What would an ideal recast of the South Western routes look like?

[The Ham]

2tph London Waterloo - Portsmouth Harbour
Calling at: Clapham Junction, Woking, Guildford, Godalming, Haslemere, Liphook, Liss, Petersfield, Rowlands Castle, Havant, Bedhampton, Hilsea, Fratton, Portsmouth & Southsea, PORTSMOUTH HARBOUR

So a slower service to/from Portsmouth? I'm sure that will please a lot of people! I can't see many of the smaller stations (Liphook, Liss, Rowlands Castle, Bedhampton & Hilsea) requiring 2tph to/from London, off peak and Godalming needing 4tph.

Two things to consider.

Firstly, this is likely post Crossrail 2 and so frequencies now may not be suitable in the future (for example a place may get 1,000 new homes built and so the increase in population justify more services).

Secondly, how many people would if wanting to head to Portsmouth at around 12:40 would wait until 13:30 for the train taking 1:30 (so arriving at 14:00) over getting the 13:00 and getting to Portsmouth at 14:43?

If that's not going to happen much, then it's likely that a consistent journey time wouldn't impact rail use, however could see a more balanced loading between the 2tph.

In the peak hours, maybe and it's worth having some faster services. However, off peak (and bearing in mind the cost to the passenger is the same, so it's not like the railway is able to charge more for the faster services) the impact on passenger numbers is likely to be limited.

One other factor, and it's not my suggestion so don't know, it could be that to keep the listing of services simple that the "service" is it could call at those stations (up to 2tph), however there is scope to skip stations if there was a reason to do so (for example to give a comparable fast journey time).

 

[Zomboid]

Going to Waterloo, realistically people are only likely to be using 2tph (the two going beyond Salisbury) as the other two would be taking longer than changing at Basingstoke.

The need for the other 2 services is to:
- provide connectivity to the minor stations between Salisbury and Basingstoke
- provide connectivity to other places without having to change at Basingstoke
- frees up junction capacity at Basingstoke by turning trains west of the station
- gives the potential to look at additional stations along the line if there was new development and/or a large employment site

I hadn't clocked that they were running slow line from Basingstoke. With the layout of Worting Junction, I'd want to keep the Salisbury line trains on the fasts if possible. And I don't see the likes of Overton justifying 2 semi fasts to Waterloo all day. Maybe 1tph with a couple of peak extras.

 

[The Ham]

I hadn't clocked that they were running slow line from Basingstoke. With the layout of Worting Junction, I'd want to keep the Salisbury line trains on the fasts if possible. And I don't see the likes of Overton justifying 2 semi fasts to Waterloo all day. Maybe 1tph with a couple of peak extras.

The services which call at Overton are effectively the current Waterloo to Basingstoke Stoppers which have been extended to Salisbury.

The 2tph beyond Salisbury would be the current WofE line services (sped up between Basingstoke and Salisbury).

The current Basingstoke Stoppers take up a lot of infrastructure space at Basingstoke already, by extending them Westwards you free up a lot of platform space and remove a flat junction crossing every 30 minutes (and the impact that has by being east of the station).

Bearing in mind that almost all off peak SWR services south and west of Basingstoke use platforms 2 and 3 (and we're taking about 12tph which shouldn't be impossible to fit into a single platform (5 minutes between departures), I'm not sure that it's much of an issue.

Also, other than maybe 90 seconds (when the long distance passengers will be on other services) what's the harm in Overton having 2tph?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Secondly, how many people would if wanting to head to Portsmouth at around 12:40 would wait until 13:30 for the train taking 1:30 (so arriving at 14:00) over getting the 13:00 and getting to Portsmouth at 14:43?

Yes, I think this is an example of a crucial point. A train that goes every 30 minutes is likely to be more useful to more people than a train that goes every hour but is - say - 10 minutes faster. For many people, the extra 10 minutes is more than made up for by not having to either wait so long for the train, or make your journey at a significantly different time from when you wanted to make it.

