New Open Access Application: London - Southampton - Marchwood

[Sun Chariot]

Just out of interest who owns the Waterside Line at Marchwood? Is it Network Rail or privately owned track?

To add to Bald Rick's reply -
Here's an NR cyclical track-inspection visit, as far as former Marchwood station.
Spur, to NR/MoD exchange sidings, is just beyond far end of this station.

 

[MartinC]

What benefits would an OAO running direct trains from Marchwood to London have over SWR simply reinstating the Southampton semifast as well as running an hourly Southampton - Marchwood DMU?

Though I don't really see the point of only reopening as far as Marchwood anyway, it has a frequent, fast bus to Soton city centre, unlike at Hythe where the train would be fastest by a significant margin.

The Bluestar bus from Marchwood (Service 8) is hourly and runs via Totton town centre whereas the Service 9 (not serving Marchwood except a couple of runs late evening) is a limited stop service from Hythe (and further South) which avoids the meander through Totton. The problem of extending to Hythe (which would be very useful) is that nobody noticed that the site of the station allocated in the Local Plan was on a downward gradient.

On a different note the proposed allocation of the Waterside Parishes to be included in the expanded unitary authority might help to support the reopening.

 

[Farigiraf]

The Bluestar bus from Marchwood (Service 8) is hourly and runs via Totton town centre whereas the Service 9 (not serving Marchwood except a couple of runs late evening) is a limited stop service from Hythe (and further South) which avoids the meander through Totton. The problem of extending to Hythe (which would be very useful) is that nobody noticed that the site of the station allocated in the Local Plan was on a downward gradient.

There's also the currently suspended Hythe ferry of course, which was & would be more convenient than an express bus or hourly train for anyone wanting to access the southern parts of the city centre.
Though I think a rail reopening would complement ferry traffic through increased tourism, not compete with it.

 

[swt_passenger]

There's also the currently suspended Hythe ferry of course, which was & would be more convenient than an express bus or hourly train for anyone wanting to access the southern parts of the city centre.
Though I think a rail reopening would complement ferry traffic through increased tourism, not compete with it.

I‘d expect ‘currently suspended‘ to fairly quickly become ‘abandoned’. Unless HCC subsidise the ferry it’s not likely to return.

 

[MartinC]

I‘d expect ‘currently suspended‘ to fairly quickly become ‘abandoned’. Unless HCC subsidise the ferry it’s not likely to return.

Off subject but Abandoned is correct. Blue Funnel have sold the boat. The pier has been purchased by a Fawley Parish Councillor.
HCC do not have much interest for several reasons. A subsidy to a previous owner (for a new boat) was mis-spent, When the ferry was included in the OAP bus pass scheme all journeys were charged to HCC by the then owners as single fares instead of the return fare which was only slightly over the single, resulting in HCC removing it from the scheme. The connecting bus from Town Quay switched to charging. The pier in Hythe is unpleasant in bad weather. All this lead to a gradual decline (from full boats in the 1970's to 10 or so). The final straw was,of course,the cost of repairing a Victorian pier

 

[HamBuoy]

I do wonder if the Waterside merging with Southampton as part of the local government changes in 2 years time will revive the ferry (or the railway for that matter).

 

[weeklycommuter]

I do wonder if the Waterside merging with Southampton as part of the local government changes in 2 years time will revive the ferry (or the railway for that matter).

I see no prospect of the Hythe to Southampton ferry ever being restarted. It is gone forever.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I see no prospect of the Hythe to Southampton ferry ever being restarted. It is gone forever.

I wonder what that means for the financial viability and longevity of the (albeit Listed) Hythe Pier Railway.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I wonder what that means for the financial viability and longevity of the (albeit Listed) Hythe Pier Railway.

I assume it will be abandoned as without the ferry it has no purpose.

 

[James H]

I assume it will be abandoned as without the ferry it has no purpose.

I think abandonment is unlikely - the operation of the railway is separate from the ferry, and a lot of effort has gone in to restoring the rolling stock.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I assume it will be abandoned as without the ferry it has no purpose.

