What should we do about Uckfield to Lewes?

[Ianno87]

There's nothing marginal about the mid-Sussex commuter belt. How long are the trains on the surviving sections now. Nine carriages ?

As per the Network Rail summary of the business case I quoted above, this means that Wealden line demand to a nearby major population/employment centre (namely London and environs) is already fulfilled.

The additional potential demand to reach Brighton is, in connectivity terms, marginal on top of this. There's not going to be a sudden "release" of demand to get to Brighton. That is already fulfilled by London from the area the line serves.

 

[yorksrob]

In the peak, 6/8/10. Off peak, 2/4. Rarely full (or anything close to it) south of Hurst Green.

They would be fuller if they ran to some major population/tourist/leisure areas such as Brighton and the South Coast !

 

[Ianno87]

They would be fuller if they ran to some major population/tourist/leisure areas such as Brighton and the South Coast !

Not if they go the long way around from the major demand centres such as Croydon. A few people will wander on, sure, but not nearly enough to butter a business case.

 

[yorksrob]

As per the Network Rail summary of the business case I quoted above, this means that Wealden line demand to a nearby major population/employment centre (namely London and environs) is already fulfilled.

The additional potential demand to reach Brighton is, in connectivity terms, marginal on top of this. There's not going to be a sudden "release" of demand to get to Brighton. That is already fulfilled by London from the area the line serves.

That's a bit silly though really. It's a bit like saying there's no point running my local Hallam line train through to Barnsley and Sheffield because it already runs to Leeds !

 

[tbtc]

The main point would to connect the Wealden towns to Brighton.

Ah, so you want exactly the same thing as last time we discussed this, you've just come up with a completely different argument to try to justify "re-open an old line"?

What next?

To be fair, I think the reason why the Horsham line isn't used much a diversionary route is that from 0800-1800 day Sunday the line is a Section 4 possession opportunity meaning that possessions get priority in most casess and there is no Sunday WTT service. The other issue is that not many southern drivers have Dorking to Horsham route knowledge. Some services do get diverted down there though. I think there may also be signalling, staffing issues.

If it's not worth TSGN maintaining route knowledge for London - Horsham - Brighton then I think it safe to assume that the operator wouldn't bother maintaining route knowledge for London - Uckfield - Brighton.

If it's not worth training staff on "via Horsham" route knowledge then I think that speaks volumes about whether "via Uckfield" trains would be running if the BML were closed a couple of weekends a year.

There are also "hidden" flows of traffic from places like Uckfield and Crowborough to Falmer for students and supporters of Brighton & Hove Albion FC

A few football matches a year can pretty much be discounted as a reason for opening a railway.

Your dismissal of Falmer as a village of 500 people is also invalid as it is the main transport link for Sussex University.

...but do those students all live on the Uckfield side of Falmer? Or do they majority live on the Brighton side of Falmer (which already has a frequent train service)?

Whilst I quoted the Waverley Route as one example there are others around the country where the passenger numbers are far more than that estimated

There are three that did much better than expected.

• Tweedbank (line re-opened for political reasons - the LibDems price for coalition at Holyrood - so no need to do much research on passenger numbers - it was going to be built regardless of forecasts)
• Alloa (line re-opened as the price of getting freight off the Forth Bridge - diverting freight through Alloa instead meant noise/disruption for the town so they got a passenger service back in return - passenger forecasts didn't matter)
• Ebbw Vale (line built based on forecast of passengers to Newport - by time it was opened the service was to the much bigger destination of Cardiff instead - this happened at around the same time that the steelworks closed down so a large number of Ebbw Vale people now needed to leave the town each morning for employment reasons)

Meanwhile, there have been a few stations/ lines built that have had fairly underwhelming passenger numbers that don't get discussed much - the Robin Hood line, Airdrie to Bathgate, Larkhall, the original Newcraighall branch, I think Aylesbury Vale Parkway struggled too

But anything that struggles to get the expected passenger numbers gets forgotten about so we can focus on the three lines that bucked the trend.

As enthusiasts we should be supporting any proposals to reopen closed lines.

I'd strongly disagree with that.

We should support the projects that look best - what the railway cannot afford is to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on more loss-making lines that will make it harder to find the money to invest in the projects that we should be focussing on.

Simply backing any and every attempt to open something that was closed in the 1960s is a recipe for disaster.

Heavy rail is great at a limited and specific number of things - generally commuter services into cities and inter-city services.

