Plans to reopen Totton - Fawley/Hythe (again!)

[swt_passenger]

On the subject of suburban stations like St Denys, it occurs to me that one other big, immediate (and largely unmentioned) benefit of the line to Hythe could be turning Millbrook, Redbridge and Totton into usable commuter stations: As far as I can tell from Google maps, all three stations serve reasonable semi-urban areas, but none of them has the kind of regular service that would make them attractive to many people. I believe you can't even travel in the Bournemouth direction at all from either Millbrook or Redbridge without doubling back into Southampton first, despite both stations being on that line. If - as seems plausible - a half-hourly the Hythe service stops at all 3 stations, I could imagine that transforming passenger numbers at all of them, since it'll become much more feasible for some people to use them, either for commuting into Southampton or for connecting to trains to Bournemouth/Portsmouth/London/etc.

Problem with Redbridge and Millbrook are they are right on the edge of their relevant built up areas, and you have to cross the busy A33 with its frequent bus services to Southampton to get to the stations. I don’t think 2 tph would make them any more popular, unless longer distance trains actually stopped, which is probably getting off topic for Fawley reopening…

 

[nw1]

Problem with Redbridge and Millbrook are they are right on the edge of their relevant built up areas, and you have to cross the busy A33 with its frequent bus services to Southampton to get to the stations. I don’t think 2 tph would make them any more popular, unless longer distance trains actually stopped, which is probably getting off topic for Fawley reopening…

Difficult to say, if I remember right (not 100% sure) Redbridge is reasonably accessible via a bridge over the A35. I do know that I have walked to Redbridge as an ending point for walks down the Test Valley from the Romsey area, as well as from Totton after missing the train there, and not had a problem with access. Millbrook is a bit bleak and exposed though - the only station in the general area I have never used, which must count for something. I agree the bus would win for local journeys, but for longer distance journeys a more frequent service would be an advantage.

However if Millbrook and Redbridge stops make it logistically more difficult to run the service, especially a half-hourly service, then I suspect they will be skipped.

 

[westerndave]

Problem with Redbridge and Millbrook are they are right on the edge of their relevant built up areas, and you have to cross the busy A33 with its frequent bus services to Southampton to get to the stations. I don’t think 2 tph would make them any more popular, unless longer distance trains actually stopped, which is probably getting off topic for Fawley reopening…

Millbrook station particularly is not going to grow in useage as it’s on the wrong side of the road for commuters to walk to it, if you live locally there is a multitude of busses every few ministers either into Southampton via the A35 or a short walk to Fremantle or Shirley and the otherside (inaccessible) of the station is the docks.

As I said in the original thread, the frustration here is the lack of a single voice and clear leadership, as witnessed by the Okehampton reopening, which was driven by the three main parties working as a single virtual task force from its inception. WHat we have here is just and endless talking shop and no clear plan of what is needed. The Three Rivers Community Rail Partnership were meant to be taking a lead role as proponents (not sponsors). Well they aren't. Network Rail are nowhere to be seen, neither are the DfT, the ORR, and "Dr" Julian Lewis the local MP as always is a waste of space. Yes, David Harrison champions the reopening but doesn't argue persuasively with figures, depth or clarity. Contrast this with Okehampton. As for HCC their Transport Committee under Shaun Woodward never wanted to be involved in any expenditure at all and commissioned the fundamentally flawed Halcrow Report merely to put the whole thing to bed for ever. It's a shambles. Again as I said, nobody has even spoken with Exxon - how the heck does anybody know what is and is not feasible through and beyond the Refinery until they engage? "Fawley Parkway" at or around the old ISR plant at Hardley is a wasted opportunity and destroys a good business case, because Once Blackfield and Holbury people are on the A326 they'll stay on the A326. WHo in their right mind would get out of their car again after two miles, pay to park it, then enjoy a slow trundle to Soton Central that is no faster than their car? This proposal needs a champion and a vision. I have said several times that the REfinery is not the Berlin Wall and its internal land needs have changed - there is not a security risk if the existing perimeter fence is turned into a corridor for a single line, but where is there even a feasibility study? There is ample room for such a fenced corridor through the tank farm area far from the actual plant that is not a security risk, but a "real" Fawley Parkway at the southern end of the site accessed from Copthorne Lane would not only attract the Holbury/ Blackfield / Langley Marina Village hinterland but would be used as a freight raihead for the million tonnes or so of material to and from the new development. All that material is going on the A326 as it stands. This project needs leadership. As for signalling and infrastructure, it all needs relaying and ballasting anyway so given that fact why did the Halcrow report still talk about 30mph? The business case needs a 60-65mph line speed. Signalling does not need colour lights, nor does it need ETCS. We don't need Siemens proposing multi million pound case-killing solutiuons - It needs a cheap but proven innovation such as dynamic RETB as developed by Park Signalling here in the UK and used with great success on the Far North lines. We have had 25 years of talking and all that has happened is that we are still talking as on this thread - with bad ideas still being brought up over and over and over again.

