New lines and improvements for Sussex railways

[BerkshireRails]

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

That is the point is that since it is so close by extending the four tracking to Burgess Hill and Hassocks it provides the chance to get Gatwick Express head of a Thameslink without holding the Thameslink for two long. Preston Park to Hassocks would be a lot more expensive as you would have to deal with Clayton and Patchway tunnels. For comparison Haywards Heath tunnel is only 249 Yards, Patchway tunnel is 492 Yards and and Clayton Tunnel is 1 mile 499 Yards. The Loop at Preston Park can be extend by around 1 1/2 miles with ease and can be quad tracked, however it probably has more use in splitting arrivals and departures, like platforms 3-6 Mains and 7-9 Reliefs. 9 Would be a new platform at Brighton.

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).

You could extend Gatwick Express services to Lewes via a Reversal at Brighton so therefore you have a service from Falmer, Moulsecombe and London Road (Brighton) to London however this would only really make most sense during the sporting event at Falmer on a regular bassist. However the original suggester said about running them to Eastbourne from London which is what the Hamsey Loop would be good for. If you want to run to Brighton via Falmer from London your looking at a new route off Southerham Junction if not off Glynde.

 

[zwk500]

That is the point is that since it is so close by extending the four tracking to Burgess Hill and Hassocks it provides the chance to get Gatwick Express head of a Thameslink without holding the Thameslink for two long.

But if you've got continuous 4-track from Victoria to Keymer you'd do the overtake further north.

Preston Park to Hassocks would be a lot more expensive as you would have to deal with Clayton and Patchway tunnels. For comparison Haywards Heath tunnel is only 249 Yards, Patchway tunnel is 492 Yards and and Clayton Tunnel is 1 mile 499 Yards. The Loop at Preston Park can be extend by around 1 1/2 miles with ease and can be quad tracked, however it probably has more use in splitting arrivals and departures, like platforms 3-6 Mains and 7-9 Reliefs.

Or 4-track from the north portal of Clayton tunnel to some point north of Hassocks, if the tunnels are the problem. Although worth remembering HH tunnel is short but completely built upon, whereas Clayton and Patchham tunnel are under a South Down and could (in theory) simply have a second bore built alongside without too much fuss.

9 Would be a new platform at Brighton.

Agree this would be nice.

You could extend Gatwick Express services to Lewes via a Reversal at Brighton so therefore you have a service from Falmer, Moulsecombe and London Road (Brighton) to London however this would only really make most sense during the sporting event at Falmer on a regular bassist.

This doesn't make sense at all if the objective is to relieve the main line.

However the original suggester said about running them to Eastbourne from London which is what the Hamsey Loop would be good for. If you want to run to Brighton via Falmer from London your looking at a new route off Southerham Junction if not off Glynde.

In my plan, Eastbourne via London would continue to use the existing route. A new route would leave at Glynde to avoid Mt Caburn and then run via Ringmer to join up with the original route near Isfield (probably north, to leave the Lavender line be). Ordinarily you'd stick with the existing off-peak pattern with London Bridge-Uckfield extended to Brighton, and ideally doubled to 2pth. In the peaks, London Bridge to Eastbourne or Seaford as portions detaching and reversing at Lewes would be available. Should an incident or engineering close the mainline, Brighton trains could divert via Uckfield directly or use the shunt back to run via Keymer, and Eastbourne services could reverse in Lewes Platforms 1/2 (if the crossovers were provided).
All of this for <10miles of new alignment, 1 new junction, a bit of tweaking at Lewes, without touching the National Park. But because it doesn't have 'dismantled rly' written above it on an OS Map, it doesn't get a campaign group...

 

[mr_jrt]

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.

Problem with those are the very long tunnels you would have to bore alongside the existing ones at Patcham (2,059m) & Clayton (446m). Ultimately I want to see a four track Brighton mainline, but phasing it is the only way that would ever happen, and Keymer to Copyhold is the low-hanging fruit, so to speak. The Haywards Heath tunnel is extremely short (241m), and the Vale viaduct close to it is also very short as well (think it's about 150m, if memory serves?). Other than that, it's all relatively simple widening of the formation and the grade separation at either end, if so desired.

 

[BerkshireRails]

But if you've got continuous 4-track from Victoria to Keymer you'd do the overtake further north.

That will be very unlikely happen because of the Ouse Valley Viaduct and Balcombe Tunnels being listed.

Or 4-track from the north portal of Clayton tunnel to some point north of Hassocks, if the tunnels are the problem. Although worth remembering HH tunnel is short but completely built upon, whereas Clayton and Patchham tunnel are under a South Down and could (in theory) simply have a second bore built alongside without too much fuss.

