK avoiding Bletchley I don't know.

Well, actually I do, money!

Still, we have a service to a place that we don't want to go to while the place we do want to go to is just over 3 miles up the line and this is highly unlikely to change.

 

[tractakid]

Whilst I would love a direct service to MK I don't see the point of it if it is to reverse at Bletchley. Convenient, yes but no significant journey time advantage if the connections are sorted out.

Also, scheduling would be difficult assuming any such service would use the bay at MK which is, also presumably, going to be mostly occupied with the twice hourly Southern trains.

Southern is only hourly.

The through service cuts connection times to 0, which is a significant advantage.

 

[andythebrave]

But I'm pretty sure that it is planned to be 2 an hour (shortly?).

Also, for any meaningful increase in traffic along the vale you need to consider that the train journey needs to be competitive with the travelling time by car which it cannot be if operating via Bletchley.

 

[DarloRich]

Whilst I would love a direct service to MK I don't see the point of it if it is to reverse at Bletchley. Convenient, yes but no significant journey time advantage if the connections are sorted out.

Also, scheduling would be difficult assuming any such service would use the bay at MK which is, also presumably, going to be mostly occupied with the twice hourly Southern trains.

Why the plan wasn't to somehow add another bay at MK and create a direct route to MK avoiding Bletchley I don't know.

Well, actually I do, money!

Still, we have a service to a place that we don't want to go to while the place we do want to go to is just over 3 miles up the line and this is highly unlikely to change.

The point for me is that until MK is connected to the route there will be no development of the service or any real attempt to entice people onto the trains. The line serves prime commuter land, with good connections to London at either end and should be busy but is very poorly used.

The service doesn't need to avoid Bletchely, it just needs better planning, reliability and timetabling! I dont want through services to London, I dont want fancy new trains, i dont want a massive refurb of the trains, on board catering, free wifi and cheap first class tickets and free food. I just want a small extension to the service running to the regional economic centre but a handful of miles away!

However; the simple fact is that for LM this service must be a pain in the backside they could do without. I also suspect that the Marston Vale line is so low on their radar as to barely measure! This means they wont do anything to enhance the prospects of the line

It is a diesel island in the middle of an electric sea, it requires drivers & guards to retain competency on 2 additional traction types, it requires shuttling 4 units every weekend between Tysley and Bletchley, it requires light maintenance/fuel resources at Bletchley to keep the units rolling, it cant earn much ( I would contend because of the poor service) and must cause any number of delay repay based admin issues!

Plus the service is no good if you are any less than "firm" as P6 is inaccessible to non ambulatory passengers. I know from 4 years of crunching a buggy up and down those bloody stairs everyday what a pita it is!

it could be such a fantastic little line.............

 

[RT4038]

The point for me is that until MK is connected to the route there will be no development of the service or any real attempt to entice people onto the trains. The line serves prime commuter land, with good connections to London at either end and should be busy but is very poorly used.

The service doesn't need to avoid Bletchely, it just needs better planning, reliability and timetabling! I dont want through services to London, I dont want fancy new trains, i dont want a massive refurb of the trains, on board catering, free wifi and cheap first class tickets and free food. I just want a small extension to the service running to the regional economic centre but a handful of miles away!

However; the simple fact is that for LM this service must be a pain in the backside they could do without. I also suspect that the Marston Vale line is so low on their radar as to barely measure! This means they wont do anything to enhance the prospects of the line

It is a diesel island in the middle of an electric sea, it requires drivers & guards to retain competency on 2 additional traction types, it requires shuttling 4 units every weekend between Tysley and Bletchley, it requires light maintenance/fuel resources at Bletchley to keep the units rolling, it cant earn much ( I would contend because of the poor service) and must cause any number of delay repay based admin issues!

Plus the service is no good if you are any less than "firm" as P6 is inaccessible to non ambulatory passengers. I know from 4 years of crunching a buggy up and down those bloody stairs everyday what a pita it is!

it could be such a fantastic little line.............

Sounds like it should be closed and replaced by a bus?

 

[DarloRich]

Sounds like it should be closed and replaced by a bus?

it is often enough

 

[Class 170101]

It should be noted that at the end of Silverlink days only 150s worked the line so only one type of traction was learnt by train crew not two now used under London Midland.

 

[DarloRich]

It should be noted that at the end of Silverlink days only 150s worked the line so only one type of traction was learnt by train crew not two now used under London Midland.

and they still used Blethcley depot for maintenance

 

[asylumxl]

After introducing friends to the service I have found they prefer to use the train over the coach, irrelevant of journey times. I think it's fair to say the majority of the general the public prefer trains over coaches/buses.

I agree that the line has plenty of potential that is going untapped. When the E-W services begin we will hopefully see an increase in use.

 

[DarloRich]

I agree - only the electrification of the line will bring any general improvement. I doubt, however there will be much improvement for the users of the intermediate stations between Bedford & Bletchley.

