Network Rail to examine Uckfield–Lewes proposals

[The Ham]

Now this could be interesting...

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2013/05/10-network-rail-to-examine-uckfieldlewes.html

TRANSPORT SECRETARY Patrick McLoughlin has given a boost to the hopes of campaigners who are calling for the railway to be reopened between Uckfield and Lewes in East Sussex. On a visit to Lewes, he revealed that he has commissioned a study from Network Rail which will consider the future of rail services between London and the south coast, and re-examine the case for restoring the line.

The decision to launch the study has been made against a background of rising demand which could reach saturation by 2019 unless more capacity is added.

Patrick McLoughlin said: “I am alive to local interest in re-opening this line and wider concerns about rail capacity between London and the south coast, and this is why I have commissioned this study. It will help us to understand exactly what the issues are and build upon previous work that has looked at these questions.”

The study will aid decisions about the future funding of the railways. The DfT added: 'The current Rail Investment Strategy outlines funding priorities until 2019 and this work would inform any business case for changes to rail provision in the area beyond that date.'

The line between Uckfield and Lewes was closed by British Rail in 1969, while the route north from Uckfield as far as Hever was largely singled just over 20 years ago. In fact, Uckfield itself almost lost its trains after the station was listed for closure in the Beeching report of 1963, which envisaged services from London terminating at Crowborough, while confidential maps first revealed by Railnews last November showed that BR was expecting to close the whole route southwards from the junction at Hurst Green by 1970.

Since then there has a major increase in railway demand, to the point where passenger totals have reached levels not previously seen since the 1920s.

Richard Eccles, who is Network Rail's director of network strategy and planning, said: “The railway between London and Brighton is one of the busiest routes in the country and there is very little space available to run additional trains. As the number of passengers continues to grow, it is right that we look at a wide variety of options which may help provide extra capacity in future, ensuring that the rail network can continue to support and drive economic growth in the region.

“We are already reviewing the options for capacity enhancements to Brighton and the south coast corridor and this work will feed into a Sussex route study due for development in 2014. Within this we will include a review of the value that a re-opened Lewes – Uckfield line could play in meeting future needs.”

Local devolution may also help to restore the line. The DfT pointed out that recent moves to devolve some transport decisions to local councils and enterprise partnerships 'also give greater freedom to determine priorities, and allocate funding accordingly'.

 

[cle]

Great news, absolutely makes sense.

If Eastbourne/Hastings trains were taken off and run via Uckfield, firstly people would complain about Gatwick access (but they could change at Brighton) - and secondly (and this could be a solution to the first point) - what would run on the line between Wivelsfield and Lewes?

It comes into Lewes facing towards Brighton, not Eastbourne too.

 

[JamesRowden]

Great news, absolutely makes sense.

If Eastbourne/Hastings trains were taken off and run via Uckfield, firstly people would complain about Gatwick access (but they could change at Brighton) - and secondly (and this could be a solution to the first point) - what would run on the line between Wivelsfield and Lewes?

It comes into Lewes facing towards Brighton, not Eastbourne too.

I think that a problem with your suggestion is that journey times between Eastbourne and London would be extended by such an extent that people would travel via Brighton instead.

 

[cle]

All those oldies will prefer a direct ride!

Doubling Uckfield would be a good start. In terms of electrification method, who knows. AC seems to be being toyed with for Uckfield and East Grinstead, longer term.

 

[bangor-toad]

It certainly seems a very sensible plan to look at it again. I hope that the business case stacks up this time and that the "right" assumptions are used to frame the assessment.


Any such reopening would have pretty simple civil engineering to deal with. There are only four problems I can see:

In Uckfield the railway must cross the High Street. It'd be tricky to get a bridge in there given the river, Bridge Cottage and the other businesses. Solutions to build a bridge a little to the west have been proposed and one of these could work.

There's also the Uckfield bypass which due to the proximity of the river may make sorting out a new bridge a touch difficult but that's not insurmountable.

There's the level crossing is Isfield which may be difficult to aesthetically fit into the village. Maybe the road would have to be closed at the Laughing Fish pub and diverted to a new road bridge at or near the Oaks Farm footbridge 1/4 mile north.

There's the Barcombe Mills Level crossing. That's not in the village so a new road bridge would probably be simple.

