SWR thoughts

[Bikeman78]

Is there any prospect of SWR going back to half hourly to Dorking and Guildford via Bookham? If not, would it make more sense to run half hourly through Bookham and only run to Dorking in the peaks? Dorking would still have a half hourly Southern service. Ideally both would stop at Boxhill & Westhumble but that would mean quite a tight turn round at Dorking.

Regarding the Shepperton line, when and why did most trains start calling at Kempton Park? Given the performance problems on the line, is it worth it for 50,000 users per year? I went there last week and it was deserted. Seems odd to skip Earlsfield instead. Once the 701s have taken over, will they reinstate the Earlsfield stops?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Is there any prospect of SWR going back to half hourly to Dorking and Guildford via Bookham? If not, would it make more sense to run half hourly through Bookham and only run to Dorking in the peaks? Dorking would still have a half hourly Southern service. Ideally both would stop at Boxhill & Westhumble but that would mean quite a tight turn round at Dorking.

Regarding the Shepperton line, when and why did most trains start calling at Kempton Park? Given the performance problems on the line, is it worth it for 50,000 users per year? I went there last week and it was deserted. Seems odd to skip Earlsfield instead. Once the 701s have taken over, will they reinstate the Earlsfield stops?

When did the Earlsfield stops get taken out?

 

[devon_belle]

If not, would it make more sense to run half hourly through Bookham and only run to Dorking in the peaks?

Do you live in Bookham perchance?

Outside the peaks, in my experience, the SWR trains are usually busier than the Southern ones. I think it is very important SWR returns 2 tph to both Guildford and Dorking as soon as possible. For selfish reasons, 1 tph SWR to Horsham would also be wonderful if it could be achieved.

 

[JonathanH]

I think it is very important SWR returns 2 tph to both Guildford and Dorking as soon as possible.

What is important about it? Dorking has 3tph to London, stations between Effingham Junction and London Road have 3tph to London. Bookham is a relatively small village on the outskirts of Leatherhead.

 

[Bikeman78]

When did the Earlsfield stops get taken out?

Sometime since 2020.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jul 2025 ==

Do you live in Bookham perchance?

Outside the peaks, in my experience, the SWR trains are usually busier than the Southern ones. I think it is very important SWR returns 2 tph to both Guildford and Dorking as soon as possible. For selfish reasons, 1 tph SWR to Horsham would also be wonderful if it could be achieved.

No I don't. SWT did try running to Horsham around 1996/1997 but hardly anyone used it. Crazy to think that Waterloo trains didn't run south of Epsom off peak in the early 1990s. Dorking had a handful of peak trains. Ironically, Bookham had a half hourly Thameslink service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jul 2025 ==

What is important about it? Dorking has 3tph to London, stations between Effingham Junction and London Road have 3tph to London. Bookham is a relatively small village on the outskirts of Leatherhead.

I agree that it's not big, but it has more passengers than Boxhill or Kempton Park which both get two trains per hour. Personal observation backs this up. The 1205 up from Bookham had around 20 people boarding. Boxhill had three at 1235 and Kempton Park was a ghost town.

 

[devon_belle]

Bookham is a relatively small village on the outskirts of Leatherhead.

You're right, but Dorking is not and therefore deserves its current 3 tph and should have 4 tph restored rather than a cut to 2 tph, if a change is to be made. Remember the Southern service is slower and does not have the convenient connections at Wimbledon for the District Line and Waterloo for the city. Restoring 2 tph to both Guildford and Dorking will also be felt positively at the Guildford end and from Leatherhead onwards. Particularly stations north of Epsom can get crowded, to the extent that trains lose time, so I think they would benefit from turn up and go frequencies.

 

[London Trains]

What is important about it? Dorking has 3tph to London, stations between Effingham Junction and London Road have 3tph to London. Bookham is a relatively small village on the outskirts of Leatherhead.

