SWR being not very ‘south west’: your thoughts?

[miklcct]

Nope, I'm suggesting that operational practicalities are considered above map-tidying. If GWR took over Southampton-Portsmouth, which depot and trains would they use? Do SWR have a diesel depot with drivers capable of covering the North Downs Line?

My first thought was to incorporate Portsmouth - Southampton, and Romsey - Chandler's Ford - Southampton - Salisbury into the Portsmouth - Cardiff services, and increase the Bristol - Southampton section to 2 trains per hour giving mostly half-hourly service between Southampton and Bristol, which is spread evenly north of Salisbury.

South of Salisbury, one of these trains will call at intermediate stations until Southampton, with the other running non-stop (taking 29 minutes). At Southampton, one of these trains, being a 6-coach train, will split into a Portsmouth and a Romsey portion, while the other only runs to Portsmouth.

The local calls between Southampton and Fareham is then transferred to one of the 2 Southern trains.

The end result is to improve connectivity at minor stations by having them having direct services to Bristol.

Why is splitting up operations further better for the passenger?

I think that GWR is too big. It operates local services from Cornwall to the Thames Valley. GWR and EMR are probably the only true long distance intercity operators which also operates local and branch services around the country, unlike LNER, Avanti, CrossCountry, etc. However, EMR is not big enough to be split into separate companies, but GWR is clearly too big.

By splitting the company, each can specialise in provide the best service for the particular needs of the service group. My proposal is that, GWR only operates IET intercity services and the sleeper, Wessex Trains operating non-London local and regional services in Devon, Cornwall, Hampshire, Wiltshire, Dorset and Somerset, and Thames Trains operating the South East regional services including Paddington - Didcot Parkway, Thames branches, stoppers to Oxford, North Downs and Reading - Basingstoke, so that from Paddington, there will be 3 TOCs operating out of it, intercity by GWR, regional by Thames Trains, and local by Elizabeth line, like the current-day situation at Euston that Avanti operating intercity, LNR operating regional and London Overground operating local. The GWR intercity trains will drop the call at Slough with fast Slough services operated by Didcot - Paddington services which runs on the main line east of it.

 

[BayPaul]

Using geographic names make the name instantly recognisable no matter which company operates the franchise. Under the newest instructions TOCs are no longer allowed to have their brand names in their trading name, for example, First Great Western has become Great Western Railway, Arriva CrossCountry has become simply CrossCountry, etc.

As long as the words "South West" remain, it doesn't matter which company operates the franchise at all and passengers won't be confused like the past when Virgin Trains became Avanti West Coast. It would be confusing if one holding a "Virgin Trains Only" ticket when the company became Avanti West Coast, but not when South West Trains became South Western Railway.

Which would be great, except there is no consistency. As the OP said, SWR don't really go to the South West of England. Local services from Milton Keynes have gone from being Network South East to London Midland to London Northwestern, every possible compass point - similar situation with West Anglia destinations.

Meanwhile, from Hastings I need to catch a Southeastern train to head North west or a Southern train to head east. To go from Sheffield to Liverpool? East Midlands! Chester to Crewe? TfW obviously. And so many other examples. I'd guess a third of trains are operating on routes where their TOC names are actively confusing.

And then you get TOC specific fares. If you don't have knowledge of the railway system, it wouldn't be difficult to assume that a fare that is for London Northwestern only would be valid on any train between London and the North West...

 

[Dai Corner]

Railways have always had geographical names. The first steam operated public one was the Stockton and Darlington not the Pease and Stephenson.

The current confusion is partly due to franchises changing operators and the consequent need to come with a different name which is still geographically appropriate and hopefully has some positive associations with the railways in their heyday.

What non-geographical naming scheme would be an improvement?

 

[Neptune]

I’ve always thought that geographical names are the most sensible option rather than some of the awful corporate twaddle we’ve had over the years.

GNER was such a strong brand and arguably one of the most well known to those who remember the early days of privatisation well. Imagine if it had been known as ‘Sea Containers Railways’ after the owning group?

 

[Falcon1200]

You are arguing that the choice of TOC on a route should be decided if the route is diesel / electric, right? So because Portsmouth - Southampton is 3rd rail electrified it should stay with Southern / SWR, and North Downs is diesel-hauled so it should stay with GWR?!

Yes, because it makes absolute operational sense !

Using the same argument the Waterloo - Exeter, and Salisbury - Southampton service should be given to GWR as well to make SWR fully electrified!

No, because GWR do not operate into Waterloo.

GWR and EMR are probably the only true long distance intercity operators which also operates local and branch services around the country

Don't forget Scotrail !

