I'd argue that generating such a disproportionate amount of attention from politicians and the travelling public by giving the impression it's some kind of silver bullet for Brighton Line congestion and delays is not a wise idea, and risks distracting public and political attention from more realistic schemes using and improving what we already have.
Chris
I've previously made the point that I don't see any one scheme as a universal panacea, and neither Railfuture's nor BML2 could reasonably claim to be such. Of course I'm aware that RF have listed the Lewes Uckfield section amongst lines which should re-open for as long as the the website has been there, but as an active scheme, the current proposal has only seriously been under consideration for a comparatively short time. I'm certainly not about to apologise for WLC actively keeping up pressure on the issue and keeping the matter in the public eye. Don't forget that BML2, like RF, has backers with well established credentials in public transport.
Is the FULL BML2 essential to re-instatement of theose missing miles? As far as a purely local initiative goes, clearly not, so from the narrow viewpoint your critisism does have certain merit.
Is the initial phase of RF's incremental re-opening the sum total of the scheme? Only if a purely local line supporting 2tph and of very limited use as an integral part of the network is the final aim. If I were to single out a critisism of
support for the RF scheme, it's that it misses the point that as well as a local line, the Wealden route needs to be part of the wider network, and an appreciation of this seems absent to judge by some comments.
Do both schemes address any of the wider issues facing the network in the region? By any measure, BML2 has wider scope in this regard. Even where the RF scheme could reasonably be expected to meet some demand, such as Tun Wells relief and re-instated Brighton-Lewes-Tun Wells services, thus far comments from BML2 opponents seem to indicate these are of no real priority and conveniently dismissed.
There is demonstrably strong tendency to rubbish BML2 by presenting it as just a second best route for Brighton passengers to existing termini. The point has already been made that this isn't the main thrust of the scheme. Ignoring this isn't the most convincing means of advancing the argument.
The London phase of the BML2 can't simply be discounted, neither can the support for it from those (don't worry, I don't mean me!) with detailed knowledge of the industry. There seems to be a wilful desire by some to discount alternate routes possible with BML2 and a complete failure to see past current service patterns as the be-all and end-all, set in stone for all eternity. Not all commuter journeys end at Victoria or London Bridge, and when a link to Docklands gets built, it won't be the sole preserve of trains from the Wealden route or even the Brighton line. The evolution of traffic flows can't be accurately predicted for the link, but certainly some services from other points e.g Portsmouth-Horsham or Norwich, will offer direct Dockland service, with OHLE both examples could well be by through train.
The issue of how the rail network meets the needs of the air travel industry is a key question. The fact that Railfuture's proposal doesn't encompass this matter doesn't detract one iota from it's importance. This IS something addressed by BML2 for two airports (potentially four, five if speculation on Lydd becomes reality) including the second busiest in the UK - Gatwick, but once again ignored by opponents.
So medium term infrastructure expenditure is needed for BML2 to work. To develop beyond the basic 2tph, so does the Railfuture scheme. There's general agreement that the 2008 study was deeply flawed (though it did reach the conclusion wanted by the DfT at the time), but to justify further investment in the Wealden route, it will be necessary to go beyond the scope of the initial test question. I know this is recognised within Railfuture, as I've discussed it with RF supporters, and opponents of BML2 would be well advised to keep the longer term aims of their own preferred scheme in mind. The future may be closer than you think, and the brickbats you aim at 'the other scheme' might just boomerang a bit further down the line.
I'm positive about the Railfuture scheme (Rob please read my earlier comments - I'm emphatically NOT opposing re-opening), as far as it goes, but when sensible discussion of clearly evident issues is subsumed in a welter of attacks demonstating a short sighted appreciation of the RF scheme as much as the wider possibilities of BML2 it's difficult to avoid the conclusion some just enjoy a good old fashioned tribal blood letting.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
One thing that I think people are neglecting to see I believe is the growth of people living in the Lewes to Uckfield area, since the closure of the line. I doubt many if these people work locally and are either travelling by car to Lewes or Uckfield to then travel into London or to other destinations.
You also have I believe people that live around the Uckfield area, but work in Brighton who at the moment travel by road as there is no easy way for them to travel into Brighton by rail.
I agree with points being made, that if reinstated the Brighton, Lewes & Uckfiled routing should not just be about relieving the BML in the peaks, it should also be about reinstating a rail service for the growing amount of people living in the area and a line that can also reduce any lorry movements within these areas so that it also has to be able to take some freight as well in my view.
But I would also argue, that there are other areas within East Sussex that should be looked into being provided a railway service as well. One such area is the area of Peacehaven/Telscombe Cliffs where I grew up and I know has expanded greatly over the years. In the peak travelling hours the A259 coast road is generally full of queuing traffic from the lights at Rottingdean, all the way back into Peacehaven and many more houses are still being built I believe at a lot higher rate, than you see within the Lewes - Uckfield area. Yes, there has been schemes, like adding in a bus lane so buses can travel easier through the traffic which helps but I think more needs to be done on alleviating the traffic within many areas in East Sussex.
It has long be said that Peacehaven should have a railway station at the back of it where most of the new houses, flats etc built in the last 30 years reside
Some very valid observations here. Once we've cleared the blood away and changed the sawdust when the Wealden line re-opens, and future direction becomes clearer, the clifftop communities certainly warrant atttention. You'd have to add Telscombe Rottingdean and Whitehawk to the list though!
) to see this BML2 scheme being circulated when my former colleagues within the railway industry also give it no hope but they would like to see Uckfield-Lewes reopened.
