Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
1996 was hardly a representative year, given the asset selloffs and maintenance holidays that were underway.
Nevertheless, your broad point is absolutely correct; pre-Covid, SWR just about broke even from a taxpayer viewpoint once the franchise premium and NR subsidy was considered (though the former was unsustainable, effectively being funded by FirstGroup indemnities). Given the vastly increased passenger volumes compared to the 80s and 90s, you might well have expected it to be profitable.
The main areas of increased cost compared to the 90s are:
Leased rolling stock - the ROSCOs are making a rather tidy profit on most of their deals. The stock used in BR days was generally fully depreciated, and owned and maintained in-house by BR for far less than what the ROSCOs now demand. None of these artificial mileage allowances either.
Increased outsourcing and inefficiency - far more functions are now performed by specialist contractors, who again each take their own cut. This has probably increased costs more on the NR side than the TOC side, but the lack of vertical integration also hasn't helped (this was partially addressed by the South West Alliance, but that fell apart quite quickly)
Higher staff pay - Stagecoach's ill-advised driver voluntary redundancy scheme, which began shortly after they took over SWT, could be argued as the initiator of the industry wage spiral of the following 20 years. The short-term nature of franchises meant that it was in the franchisees' financial interest to simply settle any dispute or pay claim quickly, almost at any cost - with little regard for the future or the impact this continuing cat-and-mouse game would have on the industry as a whole.
The first two are matters of political dogma and are unlikely to change even once Labour come into government. The latter is very difficult to rectify now that the mess has been created - as has been seen in the current pay dispute, trying to undertake uniform negotiations when you have 20 TOCs with 40 sets of conditions is a recipe for disaster.
It is also well known that the subsidy to the railway continues to be at unprecedented levels and the Treasury wants it to get back to more sustainable levels.
In the 1995 and 1997 timetables I quoted above (post 40), between Guildford and Havant: the xx.00 stopped only at Haslemere and Petersfield, and indeed the xx.40 ran nonstop.
Indeed, I remember that (and clearly remember the 1997 pattern in particular, including the overtaken Haslemere terminator). The very fast (xx40) and fast (xx00) were mostly 442s, while the xx20 was CIG/BEP combos, but typically with the buffet out of use. The Haslemere terminator required three diagrams, in 1997 these comprised one CIG and two VEPs.
... which is probably the slowest it's been in modern times: before Covid I believe there was always at least one non-stop service from Guildford to Haslemere every hour.
It does mean that, despite Portsmouth being a substantial city, it lacks a true fast service to London. For whatever reason, it appears that speed was seen as a more desirable thing from the 70s to the 90s inclusive, than it is now.
Indeed, I remember that (and clearly remember the 1997 pattern in particular, including the overtaken Haslemere terminator). The very fast (xx40) and fast (xx00) were mostly 442s, while the xx20 was CIG/BEP combos, but typically with the buffet out of use. The Haslemere terminator required three diagrams, in 1997 these comprised one CIG and two VEPs.
... which is probably the slowest it's been in modern times: before Covid I believe there was always at least one non-stop service from Guildford to Haslemere every hour.
It does mean that, despite Portsmouth being a substantial city, it lacks a true fast service to London. For whatever reason, it appears that speed was seen as a more desirable thing from the 70s to the 90s inclusive, than it is now.
Around 10 yrs ago I seem to recall a 1750 from Waterloo which was non-stop to Haslemere. It was 2 x 444 and was not that heavily loaded. I think we can be sure there won't ever again be anything missing out Guildford in the future!
The 1750 from Waterloo was always the prime peak service, but its stopping pattern varied through the years. I don't think it was ever 444 though, as it disappeared with the 2004 change. It was, however 2x442 for a good number of years, maybe you're thinking of that?
In the 80s this could be described as a semi-fast, making calls at Woking, Worplesdon, Guildford, Godalming, and Haslemere. The 80s pattern in the evening peak was generally to serve Worplesdon with the 81 fasts, and skip Worplesdon with the 82s (stoppers beyond Guildford), presumably to avoid the 81s catching up with the 82s.
I have a feeling that by 1989 (Greyhound timetable) it was sped up to run non-stop to Guildford, then Haslemere.
By 1994 this was indeed running fast to Haslemere (as the 1752), due 1837 (1P59). An additional Class 1 at 1754 was provided (1P61) running fast to West Byfleet, then Guildford (skipping Woking), then Farncombe, Godalming and Haslemere due 1851. I believe this pattern then persisted until 2004.
