Potential solutions for the Marston Vale Line

[Bletchleyite]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-from-ex-lu-d78s-by-vivarail.103488/page-286

I can think of one particular member of this forum who has been most vociferous in their scepticism of this project for the past five years, engines and all.

Still, I look forward to seeing their introduction in North Wales, so I can make my own judgement of them.

I like them still, but they really do need to sort out the reliability on the Marston Vale as it's become an almost-useless joke. If this isn't possible, I'd suggest Abellio (for it is they) should get onto Stadler and see if any 2-car diesel FLIRTs could be chucked onto the end of the GA order, being just about the only other thing that would fit.

 

[edwin_m]

I like them still, but they really do need to sort out the reliability on the Marston Vale as it's become an almost-useless joke. If this isn't possible, I'd suggest Abellio (for it is they) should get onto Stadler and see if any 2-car diesel FLIRTs could be chucked onto the end of the GA order, being just about the only other thing that would fit.

According to Wikipedia a 3-car 755 is 65m long and a 4-car is 80m. So assuming the intermediate passenger cars are the same length a 2-car would be 50m. From previous posts even a 46m unit won't fit in various platforms without causing problems with signals and level crossings. They would probably have to shorten both the power car and the passenger car to get down to that length, which would involve changing the articulation arrangement so a major re-design rather than just chopping out a window or two.

 

[hooverboy]

I like them still, but they really do need to sort out the reliability on the Marston Vale as it's become an almost-useless joke. If this isn't possible, I'd suggest Abellio (for it is they) should get onto Stadler and see if any 2-car diesel FLIRTs could be chucked onto the end of the GA order, being just about the only other thing that would fit.

to be honest it would probably be simpler to bite the bullet and get some prefab platform extensions....seeing as EWR is going to need longer platforms anyway... why not just extend out to 55m minimum.....thats enough for a 2*23m with a bit of wiggle room for dodgy kit or weather conditions.

there's not that many that would need extending.
I'm sure NR,Beds and bucks councils could probably conjour something up.

WMR can then throw in a follow on order for a couple of civities,or even the 156's would do.

 

[Class172]

to be honest it would probably be simpler to bite the bullet and get some prefab platform extensions....seeing as EWR is going to need longer platforms anyway... why not just extend out to 55m minimum.....thats enough for a 2*23m with a bit of wiggle room for dodgy kit or weather conditions.

there's not that many that would need extending.
I'm sure NR,Beds and bucks councils could probably conjour something up.

WMR can then throw in a follow on order for a couple of civities,or even the 156's would do.

If I recall the problem is that some platforms cannot be simply extended as they are trapped between level crossings and signalling, which would need to be moved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If I recall the problem is that some platforms cannot be simply extended as they are trapped between level crossings and signalling, which would need to be moved.

Yep, correct.

 

[Bletchleyite]

WMR can then throw in a follow on order for a couple of civities,or even the 156's would do.

172s would be perfect.

 

[hooverboy]

If I recall the problem is that some platforms cannot be simply extended as they are trapped between level crossings and signalling, which would need to be moved.

is it really that big a deal moving a signal 20m? wouldn't even be that on most platforms requiring alteration(10m or so would be enough)

that's the worst case platform (37m), there are a few other platforms on the line which come in at 42/46m, so we are not talking about a massive run of extra length.

 

[The Ham]

is it really that big a deal moving a signal 20m? wouldn't even be that on most platforms requiring alteration(10m or so would be enough)

that's the worst case platform (37m), there are a few other platforms on the line which come in at 42/46m, so we are not talking about a massive run of extra length.

Which leads to the question, do you even need to move the signal?

Unless the line is at our near capacity how often would you be approaching a station and the signal be red?

If there answer is very rarely then you just have a procedure for when it is red (such as local door only operation, or the driver stop in advance of the platform and await a green before entering the platform, or even a driver may proceed beyond the red to the stop point of they can see that it's clear and then the gaurd can only dispatch of the signal is green) yes this could slow the service down but would be a rare event so wouldn't be too disruptive overall.

