SWR timetable refresh - consultation in Autumn 2026

[Goldfish62]

If it’s off peak then a 5 car 701 should do it

That's assuming they can be kept on Waterloo - Twickenham all day, which is unlikely as Windsor lines services tend to interwork on different routes as per the mainline suburban.

However, probably a moot point as I can't see Waterloo - Twickenham happening anyway. Restoring the Hounslow loop all day would be far more beneficial.

Equally, I can see nothing happening especially given that cutting services seems to be in vogue with the government at the moment.

 

[swr444]

That's assuming they can be kept on Waterloo - Twickenham all day, which is unlikely as Windsor lines services tend to interwork on different routes as per the mainline suburban.

However, probably a moot point as I can't see Waterloo - Twickenham happening anyway. Restoring the Hounslow loop all day would be far more beneficial.

Equally, I can see nothing happening especially given that cutting services seems to be in vogue with the government at the moment.

Oh I agree, HL all day would make way more sense. The demand is definitely there, even if they run them as 5 cars as per the pre covid timetable was with either 5 car 707s or 4 car 450s

 

[Goldfish62]

Oh I agree, HL all day would make way more sense. The demand is definitely there, even if they run them as 5 cars as per the pre covid timetable was with either 5 car 707s or 4 car 450s

And as others have mentioned, put the services on and passengers will follow. I remember when the Hounslow loop was (re)introduced in 2004. Very quiet in the the off peak at first. It didn't stay quiet for long.

This point seems to have been forgotten by the Rail Minister who in a previous role undertook a massive expansion of London’s bus network in the early 2000s. But that's for another thread.

 

[RPI]

Retime trains west of Yeovil to add in more recovery time, it only takes one speed restriction like today between Axminster and Honiton and the entire service goes to pants. Yes the overall journey time would be increased, but let's face it, it's so slow anyway that people would rather just have their train turn up.

I also agree with ditching all of the "Somerset rounders" from Yeovil Junction to Pen Mill and beyond and just concentrate on running the West of England line.

 

[moley]

Retime trains west of Yeovil to add in more recovery time, it only takes one speed restriction like today between Axminster and Honiton and the entire service goes to pants. Yes the overall journey time would be increased, but let's face it, it's so slow anyway that people would rather just have their train turn up.

I also agree with ditching all of the "Somerset rounders" from Yeovil Junction to Pen Mill and beyond and just concentrate on running the West of England line.

Aren’t the rounders essentially for diversionary route retention purposes? Ditch them and loose flexibility.

 

[RPI]

Aren’t the rounders essentially for diversionary route retention purposes? Ditch them and loose flexibility.

Before these ran there was one ECS move per day that was for route knowledge retention, could just do that or run a single service per day in each direction.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Before these ran there was one ECS move per day that was for route knowledge retention, could just do that or run a single service per day in each direction.

They’ll be a need for more than a single service each day. There’s two train crew depots now that sign that route.

 

[RPI]

They’ll be a need for more than a single service each day. There’s two train crew depots now that sign that route.

Fair point, something has to give though, the performance on the core WoE has been abysmal for years now, seems to have gotten worse since they opened the traincrew depot at Yeovil too!

 

[vikingdriver]

Before these ran there was one ECS move per day that was for route knowledge retention, could just do that or run a single service per day in each direction.

There were two Yeovil Junction to Westbury and return ECS moves, with the 4 Bristol returns covering the Salisbury to Westbury section. That was for Salisbury depot alone.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

There were two Yeovil Junction to Westbury and return ECS moves

Correct, but that is going back a long time now.

The 16.50 ex Waterloo formed 5L96, 19+23 Yeovil Jn to Westbury and 5L97, 20+13 Westbury to Yeovil Jn, before returning empty 21+02 Yeovil Jn to Sarum depot (via T'combe).

Followed by the 17.50 ex Waterloo, which formed 5L98, 20+17 Yeovil Jn to Westbury and 5L99, 21+17 return, prior to running ECS as 22+04 Yeovil Jn to depot (via T'combe).

This entire arrangement (principly for route retention) changed/mutated over the following years (20 teens), culminating in the Pen Mill initiative, the brain child of someone who then moved in to main stream politics.

I always felt the latter changes (which weren't without problems in the planning of) were of limited benefit in the overall context (have often wondered what the fare box benefits were?). The stock was there to provide units, albeit it resulted in a handful of 159 diagrams being 'turned' each day which wasn't appreciated, as it resulted in further additional costs to re-turn units via Laverstock triangle, which meant extra work for drivers, signallers and the depot (and planning) in order to provide a uniform service every day.