By 2003/4, a lot of 442s had been removed from the Portsmouth Direct, presumably to lengthen services on the SWML, with the fasts once again largely operated by CIGs and even VEPs. However there were two 442 diagrams remaining, and these two combined for the evening peak to operate the aforementioned 1752.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
1996 was hardly a representative year, given the asset selloffs and maintenance holidays that were underway.
Nevertheless, your broad point is absolutely correct; pre-Covid, SWR just about broke even from a taxpayer viewpoint once the franchise premium and NR subsidy was considered (though the former was unsustainable, effectively being funded by FirstGroup indemnities). Given the vastly increased passenger volumes compared to the 80s and 90s, you might well have expected it to be profitable.
The main areas of increased cost compared to the 90s are:
Leased rolling stock - the ROSCOs are making a rather tidy profit on most of their deals. The stock used in BR days was generally fully depreciated, and owned and maintained in-house by BR for far less than what the ROSCOs now demand. None of these artificial mileage allowances either.
Increased outsourcing and inefficiency - far more functions are now performed by specialist contractors, who again each take their own cut. This has probably increased costs more on the NR side than the TOC side, but the lack of vertical integration also hasn't helped (this was partially addressed by the South West Alliance, but that fell apart quite quickly)
Why were ROSCOs seen as a good idea? To my mind they increase cost, complexity and bureaucracy, as you have mentioned above, they are another company to add to the system, with its own costs and demands for profits.
Would it not be better to let each franchise "own" its stock, and then, if and when the franchise expires, transfer the stock to the new operator?
It just seems that ROSCOs are the source of so much trouble and problems. Witness the oft-discussed issue of newish stock being binned at 20 years old or less (365s, and possibly 350s and 379s) which to me is ridiculously wasteful.
And outsourcing, again more complexity, more bureaucracy, more cost and another set of companies demanding profits, as again you say.
The Major government was by far the least bad Tory government since 1979, but really, the way privatisation was done was utterly moronic, to my mind. A BR plc, or a reformation of the Big Four plus ScotRail, would have made more sense (though I would have favoured continuing public ownership in all honesty).
It’s interesting how trains across the board are getting steadily busier, and there are currently several active threads about people being left behind and significant overcrowding.
That certainly tallies with what I’m seeing, both at work and on my local network. The traditional “rush hour” in particular now seems to be ticking up on the SE metro network, and SWR is no doubt experiencing similar.
Absolutely, I was using the Overground from Sydenham to commute into the City. I decided to switch to Southern into London Bridge and walk, as LO has become unbearable. The service from West Croydon, is now leaving people behind at Honor Oak, Brockley, NXG and Surrey Quays. On Thursday, the Southern service left people behind at New Cross Gate. Maybe it's the only Southern Region, but the three big Southern operators making little changes in May is asking for chaos.
I think it's well known that this particular government are very "tight" with funding anything, sadly. Their whole philosophy appears to be to run things using the absolute minimum funding possible, and if that means inadequate formations on services at certain times a day, that's the way it is, sadly.
I agree it needs to change. Maybe voting for another party in the local elections, and general election when it comes - and telling them as such - will send a message.
Yep. I might even write to my MP, for the first time ever. She's Labour, so they'll probably try to ignore her if she brings it up, but I may tag some other South London MPs in it, of all parties. People are getting more and more irritated.
It just seems that ROSCOs are the source of so much trouble and problems. Witness the oft-discussed issue of newish stock being binned at 20 years old or less (365s, and possibly 350s and 379s) which to me is ridiculously wasteful.
It's not the ROSCOs who encouraged franchise bids to order brand new trains to replace nearly new ones, nor is it the ROSCOs who keep blocking electrification schemes. It's the DfT who are culpable here.
It's not the ROSCOs who encouraged franchise bids to order brand new trains to replace nearly new ones, nor is it the ROSCOs who keep blocking electrification schemes. It's the DfT who are culpable here.
If one ROSCO is charging more for a train fleet than another, then doesn't the railway make a saving by going for the cheaper option, even if it results in a rental void for the more expensive ROSCO.
Do you express the same concern about empty office blocks, shops or parked up rental cars? A train is just an asset for its owner, not something with sentimental value. Having trains off lease should force down prices.
Delay Repay is just a recipe for frustration most of the time - any excuse they can find to knock a claim back, they will use it.
