Given how popular the (and having used them as well) Brighton and Hove bus service is between Brighton & Tonbridge Wells, I'd certainly agree with you on that point.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Govt. to review Brighton Main Line capacity
- Thread starter LTJ87
- Start date
- Status
Given how popular the (and having used them as well) Brighton and Hove bus service is between Brighton & Tonbridge Wells, I'd certainly agree with you on that point.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Indeed, and that's just the local links, without BML 2!
steamybrian
Established Member
I agree the no.29 bus route between Brighton and Tunbridge Wells is very well used. A few years ago it was increased from hourly to half-hourly. I have used the bus many times.!
The number of passengers on the Uckfield line is rising rapidly leading to working starting on extending the platforms to permit longer trains.
I also agree that in the 1960s more passengers travelled south from Uckfield than travelled north.
Opening the Uckfield to Lewes link will create new operating opportunities with opening the new link to the coast. Permit trains to be stored overnight at depots on the coast rather than berthed all night in Uckfield station or run empty to and from Selhurst Depot.
The case for reopening Uckfield to Lewes is now so strong.
The number of passengers on the Uckfield line is rising rapidly leading to working starting on extending the platforms to permit longer trains.
I also agree that in the 1960s more passengers travelled south from Uckfield than travelled north.
Opening the Uckfield to Lewes link will create new operating opportunities with opening the new link to the coast. Permit trains to be stored overnight at depots on the coast rather than berthed all night in Uckfield station or run empty to and from Selhurst Depot.
The case for reopening Uckfield to Lewes is now so strong.
tsr
Established Member
[/B]
And also the fact that Barnham, Horsham, Redhill, Brighton, Three Bridges etc staff are all route trained on the line via hove and the cliftonville spur, but only a Horsham, Redhill and a few others (the smaller depots) are route trained on the Horsham/ Dorking line. No point sending trains that way if you aint got the staff to run em. In fact as far as us in Brighton, who have very high route knowledge, the line from Horsham to Dorking might as well have a sign saying ' here be dragons' for all we know about it.
The conductor depots which currently sign Horsham-Dorking (and onwards to Victoria, which would be needed without messy DOO arrangements for Arun Valley expresses) are Selhurst and Horsham. All Selhurst conductors now have core routes that include signing Victoria/Ldn Bridge to Horsham via West Croydon/Mitcham Jn, Sutton and Dorking, and also via Three Bridges - and that's quite a few people. I can't remember if Horsham conductors sign West Croydon, but they certainly do sign the Portsmouth Lines via Mitcham Jn and onwards via Sutton and Dorking. So that's another bunch of folks who sign it, albeit rather lower in numbers.
You would have to have a lot of crew changes as Selhurst don't sign the Arun Valley South of Horsham, but then again that's already a long-standing issue with services via Three Bridges anyway.
From what I can see, the predominant issue with route knowledge would be driver availability. Some Selhurst drivers sign all applicable routes, some don't. Epsom drivers do, but there are very few of them. Plus a few others. In addition, a pretty high number of evening peak services to Horsham and environs are crewed by Victoria or Redhill conductors, who don't have route knowledge of Horsham-Dorking.
I think there would be a considerable market, though bus vs rail fares would have to be rather carefully looked at, of course. There's already a variable but not wholly insignificant amount of local traffic between Crowborough, Buxted and Uckfield, and vice versa. I don't think it would take too long to win back local use of the railway.
Trains are not permitted to be berthed at Uckfield (and think of the taxi costs for transporting Selhurst crews, anyway!). One unit is stored on certain nights in the bay at Oxted, which is reasonably secure as the station is locked when staff aren't there. On rarer occasions, East Grinstead can also be used for a 171 vice one set of 2x (or 3x) 377s. Some early morning trains would have to be run from Selhurst as they start in service from East Croydon or London Bridge (171s on the Uckfield Line usually end up doing 2 complete peak runs, one way or another). It would, however, make sense for 171s to be stored at St Leonards or Lovers Walk and then do the first and third Northbound services up the Uckfield Line (or as per a revised timetable).
