Southern services to Winchester?

[SussexSpotter]

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 have said this before but I consider the removal of the SWT Brighton services to be nothing but short-sightedness by the Dft. I don't think they took future OHLE of Basingstoke-Reading into account. In summary I think the case of removing the Brighton - Reading service was flawed and not properly thought out by the Dft!! It should have been more thoroughly investigated before making such a harsh decision to chop a useful service.

 

[swt_passenger]

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.

The franchise documentation I have kept suggests that initially the only extension that ever came down to a 'business case' (ie a priced option) was the Waterloo - Salisbury - Bristol portion working. The following is from the stakeholder briefing, unfortunately I haven't found a link to an online version.

...withdrawal of SWT services west of Exeter – 2 trains per day to/from each of Paignton and Plymouth; appropriate provision will be made to serve stations currently served by SWT west of Exeter by trains from the Greater Western or CrossCountry franchises; and,

...withdrawal of the Reading-Brighton service but this would be offset with a new service structure operating on the Brighton-Southampton corridor and additional calls in the Waterloo-Poole services.

The base case specification will exclude the SWT services between Bristol and Salisbury, including the 2 direct trains per day between Bristol and Waterloo via Salisbury. This has met with significant local opposition. The current services represent poor value for money to the taxpayer with low passenger use and costs of operation significantly in excess of revenue. There are other regular services for stations between Bristol and Salisbury where passengers may interchange for onward travel towards London. The DfT has reviewed the comments received, and in the light of the material presented and the stakeholder support for the service, has decided to include the Bristol-Waterloo service as a priced option.

The latter service ended up in the SLC1.

The franchise agreement as at the start of franchise in 2007 then included a 'West of England' priced option for SLC2, but it was specifically for the hourly Exeter service from Dec 2009 to take place AFTER the withdrawal of the services beyond Exeter.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In summary I think the case of removing the Brighton - Reading service was flawed and not properly thought out by the Dft!! It should have been more thoroughly investigated before making such a harsh decision to chop a useful service.

What's your hard evidence that it wasn't thoroughly investigated? If you feel so strongly why not do an FOI request?

I don't understand why you and other posters need to repeat this proposal to revert to a previous service pattern every few weeks to be honest.

 

[ushawk]

Brighton - Winchester operated by Southern ? No, connections are fine at Fratton/Fareham or even at Clapham.

Brighton - Reading may return one day, although probably not until the West Coastway line is upgraded.

I do like the unrelated idea of extending the Waterloo - Haslemere terminators to Southampton, as then it creates through journeys from the Pompey Direct line and Guildford to Southampton. But is there enough extra stock to run it ?

 

[SussexSpotter]

What's your hard evidence that it wasn't thoroughly investigated? If you feel so strongly why not do an FOI request?

I don't understand why you and other posters need to repeat this proposal to revert to a previous service pattern every few weeks to be honest.

Because I am pretty sure the Dft didn't look at the full picture. Two Reading links via two routes gone!....Dft couldn't care less what those passengers would do. There was some demand for those services between Brighton and Reading which cannot be denied. Also as I pointed out, future OHLE of Basingstoke-Reading I do not believe was taken into account when determining whether or not the service should be withdrawn.....this is something new and hasn't been mentioned before.

Me and other posters are only repeating the proposal because we have discussed it recently and new points keep being made...

 

[Eagle]

What's your hard evidence...

Because I am pretty sure...

That's not hard evidence. Could you actually provide some facts, rather than long posts about what you reckon might have happened.

 

[tbtc]

Two Reading links via two routes gone!....Dft couldn't care less what those passengers would do. There was some demand for those services between Brighton and Reading which cannot be denied

Nobody is denying that there is *some* demand, but how much? There's theoretical demand between almost any two stations you could name, but that doesn't mean it justifies any direct service.

On the railways it usually comes down to opportunity cost. Running from Brighton to Reading requires a train and a path out of Brighton - is it better to use that resource on a Reading service than on a Southampton service?

Also as I pointed out, future OHLE of Basingstoke/Reading I do not believe was taken into account when determining whether or not the service should be withdrawn.....this is something new and hasn't been mentioned before

The Reading - Brighton links were withdrawn, what... five years ago? Electrification to Basingstoke was only announced last year (and won't be with us for a few years yet).

In hindsight, maybe if people had expected the Basingstoke line to be electrified then things may have been different, but I don't recall any cast iron certainty that the line was going to be electrified this time last year - I think you're clutching at straws here.

