Southern services to Winchester?

[SussexSpotter]

This is something which has struck me as odd how Southern serve Southampton Airport Parkway as part of the South Central franchise and Eastleigh as well.....but there appears to be no suggestion to run any service towards Winchester to replace the old SWT Brighton link.

Would this be something that you think should be included in the next South Central franchise????

 

[N Levers]

Would this be something that you think should be included in the next South Central franchise????

No.

In my opinion FGW should stop serving Brighton and all of Southern's Southampto services should run via Swanwick.

 

[455driver]

They only serve Southampton Airport and Eastleigh to retain traincrew route knowledge on the diversionary route for when the Netley line is closed.

Which Southampton services would you like to send to Winchester and what would the Southampton passengers do?

 

[Southern313]

Even then it's only Barnham link 1 drivers that sign via Eastleigh. The D.I link don't (apart from a couple drivers) and nor do Brighton drivers.

 

[455driver]

No.

In my opinion FGW should stop serving Brighton and all of Southern's Southampton services should run via Swanwick.

FGW have a franchise commitment to serve Brighton (I expect they would love to get rid of it as well) so take it up with them and the SN services are routed via Eastleigh to keep the traincrews route knowledge up, how do you propose to keep the crews up to date on the diversionary route via Eastleigh if those services are dropped?

 

[TrainBoy98]

I remember the old SWT service from when I was younger, it used to be a 450 Brighton-Basingstoke. Always relatively busy.

I think there should be more direct services instead of them all needing a change. Even if its only a few a day, it would be a start.

Brighton should be more connected to the south.

 

[N Levers]

FGW have a franchise commitment to serve Brighton (I expect they would love to get rid of it as well) so take it up with them and the SN services are routed via Eastleigh to keep the traincrews route knowledge up, how do you propose to keep the crews up to date on the diversionary route via Eastleigh if those services are dropped?

I agree that FGW route trains via Eastleigh for diversionary purposes but whenever there is engineering work Southern send their trains into Portsmouth instead. So keeping route knowledge up would be redundent if they didn't need to send trains that way.

On the subject of Winchester I think there may be better uses of a 377.

 

[Top Cat]

It was a Dft decision to remove the direct Reading/Basingstoke/Fareham/Brighton services when the current SWT franchise was awarded.

 

[Eagle]

Winchester's too far away to fit neatly into a Southern diagram, so you'd probably need at least one extra unit from somewhere. And the turning facilities aren't great.

All in all I don't think it's worth it just to serve Winchester (which already has a good connection into Southern services at Cosham or Fratton).

 

[David Goddard]

I don't think this would be that good an idea really, as the time taken in the platforms with terminating/starting trains on such a busy main line would be disastrous.
There is already the SWT link from Winchester to Portsmouth, and SN's trains from Southampton to London and Brighton, so a simple (same platform) change at Fareham or Cosham should not be too much of a hardship.
A better boost to the area would be for the present off peak Haslemere terminator service to be extended to Southampton.

 

[SussexSpotter]

They only serve Southampton Airport and Eastleigh to retain traincrew route knowledge on the diversionary route for when the Netley line is closed.

Thanks for confirming that!

Which Southampton services would you like to send to Winchester

I don't think the Winchester Southern service should be frequent, maybe 2tpd (in each direction). 1 service in the morning and 1 in the afternoon/evening....with a more frequent service at weekends (maybe). This would be the same level of service FGW provide to Brighton as a franchise commitment.

what would the Southampton passengers do?

Any Southampton (or Swanwick) passengers would simply use the frequent services provided along the Fareham corridor or change trains at Fareham. I would consider a reinstated Winchester link to be more valuable than Basingstoke to be honest as it is after all a city......

I think there should be more direct services instead of them all needing a change. Even if its only a few a day, it would be a start.

Brighton should be more connected to the south.

I couldn't agree with this more!...

Winchester's too far away to fit neatly into a Southern diagram, so you'd probably need at least one extra unit from somewhere

Would anyone be able to confirm this????....

And the turning facilities aren't great.

Can anyone confirm how many SWT services reverse in the Baltic siding at Winchester.....I think it maybe 2 but correct me if I am wrong????