 

[zwk500]

My first thought was to incorporate Portsmouth - Southampton, and Romsey - Chandler's Ford - Southampton - Salisbury into the Portsmouth - Cardiff services, and increase the Bristol - Southampton section to 2 trains per hour giving mostly half-hourly service between Southampton and Bristol, which is spread evenly north of Salisbury.

South of Salisbury, one of these trains will call at intermediate stations until Southampton, with the other running non-stop (taking 29 minutes). At Southampton, one of these trains, being a 6-coach train, will split into a Portsmouth and a Romsey portion, while the other only runs to Portsmouth.

The local calls between Southampton and Fareham is then transferred to one of the 2 Southern trains.

The end result is to improve connectivity at minor stations by having them having direct services to Bristol.

In order to do this you'll need a hell of a lot more units and drivers. You'll also need a lot more capacity at Southampton Central and probably Westbury as well.

I think that GWR is too big. It operates local services from Cornwall to the Thames Valley. GWR and EMR are probably the only true long distance intercity operators which also operates local and branch services around the country, unlike LNER, Avanti, CrossCountry, etc. However, EMR is not big enough to be split into separate companies, but GWR is clearly too big.

Conversely, having the branch lines sharing the overheads with the mainlines reduces costs. It also gives GWR incentive to market the branch lines. A further point specific to Devon & Cornwall is that these lines are heavily used by holidaymakers who have changed from intercity trains. Keeping one operator makes the experience smoother for them

By splitting the company, each can specialise in provide the best service for the particular needs of the service group. My proposal is that, GWR only operates IET intercity services and the sleeper, Wessex Trains operating non-London local and regional services in Devon, Cornwall, Hampshire, Wiltshire, Dorset and Somerset, and Thames Trains operating the South East regional services including Paddington - Didcot Parkway, Thames branches, stoppers to Oxford, North Downs and Reading - Basingstoke, so that from Paddington, there will be 3 TOCs operating out of it, intercity by GWR, regional by Thames Trains, and local by Elizabeth line, like the current-day situation at Euston that Avanti operating intercity, LNR operating regional and London Overground operating local. The GWR intercity trains will drop the call at Slough with fast Slough services operated by Didcot - Paddington services which runs on the main line east of it.

Hmm, given Thames Trains and Wessex Trains used to be separate TOCs, why will your proposal succeed when it failed the first time?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Which would be great, except there is no consistency. As the OP said, SWR don't really go to the South West of England. Local services from Milton Keynes have gone from being Network South East to London Midland to London Northwestern, every possible compass point - similar situation with West Anglia destinations.

Meanwhile, from Hastings I need to catch a Southeastern train to head North west or a Southern train to head east. To go from Sheffield to Liverpool? East Midlands! Chester to Crewe? TfW obviously. And so many other examples. I'd guess a third of trains are operating on routes where their TOC names are actively confusing.

And then you get TOC specific fares. If you don't have knowledge of the railway system, it wouldn't be difficult to assume that a fare that is for London Northwestern only would be valid on any train between London and the North West...

The lines out of Waterloo have had some sort of South Western reference for most of their history. They don't really serve the south west of England but most definitely do serve the south west of London, hence all the postcodes starting with SW.
To paraphrase Christopher Eccleston as The Doctor, "Everywhere has a North South West".

 

[miklcct]

Conversely, having the branch lines sharing the overheads with the mainlines reduces costs. It also gives GWR incentive to market the branch lines. A further point specific to Devon & Cornwall is that these lines are heavily used by holidaymakers who have changed from intercity trains. Keeping one operator makes the experience smoother for them

I would point out that dividing by sector reduces overhead cost, as each sector can share the same kind of the rolling stock appropriate to its operation. The recent trend is to split out local operations from various compass-point-based TOCs, for example, the local trains from Paddington, Euston and Liverpool Street have all been split out from its former geography-based TOCs. Now the lines from Euston and Liverpool Street share the same rolling stock with other local services around London.

 

[Basil Jet]

What do people think about
1) Third rail from Basingstoke to Salisbury
2) Long electric SWR services from Waterloo to Salisbury, and no more diesel into Waterloo
3) Short diesel GWR trains from Exeter, or maybe Barnstaple / Okehampton to Southampton via Salisbury and Southampton Airport?

 

[zwk500]

I would point out that dividing by sector reduces overhead cost, as each sector can share the same kind of the rolling stock appropriate to its operation. The recent trend is to split out local operations from various compass-point-based TOCs, for example, the local trains from Paddington, Euston and Liverpool Street have all been split out from its former geography-based TOCs. Now the lines from Euston and Liverpool Street share the same rolling stock with other local services around London.

