Railway launches 36 new trains on commuter line
London Northwestern Railway said the first of its new Class 730/2 fleet will begin running from Monday on the West Cost Mainline, into Euston Station, London, stopping at Northampton, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, and Watford stations.
The trains are part of £1bn of investment on the line, the company said.
Ian McConnell, its managing director, said the new trains will add 15,000 extra seats every day and increase capacity by 20%.
Mr McConnell said the trains would be "more reliable".
"These trains are going to make a massive difference. There's going to be 15,000 (extra) seats every single day, that's 20% additional capacity.
"They're going to have a much more comfortable, modern, state-of-the-art experience, much more space and much more chance of getting a seat and a much better experience all together."
Phil Warner, the chair of the Bedford to Bletchley Rail Users Association, welcomed the increased capacity.
"Train were shorter than they should be and could get over crowded, more seats and more space to sit down, means less standing and less crowding.
"They'll carry more people which is what rail needs to do to take pressure off the road network."
The new trains were built in the UK by Alstom, and feature air conditioning, power points at every seat and improved accessibility, the company added.
More trains will come into service from 23 June as more drivers and conductors are trained.
Other destinations on the line, including Hemel Hempstead, Leighton Buzzard, Berkhamsted and Kings Langley will have new trains from the end of the year or beginning of 2026.
Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X and Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
'We have to take risks to build major railway'
'I just wanted to know where people came from'
Full rail service resumes after flood repairs
London Northwestern Railway
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
My father was worth millions. I suspect my mother is stealing my inheritance. What can I do?
I have a parent who passed many years ago when I was still in college. I grew up in what I would call an upper-middle class household. But as I've gotten older, I've realized I did in fact grow up in a very nice home: private schools, wonderful education, vacation homes etc. However, when my dad passed, everything stopped. Mind you, this was in early 2000, before the Internet and such. My mother said there was nothing left for us, and I was on my own, so I took it at face value and created my life from the ground up. stock is sinking. Here's the biggest problem from earnings. 'I'm tired of corporate America': My wife and I have $1.65 million. I'm 61. Can I retire already? I have created a pretty good life for my family. I'm a GS-14 with the Department of Defense and have a rewarding career. As I've gotten older, I discovered my father did have quite a large estate ($3 million to $4 million). Shop Top Mortgage Rates A quicker path to financial freedom Personalized rates in minutes Your Path to Homeownership My brother was not mentioned in my father's will since it was written and registered before he was born. It seems there are still accounts out there in my name, and my mother is drawing money from them, hence the occasional need for her to confirm security questions. We are not close. After my father passed, she kicked us to the curb — not only financially but also emotionally and as a parent. Even though I was 20 when he died, I grew up in a family where we were very close, so it was quite jarring. I had to quit school for many years to even figure out how to live and survive. The Daughter Don't miss: 'Things are getting tougher': I'm struggling with $145,000 in debt. Should I refinance my 3.5% mortgage? You did survive. You're looking in the rearview mirror and, as the old saying goes, some objects appear closer. They include your father's wealth, your mother's access to his assets, and the estrangement that has taken hold of your family in the wake of his death. There's a lot of pain in your letter, and it may be manifesting itself through this financial lens. You have three problems: a will that should have gone through probate (assuming such a will even existed); suspicions, but no proof, that you have been a named beneficiary on some of your father's accounts; and the statute of limitations on any ability to have to contest the settling of your father's estate. In New Jersey, for instance, the statute of limitations for will contests is just four months. 'For those who reside outside of New Jersey at the time of the will's probate, a little extra time is added,' says the Knee Law Firm. 'People outside of New Jersey have six months to issue a formal contest of the will.' 'After this period, you usually cannot challenge the will or try to claim any portion of the deceased's assets,' it adds. 