 

[Mr Spock]

We are constantly getting threads from people that want an improvement to trains in their area. Perhaps there should be a new section called Fantasy Island where they can plan all the services they want with stock sourced from who knows where.

 

[Morgsie]

I am not sure about Southern going ton Winchester.

I do have an idea regarding a Brighton-Reading which has not been mentioned yet: build a chord from the North Downs line to the BML southbound and extend the services that terminate at the Airport to Brighton.

 

[SussexSpotter]

Deleted

 

[MotorcycleAlan]

As one who uses Swanwick regularly the odd "gap" in the timetable for Brighton trains which have gone via Eastleigh can be a pain, as it destroys the regular clock face pattern we are used to for all other services. What might be more useful and practical would be a return to the old connex route which continued to Bournemouth using the bay platform there. Or even extending to Poole making a longer south coast route. Are there not enough pathways through the New Forest now? This would also give SWT some competition on prices as Southern always seem cheaper and would be great for daysave ticket users

 

[SussexSpotter]

Deleted

 

[David Goddard]

Should be a path somewhere. The xx39 Waterloo - Poole spends a total of 43 minutes being looped (18 at Southampton and 25 at Brockenhurst), so a bit of re-jigging with this could create a second path for an extended Southern service. I did have a mock up timetable along these lines somewhere. If I find it will share.

 

[TheWalrus]

Should be a path somewhere. The xx39 Waterloo - Poole spends a total of 43 minutes being looped (18 at Southampton and 25 at Brockenhurst), so a bit of re-jigging with this could create a second path for an extended Southern service. I did have a mock up timetable along these lines somewhere. If I find it will share.

I don't really see the point in the Waterloo-Poole. Unless it makes more sense than running three individual services. I'd probably have Waterloo-Southampton stopper and then a Bournemouth/Brockenhurst-Southampton/Romsey/Brighton/Portsmouth or something along those lines! Need to look into it a bit more.

 

[cle]

I don't really see the point in the Waterloo-Poole. Unless it makes more sense than running three individual services. I'd probably have Waterloo-Southampton stopper and then a Bournemouth/Brockenhurst-Southampton/Romsey/Brighton/Portsmouth or something along those lines! Need to look into it a bit more.

It is quite a ludicrous service.

They should revert to having faster services - and then the local stations served by a more metro/Coastway style of pattern, with connections at Brockenhurst and Southampton for XC/London trains.

These could run down to Portsmouth to terminate maybe as Southampton isn't ideal. 3tph all stations from Portsmouth to Bournemouth/Poole?

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't really see the point in the Waterloo-Poole. Unless it makes more sense than running three individual services.

It's the latter really. Prior to the last changes, it was a Waterloo to Southampton service, which spent about 45 mins in one of the goods loops at Southampton between down and up services. Lets call that service 1?

There was also a Brockenhurst to Wareham shuttle service that acted as the hourly stopper for that part of the route. Service 2?

The then Waterloo to Poole semi-fast service picked up the calls between Southampton and Brockenhurst, and the Waterloo - Weymouth was basically the hourly fast train covering the whole route.

In the revised (current) timetable, the existing Waterloo to Poole became the second Waterloo to Weymouth, and to speed it up they wanted it to run fast to Brockenhurst, so to pick up calls at Totton onwards they simply extended the Southampton terminator to Brockenhurst. Service 3? Effectively it turns into the next 'Wareham service' (now curtailed to Poole) on departure from Brockenhurst. I think west of Brockenhurst the three SWT trains run in roughly the same timings as previously.

However if SWT had decided to announce it from Waterloo and Southampton as just a Brockenhurst service we probably wouldn't be having this discussion...

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They should revert to having faster services - and then the local stations served by a more metro/Coastway style of pattern, with connections at Brockenhurst and Southampton for XC/London trains...

They only introduced it in the first place to add an extra faster service to Weymouth. It already does act as the local stopper for stations either side of Brockenhurst in the down direction, with connections into or out of faster services at both Southampton and Brockenhurst, exactly as you are suggesting. Did you check the timetable before posting your suggestion?

There is no capacity on the Netley line for a second stopping service between (Portsmouth) Fareham and Southampton, that is why the two SN and the FGW services are flighted ahead of the stopper in the same part of the hour.

 

[The Ham]

If the line were to be reopened to Ringwood it was suggested in the ATOC report that a Southern Service could be extended rather than using a SWT (London) service.