 

[andythebrave]

The East West proposals state that there will be no change to the stopping service and that the Bedford to Oxford (or Reading) services will call at Woburn Sands and Lidlington between Bletchley and Bedford.

 

[gordonthemoron]

presumably Lidlington is for Amazon? Whereas Woburn Sands is for the Station Hotel

 

[andythebrave]

It would be Ridgmont for Amazon but there's little point in stopping the longer distance service there. Lidlington serves both the village and potential inbound tourism (e.g. The John Bunyan Trail). Woburn Sands is a significant (for this line) population centre.

 

[DarloRich]

I think/bet under E-W the stopping service is reduced to alternative hours and goes no where near mk! This will especially be a risk if the electric spine freight trains come this way

It is proposed that the actual E-W services will stop at Woburn Sands & one of Liddlington/Ridgmont. I have heard both suggested for the reasons mentioned above. In fact the Amazon warehouse is one of the main reasons passenger numbers on the line have increased. The trains are quite busy around shift changes, especially those from Bedford

There is a lot of building going on at Woburn Sands (as there has been at Fenny Stratford and others) and the size of this community will grow with a target audience of younger commuters. They have a station right on their door step and should be tempted onto the train!

 

[Class377/5]

But I'm pretty sure that it is planned to be 2 an hour (shortly?).
Also, for any meaningful increase in traffic along the vale you need to consider that the train journey needs to be competitive with the travelling time by car which it cannot be if operating via Bletchley.

For Southern's service to go 2tph they need the 377/5 off Thameslink duties, currently looking like happening in 2017.

 

[andyfrommk]

He means, i think, the platforms on the Marston Vale line. They have not been extended in any way. P 4/5 at Bletchley was extended to 12 car length during the re modelling.

Sorry, My bad, I did mean platform 5 at Bletchley.

The Marston Vale line trains only use 5 when they need to unload a wheelchair using passenger ( like tonight!)

That is interesting! since the article Iinked was discussing how unsuitable platform 6 was for disabled users, turns out that they just use a different platform if needed.

It is a diesel island in the middle of an electric sea, it requires drivers & guards to retain competency on 2 additional traction types, it requires shuttling 4 units every weekend between Tysley and Bletchley, it requires light maintenance/fuel resources at Bletchley to keep the units rolling, it cant earn much ( I would contend because of the poor service) and must cause any number of delay repay based admin issues!

LM probably don't appreciate getting it in the ear from residents of Woburn Sands who resent the traffic jam due to the level crossing.
Woburn Sands, not being a staggered station, means that Bedford-bound trains hold up traffic even when they are stopped in the station.

I wonder if an extra station between Kempston Hardwick and Bedford StJohns would increase line patronage, looking on google maps there seems to be a lot of houses that back onto the line.

 

[DarloRich]

That is interesting! since the article Iinked was discussing how unsuitable platform 6 was for disabled users, turns out that they just use a different platform if needed.

Only if you pre book or the staff on the train are able to call ahead. I understand there may be a system to off load wheel chair passengers at Fenny Stratford and arrange a taxi to Bletchley IF P5 is out of use for any reason.

P6 is of no use to anyone who cant climb up about 30 steps. If the Marston Vale line trains are not going to be able to use P5 something has to be done to make platform 6 both accessible for all and welcoming.

 

[andythebrave]

Sorry, My bad, I did mean platform 5 at Bletchley.

That is interesting! since the article Iinked was discussing how unsuitable platform 6 was for disabled users, turns out that they just use a different platform if needed.


LM probably don't appreciate getting it in the ear from residents of Woburn Sands who resent the traffic jam due to the level crossing.
Woburn Sands, not being a staggered station, means that Bedford-bound trains hold up traffic even when they are stopped in the station.

I wonder if an extra station between Kempston Hardwick and Bedford StJohns would increase line patronage, looking on google maps there seems to be a lot of houses that back onto the line.

At the back of the Interchange retail park would be a good spot. If there was that'd me in for once a week instead of the car!

 

[Trog]

I wonder if an extra station between Kempston Hardwick and Bedford StJohns would increase line patronage, looking on google maps there seems to be a lot of houses that back onto the line.

It was called Kempston and Elstow Halt and closed in 1941.

The crossing keepers cottage at Cow Bridge that still exists was used to house the station staff.

 

[al green]

Until last year LM's line had always been "we'll operate up to MK Central as soon as NR provide the track as part of Bletchley remodelling". That held for about 10 years. Last year NR completed Bletchley remodelling and MV trains could now reverse in P5 and go on to MKC. LM then changed their position to "we're not going to do it in this franchise". So it might be something that any of the bidders could offer in the next franchise bidding round.

The MV trains don't use P5 as a matter of course because they currently sit in the station for about 30 mins in each hour and they block the Relief line no 2 and the CS which can only be accessed at the south end via P5 .

Using P6 is a bit of a nuisance, I've had to carry a bike up the steps a few times for example, but unless you are in a wheelchair it is functional if a bit inconvenient.