I would agree maki g the terminus in the Farley area is not only the most “desired” wish but also the best option for the needs of the area BUT…. Whilst anything is possible (and certainly our local MP Dr Julian Lewis is worse then uselsss) a few things outside of local control factor in here
1. Whatever Exxon may or may now allow could be (and quite likely) overruled on security and or environmental grounds. The site is a level 1 key secure strategic site and as such national security services will have a final say over providing a corridor through the site.
2. If a corridor was allowed the cost of clearly up the contaminated land would be prohibitive and take a lot of time.
3. Linked to 1 & 3 would be the locating, access, cleaning up and provision of sufficient space for parking etc…. And add to this the issue of security for cars driving up unchecked and left right next to a Toer 1 site.
4. If (and I’d like to happen) it was all permitted it will never be electrified as it’s not a good mixe live third rails and a fuel tank farm.

 

[nw1]

Millbrook station particularly is not going to grow in useage as it’s on the wrong side of the road for commuters to walk to it, if you live locally there is a multitude of busses every few ministers either into Southampton via the A35 or a short walk to Fremantle or Shirley and the otherside (inaccessible) of the station is the docks.


I would agree maki g the terminus in the Farley area is not only the most “desired” wish but also the best option for the needs of the area BUT…. Whilst anything is possible (and certainly our local MP Dr Julian Lewis is worse then uselsss) a few things outside of local control factor in here
1. Whatever Exxon may or may now allow could be (and quite likely) overruled on security and or environmental grounds. The site is a level 1 key secure strategic site and as such national security services will have a final say over providing a corridor through the site.
2. If a corridor was allowed the cost of clearly up the contaminated land would be prohibitive and take a lot of time.
3. Linked to 1 & 3 would be the locating, access, cleaning up and provision of sufficient space for parking etc…. And add to this the issue of security for cars driving up unchecked and left right next to a Toer 1 site.
4. If (and I’d like to happen) it was all permitted it will never be electrified as it’s not a good mixe live third rails and a fuel tank farm.

One question: given Fawley oil refinery appeared to open in 1951, why was it not seen as a big deal in the 50s and 60s? Or did the refinery not encroach on the railway in those days?

(That said, I don't think the Fawley question should impact upon opening to Hythe, which is a sizable town and could still benefit from a rail link. So IMO get Hythe open as soon as possible and then work on extending down towards Fawley).

 

[westerndave]

One question: given Fawley oil refinery appeared to open in 1951, why was it not seen as a big deal in the 50s and 60s? Or did the refinery not encroach on the railway in those days?

(That said, I don't think the Fawley question should impact upon opening to Hythe, which is a sizable town and could still benefit from a rail link. So IMO get Hythe open as soon as possible and then work on extending down towards Fawley).

A huge new residential development is about to get underway on the old Fawley power station site and the bottom of the A326 will Need relief

 

[30907]

One question: given Fawley oil refinery appeared to open in 1951, why was it not seen as a big deal in the 50s and 60s? Or did the refinery not encroach on the railway in those days?

Or simply, the railway was already there?

 

[Gloster]

One question: given Fawley oil refinery appeared to open in 1951, why was it not seen as a big deal in the 50s and 60s? Or did the refinery not encroach on the railway in those days?

