• 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!

SWT 159 on the Salisbury - Romsey services.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
9 Apr 2016
Messages
1,909
I just thought that i would mention that 159 021 is currently spending the day on the Salisbury - Romsey - Southampton Central - Eastleigh - Romsey / Romsey - Eastleigh - Southampton Central - Romsey - Salisbury services today. At the moment (20:58 on 1/7/2016) it is currently between Mottisfont & Dunbridge and Dean heading towards Salisbury. Does anyone know why a 159 is being used? Has a 159 ever been used on these services before or could this be the first time? I have only ever seen 158s (and previously 170s) on this service before.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,658
Not unusual to be honest. Has happened a few times that I can remember, t's just the normal response to a 158 being unavailable.
 

NSE

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2010
Messages
1,728
One of the two times I used it it was a 159. Just wondering, would SWT use it on these runs if they had one fresh out of heavy maintenance? You know, keep it on a localised route, so if it would fail again, its not sitting on the main throat of Waterloo or Clapham Junction?
 
Joined
9 Apr 2016
Messages
1,909
Thanks for the info. I didnt realise that it happened that often. I have used this service many times but never seen a 159 on it before. So am i correct in thinking that the 159s are fitted with SDO as i believe that the platforms at Mottisfont & Dunbridge can only hold two coaches?

Yes that would make sense that they are used on this line after maintainance. I suppose it is much closer to Salisbury depot if the unit was to break down.
 
Last edited:

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,491
One of the two times I used it it was a 159. Just wondering, would SWT use it on these runs if they had one fresh out of heavy maintenance? You know, keep it on a localised route, so if it would fail again, its not sitting on the main throat of Waterloo or Clapham Junction?

The Lymington branch would be a more milky candidate, if the unit failed it wouldn't hold up anything else
 

MCR247

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2008
Messages
9,677
It's also not particularly close to Salisbury
 
Joined
9 Apr 2016
Messages
1,909
Yes the Salisbury to Romsey services are definitely much closer to Salisbury depot if the unit was to break down. Without going off topic too much i must say it does seem rediculous that a 158 or 159 is used on the Lymington line on Mondays to Fridays which is fully electrified. Surely they could find at least one spare 450 to use.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,658
...Without going off topic too much i must say it does seem rediculous that a 158 or 159 is used on the Lymington line on Mondays to Fridays which is fully electrified. Surely they could find at least one spare 450 to use.

As discussed in numerous previous threads, they really don't have enough 450s during the week without shortening a mainline service, which is exactly why they changed from 450 to 158 in the first place.

It should have changed back to a 450 on weekdays last December, (realtimetrains showed the changes to ECS moves for a few weeks about October time) but apparently they cancelled the plan because the 458/5 programme ran far too late.
 
Joined
9 Apr 2016
Messages
1,909
As discussed in numerous previous threads, they really don't have enough 450s during the week without shortening a mainline service, which is exactly why they changed from 450 to 158 in the first place.

It should have changed back to a 450 on weekdays last December, (realtimetrains showed the changes to ECS moves for a few weeks about October time) but apparently they cancelled the plan because the 458/5 programme ran far too late.

Ok. Thanks for the info. I suppose that hopefully once all the 707s are in service then i presume that a 450 should definitely then be available to use on the Lymington line on Mondays to Fridays.
 

mugam4

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2016
Messages
135
I've seen 159+158 and 2x159 running around the Romsey-Salisbury all day Sunday a couple of times.
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
As discussed in numerous previous threads, they really don't have enough 450s during the week without shortening a mainline service, which is exactly why they changed from 450 to 158 in the first place.

It should have changed back to a 450 on weekdays last December, (realtimetrains showed the changes to ECS moves for a few weeks about October time) but apparently they cancelled the plan because the 458/5 programme ran far too late.

The 458/5 programme was late, 8501 then took an age to get back, and when it returned, a nationwide wheel-set shortage kept it out, providing spares for other units.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,658
I've seen 159+158 and 2x159 running around the Romsey-Salisbury all day Sunday a couple of times.

Do you mean 2 trains paired up in the above post?

Or are you describing the two separate units you saw - because the service actually has three units in use as it is a 3 hour cycle, including the standing time at the ends of the route.
 
Joined
9 Apr 2016
Messages
1,909
So is the Salisbury to Romsey service definitely just the same 3 units on this route all day or do the units interwork with the London Waterloo to Salisbury service? Im just wondering because the Salisbury to Romsey services seem to have a 41 minute break ever hour while the London Waterloo to Salisbury services seem to have a 27 minute break every hour?

