SWR WoE line — do they know something we don’t?

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Interesting to see a clip from parliament in which the MP for Woking asks a question with regards to when — not if, but when — SWR’s diesels are replaced.

20K views · 96 reactions | South Western Railway’s diesel trains will soon be replaced by electric trains. With cancellations and delays already a big issue on the network serving #Woking, I’ve asked the Government to ensure that the rollout of new

South Western Railway’s diesel trains will soon be replaced by electric trains. With cancellations and delays already a big issue on the network serving #Woking, I’ve asked the Government to ensure...

www.facebook.com

Do they know something we don’t?

Mr Will Forster
(Woking) (LD)

Can the Minister assure me that when the diesel trains that operate on the South Western Railway network are replaced with electric trains to decarbonise the network, there will be no reduction in service for my commuting constituents in Woking?

Minister Keir Mather didn’t seem to deny any plans

We believe that the benefits of having electric rolling stock for our train services actually allow us to improve efficiency on the railway, and I hope that those improvements can be realised for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents.

 

[baffobear]

Probably not. Train’s aren’t ordered yet.

A bit pre-emptive to ask for no reduction when we dont know what the new stock will be capable of.

Surely they cant be electric…, the route past basingstoke isn’t electrified.

Are they likely to be bimodes or trimodes? (With batteries). Apart from Stadler’s trains there isn’t any other supplier that have a viable proven in service product. We might be waiting a while.

As a woking resident i’m happy we even get the fast diesels into waterloo outside the peaks.

 

[Swedenorer]

A ministerial non answer (proabaly drafted by a very junior PR) which is really not worth speculating on.

 

[JamesT]

Interesting to see a clip from parliament in which the MP for Woking asks a question with regards to when — not if, but when — SWR’s diesels are replaced.

20K views · 96 reactions | South Western Railway’s diesel trains will soon be replaced by electric trains. With cancellations and delays already a big issue on the network serving #Woking, I’ve asked the Government to ensure that the rollout of new

South Western Railway’s diesel trains will soon be replaced by electric trains. With cancellations and delays already a big issue on the network serving #Woking, I’ve asked the Government to ensure...

www.facebook.com

Do they know something we don’t?

Mr Will Forster
(Woking) (LD)



Minister Keir Mather didn’t seem to deny any plans

According to this thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ble-combined-fleet-order-philip-haigh.289507/ DfT were talking about replacement a year ago.

But I suspect it's no more than the logical progression; the Sprinters are coming towards the end of their life and need replacing, the mood music is not to buy new diesels, therefore some electric (BEMU) trains will be ordered.

 

[DelW]

When not if isn't really surprising, the 159s can't be kept in service indefinitely - corrosion, obsolescence, shortage of spares etc. will inevitably make them uneconomic to repair eventually.

I wonder if the results of the GWR rapid charge tests with the battery 230 might be a factor. It's a big task for a battery to get a train from Basingstoke to Exeter and back on one charge, and there aren't many likely spots for big grid connections other than Salisbury and Exeter itself, which wouldn't necessarily suit a long layover. A West Ealing type solution might work at one or more of the loops where trains routinely wait time now. But it would need the technology to be proven before ordering a fleet on that basis.

 

[MrC]

When not if isn't really surprising, the 159s can't be kept in service indefinitely - corrosion, obsolescence, shortage of spares etc. will inevitably make them uneconomic to repair eventually.

I wonder if the results of the GWR rapid charge tests with the battery 230 might be a factor. It's a big task for a battery to get a train from Basingstoke to Exeter and back on one charge, and there aren't many likely spots for big grid connections other than Salisbury and Exeter itself, which wouldn't necessarily suit a long layover. A West Ealing type solution might work at one or more of the loops where trains routinely wait time now. But it would need the technology to be proven before ordering a fleet on that basis.

I can't help thinking that a hybrid type traction (a BHEMU??) as in use elsewhere in the world would suit many of the longer non-electrified routes better than pure BEMUs. This would enable the diesel to be run more efficiently and to charge battery packs when not needed for traction, for regen braking to be used and also to use the combined sources to be used for EMU type acceleration. They'd be far simpler operationally and there'd be no need for battery charging stations scattered around the network and places to berth trains while charging.