The issue is with Clayton Tunnel and being listed. It is much easier to justify adding extra bores to the Haywards Heath tunnel than try and mess with listed buildings, hence Four track from Hassock to Copyhold Junction is pretty easy.

In my plan, Eastbourne via London would continue to use the existing route. A new route would leave at Glynde to avoid Mt Caburn and then run via Ringmer to join up with the original route near Isfield (probably north, to leave the Lavender line be). Ordinarily you'd stick with the existing off-peak pattern with London Bridge-Uckfield extended to Brighton, and ideally doubled to 2pth. In the peaks, London Bridge to Eastbourne or Seaford as portions detaching and reversing at Lewes would be available. Should an incident or engineering close the mainline, Brighton trains could divert via Uckfield directly or use the shunt back to run via Keymer, and Eastbourne services could reverse in Lewes Platforms 1/2 (if the crossovers were provided).
All of this for <10miles of new alignment, 1 new junction, a bit of tweaking at Lewes, without touching the National Park. But because it doesn't have 'dismantled rly' written above it on an OS Map, it doesn't get a campaign group...

Isn't that route proposed by the Brighton Mainline 2 campaign Group?

Problem with those are the very long tunnels you would have to bore alongside the existing ones at Patcham (2,059m) & Clayton (446m). Ultimately I want to see a four track Brighton mainline, but phasing it is the only way that would ever happen, and Keymer to Copyhold is the low-hanging fruit, so to speak. The Haywards Heath tunnel is extremely short (241m), and the Vale viaduct close to it is also very short as well (think it's about 150m, if memory serves?). Other than that, it's all relatively simple widening of the formation and the grade separation at either end, if so desired.

Hassocks to Keymer Junction has no tunnels. It is possible to see from Hassocks all of the way to just past Keymer Junction to Wivelsfield as it is a straight line. Clayton and Patchway tunnels are both between Hassock and Preston Park.

 

[mr_jrt]

That is the point is that since it is so close by extending the four tracking to Burgess Hill and Hassocks it provides the chance to get Gatwick Express head of a Thameslink without holding the Thameslink for two long. Preston Park to Hassocks would be a lot more expensive as you would have to deal with Clayton and Patchway tunnels. For comparison Haywards Heath tunnel is only 249 Yards, Patchway tunnel is 492 Yards and and Clayton Tunnel is 1 mile 499 Yards. The Loop at Preston Park can be extend by around 1 1/2 miles with ease and can be quad tracked, however it probably has more use in splitting arrivals and departures, like platforms 3-6 Mains and 7-9 Reliefs. 9 Would be a new platform at Brighton.

Another fanciful idea I've mused as a short-term quick win would be to four track out to the southern portal of the Patcham tunnel and build a Patcham Station there, then run a shuttle between Brighton and Patcham as a sort of P&R, moving the mainline stop from Preston Park to the new Patcham station. Perhaps have the new pair operated with tram trains and extended out the front and down Queens Road to and along the seafront, in time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2025 ==

Hassocks to Keymer Junction has no tunnels. It is possible to see from Hassocks all of the way to just past Keymer Junction to Wivelsfield as it is a straight line. Clayton and Patchway tunnels are both between Hassock and Preston Park.

Apologies, I'm multitasking and got thing muddled up. I thought the proposal was four tracks from Brighton to Keymer.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Another fanciful idea I've mused as a short-term quick win would be to four track out to the southern portal of the Patcham tunnel and build a Patcham Station there, then run a shuttle between Brighton and Patcham as a sort of P&R, moving the mainline stop from Preston Park to the new Patcham station. Perhaps have the new pair operated with tram trains and extended out the front and down Queens Road to and along the seafront, in time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2025 ==


Apologies, I'm multitasking and got thing muddled up. I thought the proposal was four tracks from Brighton to Keymer.

Do third rail powered tram-trains exist?

 

[zwk500]

Isn't that route proposed by the Brighton Mainline 2 campaign Group?

No, the BML2 group propose staying on the existing alignment until much closer to Hamsey, then tunnelling under the former Lewes Racecourse to a new junction near the A27 Kingston Roundabout, with connecting chord at Hamsey for Eastbourne.
3 new junctions, 1.5 miles of tunnel, National Park impacted, major road junction impacted, and avoids the main town and rail connectivity hub in the area. Much more cost, not enough benefit added.

Do third rail powered tram-trains exist?