If it is the same 3 units all day then surely it would make more sense for SWT to run the service as a Salisbury to Salisbury service (both Clockwise and Anticlockwise) rather then terminating them at Romsey. This would then provide the Romsey to Salisbury section with 2 trains an hour in each direction (or 3 trains an hour in each direction including First Great Western) which would be useful. It could also provide Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge with a more frequent service (although to be honest that is probably not needed as they are very quiet stations).

Personally i have never seen or heard of any 2x158s or 2x159s or 1x158+1x159 formations on the Salisbury to Romsey services but you never know it definitely could have possibly happened before.
 

embers25

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2009
Messages
1,835
Do you mean 2 trains paired up in the above post?

Or are you describing the two separate units you saw - because the service actually has three units in use as it is a 3 hour cycle, including the standing time at the ends of the route.

I've seen it a 159 when the Exeter service was a 158 on it's own for the morning college run! I've also had 2x158 on the Salisbury 6 which was very spacious!
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,658
... surely it would make more sense for SWT to run the service as a Salisbury to Salisbury service (both Clockwise and Anticlockwise) rather then terminating them at Romsey. This would then provide the Romsey to Salisbury section with 2 trains an hour in each direction (or 3 trains an hour in each direction including First Great Western) which would be useful. It could also provide Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge with a more frequent service (although to be honest that is probably not needed as they are very quiet stations).

That's definitely been looked at before in an RUS, (London and SE RUS 2011 option S1.7) but would presumably require four units, and NR believe the whole service would have to be retimed, as it would have to be balanced around the hour with the GWR service and other SWT services in the Southampton area.

At the time they said there wasn't enough passenger demand. It isn't that long ago that Dean and Mottisfont's normal service was only two hourly.
 
Joined
9 Apr 2016
Messages
1,909
I've seen it a 159 when the Exeter service was a 158 on it's own for the morning college run! I've also had 2x158 on the Salisbury 6 which was very spacious!

Four coaches must have indeed been very spacious on this line. Its certainly not a very busy route. The Southampton Central to Eastleigh section can get busy (in both directions) during peak hours but the rest of the route (especially Salisbury to Romsey (in both directions)) is usually quiet. Its usually easy to get a seat on these trains.

That's definitely been looked at before in an RUS, (London and SE RUS 2011 option S1.7) but would presumably require four units, and NR believe the whole service would have to be retimed, as it would have to be balanced around the hour with the GWR service and other SWT services in the Southampton area.

At the time they said there wasn't enough passenger demand. It isn't that long ago that Dean and Mottisfont's normal service was only two hourly.

Im sure that SWT could definitely run a Salisbury to Salisbury service (hourly both Clockwise and Anticlockwise) still using just 3 units. Ive just done a bit of working out and looking at the timetables and it would definitely be possible with just 3 units. It would however only give just a few minutes (around 5 or 6 minutes) break at Salisbury on each service so it could possibly be more reliable to use 4 units.

Who knows if it will actually ever happen but it would certainly be useful. Especially for passengers making journeys such as Chandlers Ford to Salisbury for example.

Also without going off topic too much personally i think it would be a good idea for SWT to take over the management of Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge and Romsey considering that no FGW trains stop at Dean or Mottisfont & Dunbridge any more and the majority of trains that stop at Romsey are operated by SWT.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,658
Im sure that SWT could definitely run a Salisbury to Salisbury service (hourly both Clockwise and Anticlockwise) still using just 3 units. Ive just done a bit of working out and looking at the timetables and it would definitely be possible with just 3 units. It would however only give just a few minutes (around 5 or 6 minutes) break at Salisbury on each service so it could possibly be more reliable to use 4 units.

The problem here is you'd have to put the service on the graph first and then path eveything else round it. As they won't alter the mainline times the conflicting moves at Eastleigh and Redbridge junctions become the governing factors, as does platforming at Southampton. There are also services over the course of the day that are flexed slightly to allow for the random extra GW services that run between their hourly Cardiff - Portsmouth services, and there must be a number of freight paths through Chandlers Ford that govern times on the single track section.

Also without going off topic too much personally i think it would be a good idea for SWT to take over the management of Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge and Romsey considering that no FGW trains stop at Dean or Mottisfont & Dunbridge any more and the majority of trains that stop at Romsey are operated by SWT.
That was planned in the 2012 GW franchise ITT, but seems to have fallen through the floorboards since. I actually reminded DfT about this in my response to the SWT consultation, although you don't find it in the report... :D
 
Last edited:
Joined
9 Apr 2016
Messages
1,909
The problem here is you'd have to put the service on the graph first and then path eveything else round it. As they won't alter the mainline times the conflicting moves at Eastleigh and Redbridge junctions become the governing factors, as does platforming at Southampton. There are also services over the course of the day that are flexed slightly to allow for the random extra GW services that run between their hourly Cardiff - Portsmouth services, and there must be a number of freight paths through Chandlers Ford that govern times on the single track section.