Not as simple. I paraphrase what I see on HM Gov't website:

Hythe Pier and the railway (including its pierhead buildings) were granted Grade II listed status on August 17, 2021.

Being "listed" means its owner has legal duty to keep it in a good state of repair. Its owner must not carry out any works (physical changes or demolitiom to pier, track, train, building) without formal agreement with its planning authority (which I believe is New Forest District Council).

 

[weeklycommuter]

Not as simple. I paraphrase what I see on HM Gov't website:

Hythe Pier and the railway (including its pierhead buildings) were granted Grade II listed status on August 17, 2021.

Being "listed" means its owner has legal duty to keep it in a good state of repair. Its owner must not carry out any works (physical changes or demolitiom to pier, track, train, building) without formal agreement with its planning authority (which I believe is New Forest District Council).

Hythe Pier is open at present with a £1 entry fee but how many people will visit and pay? Hythe is difficult to get to. A passenger rail service to Hythe would help if the Office of Rail and Road approves the open access application for passenger rail services to Marchwood and this is extended to Hythe.

Assuming no change to the new unitary councils announced on 25 March the planning and transport authority will be South West Hampshire which is Greater Southampton from 1 April 2028. The residents of the Waterside have made clear that they want to join Mid Hampshire along with the rest of the New Forest but it is probably too late in the local government reorganisation process to change the decision.

Hythe Pier set to reopen after six-month closure

The owner of Hythe Pier says it will reopen on 2 April after extensive restoration work.

www.bbc.co.uk

Historic pier to reopen after six-month closure
27 March 2026
A Grade II listed pier is set to reopen after being shut for six months for essential electrical works.
Hythe Pier was bought by local parish councillor Ashleigh Mutimear-MacMillan in 2024 as part of a campaign to safeguard its future, and the maintenance work was the latest part of a long-term restoration plan.
In a post on Facebook, she announced that it would reopen on Thursday 2 April after local businesses and volunteers helped to conduct "extensive electrical upgrades" and a "full clean up" of the site.
There will be a £1 entry fee but it will be free for children under five.

Hythe Ferry enters voluntary liquidation - what happens next?

Hythe Ferry has entered voluntary liquidation. Here's what it means for the service and what happens next, by New Forest Dispatch...

www.newforestdispatch.co.uk

Hythe pier is currently open to the public with a £1 entry fee.

 

[BayPaul]

Not as simple. I paraphrase what I see on HM Gov't website:

Hythe Pier and the railway (including its pierhead buildings) were granted Grade II listed status on August 17, 2021.

Being "listed" means its owner has legal duty to keep it in a good state of repair. Its owner must not carry out any works (physical changes or demolitiom to pier, track, train, building) without formal agreement with its planning authority (which I believe is New Forest District Council).

Having that legal duty and it actually happening are two separate things. If the charity that owns it runs out of money then they will cease to exist and there will be no one to enforce that duty of keeping it in a good state of repair.

 

[Sun Chariot]

As it's just Grade 2 listed, I rather suspect that will evemtually happen exactly as you say.
I am familiar with Hythe town as well as its pier; and I cannot forrsee enough "demand" for a long secure future of the pier.

 

[JonathanH]

Rejected it seems

Operational and financial concerns as Marchwood-London Waterloo open access plan is rejected

Office of Rail and Road rejects attempt by Alliance Rail to reopen line to Marchwood in Hampshire.

www.railmagazine.com

However, ORR said: “We are not satisfied that the application would meet an NPA ratio of at least 0.3. This primarily relates to no credible evidence that the forecasted revenue from journeys to/from Marchwood would be new (generated) rail revenue rather than revenue abstracted from other operators.”

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2026-05/alliance-rail-marchwood-waterloo-s17-decision-letter.pdf

Application for a new track access contract for services between London Waterloo and Marchwood

1. We have carefully considered Alliance Rail’s application for a track access contractwith Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail). ORR has rejected the application because of our concerns over the available capacity, the potential impact on performance and the need for infrastructure works completion before any start date. We also consider there is a lack of credible evidence on the application’s financial viability relating to the required investment in infrastructure and we are not satisfied that the proposal will generate sufficient new to rail revenue. This letter explains the reasons for our decision.