You do realise the service doesn't exist just to serve Bookham, but even so, Bookham is not a "small village" as you claim anyway, its just very a spread out area, and with the incredibly poor service, many who live in the area choose to be dropped off at Leatherhead or just drive all the way to their destination instead. Ironically, Effingham, Horsley and Clandon would all perfectly fit the description of "small villages," yet they all have a much better service than Bookham due to the railway geography in the area, and even more ironically, Effingham village is actually closer to Bookham station than it is Effingham Junction. Going further into the realms of speculation, I think there would be a lot of merit to opening an additional station on the line in Fetcham (roughly where the railway goes over Cobham Road), which would bring much more of the area between Bookham and Leatherhead into walking distance of a station. In addition the purpose of the service via Epsom is not to link Effingham Junction, Horsley, Clandon or London Road to London, as this is the purpose of the faster service via Cobham.

What you have completely ignored is the fact not everything is about getting into Central London, the main purpose of the service is to link Guildford with Leatherhead, Ashtead and Epsom, as well as for onwards connections to Sutton and Croydon amongst other places. There is not an insignificant level of inward demand to Guildford, with it being a large, important town within Surrey, with many employers, lots of leisure activities available and a large university (bear in mind many commute to university, they don't all live on campus!), as well as the station providing lots of onward connections towards Portsmouth and Woking amongst other places. There is also an awful lot of inward demand to Croydon as well as smaller amounts to Sutton, which this service provides connections to, and additionally lots of school journeys to areas around Sutton due to the number of "selective" schools in the area. To this end, I'd be in favour of extending the London Bridge to Epsom services to Guildford (not stopping at Horsley and Clandon though), and sending all 4tph SWR services to Dorking (bringing me on to my next paragraph). Journeys between Bookham and Waterloo (as well as the small number of journeys between Guildford and stations between Ewell West and Raynes Park) would be possible with a cross platform change at Epsom, which is not an issue when the services are running at half decent frequencies. A 2tph service to Bookham with a cross platform change onto a 4tph service onwards would be much better than now.

In regards to the frequency, the SWR service is by far the most used service south of Epsom, as it is the fastest service to Waterloo and Clapham Junction, as well as also serving Wimbledon, a place with lots of inward demand as well as connections to the District Line, and having only 1tph to Dorking is wholly inadequate, and even 2tph to Leatherhead and Ashtead is inadequate I would say. Yes 4tph to Dorking isn't completely necessary as I suggested in the previous paragraph, but it is necessary as far as Leatherhead, and Dorking is a convenient place to turn around. The even bigger issue being missed is that anything less than 4tph is completely and utterly inadequate between Epsom and Waterloo at any time of the day. These services are very overcrowded as it is to the point where they lose time and leave people behind, and this is totally ignoring the swathes of people that have given up on the railway and now use alternative routes or modes of transport for their journeys. Before you say "the number of commuters has reduced" bear in mind that there was 6tph between Epsom to Waterloo at peak times pre-Covid, and nobody has suggested that those additional peak extras return, as the slightly reduced number of commuters now means that 4tph is (just about) sufficient.

This ridiculous, poor attitude on display is exactly why the railway is failing passengers and why car usage is not going to decrease. We should be trying to induce more journeys and decrease car usage, not cutting services to the bone.

 

[JonathanH]

This ridiculous, poor attitude on display is exactly why the railway is failing passengers and why car usage is not going to decrease. We should be trying to induce more journeys and decrease car usage, not cutting services to the bone.

Thanks for setting out your thoughts on the level of service between Guildford and Epsom. I only asked the question, as the previous poster didn't give a justification for why the service uplift was important, and SWR seemingly have decided that it isn't.

I would hazard another point on the matter of why passengers don't travel that much by train from Guildford to Epsom is that it costs £16.40 (£11.50 after lunchtime) for an off-peak day return for a journey of 16 miles. That is quite steep for the morning journey. It is a bit cheaper in the other direction. Those sort of prices don't induce the idea that the train in the South East is for journeys other than to London. One of the obvious challenges with the SWR network aside from journeys to London is just how much it and its predecessors have been able to hike the fares over time.

