Fawley branch: could the line reopen to passenger services?

[pompeyfan]

Looks like there was a press special running earlier from Southampton to Southampton via Fawley and Marchwood using an SWR 159. I assume this would have been a GBRF driver and SWR guard being piloted?

Left Southampton at 1000 running as 1Z20.

 

[4630]

Interesting.

Might be a co-incidence but the local authority, New Forest District Council, gave outline planning approval yesterday for the development of 1,500 new homes and commercial property on the site of the former Fawley Power Station.

I wonder if the consortium leading the almost £1bn scheme are trying to drum up support for bringing the Fawley branch up to the required standard for a regular passenger service to Southampton? I know similar proposals for the line previously over the years have fallen by the wayside for a number of reasons.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

If they can crack the security gate at the refinery to get to the station, then good luck to them. At present, it's like Fort Knox, or was when I last went there.
Pat

 

[PTR 444]

It would be difficult to serve the Fawley power station site with heavy rail as the line ends at the refinery and there was never an extension beyond there. This is why I think light rail would be better for the branch as it could be built without having to take a sweeping alignment to avoid Fawley village. It could just utilise street running through the village at a fraction of the cost of heavy rail.

 

[HSTBEN]

Went past my house in Totton around 11 just off totton junction and returned past at 13.30...odd seeing passenger service and not freight. New development at Fawley will need the line to help stop the roads being so busy.

 

[Romsey]

If you're in the BBC South area there should be an item about the Fawley Branch on South Today after 1830. My memory of the initial plans were to terminate and start back at a new parkway station, Hythe Waterside, roughly on the site of Hardley Halt. That would need upgraded roads to Hythe Waterside, but would be much cheaper than building a new line around the outside of the refinery security zone.

There was nearly an extension of the Fawley branch to the power station. After the oil price crisis in 1973/1974 CEGB looked at converting two of the boilers to coal firing. I only know because I archived the papers at Waterloo General Offices as they had been untouched for 10 years.

 

[andyc20050]

https://www.southwesternrailway.com...investigate-reopening-of-historic-branch-line

Today, South Western Railway ran a special ‘fact-finding’ train, to investigate the potential re-opening of the Fawley branch line in Hampshire, after more than 50 years since regular passenger services ceased.

The special service follows a successful submission to the Department for Transport’s ‘Restoring your Railway Fund’ by Hampshire County Council. This funding will allow Hampshire County Council to carry out a feasibility study into reopening the line for passenger services once more.

The service became possible through cooperation between South Western Railway and Network Rail, who had to cut back undergrowth, test condition of the track, and prepare the train crew.

 

[BayPaul]

It would be difficult to serve the Fawley power station site with heavy rail as the line ends at the refinery and there was never an extension beyond there. This is why I think light rail would be better for the branch as it could be built without having to take a sweeping alignment to avoid Fawley village. It could just utilise street running through the village at a fraction of the cost of heavy rail.

Whilst it would be great to serve the new development, if the branch could take some of the existing traffic off the roads from Hythe etc, there would probably be enough room on the roads for the traffic from the new development

 

[pompeyfan]

Does anyone know if 6:30 news still ends up on iPlayer?

 

[Bessie]

On BBC South Today there was a report of test service today along the Fawley branch near Southampton. Looked like a Class 158 or 159 in SWR livery and various dignitaries were on board such as Sir Peter Hendy. Seems like there is a ground swell of support for the scheme as '000's of houses are due to be built by the old Fawley Oil refinery site.

 

[Romsey]

On BBC South Today there was a report of test service today along the Fawley branch near Southampton. Looked like a Class 158 or 159 in SWR livery and various dignitaries were on board such as Sir Peter Hendy. Seems like there is a ground swell of support for the scheme as '000's of houses are due to be built by the old Fawley Oil refinery site.

The refinery is very much still working, it's the old power station site that is being cleared and redeveloped. I suspect the land is very contaminated in parts of the refinery and couldn't be used for housing without costly decontamination. Also the security of the refinery makes the average MOD base look half hearted.
The refinery gate is roughly at the location of the old "C" ground frame.

 

[a_c_skinner]

This is like the Blythe and Tyne. Big city. Commuting on busy road. More or less serviceable route though doubtless not all track and signalling. So you can bargain on not seeing it in your lifetime if you are over 50.

 

[RichT54]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-53571725

Marchwood station welcomes first passengers for 54 years

A railway station has welcomed its first passengers for 54 years amid plans to reopen the line to commuters.

The South Western Railway (SWR) service called at Marchwood, Hampshire, part of the Waterside line which closed to regular passengers in 1966.

Rail minister Chris Heaton-Harris, who was on board, said the line had a "very strong case" to be revived.

Hampshire County Council is due to complete a business case for the project by November.

