December 2026 Timetable Change

[nw1]

SWR have also extended the Surbiton peak buster 2J92 to start back in service from Hampton Court at 07:44. The train will also gain a call at Berrylands as well

Essentially this sounds like a re-introduction of the former 1748 Southampton additional. A step in the right direction at least.
With the 1745 to Portsmouth retimed to 1750, does this mean any retimings for the following 1800 service to prevent catching it up?

I'd hoped that they might make some moves towards restoring the former xx39 semi-fast all day, as I've heard noises about this - but evidently not yet.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jun 2026 ==

The stock off the 07:45 then does an 08:10 back to Aylesbury - is there no local demand for that service (it also connects out of the 07:11 ex-Marylebone)?

Even still the 0745 must presumably be potentially a prime commuter service for the small stations on the line, and the 22-min wait makes it very unattractive for commuter use.

 

[The Planner]

Extend just 1P07 to Glasgow and you'd have both a later train from London, and a later train from Birmingham via the seven minute interchange from Stafford (admittedly that is pretty tight).

It will be a resource thing. What does that Preston unit form in the morning and you'll also need a different driver north of Preston.

 

[moonarrow458]

There's also a new 05:40 Banbury to Oxford service that runs non-stop, giving a earlier first train by 50 minutes on that route. However it has so much pathing time that it could serve all the village stations and still arrive at Oxford at the same time.

Not if it's longer than a single three car.

Ahh yes hadn't considered that Tackley and Heyford only fit 3 cars, although Kings Sutton takes 5 cars.

I note that Little Kimble and Monks Risborough only fit 4 cars but there do appear to be instances at least from RTT of 6 cars ending up on Aylesbury services booked to call at these stations. How is that handled given that the chiltern units do not have SDO?

The stock off the 07:45 then does an 08:10 back to Aylesbury - is there no local demand for that service (it also connects out of the 07:11 ex-Marylebone)?

Even still the 0745 must presumably be potentially a prime commuter service for the small stations on the line, and the 22-min wait makes it very unattractive for commuter use.

I'm not saying the 07:45 Aylesbury to Risborough should be removed, just that the new 07:55 Risborough to Marylebone service really ought to start back from Aylesbury if it has to come ECS from there anyway, given the poor connections of the 07:45 at Risborough.

 

[800002]

How is that handled given that the chiltern units do not have SDO?

The rear unit / carriages are physically locked out.
Only SDO type occurrence is with the mk5a sets.

I'm not saying the 07:45 Aylesbury to Risborough should be removed, just that the new 07:55 Risborough to Marylebone service really ought to start back from Aylesbury if it has to come ECS from there anyway, given the poor connections of the 07:45 at Risborough.

Can understand your point of view.
Both services need to operate, but the Risborough starter could be better to start at Aylesbury for intermediate connections not fit London (after all that's what the met line service is for).

Need to look at the back working of the 0745. What does it do back to Aylesbury for those folk needing Aylesbury in the morning?

 

[swt_passenger]

I'd hoped that they might make some moves towards restoring the former xx39 semi-fast all day, as I've heard noises about this - but evidently not yet.

I wish they’d do that in order to give Eastleigh its normal service, but also to remove the ‘spare path’ that’s tempting the open access proposals. “You don’t run the services you’re allowed - so we will…”

 

[800002]

The stock off the 07:45 then does an 08:10 back to Aylesbury - is there no local demand for that service (it also connects out of the 07:11 ex-Marylebone)?

I would assume a desire / demand for connections from the south towards Aylesbury

 

[JonathanH]

I wish they’d do that in order to give Eastleigh its normal service, but also to remove the ‘spare path’ that’s tempting the open access proposals. “You don’t run the services you’re allowed - so we will…”

Isn't the 'xx39 path' still occupied south of Winchester?

 

[PGAT]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but the Windrush Line now has 6tph between Crystal Palace and Highbury & Islington in the peaks

 

[swt_passenger]

Isn't the 'xx39 path' still occupied south of Winchester?

Yes, but for me it still gives the wrong message, ie “we can give up on through services to Waterloo”.

 

[devon_belle]

Nothing of major significance - the Victoria to London Bridge and Victoria to West Croydon via Crystal Palace services swap paths as I mentioned a few pages back, Wandsworth Common goes up from 4tph off-peak/6tph peak to 6tph off peak/8tph peak as the aforementioned Victoria to West Croydon service has its stop there reinstated, and the Reigate services appear to no longer use Platform 12 at Victoria.

Thank you. The prospect of no improvements until at least May 27 is quite scary! In my experience the Mole Valley line is getting very busy and needs trains reinstating. In the peaks there are some extras but trains are still full and standing on the London end.

