New Open Access Application: London - Southampton - Marchwood

Zomboid · 13 May 2026

Mike Machin said:
I feel the scheme proposed was over ambitious in its scope. A much simpler service, half-hourly operated with SWR Class 158s and terminating in the old bay platform 5 at Southampton Central would be ideal for starters. There would be no additional pressure on the South West Main Line, particularly as paths through Southampton tunnel are at a premium and such a service would still provide a very viable and useful service for the waterside community for travel to and from Southampton and also would provide good connections to a huge range of destinations available with SWR, Great Western, Southern and Cross-Country.

Keep it simple and build from there.

That's how an actual reopening would proceed, but there's no money to be made for an OAO by running a suburban shuttle.

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger · 13 May 2026

Mike Machin said:
I feel the scheme proposed was over ambitious in its scope. A much simpler service, half-hourly operated with SWR Class 158s and terminating in the old bay platform 5 at Southampton Central would be ideal for starters. There would be no additional pressure on the South West Main Line, particularly as paths through Southampton tunnel are at a premium and such a service would still provide a very viable and useful service for the waterside community for travel to and from Southampton and also would provide good connections to a huge range of destinations available with SWR, Great Western, Southern and Cross-Country.

Keep it simple and build from there.

That was also the extent of the ‘restoring your railways‘ proposal. About 10 seconds after it was explained we had people here posting that it should extend and take over the Chandlers Ford route, ie a typical case of running before you could walk.

The exile · 13 May 2026

Farigiraf said:
. Just 1 train per hour on every local service out of Southampton Central is underwhelming given the population density - although many of these lines have quite a lot of longer-distance traffic unlike the branch lines around Bristol/Exeter.

While that may be true for much of the Devon Metro, the only element of Metro West that doesn’t share the majority of its route with significant long-distance traffic is the Severn Beach line (and, once open, Portishead).

zwk500 · 13 May 2026

Mike Machin said:
I feel the scheme proposed was over ambitious in its scope. A much simpler service, half-hourly operated with SWR Class 158s and terminating in the old bay platform 5 at Southampton Central would be ideal for starters.

Funnily enough, that was what RYR proposed...

Mike Machin said:
There would be no additional pressure on the South West Main Line, particularly as paths through Southampton tunnel are at a premium

There is, however, pressure on the section of track between Redbridge and Southampton Central, especially with the arrival needing to cross both down lines to get to the bay, and the departure needing to cross the Down Fast to get to the slow lines if serving. Millbrook. All while freight access to the port was maintained.

Mike Machin said:
Keep it simple and build from there.

Simpler, maybe, but even the RYR proposal would have required quite extensive works to upgrade the route to passenger standards.

zwk500 · 27 May 2026

Green Signals has an interview with Ian Yeowart on the Marchwood Open Access application:

Open Access to Marchwood “Shoddy, Unevidenced and Factually Incorrect” – Yeowart slams ORR

It starts off by claiming the ORR have assessed the wrong timetable.

Brubulus · 27 May 2026

zwk500 said:
Green Signals has an interview with Ian Yeowart on the Marchwood Open Access application:

It starts off by claiming the ORR have assessed the wrong timetable.

I can see both sides of the argument here, though some of the abstraction numbers the ORR proposed for Marchwood do seem interesting, and the capacity and performance arguments seem to resolve around potential SWR services, not the as is timetable.

43096 · 27 May 2026

zwk500 said:
Green Signals has an interview with Ian Yeowart on the Marchwood Open Access application:

It starts off by claiming the ORR have assessed the wrong timetable.

Rather amusing, because from what the ORR said when rejecting the application, Yeowart's application was indeed "shoddy, unevidenced and factually incorrect".

weeklycommuter · 27 May 2026

zwk500 said:
Green Signals has an interview with Ian Yeowart on the Marchwood Open Access application:

It starts off by claiming the ORR have assessed the wrong timetable.

It also claims the Office of Rail and Road decision letter is completely wrong, wrong about revenue, wrong about rolling stock performance, wrong about the cost of infrastructure including Marchwood and wrong about investment needed to bring Southampton Bay Platform 5 into passenger use as this was not part of the plans.

Ian Yeowart has made other open access applications which the ORR approved. After the ORR U-turn over the 0700 train from Manchester to London Euston some may wonder about this ORR decision letter.

The Great British Railways Bill will now have to be considered by the House of Lords. There is clearly a lot of concern about various issues. This case could add to those concerns.

Solent_Desiro · 27 May 2026

I guess they will appeal to the ORR, could it passed on appeal?

Bald Rick · 27 May 2026

GeekyJamez said:
I guess they will appeal to the ORR, could it passed on appeal?

There’s no appeal to the ORR, their decision is final.

They can reapply, albeit if they reapply with the same proposal in the same circumstances, they can expect the same result.

Clarence Yard · 27 May 2026

The ORR decision isn’t “final”. It can be appealed, to the High Court. But a JR costs a fortune and you have to prove the ORR were at procedural fault, not an easy thing to do, as GNER found to their cost.

weeklycommuter · 28 May 2026

Clarence Yard said:
The ORR decision isn’t “final”. It can be appealed, to the High Court. But a JR costs a fortune and you have to prove the ORR were at procedural fault, not an easy thing to do, as GNER found to their cost.

