New Open Access Application: London - Southampton - Marchwood

[alholmes]

Lengthy article in The Times today about why Alex Hynes is a leading contender to be GB Railway's first CEO. But tucked away at the end of the article is this interesting development:

Rail’s rising star tipped to lead Great British Railways

Alex Hynes, the transport department’s director of rail services, is a leading contender to be the first chief of the new public body

www.thetimes.com

A new privately run rail service could be created between London and Southampton to compete with the soon-to-be nationalised South Western Railway and would be the latest in a rush of so-called open-access services.

Ian Yeowart, the godfather of open-access train companies operating independently of the Department for Transport (DfT), has submitted plans for eight new daily services each way on 100mph eight-carriage trains between the south coast port and Waterloo, one of London’s busiest commuter railway stations.

He envisages the service extending on to Marchwood on the other side of Southampton Water and at the edge of the New Forest....

He doesn't give up. Can't see how this would pass the revenue abstraction test though.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Lengthy article in The Times today about why Alex Hynes is a leading contender to be GB Railway's first CEO. But tucked away at the end of the article is this interesting development:

Rail’s rising star tipped to lead Great British Railways

Alex Hynes, the transport department’s director of rail services, is a leading contender to be the first chief of the new public body

www.thetimes.com

A new privately run rail service could be created between London and Southampton to compete with the soon-to-be nationalised South Western Railway and would be the latest in a rush of so-called open-access services.

Ian Yeowart, the godfather of open-access train companies operating independently of the Department for Transport (DfT), has submitted plans for eight new daily services each way on 100mph eight-carriage trains between the south coast port and Waterloo, one of London’s busiest commuter railway stations.

He envisages the service extending on to Marchwood on the other side of Southampton Water and at the edge of the New Forest. The area includes a historic military port that was used in the D-Day landings but suffers from road congestion into Southampton. An existing line is used for freight and there are plans for a new passenger station at Marchwood, the previous one having been axed under the Beeching cuts in the 1960s when it was known as the Waterside line.

“There has been a long-held aspiration to return passenger rail services to the Waterside line,” Yeowart said, adding that the application had “significant merit”.

Open-access operators are train services that run outside the national network overseen by the DfT where private train companies with no taxpayer support take all the financing risk and keep all the potential profits.

They are often on routes ignored by incumbent operators or where there is spare capacity on the line and have proved highly profitable for their operators.

Such operations are very much in vogue, not least because of the impact of renationalisation on the private train companies.


He doesn't give up. Can't see how this would pass the revenue abstraction test though.

This is Grand Southern Railway again isn’t it? Although he has a track record of having success so if he can modify it to have some new market then maybe a success?

Can’t find the application or any other reference to it

 

[Wolfie]

The proposed stock would be interesting. I assume that the Marchwood line isn't third-rail electrified? If it was the 350/2s, fitted with shoes, or the surplus 458s might be candidates (assuming sufficient power supply). Otherwise l'm guessing DMUs of some variety, probably not 22Xs.

 

[A S Leib]

Being the only operator at Marchwood's presumably much less abstractive (no idea what changes to that process will be made under GBR), but I wonder why he's aiming for there rather than Bournemouth and Weymouth. Southampton has going via Three Bridges as a cheaper alternative to SWR; Dorset doesn't without ticket splitting.

 

[DanNCL]

I struggle to see why this should be given any credibility, if his last few attempts are anything to go by the likelihood will be that if approved the final product would be drastically different from whatever is about to be promised.

 

[JonathanH]

Being the only operator at Marchwood's presumably much less abstractive (no idea what changes to that process will be made under GBR), but I wonder why he's aiming for there rather than Bournemouth and Weymouth.

I'm not sure what unique offering could be made further west. Marchwood in nearer to London than Swanage.

If we take the application as being a benevolent offering to get Marchwood off the ground in return for access to traffic between Southampton and London, the trains can get from Marchwood to London and back somewhat quicker than getting from Swanage to London and back.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I have not seen this anywhere else other than The Times. Any evidence elsewhere?