Apart from Basingstoke - Salisbury the WoE in particular doesn't seem too amenable to pure BEMUs as there's regular extended delays due to escalating conflicts with the single line sections Salisbury - Whimple which also often mean short or no turnaround times at Exeter (St Davids or Central).

 

[wickham]

Or, are they considering a timetable revision ?
When all the 701s are in service there is likely to be a surplus of 450 units, so are they possibly considering terminating the Exeter/Salisbury trains at Basingstoke with electric connections to Waterloo ?
This would be very messy operationally and would destroy through journey opportunities, so I really hope not !

 

[TastyMaltesers]

Or you could convert the surplus 450s to BEMUs? (I say with tongue in cheek!)

 

[stevieinselby]

I wonder if the results of the GWR rapid charge tests with the battery 230 might be a factor. It's a big task for a battery to get a train from Basingstoke to Exeter and back on one charge, and there aren't many likely spots for big grid connections other than Salisbury and Exeter itself, which wouldn't necessarily suit a long layover. A West Ealing type solution might work at one or more of the loops where trains routinely wait time now. But it would need the technology to be proven before ordering a fleet on that basis.

The problem with that is that it will hurt reliability and punctuality. At the moment, if a train is scheduled to wait for 4 minutes in a passing loop to allow a train to pass in the other direction, that can swallow up a small delay with minimal impact. But if the train needs to stop in the loop for 4 minutes to charge regardless of whether the train going the other way has passed (or potentially has to slow down and stop even if the other train is already waiting) then this will reduce the ability of the service to regain lost time, which on a largely single-track line like this one will cause knock-on problems.
The reason the setup works well on the Greenford branch is that the train will have a minimum dwell time because the driver needs to physically close down one cab, get out, walk to the other end, get back in and power up that cab – and that gives enough time for the batteries to be charged, so the charging all happens within the time that the train is guaranteed to be stationary without eating into any additional recovery time.

 

[sh24]

Wasn't there a plan/idea for some form of discontinuous 3rd rail to charge bi-modes units, located only in fenced and controlled areas so that the legal requirements around exposed electricity conductors can be met.

 

[3141]

Or, are they considering a timetable revision ?
When all the 701s are in service there is likely to be a surplus of 450 units, so are they possibly considering terminating the Exeter/Salisbury trains at Basingstoke with electric connections to Waterloo ?
This would be very messy operationally and would destroy through journey opportunities, so I really hope not !

This happened during Covid. The xx.20 from Overton arrived at Basingstoke platform 2 (normally a down platform), waited there for eight minutes, and then took up the normal xx.37 path to Salisbury.

Before Covid, when occasionally there was some disruption to the normal service, trains from Salisbury terminated at Basingstoke, but then ran forward to sidings and returned later to form a service westwards.

An alternative plan would be to divert all West of England line services to Reading, replacing the GWR service.

But the disappearance of through services from west of Basingstoke to London would be a big drawback. If the class 159 that arrives at Basingstoke at xx.29 terminates there, a train from Weymouth is due at xx.36, so passengers don't have a long wait. But will they get a seat?

Such a timetable revision, removing through services to Waterloo from the West of England line, would contrast with the DfT's approach when the south western franchise was renewed in 2017 and the DfT was all about improving connectivity.

Above all, it cannot sidestep the need to replace the class 159s which are approaching the end of their lives. The current refurbishment should keep them going for a few years, but active planning should be taking place now to decide how best to provide the service from, say, 2032 onwards.

 

[Nogoohwell]

Waste of time ordering new trains when there are bigger issues that need to be addressed to run them.
The line needs major investment to fortify the embankments, improve the signalling and add more passing points to improve performance.
New trains will still encounter the same problems unless they can fly!

 

[swt_passenger]

Or you could convert the surplus 450s to BEMUs? (I say with tongue in cheek!)

They won’t be surplus if they just reinstate all the 450 services, eg Waterloo to Poole, and their various short formings and missing services on the Portsmouth direct route.

 

[Snow1964]

Interesting to see a clip from parliament in which the MP for Woking asks a question with regards to when — not if, but when — SWR’s diesels are replaced.