From watching the Green Signals video the applicant indicated that he does not consider a judicial review would be worth doing.

However, in view of his comments about the ORR decision letter I wonder if the applicant will submit a new application which includes the proposed timetable and addresses the other issues in the ORR decision letter. The claim in the video is that the ORR assessed the wrong timetable. The message I get from the video is that the applicant wants to set the record straight regardless of the view that the ORR would be likely to reject a new application.

Bald Rick · 28 May 2026

Clarence Yard said:
The ORR decision isn’t “final”. It can be appealed, to the High Court. But a JR costs a fortune and you have to prove the ORR were at procedural fault, not an easy thing to do, as GNER found to their cost.

Sorry, yes, I meant ‘final’ in terms of rail industry process (as that is how ORR describes it in their guide to open access applications).

It is reasonable to assume that decisions such as this will have been through ORRs lawyers to check all is correct procedurally, and discussed at Board level, before being confirmed.

zwk500 · 28 May 2026

Bald Rick said:
It is reasonable to assume that decisions such as this will have been through ORRs lawyers to check all is correct procedurally, and discussed at Board level, before being confirmed.

Presumably the decision about the 0700 Manchester-Euston train was also 'correct procedurally'?

The exile · 28 May 2026

zwk500 said:
Presumably the decision about the 0700 Manchester-Euston train was also 'correct procedurally'?

“Procedurally correct” and “sensible in the circumstances / proper customer service” are very different things (indeed in lots of cases once “procedure” / “our process” is mentioned you can be certain that no account is being taken of specific circumstances)

Bald Rick · 28 May 2026

zwk500 said:
Presumably the decision about the 0700 Manchester-Euston train was also 'correct procedurally'?

That wouldn’t have been past the lawyers.

zwk500 · 17 Jun 2026

'Vindication' for Alliance Rail despite regulator rejecting open access plan for second time

Office of Rail and Road admits information hadn't reached its board when initial decision was made

www.railmagazine.com

RAIL Magazine reporting ORR have revised their conclusions, although not by enough to change their mind:

The regulator admitted its previous review “did not accurately reflect underlying analysis of available capacity”.

ORR also said that figures referenced in its original board paper and decision letter “did not align with the deconfliction work” Alliance had carried out with Network Rail that concluded in December 2025.

On Capacity:

ORR had initially said only two of Alliance’s 41 weekday paths could be accommodated. This has now been amended to say NR’s review of 33 paths found major moderate and minor/no timetable changes of 12, four and 17 respectively.

However, ORR said: “NR confirmed that, despite this representing a significant improvement upon the initial submission, its formal position remained unchanged, and it did not support Alliance’s application on capacity grounds."

On Revenue Abstraction:

It has also kept its abstraction forecast and is still not satisfied the application would meet the Not Primarily Abstractive (NPA) ratio of at least 0.3., despite Alliance’ analysis providing a score of 0.56. It also stated the application “lacked sufficient evidence of how much more new revenue would be generated”.

ORR referred to an estimate of at least 20% of journeys from Marchwood would be new to rail, which it said would give Alliance an NPA ratio of 0.25.

An ORR spokesperson said after the application was assessed again: “The Board has reaffirmed its decision not to approve the Alliance application. Based on the evidence submitted, we carefully considered the beneficial aspects of this application as well as potential performance impacts, lack of capacity and concerns over operational viability.

“We regret that capacity information was inaccurately presented to the Board initially, and we took the important and necessary step to reconvene the Board to present accurate information. Through this we also reflected that Platform 5 at Southampton was not part of our analysis and we clarified uncertainty in revenue and abstraction forecasts to ensure they were confident of the decision.  Our underlying analysis was accurate, but presentation of it to the Board was not.

“We are reviewing internal processes around quality assurance and drafting and will make the necessary improvements. This includes an independent review from an outside party.”

Snow1964 · 17 Jun 2026

zwk500 said:
'Vindication' for Alliance Rail despite regulator rejecting open access plan for second time

Office of Rail and Road admits information hadn't reached its board when initial decision was made

www.railmagazine.com

RAIL Magazine reporting ORR have revised their conclusions, although not by enough to change their mind:

On Capacity:

On Revenue Abstraction:

Seems a bit weak on revenue abstraction test

One side says 0.56, but can't prove it because service hasn't started, but ORR wants it proved. ORR estimate (but again haven't proved it) at 0.25

Even if took midpoint of these, going to be well clear of arbitrary 0.30 figure, even at 75% in ORRs favour still over the 0.30 primarily not abstractive test. Sort of doesn't feel very unbiased and fair to me.

Trainguy34 · 17 Jun 2026

Not to be too speculative or critical, but might this be especially influenced by SWR now being nationalised?

Clarence Yard · 17 Jun 2026

No, whether the TOC is fully run by the DfT or run via a contracted proxy makes no difference in all this.

Bald Rick · 17 Jun 2026

Snow1964 said:
One side says 0.56, but can't prove it because service hasn't started, but ORR wants it proved. ORR estimate (but again haven't proved it) at 0.25

How do you prove revenue abstraction without starting the service?

