New Open Access Application: London - Southampton - Marchwood

[weeklycommuter]

The Alliance Rail (Southern) application to operate an open access passenger train service to and from Marchwood on the Waterside Line is now showing as a Section 17 application on the following page of the Office of Rail and Road website (along with Nottingham-Bristol via the new Milton Keynes to Oxford railway from Midland Central and Western Railway (MCWR) and Liverpool-Cardiff from Liverpool & South Wales Railway (L&SWR)) with Form P, draft contract and consultation responses listed as follows

Current track access applications | Office of Rail and Road

All documents relating to track access applications we are currently considering. This may include application forms, draft agreements, any related documents and responses we make public.

www.orr.gov.uk

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-05/ar-ltd-section-17-form-p.pdf

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-05/ar-ltd-section-17-draft-contract.pdf

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-06/ar-ltd-section-17-consultation-responses.pdf

As their trains will run on unelectrified lines I wonder if they could add special services running into Southampton docks and picking up and dropping off cruise passengers and all their luggage. Just a thought.

 

[Snow1964]

The Alliance Rail (Southern) application to operate an open access passenger train service to and from Marchwood on the Waterside Line is now showing as a Section 17 application on the following page of the Office of Rail and Road website

Things move slowly, this thread has been running nearly 6 months, and only at application stage.

Why is it bus services can be started in 2-3 months, new airline routes in few months, but UK Rail regulation drags it out for years?

 

[Zomboid]

Why is it bus services can be started in 2-3 months, new airline routes in few months, but UK Rail regulation drags it out for years?

Because the road capacity isn't constrained in the same way that rail is. Creating a working timetable that adequately serves all users is a major undertaking. Air capacity is AIUI primarily constrained by takeoff and landing slots, and you can just buy those - most airports aren't operating at capacity in that sense either.

 

[Brubulus]

Because the road capacity isn't constrained in the same way that rail is. Creating a working timetable that adequately serves all users is a major undertaking. Air capacity is AIUI primarily constrained by takeoff and landing slots, and you can just buy those - most airports aren't operating at capacity in that sense either.

The ability to buy surplus (not required in GBR clock face timetable) railway paths might be a good way to operate open access in the future and much simpler and clearer than the current process. ORR sets a reserve for the cost of paths, then they would be auctioned to highest bidder who could use said path in any way they desire.

However this would likely reduce the "innovations" deployed by OA operators such as restoring services to Marchwood or a specific low cost business model.

 

[JonathanH]

The ability to buy surplus (not required in GBR clock face timetable) railway paths might be a good way to operate open access in the future and much simpler and clearer than the current process. ORR sets a reserve for the cost of paths, then they would be auctioned to highest bidder who could use said path in any way they desire.

I don't really see how that works. Where is the surplus path out of Waterloo to Southampton? People might say it is the old xx39 path which SWT used to use, but what if platform and siding use isn't the same as it was when thar ran? That path is essentially occupied from Winchester onwards in any case.

Do the timetable planners have to identify a load of theoretically spare paths when they write the base timetable?

Once it is all GBR, it simply won't be in their interests to leave clear paths available for another operator to use.

 

[Brubulus]

I don't really see how that works. Where is the surplus path out of Waterloo to Southampton? People might say it is the old xx39 path which SWT used to use, but what if platform and siding use isn't the same as it was when thar ran? That path is essentially occupied from Winchester onwards in any case.

Do the timetable planners have to identify a load of theoretically spare paths when they write the base timetable?

Once it is all GBR, it simply won't be in their interests to leave clear paths available for another operator to use.

The idea would be GBR would specify a base timetable then as part of that identify some additional paths along key mainlines which fit within the base timetable in terms of platform, route and siding use.

This would only be for the most popular and congested mainlines, however if a free path on the SWML out of Waterloo has been identified, which it has (to some extent) in order for this bid to even happen and there are no impediments to it's use, then it could be simply auctioned off instead of the long ORR approval process, which is much more complex than the relatively liberal systems for open access being rolled out in the EU. And yes, I know they generally don't face the same capacity constraints, so a middle ground, based on what works in the airline sector but accomodating an overarching national operator and the need for cross subsidy, has to be found.