 

[stadler]

I do find it ridiculous that SWR still operates this reduced covid timetable when almost every other operator is back to normal. Look at every Southern route and every Southeastern route which are all back to their pre covid off peak frequencies. The only reduction at other TOCs are some extra peak services that used to run. But yet SWR seem to have used covid as an excuse to permanently cut services.

I hope we see the 2tph Dorking and the 2tph Guildford via Epsom return soon. These are well used routes linking major towns so could really do with the extra services back. Having to wait around for an hour if you just miss a service is very inconvenient. Maybe once the 701s rollout is complete it will be considered.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It’s a moot point to say Dorking has 3tph from London, because while you may be able to take the Victoria service in the morning as an alternative if the Waterloo service is cancelled, missed, or too full (and it’s only five or ten minutes slower), when going home in the evening it’s a different story.

If you get to Waterloo and your service is cancelled, missed, or too full to board, the 2tph from Victoria aren’t much good then!

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I do find it ridiculous that SWR still operates this reduced covid timetable when almost every other operator is back to normal. Look at every Southern route and every Southeastern route which are all back to their pre covid off peak frequencies. The only reduction at other TOCs are some extra peak services that used to run. But yet SWR seem to have used covid as an excuse to permanently cut services.

I hope we see the 2tph Dorking and the 2tph Guildford via Epsom return soon. These are well used routes linking major towns so could really do with the extra services back. Having to wait around for an hour if you just miss a service is very inconvenient. Maybe once the 701s rollout is complete it will be considered.

Southern is still 2tph Victoria via Norbury and London Bridge via Forest Hill

 

[devon_belle]

Look at every Southern route

There are still some. Southern's 2 tph to Dorking semi-fast has been combined with the Epsom stoppers, meaning that service north of Epsom is still reduced.

These trains get busy between Sutton and Clapham even off-peak, and I fear SWR passengers who lost their Dorking service would not take the change at Epsom, opting for a faster change at Clapham, overwhelming the Southern trains. I am thus still of the opinion that SWR should reintroduce 2 tph Guildford and Dorking as soon as enough trains/staff are available.

In the 2 tph SWR to Guildford only scenario, the off-peak Southern service would definitely have to be strengthened to 8/10 coaches in the evenings and weekends, as these are regularly full to Dorking as it is. On the weekends, this could mean taking valuable coaches away from the mainline trains where leisure travel is well above COVID levels.

Going further into the realms of speculation, I think there would be a lot of merit to opening an additional station on the line in Fetcham (roughly where the railway goes over Cobham Road), which would bring much more of the area between Bookham and Leatherhead into walking distance of a station.

I have long thought this too. Bookham station is poorly sited for the village, and Fetcham is not walkable to the station despite the railway passing right through it. Given the funky traffic situation in Leatherhead I could see a Fetcham station being a railhead for quite a lot of housing in the area.

Bookham is also home to a large charity which supports people with learning disabilities (both in the day and living there). SWR/Network Rail rejected pleas for an accessible footbridge, saying that they should travel to a nearby station and double back. This is rather inconvenient when there's only 1 tph on the Bookham line.

 

[Bikeman78]

I've had a look at how many units are required. The off peak metro service through Wimbledon requires 32 sets of stock, plus one more in the peaks for the extra Bookham trains. Running half hourly through Bookham all day but leaving Dorking hourly needs 34 trains. I haven't worked it out but I think running half hourly to Dorking would take the total to 36. Once all the 701s are in traffic, there will be plenty of trains so it's a question of cost and sufficient crew.

 

[Peter Wilde]

Agree Bookham deserves its pre-Covid service of 2 tph being reinstated. It is definitely not a “small” village, it is a widely spread sprawl of commuter housing. Pity it is sited at one edge of the village - but that means it’s next to Bookham Common which does attract some London-based traffic of birdwatchers etc. Why make Bookham almost unique in prime SWR commuter territory by giving it only 1tph?

