That's correct.
-
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!
New South Western franchise: Awarded to First/MTR
- Thread starter JaJaWa
- 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
The December 2018 timetable consultation report has been published internally, but does not seem to be available on the SWR website yet, so I will summarise they key outcomes below.
Hounslow/Chertsey/Windsor
Hounslow/Chertsey/Windsor
- The consultation appears to have pretty universally rejected SWRs proposals.
- The current Waterloo-Weybridge via Hounslow service will continue to run all day.
- Waterloo-Windsor will remain at 2tph Off Peak to accommodate the Weybridge trains.
- Waterloo-Windsor up to 4tph in the peak.
- Links between Sunnymeads and Wraysbury, and Feltham and Richmond, maintained at the expense of journey time improvements.
- 8tph service maintained at Queenstown Road, not cut to 6tph as planned.
- Martins Heron to maintain at least the same service level as today all day. No cuts from 4tph to 2tph in the peak.
- Whitton to maintain faster peak time services to and from London Waterloo.
- 3 morning peak fast services to London and 3 evening peak returns.
- Journey time of 28 minutes on fast services.
- Peak time through services from Frimley/Camberley/Bagshot to London Waterloo to be retained.
- 3 morning peak services, the same as today.
- 3 evening peak services, one more than today.
- Accepted that both the original and altered proposal for peak time services to these stations attracted negative comment.
- Fleet, Winchfield and Hook to get 4tph to London in the peak.
- Farnborough to get 4tph to London in the peak.
- Connectivity between intermediate stations along the route maintained.
- These changes are at the expense of journey time improvements.
- Off Peak, one of the two Basingstoke-Waterloo stopping services will call at Clapham Junction, as now.
- 2tph London Waterloo-Weymouth service maintained all day.
- The slower Weymouth service to divide at Southampton Central all day.
- Front portion to call Bournemouth, Poole and all stations to Weymouth.
- Rear portion to call Totton, Brockenhurst, New Milton, Christchurch, Pokesdown, Bournemouth, Branksome, Parkstone and Poole.
- The proposed Portsmouth-Weymouth stopping service will run between Portsmouth and Bournemouth only.
- Sway, Hinton Admiral and Ashurst New Forest will lose their direct Off Peak London trains.
- 0540 Southampton-Waterloo to start back from Bournemouth.
- 0520 Poole-Waterloo to call additionally at Clapham Junction.
- 0635 Weymouth-Waterloo to call at Clapham Junction instead of Basingstoke.
- 0635 Brockenhurst-Waterloo starts at Southampton Central.
- Off Peak services to/from Exeter will continue to call at both Woking and Clapham Junction at the expense of journey time improvements.
- A Sunday morning stopping service will be provided between Salisbury and Basingstoke, extending non stop to Reading. This will run to/from Waterloo in the afternoon.
- Exeter services call at Andover only between Salisbury and Basingstoke all day on Sunday as a result.
- The lunchtime Waterloo-Salisbury-Westbury-Frome-Yeovil service will continue.
- 1625 Waterloo-Exeter/Bristol to call at Overton and Grateley.
- A limited number of Freshford calls on Bristol services.
- The majority of Bristol services to call at Oldfield Park.
- More stops at Whimple and Feniton.
- 0550 Exeter-Waterloo to call all stations between Exeter and Honiton, and at Woking.
- Despite much negative feedback, proposals to reduce the number of peak time calls at Clapham Junction will go ahead.
- This will allow more services to run to/from London Waterloo, providing more capacity overall.
- The first Guildford-Waterloo via Cobham service will arrive earlier, before 0630.
- The 0523 Farnham-Waterloo will call additionally at West Byfleet, Weybridge and Walton-on-Thames.
- Extra morning peak calls at Vauxhall in Reading-Waterloo services.
- 2 extra morning peak services at Weybridge, running non stop to Waterloo.
- A fast Waterloo to West Byfleet service between 1600 and 1700.
- A fast Waterloo to Hampton Court service around 1930.
- 2tph all day to call at Liss.
- Revised and additional peak calls at Liphook, Liss and Rowlands Castle.
- SWR are working with Wightlink to ensure connectivity and journey times to the Isle of Wight are maintained.
- Many of the new fast Southampton-Portsmouth trains will call at Netley and Woolston.
- An 0717 Southampton-Portsmouth stopping service to be retained with the same calling pattern as today.
Goldfish62
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,115
Wow, while I expected changes I never thought they'd take on board concerns to such an extent! I and others lobbied hard about the reduction in services at Martins Heron and the reduced AM peak service through Ascot so I'm well happy with the outcome.
I have seen that point addressed elsewhere. If you look at the ORR estimates for station usage, you can definitely make a reasonable case for 4tph at Godalming.