Kettledrum
Member
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 806
The biggest area where I would challenge the assumptions is on demand. Lewes is a bigger town than Uckfield and the re-opened line would have the capability of generating demand towards Eastbourne and Brighton too if it was configured properly, whereas Uckfield services currently only go North towards London.
The journeys to and from Uckfield increased from 335,000 in 2008 to currently around 539,000 pa - a huge increase that was not expected or built into the reports that considered the re-opening.
The forecast demand on the re-opened section used in the business case in the 2008 report was only 450,000. Given the huge increase from Uckfield since 2008, the journey possibilities opened up in both directions, and the improved access to the rail network from the whole of the south of the county, I would suggest this demand figure was under-estimated.
I've looked at other stations in the South East, considering population, catchment areas, and station usage, and the predicted figures for Lewes look very low - too low
---- of course the problem with asking for proof, is you never really know whether your predicted demand was accurate until the line is built and operating.
Last edited:
Many thanks to SarahJ and TSR for explaining current route knowledge which is certainly different to what it was. It was several incidents in close succession at Horsham going to town where the route via TB was blocked/had severe delays but when I asked about diverting via Dorking I was told we are not allowed route knowledge on that route anymore so we are stuck.
Being old enough to have used the service when it was the old Sutton Dorking Horsham pattern and the evening LB to Bognors used to divert via Peckham Rye, West Croydon etc if the BML was in trouble this seems to me to be all to do with minimal staffing, profits for Govia and not customer service.
I now drive up the M23 and M25 to Orpington to use SE into town and if necessary on to O2 ( cheap car parking) and the DLR.
Brian
I have just noticed the DfT released the terms of reference for this study earlier this month. I still fail to see what value it adds over and above the Sussex Route Study.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-coast-rail-corridor-study-terms-of-reference
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-coast-rail-corridor-study-terms-of-reference
100k pounds is unlikely to pay for even one consultant for one year.
If that pays for a very small fraction of that then I'd be surprised!
I suspect the winning bidder (already awarded) will just review the NR work, conclude it should be done (accurate cost benefits and practicality) and keep the option open for BML2 to Canary etc in the long term but do a back of the envelope recosting using HS2/ CR2 civils costs and conclude the cost is far higher than BML2 have guestimated.
One of the issues that continues to surprise me is the focus on the southern end of BML2 when the most interesting and probably expensive part of the route would be the section north of Croydon. Given that the route is supposed to take-over track sections occupied by Croydon's trams and whatever the eventual solution for the Hayes branch is without mitigation for existing local users together with the building of a new Thames tunnel to reach Canary Wharf, Stratford and Stansted - are we in fact talking about another "grand projet" with substantial tunnelling from Croydon under South and East London - more of a Crossrail than a Thameslink?
I think that explains why some of us are more sceptical about the Northern end of BML2.
The campaign to reopen Uckfield-Lewes predates BML2 by a considerable margin, and personally I would rather they got on with building that, which is relatively straight forward, than getting bogged down in studies about how to get into London.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,308
Lewes to Uckfield isn't needed as a stand alone project. That's why they keep going on about the possibility of additional long distance through trains to London to try and justify it. Because of that they have to come up with somewhere for the additional trains to go, and that's why they link it to a proposed BML2.
There are probably far more useful re-openings than Lewes - Uckfield, if the money were ever available.
I don't think so at all. This missing link is one of the better cases, even more so if you continue through to Tunbridge Wells. Don't forget that the 2008 study found that a single track reinstatement would cover its operating costs.
I think to a large extent we're in danger of becoming fixated with the London issue (perhaps understandably so, given this countries laughable record on reopenings).
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,308
Chapter 6 of the Sussex Route Study explicitly ties Lewes to Uckfield with future development near London, but is quite lukewarm about it:
Nothing in the entire route study reads as though NR are interested in reopening in the short or medium term. "Outside the timeframe of this study" means some time in the mid 2040s...