All in all I don't think it's worth it just to serve Winchester (which already has a good connection into Southern services at Cosham or Fratton).

I respect your opinion Eagle .....however in my opinion the same type of argument could quite easily be made for the small number of Brighton FGW's, but Brighton appears to be worthy of a limited through service slotted into the FGW diagram, rather than all passengers changing....having to change in London or Fratton/Southampton.....

 

[Eagle]

I respect your opinion Eagle .....however in my opinion the same type of argument could quite easily be made for the small number of Brighton FGW's, but Brighton appears to be worthy of a limited through service slotted into the FGW diagram, rather than all passengers changing having to change in London or Fratton/Southampton.....

Yes but the FGW service serves a lot of extra places. Your proposal serves just one medium-sized town. (Well it's a city, but a very small one.)


There are indeed two services a day that use the Baltic Sidings (one at 06.08 and one at 18.46), but I gather that it's incredibly difficult to slot them in on what is a very busy mainline. Plus even if you do reverse in the siding you're going to need a much bigger station dwell time at the platform at Winchester when you terminate.

 

[Muzer]

A better boost to the area would be for the present off peak Haslemere terminator service to be extended to Southampton.

Sorry, how would that help Winchester?

 

[SussexSpotter]

A better boost to the area would be for the present off peak Haslemere terminator service to be extended to Southampton.

If you would like to explain, I don't really see how that would benefit Winchester.....and if the paths are even there to do that. Also I doubt they can reverse anymore at Southampton or fit anything else through the tunnel.....!!

 

[Eagle]

The tunnel in Southampton is a bottleneck, yes.

The reason that it's easy to terminate things at Southampton is not just that there are four platforms, but there are four reversible platforms. So unless there's something in every platform there will always be a line free for something else (such as the two freight trains an hour from the Midlands and North). Also it helps that the platforms at Southampton are divided, so you can terminate two services in one platform.

Winchester only has two platforms, and they are not reversible. So if you have a terminating train on the up platform for a few minutes, it means that no trains can pass in the up direction. Which is a problem.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
EDIT: Okay I've looked it up, and it turns out the lines through Winchester are bidirectional (although the speed limit is a lot lower for going the wrong way), but there's a bigger problem: there is no crossover south of the station. The next crossover to the south is Albrook Junction, over six miles to the south. So anything terminating in a platform will still block the line, because it's obviously not possible to have all other services travel wrong-line for six and a half miles.

 

[heart-of-wessex]

I agree that FGW route trains via Eastleigh for diversionary purposes but whenever there is engineering work Southern send their trains into Portsmouth instead. So keeping route knowledge up would be redundent if they didn't need to send trains that way. /QUOTE]

I think the whole idea though is that if there was something like a failed train at say Bitterene, or there was a one under at Woolston, then some SN services can still avoid it by going via Eastleigh.

Might not be how it works so I'd like it to be confirmed/unconfirmed, but that's how I see it...

 

[TheWalrus]

No.

In my opinion FGW should stop serving Brighton and all of Southern's Southampton services should run via Swanwick.

FGW have a franchise commitment to serve Brighton (I expect they would love to get rid of it as well) so take it up with them and the SN services are routed via Eastleigh to keep the traincrews route knowledge up, how do you propose to keep the crews up to date on the diversionary route via Eastleigh if those services are dropped?

Actually I was told they wouldn't want to get rid of the FGW Brightons. However the unit could be used elsewhere if it was to go.

 

[paul1609]

Actually I was told they wouldn't want to get rid of the FGW Brightons. However the unit could be used elsewhere if it was to go.

Apparently SWT didnt realise how much ORCATS money they would loose pulling out of Brighton, It was apparently a shoot yourself in the foot decision.I think FGW are unlikely to make the same mistake the evening service is generally fully reserved.
Southern have a franchise commitment to serve Southampton Airport by the way they just havent been able to get the paths.

 

[tbtc]

Sounds like complete tokenism to me.

If there's no spare paths through Winchester to extend the bi-hourly Newcastle - Reading service to Southampton then I don't know where the paths for SN to serve Winchester would come from.