MartinC · 20 Jul 2026

weeklycommuter said:
The following extract from the Office of Rail and Road decision letter shows the ORR passed the application on the absolute abstraction test but failed the application on the capacity, performance and not primarily abstractive tests.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2026 ==

Those who wanted a passenger train service on the Waterside Line wanted this as a public service under Restoring Your Railway.

They only supported the open access application because the Government did not fund the Restoring Your Railway application so the open access application was the only possible way to deliver this passenger train service on the Waterside.

Clearly the open access application had to include a train service from the Waterside to London Waterloo every two hours to make money as the proposed hourly service from Marchwood to Southampton Central was not going to make money.

The ORR decision letter indicates that the capacity issues alone, including through platform capacity at Southampton Central Station referred to in points 17 and 18 of the ORR decision letter, ensured this was never going to work and that the only passenger train service that was going to be possible is an hourly shuttle from West facing bay platform 5 at Southampton Central Station to Totton, Marchwood and Hythe.

The points in the ORR decision letter are clear enough but as this followed the decision not to fund the Restoring Your Railway application the impression left with some campaigners, however unfair, is that HM Treasury, the Department for Transport, Government controlled train operators and Network Rail were determined to ensure that this passenger train service did not go ahead.

The objections from South Western Railway over potential conflicts with its own planned service reintroductions, revenue abstraction,
and overall negative performance impacts are given particular short shrift because of SWR's failure to deliver the new Arterio trains for several years and failure to deliver the hourly stopping London Waterloo to Southampton Central service promised in the December 2022 timetable consultation.

Platform capacity at Southampton Central. On 15th July the Southern train from Brighton arrived at platform 2a at 12.30 and sat there until 12.51, this at a time of major disruption, contributing to platform changes.

JonathanH · 20 Jul 2026

MartinC said:
Platform capacity at Southampton Central. On 15th July the Southern train from Brighton arrived at platform 2a at 12.30 and sat there until 12.51, this at a time of major disruption, contributing to platform changes.

That is exactly what it was timetabled to do, in order to provide a robust turnaround. Should something else have happened?

Sun Chariot · 20 Jul 2026

MartinC said:
Platform capacity at Southampton Central. On 15th July the Southern train from Brighton arrived at platform 2a at 12.30 and sat there until 12.51, this at a time of major disruption, contributing to platform changes.

I don't follow your point? I don't see major disruption 15-July for Southampton Central's booked paths (RTT's data):

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...26-07-15/0600-2000?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

The Working Timetable caters for layover for those arrivals, before their return to Brighton.
Such as:
1N04 arr Soton C 07:28 / 1N11 dep Soton C 07:50
1N08 arr Soton C 08:31 / 1N15 dep Soton C 08:50
1N16 arr Soton C 10:31 / 1N23 dep Soton C 10:50
And so on

Solent_Desiro · 31 Jul 2026

Alliance have resubmitted plans for Marchwood with less through services to Waterloo

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/alliance-rail-resubmits-modified-marchwood-plan

Farigiraf · 31 Jul 2026

Solent_Desiro said:
Alliance have resubmitted plans for Marchwood with less through services to Waterloo

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/alliance-rail-resubmits-modified-marchwood-plan

Accessing that article involves both subscribing to Rail Magazine and agreeing to a rather questionable cookie policy. Could you please provide an excerpt?

TheWierdOne · 31 Jul 2026

Farigiraf said:
Accessing that article involves both subscribing to Rail Magazine and agreeing to a rather questionable cookie policy. Could you please provide an excerpt?

You don’t need to pay to view the article. Accounts on Rail Magazine’s website are free. The cookie policy is unfortunately commonplace nowadays.

Farnborough · 1 Aug 2026

The Ham said:
Whilst such a service would be useful, realistically it should be an extension of a SWR service not something new.

Since covid, SWR have cut back services... it is unlikely they would add a new branchline

Since renationalisation, the SWR standard of service has plummetted... it is unlikely they would add a new branchline

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

A S Leib · 1 Aug 2026

Farnborough said:
Since covid, SWR have cut back services... it is unlikely they would add a new branchline

Since renationalisation, the SWR standard of service has plummetted... it is unlikely they would add a new branchline

Chiltern's made cutbacks which haven't yet been restored and are ending up with East West Rail (west), assuming the first passenger trains run whilst Chiltern still exists.

The Ham · 1 Aug 2026

Farnborough said:
Since covid, SWR have cut back services... it is unlikely they would add a new branchline

Since renationalisation, the SWR standard of service has plummetted... it is unlikely they would add a new branchline

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

Indeed, however, if ~~SWR~~ GBR aren't willing to run such services then there's a train why OAO exist and will continue to do so.

Especially, if there's the potential of usable paths into London.

New Open Access Application: London - Southampton - Marchwood

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Open Access to Marchwood “Shoddy, Unevidenced and Factually Incorrect” – Yeowart slams ORR​

Member

On Moderation

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Open Access to Marchwood “Shoddy, Unevidenced and Factually Incorrect” – Yeowart slams ORR