Having said that, I would much prefer to see Portsmouth journey times speeded up rather than slowed down. How about this as an alternative:

2tph Waterloo -> Woking -> Guildford -> Haslemere -> Petersfield -> Havant -> Portsmouth and Southsea -> Portsmouth Harbour
2tph Waterloo -> Woking -> Guildford -> all stations to Portsmouth Harbour
Extend 2pth Waterloo-Woking stoppers to Worplesdon -> Guildford -> Farncombe -> Godalming.
(This would require the flyover at Woking to be built, and probably a terminating platform at Godalming).

 

[PTR 444]

The services which call at Overton are effectively the current Waterloo to Basingstoke Stoppers which have been extended to Salisbury.

Not quite. They run limited stop (CLJ and WOK only) from Waterloo to Farnborough and have effectively replaced the Eastleigh services in that role.

I have retained the 2tph Basingstoke stopper in addition, albeit extended to Oakley.

 

[The Ham]

Not quite. They run limited stop (CLJ and WOK only) from Waterloo to Farnborough and have effectively replaced the Eastleigh services in that role.

I have retained the 2tph Basingstoke stopper in addition, albeit extended to Oakley.

Thanks for that clarification.

 

[Farnborough]

I can't see many of the smaller stations (Liphook, Liss, Rowlands Castle, Bedhampton & Hilsea) requiring 2tph to/from London, off peak and Godalming needing 4tph.

Two trains per hour (ideally every 30 minutes, rather than grouped) is an absolutely bare minimum service if you want people to use the trains - especially when competing with a high-quality dual carriageway (the A3) from Guildford southwards.

Certainly, on the not infrequent times I've used that service, people were getting on and off at every station...

A 2tph fast (CJ, Woking, Guildford, Haslemere, Petesfield?, Havant, P&S, PH) and a 2tph stopper is fully justified.

I have retained the 2tph Basingstoke stopper in addition, albeit extended to Oakley.

You'd need to extend the third-rail...

 

[Mgameing123]

Two trains per hour (ideally every 30 minutes, rather than grouped) is an absolutely bare minimum service if you want people to use the trains - especially when competing with a high-quality dual carriageway (the A3) from Guildford southwards.

Certainly, on the not infrequent times I've used that service, people were getting on and off at every station...

A 2tph fast (CJ, Woking, Guildford, Haslemere, Petesfield?, Havant, P&S, PH) and a 2tph stopper is fully justified.


You'd need to extend the third-rail...

Id say the rule is this:

Hourly: Bare minimum to make the trains usable
Half Hourly: Bare minimum to make the trains somewhat desirable
Every 20 minutes: Bare minimum for a turn up and go service.

 

[PTR 444]

You'd need to extend the third-rail...

Not necessarily. Could just order a fleet of battery + third rail bi-mode trains.

 

[Farnborough]

Not necessarily. Could just order a fleet of battery + third rail bi-mode trains.

They already have a big-enough fleet of trains... they're not going to order battery for a mile or so of extension.

 

[PTR 444]

They already have a big-enough fleet of trains... they're not going to order battery for a mile or so of extension.

True, but you could also use those units to replace the entire SWR diesel fleet, and run new services which run on sections of unelectrified track.

Taking my proposal as an example, you would run the extended Basingstoke Stoppers, Waterloo - Yeovil/Exeter, Waterloo - Salisbury, Portsmouth - Hythe and Romsey - Wareham services with such stock.

If Moreton - Dorchester is ever redoubled, it might be more viable to leave the reinstated track unelectrified, and allow 8-10 car trains of such stock to run beyond Poole on battery power. This would bring down dwell times at Bournemouth (since trains would no longer need to split/join) and make the Waterloo - Weymouth journey time at least 5 minutes faster.

 

[Nammer]

Two trains per hour (ideally every 30 minutes, rather than grouped) is an absolutely bare minimum service if you want people to use the trains - especially when competing with a high-quality dual carriageway (the A3) from Guildford southwards.

Certainly, on the not infrequent times I've used that service, people were getting on and off at every station...

A 2tph fast (CJ, Woking, Guildford, Haslemere, Petesfield?, Havant, P&S, PH) and a 2tph stopper is fully justified.


