New lines and improvements for Sussex railways

[Magdalia]

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

On the ECML the benefits of this are tiny. Running at 110mph instead of 100mph saves 3 seconds per mile, it takes 20 miles of 110 mph running instead of 100mph to save 1 minute. The only ECML EMU trains that could do that are the Kings Cross-Cambridge non-stop trains between Oakleigh Park and Hitchin. For Thameslink trains running non-stop from Finsbury Park and turning onto the slow line at Woolmer Green the benefits would be even smaller. A similar calculation applies to 100mph instead of 90 mph which saves 4 seconds per mile, with station stops so close together the time savings are also tiny.

 

[Bald Rick]

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

It would have no benefit on the WCML, the 700s dont run there, and the few 377s that do wouldn’t have the opportunity to save any meaningful time.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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) #

Out of interest, why would that particular pointwork be 'obviously' generally unreliable, but presumably most pointwork isn't?

 

[Bald Rick]

Out of interest, why would that particular pointwork be 'obviously' generally unreliable, but presumably most pointwork isn't?

Well I didn’t say obviously. But a combination of things:

1) it would have had to have non-standard designs, which increases the rectification time for some types of fault, and increases the chances of some those faults;
2) difficult to maintain some of it, (due to it’s positioning and design) increasing the chances of failure generally;
3) in a place where some failures would lock up the whole west end layout, and for some failure modes affect the HS1 makn line too (all increasing the consequences of failure)

So, increased risk of failure, increased consequence of failure, and longer rectification times, all make for a horribly unreliable combination.

 

[158760]

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.

Electrifying Ardingly has been half heartedly suggested for the last 15-20 years. It won’t happen. There are so many reasons why it would not be practical, not least having brand new live third rail. The same rules apply as with the mainline, being a light railway does not change that.

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, and there are various ideas how the 4VEP and section to not quite Ardingly station might be operated.

If Ardingly ever gets off the ground (take a look at the railway’s finances to see the likeliness of that) the most practical of the suggestions are to fit the VEP with batteries and have a charging system at Horsted Keynes, or to simply run the VEP push-pull. There’s a handy 73 in the same livery now…



Going back to the whole diversionary route thing, I personally do not see the point of the second connection at Ardingly/Copyhold just to have a diversionary route. Realistically it just does not work, and the current diversions, whilst not perfect, do not involve traipsing over a heritage railway at 25mph and hired in Class 37s or something similar. Yes, it would be a unique selling point for railtours etc, but the cost for the railway in the current financial situation to lay an extra two miles of track to vaguely near a small village and then build a tunnel around a stone terminal…

The most logical new line in that area would be to connect Lewes and Uckfield via Ringmer and Isfield. Bringing a rail connection back to Barcombe (which has far fewer people living there than Ringmer) does not seem justifiable. That route would connect thousands of people together, rather than reopening East Grinstead - Copyhold Junction to serve a handful of people. All the stations on that line (with the exception of West Hoathly) are inconveniently sited in the middle of nowhere with only a few houses (often railway cottages) nearby.

Just because a railway never served it, doesn’t mean it can’t.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well I didn’t say obviously. But a combination of things:

1) it would have had to have non-standard designs, which increases the rectification time for some types of fault, and increases the chances of some thoes of fault;
2) difficult to maintain some of it, (due to it’s positioning and design) increasing the chances of failure generally;
3) in a place where some failures would lock up the whole west end layout, and for some failure modes affect the HS1 makn line too (all increasing the consequences of failure)

So, increased risk of failure, increased consequence of failure, and longer rectification times, all make for a horribly unreliable combination.

Thanks for the explanation.

Just to be totally pedantic, you did say, "This was all pretty obvious from the start", which was where I got the 'obviously' from

 

[yorksrob]

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.

Perhaps an addendum to the next railway bill explicitly authorising the infilling of the third rail islands and explicitly supplanting all previous legislation on the matter, should be undertaken.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Electrifying Ardingly has been half heartedly suggested for the last 15-20 years. It won’t happen. There are so many reasons why it would not be practical, not least having brand new live third rail. The same rules apply as with the mainline, being a light railway does not change that.

