Plans to reopen Totton - Fawley/Hythe (again!)

[BankQuayLowLvl]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ferries also tend to be enormously expensive to operate - if capital funding could be found for the line reopening, per-passenger subsidy (or fare price) would likely be significantly below what the ferry would cost/charge. As stated above, the train connection would also be far superior for onward connections, too. Others with more local knowledge might know how much the ferry received in subsidy previously.

 

[HSTEd]

A competing option would probably be a ropeway solution, which could cover the 2.6km in about 5 minutes, it would also have negligible waiting times.
It would require a couple of impressively tall support towers to get enough air draught for the harbour approaches, but there is likely ample room for the reqiusite slopes.

 

[Sun Chariot]

It would require a couple of impressively tall support towers to get enough air draught for the harbour approaches, but there is likely ample room for the reqiusite slopes.

Yes - it would need to clear the heights of the Trans Atlantic cruise liners; also the far larger container ships, which use that same part of the River Test.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes - it would need to clear the heights of the Trans Atlantic cruise liners; also the far larger container ships, which use that same part of the River Test.

Yes, but such tall towers are well within the state of the art. It should be possible to provide sufficient air draught that the cranes at the port are the limiting factor.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Yes, but such tall towers are well within the state of the art. It should be possible to provide sufficient air draught that the cranes at the port are the limiting factor.

We now just need a transport study and a dogmatic Minister, to tell us that the costs to provide it far outweigh its forecast revenue.

 

[chris2]

I absolutely appreciate the affection people hold for the Hythe ferry, but it is way better described as a pleasure boat than a mass transit solution for Waterside. I hope it stays, but only because it's a fun day out with the kids.

It's been around long enough for us to reliably know that it's not the answer to the Waterside's connectivity challenges; the fact it goes bust every few years, while the A326 remains jam-packed, speaks for itself.

A competing option would probably be a ropeway solution, which could cover the 2.6km in about 5 minutes, it would also have negligible waiting times.
It would require a couple of impressively tall support towers to get enough air draught for the harbour approaches, but there is likely ample room for the reqiusite slopes.

You are joking, right? Southampton hasn't got enough money to keep the street lights on overnight, or the bins reliably collected.

 

[HSTEd]

You are joking, right? Southampton hasn't got enough money to keep the street lights on overnight, or the bins reliably collected.

Well the premise of this thread was spending a huge sum of money on building a roundabout railway line that takes 15km to travel 4.

Assuming they don't fall victim to "statement architecture" syndrome (like Boris's Thames Folly) I expect it would be cheaper than a rail solution.

 

[LCRTrainfan979]

I'm not sure everything is about speed here.

If the choice is between a 'leisurely' 20 or 25 minute train journey, and a speedy 15 minute ferry journey, I think some other factors would come into play.

Much as I love the ferry, it's great on a sunny day for a bit of a 'heritage adventure', it does have a few disadvantages over the (theoretical) train:

* It doesn't run in the evening
* It's unsuitable for anyone with motion sickness
* It's a pretty ancient and uncomfortable - does it even have padded seats?
* Cold on a winter's day and smells of diesel fumes
* Noisy
* It's likely to be cancelled as soon as the wind gets up
* If it isn't, it's got to be pretty grim boarding it in a rainstorm.
* Two changes needed, pier train to ferry, ferry to bus.

Whereas a train, even an elderly 158, will beat it hands down in all respects.

If I were heading in to Southampton for work each day, I think I'd choose the sluggish train, with a chance to sit on a comfy(ish) seat, with the cold and rain safely kept at bay outside, and the ability to use a smartphone without having it shaken out of my hand - and an extra 10 minutes wouldn't be an issue at all.

I do obviously get all of those benefits, and if it hadn't been for budget cuts, or if there had been major private investment, despite the benefits being relatively small compared to alternative projects, it would have been absolutely worth the money. However, as it stands now, the project that had been proposed simply wouldn't produce enough advantages to justify the investment. Ultimately, it would have likely ended up being a minimalist hourly service, with journey times that don't provide enough improvements. Loads of lines exist in the Solent, and none of them are particularly well used other than the main line services to London. Such a service proposed would have been no different to those other lines

We now just need a transport study and a dogmatic Minister, to tell us that the costs to provide it far outweigh its forecast revenue.