The 1960's closed route into Lewes is utterly impractical. It'd mean demolishing Tesco, many house and a good chunk of the town centre. The solution will be to use the original Hamsey alignment which would join the line from Haywards Heath. This means any train from Uckfield would arrive in Lewes facing Eastbourne & Seaford rather than Brighton.
(The latest version of the Wealden Line's BML2 had a tunnel bypassing Lews to allow direct access to Brighton - I don't think this bit would pass any business analysis...)





In terms of times, if you assume that the Uckfield - Lewes section would take 8 minutes you can look at existing timetables to work out journey times. (If the current Hurst Green - Uckfield line was upgraded there is no reason why linespeeds couldn't increase to closer to the Brighton main line and these journey times would be less.)

So, with today's timetables:
Victoria - Gatwick - Lewes - Eastbourne: 86 minutes
Victoria - Brighton (Change) - Lewes - Eastbourne: 96 minutes plus connection time at Brighton
London Bridge - Oxted - Uckfield - Lewes - Eastbourne: 100 minutes.

It's slower to go via Uckfield than direct but not by that much. Whilst I wouldn't expect all Eastbourne trains to go that way I could see this sort of pattern:
London - Gatwick - Eastbourne: 1tph
London - Uckfield - Eastbourne: 1tph
London - Uckfield - Seaford: 1tph

OK, that leaves a not insignificant question about electrification and rolling stock unanswered but that would need to be part of any plan. Hey, these may even be Thameslink through services!

Personally I think a reopening like this could add much needed additional London - South coast capacity at really a quite effective cost and provide a useful service to quite a few towns in the area.
As a postscript, if this were to happen, what would the business case look like for then reintegrating the Spa Valley railway into the network and having the full links to and through Tunbridge Wells again? Would any other reopening cause two separate preserved railways to close / move? Speculate away!

Cheers,
Jason

 

[JamesRowden]

So, with today's timetables:
Victoria - Gatwick - Lewes - Eastbourne: 86 minutes
Victoria - Brighton (Change) - Lewes - Eastbourne: 96 minutes plus connection time at Brighton
London Bridge - Oxted - Uckfield - Lewes - Eastbourne: 100 minutes.

Using the Southern website Eastbourne-Brighton-Victoria is 84 minutes plus conection time.

 

[yorksrob]

Superb news if it comes to anything.

Can't come too soon.

 

[bangor-toad]

Using the Southern website Eastbourne-Brighton-Victoria is 84 minutes plus conection time.

Maybe that's the fastest actual travel time but I was looking at the normal stopping patterns.
The Southern website shows total journey times for Eastbourne - London via Brighton with the quickest at 1 hr 42 mins with many of them between 1hr50mins and 2hours.

Whatever the detail, just going from current timetables a Eastbourne to London via Uckfield would be around 15 minutes slower than via Gatwick but still comparable with, or faster than, changing at Brighton.

I reckon that's a viable service and journey time.
Cheers,
Jason

 

[JamesRowden]

Maybe that's the fastest actual travel time but I was looking at the normal stopping patterns.
The Southern website shows total journey times for Eastbourne - London via Brighton with the quickest at 1 hr 42 mins with many of them between 1hr50mins and 2hours.

The 1hr53m service has a 29m change at Brighton (that is where I got the 84m plus connections journey time from)

If the restoration/construction of the Lewes-Uckfied line was combined with restoring/building the Willingdon chrord (Polegate - Pevensy&Westham) and restoring/building the link between Tunbridge Wells and the Uckfield line, I have come up with a service pattern that might work well.

In the thread about the apparent end of the Brighton Mainline 2 project we discussed the potential route via Glynde between Uckfield and Lewes/Eastbourne. If this was done with a three way junction it could improve journey times from Eastbourne to London via Uckfield (compared with running via Lewes).

Trains to be removed:

• Ore-Hastings-Eastbourne-Gatwick-Victoria
• Brighton-Eastbourne-Ashford
• TunbridgeWells-CharingCross (X1)
• Brighton-Lewes

Trains to be added:

• Brighton-Lewes-Bexhill-Hastings-Ashford
• Brighton-Lewes-Uckfield-TunbridgeWells-CharingCross
• Brighton-Eastbourne (fast)
• Eastbourne-Uckfield-EastCroydon-LondonBridge
• Eastbourne-Hastings-Ashford

The remaining Eastbourne-Gatwick-Victoria service would become more popular and so could be a 12-car throughout rather than joining with a service from Littlehampton (making it faster) (or it could split with a portion going to Seaford to replace a Brighton-Seaford service and so provide space for an extra Brighton-TunbridgeWells-CharingCross service). The route via Uckfield would offer an alternative if a passenger wanted to catch a train at a particular time.

