What changes could be made to services on the Waterloo–Reading line?

[Mgameing123]

it's for Wokingham, Bracknell, Ascot, Egham and Staines, mainly. But Reading is an excellent place to have at the other end, with tons of inbound demand and connections.

You are right that there is no call for a non-stop service from Reading to Waterloo. However, journey times from Wokingham and Bracknell towards London are such that people drive to Twyford and Maidenhead, or Fleet and Farnborough, rather than using their local station. This may not necessarily be a bad thing if it means a better service exists for passengers further east but may be seen as bad from the point of view of overloading car parks and causing local traffic issues. By all means have services return east from Wokingham if that is what makes them viable but Reading is a natural traffic objective.

(In practice, the chance of any enhancement of the Waterloo to Reading line is close to nil, but it is an interesting discussion to consider the practical barriers which lead to that view.)

So is there capacity for this service at all? And how many stations could theoretically be skipped to reduce the journey time?

 

[cle]

Aren't those the same thing?


I don't think it needs to go underground until Richmond. I wonder if a cut and cover line could be built fairly quickly if the line closed for a period, then the surface land sold off to be used for housing to pay for the work. The line of route would represent quite valuable real estate.

To me, this always felt like a good candidate for the Northern line.

Extend to Clapham Junction, and then underground at Wandsworth (closer to the Centre) - Putney - 3 x stations along Upper Richmond/Sheen Road - and terminate at Richmond.

You might argue to keep Mortlake. Barnes goes to loop services only. Putney and Wandsworth Town remain also - but ideally on a loop northern track pair. North Sheen is closed. And services run either fast or semi-fast (Putney/Mortlake only) -before Richmond, or non-stop, and at higher frequency. 2tph to Reading, 4tph Windsor, 2tph rounders as standard, and add 2tph Shepperton semi.

Hounslow Loop runs 2tph rounders, 2tph Addlestone (stopper) + 2tph Reading.

You might even explore 6tph to Reading - but what this really does is enable a future Heathrow service.

The WLO service might be a spanner in the works though, you'd need some works to platform and separate those.

 

[squingo44]

Aren't those the same thing?

The plans for Crossrail 2 evolved out of the plans for the Chelsea-Hackney tube line, and the safeguarded plans for Crossrail 2 reflects this in its design. But a tube line and a crossrail are very different things - the former stops frequently in zone 2 and zone 3, while the latter should have very few and provide a faster journey to the centre of the city for the outer stations.

Crossrail 2 currently is a version of the Chelsea-Hackney tube line, but this is a compromise in its purpose as a crossrail. It would be better for Crossrail 2 to have fewer stops in zone 2/zone 3, and for a separate tube line to better serve Chelsea and Hackney.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jul 2026 ==

If we're looking to make some major changes to the timetable and infrastructure to support an expanded service, how about expanding Staines into an interchange station?

Assuming capacity can be found at Waterloo to accommodate higher frequencies, then converting the services between Staines and Windsor, Woking, and Weybridge into shuttles that terminate in new bay platforms at Staines would eliminate a number of conflicting movements. Then we could also break up the stopping services at Staines, so that there would be all-stops services between Reading and Staines, Waterloo and Staines via Hounslow, and Waterloo and Staines via Richmond. I think that the stations on the Richmond loop should be given as much service as possible, even if it requires an expensive intervention to widen the line to 4 tracks for part of it.

Tying everything together would be a frequent express service between Reading and Waterloo, calling at Reading, Ascot, Staines, Richmond, Clapham Junction, Vauxhall, and Waterloo. Depending on the specifics of the timetable, passing loops could be introduced at target locations along the line to allow more express services to run interlined with the stopping services. The express service would have to be frequent enough to handle all passenger traffic that previously enjoyed a direct connection to Waterloo; the benefit of this configuration would be improving connections to secondary destinations like Reading, Woking, and Heathrow. By making Staines the focal point of the new timetable, the enhanced connectivity with the rest of the region makes the most of a Heathrow southwest extension to Staines.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jul 2026 ==

Taking a look at some of the timetables around Richmond, it may be possible to implement a service pattern with a balanced number of express and stopping services along the Richmond loop. This would require 4-tracking Twickenham station, out beyond Twickenham Junction, and would also require 4-tracking Barnes station. Each stopping service would wait a several minutes at Twickenham station and Barnes station, for an express service to overtake it. All services would stop at Richmond and Clapham Junction.