Ardingly once had third rail electrification which might make it easier to justify with only being on when the 4VEP or other third rail stock is out and about on the Ardingly Branch. Which would more or less comply with the type of Third Rail the ORR is happy with.

 

[DJ_K666]

Perhaps an addendum to the next railway bill explicitly authorising the infilling of the third rail islands and explicitly supplanting all previous legislation on the matter, should be undertaken.

Great idea!

And perhaps a second bill abolishing the ORR if they object. That'd be my tactic if I was in that position. With its role going to a reawakened BRB. As I said what I want from the railway is it being as close to the proper BR as possible.

 

[zwk500]

Ardingly once had third rail electrification which might make it easier to justify with only being on when the 4VEP or other third rail stock is out and about on the Ardingly Branch. Which would more or less comply with the type of Third Rail the ORR is happy with.

Third rail has been completely removed from the Copyhold Junction-Ardingly Line, the ORR would regard is (quite correctly) as a completely new installation.

The BRPS is almost certainly never going be able to finance an ongoing live third rail installation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2025 ==

Great idea!

And perhaps a second bill abolishing the ORR if they object. That'd be my tactic if I was in that position. With its role going to a reawakened BRB. As I said what I want from the railway is it being as close to the proper BR as possible.

The ORR fulfils the role that HMRI fulfilled to BR. BR was not it's own safety regulator.

 

[158760]

Ardingly once had third rail electrification which might make it easier to justify with only being on when the 4VEP or other third rail stock is out and about on the Ardingly Branch. Which would more or less comply with the type of Third Rail the ORR is happy with.

Having something sixty years ago does not mean it will have it again. Whilst technology has improved greatly in recent years, planning to electrify what will be a little used branch of a heritage railway is not practical. The railway cannot fund it, the ORR will not allow it and the Society & SETG would (understandably) much rather have their unit running on the mainline.

A thumper shuttle with the 73 and VEP or steam services on selected days is far more practical.

 

[Anstecker]

HS1 to Hastings makes no sense, but given that they were able to keep double track through the Tunbridge Wells tunnels with slab track I wonder if there's any faint hope of squeezing double track through more of the tunnels with modern equipment and a speed restriction to reduce envelope.

Or boring a second tunnel, some of those bottleneck tunnels are really very short indeed.

 

[BerkshireRails]

HS1 to Hastings makes no sense, but given that they were able to keep double track through the Tunbridge Wells tunnels with slab track I wonder if there's any faint hope of squeezing double track through more of the tunnels with modern equipment and a speed restriction to reduce envelope.

Or boring a second tunnel, some of those bottleneck tunnels are really very short indeed.

The line speed through the Tunbridge Wells Tunnels are 25mph, the other tunnels seem to vary between 50 and 90mph. Reducing the speed limit would increase journey time which might have a negative impact on reliability as the turnaround times at Hastings and London Charing Cross would get reduced, which could require extra units and drivers. The shorter tunnels would have a lower impact than the longer tunnels.

I would disagree about HS1 to Hastings as it would enable removal of 171s without extension of the third rail which isn't very popular with regulators or battery power which aren't the solution either. It would allow for better connections to Romney marshes from London as well as it feels better suited to being a part of Southeastern rather than Southern. I would shift Ashford Control Junction North West to enable more S&C to be installed to a standard layout for the Ashford area which would get completely redesigned as part of this work. I would also remove the international platforms for now to provide space to do the remodelling of the station and once complete the international platforms would be restored.

 

[zwk500]

I would disagree about HS1 to Hastings as it would enable removal of 171s without extension of the third rail which isn't very popular with regulators or battery power which aren't the solution either. It would allow for better connections to Romney marshes from London as well as it feels better suited to being a part of Southeastern rather than Southern. I would shift Ashford Control Junction North West to enable more S&C to be installed to a standard layout for the Ashford area which would get completely redesigned as part of this work. I would also remove the international platforms for now to provide space to do the remodelling of the station and once complete the international platforms would be restored.

HS1 to Hastings was always ludicrous, and Rye isn't a town big enough to justify such a comprehensive redesign of Ashford. Removal of the 171s from Marshlink can be achieved fairly straightforwardly with Battery power, which absolutely is a solution for a 1tph branch line.