You'd need to extend the third-rail...

2tph Fast and 2tph stopper, both to Portsmouth I'd agree with. But the post showed 2tph to Portsmouth and 2tph to Haslemere. That is where I had my issue with the post.

 

[Zomboid]

So just thinking of the Salisbury line, I would suggest that an improvement over today whilst still being adequate would be

1tph Exeter [Woking, Basingstoke, Andover, Salisbury, Gillingham, Sherborne, Yeovil J, Axminster, Honiton, Exeter Central]

1tph Weymouth [Woking, Basingstoke, Whitchurch Andover, Salisbury, all shacks to Yeovil J, Pen Mill, Everywhere to Weymouth]

1tph Salisbury [Clapham, Woking, Farnborough, Basingstoke, Everywhere]

1tph Exeter to Castle Cary via all fenceposts, timed to connect at Pen Mill with the Waterloo to Weymouth

Overton and Grateley would get calls in the Weymouth train at peak times. Not sure how the Bristol to Weymouth would fit, it's probably ridiculous overkill for that line!

Something on the Winchester route would run in the 30 mind opposite the Salisbury.

 

[The Ham]

So just thinking of the Salisbury line, I would suggest that an improvement over today whilst still being adequate would be

1tph Exeter [Woking, Basingstoke, Andover, Salisbury, Gillingham, Sherborne, Yeovil J, Axminster, Honiton, Exeter Central]

1tph Weymouth [Woking, Basingstoke, Whitchurch Andover, Salisbury, all shacks to Yeovil J, Pen Mill, Everywhere to Weymouth]

1tph Salisbury [Clapham, Woking, Farnborough, Basingstoke, Everywhere]

1tph Exeter to Castle Cary via all fenceposts, timed to connect at Pen Mill with the Waterloo to Weymouth

Overton and Grateley would get calls in the Weymouth train at peak times. Not sure how the Bristol to Weymouth would fit, it's probably ridiculous overkill for that line!

Something on the Winchester route would run in the 30 mind opposite the Salisbury.

Some good ideas (maybe in only saying that because there's some I've previously suggested).

If there was a need for a second loop for the line to Weymouth:

by adding a loop at Chetnole (although probably not adding a second platform and just alternating which service, that being northbound or southbound, calls at the platform). Pair this with utilising the loop at Maiden Newton (which has two platform) which would give trains chance to pass at points at 1/3 and 2/3 along the line.

Chetnole is typically sub 3,000 passengers (less than 10 a day), so any increase in calls is likely to be better and very much not worth the expense of a second platform.

Withthe Castle Cary service (I'd had similar thought when looking at electrification to Yeovil and keeping 0.5tph Waterloo Exeter and 0.5tph (Salisbury) Castle Cary Exeter with a cross platform change at Yeovil Junction.

I did also include the option of extending back to Salisbury from Castle Cary, two reasons:
- gives a direct service to Salisbury, whist slower (+25 minutes vs the current service) if the more minor stations (west of Yeovil) are being skipped by the Exeter Waterloo service it maintains that station pairing (and potentially enhances it if there's extra stops on the Exeter Waterloo at key times
- it creates the ability to swap units at Salisbury without the need for empty movements on the network

 

[Zomboid]

I think I might have fallen into the trap of trying to connect everywhere to everywhere else, to be honest. But the Yeovil Junction/ Pen Mill arrangement just feels like something that wants a solution! Might be better to put a west to south chord in and run the Bristol/ Weymouth trains that way, but neither line is presently frequent enough to make the full combination of connections appealing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Apr 2026 ==

After a bit more thought, I'm going to suggest an improvement:

1tph Exeter [Woking, Basingstoke, Andover, Salisbury, Gillingham, Sherborne, Yeovil J, Axminster, Honiton, Exeter Central]

1tph Weymouth [Woking, Basingstoke, Whitchurch Andover, Salisbury, all shacks to Yeovil J, Pen Mill, Everywhere to Weymouth]

1tph Exeter [Clapham, Woking, Farnborough, Basingstoke, All stations to Salisbury, Warminster, Westbury, Frome, Burton, Castle Cary, Pen Mill, Everywhere to Exeter]

Try to schedule connections at the Yeovil stations between the stopping trains so the Devon/ Dorset/ Wilts local journeys can be made sensibly.