'Four months might seem like a very short amount of time, but the good news is that you do have a little extra time in special circumstances. A judge may rule to allow a will challenge after the statute of limitations has passed.' An executor who does not send out a notice that the will has been probated to all the deceased's next of kin and beneficiaries is one such reason, the law firm says. 'Any sort of fraud, neglect or improper conduct during the probate period may lead to an extension on the time limit for will contests.' The bottom line: You are a survivor and you created a financially independent life for yourself in the years since your father's death. If you truly believe your father's wishes have been ignored, you can contact the probate court in the county where your father lived to access a public copy of any will in existence. Related: 'I have never been asked for money before': My friend wants to borrow $1,600 to pay her rent. Do I say yes? Banks don't necessarily have an obligation to seek out beneficiaries. If a bank had reason to believe someone is unaware they are a beneficiary, if the beneficiary is a minor or otherwise has no knowledge of the account, the bank could choose to take steps to ensure that the beneficiary is aware of their rights, although this is not a statutory requirement. It seems improbable that your mother would have control over an account — and have online access — if the account was in your father's name alone, and you were listed as a beneficiary. The executor/administrator of your father's will would have notified the financial institution of your father's passing and presented a death certificate. You could hire a lawyer and contact your father's bank and/or contact his then-lawyer, if they are still practising. If there is an account that has been lying dormant for that time, they should be able to locate it. Upon contacting the bank, it has a duty to transfer funds to a named beneficiary after the account holder's death. My suspicion is that you are conflating the breakdown of your relationship with your mother since your father's death with financial skulduggery. Keep in mind that many states have rules that make it difficult and/or impossible to completely disinherit a spouse. It's highly unlikely an attorney would have suppressed your father's will. Depending on where she lives, your mother would have been able to claim an 'elective share' of his estate, the amount of which depends on how long they were married. This applies even if your father had explicitly disinherited his wife (which seems unlikely). The elective share is still valid even if your father simply omitted your mother from his will. If you believe your mother — or anyone — has used your personal information or Social Security number to open an account or borrow money or in any way impersonate you, log onto all three major credit bureaus — Experian EXPGY , TransUnion TRU and Equifax EFX— and lock your credit so no one can take out loans or open accounts in your name. Talk to your mother. Talk to the bank. Talk to your probate court. And then let it go. Don't miss: My late husband's employer is forcing me to take 10% 401(k) distributions. Help! Previous columns by Quentin Fottrell: 'I have a great mortgage rate': I need $80K to buy my husband out of our home. Do I raid my $180K Roth IRA? 'I'm tired of corporate America': My wife and I have $1.65 million. I'm 61. Can I retire already? 'This scam stuff is going to get worse': A man approached me in my car — he had a crazy story 'I have a great mortgage rate': I need $80K to buy my husband out of our home. Do I raid my $180K Roth IRA? Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
12 hours ago
Republicans, Democrats alike exhort Trump: Keep security pact with Australia and UK alive
WASHINGTON -- U.S. lawmakers from both parties are urging the Trump administration to maintain a three-way security partnership designed to supply Australia with nuclear-powered submarines — a plea that comes as the Pentagon reviews the agreement and considers the questions it has raised about the American industrial infrastructure's shipbuilding capabilities. Two weeks ago, the Defense Department announced it would review AUKUS, the 4-year-old pact signed by the Biden administration with Australia and the United Kingdom. The announcement means the Republican administration is looking closely at a partnership that many believe is critical to the U.S. strategy to push back China's influence in the Indo-Pacific. The review is expected to be completed in the fall. 'AUKUS is essential to strengthening deterrence in the Indo-Pacific and advancing the undersea capabilities that will be central to ensuring peace and stability," Republican Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan and Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois wrote in a July 22 letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Moolenaar chairs the House panel on China and Krishnamoorthi is its top Democrat. The review comes as the Trump administration works to rebalance its global security concerns while struggling with a hollowed-out industrial base that has hamstrung U.S. capabilities to build enough warships. The review is being led by Elbridge Colby, the No. 3 Pentagon official, who has expressed skepticism about the partnership. 