I also feel strongly for the London-to-coast passengers who have been passed over to introduce these Gatwick shuttles. In my view the shuttles need to be the same price or cheaper, call at Clapham Jnc to pick up/set down only in the down/up directions, and call at East Croydon but not in the peaks.

 

[London Trains]

Thank you. The prospect of no improvements until at least May 27 is quite scary! In my experience the Mole Valley line is getting very busy and needs trains reinstating. In the peaks there are some extras but trains are still full and standing on the London end.

I also feel strongly for the London-to-coast passengers who have been passed over to introduce these Gatwick shuttles. In my view the shuttles need to be the same price or cheaper, call at Clapham Jnc to pick up/set down only in the down/up directions, and call at East Croydon but not in the peaks.

Absolutely agree - people being left behind by both the Dorking/Horsham to Victoria and the Epsom to London Bridge services has become a regular occurrence as these services are unbelievably busy now, and this is also the case for the East Croydon to Watford Junction services too.

I have also noticed some services on the Southern metro are comparatively underutilised, and altering some services and cascading stock accordingly could potentially be a good idea - for example I don't think the London Bridge to Sutton via Tulse Hill and Hackbridge peak extra is particularly necessary, it would probably be better to remove this service and restore the standard London Bridge to East Croydon/Beckenham Junction services to 8 coaches, which provides the same capacity as now over the hour where the peak extra runs and provides more capacity throughout the peaks (and all day).

 

[sammyg901]

Chiltern is up. Only had a quick look but it looks very interesting!

Day time Stratford-upon-Avon is back is indeed back, though the return to London is rather early.
There is a non stop to Bicester Village only in the morning.
Looks like extra peak services to Banbury with Birminghams going non stop to Bicester North in the evening.
Marylebone to Aylesbury via Amersham is every 30 minutes until end of service
Looks like more Stourbridge Junction trains

 

[rmHawk765]

GTR seems to be in on rail record.

Any changes to services from Moorgate? I do not have a subscription unfortunately.

 

[sammyg901]

You can see it on RTT now (except Sat)

 

[JonathanH]

Any changes to services from Moorgate? I do not have a subscription unfortunately.

You can see it on RTT now (except Sat)

No subscription needed - https://live.rail-record.co.uk/live...a=&p=on&e=on&f=on&w=on&o=on&s=on&n=0500&dw=on for example for services from Moorgate on 17 December

 

[rmHawk765]

No subscription needed - https://live.rail-record.co.uk/live...a=&p=on&e=on&f=on&w=on&o=on&s=on&n=0500&dw=on for example for services from Moorgate on 17 December

Thanks!

 

[trundlewagon]

Day time Stratford-upon-Avon is back is indeed back, though the return to London is rather early.

Assumed it would interwork with the Leamington shuttles but looking at RTT, it seems to just layover in platform 3 for 3 hours which is a bit peculiar. Nice little break for someone if the weather's decent though

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Just scanned through this and good to see majority of posts are about enhanced levels of service just hope Alexanders comments at last week Transport Select Committee about adjusting capacity to better match demand aren't a portent for curtailment of these services.

 

[sammyg901]

Then there is a rather bizzare occurence in the morning peak on the Aylesbury to Risborough line.
2P16 - 07:45 Aylesbury to Princes Risborough remains unchanged connecting into nothing at Risborough (or rather a 22 minute wait for 1Y17 ex Oxford at 08:24).

But the stock for the new 07:55 Princes Risborough to Marylebone service which replaces 1H12 at 07:46, comes ECS from Aylesbury at 07:37 instead of Wembley.

So you have the rather bizzare result of a train from Aylesbury running ECS to Risborough at 07:37, which could form a useful through direct service to Wycombe and London, and then at 07:45 you have the shuttle to Risborough that doesn't connect well into anything towards Wycombe

The very long connection is the same as timetabled now (and rather surprising, I used to commute to High Wycombe and this was a popular alternative to the buses, though these now have faster options). But this does seem like a nice opportunity to have fixed this.

Though they may prefer to retain flexibility to STP the ECS from Wembley or Banbury

I would guess this will be a 4 car 165 but they do run longer trains , presumably they lock out the rear unit. But they could open this up at Princes Risborough.

 

[nw1]

I wish they’d do that in order to give Eastleigh its normal service, but also to remove the ‘spare path’ that’s tempting the open access proposals. “You don’t run the services you’re allowed - so we will…”

Indeed, Eastleigh is big enough to support 2tph to London IMO. I know people can drive to Parkway, but then again why should they?
Eastleigh IIRC had 2tph fast or semi-fast to London continuously from 1990 to 2019, gaining the second train when through services towards Fareham started running. Even during the period the Fareham services didn't run through to London, it was served by the third Waterloo-Southampton service.