Not sure where that leaves Bristol - Weymouth. If it doesn't fit down the Weymouth line, maybe divert it to Taunton and serve Somerton, should that ever happen.

An alternative might be to build an east to north chord at Yeovil J, and then have a stopping service on the SWML that calls at Pen Mill, with the Weymouth train running via Westbury.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't see what the purpose is in running a London-Weymouth train via Yeovil? In terms of connecting reasonably sized communities, the only thing it would really add is direct trains from Weymouth to Salisbury/Andover. And those just aren't going to be significant flows. You can already make those journeys with a single change at either Southampton or Basingstoke, which should (with an improved service via Southampton) be adequate for those journeys. And the paths the train would take between Weymouth and Yeovil are paths that can't be used by - for example - a more frequent Weymouth-Bristol service, or a new Weymouth-Exeter service, either of which would be rather more useful.

I'd suggest improvements in service/infrastructure would be better focused on aiming for Waterloo-Yeovil to be half hourly, with a North-East chord to allow those trains to serve Yeovil Pen Mill [*], where they could connect with a more frequent Weymouth-Bristol route.

[*] Making Pen Mill rather than Junction the interchange point because it's not located in the middle of nowhere, so is at least somewhat accessible to the town without a car.

 

[Zomboid]

You're right, I've eaten a box of crayons and forgotten about the problem... Was trying to think of what to do with extra trains between Waterloo and Salisbury.

With a North - East chord, would it make sense to run everything via Pen Mill, and given that there's nothing much at Junction skip that stop on most trains? Would probably be more useful for the town and the Bristol - Weymouth interchange.

 

[The Ham]

Given that we still maybe limited to passing trains at Yeovil, could an option be to pass at Yeovil Junction a Waterloo to Exeter service and the Exeter to Weymouth service (and the opposite services pairing going the other way).

If we could get the timetable to work, you also could pass the southbound Weymouth (from Gloucester) and the service from Weymouth to Exeter service at Pen Mill (again a cross platform change) to give the opportunity to go (say) Castle Cary Honiton with as simple as change as possible. (Again, as well as the opposite services pairing going the other way)

By doing both you could go Westbury to Gillingham without going via Salisbury. The current via Salisbury service takes 1:20 (including a 25 minute wait time at Salisbury) by changing twice I think it's comparable, maybe a minute or two faster/slower.

As such, as long as the two services aren't close to each other at Westbury, that could give you 2 trains each hour to pick from, which even if the split within the hour wasn't very even is still better that it being only 11tph.

 

[cle]

You're right, I've eaten a box of crayons and forgotten about the problem... Was trying to think of what to do with extra trains between Waterloo and Salisbury.

With a North - East chord, would it make sense to run everything via Pen Mill, and given that there's nothing much at Junction skip that stop on most trains? Would probably be more useful for the town and the Bristol - Weymouth interchange.

Maybe Warminster, Bradford and Trowbridge are some of the faster growing towns (and busiest rail stations) in the region that don't have frequent direct London services!

Good bi-modes I think would be a great way to restart this route, although out of Paddington via Westbury with a reversal (sorry Warminster) might be better. Trowbridge is nearly at 1m users - with a very regional service - practically double Westbury itself!

 

[Zomboid]

Good bi-modes I think would be a great way to restart this route, although out of Paddington via Westbury with a reversal

Or even without... Don't know if paths out of Paddington are anywhere near existing though.

Take the SWML Salisbury terminators to Westbury and Trowbridge/ Bradford can have a Paddington train.

 

[PTR 444]

Regarding Yeovil, I’d consider relocating Junction station a third of a mile to the east and building new platforms on the Heart of Wessex Line, so you have a proper “Tamworth Style” interchange between both lines without the constraints of one line crossing onto the other.

Under this proposal, Waterloo - Exeter would be increased to 2tph and Bristol - Weymouth would become hourly.