In fact, it might even be useful to pair the Windsor Line by direction between Barnes and Waterloo, allowing for express services to use the fast lines and both Hounslow Loop and stopping Richmond Loop services to stop at Barnes, Putney, Wandsworth Town and Queenstown Road. This would of course require reinstating the 4th track of the Windsor line, but that's already being planned by Network Rail.

 

[SynthD]

Put a chord at Virginia Water, allowing fast services from Weybridge to reach Longcross.
Shame about Weybridge junction being flat. But fixing that too may be cheaper than any tunnel.

 

[43096]

In fact, it might even be useful to pair the Windsor Line by direction between Barnes and Waterloo

Do you mean paired by direction or paired by speed? Because the Windsor lines are arranged Up Slow - Up Fast - Down Fast - Down Slow between Clapham and Barnes.

 

[squingo44]

Put a chord at Virginia Water, allowing fast services from Weybridge to reach Longcross.
Shame about Weybridge junction being flat. But fixing that too may be cheaper than any tunnel.

Does this mean you think that fast services from Reading should be rerouted onto the SWML? In that case, do you think that services via the Richmond Loop should all be slow services?

 

[JonathanH]

Does this mean you think that fast services from Reading should be rerouted onto the SWML? In that case, do you think that services via the Richmond Loop should all be slow services?

I think the idea is services via Richmond would run as they currently do, but running via Weybridge would provide a supplementary faster service. There are no 'fast' services from Reading.

 

[SynthD]

There should be some services to connect Longcross and westwards to Staines and Richmond, but if people want to skip those then don’t go that way. For Windsor line only destinations, does the current semi-fast setup work for Bracknell passengers?

 

[JonathanH]

There should be some services to connect Longcross and westwards to Staines and Richmond, but if people want to skip those then don’t go that way. For Windsor line only destinations, does the current semi-fast setup work for Bracknell passengers?

One challenge of going via Weybridge would be that any passengers for Clapham Junction would likely still have to go via Richmond and still take a long time, although this is essentially no different to the situation for passengers on the South Western Main Line.

 

[squingo44]

Tbh that makes a lot of sense. You definitely could make the Richmond loop run all stops if fast services from Longcross westwards went via the SWML. Doesn't solve the story for fast commuter services from Windsor or Shepperton on the Windsor line, though, and I guess my preference would be to simply make them all slow.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2026 ==

One challenge of going via Weybridge would be that any passengers for Clapham Junction would likely still have to go via Richmond and still take a long time, although this is essentially no different to the situation for passengers on the South Western Main Line.

Do the SWML fasts not stop at Clapham Junction?

 

[JonathanH]

Do the SWML fasts not stop at Clapham Junction?

Clapham Junction cannot accomodate stops on the main line in the peak hours in the peak flow direction.

Tbh that makes a lot of sense. You definitely could make the Richmond loop run all stops if fast services from Longcross westwards went via the SWML. Doesn't solve the story for fast commuter services from Windsor or Shepperton on the Windsor line, though, and I guess my preference would be to simply make them all slow.

The calling patterns are as much a function of demand, and distributing passengers between services, as they are about faster and slower services. I am not sure that having all Windsor Line trains call all stations makes sense.

 

[VT 390]

I do not see diverting/additional Reading services going via Weybridge as a good use of capacity on the SWML as any spare paths would surely be put to better use adding (restoring) cut services to SWML destinations via Guildford/Basingstoke.
Additionally services heading towards Reading would have to cross the entire SWML, so even if a suitable path could be found would add another point where delays could occur.

 

[JonathanH]

I do not see diverting/additional Reading services going via Weybridge as a good use of capacity on the SWML as any spare paths would surely be put to better use adding (restoring) cut services to SWML destinations via Guildford/Basingstoke.
Additionally services heading towards Reading would have to cross the entire SWML, so even if a suitable path could be found would add another point where delays could occur.

I wouldn't worry about it actually happening. It is just a thought about how faster services to London could be provided for passengers from South East Berkshire. The likelihood of any interventions is infinitessimal.

You are right that it would be challenging to justify using SWML capacity for such an intervention, and whether they would have to 'do their bit' at the stations between Weybridge and Surbiton.

 

[43096]

For Windsor line only destinations, does the current semi-fast setup work for Bracknell passengers?

No, the service is too slow.

 

[jfollows]

There was a 17:02 Waterloo-Surbiton-Chertsey-Waterloo in 1974 but it didn't last much longer than that; the reverse working lasted longer and ran empty from Clapham Yard behind a 73 EDL to form a Chertsey-Waterloo service via Weybridge because clearly it caused less conflict at Weybridge.