For other things (like Uckfield to Falmer, or Tavistock to Uckfield etc) a bus is more suitable.

Heavy rail is far too inflexible to be the answer to everything.

There's nothing marginal about the mid-Sussex commuter belt. How long are the trains on the surviving sections now. Nine carriages ?

...because they are running from Uckfield to the place with the biggest demand. That doesn't mean you'd fill nine carriages of passengers wanting to get from Uckfield to Falmer. You know this.

That's a bit silly though really. It's a bit like saying there's no point running my local Hallam line train through to Barnsley and Sheffield because it already runs to Leeds !

Your local "Hallam Line" stopper is fairly busy from Leeds to Castleford and then fairly quiet and then picks up again from Barnsley to Sheffield - the middle bit isn't as busy as each end. That's fine on a route that already exists but I don't think that you'd find much of a business case for a line specifically from Castleford to Barnsley if one didn't exist already.

 

[Ianno87]

That's a bit silly though really. It's a bit like saying there's no point running my local Hallam line train through to Barnsley and Sheffield because it already runs to Leeds !

There probably isn't.

There's a need to run a train serving points north of Barnsley to reach Leeds.

There's also a need to run a train serving points south of Barnsley to reach Sheffield.

But as the infrastructure is there, and as it's operationally easier, it might as well connect across Barnsley and bag the maginal benefits for people who want to travel across Barnsley.

 

[30907]

They would be fuller if they ran to some major population/tourist/leisure areas such as Brighton and the South Coast !

Indeed they would, but would the loads be significant? I'm afraid I only used the line off-season (Clock House to Brighton return was my first, may I have a bonus point?), so your experience may be different, but tourism/leisure/VFR from Oxted (etc) to Brighton (etc) doesn't strike me as a huge market.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

If it's not worth TSGN maintaining route knowledge for London - Horsham - Brighton then I think it safe to assume that the operator wouldn't bother maintaining route knowledge for London - Uckfield - Brighton.

I suspect that the reason why not many drivers have route knowledge is because there is only 1 tph between Dorking and Horsham at normal times and no WTT Sunday service due the section 4 and signal box staffing. Also the the Dorking to Horsham line isn't really even that useful as diversionary route as its very rare for the all 4 running lines between Balcombe Tunnel Junction and East Croydon to be blocked at the same time. And when it is used a diversionary route only Portsmouth/Southampton/Bognor services tend to use it. As for Brighton services its such a long detour and you also will run into a lot of congestion between Leatherhead and Streatham North Junction. So all in all, probably not financially viable for expansive driver knowledge. If a Sunday service was ever introduced between Dorking and Horsham, and the frequency increased to 2ph, plus when and if the croydon works take place, I suspect the amount of drivers who have route knowledge for the line will increase, meaning diverions will be more common.

Lewes - Hurst Green would have major issues with single line sections meaning not many trains would be able to use it anyway as a diversionary route.

 

[Dr Hoo]

There are three that did much better than expected.

• Tweedbank (line re-opened for political reasons - the LibDems price for coalition at Holyrood - so no need to do much research on passenger numbers - it was going to be built regardless of forecasts)
• Alloa (line re-opened as the price of getting freight off the Forth Bridge - diverting freight through Alloa instead meant noise/disruption for the town so they got a passenger service back in return - passenger forecasts didn't matter)

I had a little chuckle when I saw this, having recently come across some old papers from my BR ScotRail days.

We did a lot of work with Clackmannan District and Central Region Councils as they were at the time. Halcrow Fox used assignment and stated preference approaches and forecast 647,000-1,918,000 journeys per year in 1988 for the District Council. ScotRail were sceptical and paid MVA to do a further forecast based on a generalised cost model specifically calibrated for the locality with a postal survey of actual travel habits. This came back with a tighter range of 786,000-876,000 journeys.

In the office we were still very doubtful given the relatively poor location of the proposed station for many residents and were never able to make re-opening stack up even with diverting an existing Dunblane service and most of the infrastructure still intact. There was no freight component to the scheme back then.

After re-opening in 2008 usage immediately came in at around 400,000 but has never really got beyond that, even with electrification and brand new EMUs. Alloa still struggles economically [pre-Covid].

Not every re-opening is a roaring success. Uckfield-Lewes has far more challenges in terms of shifting roads out of the way, new alignment plus a 'turning circle' at Lewes for through running to/from Brighton in many proposals.