London commuter railways on 4-track alignments are very different cases to country branch lines connecting into a longer-distance service.

What do people think about
1) Third rail from Basingstoke to Salisbury

Never going to happen. OLE has half a shout but is still extremely unlikely in the next 50 years.

2) Long electric SWR services from Waterloo to Salisbury, and no more diesel into Waterloo

No diesel should happen anyway, with Bi-Modes if needed.

3) Short diesel GWR trains from Exeter, or maybe Barnstaple / Okehampton to Southampton via Salisbury and Southampton Airport?

Okehampton to Southampton via Chandler's ford is lunacy. It's too much single line with too many other things to fit around at Exeter, WoE Line, Salisbury, Eastleigh, Southampton. Also by all accounts the services are well-loaded west of Salisbury, and with Long-Distance traffic as well.

 

[WizCastro197]

But I am confused as too why the OP was led to believe the 'Main Corridor they use' is the Portsmouth Direct Line? They do utilise Portsmouth Extensively I can understand, Mais I have always thought that Waterloo-Weymouth via Southampton Bournemouth and Poole was the flagship and therefore'Main Corridor they use'?

My first thought was to incorporate Portsmouth - Southampton, and Romsey - Chandler's Ford - Southampton - Salisbury into the Portsmouth - Cardiff services, and increase the Bristol - Southampton section to 2 trains per hour giving mostly half-hourly service between Southampton and Bristol, which is spread evenly north of Salisbury.

South of Salisbury, one of these trains will call at intermediate stations until Southampton, with the other running non-stop (taking 29 minutes). At Southampton, one of these trains, being a 6-coach train, will split into a Portsmouth and a Romsey portion, while the other only runs to Portsmouth.

The local calls between Southampton and Fareham is then transferred to one of the 2 Southern trains.

The end result is to improve connectivity at minor stations by having them having direct services to Bristol.


I think that GWR is too big. It operates local services from Cornwall to the Thames Valley. GWR and EMR are probably the only true long distance intercity operators which also operates local and branch services around the country, unlike LNER, Avanti, CrossCountry, etc. However, EMR is not big enough to be split into separate companies, but GWR is clearly too big.

By splitting the company, each can specialise in provide the best service for the particular needs of the service group. My proposal is that, GWR only operates IET intercity services and the sleeper, Wessex Trains operating non-London local and regional services in Devon, Cornwall, Hampshire, Wiltshire, Dorset and Somerset, and Thames Trains operating the South East regional services including Paddington - Didcot Parkway, Thames branches, stoppers to Oxford, North Downs and Reading - Basingstoke, so that from Paddington, there will be 3 TOCs operating out of it, intercity by GWR, regional by Thames Trains, and local by Elizabeth line, like the current-day situation at Euston that Avanti operating intercity, LNR operating regional and London Overground operating local. The GWR intercity trains will drop the call at Slough with fast Slough services operated by Didcot - Paddington services which runs on the main line east of it.

This part slightly intrigued me, wasn't MidlandMainline (TOC) only Intercity and Central/Centro trains in charge of regional based activity? Then Central Trains was split between XC and EMT? EMR have currently sub-split themselves into separate companies eg. Intercity; Regional; Connect?
But I agree GWR is large and should be split up into regional companies eg. my cheesy idea Cornwall Connect. And GWR retains all InterCity based services even those to Portsmouth. But Gatwick Airport-Reading via Redhill is a hard one.. Southern or GWR?

 

[Dai Corner]

And GWR retains all InterCity based services even those to Portsmouth.

Cardiff-Portsmouth does connect seven cities (Cardiff, Newport, Bristol, Bath, Salisbury, Southampton and Portsmouth) but it's never been an InterCity service.

 

[WizCastro197]

Cardiff-Portsmouth does connect seven cities (Cardiff, Newport, Bristol, Bath, Salisbury, Southampton and Portsmouth) but it's never been an InterCity service.

Yes after I had posted I realised my post was flawed slightly I was going to post services with long durations or something else. To try and prevent total flaws, I tried to Include the GTW to Reading service.

 

[43096]

This part slightly intrigued me, wasn't MidlandMainline (TOC) only Intercity and Central/Centro trains in charge of regional based activity? Then Central Trains was split between XC and EMT?

Central was split into three: parts going to EMT, XC and London Midland.

EMR have currently sub-split themselves into separate companies eg. Intercity; Regional; Connect?

