Network Rail to examine Uckfield–Lewes proposals

[455driver]

If agreement cannot be reached then compulsory purchase order!

There is a bigger picture here than a tourist railway!

 

[Ironside]

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

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

Merger with the bluebell would be the obvious solution, just depends if the two groups can get along. If the group of people involved in the lavender wanted to be Indipendant if so they may still want to.

 

[Kettledrum]

If agreement cannot be reached then compulsory purchase order!

There is a bigger picture here than a tourist railway!

I can't see how the preserved railway could continue at all here. If the scheme goes ahead, the railway network will need 7 day access to the route, it will need to be upgraded for faster main line speeds, and the stations on the route will be busy commuter stations. I can't see how this will leave any space at all for the preserved railway.

On the other hand, just think what the railway preservation movement could do with the large injection of cash !!!!!!!!!!

 

[mister-sparky]

I can't see how the preserved railway could continue at all here. If the scheme goes ahead, the railway network will need 7 day access to the route, it will need to be upgraded for faster main line speeds, and the stations on the route will be busy commuter stations. I can't see how this will leave any space at all for the preserved railway.

On the other hand, just think what the railway preservation movement could do with the large injection of cash !!!!!!!!!!

Could they not track-share for the very small section that they actually use?

 

[Ironside]

Could they not track-share for the very small section that they actually use?

Grand central railway share some rail with a freight operation, freight during the week and heratige at the weekend, but that is very different from sharing with what is proposed to be a busy 7 day a week railway with fast rail speed. So the options are llikely to be sell for as much as they can get and then either start again or merge with another heritage railway.

 

[Kettledrum]

Could they not track-share for the very small section that they actually use?

Unfortunately I think not. If the scheme went ahead it would be on the basis of a new fast line to Brighton with speeds of 75-100 mph. This is way more than typical speeds on preserved lines operating under a Light Railway Order.

And if anything went wrong while the preserved railway was operating (and things have happened on the very best preserved railways), the knock on effect on the busy commuter railway would be huge.

Then there is the question of whether visitors would want to visit the railway as a tourist attraction if it wasn't a preserved railway any more.

In some respects the preserved railway would have achieved their original aim. They would have been good custodians of the line until the national rail network was able to take it over again.

Without them, who knows what building work would have been allowed to encroach on the line, making any re-opening plans even more unlikely.

 

[Cyberbeagle]

If agreement cannot be reached then compulsory purchase order!

There is a bigger picture here than a tourist railway!

Don't disagree about a bigger picture, but you would be faced with a LOT of negative publicity if you don't sort this out

Personally if it was me I would offer to build them new facilities at Culver Junction, and a good stretch of line to Newick, LOL

 

[GatwickDepress]

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?

Somehow increasing the amount of services calling at Ore would be a big plus. I suspect they don't due to Ore-Brighton/Ore-Victoria trains requiring to reverse into the turnaround siding there? It would be a plus for students attending the nearby college from the Ashford way to not require a change of trains at Hastings outside of the few direct services and perhaps encourage use of the Marshlink line by local residents.

Don't disagree about a bigger picture, but you would be faced with a LOT of negative publicity if you don't sort this out

Personally if it was me I would offer to build them new facilities at Culver Junction, and a good stretch of line to Newick, LOL

Perhaps if they asked very nicely and used lots of nice big buzzwords, they could pass it off as a "help in the community-cum-training exercise"!

 

[The Ham]

Of course the other option with what to do with the Lavender Line is to provide a length of tripple track into one station (possibily even just a request stop) with the third line being used by the heritage line. Although this would cost more it could make the number of people who use the NR line higher as people us it to get to the heritage line.

 

[Antman]

Somehow increasing the amount of services calling at Ore would be a big plus. I suspect they don't due to Ore-Brighton/Ore-Victoria trains requiring to reverse into the turnaround siding there? It would be a plus for students attending the nearby college from the Ashford way to not require a change of trains at Hastings outside of the few direct services and perhaps encourage use of the Marshlink line by local residents.