 

[yorksrob]

I had a little chuckle when I saw this, having recently come across some old papers from my BR ScotRail days.

We did a lot of work with Clackmannan District and Central Region Councils as they were at the time. Halcrow Fox used assignment and stated preference approaches and forecast 647,000-1,918,000 journeys per year in 1988 for the District Council. ScotRail were sceptical and paid MVA to do a further forecast based on a generalised cost model specifically calibrated for the locality with a postal survey of actual travel habits. This came back with a tighter range of 786,000-876,000 journeys.

In the office we were still very doubtful given the relatively poor location of the proposed station for many residents and were never able to make re-opening stack up even with diverting an existing Dunblane service and most of the infrastructure still intact. There was no freight component to the scheme back then.

After re-opening in 2008 usage immediately came in at around 400,000 but has never really got beyond that, even with electrification and brand new EMUs. Alloa still struggles economically [pre-Covid].

Not every re-opening is a roaring success. Uckfield-Lewes has far more challenges in terms of shifting roads out of the way, new alignment plus a 'turning circle' at Lewes for through running to/from Brighton in many proposals.

I remember seing Bob Reid II being interviewed about the proposed Alloa - Stirling reopening and him being very positive about the prospect. It was very encouraging to see reopenings so high up on the industries agenda at the time.

We need the industry to show similar positivity these days.

 

[Bald Rick]

I suspect that the reason why not many drivers have route knowledge is because there is only 1 tph between Dorking and Horsham at normal times and no WTT Sunday service due the section 4 and signal box staffing. Also the the Dorking to Horsham line isn't really even that useful as diversionary route as its very rare for the all 4 running lines between Balcombe Tunnel Junction and East Croydon to be blocked at the same time. And when it is used a diversionary route only Portsmouth/Southampton/Bognor services tend to use it. As for Brighton services its such a long detour and you also will run into a lot of congestion between Leatherhead and Streatham North Junction. So all in all, probably not financially viable for expansive driver knowledge. If a Sunday service was ever introduced between Dorking and Horsham, and the frequency increased to 2ph, plus when and if the croydon works take place, I suspect the amount of drivers who have route knowledge for the line will increase, meaning diverions will be more common.

Lewes - Hurst Green would have major issues with single line sections meaning not many trains would be able to use it anyway as a diversionary route.

AIUI, more drivers sign Dorking - Horsham than the Uckfield line.

However, this is not really relevant. The majority of all line closures of the Brighton main line, where diversions to Brighton are required, are between Three Bridges and Keymer Jn. North of Three Bridges it’s rare to have a all line closure (although it does happen). For a block between Three Bridges and Keymer Jn there is a limited Brighton service via the Arun Valley, with a reversal at Barnham. South of Keymer and services divert via Lewes and reverse.

If there was to be a case to build additional tracks to enable better diversions in the event of a main line block, then by far the best solution would be build them where the majority of diverted passengers want to go - Brighton, Hayward’s Heath and Gatwick. Ie follow the Brighton line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2021 ==

We need the industry to show similar positivity these days.

Did you not see the announcement last week?

 

[yorksrob]

Did you not see the announcement last week?

Indeed, all very positive. We need the positivity to continue through until the trains are running !

 

[Peregrine 4903]

AIUI, more drivers sign Dorking - Horsham than the Uckfield line.

However, this is not really relevant. The majority of all line closures of the Brighton main line, where diversions to Brighton are required, are between Three Bridges and Keymer Jn. North of Three Bridges it’s rare to have a all line closure (although it does happen). For a block between Three Bridges and Keymer Jn there is a limited Brighton service via the Arun Valley, with a reversal at Barnham. South of Keymer and services divert via Lewes and reverse.

If there was to be a case to build additional tracks to enable better diversions in the event of a main line block, then by far the best solution would be build them where the majority of diverted passengers want to go - Brighton, Hayward’s Heath and Gatwick. Ie follow the Brighton line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Jan 2021 ==



Did you not see the announcement last week?

Although recently they were reversing at Littlehampton instead of Barnham, but pretty much the same thing. Exactly, much that I want to suuport reopenings I don't really see how Lewes to Uckfield stacks up. The South East really needs schemes like Windmill Bridge and Reigate to happen instead. They will benefit a lot more people and are vital to increasing capacity.

Exactly that's what I'm trying to say.