Even Totton itself only gets around 200,000 passengers a year post-COVID with its hourly service to Southampton and Bournemouth, and other stations are far lower than that. This is the kind of project which does cost a reasonable amount of money, so you would need higher returns in a world where a business case is required for virtually any infrastructure project. Say if both Marchwood and Hythe were enourmously busy towns with some of the worse congestion in the UK, then you could probably get decent returns, but both towns are simply not big enough to get enough passengers on a potential service to actually achieve such a result.

Overall, while I get the concerns about the ferry, its the kind of case where a better solution in the short term may be to try and improve the ferry and make it a more reliable commuter service. If you could do that, say if you could get a mostly hourly service, that is effectively achieving many of the same effects as an hourly roundabout train service, probably for less money overall. Maybe in the longer term, if Marchwood, Hythe and maybe Fawley ever become more viable, maybe then the project could be looked at again, perhaps on the oft-chance by a government more willing to spend money on railways.

 

[WibbleWobble]

Even Totton itself only gets around 200,000 passengers a year post-COVID with its hourly service to Southampton and Bournemouth, and other stations are far lower than that.

Redbridge and Millbrook stations are in really bad places to be of much use.

Redbridge village is tiny, and Millbrook station nowhere near Millbrook (Redbridge is far closer). The other problem is both stations are separated from the main residential areas by a six lane dual carriageway (although are linked via subway or bridge but is still a trek) and are very open due to being on the edge of the docks.

For a lot of people, it is much easier to jump on a very frequent bus service and change at Central where the buses drop off practically at the door.

 

[The Ham]

Even Totton itself only gets around 200,000 passengers a year post-COVID with its hourly service to Southampton and Bournemouth, and other stations are far lower than that.

However, part of the reason for the low passenger numbers would likely be the fairly infrequent rail service, assuming that the new service also called there more than 15 minutes between it and the existing services then it would make rail significantly more attractive.

That could generate extra passengers from Totton.

200,000 passengers are the sort of levels that a station with 2tph but serving a population of 5,000 could see (OK that is with direct trains to London), or somewhere like Exmouth (population of 35,000) which sees about 900,000 passenger. That's not too say that's a certainty, but it could see rail use double.

One thing which could be possible, would be to have a portion drop off a London service (or extend a train which ends/starts at Southampton) and run to Hythe, which would give direct services to London and so make rail travel more attractive by giving direct services to Winchester, Basingstoke, Woking, etc.

 

[brad465]

What's the prospect of the Dibden Bay port development ever being revived and built? Ditched in the 00s, if it happened the branch line would be well-located for freight, so would have to be upgraded at least as far as Marchwood (the development would be right next to the Military port). Furthermore, the jobs provided in the area would also presumably improve the case for passenger services, both for commuters to the area from further out, and/or if further housing was built in the Hythe/Fawley area for workers, they'd increase general demand for a rail link there.

 

[LCRTrainfan979]

Redbridge and Millbrook stations are in really bad places to be of much use.

Redbridge village is tiny, and Millbrook station nowhere near Millbrook (Redbridge is far closer). The other problem is both stations are separated from the main residential areas by a six lane dual carriageway (although are linked via subway or bridge but is still a trek) and are very open due to being on the edge of the docks.

For a lot of people, it is much easier to jump on a very frequent bus service and change at Central where the buses drop off practically at the door.

Well that is a very good point with both Redbridge and Millbrook, but the problem of low usage is only exacerbated by a low frequency and poor connections. Say if they were served by services to Bournemouth and Winchester, that is providing a service that cannot be easily done by bus, and might encourage some people to use them, instead of walking to or getting a bus to Southampton Central. Its obviously fair enough not to call faster long distance services there, given that you would add plenty of journey time for suburban stations.

Ultimately, both stations have a reasonable amount of development around them, maybe not the places in their name, but areas nontheless, and providing more attractive services could encourage some people to use them instead of Central station. The reason why Southampton Central is as busy as it is simply because its the only station in Southampton offering reasonably good long distance and short distance services, whereas in other cities like Portsmouth, you have roughly the same number of passengers spread across multiple stations.

However, that is a reasonable point with bus services. Although its deregulated, bluestar and other operators do provide a pretty good service, and SWR generally operate poor local services due to the awkwardness of southampton's rail network, not helped by southampton central being a bottleneck. Unfortunately, you would need a major and extremely expensive rebuild to get any improvement in the stations capacity, and that is never going to happen without any further growth.