There's trams using APS (granted it's a different design of 3rd rail to the UK southern Region)

 

[martin butler]

I happen to live in East Sussex, So, here's my thoughts, Re-opening closed lines, unless there are now very large communities, along the former route is a non-starter, unless it's to provide an alternative route in the case of landslips, wash outs etc,

Ashford to Hastings, This route, really should be electrified, as an extension to existing 3rd rail and services could be provided by extending the current service that terminates at Hastings, to run to Ashford, then Tonbridge, possibly combining with other services at Tonbridge, that have ran in the opposite direction, so you in effect have a service that splits at Tonbridge, half goes via Ashford, the other going via Hastings, and rejoins, when both units return. by using 4 car EMU's you create more room on those currently served by the 3 car 171's,

Uckfield, again, as much of the route, is already electrified, then a case should be made to extend the 3rd rail to eliminate the un electrified lines in Sussex and Kent,

The Eastbourne avoiding spur, I can only see a case for this, if long distance services ever get re introduced, that do not call at Eastbourne, or for a few limited stop services in the morning rush, to provide a fast direct service to London,

 

[Zomboid]

Do third rail powered tram-trains exist?

Since trams often work on 750V DC overheads there wouldn't be any electrical reason why you couldn't have both an overhead system and a third rail, both at 750V DC from the same rectifier supply.

Think it'd need to be a high floor type though, I'm not sure low platforms with 3rd rail would be smiled upon.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Since trams often work on 750V DC overheads there wouldn't be any electrical reason why you couldn't have both an overhead system and a third rail, both at 750V DC from the same rectifier supply.

Think it'd need to be a high floor type though, I'm not sure low platforms with 3rd rail would be smiled upon.

I am more worried around live shoegear on the side of the unit and doing on street running. You might have to covert the BML southern to OLE or have a pair of tracks for trams and a pair of tracks for trains. Due to the Electrostars inability to change on the more you would want to wire Haywards Heath to Brighton which could allow the 387s on Gatwick Express to shave a few minutes off journey time from linespeed enhancement from 75/90 to 110mph.

 

[Zomboid]

By having the DC OLE on the main line there would be no need for shoes on the trams.

Though it's total pie in the sky so the practicalities are irrelevant.

 

[MrJeeves]

I'd be interested to see the Network Rail plans to add new platforms (either one, on the northbound side, or one on either side) at Wivelsfield come to fruition, which were looked into during the Sussex Area route study in the mid 2010s: https://web.archive.org/web/2016030...krail.co.uk/Sussex-Area-Route-Study-FINAL.pdf

I regularly experience the northbound East Coastway services arriving into Wivelsfield a couple of minutes late, meaning the xx:14 and xx:44 Bedford TL services get held just north of Burgess Hill by a couple of minutes. It all has a knock-on effect to the busy journey into (or through) London.

Even just yesterday, the 1211 was on-time to Cooksbridge and Plumpton (though RTT shows no report), then sat just beyond Keymer Junction and its level crossing and arrived into Wivelsfield +2, leaving +3, and making the 1214 not depart until just after 1218. This 3-4min delay then stuck with that service until London Bridge where it left for the core +1 before recovering at St Pancras.

 

[zwk500]

I am more worried around live shoegear on the side of the unit and doing on street running. You might have to covert the BML southern to OLE or have a pair of tracks for trams and a pair of tracks for trains. Due to the Electrostars inability to change on the more you would want to wire Haywards Heath to Brighton which could allow the 387s on Gatwick Express to shave a few minutes off journey time from linespeed enhancement from 75/90 to 110mph.

Electrostars are perfectly capable of changing on the move (London Overground 378s do it). It's GTR's policy not to do it. The BML is only 50 miles long and has regular stops, the journey time benefit of increasing above 90mph would be minimal.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Electrostars are perfectly capable of changing on the move (London Overground 378s do it). It's GTR's policy not to do it. The BML is only 50 miles long and has regular stops, the journey time benefit of increasing above 90mph would be minimal.

I was under the impression the 378s were different as they were Capitalstars rather than Electrostars.

 

[zwk500]

I was under the impression the 378s were different as they were Capitalstars rather than Electrostars.

Capitalstars are Electrostars. The 378s are slightly different from the 377s for sure, but AFAIK the units are perfectly capable of changing on the move, it's a GTR policy decision that it's better practice to stop.

It's also completely academic as there's zero chance of wiring the BML for DC OLE, and if it were *ever* wired for AC OLE, the changes would almost certainly be chosen to take place at a station stop anyway.

 

[DJ_K666]

Is there any way this could be done without major property demolition, bearing in mind that your 4-track section has to include 2 consecutive stations to avoid the stoppers having to sit at a signal? I fear not.