It won't happen but 4 tracking Balcombe Tunnel Junction to ideally Keymer Junction would be by far the best option, and would surely have the best business case compared to any reopening. Plus the added capacity would be a real bonus. You could speed up some of the Brighton services and also have direct services from Redhill to locations south of Three Bridges again.

Sadly though Balcombe Tunnel and some of the other tunnels and viaducts means it probably will never happen.

 

[Taunton]

However, this is not really relevant. The majority of all line closures of the Brighton main line, where diversions to Brighton are required, are between Three Bridges and Keymer Jn. North of Three Bridges it’s rare to have a all line closure (although it does happen). For a block between Three Bridges and Keymer Jn there is a limited Brighton service via the Arun Valley, with a reversal at Barnham. South of Keymer and services divert via Lewes and reverse.

My own experience, for years, is that if south of Three Bridges is closed, either planned or suddenly, diversions are via Horsham and all the way into Littlehampton platforms, where changing ends always seems to take for ever. Then back along the coast, but because of the limited length and number of the west-facing platforms at Brighton, if it's a full 12-car then round from Hove to Preston Park, stop and reverse again, into the main platforms.

An amusing moment I encountered during such a diversion described here :

Brighton line Blockade

Plus the good weather doesn't seem to be going away, so people can go to the beach next Sunday instead. As for the suggestions that a TOC might recommend another destination instead, I rather think that would be suicidal from a PR point of view. Imagine the angry comments from local residents...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Dr Hoo]

I remember seing Bob Reid II being interviewed about the proposed Alloa - Stirling reopening and him being very positive about the prospect. It was very encouraging to see reopenings so high up on the industries agenda at the time.

We need the industry to show similar positivity these days.

Undoubtedly some very happy and optimistic times in Scotland back in the day. (I accompanied Bob Reid II on many of his visits as a local business manager.)

We ran 'demonstration' specials for local councillors, etc. on many lines - Cambus (for Alloa), Grangemouth, Culross (from Dunfermline), Methil, Edinburgh Suburban Line, Aberdeen Crossrail (Stonehaven-Inverurie possible enhancement) as well as local stuff around Glasgow/Strathclyde such as Rutherglen-Coatbridge. It was always an aim to try and lever in outside investment from Regional and District Councils as they were, the 'Scottish Office' and developers because there was no way that BR had any spare capital.

But we were always realistic that 're-openings' wouldn't actually make money. We had had our fingers burnt on Bathgate where, despite buoyant passenger numbers from the word go we had got stuck in a spiral of increasing costs of evening trains, Sunday services, lengthening to 4 cars in the peak and extra revenue protection staff. Even when things 'look good' some of the time there are always the slack times, poor weather, disruption and engineering works to throw into the mix.

I did a thesis on the business case for re-openings and new stations as a mature student and it made scary reading for 'the railway'. (I am happy to leave the subject of wider social or environmental, etc. benefits to others.)

 

[yorksrob]

Undoubtedly some very happy and optimistic times in Scotland back in the day. (I accompanied Bob Reid II on many of his visits as a local business manager.)

We ran 'demonstration' specials for local councillors, etc. on many lines - Cambus (for Alloa), Grangemouth, Culross (from Dunfermline), Methil, Edinburgh Suburban Line, Aberdeen Crossrail (Stonehaven-Inverurie possible enhancement) as well as local stuff around Glasgow/Strathclyde such as Rutherglen-Coatbridge. It was always an aim to try and lever in outside investment from Regional and District Councils as they were, the 'Scottish Office' and developers because there was no way that BR had any spare capital.

But we were always realistic that 're-openings' wouldn't actually make money. We had had our fingers burnt on Bathgate where, despite buoyant passenger numbers from the word go we had got stuck in a spiral of increasing costs of evening trains, Sunday services, lengthening to 4 cars in the peak and extra revenue protection staff. Even when things 'look good' some of the time there are always the slack times, poor weather, disruption and engineering works to throw into the mix.

I did a thesis on the business case for re-openings and new stations as a mature student and it made scary reading for 'the railway'. (I am happy to leave the subject of wider social or environmental, etc. benefits to others.)

Perhaps our mistake as a society is to expect reopenings to be profitable in a financial sense when most of the existing railway might not be profitable, but provides those other benefits.

 

[tbtc]

I had a little chuckle when I saw this, having recently come across some old papers from my BR ScotRail days.