I get the impression that ORR weren't particularly impressed with the standard of the application.

 

[Killingworth]

Leaving aside other considerations the mere mention of using 35-40 year old Class 769 rolling stock can't have helped. Tarred with Northern's experience maybe but any failures to keep within paths on those lines into Waterloo would have major knock-on effects.

 

[The Ham]

Leaving aside other considerations the mere mention of using 35-40 year old Class 769 rolling stock can't have helped. Tarred with Northern's experience maybe but any failures to keep within paths on those lines into Waterloo would have major knock-on effects.

Indeed, maybe a modified class 350 with batteries and 3rd rail shoes would have been a better option.

Whilst such a service would be useful, realistically it should be an extension of a SWR service not something new.

 

[MartinC]

Rejected it seems

Operational and financial concerns as Marchwood-London Waterloo open access plan is rejected

Office of Rail and Road rejects attempt by Alliance Rail to reopen line to Marchwood in Hampshire.

www.railmagazine.com

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2026-05/alliance-rail-marchwood-waterloo-s17-decision-letter.pdf

I get the impression that ORR weren't particularly impressed with the standard of the application.

Sadly, yes.

Fortunately, the significant change to local government (i.e.inclusion of the Waterside in the "Greater Southampton") may well see a long awaited coherent local transportation plan for the whole South Hampshire area. Light rail/trams ?

Just a side note to some of the issues raised in the decision letter. One objector, Southern (who has the worst record of services serving Southampton Central and platforming times), is there any connection with the ultimate owner of Blue Star Bus (Marchwood service no.8.)
Apart from HCRP where have they reached out to the local community?

 

[JonathanH]

One objector, Southern (who has the worst record of services serving Southampton Central and platforming times), is there any connection with the ultimate owner of Blue Star Bus (Marchwood service no.8.)

There isn't really any relevance. Southern in providing objections will have been acting on behalf of the DfT, not the transient owning company.

 

[Farigiraf]

Fortunately, the significant change to local government (i.e.inclusion of the Waterside in the "Greater Southampton") may well see a long awaited coherent local transportation plan for the whole South Hampshire area. Light rail/trams ?

I'd expect a MetroWest/Devon Metro style heavy rail improvement project to happen first, although there's certainly a case to be made for trams. Just 1 train per hour on every local service out of Southampton Central is underwhelming given the population density - although many of these lines have quite a lot of longer-distance traffic unlike the branch lines around Bristol/Exeter.

 

[MartinC]

Having that legal duty and it actually happening are two separate things. If the charity that owns it runs out of money then they will cease to exist and there will be no one to enforce that duty of keeping it in a good state of repair.

By "charity" I assume that you mean The Hythe Pier Heritage Association. This has the backing of the Parish Council and is a Society for the public benefit to preserve, repair and protect the pier. However the actual ownership of the pier (and the railway ?) appears to rest with The Hythe Pier Company Ltd which is not a charity.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Fortunately, the significant change to local government (i.e.inclusion of the Waterside in the "Greater Southampton") may well see a long awaited coherent local transportation plan for the whole South Hampshire area. Light rail/trams ?

Whereas Portishead and the Northumberland Line had support from local MPs and Mayors the local MP and Hampshire County Council did not lobby in support of a passenger train service from Southampton to the Waterside. The local Liberal Democrat councillors did their best to support it and campaigned for it over many years but without the support from the local MP and transport authority it was an uphill struggle for them.

I cannot see any light rail or tram scheme on the Waterside or anywhere else in South Hampshire. The Gosport tram was cancelled in 2005.

The 30,000 residents of Totton at least have a railway station with an hourly train service. The 6,000 residents of Marchwood, the 20,000 residents of Hythe and the 14,000 residents at the South end of the Waterside on the West side of Southampton Water will only have bus services on congested roads which make it difficult to get into and out of the area. No ferry service to Southampton, no train service to Southampton and no future prospect of either.