The viaduct west of Shoreham-by-Sea might be an issue. Plus the station is on a pretty steep gradient, far, far steeper than would ever be allowed for a new station (let's face it, that's what you'd need to build)

If you want a good upgrade in capacity your first opportunity after leaving Hove (3 platforms, all reversible but only 1 and 2 accessible from the west. 3 has a starting signal to allow terminating trains to leave eastbound) would be Worthing (Platform 3 is the only westbound platform and is reversible, with 1 and 2 being eastbound only and a trailing crossover just out of sight under the road bridge).
A bit of jiggery pokery with the track here might yield a few results, putting in a faciing crossover east of the other one, with full FPLs etc. Signalling to suit, then a trailing crossover west of the level crossing on South Farm Road, or if you want all platforms bidirectional then bung in a scissors and two more signal heads
The track to West Worthing crossing is dead straight so the geometry should be pretty straight forward.

All trains stop at Hove, Shoreham and Worthing so they'd be either slowing of accelerating.

Next opportunity for a loop is at Ford. Sure, you'd lose the rockery there but you'd gain another place to side track a stopping train. There used to be a third platform on the Down side, anyway. Plus a long delay is a perfect excuse to 'accidentally ' wander into Gaugemaster.

 

[Brubulus]

Electrostars are perfectly capable of changing on the move (London Overground 378s do it). It's GTR's policy not to do it. The BML is only 50 miles long and has regular stops, the journey time benefit of increasing above 90mph would be minimal.

I can see the argument to move to 100mph, since all units are 100mph capable, and that won't require OLE. However the business case is probably quite weak, given it might save a minute or two at most between London and Brighton

 

[DJ_K666]

Why Tunbridge Wells instead of Uckfield?

I agree about Marshlink - although bimode BEMUs (either converted 350/450s or newbuild) would probably be the easiest way to do it, avoiding the mitigations you need for the ORR to be able to approve new 3rd rail.

Just scrap the ORR if they keep objecting. Give their powers (and the Heritage railways estate) to a reawakened British Railways Board and have it absorb the new GBR. Basically you'd get BR back.
True, you'd need to be Government level to do it.

The best way to electrify on the Southern is third rail, the track maintenance teams are all certified for it already. Adding in weird forms of electrification just overcomplicates things. So Marshlink, Walden and North Downs lines all juice railed and the Turbostars and 165s can all be transferred elsewhere in exchange for more plastic trash electrostars. [/jk]

Not going to happen, of course so there'll continue to be a big diesel island in mid Sussex.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2025 ==

Would it not be feasible to reopen East Grinstead to Haywards Heath using the Bluebell route via Horsted Keynes and Ardingly.

Surely some kind of arrangement could be made, so that NR and Bluebell trains could share the same infrastructure.

Attach a Dellner fitted 37 at Haywards Heath and detach it at East Grinstead. If that detachment happens on the Bluebell/NR link line it can run into the down platform at EG to haul the return service.
At Haywards Heath platform 1 has a run round loop for the Ardingly stone trains so that could be used for laying over.

So you've got a through service to London during engineering works eithout having to resort to a bus replacement service and a great soundtrack.

The only fly in the ointment is the Bluebell operates on a Light Railway Order so the train would have to run at 25mph from Haywards Heath to East Grinstead.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Just scrap the ORR if they keep objecting. Give their powers (and the Heritage railways estate) to a reawakened British Railways Board and have it absorb the new GBR. Basically you'd get BR back.
True, you'd need to be Government level to do it.

How many times does it need to be pointed out that the Electricity at Work Act 1989 brought new third rail schemes to a juddering halt even in BR’s day? Especially alongside the more general obligations under Health & Safety legislation.

 

[DJ_K666]

How many times does it need to be pointed out that the Electricity at Work Act 1989 brought new third rail schemes to a juddering halt even in BR’s day? Especially alongside the more general obligations under Health & Safety legislation.

That didn't stop the Portsmouth to Southampton line being electrified on third rail in 1990 or Redhill to Tonbridge in 1994, did it. So obviously it doesn't stop new third rail or those wouldn't have happened. In any case, the legislation can be repealed or amended to suit.

 

[Dr Hoo]

That didn't stop the Portsmouth to Southampton line being electrified on third rail in 1990 or Redhill to Tonbridge in 1994, did it. So obviously it doesn't stop new third rail or those wouldn't have happened. In any case, the legislation can be repealed or amended to suit.

Portsmouth-Southampton/Eastleigh had started before the 1989 Act came into effect (in 1990).

Redhill-Tonbridge, along with various other extensions and alterations, was committed as part of the Channel Tunnel project going back as far as the Treaty of Canterbury in the mid-1980s.

 

[BerkshireRails]

By having the DC OLE on the main line there would be no need for shoes on the trams.

