SWR timetable refresh - consultation in Autumn 2026

[swr444]

I have often thought that a 4tph 5 car Shepperton to Kingston shuttle, plus 4tph on the Kingston Loop and 4tph on the Hounslow line would represent the best use of limited resources to benefit as many passengers as possible.

Passengers from the Shepperton branch would have to change for destinations beyond Kingston but they would gain a turn up and go service to their nearest major town which would make the train competitive with bus services over Kingston Bridge.

Agree that the current Shepperton to Waterloo via Kingston services struggle to keep to time due to a lack of layover time at Shepperton.

The easiest way to fix the short turnarounds at shepperton is to add another unit diagram to the mix, and allow a 20-30 turnaround at shepperton. And better timings on the UP as it’s currently very tight. With no time allowed for passenger assists or heavy loadings at stations like Hampton

 

[cle]

Would be easier if Basingstoke to Reading West junction was electrified, but whether you choose overhead or third rail you end up with a changeover point between the two systems at one end or the other. Some types of dual voltage rolling stock needs to come to a complete halt on the line to do the changeover which limits line capacity and others can do it on the move. I guess the West London Line north of Shepherds Bush Station is the equivalent scenario, but it is acknowledged that it is more efficient for the changeover to occur at a station when the train pauses anyway like at Acton Central. Unfortunately on the Reading to Basingstoke Line there is not an intermediate station at which all services call. You would need a separate dual voltage sub fleet to operate an electric service.

I would probably go for third rail for this conversation - given the connection into the SWR network - although Reading West is electrified AC so from that POV, it’d be weird.

Also as XC will no doubt have bimodes one day, and could use the wires from Didcot to Basingstoke (hopefully it gets to Coventry though….)

The Basingstoke-Reading service, if EMU, would be a little quicker - and line speeds should be far higher on this line, given what it carries.

 

[nw1]

My ideas would be as follows:

Firstly, reintroduce the Waterloo to Southampton semi-fast, the equivalent of the former xx39 departure. Doesn't have to go all the way through to Bournemouth or Poole, another service could cover that, depending on what makes sense operationally. Would give Eastleigh 2tph to Waterloo again, something it formerly enjoyed since 1990, and improve connectivity between say Southampton and Farnborough. Add a Woking call to the service if possible, one unusual feature about this service was that it skipped Woking, which doesn't really make sense for a service aimed at least partially towards connectivity between intermediate stations. Perhaps it could make a Fleet call too (see below).

Make Beaulieu Road a call on all stopping services on that stretch. I realise it's only small - but it's useful at weekends and even weekdays during high summer. Costs very little - if some services call, you may as well get everything to call. It's presumably the same path every hour.

Ensure that the Brockenhurst to Bournemouth stopper connects at Brockenhurst with the Waterloo fast which skips New Milton, Christchurch and Pokesdown - thus giving said stations an even-interval service. This was one of the oddities post-2004, IIRC. If that means it has to become a Brockenhurst-Bournemouth/Poole shuttle, so be it.

Re-jig the Alton and Basingstoke group of services. One thing about the 2004 timetable was the significant slowdown of the Alton services prior to then: in 1997 for example Alton was reached from Waterloo in just 1hr02.

Perhaps, given Farnborough and maybe Fleet would get 2tph fast from the Portsmouth via Eastleigh and the re-introduced Southampton semi-fast, transfer of the West Byfleet stops from the Altons to the Basingstokes could be considered, accelerating the Altons (but admittedly slowing the Basingstokes, but maybe not such a big deal if Farnborough and Fleet get 2tph fast as noted). Additionally, give the Alton a better path so that it's not waiting outside Woking to allow the Portsmouth fast to pass.

As for the Portsmouth Direct, this depends on whether reintroducing 4tph to Guildford is a possibility. If so, I would simply re-introduce the 2004 pattern but perhaps call one of the two fasts at Clapham Junction if possible.