Perhaps if they asked very nicely and used lots of nice big buzzwords, they could pass it off as a "help in the community-cum-training exercise"!

Yes the lack of Marshlink trains serving Ore always struck me as a bit odd meaning that anybody wanting to go east from there will have to go west to Hastings first and return through Ore non stop.

 

[Hove Heretic]

Credit where it's due. Mr McLoughlin has already done more with one statement than predecessors in the post going back to ..... (?), and with recent comments by Lord Adonis regarding a second route through Sussex following on from backing from Brighton & Hove City Council and a more positive approach by East Sussex County Council (following last years' public consultation on Uckfield town centre), the indications are good for some long overdue action concerning the route.

Railfuture are advising they've identified no less than six solutions to enable services to exit the Wealden route facing Brighton (as well as Eastbourne), but as yet, no public announcement on the precise nature of these. There's also a statement that paths through East Croydon remain a sticking point, pending Network Rail's development plans being released.

The electrification question is problematic as well. With mixed signals over the future of 750Vdc / conversion to 25KVac OHLE, it will be interesting to see whether 3rd rail infill would be permitted if conversion is on the cards. Equally, without the new Docklands link proposed by BML2, it's hard to see that OHLE would be realistic just yet either. Then there's rendering SR signals usable with 25KVac.

Then there's the question of diesel operation where there's almost universal 3rd rail is hardly the optimum use of scarce stock (which the south west is crying out for), and without electrification, obviously the route would by useless as a relief for the Brighton line.

I'm encouraged by the Government announcement, and even more so by comments from NR within the release identifying Brighton Line issues as a priority. Railfuture say 'performance during CP5 has been unacceptable' - Regular passengers have been known to favour stronger adjectives! Following a dire 2012, this year has been pretty awful too, with disruptions of one sort or another on 33 days so far. Any improvements can't come quickly enough. Roll on NR's investigation !!

 

[Bald Rick]

The cynical view is that perhaps NR were already investigating various capacity options for the Brighton Main Line as part of the strategic planning process for CP6

Then if, say, a certain MP has made certain statements about a certain reopening when in 'opposition', but then finds himself in a position in Government to at least be seen to have done 'something', with an election less than 2 years away...

Of course this is all wild speculation on my part.

 

[Chrisgr31]

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.

Before running longer trains longer platforms are needed, although that is scheduled I believe.

Currently Edenbridge, Hever, Cowden, Ashurst and Buxted are 5 carriages long and Crowborough is 6. This already causes issues with dwell time on the 8 carriage train that runs in both peak. On the morning peak there is a significant dwell time at Crowborough, Eridge and Edenbridge as passengers want to get in the back as thats where the seats are. In the evening you have long dwell times at Edenbridge and Crowborough as passengers unload. There are also fairly regularly issues with passengers failing to make it out the back carriages at the station they meant to alight, partly due to passengers standing in the door lobbies getting in the way.

Also arent the Class 171 carriages longer than their electric cousins? So a 12 coach version might be too long for all the other stations.

There is also the issue of where the rolling stock is coming from, all the Class 171s are currently in extensive use on the Uckfield and Marshlink lines and there are no spare units so new units are needed to run longer trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

You tried driving on the roads in East Sussex? Seems unlikely that there is a strong road lobby with the state of the roads! Also there is very little dual carriageway in East Sussex, just a small part of the A27 I believe.

The real problem I believe is lack of paasengers on the rural stretch of the line, and a lot of potential passengers use the BML or Hasting Lines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

Of course the current Uckfield Line passes through East Croydonso would be subject to the same constraints there, so all you would be able to do is run the existing 2 trains per hour, but run them as longer units but not sure that would really give a large increase in capacity as the existing peak hour trains are already full. So you'd effectively only have 2 to 4 additional carriage capicty (if you accept the Class 171s are longer than electric replacements)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The electrification question is problematic as well. With mixed signals over the future of 750Vdc / conversion to 25KVac OHLE, it will be interesting to see whether 3rd rail infill would be permitted if conversion is on the cards. Equally, without the new Docklands link proposed by BML2, it's hard to see that OHLE would be realistic just yet either. Then there's rendering SR signals usable with 25KVac.