(That said, I don't think the Fawley question should impact upon opening to Hythe, which is a sizable town and could still benefit from a rail link. So IMO get Hythe open as soon as possible and then work on extending down towards Fawley).

The refinery was built in 1920/21 by the Atlantic, Gulf and West Indies Petroleum Corporation Limited and the line was opened in 1925 to serve it. According to the report of the inspection the bridges were wide enough for double-track, but this has never been installed. (From the Disused Stations site.)

EDIT: Anglo changed to Atlantic and an and inserted between Gulf and West Indies. This appears in other sources to be correct.

 

[AlbertBeale]

I don't think you can have a through service from everywhere to everywhere though, and a through service would require electrification otherwise you're going to have to find some extra DMUs to make the whole journey to London.

It may well be the case that the bus still has the main share of local journeys from south of Hythe (though I suspect the train will have a good proportion from Hythe itself). However the real advantage of a train is when you want to go somewhere beyond Southampton, whether that be Portsmouth, Bournemouth, London, Reading or anywhere else people might want to go. It means you only have to buy one ticket and can do a simple in-station change.

Run it at a 30-min frequency and you'll probably have acceptable connections to most places. (The big problem with St Denys IMO is the effectively hourly frequency, which somewhat limits its usefulness as a local station - but it's still well used even considering that).

Maybe if they make a success of a shuttle for a few years and grow usage, they can then electrify and consider some sort of through service e.g. extension of Waterloo-Southampton semi-fasts.

I would agree though that a 'branch-line-only shuttle' from Totton would be a poor idea, but thankfully that is not the proposal (and there is not, AFAIK, infrastructure to support that anyway).

It does seem strange that St Denys has little more than the once-an-hour each way Romsey-Romsey loop trains. Is it the capacity through the tunnel near Southampton station and the lack of 4-tracking for some distance east of there which precludes a more intense service around the conurbation? I presume longer-distance services are seen as a priority? Otherwise, this new Hythe route should surely stop at the local stations west of Southampton, and carry on to stations to the east like St Denys et al.

 

[swt_passenger]

It does seem strange that St Denys has little more than the once-an-hour each way Romsey-Romsey loop trains. Is it the capacity through the tunnel near Southampton station and the lack of 4-tracking for some distance east of there which precludes a more intense service around the conurbation? I presume longer-distance services are seen as a priority? Otherwise, this new Hythe route should surely stop at the local stations west of Southampton, and carry on to stations to the east like St Denys et al.

St Denys and Swaythling could probably already have calls in the Waterloo - Poole stopper as they already exist in some trains in the peak London flow direction. (ie am up pm down) These extra calls are still included in the consulted 2022 timetable.

 

[nw1]

St Denys and Swaythling could probably already have calls in the Waterloo - Poole stopper as they already exist in some trains in the peak London flow direction. (ie am up pm down) These extra calls are still included in the consulted 2022 timetable.

Yes, they really should do that. If they can do it in the peak, then surely they can do it off peak. The stopper (as the name implies!) isn't supposed to be a fast service from Southampton to Waterloo, so no real harm in making the calls. I do note that none of the down services make the calls so maybe there is a pathing issue in that direction?

 

[zwk500]

There's a lot to unpick here.

I realise this is probably a bit premature but has anyone thought about the actual paths the service might use?

Yes. Or more accurately several people are currently thinking very hard about what paths the service may use.

Network Rail are nowhere to be seen, neither are the DfT, the ORR, and "Dr" Julian Lewis the local MP as always is a waste of space.

NR are *Very* heavily involved, the DfT have provided several million pounds of funding and the ORR don't have anything to do until work actually gets started. What do you expect the MP to be doing at this stage?

This project needs leadership. As for signalling and infrastructure, it all needs relaying and ballasting anyway so given that fact why did the Halcrow report still talk about 30mph? The business case needs a 60-65mph line speed. Signalling does not need colour lights, nor does it need ETCS. We don't need Siemens proposing multi million pound case-killing solutiuons - It needs a cheap but proven innovation such as dynamic RETB as developed by Park Signalling here in the UK and used with great success on the Far North lines.

