New Open Access Application: London - Southampton - Marchwood

[MartinC]

A respectfully suggest that the liklihood of SWR serving Marchwood and Hythe is precisely zero.

"Alliance’s original application was rejected by the Rail Regulator in May/June 2026. However, a number of errors were noted in that decision and following a number of follow up meetings with the Regulator to address those issues, a new application with a slightly revised service pattern has been re-submitted." Grand Union site
Most people agree that getting rail routes reopened needs political will. Hopefully the major changes happening now, will create this.
One of the objections from the TOCs, using Southampton Central, related to platform capacity. As I pointed out in a previous post, a Southern unit blocks one of the platforms for 20 minutes layover.

 

[JonathanH]

As I pointed out in a previous post, a Southern unit blocks one of the platforms for 20 minutes layover.

That platform occupancy isn't going to change, just because an open access operator wants to run a service through the station. What alternative do you suggest? Southern need a robust layover between their workings and there isn't an east facing bay.

 

[Snow1964]

"Alliance’s original application was rejected by the Rail Regulator in May/June 2026. However, a number of errors were noted in that decision and following a number of follow up meetings with the Regulator to address those issues, a new application with a slightly revised service pattern has been re-submitted." Grand Union site

Edited to remove error

As a user of the mainline through Southampton for 50+ years, I remember when passenger trains could use Southampton platform 5 bay, or utilise the now lifted up loop at Eastleigh. The restoration is being objected to because of other stations being rationalised causing capacity restrictions

 

[Wolfie]

Some of the regulators reasoning was also rather unreasonable, such as demonstrating doesn't exceed certain revenue extraction. The only way to validate was to test it by commencing the service, but weren't allowed to start to get a result either way. Regulator created circular arguments.

As a user of the mainline through Southampton for 50+ years, I remember when passenger trains could use Southampton platform 5 bay, or utilise the now lifted up loop at Eastleigh. The restoration is being objected to because of other stations being rationalised causing capacity restrictions

The infrastructure is as it currently is. You really can't argue that things that don't fit it should be allowed because of past rationalisation. I seriously doubt that any OA operation would put their hands in their pockets to undo that. I even less see HMT offering to pay to permit their profit.

 

[Stephen42]

Some of the regulators reasoning was also rather unreasonable, such as demonstrating doesn't exceed certain revenue extraction. The only way to validate was to test it by commencing the service, but weren't allowed to start to get a result either way. Regulator created circular arguments.

That's inaccurate. On the Not Primarily Abstractive (NPA) ratio the ORR said this:

31. We are not satisfied that the application would meet an NPA ratio of at least 0.3. This primarily relates to insufficient evidence that the forecasted revenue from journeys to/from Marchwood would include enough new (generated) rail revenue rather than revenue abstracted from other operator.

32. Alliance Rail’s submitted analysis implied an overall NPA ratio of 0.56. Our assessment of Alliance’s analysis identified a significant limitation as the assumption that 90% of revenue from journeys to/from Marchwood would be new to rail generation and only 10% abstraction (from current operators). This assumption underpins the Alliance Rail NPA ratio estimate.

33. Alliance Rail said that Marchwood demand would be ‘largely generative…from neighbouring stations given their geographical and parking constraints’. We considered this assumption would require more credible evidence of this generation and abstraction split and that all this demand would be additional to existing rail demand in order to accept it. New analysis, such as bespoke use of a multi-modal transport model, would be needed to resolve this evidence gap.

34. The standard approach to forecast revenue cannot be used for journeys to/from Marchwood because it would be a new station. Alliance Rail’s analysis used outputs originally developed for the comparable Waterside Line Restoring Your Railway business case. We investigated whether this could provide an estimate of the split between generation and abstraction. This has been used to support an estimate of at least 20% (noting the high degree of uncertainty) of revenue from journeys to/from Marchwood to be generation. At 20% the NPA ratio would be 0.25, and Alliance’s application lacked sufficient evidence of how much more new revenue would be generated.

The ORR found the applicant's analysis was heavily dependent on the revenue generation assumption at Marchwood. A high figure was suggested by the applicant, but only backed up by a cursory qualitative reasoning. The regulator suggested what quantitative analysis they'd want to evidence such an assumption. This didn't need commencing a service only commissioning a transport model for the area. There was nothing stopping the applicant from doing this and would be part of any new line business case, they just chose not to.