If on the other hand 4tph to Guildford is not in the plan, perhaps they could make the best of the restricted service by moving to something akin to the old 80s pattern, with 2 fasts and 2 "semi-slows" to Guildford, one of these "semi-slows" then being looped there and proceeding to Portsmouth behind the following fast, calling at all stations. This could have the advantage that the "semi-slows" could take up the Walton, Weybridge and West Byfleet stops from the Basingstokes and Altons, speeding up both. As for the fasts, one would call at Farncombe and the other (the one looped by the slow) would not call, which AFAIK is the same as now. Presumably 2tph evenly spaced at Farncombe albeit with a change in one case would be preferable to the current 15/45 min pattern. Perhaps, depending on whether 2tph properly-fast services to Portsmouth are desired, the Farncombe-calling service could also call at Liphook and Liss... just like the old days.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

The easiest way to fix the short turnarounds at shepperton is to add another unit diagram to the mix

It's seldom as 'easy' as that, as any professional (ex or current) planner will tell you. There are many things to take in to consideration, not just 'timings'.

 

[swr444]

It's seldom as 'easy' as that, as any professional (ex or current) planner will tell you. There are many things to take in to consideration, not just 'timings'.

Of course, it means an extra guard and driver per diagram. The costs of daily alterations and cancellations on the line surely would justify doing this

 

[Goldfish62]

Of course, it means an extra guard and driver per diagram. The costs of daily alterations and cancellations on the line surely would justify doing this

Quite. If a timetable doesn't work and will never work as it is, be it bus or rail, you need to make changes. Either increase resources to make it work or cut the timetable to match the resources. That's your two options.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Of course, it means an extra guard and driver per diagram.

But before one gets to matters train crew, it's also about stock availability. There were reasons that after SWT's 10 car plan, there were still 3 x 8 car 450 diagrams on the Reading road, and a fair few 8 car 455's in the mix, as opposed to 10 car 455/456. Was the same with the pre-curement process for 707's, which ended up with 30 units. Detailed plans were submitted (IIRC) for scenarios involving both 36 and 40 units to increase the number of 10 car services, but DfT went with 30 - no surprise there, and that scenario was something that many in the industry came to understand, in that we never (and I mean NEVER) had quite enough stock to make the plan ideal for everyone. Compromises had to be made.

 

[markle]

Of course, it means an extra guard and driver per diagram. The costs of daily alterations and cancellations on the line surely would justify doing this

Shepperton only has one passenger platform. A longer turnaround time at Shepperton means you'd need to build a second platform - especially for the peaks, which already have 4 tph

 

[Goldfish62]

Shepperton only has one passenger platform. A longer turnaround time at Shepperton means you'd need to build a second platform - especially for the peaks, which already have 4 tph

The turnaround time at Shepperton is 6 minutes. You don't need an extra platform to increase that. You could increase turnaround time by up to 20 minutes off peak and 5 minutes during the peaks.

 

[Phillipimo]

The turnaround time at Shepperton is 6 minutes. You don't need an extra platform to increase that. You could increase turnaround time by up to 20 minutes off peak and 5 minutes during the peaks.

But is this possible while retaining the 15 minute interval between Shepperton and Rounders to and from Kingston?

 

[Big Jumby 74]

But is this possible while retaining the 15 minute interval between Shepperton and Rounders to and from Kingston?

And therein lies the unknown until the wider suburban timetable is planned in detail, which will need to take account of connections at numerous locations (not just Twickenham), and will be largely driven by platforming and conflicting movements at Waterloo.

 

[Goldfish62]

And therein lies the unknown until the wider suburban timetable is planned in detail, which will need to take account of connections at numerous locations (not just Twickenham), and will be largely driven by platforming and conflicting movements at Waterloo.

Which of course may very well be why turnaround time at Shepperton is only 6 minutes.

However, I'd find it extraordinary if nothing could be done to address a situation which clearly isn't currently working. It would hardly fit in with Lawrence Bowman's promise that the new timetable will be both simple and reliable.

 

[London Trains]

Beyond the desperately needed restoration of 4tph via Epsom and on the Hounslow Loop, I do think 6tph via Kingston (4tph around the Kingston Loop and 2tph to Shepperton) should really be considered - the line is by far the busiest of the metro lines throughout the day, with there being an awful lot of inward demand to Kingston, and lots of local journeys around the loop taking place as well as people travelling into London, and having a higher "turn up and go" frequency would improve connections across South West London, encourage more people to use the railways, and relieve some of the horribly unreliable bus services in the area such as the 65.

I'm not entirely sure about the pathing, but given there used to be 6tph via Epsom in the peaks (which I don't see returning even if 4tph all day is restored), it might be possible to path an extra 2tph via Wimbledon throughout the day.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

However, I'd find it extraordinary if nothing could be done to address a situation which clearly isn't currently working.