Also the anticipated crew diagram (driver wise particularly) establishment to cover this initiative was underestimated by those who proposed same, and as such the original proposals were (AFAIR) cut back by quite a bit.

That was for Salisbury depot alone.

A very good point. Yeovil (crew) depot came on line after I departed

 

[vikingdriver]

Correct, but that is going back a long time now.

The 16.50 ex Waterloo formed 5L96, 19+23 Yeovil Jn to Westbury and 5L97, 20+13 Westbury to Yeovil Jn, before returning empty 21+02 Yeovil Jn to Sarum depot (via T'combe).

Followed by the 17.50 ex Waterloo, which formed 5L98, 20+17 Yeovil Jn to Westbury and 5L99, 21+17 return, prior to running ECS as 22+04 Yeovil Jn to depot (via T'combe).

This entire arrangement (principly for route retention) changed/mutated over the following years (20 teens), culminating in the Pen Mill initiative, the brain child of someone who then moved in to main stream politics.

I always felt the latter changes (which weren't without problems in the planning of) were of limited benefit in the overall context (have often wondered what the fare box benefits were?). The stock was there to provide units, albeit it resulted in a handful of 159 diagrams being 'turned' each day which wasn't appreciated, as it resulted in further additional costs to re-turn units via Laverstock triangle, which meant extra work for drivers, signallers and the depot (and planning) in order to provide a uniform service every day.

Also the anticipated crew diagram (driver wise particularly) establishment to cover this initiative was underestimated by those who proposed same, and as such the original proposals were (AFAIR) cut back by quite a bit.


A very good point. Yeovil (crew) depot came on line after I departed

I'd like to think most crew kept an eye on the orientation of the unit. A first class at the country end could often reward you with a return via Warminster and an early finish as the unit was 'turned' at Westbury! If you ran back via Yeovil you just returned the first class to the wrong end which would then require turning at Laverstock. Not sure anyone is bothered these days which end is which!

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Not sure anyone is bothered these days which end is which

Perhaps not, but at the time there still existed the planning rule that where units had first class at one specific end, this should be kept London end*. It also (from Salisbury depot's point of view) kept everything on a standard pattern basis, which given that depot's very restrictive footprint and layout, with arrivals on shed at minimal intervals from about 6pm onwards each night, made for better working - ie; no sudden unexpected surprises if a unit arrived with the 52 car at the 'wrong' end.

The later arrivals (on depot) that resulted from units having to be re-turned via the Lavertstock triangle at close of service, resulted in the overnight depot maintenance regime window being reduced in time terms in the overall context, which will have put more pressure on the night shift.

* This practice was also a mainstay of REP diagramming in my time, whereby the Trailer Brake First had to be the second (from London end) car, with the Trailer Buffet third from front. If any diagramming plans (weekends largely) involved an odd number of turning moves for any particular diagram, an additional turning move was added to the end of the diagram to ensure the TBF was in the correct place.

 

[Cookie10]

There are arguably problems for every station with their current level of service. I am going to make a list of all the problems I am aware of, and how I would fix them, in order of how important I believe they are

1. Lack of 4tph for stations between Twickenham and Barnes (not inclusive and excluding Richmond), and lack of 6tph for Barnes, Wandsworth Town and the stations between Teddington and Norbiton (inclusive)

These stations have a horrendous lack of service for the number of people that use these stations. For example, both Kingston and Wandsworth Town both have around 4 million entries and exits for 2024/25, more than Raynes Park which has 10tph. And yet they have only 4tph. A simple doubling of the current service from Waterloo to Waterloo via Teddington to 4tph would transform service for all these stations, and would solve all of these problems.

2. Lack of 4tph on the Mole Valley Lines.

This one is also quite obvious, and one I believe is highly important because of the size of some of the stations on this line who currently only have 2tph, for example Epsom and Worcester Park. A simple restoration of the pre-Covid service of 2tph to Guildford and 2tph to Dorking is what is needed.

3. Infrequent fast services for Portsmouth Direct Line

This line is the highest demand commuter line on the SWR mainline network, yet only has 1tph fast. A simple return to the pre-covid levels of 2tph would solve this.