Who has said these things will or will not be part of the proposal?

On the subject of suburban stations like St Denys, it occurs to me that one other big, immediate (and largely unmentioned) benefit of the line to Hythe could be turning Millbrook, Redbridge and Totton into usable commuter stations:

NW1 has hit the nail on the head:

However if Millbrook and Redbridge stops make it logistically more difficult to run the service, especially a half-hourly service, then I suspect they will be skipped.

It does seem strange that St Denys has little more than the once-an-hour each way Romsey-Romsey loop trains. Is it the capacity through the tunnel near Southampton station and the lack of 4-tracking for some distance east of there which precludes a more intense service around the conurbation? I presume longer-distance services are seen as a priority? Otherwise, this new Hythe route should surely stop at the local stations west of Southampton, and carry on to stations to the east like St Denys et al.

Capacity through Southampton Tunnel is very tight, you don't want the shuttle to be canned when it could terminate at Southampton just because it couldn't get through to St Denys.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes, they really should do that. If they can do it in the peak, then surely they can do it off peak. The stopper (as the name implies!) isn't supposed to be a fast service from Southampton to Waterloo, so no real harm in making the calls. I do note that none of the down services make the calls so maybe there is a pathing issue in that direction?

I think the down calls used to be in the pm peak extra short workings that started at Basingstoke or Winchester. But I fear we’re getting well off topic now…

 

[Class 170101]

The roads through Hythe and Totton themselves are fairly congested, and Southampton Airport Parkway doesn't get the connections to Portsmouth and Brighton that Southampton Central gets. And I'd guess a reasonable proportion of the traffic from Hythe is heading for Southampton itself anyway.

I don't think you can have a through service from everywhere to everywhere though, and a through service would require electrification otherwise you're going to have to find some extra DMUs to make the whole journey to London.

It may well be the case that the bus still has the main share of local journeys from south of Hythe (though I suspect the train will have a good proportion from Hythe itself). However the real advantage of a train is when you want to go somewhere beyond Southampton, whether that be Portsmouth, Bournemouth, London, Reading or anywhere else people might want to go. It means you only have to buy one ticket and can do a simple in-station change.

Run it at a 30-min frequency and you'll probably have acceptable connections to most places. (The big problem with St Denys IMO is the effectively hourly frequency, which somewhat limits its usefulness as a local station - but it's still well used even considering that).

Maybe if they make a success of a shuttle for a few years and grow usage, they can then electrify and consider some sort of through service e.g. extension of Waterloo-Southampton semi-fasts.

I would agree though that a 'branch-line-only shuttle' from Totton would be a poor idea, but thankfully that is not the proposal (and there is not, AFAIK, infrastructure to support that anyway).

Not sure I see any value without through trains whether that be London or Portsmouth or elsewhere, one destination would suffice and therefore 3rd Rail is needed. The fares would have to be as cheap as the bus if aimed at local flows.

Connections aren't guaranteed and whilst plentiful (relatively) in the Up Direction this won't be the case in the down direction. A connection severed for performance reasons will reduce passenger confidence and they will go back to their cars rather than wait 30/60 mins for branch shuttle at Southampton Central.

Possibly a worthy scheme but I remain to be convinced.

 

[zwk500]

Not sure I see any value without through trains whether that be London or Portsmouth or elsewhere, one destination would suffice and therefore 3rd Rail is needed.

3rd rail is a massive sticking point which puts the project at risk. Hythe-Portsmouth must surely be a very low through passenger flow, whereas paths through Southampton coming from or going to London are of more value heading to Bournemouth than Hythe.

Connections aren't guaranteed and whilst plentiful (relatively) in the Up Direction this won't be the case in the down direction. A connection severed for performance reasons will reduce passenger confidence and they will go back to their cars rather than wait 30/60 mins for branch shuttle at Southampton Central.

This is a very good point and very well made.

 

[Class 170101]

3rd rail is a massive sticking point which puts the project at risk. Hythe-Portsmouth must surely be a very low through passenger flow, whereas paths through Southampton coming from or going to London are of more value heading to Bournemouth than Hythe.