Plus, the xx39 also provides connectivity from the medium-sized stations in general, e.g. Farnborough to the South Coast, and of course provides 2tph fast from Farnborough to London.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jun 2026 ==

Assumed it would interwork with the Leamington shuttles but looking at RTT, it seems to just layover in platform 3 for 3 hours which is a bit peculiar. Nice little break for someone if the weather's decent though

Indeed, the constraint is that the unit(s) presumably need to be back for the evening peak which means I guess it could leave Stratford as late as 1600 or so to then form an 18xx peak additional out.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jun 2026 ==

Just scanned through this and good to see majority of posts are about enhanced levels of service just hope Alexanders comments at last week Transport Select Committee about adjusting capacity to better match demand aren't a portent for curtailment of these services.

I guess if we're talking about Chiltern, many of the extras are at peak times so that would still be providing capacity where it's most needed.

 

[Farigiraf]

Indeed, Eastleigh is big enough to support 2tph to London IMO. I know people can drive to Parkway, but then again why should they?
Eastleigh IIRC had 2tph fast or semi-fast to London continuously from 1990 to 2019, gaining the second train when through services towards Fareham started running. Even during the period the Fareham services didn't run through to London, it was served by the third Waterloo-Southampton service.

Plus, the xx39 also provides connectivity from the medium-sized stations in general, e.g. Farnborough to the South Coast, and of course provides 2tph fast from Farnborough to London.

Much of the SWR timetable has been quite a mess since COVID. Every year it seems to get more complex and less reliable, yet frequencies aren't actually going up. There are numerous factors at play of course (e.g. rolling stock availability, weather-based disruption) but a good amount of the issues can be improved upon with a better timetable.

For example, take a look at the line between Southampton Central and Basingstoke. Different stops are picked up by different trains (Micheldever and Shawford served by separate services), destinations vary by direction (Bournemouth-Winchester northbound, Winchester-Soton southbound) and the likes of Swaythling and Eastleigh remain with a subpar service given the local population. It's not terrible by any means, but attempting to understand the timetable if you live locally is a headache.

Thankfully the network is quite self-contained other than in a few spots (Southampton, Salisbury and Portsmouth) so there's enough flexibility to design a decent timetable without too many compromises.

The main 'checklist' additions for the 2027 rewrite, in the off-peak at least, probably are:
- 4tph Hounslow Loop
- 4tph to Epsom (doubling Dorking & Guildford via Epsom frequencies)
- Return of the hourly Southampton semi-fast (went to Poole pre-COVID, but I think the Bournemouth-Winchester is better suited for the New Forest local stops)
- 2tph Portsmouth Direct line semifasts
These are the outlying missing services, of course there's other routes that can be improved with a bit of tweaking. Don't want to pin everything on GBR (even if I should), but if these four key improvements are brought back then DfT-run SWR can claim it as an overdue success. If not even two of them are implemented, then it's likely to be indicative of GBR policy in the coming years.

 

[CR165022]

The stock off the 07:45 then does an 08:10 back to Aylesbury - is there no local demand for that service (it also connects out of the 07:11 ex-Marylebone)?

The 08:10 to Aylesbury is always very busy with students

 

[swt_passenger]

For example, take a look at the line between Southampton Central and Basingstoke. Different stops are picked up by different trains (Micheldever and Shawford served by separate services), destinations vary by direction (Bournemouth-Winchester northbound, Winchester-Soton southbound) and the likes of Swaythling and Eastleigh remain with a subpar service given the local population. It's not terrible by any means, but attempting to understand the timetable if you live locally is a headache.

Winchester - Southampton being cut short at Southampton was done with fairly good intentions. The through xx39 Poole service spent about 20 mins blocking platform 2B, then another half hour approximately stopped at Brockenhurst. The result of that was to be of little to no use as a Waterloo to Poole service, it being overtaken twice. So they extended the Portsmouth to Southampton stopper westward in its place, and that was slotted in without the long layovers.

But the same issue of a long dwells didn’t have as much impact for the up service, it was only about 10 mins at Eastleigh while overtaken. I’m not sure if they’d keep the unbalance if the xx39 down from Waterloo was ever to be reinstated, maybe they’d go back to the old operating times with the long delays.

 

[bicbasher]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but the Windrush Line now has 6tph between Crystal Palace and Highbury & Islington in the peaks

I'm disappointed that it's only peak only but I see they'll slot in between the existing Crystal Palace and West Croydon services giving some relief to the already busy West Croydon's which are packed by the time they get to Forest Hill.

