Yes, although passenger trains won't go right to the end, but only to Hythe.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Waterside Line (Southampton - Hythe)
- Thread starter DaveHarries
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
STEVIEBOY1
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 4,001
Ok, thank you.
As well as the service frequency train capacity dictates the realistic maximum number of passengers per hour.
The provisionally proposed 159 / SWR reworked 158 stock AFAIK is all 3 car sets with a seated capacity around 200. With 100 standing and a 30 minute frequency that is 600 per hour. Realistically even with changed patterns of working would it be adequate and would ( over ) crowded trains attract 300 passengers at peak times ?
As this stock has end doors rather than 1/3 & 2/3 loading and unloading is slower. How long would 300 passengers take to unload at Southampton ? Could it scupper trains reliably running a 60 minute circuit ?
The provisionally proposed 159 / SWR reworked 158 stock AFAIK is all 3 car sets with a seated capacity around 200. With 100 standing and a 30 minute frequency that is 600 per hour. Realistically even with changed patterns of working would it be adequate and would ( over ) crowded trains attract 300 passengers at peak times ?
As this stock has end doors rather than 1/3 & 2/3 loading and unloading is slower. How long would 300 passengers take to unload at Southampton ? Could it scupper trains reliably running a 60 minute circuit ?
The trains are extremely unlikely to carry 300 passengers. The current proposal is to use 2-Car stock with the possibility of lengthening to 4-Car units should it be required. Even if it did, Because the train terminates at Southampton Central dwell times would be 5+ minutes, plenty of time to get everybody on and off. You also won't have the pressure of people jostling to get on as people are getting off. Most travel is going to be to/from Southampton, so most intermediate stations will also see very little issue with passengers trying to get on before people have got off. Journeys like Hythe to Totton or Marchwood to Hythe aren't going to be major flows on the train.
No longer than it takes the crew to change ends - unless you have the same number boarding which would be a very unusual commuting pattern.
For a bit of context, Southampton to Totton on a 450 is 6 minutes. Allowing for slightly slower acceleration of a 158, let's say 7 minutes. Plus 1 minute dwell, then the run down the branch is, conservatively, 10 minutes including dwells. That means the total journey time of return circuit is 34 minutes. Therefore, turnrounds of c.26 minutes cumulative at each end are required to meet the hourly departures.
Therefore there are 13 minutes, on average*, to get everybody off then get them on. If a 2-Car unit can't do that, then it isn't the door position that is the problem.
(These are rough guestimates as I no longer have access to the actual values used in the timetabling exercises.
The answers are above, and in the other thread linked to
Not sure if it's got the answer, but here's the SOBC from february: https://www.railfuture.org.uk/display2769
Found it:
So if 2-car sets ~200 per train / 400 per hour would be crush loading. Over a day I wonder long term how many passengers and realistically enough to really justify the investment?
Thanks. Around 34 minute running time hence 2 x 13 minute turnround if evenly split is considerably more than Looe & St Ives which struggle with 60 minute circuits when full trains.
Remember that the passenger service only needs to justify the increased costs above the base. The BCR for the 3tph option in the SOBC above was 1.7
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,437
Many people have assumed that, but it’s been explained in nearly all the previous threads about the subject, it’s seen as causing too large a time penalty for stations between Salisbury and Romsey towards Southampton Central, which is considered the main flow.
Thanks for that. I will look back at these.
I use these services regularly. The main flows are Salisbury to Romsey and (less so) Southampton, but the numbers at Chandler's Ford and the stations on that part of the loop dwarf anything from Redbridge and Millbrook.
A cross city service from Waterside up through Central to the northern suburbs, Airport and Chandler's Ford is much more attractive than a shuttle to Central, I would have thought. Plus it eliminates conflicting moves at Central.
As has been explained upthread, it's not possible. A service that can actually run is more attractive than one that'll never get off the napkin it's written on the back, I will bet.
Sort of (only if the platforms fall into place). But you trade it for a whole host of issues. The graph for problems between Eastleigh and Southampton once you'd tacked the return trip to Totton on the end was a sight to behold.
Really, the whole of the SWML should have been four-tracked all the way down to Southampton Central. The two-track section to the north of the station has consistently been a bottleneck. But in those days no-one anticipated the heavy freight usage from the port which would be one of the main drivers for four-tracking nowadays.
(Not suggesting they should four-track now btw, as that would obviously be very difficult. Just saying it's a shame they didn't back when the railway was built!)
nanstallon
Member
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2015
- Messages
- 752
I hope that this comment of mine is not too pedantic, but ... Interestingly, the map in the Beeching report did not show the Fawley branch as recommended for closure. I managed to take a ride on the afternoon train in July 1965, and there was hardly anybody else on the train either outwards or coming back. Closure to passengers was on 14th February 1966.
Last edited:
Revilo
Member
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 280
I agree, see also Portishead.
Dougal2345
Member
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 548
To-morrow is the last day of the consultation - https://consultations.networkrail.co.uk/communications/waterside-line/ - and there's an online survey that can be filled in if you wish!
Fingers crossed that the public response has been overwhelmingly positive.
Fingers crossed that the public response has been overwhelmingly positive.
Thanks for the reminder, have filled in.
Dougal2345
Member
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 548
A local councillor on Facebook has been posting about this:
https://www.facebook.com/CouncillorRichardYoung
This business about 'passing at Marchwood' sounds wrong to me, although I'm no expert on the details of the proposal. Won't any passing be done at Totton?