We did a lot of work with Clackmannan District and Central Region Councils as they were at the time. Halcrow Fox used assignment and stated preference approaches and forecast 647,000-1,918,000 journeys per year in 1988 for the District Council. ScotRail were sceptical and paid MVA to do a further forecast based on a generalised cost model specifically calibrated for the locality with a postal survey of actual travel habits. This came back with a tighter range of 786,000-876,000 journeys.

In the office we were still very doubtful given the relatively poor location of the proposed station for many residents and were never able to make re-opening stack up even with diverting an existing Dunblane service and most of the infrastructure still intact. There was no freight component to the scheme back then.

After re-opening in 2008 usage immediately came in at around 400,000 but has never really got beyond that, even with electrification and brand new EMUs. Alloa still struggles economically [pre-Covid].

Not every re-opening is a roaring success. Uckfield-Lewes has far more challenges in terms of shifting roads out of the way, new alignment plus a 'turning circle' at Lewes for through running to/from Brighton in many proposals.

That's very interesting - the station has never got near 768,000 journeys - so is this a case of people getting very excited about passenger numbers getting to 300,000 faster than expected but then never actually growing to 400,000?

Would I be right in saying that there's something similar with the Tweedbank line (getting a much faster transfer from other modes to rail than expected in the first couple of years, but people not continuing to convert at a similar rate, and passenger numbers stagnating? (if so, is there a pattern of re-opened lines doing well in the first couple of years, enthusiasts getting excited about the apparent success, but then passenger numbers not getting much higher than those initial years - i.e. some people convert ahead of schedule which makes things look better in those early years but there's not the staying power that we predicted?)

I remember seing Bob Reid II being interviewed about the proposed Alloa - Stirling reopening and him being very positive about the prospect. It was very encouraging to see reopenings so high up on the industries agenda at the time

As Mandy Rice Davies may say, "we he would, wouldn't he?".

Of course a BR Chairman is going to say something positive (even if he knows that the numbers aren't looking good)

We need the industry to show similar positivity these days.

Be as positive as you want but other people are going to look at costs, passenger numbers, statistics, facts - quantifiable things

Perhaps our mistake as a society is to expect reopenings to be profitable in a financial sense when most of the existing railway might not be profitable, but provides those other benefits.

Ah, the magical unquantifiable "other benefits"... when a station/line does better than predicted passenger numbers then it's great and to be boasted about, but when a station/line fails to meet those passenger numbers out comes some kind of unquantifiable stuff - maybe with words like "holistic" - to hide the flop.

Either a line is a success because passenger numbers are higher than expected or it's a success because you have to count all of these uncountable other benefits that magically add up to justify the line in the eyes of the True Believers.

I can accept that some new stations/lines have done well, but other people can't accept that there have been a number of failures (e.g. the Robin Hood line will be excused away as "providing a vital service to the people who use it" even if those people are a fraction of the number who were expected to use the line)

 

[yorksrob]

As Mandy Rice Davies may say, "we he would, wouldn't he?".

Of course a BR Chairman is going to say something positive (even if he knows that the numbers aren't looking good)

The rubbish ones like Dr Beeching didn't.

Frankly Bob Reid II ran a pretty decent nationalised company - just a shame he got the mucky end of the stick when he had to get it ready for the big carve up.

 

[charley_17/7]

If Uckfield - Lewes is so commercially unviable, why did Go-Ahead snap up part of the former Stagecoach Southdown operation (729) and transform it into a (pre-COVID) profit-maker?

Which also begs the question, seeing as both Go-Ahead run the buses and the trains, why couldn't it be an excellent example of an integrated bus-rail link, with through timetables, ticketing, etc?

Personally I think a Three Bridges - East Grinstead - Tunbridge Wells route would be more of a goer....but then the buses make quite a good amount of money on that axis as well....

 

[Aictos]

In the peak, 6/8/10. Off peak, 2/4. Rarely full (or anything close to it) south of Hurst Green.

Just to correct you there but the current TT on a weekday has the 06:07 as a 8 car which it stays as all day, 07:07 as a 6 car which again stays as all day and the 08:07 tho is a 8 car but upon its return to London Bridge is split with one portion going to depot with the other portion forming the 11:07.

There's only 3 formations all day and none are formed of 2 or 10 coaches, maybe pre Covid19 but not at the moment. Just to point this out.

