New lines and improvements for Sussex railways

[DynamicSpirit]

It is going to be costly either way, I can appreciate that.
Isn't there already a decent service to Brighton (up to 4tph) on the East Coastway that can be interchanged with at Lewes?

It's not a bad service, although does have 20-minute gaps. But it's an extremely well used commuter route. Checking Wikipedia and doing a couple of sums says that the three intermediate stations (London Road, Moulsecombe and Falmer) between them serve on average over 5000 entries/exits a day. I would argue the line from Brighton to Lewes could and should sustain a turn-up-and-go service, so could support a couple more tph. And ultimately, Brighton is going to be the biggest destination for people coming from Uckfield/etc. and it seems more sensible to provide direct services to the main destination while passengers for the secondary destinations need to change trains, rather than the other way round

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jun 2025 ==

More trains from London via Gatwick to at least Haywards Heath and potentially Lewes.

You seem to be advocating removing 2tph of existing trains that run from London via Gatwick to at least Haywards Heath and Lewes (ie. the current London - Eastbourne/Hastings trains) in order to provide more trains on the exact same corridor. I'm confused!

 

[zwk500]

It's not a bad service, although does have 20-minute gaps. But it's an extremely well used commuter route. Checking Wikipedia and doing a couple of sums says that the three intermediate stations (London Road, Moulsecombe and Falmer) between them serve on average over 5000 entries/exits a day. I would argue the line from Brighton to Lewes could and should sustain a turn-up-and-go service, so could support a couple more tph. And ultimately, Brighton is going to be the biggest destination for people coming from Uckfield/etc. and it seems more sensible to provide direct services to the main destination while passengers for the secondary destinations need to change trains, rather than the other way round

Pre-Covid I'm fairly sure there were 5tph between Lewes and Brighton - 2tph slow from Seaford, 1tph extra between Brighton and Lewes and 2tph fast Brighton-Eastbourne. Brighton-Falmer should certainly have a metro-type service and Lewes is a sensible place to turn that back, although the signalling headways down that line may limit how many slow trains can run.

 

[Zomboid]

People are far too interested in trying to rebuild yesteryear's network, and don't look at what the changes since the 60s have meant for both demand and how the network operates

I agree completely with this, but if the Lewes to Brighton line ends up being turn up and go frequency with a combination of Seaford, Eastbourne and possibly Lewes origin trains, then would that not give Uckfield passengers adequate access to Brighton? Putting a line in that approaches Lewes from the north would seem a notably simpler proposition than going round to approach from the east.

 

[zwk500]

I agree completely with this, but if the Lewes to Brighton line ends up being turn up and go frequency with a combination of Seaford, Eastbourne and possibly Lewes origin trains, then would that not give Uckfield passengers adequate access to Brighton? Putting a line in that approaches Lewes from the north would seem a notably simpler proposition than going round to approach from the east.

Why is this:

Significantly easier than this:


There is no heritage railway to disrupt, no level crossing faffing about at Hamsey, and you have a far more flexible network in return. Freight can't route via Oxted easily anyway because of the viaduct, all other traffic can reverse in any platform long enough at Lewes to enable Uckfield-Eastbourne or Seaford if so required for any reason. And if you *really* wanted, you could add a loop outside Lewes for freight to drop in and runround if needed.

Only problem is you'll have to do it quick so that housing development doesn't fill the gap.

 

[AlastairFraser]

If you join north of Lewes you need a reversal beyond the station to access Brighton. Simplicity is key for todays network. Joining east of Glynde allows for the maximum flexibility with minimal additional infrastructure. No need for reversing turnbacks or extra chords, just 1 junction and then trains have a choice of platforms at Lewes to reverse in if needed, or can head straight on to Brighton.

People are far too interested in trying to rebuild yesteryear's network, and don't look at what the changes since the 60s have meant for both demand and how the network operates.

I'm not convinced that you desperately need a direct link to Brighton, but fair enough.

East Coastway currently only has 2tph + freight from the BML, and they would almost certainly need to remain.