Then there's the question of diesel operation where there's almost universal 3rd rail is hardly the optimum use of scarce stock (which the south west is crying out for), and without electrification, obviously the route would by useless as a relief for the Brighton line.

I'm encouraged by the Government announcement, and even more so by comments from NR within the release identifying Brighton Line issues as a priority. Railfuture say 'performance during CP5 has been unacceptable' - Regular passengers have been known to favour stronger adjectives! Following a dire 2012, this year has been pretty awful too, with disruptions of one sort or another on 33 days so far. Any improvements can't come quickly enough. Roll on NR's investigation !!

There has been talk on here of overhead electrification of the Uckfield Line this does raise issues of using it as a diversion route for BML as you'd need to ensure you didnt accidentally send a 3rd rail train on it by mistake! It has been rumoured that an eltric train was accidentially sent towards Uckfield once from Hurst Green!

 

[The Ham]

If it were tp be electrified with OHLE, then the obvious thing to do would be to convert more of the Southern fleet to duel power (as some will need to be done to be converted to run to Southampton in CP5).

If enough of them could be done it could allow the OHLE conversion of other parts of the network to creep from beyond their current limits, expicially where there are current/potential power issues with 3rd rail.

 

[tbtc]

There is also the issue of where the rolling stock is coming from, all the Class 171s are currently in extensive use on the Uckfield and Marshlink lines and there are no spare units so new units are needed to run longer trains

The rumour a few months ago was that electrification of the Gospel Oak - Barking line would free up some 172s that could be used on Uckfield/ Marshlink in the medium term.

There has been talk on here of overhead electrification of the Uckfield Line this does raise issues of using it as a diversion route for BML as you'd need to ensure you didnt accidentally send a 3rd rail train on it by mistake!

Once the 456s are off to SWT later this year, virtually all of the Southern/ Thameslink fleet south of the Thames will be dual voltage - especially when the "700s" start operation.

Since I don't expect the Uckfield line to be electrified before "Thameslink 2000" is completed, I don't think that this should be a worry.

 

[yorksrob]

Before running longer trains longer platforms are needed, although that is scheduled I believe.

Currently Edenbridge, Hever, Cowden, Ashurst and Buxted are 5 carriages long and Crowborough is 6. This already causes issues with dwell time on the 8 carriage train that runs in both peak. On the morning peak there is a significant dwell time at Crowborough, Eridge and Edenbridge as passengers want to get in the back as thats where the seats are. In the evening you have long dwell times at Edenbridge and Crowborough as passengers unload. There are also fairly regularly issues with passengers failing to make it out the back carriages at the station they meant to alight, partly due to passengers standing in the door lobbies getting in the way.

Also arent the Class 171 carriages longer than their electric cousins? So a 12 coach version might be too long for all the other stations.

I'm not saying that platform extensions would be free - rather that they are the sort of relatively straight forward improvements which would be more viable for a through route than a branch line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There has been talk on here of overhead electrification of the Uckfield Line this does raise issues of using it as a diversion route for BML as you'd need to ensure you didnt accidentally send a 3rd rail train on it by mistake! It has been rumoured that an eltric train was accidentially sent towards Uckfield once from Hurst Green!

I think NR would need to make their minds up one way or another on this one.

I read that the 3rd rail is getting near the point that it will have difficulty powering many more trains in some areas, so having some diesel trains going into London might actually be more beneficial in terms of power supply than third rail at the moment !

 

[tsr]

I think NR would need to make their minds up one way or another on this one.