However, part of the reason for the low passenger numbers would likely be the fairly infrequent rail service, assuming that the new service also called there more than 15 minutes between it and the existing services then it would make rail significantly more attractive.

That could generate extra passengers from Totton.

200,000 passengers are the sort of levels that a station with 2tph but serving a population of 5,000 could see (OK that is with direct trains to London), or somewhere like Exmouth (population of 35,000) which sees about 900,000 passenger. That's not too say that's a certainty, but it could see rail use double.

One thing which could be possible, would be to have a portion drop off a London service (or extend a train which ends/starts at Southampton) and run to Hythe, which would give direct services to London and so make rail travel more attractive by giving direct services to Winchester, Basingstoke, Woking, etc.

That is a good point, and it is feasible woth the number of paths into Southampton. During peak times, many trains divide at Southampton Central, and then one of the portions calls at all or most stations to Bournemouth or Poole, with the other running fast (non-stop or calling only at Brockenhurst).
Whereas during off peak periods, they divide at Bournemouth, and either a portion is left behind, or runs slow to Poole, allowing the Weymouth portion to skip Branksome and Parkstone. Expanding the practice of dividing trains at Southampton would allow nearly all stations to Bournemouth at least an hourly service to London depending on whether you did it with one or both trains from Waterloo. If the Hythe line was electrified, that could allow one of the portions split at Southampton Central to serve Marchwood and Hythe, allowing direct access to London from two places which currently do not have stations. Of course if such a proposal was to happen, they would need to extensively rework the whole timetable west of Southampton Central, but if it was up to me, I would recommend at least feasibility studies on it.
With that other suggestion of extending a serve currently terminating at Southampton Central, i can see the logic, but it may not be too easy, because terminating trains use platforms 2 and 3, and they can sometimes get blocked, with more than one train often occupying each platforms (e.g. a Portsmouth stopper at one end and a southern service to Brighton at the other), so some repathing would be needed, and potentially more trains required as a result of the available turnaround times, which would likely require additional rolling stock to be used, which isnt too easy to get in a post-covid era in train travel, particularly after the previous government ordered a lot of rolling stock to be scrapped without proper replacement.
Overall, despite the fact there are issues, i do agree that could have been a reasonable solution to having more than just a basic hourly service to Southampton Central. However, one implication of that would be the requirement for the line to be electrified, which would require substantially more investment for a line where the business case ended up being insufficient for further funding and development.

 

[swt_passenger]

That is a good point, and it is feasible woth the number of paths into Southampton. During peak times, many trains divide at Southampton Central, and then one of the portions calls at all or most stations to Bournemouth or Poole, with the other running fast (non-stop or calling only at Brockenhurst).
Whereas during off peak periods, they divide at Bournemouth, and either a portion is left behind, or runs slow to Poole, allowing the Weymouth portion to skip Branksome and Parkstone.

The 2019 consultation feedback did result in the second Weymouth train splitting at Southampton all day, rather than Offpeak only. They explained this would then allow a 2 tph service at Totton. But it wasn’t going to provide any extra Millbrook or Redbridge calls.

 

[LCRTrainfan979]

The 2019 consultation feedback did result in the second Weymouth train splitting at Southampton all day, rather than Offpeak only. They explained this would then allow a 2 tph service at Totton. But it wasn’t going to provide any extra Millbrook or Redbridge calls.

I suspect it would have been COVID which put a spanner in the works for such an idea, given if it did ever exist, it most certainly didn't exist for that long. Although as it is now, it only divides (and joins for that matter) at Southampton Central during the peak times, generally around 6-8 in the morning and 4-7 in the evening.

I think in all honesty, that is fair enough with Redbridge and Millbrook, at least off-peak. In my opinion, if any extra trains are ever to call at Redbridge and/or Millbrook, it should be the Bournemouth to Winchester stoppers, particularly if they are ever made permanent, given there is no sign of the old London Waterloo to Poole service coming back. For a service meant in the first place to be a stopping service, it makes sense to include all stations, not skipping them because of the Waterloo to Poole service not stopping there as it did need to be an express service on the latter part of the journey.

 

[chris2]

I can speak with some authority on Millbrook as it is my local station...True, it's not in Millbrook, but the name being wrong doesn't make it badly situated and I find it very handy for jaunts over to Eastleigh, Romsey, Salisbury etc. These kind of journeys are faster by rail for me. I had been looking forward to adding Marchwood onto the list so I could take the bike into the forest without having to negotiate the long drag out of town. But it was never going to do that anyway I guess. As others have said the main problem with the station is not the destinations, but rather, the infrequency of the trains.