'If we can produce the attack submarines in sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great. But if we can't, that becomes a very difficult problem," Colby said during his confirmation hearing in March. 'This is getting back to restoring our defense industrial capacity so that we don't have to face these awful choices but rather can be in a position where we can produce not only for ourselves, but for our allies." As part of the $269 billion AUKUS partnership, the United States will sell three to five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, with the first delivery scheduled as soon as 2032. The U.S. and the U.K. would help Australia design and build another three to five attack submarines to form an eight-boat force for Australia. A March report by the Congressional Research Service warned that the lack of U.S. shipbuilding capacities, including workforce shortage and insufficient supply chains, is jeopardizing the much-celebrated partnership. If the U.S. should sell the vessels to Australia, the U.S. Navy would have a shortage of attack submarines for two decades, the report said. The Navy has been ordering two boats per year in the last decade, but U.S. shipyards have been only producing 1.2 Virginia-class subs a year since 2022, the report said. 'The delivery pace is not where it needs to be" to make good on the first pillar of AUKUS, Admiral Daryl Caudle, nominee for the Chief of Naval Operations, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month. Australia has invested $1 billion in the U.S. submarine industrial base, with another $1 billion to be paid before the end of this year. It has agreed to contribute a total of $3 billion to uplift the U.S. submarine base, and it has sent both industry personnel to train at U.S. shipyards and naval personnel for submarine training in the United States. "Australia was clear that we would make a proportionate contribution to the United States industrial base,' an Australian defense spokesperson said in July. 'Australia's contribution is about accelerating U.S. production rates and maintenance to enable the delivery of Australia's future Virginia-class submarines.' The three nations have also jointly tested communication capabilities with underwater autonomous systems, Australia's defense ministry said on July 23. Per the partnership, the countries will co-develop other advanced technologies, from undersea to hypersonic capabilities. At the recent Aspen Security Forum, Kevin Rudd, the Australian ambassador to the United States, said his country is committed to increasing defense spending to support its first nuclear-powered sub program, which would also provide 'massively expensive full maintenance repair facilities" for the U.S. Indo-Pacific fleet based in Western Australia. Rudd expressed confidence that the two governments 'will work our way through this stuff.' Bruce Jones, senior fellow with the Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy and Technology, told The Associated Press that the partnership, by positioning subs in Western Australia, is helping arm the undersea space that is 'really crucial to American deterrence and defense options in the Western Pacific.' 'The right answer is not to be content with the current pace of submarine building. It's to increase the pace," Jones said. Jennifer Parker, who has served more than 20 years with the Royal Australian Navy and founded Barrier Strategic Advisory, said it should not be a zero-sum game. 'You might sell one submarine to Australia, so you have one less submarine on paper. But in terms of the access, you have the theater of choice from operating from Australia, from being able to maintain your submarines from Australia," Parker said. 'This is not a deal that just benefits Australia." Defense policy is one of the few areas where Republican lawmakers have pushed back against the Trump administration, but their resolve is being tested with the Pentagon's review of AUKUS. So far, they have joined their Democratic colleagues in voicing support for the partnership. They said the U.S. submarine industry is rebounding with congressional appropriations totaling $10 billion since 2018 to ensure the U.S. will have enough ships to allow for sales to Australia. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told the AP that support for AUKUS is strong and bipartisan, 'certainly on the Armed Services Committee.' "There is a little bit of mystification about the analysis done at the Pentagon,' Kaine said, adding that 'maybe (what) the analysis will say is: We believe this is a good thing.'