That was planned in the 2012 GW franchise ITT, but seems to have fallen through the floorboards since. I actually reminded DfT about this in my response to the SWT consultation, although you don't find it in the report... :D

Yes that is a good point. But surely it would be possible to just keep the same exact timings as at the moment and just extend the journeys that terminate at Romsey to Salisbury.

The timetable at the moment is.

SAL xx:56
DEN xx:08
DBG xx:14
ROM xx:20
RDB xx:27
MBK xx:31
SOU xx:35
SDN xx:40
SWG xx:43
SOA xx:46
ESL xx:50
CFR xx:55
ROM xx:03
DBG - - - -
DEN - - - -
SAL - - - -

SAL - - - -
DEN - - - -
DBG - - - -
ROM xx:07
CFR xx:14
ESL xx:21
SOA xx:25
SWG xx:27
SDN xx:30
SOU xx:37
MBK xx:40
RDB xx:43
ROM xx:51
DBG xx:56
DEN xx:02
SAL xx:15

So if you kept this same exact timetable and just extended the journeys that terminated at Romsey to Salisbury then this would be the timetable.

SAL xx:56
DEN xx:08
DBG xx:14
ROM xx:20
RDB xx:27
MBK xx:31
SOU xx:35
SDN xx:40
SWG xx:43
SOA xx:46
ESL xx:50
CFR xx:55
ROM xx:03
DBG xx:08
DEN xx:14
SAL xx:27

SAL xx:43
DEN xx:55
DBG xx:01
ROM xx:07
CFR xx:14
ESL xx:21
SOA xx:25
SWG xx:27
SDN xx:30
SOU xx:37
MBK xx:40
RDB xx:43
ROM xx:51
DBG xx:56
DEN xx:02
SAL xx:15

This would require 4 units instead of 3 units though. It would also mean that the Salisbury - Dean - Mottisfont & Dunbridge - Romsey section (in both directions) would not be very evenly spaced.

However if this was done then at least it would make it much more simple and there would be no need to revise any of the times of any of the other services on the main line between Redbridge - Millbrook - Southampton Central - St Denys - Swaythling - Southampton Airport Parkway - Eastleigh (in both directions). So at least the services on the main line would not be an issue.

Yes ive just had a look at this -

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...hment_data/file/3596/invitation-to-tender.pdf

- Great Western Franchise ITT document.

4.8.2. Stations – Background Information
The new Franchisee is expected to be the Station Facility Owner (“SFO”) for 208 stations (before taking into account any future changes as described below) and trains may call at approximately a further 62, which are managed by a mix of TOCs and Network Rail. More information can be found in the data site. These stations vary widely in their size, facilities and patronage and therefore the approaches to stations may vary accordingly. It has now been formally agreed between the Department for Transport and Network Rail that Bristol Temple Meads and Reading station will become Network Rail managed stations. The Franchisee will be required to facilitate this change from 1 April 2014, and Bidders should set out their plans for so doing. Bidders should be aware that the Franchisee is currently in discussions with Stagecoach South West Trains regarding the potential transfer of Station Facility Ownership of Dean, Mottisfont & Dunbridge and Romsey stations to Stagecoach South Western Trains Limited. No Great Western franchise trains currently call at Dean or Mottisfont & Dunbridge stations. This change should be assumed to have taken place before fr anchise commencement. Bidders should also note the requirement to transfer stations to CTOC in 2017 as part of the Crossrail Project (see Section 4.4.10.7).

As you say it does indeed state about transferring Dean / Mottisfont & Dunbridge / Romsey to SWT. So im not sure why it hasnt happened yet. It does seem a bit ridiculous that a company is managing stations that their trains dont even stop at. Surely it really cant be that hard to just transfer the stations from FGW to SWT.

Im trying to think what improvements would happen if SWT took over these stations. Personally im thinking SWT would probably add a second TVM at Romsey and one PERTIS (Metric Aura) each at Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge (or maybe they would get one TVM each if they are lucky). They would probably then include all three of these stations in the Penalty Fare scheme. I cant think of what else they would do other than rebranding the stations.
 

pompeyfan

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2012
Messages
4,220
Am I correct in thinking there used to be a Solent local with a 159 that would bolt onto a 158 at SOU and then do the Redbridge leg of a '6' to get the unit back to Salisbury?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,658
Am I correct in thinking there used to be a Solent local with a 159 that would bolt onto a 158 at SOU and then do the Redbridge leg of a '6' to get the unit back to Salisbury?