I'm perfectly happy to go to Central for longer distance trains, but I would love to have more frequent regional trains from Millbrook.

Sadly I never consider the train to get over to the east side as there's no direct train that goes across town. This is one of the most annoying journeys to have to do by car - after school, it can take an hour to go from Shirley to Bitterne - but the change and the long waits just don't make it viable.

But turning to the waterside, the problem for me is that it's a standalone idea. I think it would have been better if it had been proposed as one phase of a broader, Solent metro scheme, where a bigger, integrated, well-publicised and politically-led masterplan was being pursued. Perhaps then there would have been a broader case to make for it, as you could demonstrate its usefulness as part of a much broader network of connectivity around the region.

As things stand you have a public who largely don’t think to use the railway for getting around locally, because the service frequencies are poor. But then you struggle to justify new services based on the current low current ridership.

If not for some kind of long-term strategic master plan, how else do you break out of that cycle?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There is now a dedicated thread for the discussion about the hypothetical Southampton Metro, here.

 

[LCRTrainfan979]

I can speak with some authority on Millbrook as it is my local station...True, it's not in Millbrook, but the name being wrong doesn't make it badly situated and I find it very handy for jaunts over to Eastleigh, Romsey, Salisbury etc. These kind of journeys are faster by rail for me. I had been looking forward to adding Marchwood onto the list so I could take the bike into the forest without having to negotiate the long drag out of town. But it was never going to do that anyway I guess. As others have said the main problem with the station is not the destinations, but rather, the infrequency of the trains.

I'm perfectly happy to go to Central for longer distance trains, but I would love to have more frequent regional trains from Millbrook.

Sadly I never consider the train to get over to the east side as there's no direct train that goes across town. This is one of the most annoying journeys to have to do by car - after school, it can take an hour to go from Shirley to Bitterne - but the change and the long waits just don't make it viable.

But turning to the waterside, the problem for me is that it's a standalone idea. I think it would have been better if it had been proposed as one phase of a broader, Solent metro scheme, where a bigger, integrated, well-publicised and politically-led masterplan was being pursued. Perhaps then there would have been a broader case to make for it, as you could demonstrate its usefulness as part of a much broader network of connectivity around the region.

As things stand you have a public who largely don’t think to use the railway for getting around locally, because the service frequencies are poor. But then you struggle to justify new services based on the current low current ridership.

If not for some kind of long-term strategic master plan, how else do you break out of that cycle?

I have added a response to this on the new Southampton Metro page

 

[Sun Chariot]

I do wonder at the future of the branch:

1) Rollout of SWR's Arterio 701 units, finally shows a positive sign. The remaining units stored at Marchwood, I expect will be gone by mid 2025.

2) No MoD loaded workings since 3rd April to my knowledge. Since then, just empty container flats between Marchwood & Doncaster Decoy / London Gateway.

Other than another secure storage option, is there any viable case for the branch?

 

[zwk500]

I do wonder at the future of the branch:

1) Rollout of SWR's Arterio 701 units, is finally showing positive signs; the remaining units stored at Marchwood, I expect will be gone by mid 2025.

2) No MoD loaded workings since 3rd April to my knowledge. Since then, just empty container flats between Marchwood & Doncaster Decoy / London Gateway.

Other than another secure storage option, is there any viable case for the branch?

Unless the MOD pull out of Marchwood completely I can't see the branch being abandoned totally.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I agree the MoD site will remain @zwk500 ; I am less sure the branch will be used.

Marchwood's containers, vehicles and logistics have all been road handled solely for many months; and I was stuck behind several lorries, yet again, this morning...

3rd April's rail-borne container working, was rare even then.

 

[Meerkat]

I agree the MoD site will remain @zwk500 ; I am less sure the branch will be used.

Marchwood's containers, vehicles and logistics have all been road handled solely for many months; and I was stuck behind several lorries, yet again, this morning...

3rd April's rail-borne container working, was rare even then.

Its a good thing Marchwood is quiet, and can be supplied by road.......but when its really needed they would need to supply it by rail wouldn't they? If there is a major deployment/undeployment I would have thought the quantities being moved would need to come and go at least partly by rail??
And I would assume that various parties would block a closure as its a useful rail and sea connected site that could become a major port in the future.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Its a good thing Marchwood is quiet, and can be supplied by road.......but when its really needed they would need to supply it by rail wouldn't they? If there is a major deployment/undeployment I would have thought the quantities being moved would need to come and go at least partly by rail??
And I would assume that various parties would block a closure as its a useful rail and sea connected site that could become a major port in the future.