 

[KX03HZY]

Seen in this rather interesting Times article about a separate topic (Alex Hynes running GBR - https://www.thetimes.com/article/5eaaca76-7de3-4593-9e4d-ad33697e5e87) is this snippet towards the bottom about Ian Yeowart planning a new open-access service between London and Southampton and possibly onto Marchwood via the Waterside Line. Light on details, but it seems somewhat similar to Yeowart's proposal from 2016 (rejected) to run London-Soton services under the 'Grand Southern' brand using 442s. It's a paywall article, but I've quoted the relevant section below:

Private service could compete with nationalised operator
A new privately run rail service could be created between London and Southampton to compete with the soon-to-be nationalised South Western Railway and would be the latest in a rush of so-called open-access services (Robert Lea writes).

Ian Yeowart, the godfather of open-access train companies operating independently of the Department for Transport (DfT), has submitted plans for eight new daily services each way on 100mph eight-carriage trains between the south coast port and Waterloo, one of London’s busiest commuter railway stations.

He envisages the service extending on to Marchwood on the other side of Southampton Water and at the edge of the New Forest. The area includes a historic military port that was used in the D-Day landings but suffers from road congestion into Southampton. An existing line is used for freight and there are plans for a new passenger station at Marchwood, the previous one having been axed under the Beeching cuts in the 1960s when it was known as the Waterside line.

“There has been a long-held aspiration to return passenger rail services to the Waterside line,” Yeowart said, adding that the application had “significant merit”.

And separately from this interview with First Rail MD (https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/w...-sets-out-open-access-rail-aims/67976.article), I found this snippet somewhat curious:

Montgomery also confirms that none of the team involved in developing the GUT proposals, including Managing Director Ian Yeowart, will join FirstGroup. ‘Obviously, we have a close relationship with them, and we continue to work with them in other ideas and thinking. But none of the people will transfer over with the company.’

This almost implies a sort of 'revolving door' between Ian Yeowart and First Group in relation to proposals and the like - maybe might this London-Soton service be a way for First Group to stay running on the SWML, as with recent applications on GWML and WCML..?

 

[Discuss223]

Lengthy article in The Times today about why Alex Hynes is a leading contender to be GB Railway's first CEO. But tucked away at the end of the article is this interesting development:

Rail’s rising star tipped to lead Great British Railways

Alex Hynes, the transport department’s director of rail services, is a leading contender to be the first chief of the new public body

www.thetimes.com

He doesn't give up. Can't see how this would pass the revenue abstraction test though.

If it goes in to Paddington, they could call it at Slough and say they are connecting Slough with Southampton and Southampton with Paddington. I'd hope it offered something more premium than what SWR offer, their First Class for a medium-long distance operator is abysmal.

 

[brad465]

I wonder if this is an attempt to try and influence the rail industry to actually proceed with reopening the Fawley branch, even if this rail service never actually happens. IIRC GWR increased their Carmarthen service when Mr Yeowart put forward the Carmarthen OA proposal.

 

[infobleep]

I wonder if this is an attempt to try and influence the rail industry to actually proceed with reopening the Fawley branch, even if this rail service never actually happens. IIRC GWR increased their Carmarthen service when Mr Yeowart put forward the Carmarthen OA proposal.

What would be in it for Ian Yeowart if that was the case?

 

[HamBuoy]

The proposed stock would be interesting. I assume that the Marchwood line isn't third-rail electrified? If it was the 350/2s, fitted with shoes, or the surplus 458s might be candidates (assuming sufficient power supply). Otherwise l'm guessing DMUs of some variety, probably not 22Xs.

When do the leases expire on SWRs 450s? With the excess suburban capacity following the (eventual) full introduction of the 701s could any 450s than aren't repurposed for West of England be available for similar conversions?

 

[Wolfie]

When do the leases expire on SWRs 450s? With the excess suburban capacity following the (eventual) full introduction of the 701s could any 450s than aren't repurposed for West of England be available for similar conversions?

Don't know, but you'd have thought that SWR would rather keep 450s than 458s. Simplifies logistics, training etc etc.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I’ve only seen it in the Times nothing on the ORR? Is it Under a new company, Grand Union or Alliance Rail (the one used for Cardiff - Edinburgh services)

 

[nw1]

What's really needed is a revival of the Hythe shuttle proposal that was popular a couple of years ago but now seems to have been put on the backburner again.