I'd hope GBR timetables were designed for reliable clock face service instead of being designed to strategically limit capacity, and that sort of thing is why there should be some non-departmental oversight of GBR.

 

[nw1]

which is much more complex than the relatively liberal systems for open access being rolled out in the EU. And yes, I know they generally don't face the same capacity constraints

"The EU" is not one large amorphous entity but a collection of very disparate countries, each of which has their own railway culture. I suspect that the busier lines of the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany have precisely the same capacity constraints as we do on our busier lines.

 

[The Planner]

I don't really see how that works. Where is the surplus path out of Waterloo to Southampton? People might say it is the old xx39 path which SWT used to use, but what if platform and siding use isn't the same as it was when thar ran? That path is essentially occupied from Winchester onwards in any case.

Do the timetable planners have to identify a load of theoretically spare paths when they write the base timetable?

Once it is all GBR, it simply won't be in their interests to leave clear paths available for another operator to use.

Freight have strategic paths. If you are doing a complete re-cast, you tend to know where any spare capacity is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Sunday at 09:37 ==

I'd hope GBR timetables were designed for reliable clock face service instead of being designed to strategically limit capacity, and that sort of thing is why there should be some non-departmental oversight of GBR.

Clock face isn't always the best use of capacity.

 

[nw1]

Maybe slightly OT but sort-of related: I note that in SWR's response to the open access application, they are planning to re-instate the third train per hour from Waterloo to Southampton as soon as possible, which presumably means the xx39. (Or is the plan a complete recast?)

Can anyone with insider knowledge shed some light on this? At a guess it might come in when the 701s are fully up and running.

 

[BranstonJnc]

Maybe slightly OT but sort-of related: I note that in SWR's response to the open access application, they are planning to re-instate the third train per hour from Waterloo to Southampton as soon as possible, which presumably means the xx39. (Or is the plan a complete recast?)

Can anyone with insider knowledge shed some light on this? At a guess it might come in when the 701s are fully up and running.

Seems likely that they would basically get back to something close to the 'old' timetable, with the xx:09 Pompey via Winchester and xx:39 Poole, or whichever way round it was. They are only committing to it being to Bournemouth, interestingly.

At the end of the day, one of the things they might be doing, even if they aren't planning to return those services, is to put a marker to try and keep GU off the tracks. If someone believes there will be another train per hour between Basingstoke and Southampton, someone in a planning unit or at DfT might panic.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Maybe slightly OT but sort-of related: I note that in SWR's response to the open access application, they are planning to re-instate the third train per hour from Waterloo to Southampton as soon as possible, which presumably means the xx39. (Or is the plan a complete recast?)

Can anyone with insider knowledge shed some light on this? At a guess it might come in when the 701s are fully up and running.

Seems likely that they would basically get back to something close to the 'old' timetable, with the xx:09 Pompey via Winchester and xx:39 Poole, or whichever way round it was. They are only committing to it being to Bournemouth, interestingly.

At the end of the day, one of the things they might be doing, even if they aren't planning to return those services, is to put a marker to try and keep GU off the tracks. If someone believes there will be another train per hour between Basingstoke and Southampton, someone in a planning unit or at DfT might panic.

As the following extract from the SWR consultation response shows SWR state that they have asked the Government (Department for Transport) to fund the reinstatement of a third train each hour between London Waterloo and Southampton. The answer was clearly no in 2022 and I have no confidence that there would be a different answer now.

SWR (really the Department for Transport) promised an hourly semi-fast London Waterloo to Southampton service as a third London Waterloo to Southampton train each hour in the December 2022 timetable consultation. SWR and the Department for Transport failed to deliver this. I shall believe that the reinstatement of a third SWR train each hour between London Waterloo and Southampton will happen only when I see it in a future confirmed published May or December timetable.

SWR is in fact clearly very short of rolling stock for their mainline train services as many Class 450 units are being used for metro services due to the ongoing failure to roll out the 90 class 701 Arterio trains for SWR metro services. Until SWR successfully complete the rollout of the new Class 701 Arterio trains I expect they will continue to be short of rolling stock for their mainline train services. They may be leasing enough trains but that is of no help while most of the Class 701 Arterio trains have not been brought into use to run passenger train services.