Notably the regulator while not required to, performed a more detailed analysis than the applicant on what the rate might be. This came up with a very different answer to the unevidenced assumption proposed by the applicant. A cynic might say the applicant intentionally didn't try to evidence their assumption as they knew it was unlikely to hold up. It is the regulator's job to assess the completeness of any submission and perfectly reasonable to reject any that cuts corners to produce good looking numbers.

 

[MartinC]

That platform occupancy isn't going to change, just because an open access operator wants to run a service through the station. What alternative do you suggest? Southern need a robust layover between their workings and there isn't an east facing bay.

I thought there ways an electrified east facing siding to the west of the station ?

 

[Zomboid]

I thought there ways an electrified east facing siding to the west of the station ?

There are electrified up and down loops to the west of the station. Don't know what else uses them (there's a 450 in the up loop on Google aerial photos) or what the signalling permits regarding reversal in them.

 

[zwk500]

There are electrified up and down loops to the west of the station. Don't know what else uses them (there's a 450 in the up loop on Google aerial photos) or what the signalling permits regarding reversal in them.

Signalling permits reversal in both of them, and most passenger trains are probably fine for length. However, to reach them means crossing the fast lines so using them as a turnback often trades the platform problem for junction margins at one end of the shunt or the other.

1 Shunt and 2 Freights use the Down Loop today: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...26-08-03/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt
1 Light loco and various empty moves use the Up Loop today: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...26-08-03/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

 

[JonathanH]

I thought there ways an electrified east facing siding to the west of the station ?

Yes, CrossCountry used to use them, but as others have noted, there may be other issues using them, particularly within the 20 minute turnaround time, given the need to ensure the train is empty and cross other lines.

1 Shunt and 2 Freights use the Down Loop today: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...26-08-03/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

Interesting to see that the Southern unit remained in the platform today. Presumably it facilitates a freight path, but if that isn't used, the train stays in the platform. It does show that in the 19 minute turnaround, four minutes to clear and lock the train, nine minutes to run there and back and for the driver to walk through, then five minutes back in the platform.

 

[TransportHub]

Yes, CrossCountry used to use them, but as others have noted, there may be other issues using them, particularly within the 20 minute turnaround time, given the need to ensure the train is empty and cross other lines.


Interesting to see that the Southern unit remained in the platform today. Presumably it facilitates a freight path, but if that isn't used, the train stays in the platform. It does show that in the 19 minute turnaround, four minutes to clear and lock the train, nine minutes to run there and back and for the driver to walk through, then five minutes back in the platform.

The southern ECS to the up and down goods loops are just there for driver route knowledge retention, if the driver on the day doesn't need a refresher, there's no need for the train to run

 

[overthere 2]

Looking at both Alliances and Go-Ops latest plans both are pretty much the same when it comes to problems.

Both want to run services on already busy tracks to busy stations and both would upset the TOCs already running because while they would bring some new passengers on to the network both seem to be basing their revenue earning potential on pinching passenger's who already exist.

So how about this as a first step instead. Trains run from Fawley/Hythe/Marchwood to Redbridge they then run on to the track that runs South of the station and terminate, the platform is rebuilt so passenger's can board and alight from the train and catch connecting trains to Southampton or wherever.

It then reverses West and call's at whatever stations it deems suitable until it gets to Wareham where it definitely calls and then as I have been advocating constantly - and sort of seems to be happening with the SVR - the train runs down the Swanage branch to Swanage providing a morning/evening commuter service and during the day it could run to Norden or Corfe castle providing a park and ride service.

While it would not be ideal and may run at a loss to start with it would be the same as I have been advocating for Go-Op/WSR as it would allow Alliance to establish themselves and iron out any issues without causing a major nuisance to anybody also the TOCs already operating in the area would be more willing to work with/invest in them as it is bringing new passenger's on to the network.

Then in the future maybe the infrastructure could be improved/expanded to accommodate their original plans.

 

[BayPaul]

Looking at both Alliances and Go-Ops latest plans both are pretty much the same when it comes to problems.

Both want to run services on already busy tracks to busy stations and both would upset the TOCs already running because while they would bring some new passengers on to the network both seem to be basing their revenue earning potential on pinching passenger's who already exist.

So how about this as a first step instead. Trains run from Fawley/Hythe/Marchwood to Redbridge they then run on to the track that runs South of the station and terminate, the platform is rebuilt so passenger's can board and alight from the train and catch connecting trains to Southampton or wherever.

It then reverses West and call's at whatever stations it deems suitable until it gets to Wareham where it definitely calls and then as I have been advocating constantly - and sort of seems to be happening with the SVR - the train runs down the Swanage branch to Swanage providing a morning/evening commuter service and during the day it could run to Norden or Corfe castle providing a park and ride service.