I thought that there was 2tph Brighton to Seaford, 1tph Brighton to Eastbourne, and 1tph Brighton to Ore (and vice versa).
So surely 4tph at Lewes would provide a decent connection?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jun 2025 ==

It's not a bad service, although does have 20-minute gaps. But it's an extremely well used commuter route. Checking Wikipedia and doing a couple of sums says that the three intermediate stations (London Road, Moulsecombe and Falmer) between them serve on average over 5000 entries/exits a day. I would argue the line from Brighton to Lewes could and should sustain a turn-up-and-go service, so could support a couple more tph. And ultimately, Brighton is going to be the biggest destination for people coming from Uckfield/etc. and it seems more sensible to provide direct services to the main destination while passengers for the secondary destinations need to change trains, rather than the other way round

Fair point, they are really busy. Brighton could do with a few tram lines as well, but that's a discussion for another thread!

You seem to be advocating removing 2tph of existing trains that run from London via Gatwick to at least Haywards Heath and Lewes (ie. the current London - Eastbourne/Hastings trains) in order to provide more trains on the exact same corridor. I'm confused!

To clarify
- extending the existing Uckfield services to Eastbourne/Ore, to replace Victoria to Eastbourne/Ore via Gatwick.
Then doing something with the paths of those former services between Lewes and London via Gatwick.
Could be an additional service the whole way Lewes to Victoria, could be a service to somewhere else like Guildford to create new links etc..

 

[NCT]

Three things I've noticed.

1) it's only 4tph in the peaks, so arguably the point about a lot of trains is less of an issue, as East Grinstead has an hourly service off peak - this means that sharing a heritage line could be possible just with breaks in service for those times. If we're talking peak hour capacity, then the loss of Gatwick services are potentially less of an issue.

2) 2tph from East Grinstead are Thameslink services, as such you could deliver from Eastbourne 1tph (existing) and 2tph (Thameslink) and still find a lot of people use the new services because it better connects to other areas in London

3) the journey time between East Croydon and East Grinstead can be 13 minutes shorter by missing out most stations, if you timetable the stopping service far enough ahead of the faster services you could gain a bit of that 30 minutes back

For example 5tph:
xx:00 fast service (Thameslink)
xx:05 fast service (Victoria)
xx:20 stopping service (Victoria)
xx:30 fast service (Thameslink)
xx:40 stopping service (Victoria)

The fast services could extend to Eastbourne, giving it 5tph by retaining 1tph via the existing route.

Yes the second train per hour to Victoria would be longer but at (say) 20 minutes longer it would still get you to London sooner than waiting on the next service so people would still use it. Whilst that would put more pressure on the retained service, some of that would be reduced by being able to get a Thameslink train which would reduce the journey time to get to (say) Blackfriars (or at least make it much more attractive as it's then a direct service - as you could just sit in a seat when you get in and then get off in London rather than squeezing onto a train in Croydon to stand into Blackfriars).

Those 4 trains north of East Grinsted would be well loaded, but empty between East Grinstead and Haywards Heath and half empty towards Lewes.

There aren't enough Class 700s to send to Eastbourne.

Timetabling-wise, anything other than a perfect 30-minute cycle is a recipe for disaster.

Today, Eastbourne and Lewes have a clockface 30-minute service to Victoria and it's a 3-minute cross-platform interchange onto a Thameslink service at Haywards Heath. Nothing proposed by anyone demonstrates an improvement on this timetable, and nobody has demonstrated tangible benefits to other network users to make Eastbourne and Lewes users' sacrifices worthwhile.

A two-track railway south of Balcombe Junction handling a mix of stopping patterns is a challenge but hardly insurmountable. Capacity crunch is Haywards Heath northwards, but that can addressed by being able run Three Bridges starters, Gatwick starters (GatEx back up to 4tph with sensible fares), 4tph from East Grinsted for more hours, and separating the Cats and Tats. Those trains don't all have to start from Brighton. The infrastructure constraint is Croydon Area - once extra paths are released by a fundable version of CARS those paths don't need to take the scenenic route via East Grinsted all the way to Eastbourne.

The best case of a 15-minute journey time penalty (fast north of East Grinsted if you could get the timetable to work) would require Bluebell to be upgraded to 75mph - that means complete rebuild (ballast level) and resignalling. Network Rail would have to regain stewardship of the line and Bluebell would have to to pay access charges and have modern train protection equipment installed on their trains. It's a complete non-starter.

 

[JonathanH]

4tph from East Grinsted for more hours, and separating the Cats and Tats

Why are separate trains for Caterham and Tattenham Corner needed, except on one Saturday in June?

The removal of the various mainly empty stopping services on the slow lines south of East Croydon has improved Redhill reliability.

 

[zwk500]

I'm not convinced that you desperately need a direct link to Brighton, but fair enough.