The existing Yeovil Junction station site would be redeveloped for housing.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Regarding Yeovil, I’d consider relocating Junction station a third of a mile to the east and building new platforms on the Heart of Wessex Line, so you have a proper “Tamworth Style” interchange between both lines without the constraints of one line crossing onto the other.

Under this proposal, Waterloo - Exeter would be increased to 2tph and Bristol - Weymouth would become hourly.

The existing Yeovil Junction station site would be redeveloped for housing.

It's an interesting idea, which would save building new chords, although I suspect the expense of building a new station would be just as great. A slightly different thought has crossed my mind, of keeping Yeovil Junction as the main interchange, building a South-West chord so the Bristol-Weymouth trains could stop and reverse there, and building a new town around it. That has the advantage of keeping the existing Junction station complex - which as far as I can tell from Google maps does seem like quite a significant construction, complete with passing loops and the potential for 4 platforms. It seems a shame to throw it all away.

That's very speculative though - I've no idea whether the land around it is suitable.

 

[Zomboid]

I would say a Tamworth style station would be good for interchange, but that's about it. The intersection is nowhere near any road or population centre worth mentioning.

Sending the Bristol train to the Junction would also be good for interchange, but would slow the service down - maybe not to huge detriment though.

Sending the Waterloo train to Pen Mill would slow that service down (though it doesn't compete on speed with the Paddington line anyway), but would better serve the town for east-west connections.

Both versions of adding a reversal might make a mess of timings along the single lines though.

 

[PTR 444]

Moving onto the Coastway part of the SWML network now. There have been numerous discussions over how to provide a mix of fast and local stopping services along the Southampton - Fareham corridor, however the need to path the Cardiff - Portsmouth fast limits the ability to provide a regular stopping service.

I’ve been wondering in a world of battery bi-modes, whether it would be better to combine the GWR and Southern services to provide a long distance Cardiff - Brighton service, and use the freed up path to increase the Soton - Pompey stopper to 2tph.

There will undoubtedly be complaints about the loss of a direct fast train between the two Solent cities, but Cosham is essentially in the Portsmouth metro area anyway. Changing from the Brighton train onto a Waterloo - Pompey service a few minutes behind from the same platform should be no more of a hassle than getting off at Waterloo and taking the Tube to your final destination in London.

 

[JonathanH]

I’ve been wondering in a world of battery bi-modes, whether it would be better to combine the GWR and Southern services to provide a long distance Cardiff - Brighton service, and use the freed up path to increase the Soton - Pompey stopper to 2tph.

I think again it needs an overtaking facility. Changing the configuration of Fareham station to allow a stopper to be overtaken in both directions would more easily allow the increase in stopping services between Portsmouth and Southampton. (I don't see a Southampton to Fareham stopper using the bay being viable.)

Given the two track railway, running Cardiff to Brighton is just too likely to be prone to disruption than the current containment of Brighton to Southamption trains (which themselves aren't always punctual).

 

[PTR 444]

I think again it needs an overtaking facility. Changing the configuration of Fareham station to allow a stopper to be overtaken in both directions would more easily allow the increase in stopping services between Portsmouth and Southampton. (I don't see a Southampton to Fareham stopper using the bay being viable.)

Given the two track railway, running Cardiff to Brighton is just too likely to be prone to disruption than the current containment of Brighton to Southamption trains (which themselves aren't always punctual).

The current Portsmouth stopper can comfortably fit in between the half-hourly Southern departures from Southampton, so in theory you could increase the stopper to half-hourly (departing at xx28 and xx58). The Cardiff - Portsmouth at its current timings would catch up with it well before Fareham though, most likely in the Netley/Hamble area. You’d likely need to retime it so it’s flighted in front of the xx20 Brighton to stand a chance.

 

[JonathanH]

The current Portsmouth stopper can comfortably fit in between the half-hourly Southern departures from Southampton, so in theory you could increase the stopper to half-hourly (departing at xx28 and xx58). The Cardiff - Portsmouth at its current timings would catch up with it well before Fareham though, most likely in the Netley/Hamble area. You’d likely need to retime it so it’s flighted in front of the xx20 Brighton to stand a chance.