This could mean that SWT's could reduce the number of London services at some of the more minor stations (i.e. Beaulieu Road)

 

[Morgsie]

The SWML services are confusing because some services call at some stations and others don't.

There are 3 sections where this happens: Southampton to Brockenhurst, Brockenhurst to Bournemouth and Bournemouth to Poole

 

[swt_passenger]

Huh?

Some trains have different calling patterns to others on the same route. Hardly unique to that line is it?

 

[Muzer]

The SWML services are confusing because some services call at some stations and others don't.

There are 3 sections where this happens: Southampton to Brockenhurst, Brockenhurst to Bournemouth and Bournemouth to Poole

I would say this happens on the vast majority of railway lines... where have you been living?

 

[Eagle]

However if SWT had decided to announce it from Waterloo and Southampton as just a Brockenhurst service we probably wouldn't be having this discussion...

In the other direction it's announced as a Farnborough service (west of Southampton, anyway).

Am I right in recalling that in the distant past the Brockenhurst to Wareham stopper used to be connected to the Southampton to Portsmouth stopper instead?

 

[swt_passenger]

In the other direction it's announced as a Farnborough service (west of Southampton, anyway).

Am I right in recalling that in the distant past the Brockenhurst to Wareham stopper used to be connected to the Southampton to Portsmouth stopper instead?

Before my time, certainly can't recall it ever happening since the early 90s...

 

[paul1609]

The Brockenhurst to Wareham stopper used to continue to Eastleigh after it was overtaken at Southampton Central.
Other than a few summer weekend services and the Connex Vic-Bournemouth service I dont think there has ever been a proper South Coast service, shame really as there is defiantly a demand.

 

[cle]

It's the latter really. Prior to the last changes, it was a Waterloo to Southampton service, which spent about 45 mins in one of the goods loops at Southampton between down and up services. Lets call that service 1?

There was also a Brockenhurst to Wareham shuttle service that acted as the hourly stopper for that part of the route. Service 2?

The then Waterloo to Poole semi-fast service picked up the calls between Southampton and Brockenhurst, and the Waterloo - Weymouth was basically the hourly fast train covering the whole route.

In the revised (current) timetable, the existing Waterloo to Poole became the second Waterloo to Weymouth, and to speed it up they wanted it to run fast to Brockenhurst, so to pick up calls at Totton onwards they simply extended the Southampton terminator to Brockenhurst. Service 3? Effectively it turns into the next 'Wareham service' (now curtailed to Poole) on departure from Brockenhurst. I think west of Brockenhurst the three SWT trains run in roughly the same timings as previously.

However if SWT had decided to announce it from Waterloo and Southampton as just a Brockenhurst service we probably wouldn't be having this discussion...

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



They only introduced it in the first place to add an extra faster service to Weymouth. It already does act as the local stopper for stations either side of Brockenhurst in the down direction, with connections into or out of faster services at both Southampton and Brockenhurst, exactly as you are suggesting. Did you check the timetable before posting your suggestion?

There is no capacity on the Netley line for a second stopping service between (Portsmouth) Fareham and Southampton, that is why the two SN and the FGW services are flighted ahead of the stopper in the same part of the hour.

I didn't say connections don't exist today - I just meant to maintain them on the new coastway locals.

Can the Netley route really be at capacity - it's only 3tph each way through Fareham off peak for example, not including the Eastleigh/Waterloo.

In some cases there is a lot of space between them - but adding a call or two to faster services might help pathing.

Any suggestions of your own?

 

[Eagle]

Can the Netley route really be at capacity - it's only 3tph each way through Fareham off peak for example, not including the Eastleigh/Waterloo.

Actually it's more than that because there are quite a few freight and ECS paths via Netley throughout the day—check it out.

 

[swt_passenger]

No suggestions really. Swanwick is one of my regular stations, but I don't see any issues with changing at Southampton. Like the suggestion to run to Winchester, I just don't see what problem people are trying to solve, given finite amounts of stock in all TOCs, and finite paths.

There's 4 tph up the Netley line though (plus some ECS), so are you possibly forgetting the FGW fast service?

The revised South Hants RUS (part of the London and SE RUS from 2011) goes into some detail about Netley line capacity, and how to provide more calls at intermediate stations, but explains that you'd have to speed up the SWT stopper and transfer calls into the other (SN) services. There's a table showing a 3 tph service giving three different skip stop pattern at intermediate stations, with any particular journey pair being possible a couple of times an hour, but not every train and not clock face...