 

[BerkshireRails]

HS1 to Hastings was always ludicrous, and Rye isn't a town big enough to justify such a comprehensive redesign of Ashford. Removal of the 171s from Marshlink can be achieved fairly straightforwardly with Battery power, which absolutely is a solution for a 1tph branch line.

Rye to Ashford was 2tph during the Peaks. It isn't just about passengers but also freight and you could and should restore the line speed to the old 85mph from the current 40-60mph limit for most of the route. Also considering the how reliable the most recent third rail Battery units are it isn't a great way to go. Plus with electrification if there is major disruption it doesn't run out of power from siting in the middle of nowhere for two long which would cripple the service if you were using battery power on its own. You also lose toilet space on the Electrostar if you fit traction batteries as found on the 379s. Also you would want to have the same fleet as on Uckfield which has some 10 car services at 2tph which isn't really suitable for batteries. Also there is already power supply issues on the coast way which batteries trains recharging would just make worse.

 

[weeklycommuter]

4-tracking parts of the West Coastway to allow recasting the timetable into frequent all-stops metro services plus longer distance services that run much faster between Brighton and Barnham/Chichester.

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.

Fishersgate to Southwick looks possible, though not easy. The corridor around the line is fairly wide, and there are no level crossings. There are two footbridges and two underbridges that would need replacing. Both stations appear to have (just) enough room to move the platforms outwards to allow through lines without platforms and loops with new platforms.

Just close Aldrington and Fishersgate Stations. For Aldrington Station use Hove Station instead. For Fishersgate Station use Portslade Station instead.

 

[BayPaul]

Just close Aldrington and Fishersgate Stations. For Aldrington Station use Hove Station instead. For Fishersgate Station use Portslade Station instead.

Damaging the metro side of the service to slightly speed up the cross country side feels like a bad idea. When I lived in this area I found the closely spaced stations very useful. If there was an opportunity for the long distance train to overtake it would allow both services to improve.

 

[zwk500]

Rye to Ashford was 2tph during the Peaks. It isn't just about passengers but also freight and you could and should restore the line speed to the old 85mph from the current 40-60mph limit for most of the route.

What electric freight would use the line?

Also considering the how reliable the most recent third rail Battery units are it isn't a great way to go.

Battery units are perfectly reliable around the world. I don't see why the third rail would be relevant to the reliability of battery units. Also, I have got the sense that the reliability is a problem on third rail as much as off it, so maybe the batteries aren't the problem.

Plus with electrification if there is major disruption it doesn't run out of power from siting in the middle of nowhere for two long which would cripple the service if you were using battery power on its own.

Of course with electrification, there's many types of disruption that will kill the unit straight away, while battery units would be able to self-rescue to the nearest platform.

You also lose toilet space on the Electrostar if you fit traction batteries as found on the 379s.

It wouldn't be a retrofit but a new order to release 171s for cascade. The batteries would be under the train.

Also you would want to have the same fleet as on Uckfield which has some 10 car services at 2tph which isn't really suitable for batteries. Also there is already power supply issues on the coast way which batteries trains recharging would just make worse.

Uckfield has a better case for electrification but isn't unsuitable for batteries. And the power supply issues can be managed in various ways, not least by bolstering the power supply. But charging would take place when the demand had room in it to take the extra draw.

 

[Bald Rick]

HS1 to Hastings makes no sense, but given that they were able to keep double track through the Tunbridge Wells tunnels with slab track I wonder if there's any faint hope of squeezing double track through more of the tunnels with modern equipment and a speed restriction to reduce envelope.

Sadly not, as modern equipment doesn’t change gauging standards.

Or boring a second tunnel, some of those bottleneck tunnels are really very short indeed.

They are short, which means they are not a problem for a lightly used route.

or battery power which aren't the solution either.

Plus with electrification if there is major disruption it doesn't run out of power from siting in the middle of nowhere for two long which would cripple the service if you were using battery power on its own.

But with battery power there is much less disruption when the train is unable to draw power from the third rail or OLE, whcih happens far more frequently than ‘sitting in the middle of nowhere‘. Besides, a battery unit ‘sitting in the middle of nowhere’ would have up to a couple of days power on tap before it wouldn‘t be able to move.