4. Lack of 2tph fast to Waterloo at Farnborough (Main) and Fleet

This is an issue not often talked about, for a station of its size, Farnborough in particular should deserve a better service (it has a similar number of entries and exits for 2024/25 as Bournemouth, at around 2.5m). It takes 50 minutes for a Basingstoke stopper to get to Farnborough from Waterloo, longer for Fleet. This is not good enough for Farnborough and Fleet when the demand from these stations is so high. Either adding back the pre-Covid Waterloo-Poole stopper which called at both these stations, or adding both these stops to the Waterloo-Salisbury service, which has a low usage rate currently and would help to fill up that service would solve this issue.

5. Lack of 2tph in the evening Waterloo-Alton, lack of evening peak fast trains from Waterloo-Alton, and generally lack of 1tph fast Waterloo-Alton

In the evening, on some of the busiest trains in the network at that time, the Alton Line only has 1tph. This level of service is not good enough, and restoring it to 2tph would solve it. Also, many years back the Alton Line used to have 1tph that went non-stop between Waterloo and Woking. I propose bringing this back, because currently the larger stations on that line, Farnham and Aldershot, do not have fast enough trains for the level of demand at those stations(currently Waterloo-Farnham is over one hour). In addition, this change in service patterns would mean Woking has higher fast train frequency to London. To make sure Surbiton and West Byfleet don’t lose out on frequency, I propose these calls to be made up by Haslemere stoppers instead. Finally, in the morning, all Alton Line services run non-stop from Woking, meaning packed commuter services can get into London faster. However, in the evening this doesn’t happen, resulting in longer journeys for those packed trains full of commuters. This also results in a lower frequency of fast trains for Woking, meaning other services are more busy. Changing evening peak services so that they run non-stop from Waterloo-Woking would solve both these issues.

6. Slow service into London for major stations Poole, Bournemouth, Southampton Central and Basingstoke

Waterloo-Weymouth at one point I believe ran non-stop to Southampton Central. While I do not think a return to this would be a good idea because there are several major stations, such as Winchester, you would be skipping if this returned, I do think a faster service on the Waterloo-Weymouth fast is needed. I would achieve this by skipping Parkstone, Branksome, Brockenhurst and Southampton Airport Parkway stations, all of which have a usage rate that is not justified to stop this service here. To make sure 2tph to London is still at these stations, I would bring back the Waterloo-Poole stopper (replacing the Winchester-Bournemouth stopper), which would also solve the problem of Eastleigh only having 1tph to London currently. In addition, I would also replace the Woking call on the Waterloo-Weymouth fast with Basingstoke, because many of Basingstoke’s services stop at Fleet, Farnborough, Woking and Clapham Junction, meaning it’s service to London is slower than it could (and arguably should)be. This would mean Basingstoke has a non-stop train to Waterloo which takes 40 minutes, improving service there. The Waterloo-Weymouth semi-fast would now additionally stop at Woking, so that Woking doesn’t lose frequency of fast trains to London. In addition, the re addition of the Waterloo-Poole stopper would mean Basingstoke has an additional 2tph fast to Waterloo, taking its total from 5tph to 7tph, a dramatic improvement in service there. Overall, this means Waterloo-Weymouth fast from Waterloo goes: Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton Central, Bournemouth, Poole (then continuing to Weymouth), a significantly faster service for those major stations.

Changes I didn’t include deliberately:

1. 4tph Waterloo-Reading

The Waterloo-Reading Line in my opinion does not have the capacity to run 4tph off-peak, especially if my proposed 4tph Waterloo-Waterloo via Teddington goes ahead. This is because of being two-tracked west of Barnes, and also the number of level crossings on this line. If 4tph ever happened, then traffic in local areas around this line would be much higher, and also would be bad for the environment.

2. 4tph on the Hounslow Loop

The stations on this line have a low usage, and as a result 4tph is not justified in the same way that it is on the Mole Valley Lines, or on the section Twickenham-Barnes. Even if the frequency increase is justified on this line, realistically I don’t think it would ever happen

3. 4tph on the Chessington Branch Line

Similar to the Hounslow Loop, stations on this line have a lower usage so 4tph isn’t justified.




Let me know if these proposals are any good, or if there are any important changes that are needed that I missed.

 

[Kite159]

or adding both these stops to the Waterloo-Salisbury service, which has a low usage rate currently and would help to fill up that service would solve this issue.

I must be imagining the number of full & standing reports from the Waterloo - Salisbury trains...

 

[gabrielhj07]

Was just about to say…

The xx:50 Waterloo - Salisbury is nearly always full to the rafters, and only ever made up of 3 cars. It would be nice to have a 159 stop at Farnborough, but it would come at the detriment of Overton/Whitchurch/Grateley passengers who have limited other services.