Brighton is far and away the biggest draw after London for the Wealden Towns. The Univeristies of Brighton and Sussex (at both Moulscomb and Falmer) are busy with traffic to/from London as well as the Premier League games at Falmer. London Road (Brighton) is a busy urban area but would be a journey generator rather than a particular destination in it's own right.

You don't *desperately* need the link, but if you're building Uckfield-Lewes it makes /vastly/ more sense to orientate it for direct Brighton services than to force an awkward shunt at Lewes. Orientating it this way also makes reversals for Eastbourne/Seaford Services much more smooth as they're in the platform at Lewes.

I thought that there was 2tph Brighton to Seaford, 1tph Brighton to Eastbourne, and 1tph Brighton to Ore (and vice versa).
So surely 4tph at Lewes would provide a decent connection?

I was talking about paths via Plumpton.

Fair point, they are really busy. Brighton could do with a few tram lines as well, but that's a discussion for another thread!

Indeed.

To clarify
- extending the existing Uckfield services to Eastbourne/Ore, to replace Victoria to Eastbourne/Ore via Gatwick.
Then doing something with the paths of those former services between Lewes and London via Gatwick.
Could be an additional service the whole way Lewes to Victoria, could be a service to somewhere else like Guildford to create new links etc..

Eastborne/Ore should be prioritised via Gatwick for journey length reasons. Paths between Haywards Heath and Gatwick should be prioritised on the main draw (London) given the demand profile.

 

[NCT]

Why are separate trains for Caterham and Tattenham Corner needed, except on one Saturday in June?

The removal of the various mainly empty stopping services on the slow lines south of East Croydon has improved Redhill reliability.

When trains from the quarry lines and Red Hill arrive at ECR relatively full, having 6tph (4tph Thameslink, 2tph Vics probably don't need separating) with a bit of room on them would be very welcome. This would complete the 12tph East Croydon Thameslink service (at 5-minute intervals) and finally deliver 24tph through the core.

This would be after CARS so the increased tph could be accommodated reliably.

 

[JonathanH]

This would be after CARS so the increased tph could be accommodated reliably.

CARS does nothing to sort out the infrastructure south of Croydon, which on the slow lines as far as Purley isn't particularly great so putting more trains over the slow lines at South Croydon doesn't seem to be a good idea. In any case, is running more Thameslink services better than improving South London's connectivity to East Croydon?

I think it will be another generation before the CARS plans are dusted down, and even then many years of disruption for it to be enacted.

 

[NCT]

CARS does nothing to sort out the infrastructure south of Croydon, which on the slow lines as far as Purley isn't particularly great so putting more trains over the slow lines at South Croydon doesn't seem to be a good idea. In any case, is running more Thameslink services better than improving South London's connectivity to East Croydon?

Having 4 SL platforms at East Croydon should allow at least 2tph from each of the Selhurst and Norwood Junction slows to terminate from the north.

The SLs between ECR and Selsdon Junction in this would would handle 12tph in the peaks (6 towards Oxted, 6 towards Purley), with the Redhills staying on the fasts until Stoats Nest.

I think it will be another generation before the CARS plans are dusted down, and even then many years of disruption for it to be enacted.

Then any East Grinstead or Uckfield would be two generations away!

 

[AlastairFraser]

Brighton is far and away the biggest draw after London for the Wealden Towns. The Univeristies of Brighton and Sussex (at both Moulscomb and Falmer) are busy with traffic to/from London as well as the Premier League games at Falmer. London Road (Brighton) is a busy urban area but would be a journey generator rather than a particular destination in it's own right.

You don't *desperately* need the link, but if you're building Uckfield-Lewes it makes /vastly/ more sense to orientate it for direct Brighton services than to force an awkward shunt at Lewes. Orientating it this way also makes reversals for Eastbourne/Seaford Services much more smooth as they're in the platform at Lewes.

Fair point.

I was talking about paths via Plumpton.

Eastborne/Ore should be prioritised via Gatwick for journey length reasons. Paths between Haywards Heath and Gatwick should be prioritised on the main draw (London) given the demand profile.

I'm not sure the journey time would be much slower at all via Uckfield.
Whichever route you choose Uckfield to Lewes, it shouldn't take more than 10 mins, and there are significant improvements to be made to journey times north of Uckfield with a EMU, compared to 171 acceleration.

 

[zwk500]

Fair point.