I'm not close to the strategic pecking-order of Marchwood, versus other MoD logistics and ordnance bases.
For example, I lived in Bicester when the Gulf War started. I vividly remember the constant trail of military jets, taking off from RAF Bicester, two nights before the war was announced on TV. However, the rail service to CoD Bicester, was no more intensive than non-conflict times.

Military vehicles are regularly moved to / from Marchwood by road.
In July, I watched 15 tanks being moved to Marchwood, upon mighty Oshkosh M1070 transporters. The convoy's noise was immense!
Yesterday, I was driving behind 2 transporters with armoured personnel carriers, plus several container trucks to the MoD site.

 

[Meerkat]

I'm not close to the strategic pecking-order of Marchwood, versus other MoD logistics and ordnance bases.
For example, I lived in Bicester when the Gulf War started. I vividly remember the constant trail of military jets, taking off from RAF Bicester, two nights before the war was announced on TV. However, the rail service to CoD Bicester, was no more intensive than non-comflict times.

Military vehicles are regularly moved to / from Marchwood by road.
In July, I watched 15 tanks being moved to Marchwood, upon mighty Oshkosh M1070 transporters. The convoy's noise was immense!
Yesterday, I was driving behind 2 transporters with armoured personnel carriers, plus several container trucks to the MoD site.

Were there not a lot of trains in the build up - when things were still getting shipped out to the gulf?
An issue is the ever increasing protection of army vehicles meaning they are wider and heavier.
I think Warriors can go by train, the Scimitar and relatives certainly could, but their tracked replacements are probably too wide. Not sure about Boxer??

 

[Sun Chariot]

Were there not a lot of trains in the build up - when things were still getting shipped out to the gulf?
An issue is the ever increasing protection of army vehicles meaning they are wider and heavier.
I think Warriors can go by train, the Scimitar and relatives certainly could, but their tracked replacements are probably too wide. Not sure about Boxer??

Bicester's workings in 1991 were typically 3-4 VEA 'vanfits' and a few VGAs. My photos from the time: the loads didn't seem longer in the run-up to, or during, the Gulf conflict.
1992-3, the loads were 2-5 container flats with dark green containers. VEAs no longer appeared and VGAs were more sporadic.

 

[zwk500]

I think it likely that while the MOD have a presence at the site, they will want to retain at least the theoretical option of rail access. NR will likely want to retain the theoretical possibility of access to the Marchwood port site in case it is turned over to commercial use as a relief/overspill for Southampton.

As this line requires a signaller present at Marchwood and manual operation of the gates, any traffic on the line is likely to be kept to a minimum to avoid needing to book additional staff on shift. It may even switch to a 'staffed on request' basis for a time. However when (at an indeterminate point) Eastleigh Box is resignalled in to Basingstoke ROC then the opportunity may be taken to renew the branch and being regular passenger operations from that point.

Certainly the costs of any signalling solution were a major stumbling point in trying to get the branch reopened, as NR would have needed to recruit new signallers for Marchwood, make amendments to Easleigh panel (which may still have required more staff) or put in a tiny panel at BROC. If another project pays to renew the branch, the business case is much better for passenger services (even if the passenger service business case has to account for any upgrades beyond the existing capacity not included by the other resignalling).

 

[Meerkat]

NR will likely want to retain the theoretical possibility of access to the Marchwood port site in case it is turned over to commercial use as a relief/overspill for Southampton.

AIUI ABP already have a concession to use and develop Marchwood port commercially, so I doubt they would want to lose the rail link
Aren’t long lengths of rail imported and stored there? On Google maps satellite view I think that’s all the brown stuff around the southern sidings (and inevitable stored 701!). On the dockside there is a load of yellow plant parked up (presumably just imported or about to be exported) separate from a load of Warriors etc for the army.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Oct 2024 ==

Re signalling could be a problem for the passenger service hopes - wouldn’t NR want to simplify it down to a simple freight speed single line direct into the port, possibly some form of token working or max a signal at each end.
If Fawley don’t care about losing the railway (I understand they haven’t used it for years?) then it becomes a put up or shut up for anyone wanting a passenger service to find some money.