Godalming 1.435m
Haslemere 1.804m
Petersfield 1.433m
What's more, skipping Godalming on the fast services would not save any time. Because of the desire to have a true 4tph Waterloo-Portsmouth service Off Peak with looping at Haslemere eliminated, fast and slow services are very close together at the Portsmouth end. In the down direction, if you skipped Godalming on the fast service, it would just follow the slow service in from somewhere around Havant to arrive at the same time anyway. In the up direction, the fast service would still have to leave Portsmouth at the same time so that the slow service could leave at the right time to avoid being caught by the following fast service. The fast service would just be waiting time at a station between Portsmouth and Woking to fit in the correct path from Woking to Waterloo. There is nothing to gain from skipping Godalming in the proposed December 2018 timetable.
Godalming 1.435m
Haslemere 1.804m
Petersfield 1.433m
What's more, skipping Godalming on the fast services would not save any time. Because of the desire to have a true 4tph Waterloo-Portsmouth service Off Peak with looping at Haslemere eliminated, fast and slow services are very close together at the Portsmouth end. In the down direction, if you skipped Godalming on the fast service, it would just follow the slow service in from somewhere around Havant to arrive at the same time anyway. In the up direction, the fast service would still have to leave Portsmouth at the same time so that the slow service could leave at the right time to avoid being caught by the following fast service. The fast service would just be waiting time at a station between Portsmouth and Woking to fit in the correct path from Woking to Waterloo. There is nothing to gain from skipping Godalming in the proposed December 2018 timetable.
RacingGreen
Member
Does anyone know what the thinking behind 4TPH to Windsor in the peaks is? Can't really see the reason for it myself but there's a good chance I've missed something.
4tph to Windsor all day was a requirement for the new franchise. It seems that following the consultation SWR have been able to change this to just provide 4tph in the peak.
Godalming has two peaks. A tight morning peak between 7 and 9am where commuters head for the city and school children arrive into Godalming. Then a more relaxed in the evening between 3 and 8pm where school children head home followed by commuters heading home. Out of those hours the station is really quiet.
Whilst Petersfield does have a peak increase, it also has a steady flow throughout the day with.
Whilst I take the point about services dovetailing at the Portsmouth end. Northbound, a train would arrive 2 mins earlier at Guildford and could take a different path into Waterloo. Equally, the service could depart Waterloo 2 minutes later and still take the same path south of Godalming.
SWR should have picked Godalming for 3tph and Petersfield for 3tph.
Additionally, with 6tph peak, none of these services are proposed to skip Godalming. This means that the fasts will continue to be rammed busy at the northern end of the line whilst the slower services (no difference pre-Godalming) will run with capacity.
Whilst Petersfield does have a peak increase, it also has a steady flow throughout the day with.
Whilst I take the point about services dovetailing at the Portsmouth end. Northbound, a train would arrive 2 mins earlier at Guildford and could take a different path into Waterloo. Equally, the service could depart Waterloo 2 minutes later and still take the same path south of Godalming.
SWR should have picked Godalming for 3tph and Petersfield for 3tph.
Additionally, with 6tph peak, none of these services are proposed to skip Godalming. This means that the fasts will continue to be rammed busy at the northern end of the line whilst the slower services (no difference pre-Godalming) will run with capacity.
RacingGreen
Member
Haha and there it is, knew I'd have missed something, didn't realise it was a franchise agreement, thanks!
Seems like a sensible compromise, I guess there's a slight argument for them in the peak. However they'd be ghost trains if they had to run like that all day.
Gosh, I must respond more to consultations as I have achieved what I desired, namely Exeter to Waterloo trains to continue to stop at Woking and CLJ (for all we Gatwick bound pax). I hope my colleague from Overton is not disappointed as I see he has an extra stop on the 1625 ex WAT.
To be honest, as the 1825 ex WAT is sardine can conditions from CLJ until well past Basingstoke, I think I may await a later train in future.
Edit:
Yes, thanks 3141, see below, where are my manners. Thanks TEW.
To be honest, as the 1825 ex WAT is sardine can conditions from CLJ until well past Basingstoke, I think I may await a later train in future.
Edit:
Yes, thanks 3141, see below, where are my manners. Thanks TEW.
Last edited:
Goldfish62
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,115
Just a reminder that this was the service specification against which bidders were required to tender:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...tachment-a-part1-train-service-provision.xlsx
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...tachment-a-part1-train-service-provision.xlsx
3141
Established Member
Yup. pleased about the 16.25, and glad you're pleased about what you wanted too, but it looks as if I'll have an hour's gap between 1955 and 2055 in place of the 2020 I can catch now - unless there's further info not yet released.
And thanks to TEW for providing the information.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,479
Does start to make you wonder why the ITT was so prescriptive, if when push comes to shove DfT are happy to reduce what was apparently a set requirement.
I thought there was supposed to have been some sort of consultation before the ITT. Perhaps they asked the wrong people - or it was ignored at the time. Wouldn’t surprise me because there always seem to be more people around to criticise after the eventual proposals come out...
The problem with the ITT consultation is that its so conceptual. Until you put it down into a timetable most users don't understand it.
As an example, the ITT conceptually allows a Pompey Fast to call at Clapham Junction, Woking, Guildford, Godalming, Haslemere, Liphook, Liss, Petersfield, Havant, Fratton, Portsmouth & Southsea and Portsmouth Harbour - or - just Guildford, Haslemere, Fratton, Portsmouth & Southsea and Portsmouth Harbour.