However with to what length to lengthen the platforms to any which need lengthening should be fine to the final length that they are needed to be rather than a bit more and a bit again in the future. Yes it would mean extra costs now, however it would be cheaper overall.

 

[a_c_skinner]

This is a bit tangential but I'm intrigued as to how we got to the position where a line seems to be signalled in such a way that hardly any rolling stock (153 and 230 only?) is suitable? Who on earth signed this off?

 

[HLE]

172s would be perfect.

Too long?

 

[DarloRich]

I like them still, but they really do need to sort out the reliability on the Marston Vale as it's become an almost-useless joke. If this isn't possible, I'd suggest Abellio (for it is they) should get onto Stadler and see if any 2-car diesel FLIRTs could be chucked onto the end of the GA order, being just about the only other thing that would fit.

THey need sorting asap. THe good will has gone and passenger numbers are falling. I am not sure why we have such a Satdler obbession and idoubt it is a east fix to make them fit into our platfomrs

to be honest it would probably be simpler to bite the bullet and get some prefab platform extensions....seeing as EWR is going to need longer platforms anyway... why not just extend out to 55m minimum.....thats enough for a 2*23m with a bit of wiggle room for dodgy kit or weather conditions.

there's not that many that would need extending.
I'm sure NR,Beds and bucks councils could probably conjour something up.

WMR can then throw in a follow on order for a couple of civities,or even the 156's would do.

If I recall the problem is that some platforms cannot be simply extended as they are trapped between level crossings and signalling, which would need to be moved.

lets look at the stations one by one:

• Fenny Stratford - single platform with signals right on the end of the platform at each end. No work needed as one of the longest on the branch
• Bow Brickhill - Double platform. Both platforms could be extended. Bletchley bound is on a curve
• Woburn Sands - Both platforms can be extended in the Blethcley direction. Bedford end tight up against crossing. Bedford direction signal some distance in front of platform end
• Apsley Guise - Bletchley bound on a curve. Signal off end of platform. Some space between platform and crossing. Bedford bound space at Bedford end
• Ridgmont - No space at Bedford end plus signal short of platform end on Bedford bound platform. Bletchley end both lines on curve, foot crossing and bridge abutments.
• Liddlington - space for both platforms
• Millbrook - on a curve at the Bedford end on both lines where the only space exists
• Stewartby - space for both platforms
• Kempston Hardwick - space, just for both at the Blethcley end. Bedford end tight against crossing
• St Johns - Single track. On a curve. Tight for space

There are a couple of issues to overcome the biggest of which being availability of cash. Curved platforms aren't popular, the construction standards of many of the platforms is not up to modern standards and i doubt, frankly, anyone cares enough to do the work!

172s would be perfect.

they wont fit!

is it really that big a deal moving a signal 20m? wouldn't even be that on most platforms requiring alteration(10m or so would be enough).

Yes. It is a big deal and expensive.

Which leads to the question, do you even need to move the signal?

Unless the line is at our near capacity how often would you be approaching a station and the signal be red?

If there answer is very rarely then you just have a procedure for when it is red (such as local door only operation, or the driver stop in advance of the platform and await a green before entering the platform, or even a driver may proceed beyond the red to the stop point of they can see that it's clear and then the gaurd can only dispatch of the signal is green) yes this could slow the service down but would be a rare event so wouldn't be too disruptive overall.

However with to what length to lengthen the platforms to any which need lengthening should be fine to the final length that they are needed to be rather than a bit more and a bit again in the future. Yes it would mean extra costs now, however it would be cheaper overall.

The train will be held at the red in the platform while the crossing is activated.

This is a bit tangential but I'm intrigued as to how we got to the position where a line seems to be signalled in such a way that hardly any rolling stock (153 and 230 only?) is suitable? Who on earth signed this off?