Yes, you can get a token amount back once you satisfy their vexatious requests, however the cost of the time to get each claim complete makes it not worth the while.
For example, on a claim submitted this week, they say they can’t see my oyster number in the travel card receipt email they have on file against the ticket (I sent them all of this this during the December action - and they paid out in the end on about 80% of the claims I submitted).
Now they want a scan of the actual card, which will tell them nothing about the ticket on it!
Yep. I might even write to my MP, for the first time ever. She's Labour, so they'll probably try to ignore her if she brings it up, but I may tag some other South London MPs in it, of all parties. People are getting more and more irritated.
There is an advantage of having more than one ROSCO in the market when you are considering new stock. You (as a TOC or owning group) can choose the type and manufacturer and then you shop around the ROSCOs looking for the best financial deal.
The problem has always been with existing stock because a lot of it isn’t interchangeable, so in many cases you are stuck with that ROSCO and the price they want.
A word about the system. When the railways were being privatised, there was a lot of concern about asset stripping, as a result of what happened in the first privatisations. So the structure for TOCs was that they should be asset poor, cash flow rich, entities.
Rolling stock maintenance is a problem area for cash flow because overhauls and major repairs as very “lumpy” items to finance. Also you can get caught with “unexpected” or “unplanned generic” items to fund.
And then there was the problem with replacing stock. In BR days, getting approval for new stock was always a bit of a task - the Treasury always seemed to want a payback as part of the deal. To fund new stock without all that hassle, a ROSCO needed to be indifferent as to the age of the stock, so the “Modern Equivalent Asset Value” regime came in and all BR stock was assigned a MEAV prior to sale.
The transfer of any public asset such as this usually is done on the basis of asset value minus the liability for repairs on it for its life and the ROSCO transfers were no different.
You always pay a bit more for financial certainty in this type of market but to say that the ROSCOs have been gaining vast profits at the expense of the industry is wide of the mark. As someone whose job on BR was to fund and cost rolling stock and the repairs to them, it isn’t a cheap activity, irrespective of the age of the stock.
So, taking the current Hitachi 80x issues, I’m really glad that I am not funding all the work going on at Eastleigh or all those other costs (especially on the engines) that the units are also causing. That increased cost would bankrupt any TOC in fairly short order. I had a dose of that with class 50 engines and generators and the early (pre ROSCO) days of the Turbos with the Perkins engines and it isn’t pleasant.
In the case of SWT, the current lease regime allowed for the large 444/450 order because the price differential between old and new was so low. In BR days, that replacement would have taken much, much longer.
If one ROSCO is charging more for a train fleet than another, then doesn't the railway make a saving by going for the cheaper option, even if it results in a rental void for the more expensive ROSCO.
Do you express the same concern about empty office blocks, shops or parked up rental cars? A train is just an asset for its owner, not something with sentimental value. Having trains off lease should force down prices.
What have office blocks and rental cars got to do with anything? They're nothing to do with the government.
It's the way that the DfT scored franchise bids that led to this situation. Not to mention the failure to invest in electrification which would have found a role for surplus units (in the process allowing ancient DMUs to be withdrawn). The units might be ROSCO assets but believe me, just off-leasing a half-life unit won't save the government money, the ROSCO will look to recoup any losses through increased lease charges on future leases. The house always wins.
It's the way that the DfT scored franchise bids that led to this situation. Not to mention the failure to invest in electrification which would have found a role for surplus units (in the process allowing ancient DMUs to be withdrawn). The units might be ROSCO assets but believe me, just off-leasing a half-life unit won't save the government money, the ROSCO will look to recoup any losses through increased lease charges on future leases. The house always wins.
See office blocks and rental cars, although I note that, to government, the cost is watered down. However, on your argument, the consumer does pay in both cases.
Trains are not some special case where there have to be zero rental voids. That is why there are multiple lease companies.
The fastest ever service in modern times was in the mid-to late-90s, the xx40 discussed above, I believe that called only at Guildford, Havant, Fratton and PSS, where it terminated.
Right before COVID, SWR had additional fast trains departing on Sunday evenings at xx.55 from Waterloo.
They used the New Guildford Line and terminated at PSS as well. They were 4-car 450s.
The detailed timetable escapes me as I never used those services before. I had wanted to try them, then COVID came, and it all came to a halt. So I think they were introduced in December 2019.
If one ROSCO is charging more for a train fleet than another, then doesn't the railway make a saving by going for the cheaper option, even if it results in a rental void for the more expensive ROSCO.