I read that the 3rd rail is getting near the point that it will have difficulty powering many more trains in some areas, so having some diesel trains going into London might actually be more beneficial in terms of power supply than third rail at the moment !

The problems come when 3rd-rail-only trains from London Victoria to the South Coast need to divert via the line, and also if you try to get the diesels from the Uckfield line (in whatever form - through or terminating branch) into London Victoria to provide capacity during engineering works or unplanned disruptions - or even part of regular services. As we know, Diesel + Victoria (Southern Platforms) = No Thank You!

In other words, let's have another round of 3rd rail improvements, please!

 

[NSEFAN]

In other words, let's have another round of 3rd rail improvements, please!

Even better, time the reopening of the Uckfield-Lewes route with the rolling out of OHLE on the Southern.

When is the 3rd rail kit due for replacement?

 

[Chrisgr31]

The problems come when 3rd-rail-only trains from London Victoria to the South Coast need to divert via the line, and also if you try to get the diesels from the Uckfield line (in whatever form - through or terminating branch) into London Victoria to provide capacity during engineering works or unplanned disruptions - or even part of regular services. As we know, Diesel + Victoria (Southern Platforms) = No Thank You!

In other words, let's have another round of 3rd rail improvements, please!

Or of course improvements at Victoria so the diesels can go in to the other side at Victoria, and apparently Southern did look at this as part of the Thameslink works at London Bridge. ie they were looking to see if they could get them into Victoria instead of London Bridge.

Mind you not sure why I should want to suggest any change which sends the diesels to Victoria as it suits me that they go to London Bridge!

 

[TheWalrus]

I travelled on the Uckfield line for the first time yesterday, and found some of the services really quiet. However I believe with an extention to Lewes with trains using the route to Tunbridge Wells, Eastbourne, Seaford and Brighton, I think it could make the route more viable with a wider range of destinations and infrastructure improvements making it more attractive.

If this line was to become BML2, It would make sense it was electrified, redoubled and linespeeds brought up to 100mph (110 if possible). This should reduce journey times considerably, making it a suitable alternative to the current BML.

In terms of rolling stock would 350s be suitable and compatible with 377s? They may be useful if their new top speed of 110mph could be utilised. If not further 377s could be ordered.
The new trains could also be ordered for Gatwick Express services although I would suggest these services are remodelled and 4 paths an hour could be better used serving other stations or on other routes, whilst still serving the Gatwick function and not using paths exclusively for Gatwick. New trains for Gatwicks would also be more suitable than 442s which could be used on express services on other routes.

The current Uckfield line could provide a lot more paths for more destinations which currently use the BML. There could be 1tph to Tunbridge Wells (semi-fast); 1tph to Seaford & Eastbourne (semi-fast, splitting at Lewes); and 1tph to Brighton (fast, limited stops).

Overall there appears to be a clear case for reopening Uckfield-Lewes and many advantages to the Uckfield line, its passengers and also helping to relieve the congested BML.

 

[yorksrob]

The problems come when 3rd-rail-only trains from London Victoria to the South Coast need to divert via the line, and also if you try to get the diesels from the Uckfield line (in whatever form - through or terminating branch) into London Victoria to provide capacity during engineering works or unplanned disruptions - or even part of regular services. As we know, Diesel + Victoria (Southern Platforms) = No Thank You!

In other words, let's have another round of 3rd rail improvements, please!

Perhaps they could divert them into that rather splendid trainshed built by the London Chatham and Dover Railway next door. There must be some sort of routing via the low level lines around Battersea !

 

[steamybrian]

I travelled on the Uckfield line for the first time yesterday, and found some of the services really quiet. However I believe with an extention to Lewes with trains using the route to Tunbridge Wells, Eastbourne, Seaford and Brighton, I think it could make the route more viable with a wider range of destinations and infrastructure improvements making it more attractive.

If this line was to become BML2, It would make sense it was electrified, redoubled and linespeeds brought up to 100mph (110 if possible). This should reduce journey times considerably, making it a suitable alternative to the current BML.