 

[BayPaul]

This seems like a very strong candidate for reopening. The 2009 ATOC study apparently worked out a BCR of 4.8, it should be fairly low cost for a railway reopening, and would give a very big benefit for commuter traffic into Southampton. With TfW and East Midlands replacing 158s there also shouldn't be any major issue finding a couple of DMUs to operate it - personally I would split the Salisbury 6s, running the Romsey via Chandlers Ford service onto the Fawley branch, and terminating the Salisbury part in the Southampton bay platform. If and when SWR order new bimodes for the Exeter line, presumably in the next franchise, it would be possible to order a couple of extras and extend one or two Southampton-Waterloo slow services back to Fawley (or indeed to Romsey), which could also be useful, though I would guess a faster journey time would be possible changing at Southampton.
I am often fairly negative about reopenings of rural lines, but a suburban line of this kind seems like a slam-dunk, I can't really understand why it wasn't prioritised years ago.


Altnabreac's 5 golden rules of a successful rail reopening:

• Population of 10,000+ Yes - Hythe = 20k, Marchwood 5k, Fawley & neighbouring settlements 14k, 1500 new homes,
• 60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time of a major employment centre. Yes - I've seen 12 minutes quoted Southampton to Marchwood
• Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed - Yes, trains ran full length regularly until 2016
• Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required. Yesish - There appears to be adequate terminal capacity in Southampton from the west already, as the bay platform does not get much use, and the limiting factor is the tunnel, which is to the east of the station.
• Regeneration Potential of a deprived area Does regeneration of a wealthy area count?!

I would give this 3.8/5

 

[swt_passenger]

Flip-flopping Hampshire county council. It‘s not that long ago they were pretty much against this, even commissioning a report that came out against it...

 

[theironroad]

Does anyone know if 6:30 news still ends up on iPlayer?

Yes it does. Watched it last night on iPlayer and this was lead story and a decent length piece. The government rail minister was on the trip and certainly sounded very positive about it on camera.

However, it will only be on for 24 hrs and think expires at 6.30 tonight.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

This seems like a very strong candidate for reopening.

• Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed - Yes, trains ran full length regularly until 2016

. . . and a few more recently than that:

 

[Romsey]

The former platform 5 at Southampton is only signalled as a siding at present, so there will be a bit of outside signalling work for a new platform starter and amendments to route indicators on two up line signals. However there will probably be a major reprogramming of the interlocking required!
Three Rivers Rail Partnership have floated the idea of 3rd rail / battery bi-modes possibly to get "green" support for the project. ( I would have thought getting cars off the A326 was green anyway.)

 

[theironroad]

The former platform 5 at Southampton is only signalled as a siding at present, so there will be a bit of outside signalling work for a new platform starter and amendments to route indicators on two up line signals. However there will probably be a major reprogramming of the interlocking required!
Three Rivers Rail Partnership have floated the idea of 3rd rail / battery bi-modes possibly to get "green" support for the project. ( I would have thought getting cars off the A326 was green anyway.)

I'd imagine Vivaral's class 230 would be a viable candidate.

They claim 100 mile range between charges and 10 minutes to recharge and that can be done from the 3rd rail. (My understanding is the are battery only rather bi-mode).

Certainly Totton to Southampton and back and including turnaround time would give ample opportunity keep battery topped up.

Not sure what depot would handle them and maintain them but Bournemouth/Salisbury/ are Swr maintenance depots ( assuming Siemens wouldn't allow Northam involvement which obviously is closest).

Suppose Eastleigh could be a candidate if vivarail set up there or contract out.

Although lymington is juiced, might be a good replacement there to if 450 requirered elsewhere. Wareham to swanage would be ideal to but that's a getting a bit ot.

 

[David Goddard]

Hourly service Eastleigh to Hythe would be quite good- should be able to get round and back within two hours, and spends half the time on the juice.
Also adds an extra hourly service between Southampton and Eastleigh, which is only two at present.
Eastleigh probably quite an appropriate place for a depot for specialised stock as well.

 

[pompeyfan]

It’s whether or not you could find a permanent path across the junction at Eastleigh then all the way through to Southampton, you’ve currently got up to passenger trains 6 trains an hour to St Denys, and then 10 passenger trains an hour through Southampton tunnel, then you need to consider the 3 or 4 liners/cars/aggregates/engineering per hour with preserved paths, even if they’re not activated.

 

[theironroad]

Hourly service Eastleigh to Hythe would be quite good- should be able to get round and back within two hours, and spends half the time on the juice.
Also adds an extra hourly service between Southampton and Eastleigh, which is only two at present.
Eastleigh probably quite an appropriate place for a depot for specialised stock as well.

It’s whether or not you could find a permanent path across the junction at Eastleigh then all the way through to Southampton, you’ve currently got up to passenger trains 6 trains an hour to St Denys, and then 10 passenger trains an hour through Southampton tunnel, then you need to consider the 3 or 4 liners/cars/aggregates/engineering per hour with preserved paths, even if they’re not activated.

While an extra esl to sou could be attractive , esl (all traffic) to sou is pretty congested already as pompeyfan mentions.