I have to support the Alliance Rail (Southern) open access application regardless as the Government refused to fund the Restoring Your Railway application to reopen the Waterside Line to passenger train services so the go ahead to this open access application is the only way that passenger train services will return to the Waterside Line.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-06/ar-ltd-section-17-consultation-responses.pdf

3. At the start of 2024 SWR started a project to assess whether a timetable re-cast could improve the balance between reducing net subsidy, improving operational performance and meeting customer needs.
4. A standard hour timetable for the South Western Main Line has been developed as part of that project which includes the reinstatement of the third train an hour between London Waterloo and Southampton, and then to Bournemouth. The re-cast will increase our overall mileage by approximately 8%.
5. As part of our Annual Business Plan submission sent to the Department for Transport on 2nd December we included a costed option to undertake this timetable re-cast as a project with the aim of reducing our overall net subsidy.
6. Initial discussions have taken place with colleagues from Network Rail Southern Region and Wessex Route regarding this timetable re-cast.
7. SWR intend, subject to successful public consultation and recruitment of additional operational staff, to operate the new timetable as soon as possible.
8. SWR currently lease sufficient vehicles to increase the service in line with our recast. The implication of not being able to gain the access rights required to do so is that the vehicles currently leased will likely remain unused.

 

[BranstonJnc]

As the following extract from the SWR consultation response shows SWR state that they have asked the Government (Department for Transport) to fund the reinstatement of a third train each hour between London Waterloo and Southampton. The answer was clearly no in 2022 and I have no confidence that there would be a different answer now.

SWR (really the Department for Transport) promised an hourly semi-fast London Waterloo to Southampton service as a third London Waterloo to Southampton train each hour in the December 2022 timetable consultation. SWR and the Department for Transport failed to deliver this. I shall believe that the reinstatement of a third SWR train each hour between London Waterloo and Southampton will happen only when I see it in a future confirmed published May or December timetable.

SWR is in fact clearly very short of rolling stock for their mainline train services as many Class 450 units are being used for metro services due to the ongoing failure to roll out the 90 class 701 Arterio trains for SWR metro services. Until SWR successfully complete the rollout of the new Class 701 Arterio trains I expect they will continue to be short of rolling stock for their mainline train services. They may be leasing enough trains but that is of no help while most of the Class 701 Arterio trains have not been brought into use to run passenger train services.

I have to support the Alliance Rail (Southern) open access application regardless as the Government refused to fund the Restoring Your Railway application to reopen the Waterside Line to passenger train services so the go ahead to this open access application is the only way that passenger train services will return to the Waterside Line.

I think the issue with the Alliance application, chiefly, is the fact it will try to run a two-hourly service to compete with SWR (who might be running six trains every 2 hours in due course) from Southampton to London. The in-fill to make Marchwood to Southampton every hour is good, but I'm looking at a map, and I'm struggling to see high demand for Marchwood to Southampton, let alone then Marchwood to London.

I wonder if they would have had better luck effectively offering a Marchwood to Reading every hour, as it would mean big connectivity, and restoring the half-hourly service from Southampton to Reading to connect with the XC thats been cut back. I seem to remember XC got their Newcastle to go beyond Reading pre-Covid every 2 hours to bolster that capacity, not sure if that will ever come back.

I also don't see much benefit / help to some knackered old 769s, with their worse acceleration, cluttering up the bit between Waterloo and Winchfield on the fast lines.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I think the issue with the Alliance application, chiefly, is the fact it will try to run a two-hourly service to compete with SWR (who might be running six trains every 2 hours in due course) from Southampton to London. The in-fill to make Marchwood to Southampton every hour is good, but I'm looking at a map, and I'm struggling to see high demand for Marchwood to Southampton, let alone then Marchwood to London.

I wonder if they would have had better luck effectively offering a Marchwood to Reading every hour, as it would mean big connectivity, and restoring the half-hourly service from Southampton to Reading to connect with the XC thats been cut back. I seem to remember XC got their Newcastle to go beyond Reading pre-Covid every 2 hours to bolster that capacity, not sure if that will ever come back.