20K views · 96 reactions | South Western Railway’s diesel trains will soon be replaced by electric trains. With cancellations and delays already a big issue on the network serving #Woking, I’ve asked the Government to ensure that the rollout of new

South Western Railway’s diesel trains will soon be replaced by electric trains. With cancellations and delays already a big issue on the network serving #Woking, I’ve asked the Government to ensure...

www.facebook.com

Do they know something we don’t?

Mr Will Forster
(Woking) (LD)



Minister Keir Mather didn’t seem to deny any plans

Also worth reading Lord Hendy's written answer to the Lords 2 weeks ago

15 July 2026
The Class 158 and Class 159 diesel trains used on services between London Waterloo and Exeter are expected to be replaced as part of longer-term plans to modernise the rail fleet. South Western Railway, working with the Department for Transport, is developing proposals for their replacement; however, no specific timetable for replacement has yet been confirmed. In the meantime, these fleets are undergoing a phased refurbishment programme to improve reliability and passenger experience, including upgraded interiors, improved passenger information systems and the introduction of at-seat power. This ensures the trains remain fit for service while longer-term decisions are taken.
The Government is also developing a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, to be published later this year, which will set out Great British Railways’ future rolling stock requirements, including the approach to replacing older diesel trains.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2026-07-06/HL1695

So basically proposals are still being developed (think this vague reason has been trotted out for 3 or 4 years now). Why it takes years to do nothing more than think about an idea, and not actually do anything is a mystery.

There has been talk of combining it with replacement of 158, 165, 166 working Portsmouth-Cardiff, Exeter-Cardiff, Weymouth-Gloucester etc. A sensible approach as one common fleet that can couple to each other makes lot more sense than 2 mini fleets.

There are also rumours (never substantiated) that electrification, or 450s with batteries would be extended from Basingstoke to Andover, with some reversing sidings added at Andover. Seems to be based on the number of new houses that have been built since 1967 electrification. This might be a factor too, especially as Salisbury terminators are more based on operational convenience than a logical place to reverse trains based on usage.

 

[Western Sunset]

Politically, terminating the Exeter/Salisbury to London services at Basingstoke would be a BIG no-no.

 

[embers25]

The 158/159s based at Salisbury used to be the best maintained units under Stagecoach and Salisbury regularly won awards. They didn't need replacing as they had the best seats and great reliability. Even the aircon generally worked. Then First took over and cut maintenance budgets, reduced contingency stock of parts and cut staff. Result was the rapid deterioration of Salisbury depot and multiple unit failures and faults with spare parts taking ages to arrive as they aren't in stock. SWR 158/159s have sunk to the level of GWRs 158s when previously they were streets ahead.

They then moved the crews partially to Yeovil and all of a sudden the service west of Yeovil became dire...no-one could have foreseen that at all!! So we have a broken trains, with a shackled train depot and a crew depot location that has destroyed the service. All avoidable....not to mention the rostering issues Lawrence Bowman talks about...albeit not affecting the WoE as much as the other lines but still impacting it due to delays on the main line having a much bigger knock-on impact on the WoE due to its single track.

Add to the above some truly ridiculous signaling and operational decision making more recently (such as holding a westbound train at Honiton when the eastbound train couldn't possibly have reached Pinhoe before the westbound would have) and you have a line in complete meltdown. The other day they termed the train at Yeovil, despite the guard and driver begging to continue and apologising profusely to passengers, after 30 mins on Yeovil, it continued west as planned...just with an extra 30 mins delay.

You can buy as many new trains as you want, but if you aren't going to maintain them or don't have the operational ability or desire to run a reliable service, its just throwing money away. You'll note that the 158s elsewhere across the country are not suffering as much as SWRs 158 and 159 fleet.

 

[Kite159]

You can buy as many new trains as you want, but if you aren't going to maintain them or don't have the operational ability or desire to run a reliable service, its just throwing money away. You'll note that the 158s elsewhere across the country are not suffering as much as SWRs 158 and 159 fleet.

Are those 158s elsewhere used as much as some of the 159 fleet in terms of distance travelled each day and above 75mph running?