Passengers east of Eastbourne would get a significantly faster service to Brighton and if it could enter Brighton station on the same island as a Victoria-Brighton express, the journey to London would be signifcantly faster and not much more complicated than it is at the momment (connections at St Leonards Warrior Square should mean that there is still a frequent enough service between Bexhill and London).

Passengers from London Road (Brighton) to one stop before Tunbridge Wells would gain a direct service to London that should be quite useful and the service should provide a useful connection between West Sussex and North Kent.

The Marshlink between Hastings and Ashford is presently having an upgrade which should speed up services by 7 minutes. However, it may be neccasary to redouble more of the section between Ore and Rye to make 2tph pratical.

 

[steamybrian]

I am pleased that the Government and Network Rail are (again!) looking at the possible reopening of the Uckfield- Lewes line.
Before jumping to conclusions there have already been a number of reports, evaluations and proposals for reopening the line since it was closed and all to no avail. Local MPs or, Councillors have all used this as political aims in their manifestos but when it comes to money no-one is willing to pay for it.
The two key opponents to reopening have been BR (successors Railtrack and NR) plus East Sussex Council who the latter are pro-road builders.
I want to see real progress, such as cash allocated for it and approval given for construction before I celebrate.

 

[paul1609]

The 1hr53m service has a 29m change at Brighton (that is where I got the 84m plus connections journey time from)

If the restoration/construction of the Lewes-Uckfied line was combined with restoring/building the Willingdon chrord (Polegate - Pevensy&Westham) and restoring/building the link between Tunbridge Wells and the Uckfield line, I have come up with a service pattern that might work well.

In the thread about the apparent end of the Brighton Mainline 2 project we discussed the potential route via Glynde between Uckfield and Lewes/Eastbourne. If this was done with a three way junction it could improve journey times from Eastbourne to London via Uckfield (compared with running via Lewes).

Trains to be removed:

• Ore-Hastings-Eastbourne-Gatwick-Victoria
• Brighton-Eastbourne-Ashford
• TunbridgeWells-CharingCross (X1)
• Brighton-Lewes

Trains to be added:

• Brighton-Lewes-Bexhill-Hastings-Ashford
• Brighton-Lewes-Uckfield-TunbridgeWells-CharingCross
• Brighton-Eastbourne (fast)
• Eastbourne-Uckfield-EastCroydon-LondonBridge
• Eastbourne-Hastings-Ashford

The remaining Eastbourne-Gatwick-Victoria service would become more popular and so could be a 12-car throughout rather than joining with a service from Littlehampton (making it faster) (or it could split with a portion going to Seaford to replace a Brighton-Seaford service and so provide space for an extra Brighton-TunbridgeWells-CharingCross service). The route via Uckfield would offer an alternative if a passenger wanted to catch a train at a particular time.

Passengers east of Eastbourne would get a significantly faster service to Brighton and if it could enter Brighton station on the same island as a Victoria-Brighton express, the journey to London would be signifcantly faster and not much more complicated than it is at the momment (connections at St Leonards Warrior Square should mean that there is still a frequent enough service between Bexhill and London).

Passengers from London Road (Brighton) to one stop before Tunbridge Wells would gain a direct service to London that should be quite useful and the service should provide a useful connection between West Sussex and North Kent.

The Marshlink between Hastings and Ashford is presently having an upgrade which should speed up services by 7 minutes. However, it may be neccasary to redouble more of the section between Ore and Rye to make 2tph pratical.