Do you express the same concern about empty office blocks, shops or parked up rental cars? A train is just an asset for its owner, not something with sentimental value. Having trains off lease should force down prices.
Have lease prices been forced down, though? Once the ROSCO takes the decision to scrap stock, the equilibrium lease rate would simply recover to what it previously was. The last few years seem to have shown us that ROSCOs are quite happy to get rid of off-lease stock. Meanwhile the risk of off-lease stock / storage fees can be expected to be priced into future leases.
There doesn’t seem a perfect solution to all this, however it really wasn’t wise for so many franchises to be allowed / encouraged / incentivised to buy large fleets of new EMUs. There’s also been significant logistical issues with introducing some of these fleets - 701s and 777s for starters. Meanwhile I think we all have our suspicions that the various IET fleets may well become troublesome as they age.
Have lease prices been forced down, though? Once the ROSCO takes the decision to scrap stock, the equilibrium lease rate would simply recover to what it previously was.
The last few years seem to have shown us that ROSCOs are quite happy to get rid of off-lease stock. Meanwhile the risk of off-lease stock / storage fees can be expected to be priced into future leases.
Indeed. As someone else said, the house always wins. The DfT may save a small amount now by unexpectedly taking several smaller fleets off lease, but the ROSCOs will get their revenge soon enough.
There is an advantage of having more than one ROSCO in the market when you are considering new stock. You (as a TOC or owning group) can choose the type and manufacturer and then you shop around the ROSCOs looking for the best financial deal.
The problem has always been with existing stock because a lot of it isn’t interchangeable, so in many cases you are stuck with that ROSCO and the price they want.
A word about the system. When the railways were being privatised, there was a lot of concern about asset stripping, as a result of what happened in the first privatisations. So the structure for TOCs was that they should be asset poor, cash flow rich, entities.
Rolling stock maintenance is a problem area for cash flow because overhauls and major repairs as very “lumpy” items to finance. Also you can get caught with “unexpected” or “unplanned generic” items to fund.
And then there was the problem with replacing stock. In BR days, getting approval for new stock was always a bit of a task - the Treasury always seemed to want a payback as part of the deal. To fund new stock without all that hassle, a ROSCO needed to be indifferent as to the age of the stock, so the “Modern Equivalent Asset Value” regime came in and all BR stock was assigned a MEAV prior to sale.
The transfer of any public asset such as this usually is done on the basis of asset value minus the liability for repairs on it for its life and the ROSCO transfers were no different.
You always pay a bit more for financial certainty in this type of market but to say that the ROSCOs have been gaining vast profits at the expense of the industry is wide of the mark. As someone whose job on BR was to fund and cost rolling stock and the repairs to them, it isn’t a cheap activity, irrespective of the age of the stock.
So, taking the current Hitachi 80x issues, I’m really glad that I am not funding all the work going on at Eastleigh or all those other costs (especially on the engines) that the units are also causing. That increased cost would bankrupt any TOC in fairly short order. I had a dose of that with class 50 engines and generators and the early (pre ROSCO) days of the Turbos with the Perkins engines and it isn’t pleasant.
In the case of SWT, the current lease regime allowed for the large 444/450 order because the price differential between old and new was so low. In BR days, that replacement would have taken much, much longer.
Why were ROSCOs seen as a good idea? To my mind they increase cost, complexity and bureaucracy, as you have mentioned above, they are another company to add to the system, with its own costs and demands for profits.
Because every player in the industry now has
a) a bank providing working capital (at a cost) and middlemen who cream off a proportion just for putting the two together - my brother-in-law did very well out of it
b) insurance policies
c) its own board of directors - able to get astonishing rewards when (of course) it is other people who do the work
d) its own accountants
e) shareholders to reward
This all adds up to a terrible drain on the industry and perverts the real objective, moving people and freight as efficiently as possible for the benefit of the country.
I always thought the parasites in the city hated the nationalised industries for exactly this reason: they didn't get a look in, let alone a chance to milk it.
Hence Thatcher's changes and then Major's/
Indeed. As someone else said, the house always wins. The DfT may save a small amount now by unexpectedly taking several smaller fleets off lease, but the ROSCOs will get their revenge soon enough.
That isnt really true as a newcomer like Rock with cash to invest will not be trying to recoup another ROSCOs losses.
If risks turned out to be much higher than they previously priced in then prices might rise a bit, but its a market.