Adding a well sited extra station at Fetcham would be an idea - but that would be expensive.

 

[Farnborough]

Since we are in Speculative Discussion, I guess it's worth mentioning that CrossRail2 was proposed to take over some of the Epsom services - but not extend beyond, although (the soon to be extinct) Surrey County Council was lobbying for it to extend to both Dorking and Guildford.

Whether CrossRail2 ever happens, and whether it gets to Epsom, never mind Guildford/Dorking is worth it's own thread...

 

[swrfanatic]

no need for cross rail 2

 

[Farnborough]

no need for cross rail 2

I think that needs posting in the Controversial railway opinions thread!

 

[cornishjohn]

Sometime since 2020.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jul 2025 ==

When did the Earlsfield stops get put in? They always used to be skipped in the 70's/80's. Makes sense to me - who needs to go from fulwell to earlsfield? (And in the 1982 timetable I see that despite this Earlsfield had a service every 10 minutes.)
Personally I always thought they should run fast from Norbiton - Clapham J.

Whilst I have seen other comments on the Kempton Pk low usage here, in principle think of it as a putative Sunbury Parkway.

 

[London Trains]

When did the Earlsfield stops get put in? They always used to be skipped in the 70's/80's. Makes sense to me - who needs to go from fulwell to earlsfield? (And in the 1982 timetable I see that despite this Earlsfield had a service every 10 minutes.)
Personally I always thought they should run fast from Norbiton - Clapham J.
Whilst I have seen other comments on the Kempton Pk low usage here, in principle think of it as a putative Sunbury Parkway.

The Earlsfield stops are quite useful for bus connections to Tooting and Wandsworth.

I wouldn't advocate removing stops from the services as there is a significant amount of local demand between different stops, but ideally there really needs to be at least 6tph (evenly spaced) via Kingston, as these services get absolutely packed throughout the day (not just at peak times).

 

[Bikeman78]

When did the Earlsfield stops get put in? They always used to be skipped in the 70's/80's. Makes sense to me - who needs to go from fulwell to earlsfield? (And in the 1982 timetable I see that despite this Earlsfield had a service every 10 minutes.)
Personally I always thought they should run fast from Norbiton - Clapham J.

Whilst I have seen other comments on the Kempton Pk low usage here, in principle think of it as a putative Sunbury Parkway.

Everything on the slow lines has stopped at Earlsfield for as long as I can remember.

Regarding Kempton Park, nothing stops towards Waterloo in the morning peak. First train up is at 0918, so not much use for commuting. Bizarrely, almost everything stops in both directions in the evening peak.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Everything on the slow lines has stopped at Earlsfield for as long as I can remember.

Epsom services didn't until about 30 years ago.

 

[cornishjohn]

Regarding the Shepperton line, when and why did most trains start calling at Kempton Park? Given the performance problems on the line, is it worth it for 50,000 users per year?

For the "when", Wikipedia gives June 2006 as the opening date. For the why, I think my guess above is as good as any. Since this is the "speculation" channel, most of Sunbury is actually closer to Upper Halliford or Kempton Park. The band of Sunbury actually closest to Sunbury station is only 600 m wide, so closing Sunbury central is the desired result. Parking at Kempton "ought" to be way easier.

It seems most things were stopping at Earlsfield by '96. I'm still not convinced theres that much traffic between fulwell and tooting though.(which isnt claiming Earlsfield is unimportant, more that I expect the main source of traffic to be elsewhere)

 

[Peter Wilde]

Think the Earlsfield stops were though a decision “oh well we might as well add a station stop then” as so many semi fasts (in the evening peak at least) ended up dawdling a couple of minutes on the approach to Wimbledon because the train in front did stop at Earlsfield.

 

[Bikeman78]

For the "when", Wikipedia gives June 2006 as the opening date. For the why, I think my guess above is as good as any. Since this is the "speculation" channel, most of Sunbury is actually closer to Upper Halliford or Kempton Park. The band of Sunbury actually closest to Sunbury station is only 600 m wide, so closing Sunbury central is the desired result. Parking at Kempton "ought" to be way easier.