You also lose toilet space on the Electrostar if you fit traction batteries as found on the 379s.

That was a trial on an AC train a decade ago. Battery technology has moved on a lot since then - see any road anywhere in this country, or your mobile phone.

It is unlikely that DC 377s would be fitted with batteires, but if they were they would simply take the place of the multi-tonne block of concrete that sits in the place where the transformer for an AC 377 goes.

Also you would want to have the same fleet as on Uckfield which has some 10 car services at 2tph which isn't really suitable for batteries.

Why not? It was suitable when the first study was done well over a decade ago; what has changed since?

Also there is already power supply issues on the coast way which batteries trains recharging would just make worse.

Are there?

 

[BerkshireRails]

Fishersgate to Southwick looks possible, though not easy. The corridor around the line is fairly wide, and there are no level crossings. There are two footbridges and two underbridges that would need replacing. Both stations appear to have (just) enough room to move the platforms outwards to allow through lines without platforms and loops with new platforms.

You could use a compulsory Purchase Order to gain enough space to provide the four tracking. It might be worth looking into track raising or lowering in areas to allow removal of more level crossings on the Metro section. You probably want to add some extra platforms at Brighton.

What electric freight would use the line?

Battery units are perfectly reliable around the world. I don't see why the third rail would be relevant to the reliability of battery units. Also, I have got the sense that the reliability is a problem on third rail as much as off it, so maybe the batteries aren't the problem.

Of course with electrification, there's many types of disruption that will kill the unit straight away, while battery units would be able to self-rescue to the nearest platform.

It wouldn't be a retrofit but a new order to release 171s for cascade. The batteries would be under the train.

Uckfield has a better case for electrification but isn't unsuitable for batteries. And the power supply issues can be managed in various ways, not least by bolstering the power supply. But charging would take place when the demand had room in it to take the extra draw.

The Dungeness trains to start with.

Not the 777/1s with Merseyrail which have been beset with reliability issues for a 1 mile section of battery traction. The Battery unit depending on conditions and charge will determine how long it can stay powered on. You have to have enough charge to survive a cold night at the end of battery capacity when a major signal failure like what happened with Basingstoke last weekend.

Bolstering power supply isn't very cheap at all, which is what is leading London Overground to avoiding using third rail traction for West London Orbital.

It is unlikely that DC 377s would be fitted with batteires, but if they were they would simply take the place of the multi-tonne block of concrete that sits in the place where the transformer for an AC 377 goes.

Southern wanted to fit it to the 378s rather than new units which has now been cancelled.

Are there?

There are according to the sectional appendix, which limits trains to notch2 power and a certain length.

 

[Bald Rick]

Southern wanted to fit it to the 378s rather than new units which has now been cancelled.

No, they didn‘t.

There are according to the sectional appendix, which limits trains to notch2 power and a certain length.

Why does that prevent battery trains?

 

[zwk500]

You could use a compulsory Purchase Order to gain enough space to provide the four tracking. It might be worth looking into track raising or lowering in areas to allow removal of more level crossings on the Metro section. You probably want to add some extra platforms at Brighton.

That would be extremely expensive

The Dungeness trains to start with.

Dungeness has been decommissioned, and Dungeness C I don't think has got anywhere. So you'd be electrifying for less than ten years worth of trains, a handful of times a week. Great value, not. Also the Nuclear trains would tend to want at least some diesel traction because they tend to be rather important to keep moving.

Not the 777/1s with Merseyrail which have been beset with reliability issues for a 1 mile section of battery traction. The Battery unit depending on conditions and charge will determine how long it can stay powered on. You have to have enough charge to survive a cold night at the end of battery capacity when a major signal failure like what happened with Basingstoke last weekend.

Are the problems purely limited to Headbolt Lane? That's not the sense I've got but I'll admit to not following it super closely. And the point about retaining enough charge is valid, but also something coped with by every other battery operation globally.

Bolstering power supply isn't very cheap at all, which is what is leading London Overground to avoiding using third rail traction for West London Orbital.

I didn't say it was cheap, but rather possible. But they could easily charge in stations or when not drawing power.