That isnt really true as a newcomer like Rock with cash to invest will not be trying to recoup another ROSCOs losses.
If risks turned out to be much higher than they previously priced in then prices might rise a bit, but its a market.
It's not that they will trying to recoup losses - indeed, even those ROSCOs that have incurred losses have limited ability to directly do so. It's more that the perceived risk of further fleets being taken off-lease prematurely has drastically increased, and ROSCOs will thus be pricing that risk into what they quote.
Hence the DfT may save a few pennies now, but the uncertainty they have caused will be priced into leases for a long time yet.
If one ROSCO is charging more for a train fleet than another, then doesn't the railway make a saving by going for the cheaper option, even if it results in a rental void for the more expensive ROSCO.
Do you express the same concern about empty office blocks, shops or parked up rental cars? A train is just an asset for its owner, not something with sentimental value. Having trains off lease should force down prices.
Not lunacy at all. It was a clever way to ensure that the money going round inside the industry could be siphoned off at every possible opportunity while not stepping outside the law.
I was looking at Labour's election manifesto for that year and came across a few interesting things: Firstly, under "Action for Industry", they state they would "allow British Rail to proceed with a leasing scheme of 188 new Networker trains on the North Kent line". Now the North Kent Line is...
I hope all those experiencing overcrowding are making formal complaints to the TOCs and writing to their MPs and local councils. It may not get anything done because of all stock issues but at least it helps to keep the issues highlighted.
The 1750 from Waterloo was always the prime peak service, but its stopping pattern varied through the years. I don't think it was ever 444 though, as it disappeared with the 2004 change. It was, however 2x442 for a good number of years, maybe you're thinking of that?
In the 80s this could be described as a semi-fast, making calls at Woking, Worplesdon, Guildford, Godalming, and Haslemere. The 80s pattern in the evening peak was generally to serve Worplesdon with the 81 fasts, and skip Worplesdon with the 82s (stoppers beyond Guildford), presumably to avoid the 81s catching up with the 82s.
I have a feeling that by 1989 (Greyhound timetable) it was sped up to run non-stop to Guildford, then Haslemere.
By 1994 this was indeed running fast to Haslemere (as the 1752), due 1837 (1P59). An additional Class 1 at 1754 was provided (1P61) running fast to West Byfleet, then Guildford (skipping Woking), then Farncombe, Godalming and Haslemere due 1851. I believe this pattern then persisted until 2004.
By 2003/4, a lot of 442s had been removed from the Portsmouth Direct, presumably to lengthen services on the SWML, with the fasts once again largely operated by CIGs and even VEPs. However there were two 442 diagrams remaining, and these two combined for the evening peak to operate the aforementioned 1752.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Why were ROSCOs seen as a good idea? To my mind they increase cost, complexity and bureaucracy, as you have mentioned above, they are another company to add to the system, with its own costs and demands for profits.
Would it not be better to let each franchise "own" its stock, and then, if and when the franchise expires, transfer the stock to the new operator?
It just seems that ROSCOs are the source of so much trouble and problems. Witness the oft-discussed issue of newish stock being binned at 20 years old or less (365s, and possibly 350s and 379s) which to me is ridiculously wasteful.
And outsourcing, again more complexity, more bureaucracy, more cost and another set of companies demanding profits, as again you say.
The Major government was by far the least bad Tory government since 1979, but really, the way privatisation was done was utterly moronic, to my mind. A BR plc, or a reformation of the Big Four plus ScotRail, would have made more sense (though I would have favoured continuing public ownership in all honesty).
Absolutely, I was using the Overground from Sydenham to commute into the City. I decided to switch to Southern into London Bridge and walk, as LO has become unbearable. The service from West Croydon, is now leaving people behind at Honor Oak, Brockley, NXG and Surrey Quays. On Thursday, the Southern service left people behind at New Cross Gate. Maybe it's the only Southern Region, but the three big Southern operators making little changes in May is asking for chaos.
Save a lot of pennies. You are assuming the risk wasn’t already priced in (across their portfolio).
More likely to concentrate on what they offer than raising the price for very long.
More than a couple of times I’ve been on 12 car 450s running Alton services with at most, 15 people on them. 8 or 12 on that line seems to be the norm all day.