It was signed off, I assume, for the stock in use at the time on a back water rural line no one cared about to a budget that delivered the job.

 

[a_c_skinner]

for the stock in use at the time

I've just done what I should have done and Googled the size of carriages in first generation DMUs. Apologies, I'd never realised the car length was so different.

 

[krus_aragon]

lets look at the stations one by one:

That's useful local knowledge. Let me add-in the existing platform lengths from the Sectional Appendix, for the benefit of those of us that are less familiar with the route (down is toward Bedford):

• Fenny Stratford - single platform with signals right on the end of the platform at each end. No work needed as one of the longest on the branch (76m)
  
• Bow Brickhill - Double platform. Both platforms could be extended. Bletchley bound is on a curve (both 37m)
  
• Woburn Sands - Both platforms can be extended in the Blethcley direction. Bedford end tight up against crossing. Bedford direction signal some distance in front of platform end (down 68m, up 62m)
  
• Apsley Guise - Bletchley bound on a curve. Signal off end of platform. Some space between platform and crossing. Bedford bound space at Bedford end (down 37m, up 50m)
  
• Ridgmont - No space at Bedford end plus signal short of platform end on Bedford bound platform. Bletchley end both lines on curve, foot crossing and bridge abutments. (both 61m)
  
• Liddlington - space for both platforms (down 66m, up 51m)
  
• Millbrook - on a curve at the Bedford end on both lines where the only space exists (both 73m)
  
• Stewartby - space for both platforms (down 37m, up 51m)
  
• Kempston Hardwick - space, just for both at the Blethcley end. Bedford end tight against crossing (down 45m, up 37m)
  
• St Johns - Single track. On a curve. Tight for space (41m)

So that looks like five platforms that would need extending for a 2x20m DMU, or six or seven platforms to deal with a 2x23m DMU.

 

[Bletchleyite]

2x20m DMUs are already allowed.

 

[hooverboy]

That's useful local knowledge. Let me add-in the existing platform lengths from the Sectional Appendix, for the benefit of those of us that are less familiar with the route (down is toward Bedford):

• Fenny Stratford - single platform with signals right on the end of the platform at each end. No work needed as one of the longest on the branch (76m)
  
• Bow Brickhill - Double platform. Both platforms could be extended. Bletchley bound is on a curve (both 37m)
  
• Woburn Sands - Both platforms can be extended in the Blethcley direction. Bedford end tight up against crossing. Bedford direction signal some distance in front of platform end (down 68m, up 62m)
  
• Apsley Guise - Bletchley bound on a curve. Signal off end of platform. Some space between platform and crossing. Bedford bound space at Bedford end (down 37m, up 50m)
  
• Ridgmont - No space at Bedford end plus signal short of platform end on Bedford bound platform. Bletchley end both lines on curve, foot crossing and bridge abutments. (both 61m)
  
• Liddlington - space for both platforms (down 66m, up 51m)
  
• Millbrook - on a curve at the Bedford end on both lines where the only space exists (both 73m)
  
• Stewartby - space for both platforms (down 37m, up 51m)
  
• Kempston Hardwick - space, just for both at the Blethcley end. Bedford end tight against crossing (down 45m, up 37m)
  
• St Johns - Single track. On a curve. Tight for space (41m)

So that looks like five platforms that would need extending for a 2x20m DMU, or six or seven platforms to deal with a 2x23m DMU.

ok, so realistically,in order to accomodate 2*23m stock we'd be looking at some prefab platform for :

bow brickhill * 2= 15m each.no problem at all.

aspley(bedford end) = 15m- lots of space bedford end . Bletchley end platform by crossing can be extended by 2 or 3m if needed.

stewartby(bedford end)= 15m..there's room, signal is 25m away
kempston *2 = 1* 10m, 1* 15m..can be extended at bletchley end.
st johns= 1* 10m..can be extended bletchley end

none of the above stations have concrete platform, most of it is very basic wood.
Prefab will suffice.
The above can be done with no adjustments to signal positions as well

 

[HLE]

Emission free trains? How does a diesel generator not emit any emissions!