Southern wanted to fit it to the 378s rather than new units which has now been cancelled.

Southern don't operate 378s.

There are according to the sectional appendix, which limits trains to notch2 power and a certain length.

Only on the Seaford Branch, I believe? Happy to be corrected but don't recall any Sectional Appendix third Rail index restrictions from Eastbourne to Hastings.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Dungeness trains to start with.

How often do those run? And for how long will they continue to run?

 

[The Ham]

You have to have enough charge to survive a cold night at the end of battery capacity when a major signal failure like what happened with Basingstoke last weekend.

A cold night would reduce range certainly, however if it's left "off" it's not going to draw power.

At the end of a route would likely have some capacity to charge, even if it means the kettle gets unplugged in the drivers cabin*

Major failures do need to be accounted for, however generally they are rare and unless they result in a train being stuck away from a charging point (given that non-electric lines are generally the far outer edges of the South Eastern network, i.e. not approaching a London station) the risk is limited.




*clearly strikes have been called for less, and I'm not suggesting that's the likely solution

 

[Zomboid]

HS1 to Hastings would have been a nice idea if it were possible without a huge rebuild. As it is, Ashford to Hastings is clearly an ideal use case for batteries (as is Uckfield).

It's unfortunate that that'll mean a smallish fleet of battery fitted trains will be needed amongst a large fleet that don't need them, but they could at least be useable on straight EMU diagrams, too.

 

[zwk500]

HS1 to Hastings would have been a nice idea if it were possible without a huge rebuild. As it is, Ashford to Hastings is clearly an ideal use case for batteries (as is Uckfield).

It's unfortunate that that'll mean a smallish fleet of battery fitted trains will be needed amongst a large fleet that don't need them, but they could at least be useable on straight EMU diagrams, too.

Having an all-BEMU fleet of 'service' and 'emergency' capacities is, IMO, the optimum solution. Or even just an all-BEMU 'service' capacity fleet and full flexibility of diagramming. Weight of the batteries will be a single figure percentage if that of the train's weight, and the battery has plenty of use cases even on electrified lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

HS1 to Hastings would have been a nice idea if it were possible without a huge rebuild. As it is, Ashford to Hastings is clearly an ideal use case for batteries (as is Uckfield).

It's unfortunate that that'll mean a smallish fleet of battery fitted trains will be needed amongst a large fleet that don't need them, but they could at least be useable on straight EMU diagrams, too.

I‘d rather operate and maintain a smallish fleet of BEMUs than a smallish fleet of DMUs.

 

[brad465]

HS1 to Hastings makes no sense, but given that they were able to keep double track through the Tunbridge Wells tunnels with slab track I wonder if there's any faint hope of squeezing double track through more of the tunnels with modern equipment and a speed restriction to reduce envelope.

Or boring a second tunnel, some of those bottleneck tunnels are really very short indeed.

I've long wondered how by happy coincidence the two (or four if Bo-peep and Hastings' tunnels have the same track type) most critical tunnels for capacity on that route remained double track. What properties does slab track have that allowed those tunnels to remain double compared to standard track (I'm guessing a lower trackbed but happy to be corrected).

 

[Bald Rick]

I've long wondered how by happy coincidence the two (or four if Bo-peep and Hastings' tunnels have the same track type) most critical tunnels for capacity on that route remained double track. What properties does slab track have that allowed those tunnels to remain double compared to standard track (I'm guessing a lower trackbed but happy to be corrected).

I don’t know the exact curcumstances, but slab track enables a lower ‘trackbed’ but also, crucially, the fixed track means gauging tolerances can be much tighter. Hence a few tunnels on the WCML had slab track installed for the Pendolinos.

 

[MarkyT]

I've long wondered how by happy coincidence the two (or four if Bo-peep and Hastings' tunnels have the same track type) most critical tunnels for capacity on that route remained double track. What properties does slab track have that allowed those tunnels to remain double compared to standard track (I'm guessing a lower trackbed but happy to be corrected).

The main advantage is slab track is much less liable to move than ballasted track. Clearance is very tight at Tunbridge Wells but the low speed means the 'dynamic envelope', how much vehicles sway from side to side, is smaller, so the tight clearance is acceptable.