Yes, up until Dec 2014 a 159 did something like 0750 Southampton to Portsmouth Harbour, and arrived back at Southampton at around 1035, then joined with that hour's ex Romsey for the run up to Salisbury in the normal timings.

But from the Dec 14 timetable that 159 ran back to Salisbury as a separate ECS following about 10 mins behind the 158; and then by the end of 2015 the return working to Portsmouth became a 450.
 
Joined
9 Apr 2016
Messages
1,909
Also can i ask isnt the current Salisbury to Romsey service fairly new? I remember maybe around five to ten years ago it used to be a Totton - Redbridge - Millbrook - Southampton Central - St Denys - Swaythling - Southampton Airport Parkway - Eastleigh - Chandlers Ford - Romsey service (run by 170s) with the Romsey - Mottisfont & Dunbridge - Dean - Salisbury section served mainly by FGW instead of SWT. Does anyone know exactly when this changed?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,658
Also can i ask isnt the current Salisbury to Romsey service fairly new? I remember maybe around five to ten years ago it used to be a Totton - Redbridge - Millbrook - Southampton Central - St Denys - Swaythling - Southampton Airport Parkway - Eastleigh - Chandlers Ford - Romsey service (run by 170s) with the Romsey - Mottisfont & Dunbridge - Dean - Salisbury section served mainly by FGW instead of SWT. Does anyone know exactly when this changed?

It changed in December 2007. A related change was that SWT extended the Waterloo - Southampton semi-fast through to Poole, incorporating the Brockenhurst to Wareham stopper, so that removed the need for the Totton call. Taking Dean and Mottsifont calls off FGW allowed them to speed up their trains slightly.

However in the earliest DfT franchise consultation leading up to the 2007 franchise, (published late 2005 IIRC) DfT had actually proposed a simple Eastleigh to Romsey shuttle via Chandlers Ford using just one unit:

the Romsey-Southampton-Totton service will operate as a shuttle service between Romsey and Eastleigh only to make more efficient use of resources and to improve operational performance in the Southampton area.

I think after a Hants County Council intervention emphasised that users of Chandlers Ford would not bother if they had to change at Eastleigh, DfT relented and we ended up with a much better service all round, with Romsey to Salisbury gaining the extra train every hour, although initially the minor intermediate stations only got calls in alternate hours. That changed a bit later on, perhaps in 2008 or 2009.
 
Last edited:
Joined
9 Apr 2016
Messages
1,909
It changed in December 2007. A related change was that SWT extended the Waterloo - Southampton semi-fast through to Poole, incorporating the Brockenhurst to Wareham stopper, so that removed the need for the Totton call. Taking Dean and Mottsifont calls off FGW allowed them to speed up their trains slightly.

However in the earliest DfT franchise consultation leading up to the 2007 franchise, (published late 2005 IIRC) DfT had actually proposed a simple Eastleigh to Romsey shuttle via Chandlers Ford using just one unit:

I think after a Hants County Council intervention emphasised that users of Chandlers Ford would not bother if they had to change at Eastleigh, DfT relented and we ended up with a much better service all round, with Romsey to Salisbury gaining the extra train every hour, although initially the minor intermediate stations only got calls in alternate hours. That changed a bit later on, perhaps in 2008 or 2009.

Thanks for the info. It has certainly changed a lot then. Yes i do think that if they had done that then a lot of passengers who use Chandlers Ford would not have been happy with having to change at Romsey or Eastleigh to reach their destination. Although on the positive side it would have meant that it would not conflict with main line trains that much and would be easier to gain back time if it was disrupted.

Another idea that i was thinking of is that SWT could split the service in to two different services with a stopping London Waterloo to Salisbury service and a stopping Salisbury to Weymouth service.

The London Waterloo to Salisbury service could stop at London Waterloo - Clapham Junction - Woking - Brookwood - Farnborough Main - Fleet - Winchfield - Hook - Basingstoke - Micheldever - Winchester - Shawford - Eastleigh - Southampton Airport Parkway - Swaythling - St Denys - Southampton Central - Millbrook - Redbridge - Romsey - Mottisfont & Dunbridge - Dean - Salisbury.