 

[Concorde9289]

6. Slow service into London for major stations Poole, Bournemouth, Southampton Central and Basingstoke

Waterloo-Weymouth at one point I believe ran non-stop to Southampton Central. While I do not think a return to this would be a good idea because there are several major stations, such as Winchester, you would be skipping if this returned, I do think a faster service on the Waterloo-Weymouth fast is needed. I would achieve this by skipping Parkstone, Branksome, Brockenhurst and Southampton Airport Parkway stations, all of which have a usage rate that is not justified to stop this service here. To make sure 2tph to London is still at these stations, I would bring back the Waterloo-Poole stopper (replacing the Winchester-Bournemouth stopper), which would also solve the problem of Eastleigh only having 1tph to London currently. In addition, I would also replace the Woking call on the Waterloo-Weymouth fast with Basingstoke, because many of Basingstoke’s services stop at Fleet, Farnborough, Woking and Clapham Junction, meaning it’s service to London is slower than it could (and arguably should)be. This would mean Basingstoke has a non-stop train to Waterloo which takes 40 minutes, improving service there. The Waterloo-Weymouth semi-fast would now additionally stop at Woking, so that Woking doesn’t lose frequency of fast trains to London. In addition, the re addition of the Waterloo-Poole stopper would mean Basingstoke has an additional 2tph fast to Waterloo, taking its total from 5tph to 7tph, a dramatic improvement in service there. Overall, this means Waterloo-Weymouth fast from Waterloo goes: Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton Central, Bournemouth, Poole (then continuing to Weymouth), a significantly faster service for those major stations.

Unfortunately, beyond Southampton Central the xx:39 Poole stopper would have very little use, as in the Southbound direction it had very long dwells at Southampton Central and Brockenhurst (where your plans would see the connecting service at the latter run through non-stop) Also, while not as bad, in the northbound direction it would have been overtaken by a faster service, I think at Eastleigh (?).

I do agree it should be brought back as it'd be very useful for 2x Waterloo services at Eastleigh and Farnborough.

I also agree that Waterloo to Weymouth could be sped up, but I think running the xx:35 fast to Winchester and having the Woking stop picked up by the xx:05 would be better. While it probably wouldn't speed up the service as much, it'd means stations wouldn't lose any services. If the xx:35 Weymouth Fast skipped as many stations, you'd end up giving a few stations (Southampton Airport Parkway, Brockenhurst etc) effectively a Sunday service to Waterloo, with 1 very slow stopper and 1 semi fast that's slightly slower than usual (with the Woking stop added).

Decent suggestions though, the speeding up of the Weymouth fast is definitely a conversation that needs to be had.

 

[Nammer]

There are arguably problems for every station with their current level of service. I am going to make a list of all the problems I am aware of, and how I would fix them, in order of how important I believe they are


3. Infrequent fast services for Portsmouth Direct Line

This line is the highest demand commuter line on the SWR mainline network, yet only has 1tph fast. A simple return to the pre-covid levels of 2tph would solve this.

Absolutely agree. The 2 'fast' services on the Portsmouth Direct every hour, all day on Mondays to Fridays (as there was before the 'Covid' reductions) need to be re-introduced. The passenger numbers have increased considerably in the last year or so, and growth is probably being stalled by the reduced timetable.

 

[Farigiraf]

5. Lack of 2tph in the evening Waterloo-Alton, lack of evening peak fast trains from Waterloo-Alton, and generally lack of 1tph fast Waterloo-Alton

In the evening, on some of the busiest trains in the network at that time, the Alton Line only has 1tph. This level of service is not good enough, and restoring it to 2tph would solve it. Also, many years back the Alton Line used to have 1tph that went non-stop between Waterloo and Woking. I propose bringing this back, because currently the larger stations on that line, Farnham and Aldershot, do not have fast enough trains for the level of demand at those stations(currently Waterloo-Farnham is over one hour). In addition, this change in service patterns would mean Woking has higher fast train frequency to London. To make sure Surbiton and West Byfleet don’t lose out on frequency, I propose these calls to be made up by Haslemere stoppers instead. Finally, in the morning, all Alton Line services run non-stop from Woking, meaning packed commuter services can get into London faster. However, in the evening this doesn’t happen, resulting in longer journeys for those packed trains full of commuters. This also results in a lower frequency of fast trains for Woking, meaning other services are more busy. Changing evening peak services so that they run non-stop from Waterloo-Woking would solve both these issues.