Could be a splitter / joiner of course, can't believe stations between Southampton Central and Bournemouth need trains to be formed of 8/10 carriages.

 

[westerndave]

3rd rail is a massive sticking point which puts the project at risk. Hythe-Portsmouth must surely be a very low through passenger flow, whereas paths through Southampton coming from or going to London are of more value heading to Bournemouth than Hythe.

This is a very good point and very well made.

My understanding is that Network Rail will not autherise third rail full stop.

In an ideal world everywhere would have direct trains to everywhere but the reality is that’s never going to happen therefore the initial phase has to be get a service up and running g to Southampton. In the great scheme of things this project is a real quick win and needs to be moved on before the Marchwood MOD site (now a joint MOD/commercial operator) starts to expand more and starts requesting more freight paths which would only complicate the scheme further.

 

[PTR 444]

Could be a splitter / joiner of course, can't believe stations between Southampton Central and Bournemouth need trains to be formed of 8/10 carriages.

AFAIK I don’t think 158s can couple up to 444s or 450s. To operate as described above would require running the Bournemouth service with the same units as the Hythe Branch, and as we all know swapping EMUs for DMUs on a London mainline is the biggest retrograde move you can make during a climate emergency.

 

[Class 170101]

AFAIK I don’t think 158s can couple up to 444s or 450s. To operate as described above would require running the Bournemouth service with the same units as the Hythe Branch, and as we all know swapping EMUs for DMUs on a London mainline is the biggest retrograde move you can make during a climate emergency.

The same could be said for not electrifying it concerning retrograde steps and the climate emergency

 

[PTR 444]

The same could be said for not electrifying it concerning retrograde steps and the climate emergency

Or getting a fleet of battery trains to operate it amongst other local services

 

[Peregrine 4903]

My understanding is that Network Rail will not autherise third rail full stop.

In an ideal world everywhere would have direct trains to everywhere but the reality is that’s never going to happen therefore the initial phase has to be get a service up and running g to Southampton. In the great scheme of things this project is a real quick win and needs to be moved on before the Marchwood MOD site (now a joint MOD/commercial operator) starts to expand more and starts requesting more freight paths which would only complicate the scheme further.

That is a misunderstanding regarding the first point.

 

[westerndave]

That is a misunderstanding regarding the first point.

My understating is based on Network Rail staff advising previousY that they will not authorise new third rail routes. I’m happen to be wrong as it would make things possibly easier operationally but a lot more expensive and would also raise the question of where the stock could come e from.

 

[zwk500]

My understating is based on Network Rail staff advising previousY that they will not authorise new third rail routes. I’m happen to be wrong as it would make things possibly easier operationally but a lot more expensive and would also raise the question of where the stock could come e from.

3rd rail is not banned full stop - e.g. the East London Line was new 3rd rail. It does however have to have a very strong safety case, which on this branch line is unlikely to be satisfied.

Electrification of any kind adds all sorts of complications surrounding power supply and signalling interference etc that this project could do with avoiding. The best thing that can happen for the Fawley line is to get the thing running with DMUs to Hythe, then come back later (once the passenger figures are in) and start looking at the case for extension, electrification, resignalling etc.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

My understating is based on Network Rail staff advising previousY that they will not authorise new third rail routes. I’m happen to be wrong as it would make things possibly easier operationally but a lot more expensive and would also raise the question of where the stock could come e from.

That's not correct. Don't get my wrong, it will be extremely difficult to authorise new third rail electrification due to the associated safety issues, but its not impossible, and there may be a couple of new third rail schemes in the future. Although, how far in the future, that's anyone's guess.

 

[zwk500]

Or getting a fleet of battery trains to operate it amongst other local services

SWR do not currently have battery trains, nor do they have a depot with the experience or the setup to maintain the only commercially available such units. Given that the Fawley branch will require 2 trains for a 2tph service, which will start at 2-car but extend to 4-car if needed, SWR would require no less than 5 Class 2-car Vivarail units, and to find space at Northam depot to maintain and store them.