I'm not sure the journey time would be much slower at all via Uckfield.
Whichever route you choose Uckfield to Lewes, it shouldn't take more than 10 mins, and there are significant improvements to be made to journey times north of Uckfield with a EMU, compared to 171 acceleration.

'much' in this context is relevant, as was dicussed upthread about EG-HH. London to Eastbourne is already around an hour and a half. Adding 10 minutes to that does have quite a significant negative impact. Now 10 minutes extra runtime is better than no train at all, but in my plan Eastbourne continues to receive the fast, long services it already has, 1tph Uckfield is extended to Brighton, and there is the option for a 2nd London path to either serve Brighton or Seaford (splitting is possible but not preferable).

 

[AlastairFraser]

'much' in this context is relevant, as was dicussed upthread about EG-HH. London to Eastbourne is already around an hour and a half. Adding 10 minutes to that does have quite a significant negative impact. Now 10 minutes extra runtime is better than no train at all, but in my plan Eastbourne continues to receive the fast, long services it already has, 1tph Uckfield is extended to Brighton, and there is the option for a 2nd London path to either serve Brighton or Seaford (splitting is possible but not preferable).

Fair enough.
Brighton is probably a better destination than Seaford if you were choosing between the 2

 

[zwk500]

Fair enough.
Brighton is probably a better destination than Seaford if you were choosing between the 2

'Probably' is massively underselling it. Seaford and Newhaven would benefit from direct London trains but very much as a journey generator, not a destination. Rail travel to the Ferry is minimal, going by the total number of foot and bike passengers when I've used the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry.

 

[AlastairFraser]

'Probably' is massively underselling it. Seaford and Newhaven would benefit from direct London trains but very much as a journey generator, not a destination. Rail travel to the Ferry is minimal, going by the total number of foot and bike passengers when I've used the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry.

I used it a couple of weeks ago and there were significant numbers of passengers transferring to/from rail in both directions, but not in comparison with London numbers I agree.

 

[Zomboid]

It doesn't matter that much either way if the ferry only goes once or twice a day.

 

[PGAT]

Would it not be possible to run both Brighton and London trains as far as Newhaven Harbour and then one of the services can turnaround at Newhaven Marine?

 

[zwk500]

Would it not be possible to run both Brighton and London trains as far as Newhaven Harbour and then one of the services can turnaround at Newhaven Marine?

Fundamentally yes, although I suspect the single line to Seaford could probably take the extra path anyway.

It doesn't matter that much either way if the ferry only goes once or twice a day.

two sailings a day in winter and three in summer but yes.

 

[JabbaWocky]

My proposal for Lewes-Uckfield is to run via Ringmer and join the East Coastway line immediately east of Glynde, circling the National Park, serving a town of 5,000 that's earmarked for rapid housing growth and offering far more flexible routing without needing vast amounts of signifiant civils and several new junctions. It'd be no more expensive than putting the old route back via Hamsey, as you've got to buy all the land anyway and then rebuild the formation from scratch.

Good to see the Ringmer option creeping more and more into these threads. It sounds like a sensible idea for a 21st century Lewes-Uckfield route to follow and to serve a potentially "growing" area that isn't currently served by rail. Like Cambourne will be for the Bedford-Cambridge section of EWR.

Save the old trackbed for proposed Greenway and possible Lavender Line extension southwards. Shared corridor for Greenway and two track railway between Little Horsted and Uckfield town centre, although Greenway might have to divert through Bellbrook Business Park Uckfield side of A22 (flyover?!!!)

Uckfield to Lewes could possibly still be done in 10 or so minutes, maybe a bit longer for a stop at Ringmer Garden City .

Certainly would be a useful addition having a Tonbridge Uckfield Brighton rail corridor again and Lord knows the Uckfield needs 3rd rail infill.

Oh and east of Glynde you could also have a north to east chord for direct running to Eastbourne.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Good to see the Ringmer option creeping more and more into these threads. It sounds like a sensible idea for a 21st century Lewes-Uckfield route to follow and to serve a potentially "growing" area that isn't currently served by rail.

I agree. But it does need people outside of railforums - local campaign groups, MPs, etc., to become aware of the Ringmer option. I get the impression it's an idea that emerged on railforums, and is confined to the discussions here, possibly without anyone else being aware of it - which is a bit useless from the point of view of making any actual progress on getting it built.

 

[BerkshireRails]

The North Downs (if in scope for this thread) is more of an issue, but a shortish infill (eg Wokingham - Ash) to charge batteries for the remainder of the route could probably be justified as ALARP.