Last edited:
Nevertheless, the 2008 study does find that a single track option would cover its operating costs.
NR route studies are all about how to cope with growth in, or disruption to existing passenger markets. It simply wouldn't be in the remit to consider potential Weald - coast passengers who aren't currently served, which is why individual reopening studies tend to be done for these.
Class 170101
On Moderation
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 8,664
Based on the quote above does it mean capacity is available to Victoria but that BML 2 services cannot reach this 'capacity' at East Croydon due to flat junction crossing moves?
If so why not divert BML services at East Croydon from London Bridge to London Victoria and route BML2 services to London Bridge in their place?
If so why not divert BML services at East Croydon from London Bridge to London Victoria and route BML2 services to London Bridge in their place?
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,308
I think the view is that if they could make those two additional London Bridge paths available they could fill them with trains already, hence:
We usually go round in circles about this. If the interventions planned in the East Croydon area (Windmill Bridge etc) take place, and at various other sites down the existing mainline, then the 'extra capacity' gets provided anyway...
Indeed. On a regional level, I think a Brighton-Lewes-Uckfield-Eridge-Tunbridge service would do well...but would need that proposed loop:
...though Ideally some way would be found to restore the long-lost route over Cliffe High Street.
If capacity on the Brighton line to London is what you want, you need to be competitive with the current BML, which going via Eridge is never going to be. Realistically, you need either more tracks on the BML itself, or a more direct route that largely parallels it. NR's proposed works at Windmill Junction will unlock capacity there, and if BML relief as a whole were pursued, then I'm confident a 6th track from South to East Croydon would be viable to provide the capacity needed there.
I'm almost certainly repeating myself (sorry!), but if you ask me, (and no-one will
) the obvious routing for such a relief route would be south from East Grinstead. There is a reason that railway was built originally, and serving new markets whilst relieving the BML was largely it. Yes, the Bluebell are an awesome organisation and have put so much into reopening the foolishly-closed route, but if they were suitably compensated I'm sure things could be worked out (NR funding an extension south from Sheffield Park, for example.)
Once you hit Horsted Keynes you have a choice: you either go south-west to Haywards Heath or south to Lewes. Lewes will give faster journey times, but a) you will be obliterating the whole of the Bluebell operation, and b) you won't have interchange with the BML, so you will be relying on passengers using the roads or residual shuttle services to intelligently balance loadings themselves on which line to use (which I strongly suspect would fail miserably).
Once you reach the BML, build grade-separation for Copyhold Junction as a mirror of what is planned at Keymer Junction to the south. You then have 4 tracks into Haywards Heath with cross-platform interchange.
Along with this, Network Rail are proposing one of the options for Keymer's grade-separation to be 4 tracks north of the flyover though to a point north of Wivelsfield station, with that station being rebuilt with 4 platforms. This leaves at most just a short 2½ mile stretch of double track (which could be managed as at Welwyn, I suspect), with the only two notable obstacles to full segregated 4 track section being the short 249yd Haywards Heath tunnel and the short 150yd viaduct south of there, both of which strike me as quite solvable problems.
Admittedly, this route is indeed slightly longer than going via Sheffield Park, but gives you interchange with the BML at Haywards Heath and Wivelsfield, so those wanting stations between Haywards Heath and South Croydon can still use the train from Lewes etc. without driving, which I feel is important, as the whole point is that most of the capacity would be routed via East Grinstead and not Gatwick.
IIRC, a service from Lewes to London would take ~4 minutes longer via East Grinstead than Gatwick at an average speed of 60mph. That seems to me to make far more sense than BML2 routing via Uckfield and the tunnel under the downs. It also enables you to make better use of paths by combining East Grinstead and Seaford/Eastbourne services. As I doubt the east coastway would be able to fill the capacity of a double-track line from Croydon to Oxted, you also gain the option of routing some BML express services that way via Copyhold (if they don't stop, the route they take is largely irrelevant!), freeing capacity further north for more services from the Arun Valley line (and depending on how you use the Quarry lines, the North Downs and Tonbridge lines) to join the BML.