Something needs to be done regarding the SWR diesel fleet, so many are out of service at the moment causing short forms on busy peak time trains at the London end and 2/3 coach sets heading west during a period of high usage (causing extended dwell times as passengers attempt to squeeze on with their kitchen sinks). Sadly with the "Battery Trains are the greatest thing since sliced bread, look how awesome the GWR 230 works on a low speed branch line" lot in charge they won't be sensible and order pure diesels (or even diesels with smaller batteries to allow use within station areas).

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Also worth reading Lord Hendy's written answer to the Lords 2 weeks ago

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2026-07-06/HL1695

So basically proposals are still being developed (think this vague reason has been trotted out for 3 or 4 years now). Why it takes years to do nothing more than think about an idea, and not actually do anything is a mystery.

There has been talk of combining it with replacement of 158, 165, 166 working Portsmouth-Cardiff, Exeter-Cardiff, Weymouth-Gloucester etc. A sensible approach as one common fleet that can couple to each other makes lot more sense than 2 mini fleets.

There are also rumours (never substantiated) that electrification, or 450s with batteries would be extended from Basingstoke to Andover, with some reversing sidings added at Andover. Seems to be based on the number of new houses that have been built since 1967 electrification. This might be a factor too, especially as Salisbury terminators are more based on operational convenience than a logical place to reverse trains based on usage.

Absolutely no mystery whatsoever, it's called politics. When there are potential votes at stake politicians can move quite quickly. But railway issues very rarely have an effect on voters' decisions, as well as having long timescales to implement, so it's easy for ministers to continually fudge and delay especially as the Treasury has an obvious in-built bias against railways (and public transport generally). With public finances being so tight expect much more of the same...

 

[brad465]

Absolutely no mystery whatsoever, it's called politics. When there are potential votes at stake politicians can move quite quickly. But railway issues very rarely have an effect on voters' decisions, as well as having long timescales to implement, so it's easy for ministers to continually fudge and delay especially as the Treasury has an obvious in-built bias against railways (and public transport generally). With public finances being so tight expect much more of the same...

The best hope is that someone can convince Burnham that building more trains in UK factories is a key part of his reindustrialisation ambition.

 

[JonathanH]

A ministerial non answer (proabaly drafted by a very junior PR) which is really not worth speculating on.

The exchange to me just looked like two people getting the wrong end of the stick - a misinformed question and a non answer.

 

[Magdalia]

Interesting to see a clip from parliament in which the MP for Woking asks a question with regards to when — not if, but when — SWR’s diesels are replaced.

How parliament works.

This appears to be taken from oral questions to the Secretary of State for Transport on 11 June (before the Makerfield by election).

It is a supplementary question following a question on the order paper about decarbonisation in the transport sector. As is often the case, the Secretary of State delegated the answer to a junior minister.

A ministerial non answer (proabaly drafted by a very junior PR) which is really not worth speculating on.

Answers to parliamentary questions are drafted by civil servants. In this case the answer would have been to the original question about transport decarbonisation.

The minister will have a briefing folder of what are called "lines to take", to be used when answering supplementary oral questions, and will have also received oral briefing from the civil servants.

The exchange to me just looked like two people getting the wrong end of the stick - a misinformed question and a non answer.

When supplementary oral questions are asked, the minister has to "think on their feet" and find the most suitable "line to take" in the briefing folder.

For the MP asking the question, the important bit is what they asked, not what the reply was. Their main purpose is to have something to put on social media (in the old days it was to get into the local newspaper).

For the minister, the important bit is that they got to say one of their "lines to take".

The answer may only be tangentially related to the question, but the MP and the Minister both go away thinking "job done".

 

[cle]

Potentially they could retain a diesel service to Reading, as they have on some Sundays - to add frequency. But yes this service should be full-length to justify paths into Waterloo.

Reading - Basingstoke and then stations to Salisbury, Yeovil, Weymouth or Exeter could be a useful way to augment to 2tph in some areas for local journeys and to provide other onward connections (XC, Waterloo but also Paddington, Slough Oxford etc) which might be useful.

 

[stuving]

How parliament works.

This appears to be taken from oral questions to the Secretary of State for Transport on 11 June (before the Makerfield by election).