I live near Rye. The marshlink route between Rye and Ashford is 2 TPH at peak times with the Rye-Ashford shuttles.
Traffic on the Rye to Hastings section is fairly light even at peak times and the 1 tph is ample.
The real issue with the whole Marshlink service is the use of 2 car dmus on the sections between Lewes and Polegate and between Bexhill and hastings. I support the retention of through trains as I use the route regularly between Rye and Brighton.
All thats really needed in the immediate future is a centre car for the 171s or electrification and the liberation of the 377/3s from London Suburban services.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The 1960's closed route into Lewes is utterly impractical. It'd mean demolishing Tesco, many house and a good chunk of the town centre. The solution will be to use the original Hamsey alignment which would join the line from Haywards Heath. This means any train from Uckfield would arrive in Lewes facing Eastbourne & Seaford rather than Brighton.

Have there been any recent statements made on rail improvements by the local authority at Lewes as far as you are aware?

I must confess that I totally concur with your reservations about the route that was closed in the 1960's and a long period of time has elapsed since then and I am pleased that you have highlighted the housing that has been built since that time,

 

[tbtc]

Superb news if it comes to anything.

Can't come too soon.

We've argued about the merits of some (potential) re-openings in the past, but I totally agree with you here - this has a lot of merit (especially so that there's a second electrified route from London to the coast before anyone starts closing bits of the "BML" to electrify it properly.

Plus it frees up some DMUs for the rest of us. Everyone's a winner. Can't see it anytime soon, but would certainly welcome it.

 

[yorksrob]

We've argued about the merits of some (potential) re-openings in the past, but I totally agree with you here - this has a lot of merit (especially so that there's a second electrified route from London to the coast before anyone starts closing bits of the "BML" to electrify it properly.

Plus it frees up some DMUs for the rest of us. Everyone's a winner. Can't see it anytime soon, but would certainly welcome it.

We've crossed swords in the past and we'll doubtless cross swords on threads in the future, but the fact that this project has passed your critical eye, really emphasises to me the merits of reinstating this missing link.

 

[mister-sparky]

....So, with today's timetables:
Victoria - Gatwick - Lewes - Eastbourne: 86 minutes
Victoria - Brighton (Change) - Lewes - Eastbourne: 96 minutes plus connection time at Brighton
London Bridge - Oxted - Uckfield - Lewes - Eastbourne: 100 minutes.

I presume the "via Uckfield" time is based on the current DMU that stops at every station from Oxted? Hopefully, any through service to say Eastbourne would be semi-fast calling only at eg East Croydon, Oxted, Hurst Green, Edenbridge, Eridge (for connections to TW), Crowborough, Uckfield, Lewes, Polegate. Which would make it alot quicker than 100 mins. The stopper to Uckfield could be kept and extended to Lewes as the line would be re-doubled anyways.

 

[The Ham]

I presume the "via Uckfield" time is based on the current DMU that stops at every station from Oxted? Hopefully, any through service to say Eastbourne would be semi-fast calling only at eg East Croydon, Oxted, Hurst Green, Edenbridge, Eridge (for connections to TW), Crowborough, Uckfield, Lewes, Polegate. Which would make it alot quicker than 100 mins. The stopper to Uckfield could be kept and extended to Lewes as the line would be re-doubled anyways.

There are many things that could make the journey time faster, for instance just redoubling would enable some of the padding on the route to be removed. Likewise elcetrification would also speed things up a little.

However even if there were still 10 minutes between travel times if the slow routed train where set to leave London 10 minetes after 1 faster train and 20 minutes before the next people would still use them as they would still get home 10 minutes ealier than the next train. That become even more important if it enables them to make a connection to a bus to make the last leg.

Likewise going into London, although people will aim to use a fast service if the slow allows them to have an extra 10 min in bed and still get to work on time, guess what they'll do.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also there is the cost factor, if the slower route is cheaper then people will also use it, and although it may only make a few pence differance on an off peak day return on a anual season ticket the amount could be enough for some people to use it.

 

[Antman]

I live near Rye. The marshlink route between Rye and Ashford is 2 TPH at peak times with the Rye-Ashford shuttles.
Traffic on the Rye to Hastings section is fairly light even at peak times and the 1 tph is ample.
The real issue with the whole Marshlink service is the use of 2 car dmus on the sections between Lewes and Polegate and between Bexhill and hastings. I support the retention of through trains as I use the route regularly between Rye and Brighton.
All thats really needed in the immediate future is a centre car for the 171s or electrification and the liberation of the 377/3s from London Suburban services.