North Downs Line is mostly part of Wessex with traction coming from Western. It only really touches Sussex at Gatwick.

 

[zwk500]

North Downs Line is mostly part of Wessex with traction coming from Western. It only really touches Sussex at Gatwick.

Incorrect, it interacts with London Victoria-Reigate services between Reigate and Redhill and lots of Brighton Mainline Services at Redhill as well as Gatwick.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Incorrect, it interacts with London Victoria-Reigate services between Reigate and Redhill and lots of Brighton Mainline Services at Redhill as well as Gatwick.

Redhill and Reigate are both in the country of Surrey.

 

[zwk500]

Redhill and Reigate are both in the country of Surrey.

But part of the Sussex route for NR (the 3 routes of the Southern Region are Kent, Sussex and Wessex).

 

[75A]

Lots of really interesting theories, but in the end none of them will happen in our lifetime, why?
1) Cost, who's going to pay for it?
2) Nimbys, any new or enlarged route will meet mega serious opposition.
Please keep the thoughts flowly.

 

[zwk500]

Lots of really interesting theories, but in the end none of them will happen in our lifetime, why?

I wouldn't be so absolutely sure about that

1) Cost, who's going to pay for it?

Housing - some directly through developer contributions (rail access makes their properties more valuable) but mostly through the economic dimension of rail funding.

2) Nimbys, any new or enlarged route will meet mega serious opposition.

NIMBYs are a big problem, but NIMBYs are very keen for things to be built in their neighbour's backyard so pick the right route and the opposition can be countered with support.

 

[75A]

Only time will tell.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Combining the East Grinstead services with the Eastbournes would enable you to combine their frequencies. Say 2tph to Eastbourne + 4tph to East Grinstead becomes 6tph to Eastbourne via East Grinstead. Eastbourne's frequencies go up, meaning the average journey time to London for someone arriving to Eastbourne at an arbitrary time will go down dramatically due to the increased frequency.


Improved connectivity, combining services to make better use of paths in London, increasing frequency to Eastbourne, and potentially freeing up paths for more services to Brighton.


I think you may be somewhat over-egging the pudding a tad here, good sir.


I was thinking more they are suitably compensated and the line is bought off them and returned to the national network.


Four tracking Keymer Junction to Copyhold Junction frees up all the same paths as the lines become potentially operationally segregated.


Adjust the timetables and flight them, then. I'm sure a solution could be found. There's a lot of double track railways out there that manage to mix fast and stopping services.

Have a gander at the old 2015 Sussex Area Route Study. Obviously it's somewhat outdated now, but the analysis and proposals show the various interventions that are likely to be needed in the future, and what they may look like. NR believe an additional 6tph will be needed, and to achieve that they wanted to build the southern part of what I'm proposing (it's what initially got me musing, actually):
View attachment 181180

...but it's all just part of a a package of interventions, so things like the Windmill Bridge remodelling and extra platforms at East Croydon would also all be needed.


I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying do both, as they solve different problems. NR had some interesting things to say on the concept in the 2015 study I referenced above. Well worth a read.


They wouldn't be direct services to London from east Brighton unless you propose somehow smashing though a chunk of Cliffe High Street to restore the later direct high-level line, bypassing Lewes entirely to the north, or building the rather elegant southern loop someone concocted the proposal for many years ago. None of which would be cheap.

If your four tracking from Copyhold Junction to Keymer Junction, wouldn't it make sense to head a little further to Burgess Hill and maybe Hassocks so you have a longer section to pass stoppers and non stoppers?

You could restore the Hamsey Loop which would join the existing route around Offham, instead of trying to reopen the high level line as Hamsey Loop and route to Uckfield is more or less free from development preventing a new line.

 

[zwk500]

If your four tracking from Copyhold Junction to Keymer Junction, wouldn't it make sense to head a little further to Burgess Hill and maybe Hassocks so you have a longer section to pass stoppers and non stoppers?

Preston Park to Hassocks is probably more beneficial than 4-tracking Burgess Hill, given it's proximity to Haywards heath/Keymer Jn.

You could restore the Hamsey Loop which would join the existing route around Offham, instead of trying to reopen the high level line as Hamsey Loop and route to Uckfield is more or less free from development preventing a new line.

The Hamsey Loop faces the wrong way for the traffic demand (Brighton is a strong draw, and direct London service on the Brighton-Lewes line would serve a significant area of suburban Brighton).