6. Slow service into London for major stations Poole, Bournemouth, Southampton Central and Basingstoke

Waterloo-Weymouth at one point I believe ran non-stop to Southampton Central. While I do not think a return to this would be a good idea because there are several major stations, such as Winchester, you would be skipping if this returned, I do think a faster service on the Waterloo-Weymouth fast is needed. I would achieve this by skipping Parkstone, Branksome, Brockenhurst and Southampton Airport Parkway stations, all of which have a usage rate that is not justified to stop this service here. To make sure 2tph to London is still at these stations, I would bring back the Waterloo-Poole stopper (replacing the Winchester-Bournemouth stopper), which would also solve the problem of Eastleigh only having 1tph to London currently. In addition, I would also replace the Woking call on the Waterloo-Weymouth fast with Basingstoke, because many of Basingstoke’s services stop at Fleet, Farnborough, Woking and Clapham Junction, meaning it’s service to London is slower than it could (and arguably should)be. This would mean Basingstoke has a non-stop train to Waterloo which takes 40 minutes, improving service there. The Waterloo-Weymouth semi-fast would now additionally stop at Woking, so that Woking doesn’t lose frequency of fast trains to London. In addition, the re addition of the Waterloo-Poole stopper would mean Basingstoke has an additional 2tph fast to Waterloo, taking its total from 5tph to 7tph, a dramatic improvement in service there. Overall, this means Waterloo-Weymouth fast from Waterloo goes: Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton Central, Bournemouth, Poole (then continuing to Weymouth), a significantly faster service for those major stations.

The SWML is not 6-tracked from Surbiton to Woking, so when you have a mix of short-distance trains (Woking & Hampton Court stoppers), medium-distance trains (Alton, Basingstoke, Haslemere semifasts) and long-distance trains (Portsmouth, Exeter/Salisbury and Southampton/Weymouth fasts), inevitably you can't give every station a good train service without a few compromises. Fleet, Farnborough, West Byfleet, Weybridge and Walton-on-Thames all receive their 'fast' services by having longer-distance trains call there that ideally shouldn't be doing so. But to achieve that ideal, you'd probably need an additional 2 tracks for the fastest trains to bypass the semifasts.

I really don't think there's the capacity for converting services that are currently semi-fast into ones that skip almost all stops, unless something else loses out. If you cut some calls on one train (e.g. the Alton service), you need to add them onto another train of equal speed (e.g. the Haslemere service). This is just a game of ping-pong between different commuter bases, all wanting slightly faster trains. For a place to have an exceptional train service of frequent fast and stopping trains, another place gets a mediocre service in return. I think it's better for everywhere to have a fairly decent service instead.

Replacing former calls with trains that are over 30 mins slower isn't a good solution; I do think the return of a London-Southampton semifast train makes sense, but an extension to Poole (as it was pre-COVID) only serves the very small intermediate stations (e.g. Beaulieu Road) that don't really justify a stop on a train going all the way to London, as well as passengers travelling to Bournemouth/Poole that aren't time-sensitive and got a cheap advance on the slow train. Replacing the Brockenhurst, Parkstone and Branksome calls with a train that stops at 5-6 additional stations is an excellent way to significantly reduce usage at these stations, which have much higher potential than all the smaller New Forest stations put together.

2. 4tph on the Hounslow Loop

The stations on this line have a low usage, and as a result 4tph is not justified in the same way that it is on the Mole Valley Lines, or on the section Twickenham-Barnes. Even if the frequency increase is justified on this line, realistically I don’t think it would ever happen

3. 4tph on the Chessington Branch Line

Similar to the Hounslow Loop, stations on this line have a lower usage so 4tph isn’t justified.

These lines aren't used to their full extent because they have a poor train service, not the other way round. Both justify 4tph, maybe even 6 at peaks. This isn't easy to achieve on the Chessington branch without preventing either the Mole Valley or Kingston Loop routes losing out, but definitely achievable on the Hounslow Loop. I'm aware that the Hounslow Loop also does have above-average fare evasion levels as well, not helping the seemingly low usage stats. Realistically, every station on the Hounslow Loop would be above 1m annual entries/exits if the stations had 4tph and proper ticket checks. Possibly the same with the Chessington branch, it depends on how many potential passengers currently opt for faster services from Surbiton or the Northern line at the moment.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

There are arguably problems for every station with their current level of service. I am going to make a list of all the problems I am aware of, and how I would fix them, in order of how important I believe they are

1. Lack of 4tph for stations between Twickenham and Barnes (not inclusive and excluding Richmond), and lack of 6tph for Barnes, Wandsworth Town and the stations between Teddington and Norbiton (inclusive)

These stations have a horrendous lack of service for the number of people that use these stations. For example, both Kingston and Wandsworth Town both have around 4 million entries and exits for 2024/25, more than Raynes Park which has 10tph. And yet they have only 4tph. A simple doubling of the current service from Waterloo to Waterloo via Teddington to 4tph would transform service for all these stations, and would solve all of these problems.