No, it’s one company, just with separate route brands.

But Gatwick Airport-Reading via Redhill is a hard one.. Southern or GWR?

Or SWR.

 

[Irascible]

What is this fetish with splitting GWR up - if it has internal divisions already then what's the difference between them being part of GWR or having their own name? pointless extra beaurocracy, you *want* to be funding more management?. GWR "Intercity" services in Cornwall are part of the local services anyway, fully integrating them is just sense. Post-privatisation a lot *were* split off into Wessex/W&W/Thames and then folded in again, so there was obviously a reason. I am somewhat annoyed that Devon has to rely on XC ( and in places SWR although that's changing ) so much though.

 

[Dai Corner]

What is this fetish with splitting GWR up - if it has internal divisions already then what's the difference between them being part of GWR or having their own name? pointless extra beaurocracy, you *want* to be funding more management?. GWR "Intercity" services in Cornwall are part of the local services anyway, fully integrating them is just sense. Post-privatisation a lot *were* split off into Wessex/W&W/Thames and then folded in again, so there was obviously a reason. I am somewhat annoyed that Devon has to rely on XC ( and in places SWR although that's changing ) so much though.

Do you think it would better if XC only went as far as Bristol or Taunton and SWR only to Salisbury, or even Basingstoke where the third rail ends?

 

[43096]

Post-privatisation a lot *were* split off into Wessex/W&W/Thames and then folded in again, so there was obviously a reason.

It was pre-privatisation (at sectorisation, basically) that services were split from the previous Western Region.

 

[Irascible]

Do you think it would better if XC only went as far as Bristol or Taunton and SWR only to Salisbury, or even Basingstoke where the third rail ends?

SWT Exeter-London is a service to keep, people do use it all the way, it'd be nice to have a couple more locals on the west end of that route though. XC on the other hand, I've mused at the idea of GWR running to Birmingham & the NE-SW route getting truncated there, I'd like to see how many actual through journeys there are these days rather than people changing at B'ham for Manchester/West Coast ( altough... maybe not right now, haha ). Not sure where GWR would get the stock though. And, honestly, if XC sorted themselves out it'd not be a problem other than the inevitable delays a route that long is going to have no matter who runs it.

 

[tbtc]

Gatwick Airport-Reading via Redhill is a hard one.. Southern or GWR?

In theory it could be GWR (as now)/ SWR (who run parallel/ connecting services on the majority of the route) /Southern (run on the BML end of the service, have a DMU fleet i guess they could integrate with the units required for the Reading service)

But, as things stand, the most important factor is that GWR have a DMU fleet at Reading for the various Thames Valley branches (Inc Greenford), the Basingstoke service etc, so operationally you’ve got a decent sized fleet/ trained staff based in Reading to be shared between lots of diagrams

Were that to change in the future (e.g. electrification to Basingstoke, some form of Light Rail or non- standard bespoke units better suited to the short Thames Valley branches) then the benefits of basing the Redhill services there may be less significant and therefore if there are no cost efficiencies of sharing the Redhill units/staff as part of a bigger pool then there’s no huge reason why it needs to be run from Reading

That said, we enthusiasts are contrary creatures, and if these services were operated from a Southern depot, we’d be asking why there was so much dead running all the way to/from Reading instead!

What is this fetish with splitting GWR up - if it has internal divisions already then what's the difference between them being part of GWR or having their own name? pointless extra beaurocracy, you *want* to be funding more management?

GWR should stay as it is, it’sa great example of the benefits of integration

What frustrates me is that often the people arguing that GWR is too big and ought to be split up are the ones demanding that we go back to British Rail. Because it’s feasible to have ALL trains under one organisation but there GWML is too big! Weird logic

Any TOC over a certain size will have some form of regional divisions anyway, I’m sure GWR don’t expect one “Fat Controller” to micro manage everything all at once, what matters is that there are teams responsible for each area and that they focus on working together where needed

I am somewhat annoyed that Devon has to rely on XC ( and in places SWR although that's changing ) so much though.

Yeah, a lot of the time XC’s problems come from “local” TOCs not picking up the slack, and therefore shorter distance passengers crowding onto Voyagers

If “local” TOCs represented their regions better then people wouldn’t need to go a couple of stops on XC

 

[JohnRegular]

There are an awful lot of solutions looking for problems in this thread!

 

[philthetube]

You could say the same about a lot of TOCs. Does Avanti West Coast go anywhere near the West Coast?
Does Great Northern go anywhere near the North (yes, I know that's not a TOC)

Great Northern Is just the company accepting that life is much better up here in the North.