A considerable difference when trying to get conceptual feedback but when you suddenly see you cant make your journey on paper - things change and people get vocal.
As an example, the ITT conceptually allows a Pompey Fast to call at Clapham Junction, Woking, Guildford, Godalming, Haslemere, Liphook, Liss, Petersfield, Havant, Fratton, Portsmouth & Southsea and Portsmouth Harbour - or - just Guildford, Haslemere, Fratton, Portsmouth & Southsea and Portsmouth Harbour.
A considerable difference when trying to get conceptual feedback but when you suddenly see you cant make your journey on paper - things change and people get vocal.
3141
Established Member
I think in the pre-ITT consultations they'd contact county and district councils, rail user groups, and organisations rather than individuals.
I'm not surprised that "faster journey times" would be one of the requests. And "connectivity" is a relatively hot topic (well, lukewarm, at least!). But at that point, no-one would stop and ask "You do realise that faster journeys probably means fewer stops, don't you?" or "How about a few more trains missing out Clapham Junction?" When the railway is virtually full, doing one extra thing inevitably means doing another thing less. People are used to the pattern of service they have, they shape their lives around it, whether it's where they live and where they work, or knowing that from west of Salisbury they can change at CLJ to get a train to Gatwick. When reality strikes in the form of "a faster journey means xxx is no longer possible", the individuals who weren't consulted in the earlier stages, or knew that something might happen but believed it would be better in all respects, or just didn't apply their minds to the issue, naturally get up in arms to protect the arrangements that suit them.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,479
I think that’s a very fair analysis. I wonder if they’ll learn anything from it...
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,479
Interesting that they have apparently ended up with 4 trains between Southampton and Bournemouth each hour. Also as TEW mentioned in his detailed post that means splitting and joining all day at Southampton, rather than just in the peaks as now, (up morning and down evening), and there’s also another terminating hourly service at Southampton (the existing Waterloo - Poole stopper curtailed). Makes Southampton a bit busier all round.
Presumably the other (faster) Waterloo - Weymouth will also split at Bournemouth as normal, with the rear half forming the front of the next up 10 car. Always assuming they stick with the idea of both ‘fast’ trains being 10 car all day.
Presumably the other (faster) Waterloo - Weymouth will also split at Bournemouth as normal, with the rear half forming the front of the next up 10 car. Always assuming they stick with the idea of both ‘fast’ trains being 10 car all day.
Last edited:
dorsetdesiro
Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 589
Thanks TEW for the update. Real good news for stations between Poole & Weymouth, the service seems set to continue unchanged, I'm pleased with that. Disappointingly not so for the New Forest, it would be a PITA for day-trippers on weekends having to travel to Brockenhurst or Southampton but least they still will see services at peak times.
Sensible to have the Portsmouth train to terminate at Bournemouth instead as more people live in Bournemouth than Weymouth therefore more demand. Weymouth rail users can always travel to Bournemouth and get the train from there. My station is to the west of Poole which I am OK with having to go to Bournemouth for Portsmouth, which on the upside my station will retain the faster 2tph instead of the planned reduction to very slow 1tph.
If SWR are going to follow the report's recommendations, then well done on them. The DfT may not be happy with this, well tough... So hopefully not too many bicycle spaces will get removed!
SWR still believe they will achieve journey time savings of 10 minutes between Waterloo and Weymouth. I personally believe that is a good compromise.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,479
It’s difficult to see a connection between timetable changes and any interior layout changes, which I’d have assumed was a completely separate issue. However, have they ever explicitly stated what the bike space changes are?
Yes, staff have been shown CAD plans and illustrations that show one cycle space will be replaced with a table plus 4 seats.
dorsetdesiro
Member
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 589
No connection at all.
My few issues with SWR are about the poor timekeeping (compared to SWT, but were surprisingly pretty good at Easter weekend), the dull new branding (very unlikely to change I know), possible service reduction for my station and the reduction of the bicycle spaces. Now one hurdle, for my station, has been cleared (that is if SWR follows the report) now three to go.
In regards about the bicycle storage areas, I read elsewhere this will be removed on one carriage on the refurbished 444s for more seating. I commute to work by bike in western Dorset using the SWR 444s so this will be interesting in the summer months with commuters & tourists jostling for the bicycle spaces as no pre-booking is required, also possibly being told there is no room if there are too many people bringing bikes which wouldn't go down well!
No mention of Reading so can only assume that it will still get 4tph all day.
Goldfish62
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,115
The issue with Reading was the reduced service for Martins Heron and that's been addressed. 4tph all day has been a long-time ambition. As stated above the only reason that Windsor services remain at 2tph off peak is to make room for the retained Weybridge via Hounslow service.
The report also states that Windsor has been reduced to 2tph as a result of concerns expressed about the length of time the level crossing would be down in Datchet. Whether that is the real reason, or just a convenient excuse justifying the Weybridge through service remaining, I don't know.
- Status