And what about paths at the Brighton end? Or would this be instead of the services to Southampton and Portsmouth?

I'm out.

 

[NSEFAN]

Okay I've looked it up, and it turns out the lines through Winchester are bidirectional (although the speed limit is a lot lower for going the wrong way), but there's a bigger problem: there is no crossover south of the station. The next crossover to the south is Albrook Junction, over six miles to the south. So anything terminating in a platform will still block the line, because it's obviously not possible to have all other services travel wrong-line for six and a half miles.

Any Southern services to Winchester could always reverse in the electrified siding just north of the station. It would help if more freight could be sent via Andover and Romsey so as to reduce congestion on the mainline. In a way, sending some Southern services to Winchester is a good thing, as it would reduce the number of trains along the Fareham-Southampton line which has lots of stations and long signalling blocks. It doesn't take much to cause congestion on that route!

A problem we have in this country is an obsession for direct trains everywhere. I would rather we have a system of lots of trains between hubs, with through services only for the biggest flows. I feel that this would be a better use of precious line capacity. Back in BR days we had fewer passengers and fewer trains, but these days it is hard to justify one or two trains a day when many other services will be competing for those paths.

 

[Eagle]

Any Southern services to Winchester could always reverse in the electrified siding just north of the station.

As I've said, reversing in the Baltic siding is fine. The problem is having to terminate on the mainline. Terminating a train takes time, and as I've shown all that time the terminating train will effectively be blocking the line. So unless you can reliably terminate a train in, I'd say, three minutes or less, you're going to cause big problems.

It would help if more freight could be sent via Andover and Romsey so as to reduce congestion on the mainline.

I assume you mean via Andover, Romsey and Eastleigh (because going via Redbridge requires a reversal). That is a needlessly long diversion that doesn't actually remove the train from the problematically congested part of the line, which is St Denys to Southampton Central. Also it removes the opportunity for electric freight.

A problem we have in this country is an obsession for direct trains everywhere. I would rather we have a system of lots of trains between hubs, with through services only for the biggest flows.

By that logic, the bigger flow is Brighton to Southampton, not Brighton to Winchester. So Southampton should get the through trains and Winchester have to change. Funnily enough, that's the system we seem to have ended up with :roll:

 

[swt_passenger]

Apparently SWT didnt realise how much ORCATS money they would loose pulling out of Brighton, It was apparently a shoot yourself in the foot decision.

It wasn't an SWT decision AFAICS. It was a DfT decision, as part of their franchise simplification process, this all seems perfectly clear from the various RUSs and franchise consultations published before it happened.

Removing the route from SWT probably has to be seen on the same basis as removing SWT services beyond Exeter St Davids, it freed up stock for use strengthening their core routes. Those single 450s and 158s DfT considered wasted on the coastway are now being used to make some 8 car services into a 12 car on the Portsmouth Direct, or a 6 into 10 from Salisbury...

I just don't see the point of tinkering with the now very well used service from Brighton to Southampton - has anyone actually used one of these from Southampton in the evening peak recently and seen the loadings?

 

[TheWalrus]

Actually I was told they wouldn't want to get rid of the FGW Brightons. However the unit could be used elsewhere if it was to go.

Apparently SWT didnt realise how much ORCATS money they would loose pulling out of Brighton, It was apparently a shoot yourself in the foot decision.I think FGW are unlikely to make the same mistake the evening service is generally fully reserved.
Southern have a franchise commitment to serve Southampton Airport by the way they just havent been able to get the paths.

If they run to Southampton Airport they may as well electrify to Romsey via Chandler's Ford and run it to Romsey, scrapping the Salisbury 6.

 

[NSEFAN]

As I've said, reversing in the Baltic siding is fine. The problem is having to terminate on the mainline. Terminating a train takes time, and as I've shown all that time the terminating train will effectively be blocking the line. So unless you can reliably terminate a train in, I'd say, three minutes or less, you're going to cause big problems.

We could learn from how LUL do it. They seem to terminate trains at various points quite efficiently, and promptly send stock into a reversing siding for the return working.