Though it's total pie in the sky so the practicalities are irrelevant.

The trams will still cut out for the third rail, unless you convert that section of the BML to AC OLE and use something like the class 399s.

It's also completely academic as there's zero chance of wiring the BML for DC OLE, and if it were *ever* wired for AC OLE, the changes would almost certainly be chosen to take place at a station stop anyway.

That is why I suggested wiring Haywards Heath to Brighton as all passenger trains call at both Haywards Heath and Brighton. Dual Voltage could remain between Keymer Junction and Haywards Heath for the services via Plumpton.

Would it not be feasible to reopen East Grinstead to Haywards Heath using the Bluebell route via Horsted Keynes and Ardingly.

Surely some kind of arrangement could be made, so that NR and Bluebell trains could share the same infrastructure.

The Bluebell Railway owns the alignment and plans to reopen it as a Third Rail Heritage Line, to give them a place to run the 4VEP without a diesel or on the mainline.

The best way to electrify on the Southern is third rail, the track maintenance teams are all certified for it already. Adding in weird forms of electrification just overcomplicates things. So Marshlink, Walden and North Downs lines all juice railed and the Turbostars and 165s can all be transferred elsewhere in exchange for more plastic trash electrostars. [/jk]

There is talks of redoing Ashford International to allow HS1 services to run the Marshlink line and it would gain 25kv AC. Uckfield could be wired as an extension of the Watford Junction to East Croydon service, you could use battery power. North Downs Line could have the sections between Redhill & Guilford and Ash to Wokingham or Reading wired and then services can be extended to Oxford once that is electrified

I can see the argument to move to 100mph, since all units are 100mph capable, and that won't require OLE. However the business case is probably quite weak, given it might save a minute or two at most between London and Brighton

You can probably uprate the 377s and 700s for 110mph. This would have added benefits on the East Coast Mainline and West Coast Mainline.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is talks of redoing Ashford International to allow HS1 services to run the Marshlink line and it would gain 25kv AC.

Not now there isn’t. Appalling busines case.

 

[Zomboid]

The trams will still cut out for the third rail, unless you convert that section of the BML to AC OLE and use something like the class 399

No, I was saying to use standard tram OLE of 750VDC.
That could be fitted over tracks that have a 3rd rail and take its supply from the same source as the 3rd rail, so no need for any segregation.

 

[yorksrob]

Portsmouth-Southampton/Eastleigh had started before the 1989 Act came into effect (in 1990).

Redhill-Tonbridge, along with various other extensions and alterations, was committed as part of the Channel Tunnel project going back as far as the Treaty of Canterbury in the mid-1980s.

Brill, let's just tag on the remaining third rail islands to the next international treaty then.

Job done !

 

[DJ_K666]

Brill, let's just tag on the remaining third rail islands to the next international treaty then.

Job done !

Like I said, a vote in Parliament for an Electricity At Work Act 1989(Amendment Bill) would sort that out.
Even if there was something Chunnel related, if that kaw had that effect, it wouldn't have been electrified test way.

Plus when there are track workers around they're not only certified but the power most times is switched off. They dont leave the juice on during engineering works, that'd be madness. They'd be the same workers doing the Marshlink, Wealden and North Downs lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

Plus when there are track workers around they're not only certified but the power most times is switched off.

It isn’t. The line is blocked, but for most ‘work’ the power remains on. The power is only switched off if there is work involving the conrail itself, or the work to the track (or points oerating equipment) is such that it can’t be doen without conrail shields.

 

[DJ_K666]

It isn’t. The line is blocked, but for most ‘work’ the power remains on. The power is only switched off if there is work involving the conrail itself, or the work to the track (or points oerating equipment) is such that it can’t be doen without conrail shields.

Wow didn't know that

 

[zwk500]

Not now there isn’t. Appalling busines case.

The talk was only ever from the then Hastings MP IIRC.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jul 2025 ==

The Bluebell Railway owns the alignment and plans to reopen it as a Third Rail Heritage Line, to give them a place to run the 4VEP without a diesel or on the mainline.

I have never seen a serious suggestion that the BRPS intend to put live third rail down. I have seen some suggestions of laying dummy third rail at Horsted Keynes for aesthetic reasons, amd there are various ideas how the 4VEP and section to not quite Ardingly station might be operated.

 

[Bald Rick]

The talk was only ever from the then Hastings MP IIRC.

It was looked into. Required remodelling at Ashford west end that included horrible pointwork that would be dreadfully unreliable with lots of single point failures (literally) and would also have to be tied into HS1 signalling. This was all pretty obvious from the start but it was looked at in more detail, and guess what, it still was.