OK, but the basic principle stands that some form of loop would enable the increase in stopping services. Two track railway is essentially one of the barriers to most of the concepts for faster 'fasts' and more stoppers discussed in this thread.

 

[Kite159]

I think again it needs an overtaking facility. Changing the configuration of Fareham station to allow a stopper to be overtaken in both directions would more easily allow the increase in stopping services between Portsmouth and Southampton. (I don't see a Southampton to Fareham stopper using the bay being viable.)

Given the two track railway, running Cardiff to Brighton is just too likely to be prone to disruption than the current containment of Brighton to Southamption trains (which themselves aren't always punctual).

Also resignalling could help as there are some long signal blocks between Southampton & Fareham.

 

[London Trains]

As this is probably a bit too speculative for the SWR consultation thread, I thought it would be worth putting here instead of making a new thread.

Thinking about the slow lines via Wimbledon and the suggestion I made in the other thread about having 6tph via Kingston, could a service pattern along these lines be workable?

00/30 Guildford via Cobham
03/33 Waterloo via Kingston
06/36 Guildford via Epsom
10/40 Hampton Court
13/43 Shepperton via Kingston
16/46 Chessington South
20/50 Woking
23/53 Waterloo via Kingston
26/56 Dorking via Epsom

All trains would serve all stops to Wimbledon, then the Woking and Guildford via Cobham services would run non-stop to Surbiton as now (though it might be worth adding a New Malden stop to one of those services?), and everything else would serve all stops. It would result in an evenly spaced 6tph/every 10 mins service between Waterloo and Teddington and between Waterloo and Motspur Park, a proper turn up and go metro service.

The number of services I'm suggesting is exactly the same number as there were on the slow lines via Wimbledon during peak times pre-Covid (when there was 6tph via Epsom) - the times of services within the hour could be shifted around, and I haven't considered the exact pathing on the Windsor lines, but would something along these lines be feasible?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As this is probably a bit too speculative for the SWR consultation thread, I thought it would be worth putting here instead of making a new thread.

Thinking about the slow lines via Wimbledon and the suggestion I made in the other thread about having 6tph via Kingston, could a service pattern along these lines be workable?

00/30 Guildford via Cobham
03/33 Waterloo via Kingston
06/36 Guildford via Epsom
10/40 Hampton Court
13/43 Shepperton via Kingston
16/46 Chessington South
20/50 Woking
23/53 Waterloo via Kingston
26/56 Dorking via Epsom

All trains would serve all stops to Wimbledon, then the Woking and Guildford via Cobham services would run non-stop to Surbiton as now (though it might be worth adding a New Malden stop to one of those services?), and everything else would serve all stops. It would result in an evenly spaced 6tph/every 10 mins service between Waterloo and Teddington and between Waterloo and Motspur Park, a proper turn up and go metro service.

The number of services I'm suggesting is exactly the same number as there were on the slow lines via Wimbledon during peak times pre-Covid (when there was 6tph via Epsom) - the times of services within the hour could be shifted around, and I haven't considered the exact pathing on the Windsor lines, but would something along these lines be feasible?

I can't comment on whether that is feasible in terms of pathing, but overall it looks good. Two tweaks I'd suggest are:
1. Terminate the Guildford via Cobham service at Effingham Junction, and have that one as all stops between Wimbledon and Woking. I can't see that the little villages between Effingham and Guildford need 4tph. (Suggesting that rather than the via Epsom service terminates there in order to get links between Guildford and Epsom/Leatherhead)
2. Send one of your Waterloo via Kingston pairs to Shepperton instead. There's surely enough population along that line to warrant 4tph. And it saves worrying about whether there's capacity on the Richmond lines.

If there was capacity to go up to 20tph - so a train every 3 minutes, rather than having some 4 minute gaps in your schedule, I'd add an extra 2tph to Woking, to give those stations a train a regular 15 minute frequency, and allowing removal of the Walton/Weybridge/West Byfleet stops from the Alton/Basingstoke services to speed them up.