In terms of rolling stock would 350s be suitable and compatible with 377s? They may be useful if their new top speed of 110mph could be utilised. If not further 377s could be ordered.
The new trains could also be ordered for Gatwick Express services although I would suggest these services are remodelled and 4 paths an hour could be better used serving other stations or on other routes, whilst still serving the Gatwick function and not using paths exclusively for Gatwick. New trains for Gatwicks would also be more suitable than 442s which could be used on express services on other routes.

The current Uckfield line could provide a lot more paths for more destinations which currently use the BML. There could be 1tph to Tunbridge Wells (semi-fast); 1tph to Seaford & Eastbourne (semi-fast, splitting at Lewes); and 1tph to Brighton (fast, limited stops).

Overall there appears to be a clear case for reopening Uckfield-Lewes and many advantages to the Uckfield line, its passengers and also helping to relieve the congested BML.

Lets first focus on the plan to re-opening Uckfield-Lewes which is what this thread is about.
Let Network Rail/Government develop a simple low-cost scheme with a single line with a dynamic passing loop at Isfield to get the line reopened.
Once the line is opened and traffic numbers grow then insert double line, electrification, etc. In the past consultants reports have had difficulty in making an economic case for reopening due to being too elaborate in their plans.
The thought of BML2 , reopening the Eridge-Tunbridge Wells Line and other "add-ons" has previously made the scheme sink.

 

[Bald Rick]

The thought of BML2 , reopening the Eridge-Tunbridge Wells Line and other "add-ons" has previously made the scheme sink.

I'm afraid that what has made all previous attempts sink is that even under the most optimistic forecasts, nowhere near enough new traffic is generated to help pay for the cost of reopening. Even on a shoestring budget. It will be interesting to see what has changed this time.

 

[tsr]

Even better, time the reopening of the Uckfield-Lewes route with the rolling out of OHLE on the Southern.

When is the 3rd rail kit due for replacement?

I am about to consult a specialist fortune-teller and will be back shortly.

I have actually heard before that it would technically be a good place to start, but it forms a bit of an island which might not make it worth the money. Probably better to start South of Three Bridges, but then again you have the problem with the vulnerable two-road section of the BML. And thus we go round in circles a bit, what with therefore considering a BML2 of sorts!

Or of course improvements at Victoria so the diesels can go in to the other side at Victoria, and apparently Southern did look at this as part of the Thameslink works at London Bridge. ie they were looking to see if they could get them into Victoria instead of London Bridge.

Mind you not sure why I should want to suggest any change which sends the diesels to Victoria as it suits me that they go to London Bridge!

I believe the fans weren't going to be financially viable to change - and maybe there was also some legislation involved which prevented it (IIRC)?

You will just have to stick to your building site with a big glass triangle on top. My apologies!

Perhaps they could divert them into that rather splendid trainshed built by the London Chatham and Dover Railway next door. There must be some sort of routing via the low level lines around Battersea !

Excuse me, sir. The Uckfield Line is hardly the Orient Express, you know!

I think a combination of LOROL, speed restrictions, conflicting movements and the like would do away with that idea, sadly.

 

[yorksrob]

I am about to consult a specialist fortune-teller and will be back shortly.

I have actually heard before that it would technically be a good place to start, but it forms a bit of an island which might not make it worth the money. Probably better to start South of Three Bridges, but then again you have the problem with the vulnerable two-road section of the BML. And thus we go round in circles a bit, what with therefore considering a BML2 of sorts!



I believe the fans weren't going to be financially viable to change - and maybe there was also some legislation involved which prevented it (IIRC)?

You will just have to stick to your building site with a big glass triangle on top. My apologies!



Excuse me, sir. The Uckfield Line is hardly the Orient Express, you know!

I think a combination of LOROL, speed restrictions, conflicting movements and the like would do away with that idea, sadly.