2. Lack of 4tph on the Mole Valley Lines.

This one is also quite obvious, and one I believe is highly important because of the size of some of the stations on this line who currently only have 2tph, for example Epsom and Worcester Park. A simple restoration of the pre-Covid service of 2tph to Guildford and 2tph to Dorking is what is needed.

3. Infrequent fast services for Portsmouth Direct Line

This line is the highest demand commuter line on the SWR mainline network, yet only has 1tph fast. A simple return to the pre-covid levels of 2tph would solve this.

4. Lack of 2tph fast to Waterloo at Farnborough (Main) and Fleet

This is an issue not often talked about, for a station of its size, Farnborough in particular should deserve a better service (it has a similar number of entries and exits for 2024/25 as Bournemouth, at around 2.5m). It takes 50 minutes for a Basingstoke stopper to get to Farnborough from Waterloo, longer for Fleet. This is not good enough for Farnborough and Fleet when the demand from these stations is so high. Either adding back the pre-Covid Waterloo-Poole stopper which called at both these stations, or adding both these stops to the Waterloo-Salisbury service, which has a low usage rate currently and would help to fill up that service would solve this issue.

5. Lack of 2tph in the evening Waterloo-Alton, lack of evening peak fast trains from Waterloo-Alton, and generally lack of 1tph fast Waterloo-Alton

In the evening, on some of the busiest trains in the network at that time, the Alton Line only has 1tph. This level of service is not good enough, and restoring it to 2tph would solve it. Also, many years back the Alton Line used to have 1tph that went non-stop between Waterloo and Woking. I propose bringing this back, because currently the larger stations on that line, Farnham and Aldershot, do not have fast enough trains for the level of demand at those stations(currently Waterloo-Farnham is over one hour). In addition, this change in service patterns would mean Woking has higher fast train frequency to London. To make sure Surbiton and West Byfleet don’t lose out on frequency, I propose these calls to be made up by Haslemere stoppers instead. Finally, in the morning, all Alton Line services run non-stop from Woking, meaning packed commuter services can get into London faster. However, in the evening this doesn’t happen, resulting in longer journeys for those packed trains full of commuters. This also results in a lower frequency of fast trains for Woking, meaning other services are more busy. Changing evening peak services so that they run non-stop from Waterloo-Woking would solve both these issues.

6. Slow service into London for major stations Poole, Bournemouth, Southampton Central and Basingstoke

Waterloo-Weymouth at one point I believe ran non-stop to Southampton Central. While I do not think a return to this would be a good idea because there are several major stations, such as Winchester, you would be skipping if this returned, I do think a faster service on the Waterloo-Weymouth fast is needed. I would achieve this by skipping Parkstone, Branksome, Brockenhurst and Southampton Airport Parkway stations, all of which have a usage rate that is not justified to stop this service here. To make sure 2tph to London is still at these stations, I would bring back the Waterloo-Poole stopper (replacing the Winchester-Bournemouth stopper), which would also solve the problem of Eastleigh only having 1tph to London currently. In addition, I would also replace the Woking call on the Waterloo-Weymouth fast with Basingstoke, because many of Basingstoke’s services stop at Fleet, Farnborough, Woking and Clapham Junction, meaning it’s service to London is slower than it could (and arguably should)be. This would mean Basingstoke has a non-stop train to Waterloo which takes 40 minutes, improving service there. The Waterloo-Weymouth semi-fast would now additionally stop at Woking, so that Woking doesn’t lose frequency of fast trains to London. In addition, the re addition of the Waterloo-Poole stopper would mean Basingstoke has an additional 2tph fast to Waterloo, taking its total from 5tph to 7tph, a dramatic improvement in service there. Overall, this means Waterloo-Weymouth fast from Waterloo goes: Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton Central, Bournemouth, Poole (then continuing to Weymouth), a significantly faster service for those major stations.