I use the route quite regularly between Ashford and Eastbourne and its normally busy throughout with standing room only at times, I'd say 2tph throughout were more than justified with perhaps a regularly hourly service calling at Doleham, Three Oaks and Winchelsea?

The Uckfield-Lewes extension has been talked about for the last 30 years or more but that's as far as it's ever got, we can but hope

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Rail Technology Magazine reported yesterday that Network Rail has been asked to re-examine the possibility of reopening Lewes-Uckfield.

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/potential-reopening-for-lewes--uckfield

The article doesn't explicitly say who asked Network Rail to look into this, though the text seems to imply it's the Department for Transport.

Potentially very good news.

(EDIT: I posted this as a new thread as hadn't seen this thread. Looks like someone has moved the post.).

 

[MarkyT]

This has been discussed here before quite extensively, but I will link my sketches again:

http://www.townend.me/files/lewesloop.jpg
http://www.townend.me/files/lewesloop3.pdf

To get trains between Brighton and Uckfield without reversing at Lewes, a new loop line could diverge from the Brighton-Lewes line just to the east of Kingston Road bridge then follow the A27 Lewes bypass for about 1 km, turning left before the river bridge to rejoin the Eastbourne/Newhaven line and approaching Lewes station from the south east. This wasn't my idea by the way, it was suggested by another board member - can't remember who though!

 

[Chrisgr31]

As a user of the Uckfield line I need to be convinced that the reopening of the line would not lead to an increase in prices to bring them more in to line with the BML or indeed Tunbridge Wells, and that it would not increase the overcrowding on the services. Many peak hour serves are standing room only between Eridge & London and vice versa.

As regards journey time for some reason the 18.08 ex LBG used to run fast from Edenbridge to Eridge, it now stops at Cowden, there is a fast train up that stops at Cowden as well.

There is some very odd timetabling on evening services which mean they stop at Norwood Junction, Sanderstead and one or two of the stations between there and Oxted, no idea why.

 

[yorksrob]

I sympathise with your concerns regarding pricing for the route. No one can confirm how the TOC's will react in terms of pricing.

As far as overcrowding is concerned, even if the stopping pattern were the same, trains are still a way off twelve carriages on that route. It has capacity for more carriages and this is separate from any extension to Lewes.

 

[ushawk]

Would be better electrifying the current line and improving the service, if passenger numbers increase then extend it, cant be bothered to say any more on this quite frankly as its been done to death so many times.

Monumental waste of money.

 

[yorksrob]

Would be better electrifying the current line and improving the service, if passenger numbers increase then extend it, cant be bothered to say any more on this quite frankly as its been done to death so many times.

Monumental waste of money.

Utter poppycock.

It's about time we started correcting the errors of the past and actually growing the railway. If the line were a through route rather than a dead end branch, there would be more incentive to improve the service and make large capital investments in the existing section such as electrification and redoubling.

 

[infobleep]

Why are network rail so against the reopening of the line, assuming they actually are?

 

[Antman]

Utter poppycock.

It's about time we started correcting the errors of the past and actually growing the railway. If the line were a through route rather than a dead end branch, there would be more incentive to improve the service and make large capital investments in the existing section such as electrification and redoubling.

Exactly, I can't believe this has been talked about seemingly since the line closed, if it were a road it would have been built yonks ago. Loads of benefits from this fairly modest extension including a diversion route for the Brighton line.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Exactly, I can't believe this has been talked about seemingly since the line closed. If it were a road, it would have been built yonks ago.

The part of your quote that I have highlighted reflects how strong the adherents to the road lobby are in positions of local authority power in this region and would be the reason why this line extension southwards has remained just a talking-shop (and nothing more) of those who espouse the benefits of rail in the 21st century.

 

[Chris125]

Why are network rail so against the reopening of the line, assuming they actually are?

I wouldn't say Network Rail are opposed to it reopening, it's just not viable to do so as a standalone project. While BML2 may have some long-term merit, Network Rail have made it clear that the most pressing capacity constraints are at the London end, East Croydon in particular.

Chris

 

[Cyberbeagle]

Anyone going to mention what would be the ramifications for the Lavender Line?

 

[455driver]

It doesnt take a genius to work out!

 

[Cyberbeagle]

Aye, but what compensation package would be offered to them??

Merger with Bluebell? Relocation to Culver Junction south of the Bluebell?? Any suggestions coming?