Could they rebuild a 171 carriage as a pullman coach

 

[tsr]

Could they rebuild a 171 carriage as a pullman coach

This is the one time I have considered that I might have to hijack the ECS up the BML from Eastbourne for use as my personal train...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Let Network Rail/Government develop a simple low-cost scheme with a single line with a dynamic passing loop at Isfield to get the line reopened.

Regretfully, in these days, Network Rail do not seem to associate themselves with low-cost schemes, from the costs they quoted for the existing works on the Todmorden Chord and their cost submissions to Ynys Mon county council of £25 million to reinstate the short link from the main line to Llangefni, the county town of Ynys Mon.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I travelled on the Uckfieild line for the first time yesterday, and found some of the services really quiet.

It will depend which services you were on as some are really busy! All the peak hour services are very busy, and then the first few off peak services are busy, up to London are busy. The morning down services will be quiet because there's little reason to visit any of the destinations on the line.

The evening return services tend to be surprisingly busy.

I think the off peak service suffers from the reputation the line got when it was still British Rail, Network South East and Connex. Many non commuters dont realise there is now a 23:00 or so departure out of London Bridge (although its packed to East Croydon) and fairly regularly it is a rail replacement service (or it seems to be on the occasions I catch it). There is also no car parking available at most of the stations south of Oxted by the off peak. So combine all these factors and the off - peak passengers with still use the BML or Tunbridge Wells lines.

It is improving and generally the service is reliable although it does seem to go in waves. After all the diesel fleet keeps winning awards for the most reliable modern diesel fleet in the UK. Us regulars may comment it doesnt say much for the rest but thats slightly unfair. Although around a year ago when I had got so fed up with cancellations and short formed stock due to broken units I did resort to emailing the fleet director at Southern asking for a job fixing trains and saying I had no experience but it appeared this wouldn't matter. Strangely no reply!

Big Rick of course comments that previous investigations have shown no business case for re-opening the line and this might be right, but British Rail were also of the open there was no business case for through trains, late trains or early trains in the days before Southern. In the BR days even the peak trains were lightly used and there was no demand, and one would never have believed the line could be as successful as it is now.

So not sure one can necessarily trust the surveys, mind you still not sure its in my favour!

 

[mister-sparky]

...The thought of BML2 , reopening the Eridge-Tunbridge Wells Line and other "add-ons" has previously made the scheme sink.

Eridge to Tunbridge Wells IS open, as the Spa Valley Railway. And it's very successful. Adding this short, already tracked and working, section would likely add alot of extra traffic which adds to the justification. Tunbridge Wells is by far the biggest town in this area, and if you want to go from there to the Lewes/Brighton direction you either have to drive or take a very long bus journey. So adding TW to the reopening further down makes perfect sense and would not "make the scheme sink".

 

[Chris125]

The current Uckfield line could provide a lot more paths for more destinations which currently use the BML. There could be 1tph to Tunbridge Wells (semi-fast); 1tph to Seaford & Eastbourne (semi-fast, splitting at Lewes); and 1tph to Brighton (fast, limited stops).

Overall there appears to be a clear case for reopening Uckfield-Lewes and many advantages to the Uckfield line, its passengers and also helping to relieve the congested BML.

...which sounds great in theory, but while it's true the Uckfield line could be upgraded to take more trains there isn't the capacity through East Croydon and into London. This is the problem BML2 faces and there's no easy or cheap solution.

Let Network Rail/Government develop a simple low-cost scheme with a single line with a dynamic passing loop at Isfield to get the line reopened.

Realistically any savings you get from laying a single track aren't going to change the fundamental economics - there just isn't enough to be gained allowing the existing service to continue beyond Uckfield to Lewes/Eastbourne.

To have any chance of being viable it needs to be part of a wider scheme to increase capacity between London and the South Coast hence the BML2 campaign, but there may be other ways to do this - hopefully the NR study will come up with some answers.

Chris