The Sheppy's, as you know, have been self contained at Waterloo for more years than I care to remember, but the reasoning behind same is now lost to me. It may have been just a case of chance after the entire 2004 TT was put together, although more likely due to a combination of overall TT ideals (connections etc on other suburban routes) and platform/conflicting movements at Waterloo, which as I alluded to above, has a greater impact on TT design than many observers may realise.

 

[Farigiraf]

Beyond the desperately needed restoration of 4tph via Epsom and on the Hounslow Loop, I do think 6tph via Kingston (4tph around the Kingston Loop and 2tph to Shepperton) should really be considered - the line is by far the busiest of the metro lines throughout the day, with there being an awful lot of inward demand to Kingston, and lots of local journeys around the loop taking place as well as people travelling into London, and having a higher "turn up and go" frequency would improve connections across South West London, encourage more people to use the railways, and relieve some of the horribly unreliable bus services in the area such as the 65.

I'm not entirely sure about the pathing, but given there used to be 6tph via Epsom in the peaks (which I don't see returning even if 4tph all day is restored), it might be possible to path an extra 2tph via Wimbledon throughout the day.

If there were the capacity, you could probably run 4 Kingston rounders per hour in each direction, plus 4tph to Hampton (2 extending to Shepperton) and still get healthy loadings even off-peak. If tunneling under the Thames wasn't so difficult a century ago, Kingston might have gotten multiple tube connections given the rate of population growth since the early 20th century. So the real question regarding the SW Metro is not whether frequency increases are needed, but whether the infrastructure allows them - and if not, how can this be improved (I suspect CR2's the answer).

 

[markle]

Despite the resolution of this morning's issues, there are still significant delays into Waterloo, with trains taking 30-40 minutes to get from Wimbledon to Waterloo, as all the platforms at Waterloo are occupied.

Meanwhile Southern seems to have (mostly) recovered.

I can't help but wonder if the complex diagrams on SWR, where multiple routes are on the same diagram, with the additional complexity around guards / driver allocations, are part of the reason why SWR finds it so hard to recover from a major incident.

Would be good if the re-timetabling simplified diagrams and crew rosters, so that the service would be more resilient at times of disruption.

 

[swr444]

Despite the resolution of this morning's issues, there are still significant delays into Waterloo, with trains taking 30-40 minutes to get from Wimbledon to Waterloo, as all the platforms at Waterloo are occupied.

Meanwhile Southern seems to have (mostly) recovered.

I can't help but wonder if the complex diagrams on SWR, where multiple routes are on the same diagram, with the additional complexity around guards / driver allocations, are part of the reason why SWR finds it so hard to recover from a major incident.

Would be good if the re-timetabling simplified diagrams and crew rosters, so that the service would be more resilient at times of disruption.

The MD has expressed he wants a return to full crew working, and guards / drivers sticking to main or Windsor side services during their full duty

 

[Goldfish62]

The MD has expressed he wants a return to full crew working, and guards / drivers sticking to main or Windsor side services during their full duty

I'd hope that can be done before the new timetable otherwise we're in for a long wait!

 

[SWT_USER]

I'd hope that can be done before the new timetable otherwise we're in for a long wait!

The pace of any change at all that may benefit the customer is always glacial on SWR.

 

[Goldfish62]

The pace of any change at all that may benefit the customer is always glacial on SWR.

True. By the time the new timetable is introduced it'll be 24 years since the last recast!

 

[MasterPhillips]

The MD has expressed he wants a return to full crew working, and guards / drivers sticking to main or Windsor side services during their full duty

Thats good to hear. Is part of the problem that guards and drivers do not work the same trains together all day, therefore if their train is delayed, this then affects two later services rather than one?
I appreciate this is not just an SWR issue, but they do seem to take far longer to recover from disruption than most comparible TOCs.

 

[DelW]

True. By the time the new timetable is introduced it'll be 24 years since the last recast!

And around 7 years since the "emergency" Covid-era cuts, many of which have never been reinstated on SWR.

 

[rmHawk765]

The pace of any change at all that may benefit the customer is always glacial on SWR.

GTR would like to have a word.

 

[MontyP]

True. By the time the new timetable is introduced it'll be 24 years since the last recast!