If he is confused or is being deliberately misleading, perhaps someone can give me the material to demolish his contentions- please post it here - or, even better, reply directly to his Facebook post...
https://www.facebook.com/CouncillorRichardYoung
This business about 'passing at Marchwood' sounds wrong to me, although I'm no expert on the details of the proposal. Won't any passing be done at Totton?
If he is confused or is being deliberately misleading, perhaps someone can give me the material to demolish his contentions- please post it here - or, even better, reply directly to his Facebook post...
Last edited by a moderator:
A local councillor on Facebook has been posting about this:
https://www.facebook.com/CouncillorRichardYoung
On the technicalities of the current proposals, to facilitate two trains an hour the trains must pass each other somewhere. Presently the only place on the rail line between Totton and Hythe where that can occur is on the passing loop at Marchwood. I gather that refurbished diesel units are proposed to be utilised on the line to save costs of electrification. Combining those diesel units with the passing loop restriction will likely mean that northbound trains will have to wait (with engines running) at Marchwood station until the southbound trains arrive and join the passing loop, all the while spewing out further diesel fumes and noise right in the middle of a residential area. That is plainly not desirable or indeed sustainable. Neither is the fact that the Main Road level crossing at Marchwood would likely have to be closed from the moment the first northbound train approaches Marchwood from Hythe, it then awaits the southbound train, the southbound train departs, and then finally the northbound train departs. Potentially taking anywhere between 5 and 10mins of complete closure at peak times, potentially coinciding with the start and finish of the school day. This would likely all be necessary because the passing loop unfortunately straddles the Main Road level crossing. When I raised this scenario with Network Rail staff at the in person consultation events it was neither denied nor an alternative scenario offered that could facilitate the two trains per hour. Such extended periods of crossing closures within our community is wholly undesirable, especially so during peak hours when young children and parents are walking to and from the village schools.
This business about 'passing at Marchwood' sounds wrong to me, although I'm no expert on the details of the proposal. Won't any passing be done at Totton?
If he is confused or is being deliberately misleading, perhaps someone can give me the material to demolish his contentions- please post it here - or, even better, reply directly to his Facebook post...
I thought the (initial) proposal was only 1tph anyway, a single shuttle unit?
Strange to see a local councillor seemingly whinging about a brand-new train service that will bring far more benefits to Marchwood than will be lost. He's a Tory, no surprise there of course.
As for "spewing out diesel fumes", well DMUs have been doing that up and down the country for at least 60 years!
The only way 2tph can be accommodated without a total recast of the Southampton area is to have 1 crossing movement per hour at Totton and one at Marchwood. 1tph does not require any crossing moves.
The level crossing would be closed for around 5 minutes max though, 10 is unlikely.
It was looked at in great detail to get everything to cross at Totton for various reasons but it takes too long to get down and up the branch.
The level crossing would be closed for around 5 minutes max though, 10 is unlikely.
It was looked at in great detail to get everything to cross at Totton for various reasons but it takes too long to get down and up the branch.
2tph requires Platform 5, so it can't go beyond 1tph until that's in place.
I expect he drives everywhere and so his actual frustration is being held up at the level crossing.
Tbf, not at Marchwood! Mind you, a 2-Car 158 is.probably a lot less fumes than a parade of SUVs queuing to pick up on the school run.As for "spewing out diesel fumes", well DMUs have been doing that up and down the country for at least 60 years!
Indeed. If he genuinely wants to be green, I suggest he recommends the "school walk" instead! Marchwood isn't a huge place and I suspect most school journeys could be done via walking.
There's also the benefit of older pupils having much better access to schools in Southampton if required.
Thing is, a third rail/battery extension of this line would be relatively simple in technical terms, so why politicians aren't pushing for a 'run something, then upgrade' approach rather than getting the whole thing thrown out because they've gone for broke at the outset beats me.
True.
Exactly, just get it running with a DMU first!
Then, when (and hopefully it's a when, and not an if) the line is successful, then third-rail electrify it and consider some kind of through service. (Third-rail would be much better than battery IMO as it would mean standard South Western EMUs could use it).
If the Romsey loop line can run with 158s, why not this.
Last edited:
3rd rail is unlikely IMO due to the length and level crossings. My hope is that batteries become adopted as standard as a backup/emergency option that things like <20mile branch lines don't need to be electrified. However that will be a long time coming. In the meantime, it's a 158 or nothing, and if it can make a dent in the local traffic something is better than nothing.True.
Exactly, just get it running with a DMU first!
Then, when (and hopefully it's a when, and not an if) the line is successful, then third-rail electrify it and consider some kind of through service. (Third-rail would be much better than battery IMO as it would mean standard South Western EMUs could use it).
If the Romsey loop line can run with 158s, why not this.
Results of the consultation are overwhelmingly positive
https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.u...reopening-backed-by-84-in-public-con-9286810/
It's all very positive, except for the small matter of getting the rest of the funding.
https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.u...reopening-backed-by-84-in-public-con-9286810/
Apart from one Marchwood councillor who doesnt seem to get it. Interestingly they are now proposing a second option for the station in Hythe that is much better. It doesnt require automating the manual level crossing in School Road. Which will help address the issue of level crossings causing traffic congestion and save some money. There has also been the recent announcement of the Solent Freeport.
It's all very positive, except for the small matter of getting the rest of the funding.
Last edited by a moderator:
Make that two - the individual here is a woman, there was also a man (also from Marchwood) who was complaining about the level crossing a few months ago.
Wonder if these people have considered how much benefit it would be to Marchwood to have its own station? I can scarcely see how having the level crossing come down twice an hour is going to "cut the village in two", sounds ridiculous hyperbole to me. Somewhere like Liss, for instance, had its level crossing come down 6 times an hour when the normal timetable was last in force in 2019.
- Status