San Francisco Chronicle
16 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Republicans, Democrats alike exhort Trump: Keep security pact with Australia and UK alive
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. lawmakers from both parties are urging the Trump administration to maintain a three-way security partnership designed to supply Australia with nuclear-powered submarines — a plea that comes as the Pentagon reviews the agreement and considers the questions it has raised about the American industrial infrastructure's shipbuilding capabilities. Two weeks ago, the Defense Department announced it would review AUKUS, the 4-year-old pact signed by the Biden administration with Australia and the United Kingdom. The announcement means the Republican administration is looking closely at a partnership that many believe is critical to the U.S. strategy to push back China's influence in the Indo-Pacific. The review is expected to be completed in the fall. 'AUKUS is essential to strengthening deterrence in the Indo-Pacific and advancing the undersea capabilities that will be central to ensuring peace and stability," Republican Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan and Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois wrote in a July 22 letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Moolenaar chairs the House panel on China and Krishnamoorthi is its top Democrat. The review comes as the Trump administration works to rebalance its global security concerns while struggling with a hollowed-out industrial base that has hamstrung U.S. capabilities to build enough warships. The review is being led by Elbridge Colby, the No. 3 Pentagon official, who has expressed skepticism about the partnership. 'If we can produce the attack submarines in sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great. But if we can't, that becomes a very difficult problem," Colby said during his confirmation hearing in March. 'This is getting back to restoring our defense industrial capacity so that we don't have to face these awful choices but rather can be in a position where we can produce not only for ourselves, but for our allies." US cannot build enough ships As part of the $269 billion AUKUS partnership, the United States will sell three to five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, with the first delivery scheduled as soon as 2032. The U.S. and the U.K. would help Australia design and build another three to five attack submarines to form an eight-boat force for Australia. A March report by the Congressional Research Service warned that the lack of U.S. shipbuilding capacities, including workforce shortage and insufficient supply chains, is jeopardizing the much-celebrated partnership. If the U.S. should sell the vessels to Australia, the U.S. Navy would have a shortage of attack submarines for two decades, the report said. The Navy has been ordering two boats per year in the last decade, but U.S. shipyards have been only producing 1.2 Virginia-class subs a year since 2022, the report said. 'The delivery pace is not where it needs to be" to make good on the first pillar of AUKUS, Admiral Daryl Caudle, nominee for the Chief of Naval Operations, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month. Australia has invested $1 billion in the U.S. submarine industrial base, with another $1 billion to be paid before the end of this year. It has agreed to contribute a total of $3 billion to uplift the U.S. submarine base, and it has sent both industry personnel to train at U.S. shipyards and naval personnel for submarine training in the United States. "Australia was clear that we would make a proportionate contribution to the United States industrial base,' an Australian defense spokesperson said in July. 'Australia's contribution is about accelerating U.S. production rates and maintenance to enable the delivery of Australia's future Virginia-class submarines.' The three nations have also jointly tested communication capabilities with underwater autonomous systems, Australia's defense ministry said on July 23. Per the partnership, the countries will co-develop other advanced technologies, from undersea to hypersonic capabilities. At the recent Aspen Security Forum, Kevin Rudd, the Australian ambassador to the United States, said his country is committed to increasing defense spending to support its first nuclear-powered sub program, which would also provide 'massively expensive full maintenance repair facilities" for the U.S. Indo-Pacific fleet based in Western Australia. Rudd expressed confidence that the two governments 'will work our way through this stuff.' AUKUS called 'crucial to American deterrence' Bruce Jones, senior fellow with the Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy and Technology, told The Associated Press that the partnership, by positioning subs in Western Australia, is helping arm the undersea space that is 'really crucial to American deterrence and defense options in the Western Pacific.' 'The right answer is not to be content with the current pace of submarine building. It's to increase the pace," Jones said. Jennifer Parker, who has served more than 20 years with the Royal Australian Navy and founded Barrier Strategic Advisory, said it should not be a zero-sum game. 'You might sell one submarine to Australia, so you have one less submarine on paper. But in terms of the access, you have the theater of choice from operating from Australia, from being able to maintain your submarines from Australia," Parker said. 'This is not a deal that just benefits Australia." Defense policy is one of the few areas where Republican lawmakers have pushed back against the Trump administration, but their resolve is being tested with the Pentagon's review of AUKUS. So far, they have joined their Democratic colleagues in voicing support for the partnership. They said the U.S. submarine industry is rebounding with congressional appropriations totaling $10 billion since 2018 to ensure the U.S. will have enough ships to allow for sales to Australia. "There is a little bit of mystification about the analysis done at the Pentagon,' Kaine said, adding that 'maybe (what) the analysis will say is: We believe this is a good thing.'