I do not know why Southampton wanted to include the Waterside in their new unitary authority area as without a ferry service or a train service connecting the Waterside to Southampton it would be completely impossible to support any new housing or any other new development on the Waterside. The plan for 1,500 new homes on the site of the Fawley Power Station was abandoned as not viable.

 

[Snow1964]

Sadly, yes.

Fortunately, the significant change to local government (i.e.inclusion of the Waterside in the "Greater Southampton") may well see a long awaited coherent local transportation plan for the whole South Hampshire area. Light rail/trams ?

Just a side note to some of the issues raised in the decision letter. One objector, Southern (who has the worst record of services serving Southampton Central and platforming times), is there any connection with the ultimate owner of Blue Star Bus (Marchwood service no.8.)
Apart from HCRP where have they reached out to the local community?

Yes some of the objections seem rather desperate :

4 i) Cross Country worried about platform availability at Southampton, ok makes sense, but also objecting to lack of power supply (for diesel voyagers is just plain daft if XC has no plans for dual voltage electric trains

4 iv) Southern objecting because might (not would) affect a service it wants to keep platformed for long time at Southampton (and yes there are storage loops just west of the station which could be used for long layovers)

6) DfT potentially using taxpayer funds to reopen Marchwood station, (reopen, not build or improve)

22) class 769s apparently cannot operate at 100mph, so can't keep sectional running times (I bet it could outrun a 159 on Waterloo-Basingstoke)

35) with lot of uncertainty as to usage of a new station the NPA (abstraction) ratio would be over 0.25

31) the NPA would definitely not meet 0.3 ratio, then goes on to argue in next few sections that because Marchwood is new, there is uncertainty, and ORR only deals with credible evidence, not projections. That seems very chicken and egg, prove it works, before ORR grant any permissions.

I kind of feel this one is close to a legal quagmire, with some of the reasons stretching rational credibility. No wonder ending up with a backwards country because default is object to any change or potential improvement.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2026-05/alliance-rail-marchwood-waterloo-s17-decision-letter.pdf

 

[swt_passenger]

I do not know why Southampton wanted to include the Waterside in their new unitary authority area as without a ferry service or a train service connecting the Waterside to Southampton it would be completely impossible to support any new housing or any other new development on the Waterside. The plan for 1,500 new homes on the site of the Fawley Power Station was abandoned as not viable.

Seems to me (viewed from Winchester district), that many of the residents of the Waterside don’t want to be part of a Southampton unitary authority either.

 

[Bald Rick]

I get the impression that ORR weren't particularly impressed with the standard of the application.

That’s putting it rather mildly.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Seems to me (viewed from Winchester district), that many of the residents of the Waterside don’t want to be part of a Southampton unitary authority either.

Most Waterside residents clearly want to join the Mid-Hampshire unitary authority along with the rest of New Forest District. This was clear from the responses of the four Waterside parishes in the consultation carried out by the twelve councils in their joint reorganisation proposal.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 May 2026 ==

I get the impression that ORR weren't particularly impressed with the standard of the application.

That’s putting it rather mildly.

Academic. The Restore Your Railway application was also not funded by the Government. Rail reopenings are political decisions.

If the Waterside rail reopening had received the same level of political support as some other new stations and rail reopenings such as Portishead and the Northumberland Line it would have happened one way or another.

 

[geordieblue]

Academic. The Restore Your Railway application was also not funded by the Government. Rail reopenings are political decisions.

If the Waterside rail reopening had received the same level of political support as some other new stations and rail reopenings such as Portishead and the Northumberland Line it would have happened one way or another.

In fairness that isn't up to ORR. ORR weren't assessing the merits of reopening the Waterside line, they were assessing whether the proposed track access application was primarily abstractive. Since the application was essentially predicated on nicking traffic off SWR, ORR have rejected it.