It is a supplementary question following a question on the order paper about decarbonisation in the transport sector. As is often the case, the Secretary of State delegated the answer to a junior minister.


Answers to parliamentary questions are drafted by civil servants. In this case the answer would have been to the original question about transport decarbonisation.

The minister will have a briefing folder of what are called "lines to take", to be used when answering supplementary oral questions, and will have also received oral briefing from the civil servants.


When supplementary oral questions are asked, the minister has to "think on their feet" and find the most suitable "line to take" in the briefing folder.

For the MP asking the question, the important bit is what they asked, not what the reply was. Their main purpose is to have something to put on social media (in the old days it was to get into the local newspaper).

For the minister, the important bit is that they got to say one of their "lines to take".

The answer may only be tangentially related to the question, but the MP and the Minister both go away thinking "job done".

Basically that's right; here's a bit more detail.

Forster has been banging on about the poor SWR service at Woking for ages, and he had a "topical" written question towards the end of that June 11th transport questions session:

Delays and cancellations on the South Western Railway network are horrendous. Nationalisation has not gone to plan. Last week I asked the Leader of the House why that is the case, and he said that we do not need a debate on it because he expects things to improve. Please can the Secretary of State tell the House what key performance indicators the Government are using to measure success?

Amanda Martin had a written question earlier in that session, about decarbonisation:

What steps she is taking to help decarbonise the transport sector.

Will Forster's oral question was a follow-up to that:

Can the Minister assure me that when the diesel trains that operate on the South Western Railway network are replaced with electric trains to decarbonise the network, there will be no reduction in service for my commuting constituents in Woking?

So I reckon his oral question was a rather obvious attempt to plant a question on an important constituency matter in a discussion where it did not belong. It doesn't contain anything wrong as written, but the timescale of electrification is so long that the question as asked is far too early to really make sense.

But that's not the point. He asked it so that later on he can point it out to his constituents, saying "look what I've been asking on your behalf". But what he posted on Facebook two days ago was:

South Western Railway’s diesel trains will soon be replaced by electric trains.
With cancellations and delays already a big issue on the network serving #Woking, I’ve asked the Government to ensure that the rollout of new trains don’t add to the problem.

The mystery is why, seven weeks after that exchange in the Commons, he added the word "soon". Did he he misunderstand his own question? Misread Hendy's answer (see post#14) about replacing the 159s, which certainly did not imply that would be soon?

 

[Farnborough]

When all the 701s are in service there is likely to be a surplus of 450 units, so are they possibly considering terminating the Exeter/Salisbury trains at Basingstoke with electric connections to Waterloo ?

There are plenty of better uses for any "surplus" 450s... like reinstating some of the cut or short-formed services...

And if there are still some spare, and if path restrictions can be overcome, a half-hourly Basingstoke-Farnborough-Woking-Clapham-Waterloo semi-fast (maybe adding Surbiton) would be welcome

 

[6Gman]

Basically that's right; here's a bit more detail.

Forster has been banging on about the poor SWR service at Woking for ages, and he had a "topical" written question towards the end of that June 11th transport questions session:

Amanda Martin had a written question earlier in that session, about decarbonisation:

Will Forster's oral question was a follow-up to that:


So I reckon his oral question was a rather obvious attempt to plant a question on an important constituency matter in a discussion where it did not belong. It doesn't contain anything wrong as written, but the timescale of electrification is so long that the question as asked is far too early to really make sense.

But that's not the point. He asked it so that later on he can point it out to his constituents, saying "look what I've been asking on your behalf". But what he posted on Facebook two days ago was:


The mystery is why, seven weeks after that exchange in the Commons, he added the word "soon". Did he he misunderstand his own question? Misread Hendy's answer (see post#14) about replacing the 159s, which certainly did not imply that would be soon?

As a retired politician, I can confirm that is a very accurate description of the process.

 

[Farigiraf]

How parliament works.

This appears to be taken from oral questions to the Secretary of State for Transport on 11 June (before the Makerfield by election).

It is a supplementary question following a question on the order paper about decarbonisation in the transport sector. As is often the case, the Secretary of State delegated the answer to a junior minister.


Answers to parliamentary questions are drafted by civil servants. In this case the answer would have been to the original question about transport decarbonisation.