 

[DarloRich]

ok, so realistically,in order to accomodate 2*23m stock we'd be looking at some prefab platform for :

bow brickhill * 2= 15m each.no problem at all.

aspley(bedford end) = 15m- lots of space bedford end . Bletchley end platform by crossing can be extended by 2 or 3m if needed.

stewartby(bedford end)= 15m..there's room, signal is 25m away
kempston *2 = 1* 10m, 1* 15m..can be extended at bletchley end.
st johns= 1* 10m..can be extended bletchley end

none of the above stations have concrete platform, most of it is very basic wood.
Prefab will suffice.
The above can be done with no adjustments to signal positions as well

so realistically we are overlooking three key issues:

• Cash
• Curved platforms
• Accessibility issues. I doubt you would be allowed to create narrow platforms in front of the station access ramp.

They aren't insurmountable issues but are ,honestly, not as simple as you and other experts suggest.

BTW - been out and measured the distances?

 

[The Ham]

ok, so realistically,in order to accomodate 2*23m stock we'd be looking at some prefab platform for :

bow brickhill * 2= 15m each.no problem at all.

aspley(bedford end) = 15m- lots of space bedford end . Bletchley end platform by crossing can be extended by 2 or 3m if needed.

stewartby(bedford end)= 15m..there's room, signal is 25m away
kempston *2 = 1* 10m, 1* 15m..can be extended at bletchley end.
st johns= 1* 10m..can be extended bletchley end

none of the above stations have concrete platform, most of it is very basic wood.
Prefab will suffice.
The above can be done with no adjustments to signal positions as well

Given that East West Rail would need to lengthen those stations anyway it loads to the question; what length would East West Rail be lengthening then to and could that length be easily achieved now?

The reason for this thinking is that it would be cheaper to just build then the right length rather then extend and then extend again.

Now obviously there's going to be locations where you couldn't fit (say) 100m long platforms (4*23 or 5*20 trains), but for the few spaces where you could, then why not do it now given that it's going to be done anyway.

 

[DarloRich]

Given that East West Rail would need to lengthen those stations anyway it loads to the question; what length would East West Rail be lengthening then to and could that length be easily achieved now?

East West will only, imo, look at the stations at Woburn Sands and Ridgmont. They wont be interested int he others.

I've just done what I should have done and Googled the size of carriages in first generation DMUs. Apologies, I'd never realised the car length was so different.

No worries! I actually meant the 150 but the line may still have been on 1st gen DMU operation at the time.

 

[The Ham]

East West will only, imo, look at the stations at Woburn Sands and Ridgmont. They wont be interested int he others.

Thanks.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Didnt the line used to operate with top and tail 31s on a pair of coaches, surely that is much longer than most platforms on the line at the time. (Late 90s, early 00s)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Didnt the line used to operate with top and tail 31s on a pair of coaches, surely that is much longer than most platforms on the line at the time. (Late 90s, early 00s)

Before resignalling, I believe. Fundamentally not setting the line up for 2x23m at resignalling was madness.

 

[Ianno87]

Before resignalling, I believe. Fundamentally not setting the line up for 2x23m at resignalling was madness.

Depends - if signals are positioned such that the only blocker to 2x23m (or longer) operation is a simple platform extension (maybe with land purchase if necessary) then it's not madness. It was doing as much as was necessary at the time and no more, but not precluding the future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depends - if signals are positioned such that the only blocker to 2x23m (or longer) operation is a simple platform extension (maybe with land purchase if necessary) then it's not madness. It was doing as much as was necessary at the time and no more, but not precluding the future.

It's not, though (as you could in that case use a Class 172 and just dispatch it from the passenger cabin with the back cab off the end). The signal positions are also an issue and would mean blocked level crossings during station calls, I understand.