I think the new timetable 24 years ago was the first complete rewrite since 1967

 

[Goldfish62]

I think the new timetable 24 years ago was the first complete rewrite since 1967

Not sure about that. The Reading service pattern and timetable was regularly changing every few years in the decade or so prior to 2004. Since then, apart from the addition then withdrawal of the peak extras and additional journey time regularly added it's been the same to this day.

 

[nw1]

Not sure about that. The Reading service pattern and timetable was regularly changing every few years in the decade or so prior to 2004. Since then, apart from the addition then withdrawal of the peak extras and additional journey time regularly added it's been the same to this day.

True, over the 80s and 90s there were a number of significant changes: 1989, 1997 and 1999 come to mind. 1999 in particular was quite a significant update with a high-frequency off-peak timetable.

What did entirely change though for the first time in years was the peak timetable: this seemed to be quite stable from around 1988 to 2004, and in fact if you study it in detail it can be traced right back to 1977, when there was the last complete peak rewrite prior to 2004.

The more-or-less unchanged off peak pattern (apart from the annoying deletions) since 2004 is quite remarkable, though I believe the timetable from the 1930s to 1967 was also very stable?

 

[Cookie10]

Indeed. If it was down to me I'd reinstate the old Poole service but only as far as Southampton Central, which would give Eastleigh a 2nd train per hour to Waterloo, and would give Fleet and Farnborough an additional fast service to Waterloo. For the stations between Southampton and Bournemouth I'd extend the stopper from Portsmouth & Southsea. Though again platform availability might come into play.

To increase service at Farnborough and Fleet, both busy commuter stations but only with one fast stop each, why don’t Salisbury services stop there? Those services are probably the least busy mainline services running out of Waterloo on the SWR network, so extra calls are justified anyway, and Farnborough and Fleet seem perfect places to stop. The Exeter bound services would still pass Farnborough and Fleet.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

To increase service at Farnborough and Fleet, both busy commuter stations but only with one fast stop each, why don’t Salisbury services stop there?

Interesting comment, as if I recall correctly (will stand corrected) was it not the case that prior to the Bournemouth electrification, the Salisbury stoppers (when worked by S15's etc) included limited stops between Woking and Basingstoke?
The whole thing is a completely different beast these days of course, but sometimes it needs a little 'thinking outside the box'.

 

[Concorde9289]

To increase service at Farnborough and Fleet, both busy commuter stations but only with one fast stop each, why don’t Salisbury services stop there? Those services are probably the least busy mainline services running out of Waterloo on the SWR network, so extra calls are justified anyway, and Farnborough and Fleet seem perfect places to stop. The Exeter bound services would still pass Farnborough and Fleet.

Interesting point, It'd allow a potential 3rd Southampton service to run faster into the capital if the Fleet and Farnborough stops are picked up by the Salisbury service. However as they have limited acceleration it'd probably make sense for the diesels to continue to run fast and have the stops picked up by the Southampton service.

 

[nw1]

Interesting comment, as if I recall correctly (will stand corrected) was it not the case that prior to the Bournemouth electrification, the Salisbury stoppers (when worked by S15's etc) included limited stops between Woking and Basingstoke?
The whole thing is a completely different beast these days of course, but sometimes it needs a little 'thinking outside the box'.

I know pre-1967 there was an hourly steam service at xx54 out of Waterloo in addition to the hourly xx30 SWML express and bi-hourly xx00 West of England: fast to Woking then all to Basingstoke. Increased to half-hourly (xx09 and xx39 I think) during the evening peak. Some hours it did indeed continue to Salisbury but in an erratic fashion. Interworking at Basingstoke was complex with the station seeing a lot of terminating steam services in the early 60s, as you might imagine. Source: old timetables on Timetable World and CWNs on the BR Coaching Stock groups.io group.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2026 ==

Interesting point, It'd allow a potential 3rd Southampton service to run faster into the capital if the Fleet and Farnborough stops are picked up by the Salisbury service. However as they have limited acceleration it'd probably make sense for the diesels to continue to run fast and have the stops picked up by the Southampton service.

Then again there are 2tph Southampton fasts in any case, which is probably enough, so arguably it would be better for Farnborough and Fleet to be picked up by a restored 3rd Southampton service (semi-fast) whose raison d'etre is for providing journeys from and between intermediate points. I think the Salisbury terminators are mostly 3-car (?) so might risk overcrowding if they picked up the stops?