Changes I didn’t include deliberately:

1. 4tph Waterloo-Reading

The Waterloo-Reading Line in my opinion does not have the capacity to run 4tph off-peak, especially if my proposed 4tph Waterloo-Waterloo via Teddington goes ahead. This is because of being two-tracked west of Barnes, and also the number of level crossings on this line. If 4tph ever happened, then traffic in local areas around this line would be much higher, and also would be bad for the environment.

2. 4tph on the Hounslow Loop

The stations on this line have a low usage, and as a result 4tph is not justified in the same way that it is on the Mole Valley Lines, or on the section Twickenham-Barnes. Even if the frequency increase is justified on this line, realistically I don’t think it would ever happen

3. 4tph on the Chessington Branch Line

Similar to the Hounslow Loop, stations on this line have a lower usage so 4tph isn’t justified.




Let me know if these proposals are any good, or if there are any important changes that are needed that I missed.

You can be sure that DfTO wont agree to any changes that cost more to run gone are the days when they worried PIXC (passengers in excess of capacity) numbers. Also reliability is fragile without extra trains in the mix. That said Dorking definitely should have 2 tph and hopefully in a joined up GBR Southern would cover smaller stations and the Dorking service could be speeded up to limited stop.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

3. Infrequent fast services for Portsmouth Direct Line

This line is the highest demand commuter line on the SWR mainline network, yet only has 1tph fast. A simple return to the pre-covid levels of 2tph would solve this.

The Portsmouth Direct has 2tph fast and 2tph slow during the commuter times you mention.

In the off-peak where demand is lower it trips to 1 fast, 1 semi-fast and 1 slow.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2026 ==

I also agree that Waterloo to Weymouth could be sped up, but I think running the xx:35 fast to Winchester and having the Woking stop picked up by the xx:05 would be better.

The whole idea is to split the stops over the xx.05 and xx.35 services to have relatively similar journey times London to Southampton / Bournemouth across the two services (similar to how the stops are split between the two London to Leeds services), this spreads the passengers between the two services rather than have a fast service which becomes very overloaded and is already running at maximum length.

 

[swt_passenger]

Unfortunately, beyond Southampton Central the xx:39 Poole stopper would have very little use, as in the Southbound direction it had very long dwells at Southampton Central and Brockenhurst (where your plans would see the connecting service at the latter run through non-stop) Also, while not as bad, in the northbound direction it would have been overtaken by a faster service, I think at Eastleigh (?).

We’ve discussed before that reinstating the Poole stopper west of Southampton might not actually work anymore, given the changes at Southampton interworking it with the Portsmouth stopper. The latter arrival changes its train ID and becomes a Southampton to Bournemouth stopper, but can run in timings that remove the requirement to be overtaken at Brockenhurst.

 

[Concorde9289]

The whole idea is to split the stops over the xx.05 and xx.35 services to have relatively similar journey times London to Southampton / Bournemouth across the two services (similar to how the stops are split between the two London to Leeds services), this spreads the passengers between the two services rather than have a fast service which becomes very overloaded and is already running at maximum length.

So that means the only way to viably speed the service up is to speed up both the xx:35 and xx:05, which I don't see happening. To be fair I think the current arrangement works well, though I have a horrible feeling that the recast will slow both services down by making them all call at Basingstoke, Woking and Clapham Junction.

We’ve discussed before that reinstating the Poole stopper west of Southampton might not actually work anymore, given the changes at Southampton interworking it with the Portsmouth stopper. The latter arrival changes its train ID and becomes a Southampton to Bournemouth stopper, but can run in timings that remove the requirement to be overtaken at Brockenhurst.

It's definitely a better arrangement between Southampton and Bournemouth compared to the old service, though my main criticism is of course the service being different depending on the direction. It'll be very interesting to see what happens with the whole xx:39/Bournemouth stopper situation.

 

[Matthew5689]

So that means the only way to viably speed the service up is to speed up both the xx:35 and xx:05, which I don't see happening. To be fair I think the current arrangement works well, though I have a horrible feeling that the recast will slow both services down by making them all call at Basingstoke, Woking and Clapham Junction.


It's definitely a better arrangement between Southampton and Bournemouth compared to the old service, though my main criticism is of course the service being different depending on the direction. It'll be very interesting to see what happens with the whole xx:39/Bournemouth stopper situation.