Basically, it seems that, to save 50p, they configured the line such that only two out of the many classes of DMU could be used. I maintain the view that that was madness.

 

[Ianno87]

It's not, though (as you could in that case use a Class 172 and just dispatch it from the passenger cabin with the back cab off the end). The signal positions are also an issue and would mean blocked level crossings during station calls, I understand.

If the platform is after the level crossing, and the signal is sufficiently far off the end, then you do a platform extension to 'country' (away from the crossing) and stop a bit further along. Generally I recall there'll be a signal before the crossing, then one some way after the station.

If the platform is before the level crossing, I recall on the Vale that where this is the case (e.g. Ridgmont), the signal is on the platform so you extend 'back' from the level crossing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the platform is after the level crossing, and the signal is sufficiently far off the end, then you do a platform extension to 'country' (away from the crossing) and stop a bit further along. Generally I recall there'll be a signal before the crossing, then one some way after the station.

If the platform is before the level crossing, I recall on the Vale that where this is the case (e.g. Ridgmont), the signal is on the platform so you extend 'back' from the level crossing.

I'm pretty sure that this isn't always the configuration, and that there are, on the MV, starter signals at the end of platforms which have a level crossing immediately at the other end.

Unfortunately t'Interweb seems to be lacking track diagrams for the MV or I'd check! (going for a ride may prove fruitless based on reliability at the minute )

 

[DarloRich]

Didnt the line used to operate with top and tail 31s on a pair of coaches, surely that is much longer than most platforms on the line at the time. (Late 90s, early 00s)

Before the re signalling work

Before resignalling, I believe. Fundamentally not setting the line up for 2x23m at resignalling was madness.

Basically, it seems that, to save 50p, they configured the line such that only two out of the many classes of DMU could be used. I maintain the view that that was madness.

The line was modernised to the available budget, the usage levels, the stock in use at the time and the stock expected to be used for the foreseeable future. Hindsight is wonderful.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A question arising from the other 230 thread.

Which specific locations on the Marston Vale are the ones where a 2x23m DMU (e.g. a Class 172) could not be used? I'm not thinking short platforms alone, I'm thinking cases where signal and/or level crossing positioning means such a unit could not be used, even with options like local door only (which would be fine at the smaller stations) or allowing the front cab a short way off the platform end, both of which are solutions used elsewhere?

I'm intrigued what the costs would be to convert the line so a more plentiful (and more reliable) 2x23m DMU e.g. a 172 could be used instead. Are we for instance talking of moving a couple of signals, or are we talking a full resignalling, or are we talking complete non-viability i.e. it'd only be possible by closing stations or roads outright?

I'm not interested in typical "naysaying" type answers like "Network Rail haven't done it so it's impossible" (as these have so often proven wrong over time, e.g. gangways, overhead luggage racks, e-ticketing etc, all of which have been naysayed in here then have actually happened pretty much as discussed) - I'm interested in specifics.

 

[ashkeba]

A question arising from the other 230 thread.

Which specific locations on the Marston Vale are the ones where a 2x23m DMU (e.g. a Class 172) could not be used? I'm not thinking short platforms alone, I'm thinking cases where signal and/or level crossing positioning means such a unit could not be used, even with options like local door only (which would be fine at the smaller stations) or allowing the front cab a short way off the platform end, both of which are solutions used elsewhere?

See post #15 but Aspley Guise westbound is an example: a signal tight against the front of the platform, a level crossing ramp against the back of it. I'm not sure about some of them but I think the cab of a 230 is off the level section of platform at some stations already.

 

[Bletchleyite]

See post #15 but Aspley Guise westbound is an example: a signal tight against the front of the platform, a level crossing ramp against the back of it. I'm not sure about some of them but I think the cab of a 230 is off the level section of platform at some stations already.

So referring back to that post - it looks like most of them are just platform length, which could be dealt with, given the low loadings, by use of local door?