 

[Johnny Lewis]

Avanti additions (weekdays):
1205 London Euston - Liverpool Lime Street (replacing London Euston - Crewe)
1407 London Euston - Liverpool Lime Street
1505 Liverpool Lime Street - London Euston
1705 Liverpool Lime Street - London Euston
1929 Chester - London Euston

There are minor timing changes on many other services but nothing significant

Does this now fill all the remaining gaps to give Liverpool two trains per hour to London Euston all day? A mere 4 years after the date Avanti promised them?

 

[TEW]

Winchester - Southampton being cut short at Southampton was done with fairly good intentions. The through xx39 Poole service spent about 20 mins blocking platform 2B, then another half hour approximately stopped at Brockenhurst. The result of that was to be of little to no use as a Waterloo to Poole service, it being overtaken twice. So they extended the Portsmouth to Southampton stopper westward in its place, and that was slotted in without the long layovers.

But the same issue of a long dwells didn’t have as much impact for the up service, it was only about 10 mins at Eastleigh while overtaken. I’m not sure if they’d keep the unbalance if the xx39 down from Waterloo was ever to be reinstated, maybe they’d go back to the old operating times with the long delays.

I'm not sure they necessarily could go back. The change was introduced when the Portsmouth to Southampton stopping trains were retimed in reaction to changes to the Southern timetable. Whereas they previously had short turnarounds at Southampton, they would now have 40 minute turnarounds.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm not sure they necessarily could go back. The change was introduced when the Portsmouth to Southampton stopping trains were retimed in reaction to changes to the Southern timetable. Whereas they previously had short turnarounds at Southampton, they would now have 40 minute turnarounds.

Yes, I see it all has a bit of a domino effect isn’t it.

 

[London Trains]

Winchester - Southampton being cut short at Southampton was done with fairly good intentions. The through xx39 Poole service spent about 20 mins blocking platform 2B, then another half hour approximately stopped at Brockenhurst. The result of that was to be of little to no use as a Waterloo to Poole service, it being overtaken twice. So they extended the Portsmouth to Southampton stopper westward in its place, and that was slotted in without the long layovers.

But the same issue of a long dwells didn’t have as much impact for the up service, it was only about 10 mins at Eastleigh while overtaken. I’m not sure if they’d keep the unbalance if the xx39 down from Waterloo was ever to be reinstated, maybe they’d go back to the old operating times with the long delays.

I wonder if it would be possible to path an hourly Portsmouth to Poole service using single 450s, replacing the Portsmouth to Southampton stopper, Southampton to Bournemouth stopper and the Bournemouth to Poole portions of the xx05 Waterloo to Weymouth (with the rear unit of this service changed to go in and out of the middle sidings at Bournemouth, joining the previous service from the one it joins now, therefore saving a 444 which could be reallocated to the Portsmouth Direct Line), alongside a reinstated xx39 semi-fast only running as far as Southampton, using 8 or 12-coach 450s - such an arrangement could potentially be quite an efficient use of resources if the pathing works.

 

[Concorde9289]

I wonder if it would be possible to path an hourly Portsmouth to Poole service using single 450s, replacing the Portsmouth to Southampton stopper, Southampton to Bournemouth stopper and the Bournemouth to Poole portions of the xx05 Waterloo to Weymouth (with the rear unit of this service changed to go in and out of the middle sidings at Bournemouth, joining the previous service from the one it joins now, therefore saving a 444 which could be reallocated to the Portsmouth Direct Line), alongside a reinstated xx39 semi-fast only running as far as Southampton, using 8 or 12-coach 450s - such an arrangement could potentially be quite an efficient use of resources if the pathing works.

I was thinking something along these lines. A through London service from the local Bournemouth to Southampton stations wouldn't be that useful given that the service would be overtaken by a faster service, not to mention the long dwells in the southbound direction.

I think a Portsmouth Harbour to Poole service would improve local links along the South Coast and it'd remove all that nonsense where the services vary depending on the direction.

 

[Farigiraf]

I wonder if it would be possible to path an hourly Portsmouth to Poole service using single 450s, replacing the Portsmouth to Southampton stopper, Southampton to Bournemouth stopper and the Bournemouth to Poole portions of the xx05 Waterloo to Weymouth (with the rear unit of this service changed to go in and out of the middle sidings at Bournemouth, joining the previous service from the one it joins now, therefore saving a 444 which could be reallocated to the Portsmouth Direct Line), alongside a reinstated xx39 semi-fast only running as far as Southampton, using 8 or 12-coach 450s - such an arrangement could potentially be quite an efficient use of resources if the pathing works.

I mostly agree with the idea, but the busiest passenger flows from both Parkstone and Branksome are to London Waterloo so losing that connection would seriously hurt usage at these stations.
Though if it means that a 444 could be reutilised in a place where it'd carry more passengers (such as the PDL) then it'd still be a better utilisation of rolling stock, however it wouldn't be a popular move among Bournemouth/Poole area residents.