While it would not be ideal and may run at a loss to start with it would be the same as I have been advocating for Go-Op/WSR as it would allow Alliance to establish themselves and iron out any issues without causing a major nuisance to anybody also the TOCs already operating in the area would be more willing to work with/invest in them as it is bringing new passenger's on to the network.

Then in the future maybe the infrastructure could be improved/expanded to accommodate their original plans.

Why would a private company be interested in running that service which would clearly be very loss making though? For example, I can't see why they would have a single passenger on the Redbridge to Bournemouth part of the journey.

 

[Dougal2345]

Why would a private company be interested in running that service which would clearly be very loss making though? For example, I can't see why they would have a single passenger on the Redbridge to Bournemouth part of the journey.

If it had stops at Sway and Hinton Admiral to supplement the current hourly service it would be quite useful...

 

[BayPaul]

If it had stops at Sway and Hinton Admiral to supplement the current hourly service it would be quite useful...

But only to Bournemouth, not to Southampton. And if these stations would be profitable with 2tph, surely SWR would provide additional services.

 

[zwk500]

So how about this as a first step instead. Trains run from Fawley/Hythe/Marchwood to Redbridge they then run on to the track that runs South of the station and terminate, the platform is rebuilt so passenger's can board and alight from the train and catch connecting trains to Southampton or wherever.

I don't think this is practical to do without impacting on the available length for freight.

It then reverses West and call's at whatever stations it deems suitable until it gets to Wareham where it definitely calls and then as I have been advocating constantly - and sort of seems to be happening with the SVR - the train runs down the Swanage branch to Swanage providing a morning/evening commuter service and during the day it could run to Norden or Corfe castle providing a park and ride service.

AIUI the Swanage Railway trialled it's service and it wasn't particularly successful, to put it mildly.

While it would not be ideal and may run at a loss to start with it would be the same as I have been advocating for Go-Op/WSR as it would allow Alliance to establish themselves and iron out any issues without causing a major nuisance to anybody also the TOCs already operating in the area would be more willing to work with/invest in them as it is bringing new passenger's on to the network.

Have a look at how Go-Op's proposals have gone for why no OAO is likely to follow that model.

 

[MartinC]

the Swanage Railway trialled it's service and it wasn't particularly successful, to put it mildly.

May have been due to the cost of a ticket from Wareham to Norden.I seem to remember that it was about the same as getting from Southampton to Wareham?

 

[overthere 2]

Why would a private company be interested in running that service which would clearly be very loss making though? For example, I can't see why they would have a single passenger on the Redbridge to Bournemouth part of the journey.

Reading my post again using the words: "may run at a loss to start with" was a poor choice of words.

What I was trying to say was that the trains may not be full and standing from day one and it would not be ideal that to get to/from Southampton you would have to change at Redbridge but if the timetable could be done so you are waiting a maximum of ten minute's then it should be fairly acceptable to a decent amount of people and while I agree it is unlikely you would have somebody daily commuting Redbridge - Bournemouth, as Dougal2345 #193 points out if you have stops at other places "it would be quite useful" not only for people who already make journeys but people who might now, for example, look for work in places they may not have done before because of no/bad transport.

But only to Bournemouth, not to Southampton. And if these stations would be profitable with 2tph, surely SWR would provide additional services.

While Go - Op has been stumbling from one disaster to another, a point that they made when they first proposed their service and I have seen elsewhere is the train service is very poor at Westbury, Frome, Castle Cary etc and that's because GWR has no competition so can get away with running a poor "Take it or leave it service" so by Go - Op running their own service's it would have forced GWR to improve their service.

And it is the same for this idea that if South Western railway had competition they would offer a better service so it would benefit passengers.

Really though the main aim is opening up the golden goose which is Swanage because not only would it mean commuters, students and shoppers could get out of Swanage easily but day visitors/holidays makers (via X - Country connecting at Bournemouth) can get in.

I don't think this is practical to do without impacting on the available length for freight.

Looking at Google maps there looks like two tracks running South of Redbridge station so one for passenger and one for freight.

AIUI the Swanage Railway trialled it's service and it wasn't particularly successful, to put it mildly.

The service started mid morning and finished mid afternoon so was useless for residents wanting too get out and day visitors wanting to get in it was also stupidly expensive.

Have a look at how Go-Op's proposals have gone for why no OAO is likely to follow that model.

That's the point, if they had followed that model then it would have stood a lot better chance of working.