There's no need for a through service from Marchwood to London unless it's operationally convenient - it just eats up paths. If the Hythe line was ever electrified, yes it might make sense to extend any Waterloo-Southampton Central semi-fast down to Hythe if that were to be operationally convenient. While it's diesel, a shuttle or some kind of interworking with the Salisbury services makes far more sense.

 

[Snow1964]

He doesn't give up. Can't see how this would pass the revenue abstraction test though.

It might do, only need to get to 30% average overall, not for each station.

Assuming one end is Marchwood and Hythe, then got 100% for those two, and most customers will start or end there. So that's 50% because no one else serves them.

Then just need to not take more than 20% across intermediate journeys between the rest, If have slightly wacky calling points, (say St Denys, Wimbledon, Waterloo as example) then not going to abstract that much between these intermediate calls, so overall would then meet the abstraction test threshold

Regarding rolling stock, if only going to Marchwood, then only couple of miles off the third rail (a smallish battery added to a EMU should be able to cope). And would be relatively easy to electrify the quarter mile alongside the main line at Totton to shorten distance) as adjacent tracks to those that are third rail electrified are not subject to the extension ban. Would allow junction to be taken on the juice, not battery.

If full third rail were authorised (speculative but unlikely), it would be shorter to Marchwood from the existing substation at junction at Redbridge than the long siding to Lymington Pier, so could be third rail with no substations. Although my money would be on using spare existing Desiro EMUs with added battery.

 

[HamBuoy]

It might do, only need to get to 30% average overall, not for each station.

Assuming one end is Marchwood and Hythe, then got 100% for those two, and most customers will start or end there. So that's 50% because no one else serves them.

Then just need to not take more than 20% across intermediate journeys between the rest, If have slightly wacky calling points, (say St Denys, Wimbledon, Waterloo as example) then not going to abstract that much between these intermediate calls, so overall would then meet the abstraction test threshold

It does make me wonder if the service could run via Havant and Guildford rather than Winchester and Basingstoke. Presumably that would give a more favourable abstraction "score".

I don't know how the journey times would compare.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

does anyone know if an application has been submitted yet? or what the company is called?

 

[43096]

Don't know, but you'd have thought that SWR would rather keep 450s than 458s. Simplifies logistics, training etc etc.

Lease expires next year, when the SWR operation is nationalised.

The Section 54 on the 450s expires on 23 April next year.

 

[Wolfie]

Lease expires next year, when the SWR operation is nationalised.

The Section 54 on the 450s expires on 23 April next year.

TY

 

[The Middle]

does anyone know if an application has been submitted yet? or what the company is called?

It should appear on the Sale of Access Rights page within the next couple of days under Alliance Rail

 

[Bartsimho]

Hythe would probably be better to reach but Marchwood maybe from the stock availability. This is the speculative discussion so I'm going to throw out a route.
Hythe - Marchwood - Totton - Southampton - Eastleigh - Winchester - Basingstoke - Woking - Wimbledon - Waterloo
The more stopping nature might make it take less of each journey pair to make it less abstractive and they could claim to serve gaps in the intermediate markets

 

[nw1]

It does make me wonder if the service could run via Havant and Guildford rather than Winchester and Basingstoke. Presumably that would give a more favourable abstraction "score".

Makes the service all but useless, anyone wanting Waterloo would change at Southampton Central for a far faster service.

 

[brad465]

The proposed stock would be interesting. I assume that the Marchwood line isn't third-rail electrified? If it was the 350/2s, fitted with shoes, or the surplus 458s might be candidates (assuming sufficient power supply). Otherwise l'm guessing DMUs of some variety, probably not 22Xs.

RAIL's latest article covers this news and the rolling stock proposed for use are Class 769s. They're also proposing an hourly frequency into Southampton (4-car), with every other service extended to Waterloo (8-car).

 

[Wolfie]

RAIL's latest article covers this news and the rolling stock proposed for use are Class 769s. They're also proposing an hourly frequency into Southampton (4-car), with every other service extended to Waterloo (8-car).

