It isn’t in LNWR’s remit to extend any platforms. The EWR project would have done that work IF the Bletchley to Bedford part of their overall project had ever been given the funding. At the time the TWA order was approved DfT were still wittering on about a separate mini-TOC to run EWR, the decision for Chiltern to run it was yet to be made. As it is the TWA order included a number of ‘non track’ infrastructure changes between Bletchley and Bedford, including certain platform lengthening, level crossing closures, new bridges etc etc, but nothing has ever started.
Not upto LNWR ( think you mean WMT) but Network Rail/EWR but no agreed funding from DFT/Treasury
The 196s were not available when then the 230s had to be withdrawn because of lack of maintenance capability. The 153s which had previously operated the line were no longer available as they had gone to TfW. Also remember that Marston Vale is a diesel operated line whereas Bletchley is an electric train depot. I don't know if the operator has had to revert to sending the current stock to Tyseley for servicing.
Comments on threads about the Marston Vale line previously suggested that the Class 150/153 units were maintained at the Tyseley depot in Birmingham. E.g. https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-running-19-02-24.242143/page-19#post-6333588
Indeed best part of one billion pounds has been spent on the current phase according to last years NAO report so you would expect the DfT ready to make use of the assets as soon as possible. Given they want another 12mths they might as well have wired it up at the same time.
Do the 196s have SDO? If the platforms are too short, then they could be moved there now and SDO used for the platforms that are too short. (this is all based off the fact that Chiltern hasn't been officially selected yet, and that Bletchley also maintains diesel 150s)
Is wiring it possible in that timeframe? My understanding was that the passive provision for OLE was as minimal as possible. And I doubt any design work has been done...
Probably not but if there not using the line saves all the aggravation in the future - wishful thinking i know.
With just 100km round trip off the wires, the MKC - OXF route is perfect for Battery EMUs with a diesel range extender for emergency use.
Passive provision is by definition minimal! (Passive provision means not doing things that would make it harder in future, as opposed to the slightly more active 'for but not with' provision where early work is actively done).
Do you think a line is electrified by somebody who just turns up on a Tuesday morning? Number 1 question would be where the power is coming from - the WCML isn't exactly underused and I expect HS2's feeder station isn't anywhere near ready either.
Of course its not going to happen for reasons you rightly cite so was being purely speculative in that 12mths they could have wired it up had they planned the job properly in the first place.
No.
It’s shown as half hourly in the approved track access application (TAA) though, which presumably, (bit of a stretch I know), means capacity exists for 2 tph?