I assume you mean via Andover, Romsey and Eastleigh (because going via Redbridge requires a reversal). That is a needlessly long diversion that doesn't actually remove the train from the problematically congested part of the line, which is St Denys to Southampton Central. Also it removes the opportunity for electric freight.

For Freightliner services, can Maritime terminal not be accessed from the Redbridge direction? For Western Docks, could trains not reverse in the goods loop at Southampton? Obviously some freight is going to have to go to Eastleigh, but if some trains can be removed from the Winchester route then that helps.

It also seems short sighted to not electrify the route via Romsey for diversions. Are the electrification plans set in stone yet?

By that logic, the bigger flow is Brighton to Southampton, not Brighton to Winchester. So Southampton should get the through trains and Winchester have to change. Funnily enough, that's the system we seem to have ended up with :roll:

I agree that the trains should be going to Southampton and not Winchester. I was just pointing out the merit in moving some trains away to Winchester instead of Southampton, at least as a stop gap measure until the Fareham-Soton line is upgraded. This is of course assuming that such plans for an upgrade are in the pipeline; I have no idea if there are such proposals!

 

[Eagle]

We could learn from how LUL do it. They seem to terminate trains at various points quite efficiently, and promptly send stock into a reversing siding for the return working.

What works for a rapid transit service does not necessarily work for a regional train. There are procedures involved when terminating a train that are necessary on the national network that are not on LU.

 

[transmanche]

There are procedures involved when terminating a train that are necessary on the national network that are not on LU.

What are those additional procedures? And why are they necessary on NR (but not on LU)?

 

[DavyCrocket]

What are those additional procedures? And why are they necessary on NR (but not on LU)?

Other than emptying the toilets and filling up the water I can't think of any for Southern!

 

[paul1609]

It wasn't an SWT decision AFAICS. It was a DfT decision, as part of their franchise simplification process, this all seems perfectly clear from the various RUSs and franchise consultations published before it happened.

Removing the route from SWT probably has to be seen on the same basis as removing SWT services beyond Exeter St Davids, it freed up stock for use strengthening their core routes. Those single 450s and 158s DfT considered wasted on the coastway are now being used to make some 8 car services into a 12 car on the Portsmouth Direct, or a 6 into 10 from Salisbury...

I just don't see the point of tinkering with the now very well used service from Brighton to Southampton - has anyone actually used one of these from Southampton in the evening peak recently and seen the loadings?

i don't think thats right. I believe that SWT were invited to make a business case for retaining both the Brighton and beyond Exeter services outside of the core franchise.
Allegedly if SWT had got it right there was a good case for the Brighton to Reading service on the basis of the ORCAT distribution and GOVIA couldnt believe their luck.
I'd agree that the Brighton to Southampton service carries more passengers. The Brighton to Reading service was 170 with the occasional 159 right to the end.

 

[Class377/5]

What are those additional procedures? And why are they necessary on NR (but not on LU)?

Things like checking in toilets (even if locked) create additional time. The layout means it hard to miss someone from a quick look in where a mainline stock is harder to do. Also a lot of trains are longer than Tube trains so it takes longer. Trains like the Electrostar where you can have a couple means additional staff too as you need someone to look inside as well as be outside.

Just means additional time is taken.

 

[tbtc]

i don't think thats right. I believe that SWT were invited to make a business case for retaining both the Brighton and beyond Exeter services outside of the core franchise.
Allegedly if SWT had got it right there was a good case for the Brighton to Reading service on the basis of the ORCAT distribution and GOVIA couldnt believe their luck

This is one of the problems with ORCATS - there's more incentive to use a "spare" unit on a route through another TOC's territory (and get 5%/ 10%/ whatever of the share for a "foreign" flow) than there is to use the same unit to bolster capacity on your own core route.

e.g. FGW may be better to get a share of Southern's Brighton to Southampton flow, even if it means passengers in the Bristol area are forced to stand - as long as everyone crams on board there's no incentive for them to improve their own services (when they can use the same resources to piggyback onto someone else's revenue stream).

...but what's best for one TOC isn't what's best for the railway overall.