I've been on that line a few times - usually travelling London to Alton late morning or lunchtime, and returning in the evening, so never in the peak hours. My impression is that those trains are usually reasonably busy between Clapham Junction and Aldershot/Farnham - easily sufficient to justify 8 carriages - but quieter at the two ends of the line. I don't think I've ever been on a train on that route that had as few as 15 people on it.
I would imagine that a fair few people going to/from Waterloo change to/from faster trains at Woking since the Alton trains are invariably overtaken by a fast train between London and Woking. That probably makes those trains a bit quieter than they would otherwise be East of Woking.
Right before COVID, SWR had additional fast trains departing on Sunday evenings at xx.55 from Waterloo.
They used the New Guildford Line and terminated at PSS as well. They were 4-car 450s.
The detailed timetable escapes me as I never used those services before. I had wanted to try them, then COVID came, and it all came to a halt. So I think they were introduced in December 2019.
They were booked 10.442, running in the 9Gxx range. Waterloo, Clapham, Guildford, Havant, Fratton and Southsea. There was also corresponding UP workings with the same pattern in reverse. It also saw 10.442 9Bxx service calling Poole, Bournemouth, Southampton and Waterloo.
They never really got going as they were launched in the winter, so there was more often than not a possession that resulted in no capacity for them.
I've been on that line a few times - usually travelling London to Alton late morning or lunchtime, and returning in the evening, so never in the peak hours. My impression is that those trains are usually reasonably busy between Clapham Junction and Aldershot/Farnham - easily sufficient to justify 8 carriages - but quieter at the two ends of the line. I don't think I've ever been on a train on that route that had as few as 15 people on it.
I would imagine that a fair few people going to/from Waterloo change to/from faster trains at Woking since the Alton trains are invariably overtaken by a fast train between London and Woking. That probably makes those trains a bit quieter than they would otherwise be East of Woking.
On the whole the Alton’s and Basingstoke stoppers Interwork, and both service groups during the peaks are hugely busy. You might as well just leave them as 12 cars during the off peaks.
From a DfT perspective I can see everything returning to 10s and 12s after the 701s are finally introduced but no further service improvements. There’s still some substantial holes in the M-F provision compared to pre Covid but I can’t see them returning.
Not lunacy at all. It was a clever way to ensure that the money going round inside the industry could be siphoned off at every possible opportunity while not stepping outside the law.
I was looking at Labour's election manifesto for that year and came across a few interesting things: Firstly, under "Action for Industry", they state they would "allow British Rail to proceed with a leasing scheme of 188 new Networker trains on the North Kent line". Now the North Kent Line is...
No worries! Admittedly I used the WTTs to fill in the detail about the 1754 (I knew it existed, but the detail on the stops and the train codes were from the WTT).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I've been on that line a few times - usually travelling London to Alton late morning or lunchtime, and returning in the evening, so never in the peak hours. My impression is that those trains are usually reasonably busy between Clapham Junction and Aldershot/Farnham - easily sufficient to justify 8 carriages - but quieter at the two ends of the line. I don't think I've ever been on a train on that route that had as few as 15 people on it.
I would imagine that a fair few people going to/from Waterloo change to/from faster trains at Woking since the Alton trains are invariably overtaken by a fast train between London and Woking. That probably makes those trains a bit quieter than they would otherwise be East of Woking.
One interesting thing about the Alton trains is how much they've slowed down compared to the 90s. In the 90s, before Woking, they were either Clapham only or, in some years, non-stop. By contrast they all (or did before Covid - I will admit to not paying so much attention post-Covid) stop West Byfleet in addition to either Clapham or Surbiton, but that isn't really the reason; they have an unfavourable path into Woking due to a conflict with the Portsmouth fast.
Journey time in 1997 was 1hr02 for the regular off-peak service: Woking in 25 mins, then straight out and down to Alton.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
On the whole the Alton’s and Basingstoke stoppers Interwork, and both service groups during the peaks are hugely busy. You might as well just leave them as 12 cars during the off peaks.
Except running long trains Mon-Fri midday (which I would imagine would be considerably less busy than departures from Waterloo around 2000) presumably leads to more mileage and wear and tear, though does have the advantage of less ECS workings requiring staff to drive them to and from the depot. Swings and roundabouts I guess: there's definitely been a change in philosophy over the years. In 1997, during the early years of SWT, practically all Altons and Basingstokes were 4-car off peak but lengthening to 8 or even 12 occurred in the peak. Same pattern occurred in NSE days in the late 80s or early 90s; short trains off-peak, long in the peak; this issue has been discussed in previous threads.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