 

[Bald Rick]

If Uckfield - Lewes is so commercially unviable, why did Go-Ahead snap up part of the former Stagecoach Southdown operation (729) and transform it into a (pre-COVID) profit-maker?

Trains cost an awful lot more to operate than buses. Typically 5-10 times as much on a seat km basis, and that’s before you add the cost of building the railway it runs on, or replacing most of it every 3-4 decades.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The impression I get is that *most* people seem to take the view that as long as they are compensated accordingly then moving home for a rail reopening isn’t a terminal issue. What people find worse is years of planning blight on a “will it or won’t it?” notional scheme, where they receive no compensation at all yet find their property unsaleable or have to drop below market value to sell.

One thing that always seems to be overlooked is the general ambience of the area where people are expected to move from in comparison to their new location. There are many areas where living in a rural idyll cannot be compensated for. The Bristol and North Somerset Railway line passes through some rather nice areas that are much sought after and "The Titfield Thunderbolt" was filmed in that line area.

On the other side of the coin, does the raison d'etre of rail being sacrosant extend to the areas where railways were built on the lines of canals and efforts could be made to reopen such past canals to the detriment of a rail route?

 

[yorksrob]

Trains cost an awful lot more to operate than buses. Typically 5-10 times as much on a seat km basis, and that’s before you add the cost of building the railway it runs on, or replacing most of it every 3-4 decades.

Roads also need to be replaced regularly.

 

[Bald Rick]

Roads also need to be replaced regularly.

Indeed so. Although usually that’s cheaper than renewing railways too. And crucially, in this case, the road is already there.

But even if roads and railways didn’t need replacing, trains are still 5-10 times more expensive than a bus (or coach) per passenger seat km on this sort of route.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed so. Although usually that’s cheaper than renewing railways too. And crucially, in this case, the road is already there.

But even if roads and railways didn’t need replacing, trains are still 5-10 times more expensive than a bus (or coach) per passenger seat km on this sort of route.

I'm sure a bus would be cheaper to run from London to Leeds. I still won't take it though.

 

[A0]

I'm sure a bus would be cheaper to run from London to Leeds. I still won't take it though.

Invalid comparison, we're talking about a journey of less than 10 miles so throwing in a 200 mile journey is an utter irrelevance.

Buses carry *far* more people on short distances than the rail network ever will.

Lewes - Uckfield can be operated viably as a bus, it can't be by train.

And you still haven't answered my earlier point about what you'd see cut or not happen if we reopened one of your pet projects that then needed a subsidy forevermore - that money has to come from somewhere - so what loses out?

 

[yorksrob]

Invalid comparison, we're talking about a journey of less than 10 miles so throwing in a 200 mile journey is an utter irrelevance.

Buses carry *far* more people on short distances than the rail network ever will.

Lewes - Uckfield can be operated viably as a bus, it can't be by train.

And you still haven't answered my earlier point about what you'd see cut or not happen if we reopened one of your pet projects that then needed a subsidy forevermore - that money has to come from somewhere - so what loses out?

What nonsense to say that the line couldn't be operated viably by train. It would be an extension of the existing service, which would be rather better used at its southern end than it is now.

 

[Ianno87]

What nonsense to say that the line couldn't be operated viably by train. It would be an extension of the existing service, which would be rather better used at its southern end than it is now.

I refer back to the business case. If the line was still there, it possibly would be viable. Most BR "reopenings" were plonking a station or railway where the infrastructure was still largely in place.

But the line at Uckfiels is not there, and the cost of restoring the railway is not viable against the benefits that would accrue as a result.

 

[yorksrob]

I refer back to the business case. If the line was still there, it possibly would be viable. Most BR "reopenings" were plonking a station or railway where the infrastructure was still largely in place.

But the line at Uckfiels is not there, and the cost of restoring the railway is not viable against the benefits that would accrue as a result.

It was the 2008 study which suggested the route could cover its operating costs.

 

[daodao]

It was the 2008 study which suggested the route could cover its operating costs.

No, it didn't.

For a detailed rebuttal, please see Why Lewes-Uckfield has no business case - Wealden Line Campaign which states that "Study proved a Benefit to Cost Ratio ranging between 0.70 and 0.78".

I am frankly surprised that the current service from Oxted to Uckfield has survived, given that Uckfield is a relatively small town, it runs for many miles through a rural area and there are few intermediate places of importance, other than Edenbridge, which has an alternative rail service.