On the main topic, I lived in SW London 1981-84 and the stations between Waterloo and Putney - at least - were little used so it made sense for few trains to stop there. Even Clapham Junction wasn’t busy. Off-peak the Reading services were non-stop to Richmond in 14 minutes, in the peak non-stop to Staines in 22 minutes. But the needs of the time were entirely different, now a more frequent stopping service must make more sense.

 

[JonathanH]

A peak time Virginia Water to Waterloo via Chertsey service survived right through to the early 2000s. We have discussed through running before - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...tone-roundabout-services.256124/#post-6453567

 

[squingo44]

I do not see diverting/additional Reading services going via Weybridge as a good use of capacity on the SWML as any spare paths would surely be put to better use adding (restoring) cut services to SWML destinations via Guildford/Basingstoke.
Additionally services heading towards Reading would have to cross the entire SWML, so even if a suitable path could be found would add another point where delays could occur.

That's true. It might make sense if the junction were grade separated, Network rail's SWML capacity enhancement plan to get up to 40 TPH on the SWML fasts during peak hours were implemented, and Crossrail 2 freed up a number of paths, but even then maybe it would be more sensible to add infrastructure to the windsor line rather than the Chertsey branch.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2026 ==

Do you mean paired by direction or paired by speed? Because the Windsor lines are arranged Up Slow - Up Fast - Down Fast - Down Slow between Clapham and Barnes.

I meant paired by direction. I didn't realise that they already configured that way, I saw the flat junction at Barnes junction and assumed it was paired by speed. In that case it would just need grade separation.

 

[ox_chap]

Bring back the 458s would be my vote for improvement. Very comfortable trains. And on the Reading line, you could go in the nice first-class cabins legitimately with a second-class ticket. Always a treat if there were seats available.....

But obviously, that's not to be.....

 

[cle]

Getting back to the 4tph Reading, 4tph Windsor aspirations (which nearly came about) and other pre Covid patterns (4tph Hounslow stoppers) would be as good as it gets.

With 4tph to Reading you could toggle some of the stopping patterns - 2 could be a faster pattern, might save a few mins here and there, but likely gobbled up by padding / performance.

 

[Zomboid]

Getting back to the 4tph Reading, 4tph Windsor aspirations (which nearly came about) and other pre Covid patterns (4tph Hounslow stoppers) would be as good as it gets.

With 4tph to Reading you could toggle some of the stopping patterns - 2 could be a faster pattern, might save a few mins here and there, but likely gobbled up by padding / performance.

You're not going to do any better than that without throwing money and infrastructure at the problem. Like extend the line from Heathrow to somewhere like Virginia Water and use those HEx paths on the fast lines into Paddington to give Wokingham & Bracknell faster London services.

 

[davews]

Back to the Vauxhall stops. Last weekend I had a trip up to Melton Mowbray via StP. I had originally decided to change at Vauxhall. On the outward journey there was disruption on the Victoria line (which I didn't know about as the PIS on the 450s doesn't show tube disruption) but whatever in the end decided to try the almost step free access to the tube from platforms 20-24- sort of step free but a far longer walk than I thought. Victoria disruption had almost cleared by the time I got to Oxford Circus so that worked fine. Yesterday on the return journey I was going to lunch at StP then go via Vauxhall. But with delays to EMR (another story) I got there a bit late and having visited the loos realised the long walk back to Wetherspoons at StP was a bit silly so went as normal to Waterloo (Victoria/Bakerloo via Oxford Circus) and ate in the Wetherspoons at Waterloo (no obvious eats at Vauxhall). So overall I would agree with an earlier poster that the Vauxhall stop is unnecessary and just adds delay (and even more delay to your journey if the Victoria line is broke!).

I note that journey planner defaults to assume you are changing at Vauxhall for cross London.

 

[cle]

You're not going to do any better than that without throwing money and infrastructure at the problem. Like extend the line from Heathrow to somewhere like Virginia Water and use those HEx paths on the fast lines into Paddington to give Wokingham & Bracknell faster London services.

Agreed. I don't see fast tunnels, 5th lines, NLE, Southern Access or anything else in the docket right now though! So those plans to increase the existing outers to 4tph and Hounslow loop to 4tph, all within existing infrastructure might be as far as we get. Which is markedly better than today.

And then look at some potential stopping pattern adjustments at the western end. If Windsor went to 4tph then 2 additional Readings could skip Feltham and Twickenham potentially, for instance as they'd still see a net increase (if they don't run via Hounslow). Maybe those two Windsors call at Mortlake instead of Putney. etc etc - messy but it's what we have.