TY. I'd completely forgotten about the 769s but it makes sense and they may well get a good deal from the ROSCO. Unless the 769s get a serious internal refit they are markedly worse than the SWR alternative though.

 

[nw1]

RAIL's latest article covers this news and the rolling stock proposed for use are Class 769s. They're also proposing an hourly frequency into Southampton (4-car), with every other service extended to Waterloo (8-car).

I'd like to see a more unified "GBR" approach to this if I'm honest with the service part of an integrated national timetable. In an ideal world I'd like to see the xx39 Southampton semi-fast reintroduced throughout the day, then Marchwood or even Hythe could be electrified and the xx39 (or whatever the equivalent service might be re-timed to in the future) sent down there.

So you could have a half-hourly pattern of: Clapham, Woking, Farnborough, Fleet, Basingstoke, Winchester, Eastleigh, with alternate services going to Portsmouth Harbour or to Marchwood/Hythe.

In the meantime, I'd propose a diesel shuttle from Platform 5 at Southampton timed, if possible, to provide good connections into London services.

 

[The Middle]

Form P now up on the Sale of Access Rights page.

Sale of access rights - Network Rail

All passenger and freight train operators who want to use our network require a track access contract, dealt with by our customer teams.

www.networkrail.co.uk

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sale-of-access-rights/Consultations/Current%20Track%20Access%20Consultations/18.12.2024%20-%20Alliance%20Rail%20Southern%20-%20Section%2017%20-%20Closes%2031.01.2025/Alliance%20Rail%20Southern%20Form%20P.docx

 

[Snow1964]

I'd like to see a more unified "GBR" approach to this if I'm honest with the service part of an integrated national timetable. In an ideal world I'd like to see the xx39 Southampton semi-fast reintroduced throughout the day, then Marchwood or even Hythe could be electrified and the xx39 (or whatever the equivalent service might be re-timed to in the future) sent down there.

So you could have a half-hourly pattern of: Clapham, Woking, Farnborough, Fleet, Basingstoke, Winchester, Eastleigh, with alternate services going to Portsmouth Harbour or to Marchwood/Hythe.

In the meantime, I'd propose a diesel shuttle from Platform 5 at Southampton timed, if possible, to provide good connections into London services.

The calling pattern is in the application
Marchwood, Totton, Southampton Central, Southampton Airport, Eastleigh, Winchester, Basingstoke, Hook, Waterloo. (considering Woking and Wimbledon)

2+1 in First class, 2+2 in standard, with new seats using class 769s (although upgrades might not be ready for proposed May 2026 start)

Marchwood would be reopened station initially, but replacement 500m away with car park is aspiration

 

[JonathanH]

using class 769s

I can't imagine they are going to be the most reliable of rolling stock by 2026. How long will they have been out of action in the intervening time?

 

[weeklycommuter]

The calling pattern is in the application
Marchwood, Totton, Southampton Central, Southampton Airport, Eastleigh, Winchester, Basingstoke, Hook, Waterloo. (considering Woking and Wimbledon)
2+1 in First class, 2+2 in standard, with new seats using class 769s (although upgrades might not be ready for proposed May 2026 start)
Marchwood would be reopened station initially, but replacement 500m away with car park is aspiration

The article in Rail also states that after relocating Marchwood Station to a site where a car park can be added the plan is to bring the rest of the Waterside Line up to scratch and extend the service to Hythe and Fawley.
South Western Railway and the Department for Transport failed to reopen the Waterside Line for the Southampton-Totton-Marchwood-Hythe passenger service promised in the Restoring Your Railway application and have so far failed to restart an hourly all day stopping service between Southampton Central and London Waterloo which existed pre-pandemic and was promised in the SWR December 2022 timetable consultation. This has left many stations including Eastleigh with a poor train service to London Waterloo so the DfT and SWR have left a hole in the train service not only on the Waterside Line but also between Southampton and London Waterloo which this open access service, hourly Southampton to Totton and Marchwood and every two hours Southampton to London Waterloo, would help to fill. If the Office of Rail and Road approves this open access application the DfT and SWR will only have themselves to blame if they are unhappy.