 

[zwk500]

AIUI ABP already have a concession to use and develop Marchwood port commercially, so I doubt they would want to lose the rail link
Aren’t long lengths of rail imported and stored there? On Google maps satellite view I think that’s all the brown stuff around the southern sidings (and inevitable stored 701!). On the dockside there is a load of yellow plant parked up (presumably just imported or about to be exported) separate from a load of Warriors etc for the army.

Yeah it's been talked about for a while.

Re signalling could be a problem for the passenger service hopes - wouldn’t NR want to simplify it down to a simple freight speed single line direct into the port, possibly some form of token working or max a signal at each end.
If Fawley don’t care about losing the railway (I understand they haven’t used it for years?) then it becomes a put up or shut up for anyone wanting a passenger service to find some money.

NR are likely to want to leave it alone until they absolutely have to. It'll cost far more to send people to site and take things out than they'd save on the odd can of oil for the rods and wires and a shift for the signaller (which they may even be able to charge to the FOCs running services). The level crossing needs manual working so converting to a token doesn't save on the staff shift.

 

[William3000]

@Dougal2345 quoted the statement from a local councillor that "Network Rail undertook a detailed assessment of the proposal to better understand the technical, operational, costs and economic benefits for the scheme. This assessment concluded that - despite public support for the proposal to reintroduce rail services between Hythe and Southampton - the capital cost, operational cost and constraints, and limited service levels that could be reliably operated would not deliver value for money for the taxpayer."

The route is roundabout and serves the populated areas just west of Southampton Water poorly, so there would still be a need for substantial bus services. It is also likely to kill off the direct ferry service to Hythe. The site of the main station at Southampton is suboptimal as it is somewhat distant from the city centre; it was originally named West, but has now been renamed (IMO inappropriately) to Central, which seems redundant as there is only 1 surviving main station.

It seems that after careful evaluation, the scheme isn't worthwhile, and its cancellation can't really be attributed to the chancellor.

I believe it was renamed from Southampton West to Southampton when Southampton Terminus closed, and then the Central suffix was added shortly after Southampton Parkway (now Southampton Airport (Parkway)) opened.

 

[weeklycommuter]

The service was suspended latter August, due to discovery of damage around the passenger embark pontoon and the pilings for the supporting structure. No advertised date, as yet, tor the repairs.

Hythe Ferry service suspended for repairs

Hythe Ferry apologises to travellers for disruption to their journeys.

www.bbc.co.uk

One of the concerns about reopening the Waterside Line for passenger train services between Southampton and Hythe has been that this could take passengers from the Hythe to Southampton Ferry. However the ferry service is currently suspended. The following news report today on the BBC website states that the pontoon at the end of Hythe Pier for the Hythe to Southampton Ferry needs to be replaced at a cost of £250,000 for the ferry service to restart. At present the bus is the only public transport from Hythe to Southampton.

Hythe Ferry: New £250k replacement pontoon needed

The owner of the Hythe ferry wants financial support for a new pontoon to restart the service.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ferry service needs new £250k pontoon to run again

It has been five months since the Hythe ferry last took passengers from the town into the city of Southampton.
In August it was taken out of action because the boarding pontoon at Hythe, where the ferry lands, was found to have cracks underneath.
Now it has been revealed it cannot be fixed and a new pontoon will cost £250,000.
The Hythe and Southampton Ferry Company said it had reached out to local MPs and councils for funding and was "exploring other financial options" but remained "committed to reinstating Hythe Ferry".
The service had been operating at a loss for several years, according to the company.

The following thread discusses the open access application by Alliance Rail (Southern) to operate a train service hourly Marchwood - Totton - Southampton Central extending every two hours to London Waterloo which if approved would reopen the Waterside Line to passenger train services though initially only as far as Marchwood and not to Hythe.

New Open Access Application: London - Southampton - Marchwood

Lengthy article in The Times today about why Alex Hynes is a leading contender to be GB Railway's first CEO. But tucked away at the end of the article is this interesting development...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[fgwrich]

Some further Rolling stock (769) plans and details are now available on the Grand Union website.

Waterside Line - Grand Union Trains Ltd

Under the 'Alliance' banner, we are also planning to introduce a new service between Marchwood and Southampton and London Waterloo during 2027. Marchwood is currently a closed station and has not seen regular passenger trains since 1966. This service would build on a recent comprehensive study...

www.granduniontrains.co.uk