The minister will have a briefing folder of what are called "lines to take", to be used when answering supplementary oral questions, and will have also received oral briefing from the civil servants.


When supplementary oral questions are asked, the minister has to "think on their feet" and find the most suitable "line to take" in the briefing folder.

For the MP asking the question, the important bit is what they asked, not what the reply was. Their main purpose is to have something to put on social media (in the old days it was to get into the local newspaper).

For the minister, the important bit is that they got to say one of their "lines to take".

The answer may only be tangentially related to the question, but the MP and the Minister both go away thinking "job done".

Of course, it would be a lot easier if the Minister simply knew what they were talking about. Seems farfetched, but I can think of a couple nearby countries (with an equally dense rail network) where a rail/transport minister doesn't need a civil servant to tell them how to non-answer about something they have no idea about yet are responsible for, they just answer the question. "When will the SWR diesels be replaced" is not a difficult question, nobody may know the exact answer to the question but it'd certainly be a lot more helpful to explain what the plan is rather than a vague "maybe, soon, trust me". It's not a matter of national secrecy. I suppose the lack of any real plans (that have funding committed and last longer than 1 electoral cycle) likely contributes to the chaotic nature.

But that's not the point. He asked it so that later on he can point it out to his constituents, saying "look what I've been asking on your behalf". But what he posted on Facebook two days ago was:

Also doesn't help that the question askers likely never ride the trains themselves either!
Reminds me of the Dorking MP which wanted 1 (just the one!) superfast commuter train into Waterloo on weekdays, presumably to make one constituent happy.

 

[martin butler]

One option might be to turn the Exeter - London service over to GWR, and run via Basingstoke to Reading, thence on to Paddington, using 800's passengers could change at Basingstoke, if they required London waterloo and other stations, there could also be fast services that are timed to connect so passengers get a fast service to Waterloo, possibly calling at waterloo only,

 

[Magdalia]

Of course, it would be a lot easier if the Minister simply knew what they were talking about. Seems farfetched, but I can think of a couple nearby countries (with an equally dense rail network) where a rail/transport minister doesn't need a civil servant to tell them how to non-answer about something they have no idea about yet are responsible for, they just answer the question. "When will the SWR diesels be replaced" is not a difficult question, nobody may know the exact answer to the question but it'd certainly be a lot more helpful to explain what the plan is rather than a vague "maybe, soon, trust me". It's not a matter of national secrecy. I suppose the lack of any real plans (that have funding committed and last longer than 1 electoral cycle) likely contributes to the chaotic nature.

Your expectations are unrealistic. I looked up Keir Mather here:

Keir Mather MP - GOV.UK

www.gov.uk

Keir Mather was appointed Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Transport on 7 September 2025.
He was previously Assistant Whip, House of Commons between 10 July 2024 and 7 September 2025. He was elected as the MP for Selby in July 2024.

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Security)​

The Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Security is responsible for:

• aviation
• Heathrow expansion
• maritime
• international
• security and resilience
• freight and borders
• sustainable aviation fuel (SAF)

Mather is parliamentary under secretary of state, the entry level for a minister, they have been in the job for less than a year, and their responsibilities appear not to include rail.

Remember that the Minister with main responsibility for rail is Lord Hendy, who can't answer oral questions in the House of Commons. This means that any Commons questions not answered by the Secretary of State have to be answered by junior ministers who don't have responsibility for rail. It is one of the disadvantages of having the minister with responsibility for rail in the House of Lords.

 

[Kite159]

One option might be to turn the Exeter - London service over to GWR, and run via Basingstoke to Reading, thence on to Paddington, using 800's passengers could change at Basingstoke, if they required London waterloo and other stations, there could also be fast services that are timed to connect so passengers get a fast service to Waterloo, possibly calling at waterloo only,

Because GWR are also blessed with surplus 800 units to run an Exeter - Honiton - Salisbury - Basingstoke - Reading - Paddington service...

 

[Zomboid]

Because GWR are also blessed with surplus 800 units to run an Exeter - Honiton - Salisbury - Basingstoke - Reading - Paddington service...

Not to mention the excess of spare paths between Basingstoke - Reading - Paddington to run them in.