Sure - if it had received political support (either due to "levelling up", see Ashington, or "growth", see Cowley) - the Waterside line could have been rebuilt, indeed possibly fairly simply. But it isn't really in ORR's gift to approve abstractive applications (which is what this is - not a reopening proposal - it doesn't seem likely that Grand Union will now propose to amend their application to run 15 daily services between Marchwood and Soton only)

 

[Bald Rick]

If the Waterside rail reopening had received the same level of political support as some other new stations and rail reopenings such as Portishead and the Northumberland Line it would have happened one way or another.

The reopening would have happened with more local political support (and some local money). This open access proposal would not.

The ORR’s letter needs some interpretation, as the ORR is scrupulously polite in all matters. Essentially it says:
“Go away. Do not darken our door with anything like this again. Also, to anyone else out there thinking similar thoughts, tread carefully.”

 

[weeklycommuter]

In fairness that isn't up to ORR. ORR weren't assessing the merits of reopening the Waterside line, they were assessing whether the proposed track access application was primarily abstractive. Since the application was essentially predicated on nicking traffic off SWR, ORR have rejected it.

The following extract from the Office of Rail and Road decision letter shows the ORR passed the application on the absolute abstraction test but failed the application on the capacity, performance and not primarily abstractive tests.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2026-05/alliance-rail-marchwood-waterloo-s17-decision-letter.pdf

41. Absolute abstraction: We forecast Alliance Rail’s services will abstract between £21.5m and £22.5m of revenue per annum, based on 15 daily return paths, predominantly from SWR. While this is comparable with past open access applications which we have approved, those applications had, unlike Alliance’s, also passed our capacity, performance and NPA assessments.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2026 ==

The reopening would have happened with more local political support (and some local money). This open access proposal would not.

The ORR’s letter needs some interpretation, as the ORR is scrupulously polite in all matters. Essentially it says:
“Go away. Do not darken our door with anything like this again. Also, to anyone else out there thinking similar thoughts, tread carefully.”

Those who wanted a passenger train service on the Waterside Line wanted this as a public service under Restoring Your Railway.

They only supported the open access application because the Government did not fund the Restoring Your Railway application so the open access application was the only possible way to deliver this passenger train service on the Waterside.

Clearly the open access application had to include a train service from the Waterside to London Waterloo every two hours to make money as the proposed hourly service from Marchwood to Southampton Central was not going to make money.

The ORR decision letter indicates that the capacity issues alone, including through platform capacity at Southampton Central Station referred to in points 17 and 18 of the ORR decision letter, ensured this was never going to work and that the only passenger train service that was going to be possible is an hourly shuttle from West facing bay platform 5 at Southampton Central Station to Totton, Marchwood and Hythe.

The points in the ORR decision letter are clear enough but as this followed the decision not to fund the Restoring Your Railway application the impression left with some campaigners, however unfair, is that HM Treasury, the Department for Transport, Government controlled train operators and Network Rail were determined to ensure that this passenger train service did not go ahead.

The objections from South Western Railway over potential conflicts with its own planned service reintroductions, revenue abstraction,
and overall negative performance impacts are given particular short shrift because of SWR's failure to deliver the new Arterio trains for several years and failure to deliver the hourly stopping London Waterloo to Southampton Central service promised in the December 2022 timetable consultation.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2026-05/alliance-rail-marchwood-waterloo-s17-decision-letter.pdf

17. Additionally, Network Rail states that Southampton Central does not have capacity to support additional services with extended dwell times.
18. Capacity: Our assessment is that Network Rail has provided credible evidence that the capacity for Alliance Rail’s proposed services does not currently exist. We also agree that platform capacity introduces a constraint.

 

[Mike Machin]

I feel the scheme proposed was over ambitious in its scope. A much simpler service, half-hourly operated with SWR Class 158s and terminating in the old bay platform 5 at Southampton Central would be ideal for starters. There would be no additional pressure on the South West Main Line, particularly as paths through Southampton tunnel are at a premium and such a service would still provide a very viable and useful service for the waterside community for travel to and from Southampton and also would provide good connections to a huge range of destinations available with SWR, Great Western, Southern and Cross-Country.

Keep it simple and build from there.