It seems most things were stopping at Earlsfield by '96. I'm still not convinced theres that much traffic between fulwell and tooting though.(which isnt claiming Earlsfield is unimportant, more that I expect the main source of traffic to be elsewhere)

I probably should have been more specific. My 2020 national rail timetable shows hardly anything stopping at Kempton Park, whereas all off peak trains do so now.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

I probably should have been more specific. My 2020 national rail timetable shows hardly anything stopping at Kempton Park, whereas all off peak trains do so now.

I vaguely remember this change (timetable wise) when KP went from stops for specific events only to everything stopping. It may have been due in part to a rise in events when those managing events at the race course may have asked us (the rail industry) to look at stopping more frequently/regularly, or it may have been someone within the (rail) industry who thought it a good idea to see if any additional revenue might be forthcoming, I don't know? But I do know someone who will know (if he can remember) and I will be seeing him sometime soonish, so if I remember, I will ask!

The pulling of stops at Earlsfield was always a disgrace, and achieves very little other than those services concerned having to sit/stagger, at/past signals (at R/SY) between there and Clapham. Two things that have contributed to this (in my time) were sliding (guard operated) door operation, and more recently Defensive driving policies. Don't get me wrong, both are a product of our time and changing situations (increase in passengers, and many of same not so observant of their surroundings - ie distracted). I will say no more!

 

[Farnborough]

I probably should have been more specific. My 2020 national rail timetable shows hardly anything stopping at Kempton Park, whereas all off peak trains do so now.

Given that it'll be 30 minutes before the following train so you won't be holding anything up, other than decreasing the turnaround at Shepperton by a minute or two, what's the problem with stopping at KP?

That said, the turnaround at Shepperton (typically six minutes!) does look a bit tight!

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Given that it'll be 30 minutes before the following train so you won't be holding anything up, other than decreasing the turnaround at Shepperton by a minute or two, what's the problem with stopping at KP?

That said, the turnaround at Shepperton (typically six minutes!) does look a bit tight!

The DOWN journey in itself is not the issue, the critical part of this is the UP journey, and the need for every train merging at both New Malden and Raynes Park on the UP slow (from all routes) to be bang on time at those places. Anything less, will render potential disruption for All Up slow services from Raynes Park upwards.
As such you have answered your own question, in relation to the tight turn round at Sheppy...

 

[Bikeman78]

Given that it'll be 30 minutes before the following train so you won't be holding anything up, other than decreasing the turnaround at Shepperton by a minute or two, what's the problem with stopping at KP?

That said, the turnaround at Shepperton (typically six minutes!) does look a bit tight!

That's precisely my point. Of all the metro routes out of Waterloo, Shepperton is the worst performer because it has tight turnrounds at both ends. All the other routes have recovery time at the non London terminus. With that in mind, it seems odd to add stops at Kempton Park. When the performance got worse, instead of taking out Kempton Park, they took out Earlsfield, which has five million users per year. Kempton Park has 50,000.

 

[cornishjohn]

I probably should have been more specific. My 2020 national rail timetable shows hardly anything stopping at Kempton Park, whereas all off peak trains do so now.

Feels like they try something different every few years then! The opening announcement is on archive.org, as is the 2009 timetable, which is everything stopping at Kempton except the up morning peaks, so they took stops OUT at some stage it seems.

 

[Farnborough]

When the performance got worse, instead of taking out Kempton Park, they took out Earlsfield, which has five million users per year. Kempton Park has 50,000.

But while KP is only served by Shepperton services, Earlsfield is served by lots of other routes, including (from Waterloo) services to/from Chessington South, Dorking, Guildford, Hampton Court, Woking, and the Strawberry Hill loops - all of which stop at Wimbledon and Clapham Junction...

I guess adding an additional 15 minutes at each end (thus maintaining the same clockface departure pattern at Waterloo) would not work [especially platform occupation at the Waterloo end]?