I also don't see much benefit / help to some knackered old 769s, with their worse acceleration, cluttering up the bit between Waterloo and Winchfield on the fast lines.

Alliance Rail (Southern) plan to have a new park and ride station at Marchwood so their Marchwood to Southampton trains extended every two hours to London Waterloo provide a service for all 40,000 people who live on the Waterside, not just the 6,000 who live in Marchwood. They also plan a longer term extension to Hythe. Public transport between Southampton and the Waterside is at present just the bus service of at most three buses an hour. Buses get stuck in road traffic and the trains will have a lot more capacity. The Hythe to Southampton ferry has not operated for nearly a year and may never return. This is about providing better public transport for the 40,000 people who live on the Waterside.

Southampton to Reading is heavily used by freight so there may be no available paths and I cannot see such a service making money. The demand and therefore the money is in running a train service every two hours between Southampton and London Waterloo. The calling pattern Marchwood – Totton – Southampton Central – Southampton Airport – Eastleigh – Winchester – Basingstoke – Hook – London Waterloo offers a direct train service every two hours between the Waterside and London Waterloo and a non-stop train service between Hook and London Waterloo.

If they are looking for more opportunities to make money they could look at transporting cruise passengers between London Waterloo and Southampton Docks.

 

[swt_passenger]

Maybe slightly OT but sort-of related: I note that in SWR's response to the open access application, they are planning to re-instate the third train per hour from Waterloo to Southampton as soon as possible, which presumably means the xx39. (Or is the plan a complete recast?)

Can anyone with insider knowledge shed some light on this? At a guess it might come in when the 701s are fully up and running.

SWR‘s response says they have the rolling stock available now, and as there are no caveats included that implies it doesn’t rely on 701s.

 

[nw1]

I also note that the XC reply comments on a potential clash between their services and an xx45 Marchwood-Waterloo.

Does that mean that a draft timetable has indeed been prepared? Can it be found anywhere?

(Interestingly an xx45 Marchwood-Waterloo seems to possibly suggests some use of the former xx55 SOU-Waterloo semi-fast path, but running behind the xx00 fast rather than in-front and then looping at Eastleigh. If SWR do indeed plan to bring the semi-fast back, I guess this plan might need to be revised).

 

[weeklycommuter]

SWR‘s response says they have the rolling stock available now, and as there are no caveats included that implies it doesn’t rely on 701s.

The statement from SWR reads "SWR currently lease sufficient vehicles to increase the service in line with our recast."

It does not say that they have sufficient vehicles currently available to run the service and I have to ask why they do not say that. Many of their Class 450 units are currently used for metro services because they still have only a small number of Arterios in service.

I can see the shortage of rolling stock in SWR mainline services with trains not having enough carriages despite some 2019 mainline services not being reinstated.

I am very sceptical that SWR really have enough rolling stock currently available to run this proposed mainline service in addition to their other mainline services with enough carriages until a lot more Arterios are successfully brought into service. I also wonder if they have enough drivers. I am sceptical about all statements from SWR after numerous undelivered promises over the last five years about reinstating services and bringing the Arterios into service.

 

[Snow1964]

The statement from SWR reads "SWR currently lease sufficient vehicles to increase the service in line with our recast."

It does not say that they have sufficient vehicles currently available to run the service and I have to ask why they do not say that. Many of their Class 450 units are currently used for metro services because they still have only a small number of Arterios in service.

I can see the shortage of rolling stock in SWR mainline services with trains not having enough carriages despite some 2019 mainline services not being reinstated.

I am very sceptical that SWR really have enough rolling stock currently available to run this proposed mainline service in addition to their other mainline services with enough carriages until a lot more Arterios are successfully brought into service. I also wonder if they have enough drivers. I am sceptical about all statements from SWR after numerous undelivered promises over the last five years about reinstating services and bringing the Arterios into service.

This is specific wording, SWR do lease enough trains, but of course about 650 of the Arterio vehicles aren't in current use. Leasing them and using them are not same thing.

Of course in 2017 the recast was promised for December 2020, and even if you allow 12-18 months for Covid delays, they seem to have abandoned / postponed the recast until at least late 2026, more likely a few years later (if it ever happens in its 2017 proposed form with thousands of extra peak hour seats)