Just my 2p.
...though Ideally some way would be found to restore the long-lost route over Cliffe High Street.
If capacity on the Brighton line to London is what you want, you need to be competitive with the current BML, which going via Eridge is never going to be. Realistically, you need either more tracks on the BML itself, or a more direct route that largely parallels it. NR's proposed works at Windmill Junction will unlock capacity there, and if BML relief as a whole were pursued, then I'm confident a 6th track from South to East Croydon would be viable to provide the capacity needed there.
I'm almost certainly repeating myself (sorry!), but if you ask me, (and no-one will
) the obvious routing for such a relief route would be south from East Grinstead. There is a reason that railway was built originally, and serving new markets whilst relieving the BML was largely it. Yes, the Bluebell are an awesome organisation and have put so much into reopening the foolishly-closed route, but if they were suitably compensated I'm sure things could be worked out (NR funding an extension south from Sheffield Park, for example.)Once you hit Horsted Keynes you have a choice: you either go south-west to Haywards Heath or south to Lewes. Lewes will give faster journey times, but a) you will be obliterating the whole of the Bluebell operation, and b) you won't have interchange with the BML, so you will be relying on passengers using the roads or residual shuttle services to intelligently balance loadings themselves on which line to use (which I strongly suspect would fail miserably).
Once you reach the BML, build grade-separation for Copyhold Junction as a mirror of what is planned at Keymer Junction to the south. You then have 4 tracks into Haywards Heath with cross-platform interchange.
Along with this, Network Rail are proposing one of the options for Keymer's grade-separation to be 4 tracks north of the flyover though to a point north of Wivelsfield station, with that station being rebuilt with 4 platforms. This leaves at most just a short 2½ mile stretch of double track (which could be managed as at Welwyn, I suspect), with the only two notable obstacles to full segregated 4 track section being the short 249yd Haywards Heath tunnel and the short 150yd viaduct south of there, both of which strike me as quite solvable problems.
Admittedly, this route is indeed slightly longer than going via Sheffield Park, but gives you interchange with the BML at Haywards Heath and Wivelsfield, so those wanting stations between Haywards Heath and South Croydon can still use the train from Lewes etc. without driving, which I feel is important, as the whole point is that most of the capacity would be routed via East Grinstead and not Gatwick.
IIRC, a service from Lewes to London would take ~4 minutes longer via East Grinstead than Gatwick at an average speed of 60mph. That seems to me to make far more sense than BML2 routing via Uckfield and the tunnel under the downs. It also enables you to make better use of paths by combining East Grinstead and Seaford/Eastbourne services. As I doubt the east coastway would be able to fill the capacity of a double-track line from Croydon to Oxted, you also gain the option of routing some BML express services that way via Copyhold (if they don't stop, the route they take is largely irrelevant!), freeing capacity further north for more services from the Arun Valley line (and depending on how you use the Quarry lines, the North Downs and Tonbridge lines) to join the BML.
Just my 2p.
Last edited:
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,368
All these BML2-type projects cost so much and cause so much disruption that you might as well bore a brand new two track tunnel from Central London south to the vicinity of Gatwick Airport and have done with it.
That's not going to help though, will it? Hint: the bottleneck is south of Three Bridges. North of there already has 4 tracks. 6 if you count the Oxted route.
There will indeed still be constraints in central London to large-scale growth, so a tunnel is probably the answer there. But there are the last few dregs of capacity if the mess of junctions in south London can be untangled, which is what NR are going to do at Windmill Junction. You will have 8 tracks north of there (4 to Victoria, 4 to London Bridge), and 8 tracks south of there (2 to West Croydon, 6 to East Croydon.) In theory, whatever you can get to Windmill Junction will be able to reach the next bottleneck, be it a junction or the terminal's capacity.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,368
Well yes - it would have to be part of a brand new line all the way to Brighton.
It would be expensive but I bet the BCR would come out better than most BML stuff.
It would be expensive but I bet the BCR would come out better than most BML stuff.
- Status