Utilising the existing diesel fleet is the best option to get trains running. If Battery units will come in later anyway, so the branch can swap to them when the general fleet is upgraded.

 

[westerndave]

3rd rail is not banned full stop - e.g. the East London Line was new 3rd rail. It does however have to have a very strong safety case, which on this branch line is unlikely to be satisfied.

Electrification of any kind adds all sorts of complications surrounding power supply and signalling interference etc that this project could do with avoiding. The best thing that can happen for the Fawley line is to get the thing running with DMUs to Hythe, then come back later (once the passenger figures are in) and start looking at the case for extension, electrification, resignalling etc.

If you are refering to the conversion of the old Metropolitan line to Overground by TFL it was already 4 rail And it’s conversion permitted as it had grandfather rights. I totally agree with you that the branch is unlikely to ever meet the threshold on safety grounds.

You point about getting the service up and running is exactly what I said before get it approved and running and then when it’s a success come back to the table.

 

[Rand.]

On the Fawley Refinery and the hopeful plan to reach the site of the power station development. The line will have to exit Fawley station in a cutting, through a disused bitumen plant then out of refinery boundary. In typical Esso/Exxon form, when a plant is finished with, it's just drained and left to rot, fall down and return to nature. Hence why the whole place has an air of dereliction. As mentioned earlier, ground contamination will be a big issue here. From working there a few years back, It was understood NR had a single line right up to station buffer stops, Cadland sidings (hideously overgrown and subsided) being private. However, there are stored wagons and carriages there which are nothing to do with refinery, so NR might have more ownership. I cannot see a problem with a secure fenced single line through to old station(unable to be reused due to access) and beyond to boundary, not near to anything significantly dangerous. Many of tanks are disused. One level crossing Hythe end of station is fenced/bolted closed, the other, which is route to another chemical co and marine terminal can have an overbridge, the land levels easily make this possible. That is after the route has made it out of station though. However, this can be done after a service is inaugurated to Hythe.

 

[VEP3417]

think i said on another similar thread, wouldnt it be nice if the railway went past the refinery and ended near the beach/castle

is this line one of or the last to have manually operated gates and semaphore indicators (if thats the correct term?)

i want on the thumper tour down there a few years ago which was really good but you would need to do a lot of tree cutting

 

[zwk500]

think i said on another similar thread, wouldnt it be nice if the railway went past the refinery and ended near the beach/castle

It would be nicer if the railway stuck to a deliverable project.

is this line one of or the last to have manually operated gates and semaphore indicators (if thats the correct term?)

Plenty of Manually Operated gates still around (Cumbrian Coast for one) and Semaphore Signals still across wide swathes of secondary lines. The manual gates would go if the passenger service did get implemented though.

 

[westerndave]

It would be nicer if the railway stuck to a deliverable project.

Plenty of Manually Operated gates still around (Cumbrian Coast for one) and Semaphore Signals still across wide swathes of secondary lines. The manual gates would go if the passenger service did get implemented though.

I agree stick and push for what you know is deliverable, ideal worlds do t exist except online in fantasy games sadly.

A simple solution and deliverable would be to get to a accessible point south of Hythe build a facility to integrate battery powered buses and run them to the new residential development and to Calshot beach and castle, it ticks all the noses at a fraction of the cost of dreams and is relatively quick to deliver and if done the right way stop a lot of car traffic in the area.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

My understanding, from several years of dealing with trains there, is that NR own the single line to the end at Fawley Station, the first 3 roads in Cadlands Sidings (Up side), the 2 Reception Roads (Down side), the Middle and Swamp Roads in the station, and the old Goods Yard. The remainder (Cadlands Esso 1-11, Block 50 LPG, Top Site, Toxic - Depot 2, and Zone 2 - Gas Oil & Bitumen) are all owned by the refinery and may not even exist any more.
Access is by the gate in Marsh Lane, near Fawley Church, and it makes Checkpoint Charlie look seriously down market. How an arrangement can be made giving public access from Marsh Lane to Station Road is beyond me (yes, the road names continue inside the boundary). I wonder what tenure the refinery have on what was once public land?
Pat