The Salisbury to Weymouth service could stop at Salisbury - Dean - Mottisfont & Dunbridge - Romsey - Chandlers Ford - Eastleigh - Southampton Airport Parkway - Swaythling - St Denys - Southampton Central - Millbrook - Redbridge - Totton - Ashurst New Forest - Beaulieu Road - Brockenhurst - Sway - New Milton - Hinton Admiral - Christchurch - Pokesdown - Bournemouth - Branksome - Parkstone - Poole - Hamworthy - Holton Heath - Wareham - Wool - Moreton - Dorchester South - Upwey - Weymouth

This would then double the frequency between Romsey and Salisbury (as per my previous suggestion) but could also take over the current London Wateloo to Poole stopping services which would then give extra paths for additional main line services especially in peak hours. It would also provide Romsey / Mottisfont & Dunbridge / Dean with a direct service to and from London Waterloo and would provide additional services between London Waterloo and Salisbury. Finally it would also give passengers a direct service from Millbrook / Redbridge to Totton / Ashurst New Forest / Beaulieu Road / Brockenhurst so they would no longer need to go to Southampton Central and then double back on themselves.

It might be unlikely to happen but would be a good idea for SWT to think about as it has many advantages to both SWT and to their passengers.
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
19,448
Location
West of Andover
With only a slight disadvantage of having a DMU running over 3rd rail for most of the route towards Weymouth.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,491
If they were to do Weymouth-Salisbury, would enough paths exist to extend along the West of England mainline to Bristol Temple Meeds?
 
Joined
9 Apr 2016
Messages
1,909
With only a slight disadvantage of having a DMU running over 3rd rail for most of the route towards Weymouth.

Yes that is very true. Although it wouldnt be as bad as some Arriva Cross Country and Virgin Trains East Coast and Virgin Trains West Coast routes which have diesel trains running along much longer lengths of electrified track in all different part of the UK. And SWT already run diesel trains over the fairly long section between London Waterloo and Basingstoke.

I guess that something like a bi mode Desiro would come in useful (but unfortunately i dont even think that Siemens make this though).

If they were to do Weymouth-Salisbury, would enough paths exist to extend along the West of England mainline to Bristol Temple Meeds?

That is a good idea. I would think that enough paths probably exist. They could take over some of the FGW services between Salisbury and Bristol Temple Meads (and maybe the Weymouth - Yeovil Pen Mill - Westbury - Bristol Temple Meads line as well) which would then allow FGW to use their units elsewhere to strengthen other services.

Also thinking about it i dont think it will be that long before SWT start thinking about replacing their 158s and 159s. So i was thinking that maybe once FTPE get their new trains then SWT will be able to take over the 185s which would fit in well in their fleet considering that they already have a very large fleet of Desiro EMUs. The 185s could then take over all of their diesel services including the possible routes that i have mentioned in this thread.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,658
The 185s could then take over all of their diesel services including the possible routes that i have mentioned in this thread.

They couldn't take over from SWT's existing fleet, there aren't anything like enough being released. And they have far less seating capacity and no gangways.

Your recent expansion ideas are getting into fantasy. Why would you even contemplate replacing part of a GW Cardiff to Portsmouth service with SWT in just the middle part of the route?

If ever there was a need for more calls between Romsey and Salisbury (that the RUS says are not needed), then the easiest solution is to make GWR call their supplementary services that run on part of the route, e.g. the short workings to and from Southampton.
 
Joined
9 Apr 2016
Messages
1,909
They couldn't take over from SWT's existing fleet, there aren't anything like enough being released. And they have far less seating capacity and no gangways.

Your recent expansion ideas are getting into fantasy. Why would you even contemplate replacing part of a GW Cardiff to Portsmouth service with SWT in just the middle part of the route?

If ever there was a need for more calls between Romsey and Salisbury (that the RUS says are not needed), then the easiest solution is to make GWR call their supplementary services that run on part of the route, e.g. the short workings to and from Southampton.

Yes i fully realise that my suggestions are unlikely to happen. They are just ideas which i personally think would improve the services.

I dont think that not having end gangways would be a problem though as SWT have ordered their 707s without end gangways so they dont seem to be that bothered about having end gangways on their trains. And the 185s have a much more suitable layout with wide doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions.

I know that Dean and Mottisfont & Dunbridge definitely dont really need additional services but Romsey to Salisbury could definitely do with some additional services (which could be non stop between Romsey and Salisbury).

My idea is transfering the entire Portsmouth Harbour to Bristol Temple Meads route to SWT considering that FGW are operating that route through a large part of the SWT network. Again they are only ideas and i know that there are positives and negatives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top