I think it'd be a ideal candidate for using Southampton down bay (p5) . The required upgrade of p5 signalling could be part of the project and would be beneficial overall allowing p5 to be used for other services if required (esp in disruption). Even with 1 or 2 movements from the up slow across to the Bay it would be less disruptive keeping it the country side of SOU.

 

[si404]

Personally I would split the Salisbury 6s, running the Romsey via Chandlers Ford service onto the Fawley branch, and terminating the Salisbury part in the Southampton bay platform.

Presumably there was a reason why they changed it from this service pattern (albeit with the via Chandlers Ford train terminating at Totton, rather than Fawley) to the '6' in December 2007?

 

[Romsey]

Presumably there was a reason why they changed it from this service pattern (albeit with the via Chandlers Ford train terminating at Totton, rather than Fawley) to the '6' in December 2007?

As I understand it, to get a better service and market share at Romsey which was thought to be more profitable than Totton. (Effectively getting a greater share of the takings at a GWR station)
Operationally reversing at Romsey in a few minutes allowed the timetable to be tightened up to provide stock and crews for running to Salisbury. There had been a long layover at Totton, ready for the extension to Hythe,
It saved an extra two movements over Totton LC which is a sore point with the locals....

 

[PTR 444]

As I understand it, to get a better service and market share at Romsey which was thought to be more profitable than Totton. (Effectively getting a greater share of the takings at a GWR station)
Operationally reversing at Romsey in a few minutes allowed the timetable to be tightened up to provide stock and crews for running to Salisbury. There had been a long layover at Totton, ready for the extension to Hythe,
It saved an extra two movements over Totton LC which is a sore point with the locals....

I don’t think it reduced the overall number of movements over the crossing though. Before the 2007 timetable change which created the Romsey 6 route, there were only 3tph west of Totton. These were the hourly fast to Weymouth, the hourly semi-fast to Poole and XC to Bournemouth. Today there are 4tph with the addition of an extra hourly train to Weymouth, and has been that way for 13 years. In reality, the number of trains per hour that use the Totton LC remained unchanged.

 

[si404]

As I understand it, to get a better service and market share at Romsey which was thought to be more profitable than Totton. (Effectively getting a greater share of the takings at a GWR station)

But no extra trains served Romsey (2 via Redbridge, 1 via Eastleigh), and the SWT offering via the more-direct route was slowed down by picking up stops at Millbrook and Redbridge.

Today there are 4tph with the addition of an extra hourly train to Weymouth, and has been that way for 13 years.

13 years ago is when the '6' started. Swapping the trains through that level crossing from a Totton stopper with a Weymouth train is probably the reason for the '6' that I was looking for.

 

[Romsey]

But no extra trains served Romsey (2 via Redbridge, 1 via Eastleigh), and the SWT offering via the more-direct route was slowed down by picking up stops at Millbrook and Redbridge.

But it gave SWT a direct departure to Southampton from Romsey running the "6" service, which they didn't have with the Romsey - Totton service. Calling at Redbridge and Millbrook removed stops from Bournemouth line services allowing them to be accelerated.
Passengers using Romsey station
2002/3: 305054 - Start of Chandlers Ford service
2007/8: 398418 - start of "6" service
2018/19: 520856 - last full year.
Combined with the enhanced SWR service from 2007/8, GWR seem to have got to grips with stock formations and timekeeping in the last few years. It all helps the railway to be seen as a reliable service.
The competition was with cars. ( There are few people apart from OAP pass holders who would choose to travel by bus between Romsey and Southampton.) The new competition will be against working from home and for leisure travel.....

 

[Meerkat]

Would this kill off the Hythe ferry?

 

[PTR 444]

Would this kill off the Hythe ferry?

Probably not as Soton Central station is right on the other side of town to where the ferry docks.

 

[Chester1]

Probably not as Soton Central station is right on the other side of town to where the ferry docks.

The council opposed to previous reopening plan because they thought it would take too much revenue from the ferry. Its already subsidised so any reduction would threaten is viability.

The 10 level crossings are another major problem. Either they are closed, allowed to be used for passenger services (subject to installation of full automatic barriers) or they get replaced by bridges or a mixture. If they are allowed to stay it would cause congestion problems and if they are replaced it would significantly increase the cost of reopening (a straightforward replacement will be £4 million). I think School Lane (Fawley) crossing could be closed. Pumpfield Farm crossing could be closed and replaced with a few hundred metres of gravel track to Veal Lane (which only needs to be a call up gated private crossing). One each from the Fawley and Marchwood crossings would need to be replaced by a bridge to maintain reasonable flow of traffic. Jacob's Gutter Lane (Hounsdown) probably needs bridging too. That would mean 2 closures with related works, 3 bridges, 4 automated full barrier crossings and retaining 1 private crossing. Not cheap alongside relaying all the track, some new but basic signalling and three stations including a big a park and ride car park.