It's a tricky one because as a regular user, it's noticeable how much busier the 1Wxxs that call at Clapham Junction are, particularly in the up direction, but partly in the down as well. If they both called I really think it would spread the load out a bit more evenly. As it stands, particularly at Winchester, you can end up standing on the Clapham service but comfortably get a seat on the one that skips it half an hour before or after it. This I think is exacerbated by the lack of a 4th train per hour into London, the semi-fast service which has been discussed at length above. Since the 1Txx follows the 1Wxx that just calls at Woking and Waterloo at Winchester, the load is spread more evenly there (departing at xx48 and xx52-56 respectively) but no service follows the 1Wxx departing at xx18 and that service ends up significantly more crowded. With many folks changing at Clapham for Gatwick and 444s lacking luggage storage (ultimately causing further crowding issues in vestibules, an extra Clapham call on another service or a 4th London train reinstated would help alleviate this issue in the long term I think. Having said that, as you rightly suggest, making both call at Basingstoke, Woking and Clapham Junction slows everything down and is not necessarily the right option at all.

 

[JonathanH]

Having said that, as you rightly suggest, making both call at Basingstoke, Woking and Clapham Junction slows everything down and is not necessarily the right option at all.

I doubt that stopping both (off-peak) Weymouth services at Basingstoke and Woking is viable with regard to passenger demand aboard those services. The skip-stopping pattern at least distributes demand between the two services.

 

[Forty29]

Retime trains west of Yeovil to add in more recovery time, it only takes one speed restriction like today between Axminster and Honiton and the entire service goes to pants. Yes the overall journey time would be increased, but let's face it, it's so slow anyway that people would rather just have their train turn up.

I also agree with ditching all of the "Somerset rounders" from Yeovil Junction to Pen Mill and beyond and just concentrate on running the West of England line.

Hi, have they speed restrictions on the Axminster line because of the dry weather like last year or did they do work to prevent it in future. Thanks.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I must be imagining the number of full & standing reports from the Waterloo - Salisbury trains...

Not just the Salisbury workings, but the through services to Exeter as well - I was travelling from Woking to Sherborne and back yesterday. Full and standing, 3-car sets in both directions. The return run was 15 minutes late due to a (45 minutes) late arrival at Exeter on the outward run. (although I can't co,pl;ain about that as I would ahve missed it if it ahd been on tiem)

 

[Kite159]

I doubt that stopping both (off-peak) Weymouth services at Basingstoke and Woking is viable with regard to passenger demand aboard those services. The skip-stopping pattern at least distributes demand between the two services.

And instead forces most of the passengers wanting to travel between Woking & Basingstoke onto the little 3 car diesel whilst the 10 coach electric train skips-stops. You just have to be at Winchester to see the number of passengers leaving the London train which is next stop Woking, remaining on the platform to board the train from Portsmouth to head to Basingstoke

Hi, have they speed restrictions on the Axminster line because of the dry weather like last year or did they do work to prevent it in future. Thanks.

There is a section between Honiton & Axminster which is 20mph adding around 2 to 3 minutes on the typical journey time between those stations, enough to cause other delays to snowball.

 

[evergreenadam]

And instead forces most of the passengers wanting to travel between Woking & Basingstoke onto the little 3 car diesel whilst the 10 coach electric train skips-stops. You just have to be at Winchester to see the number of passengers leaving the London train which is next stop Woking, remaining on the platform to board the train from Portsmouth to head to Basingstoke



There is a section between Honiton & Axminster which is 20mph adding around 2 to 3 minutes on the typical journey time between those stations, enough to cause other delays to snowball.

So the extent of the redoubling previously undertaken probably wasn’t enough to maintain performance.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

This is so pedantic but I can’t help it — lots of talk about Fleet losing 2tph fast to London — but it never had it to begin with

Until the **39 Poole service was axed, which indeed stopped at Fleet, the **09 Portsmouth Hbr service ran non-stop from Farnborough to Basingstoke.

It’s only when the Poole stoppers were axed, that the Portsmouths gained the Fleet call so that there’d be no loss of fast trains to Fleet.

So the fast service from Fleet has always been 1tph. I’m not saying it doesn’t now deserve 2tph. Just that it never lost it

 

[Concorde9289]

And instead forces most of the passengers wanting to travel between Woking & Basingstoke onto the little 3 car diesel whilst the 10 coach electric train skips-stops. You just have to be at Winchester to see the number of passengers leaving the London train which is next stop Woking, remaining on the platform to board the train from Portsmouth to head to Basingstoke

I think a reintroduced xx:39 (as far as Southampton for reasons already discussed) would help with this. I'm not sure where I stand regarding speeding up the Weymouths but they don't need slowing down even more.