New lines and improvements for Sussex railways

[brad465]

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.

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.

Thank you both for confirming.

 

[yorksrob]

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).

Hastings and Bo-Peep tunnels have never had gauge issues - presumably they weren't built by the same dodgy contractor as the ones that did.

 

[martin butler]

Battery/ 3rd rail units would be ideal for a Southeastern Charing cross Ashford via Rye service, for much of the time, it would draw power from 3rd rail, and only once past Ore, would it need to engage battery power, the batteries meanwhile could be kept in a topped up state by traction current.

What it would need is a fleet of trains, that need to be compatible with the existing fleet, or a conversion to existing stock, to have batteries fitted but it would need to be diagrammed to work this route only, but of course, in emergency, could be used anywhere on the SE network,

There would be no need to any extra infrastructure, unless you want to include recharging grid at RYE, but given the distance between Ore and Ashford, I would imagine battery power would have enough, as once on the 3rd rail, the batteries could start recharging.

 

[43096]

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

Southern (GTR) don’t have any 378s. Do you mean 377 or 387?

 

[brad465]

Battery/ 3rd rail units would be ideal for a Southeastern Charing cross Ashford via Rye service, for much of the time, it would draw power from 3rd rail, and only once past Ore, would it need to engage battery power, the batteries meanwhile could be kept in a topped up state by traction current.

What it would need is a fleet of trains, that need to be compatible with the existing fleet, or a conversion to existing stock, to have batteries fitted but it would need to be diagrammed to work this route only, but of course, in emergency, could be used anywhere on the SE network,

There would be no need to any extra infrastructure, unless you want to include recharging grid at RYE, but given the distance between Ore and Ashford, I would imagine battery power would have enough, as once on the 3rd rail, the batteries could start recharging.

Southeastern have tendered with battery capability in a new metro fleet pursuit, although it's mainly for safer depot operations and the potential for Sharnal Street on the Isle of Grain branch to get passenger services. Neither of these though would help with your suggested service on the Marshlink, as the rolling stock for a Sharnal Street service and a London-Marshlink detour service would have very different needs for interior design and metro vs long distance traction requirements.

It will be much better having Southern introduce BEMUs on the Marshlink, as these can also do the Uckfield line and maybe, if enough units were ordered, some extensions of Reigate services towards Guildford if the demand exists.

 

[Bald Rick]

Southern (GTR) don’t have any 378s. Do you mean 377 or 387?

They meant 376s.

 

[Sussex Ben]

I'd be interested at an option to close Keymer Jn to Plumpton, with a new connection to a junction between Burgess Hill and Hassocks.

This would allow trains from the east coastway to serve the commercial and industrial areas of Burgess Hill, rather than just the residential areas near Wivelsfield station. Keymer Jn could then be closed (which would save NR numerous headaches given the near permanent ESRs/TSRs there), and the level crossing could be removed too. The open countryside between Burgess Hill and Hassocks could also allow grade separation of the new junction, and possibly higher speeds than Keymer Jn presently to mitigate some of the journey time impact of going slightly further.

 

[MarkyT]

I'd be interested at an option to close Keymer Jn to Plumpton, with a new connection to a junction between Burgess Hill and Hassocks.

This would allow trains from the east coastway to serve the commercial and industrial areas of Burgess Hill, rather than just the residential areas near Wivelsfield station. Keymer Jn could then be closed (which would save NR numerous headaches given the near permanent ESRs/TSRs there), and the level crossing could be removed too. The open countryside between Burgess Hill and Hassocks could also allow grade separation of the new junction, and possibly higher speeds than Keymer Jn presently to mitigate some of the journey time impact of going slightly further.

Something like this perhaps:

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It will be much better having Southern introduce BEMUs on the Marshlink, as these can also do the Uckfield line and maybe, if enough units were ordered, some extensions of Reigate services towards Guildford if the demand exists.

Plus Brighton to Ashford serves an actual market whereas almost noone is going to be interested in traveling from London to Ashford via Hastings. Even London to Rye passengers would be better off getting a direct Ashford train and changing there

 

[Sussex Ben]

Something like this perhaps:
View attachment 184811

Yes, something along those lines. The junction might need to be slightly further south to avoid the cutting, but it opens out a bit more after that.

 

[zwk500]

Something like this perhaps:

You'll never make a business case for the tunnel, Keymer-Lewes runs 2tph + freight. And if you want to build in that land, I have a sneaking suspicion you'll need to be quick about it as Burgess Hill is going to expand it's housing quickly. (also that alignment for a flyover looks v. tight, is it capable of a 60mph ruling speed & 40mph turnout connections?, which should be the minimum for any new line given the capacity constraints on the BML).

 

[Sussex Ben]

Burgess Hill is going to expand it's housing quickly.

Burgess Hill is mostly expanding northwards, and west towards the A23. That said, Hassocks and Haywards Heath are also expanding, so I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we become 'HaywardsHillSocks' or something similar...

 

[Mgameing123]

Battery/ 3rd rail units would be ideal for a Southeastern Charing cross Ashford via Rye service, for much of the time, it would draw power from 3rd rail, and only once past Ore, would it need to engage battery power, the batteries meanwhile could be kept in a topped up state by traction current.

What it would need is a fleet of trains, that need to be compatible with the existing fleet, or a conversion to existing stock, to have batteries fitted but it would need to be diagrammed to work this route only, but of course, in emergency, could be used anywhere on the SE network,

There would be no need to any extra infrastructure, unless you want to include recharging grid at RYE, but given the distance between Ore and Ashford, I would imagine battery power would have enough, as once on the 3rd rail, the batteries could start recharging.

Or just electrify it with Third Rail so you can fill a gap in the system.

 

[martin butler]

Or just electrify it with Third Rail so you can fill a gap in the system.

That would be the preferred option, but the ORR are opposed to extending 3RD rail on NR, so Battery equipped units would be the best compromise, Someone commented that Charing cross to Ashford via Rye, would not be that well used, but Brighton to Ashford was, it could still be possible with a change of train at Hastings though, My thought is that the service would not terminate at Ashford, but contine via Tonbridge to London, Giving a direct london service to those using the Marshlink services,

 

[zwk500]

Or just electrify it with Third Rail so you can fill a gap in the system.

The gap can be filled far easier, far cheaper and (most importantly to me) far more appropriately for the service by batteries.

My thought is that the service would not terminate at Ashford, but contine via Tonbridge to London, Giving a direct london service to those using the Marshlink services,

Does a path exist north of Tonbridge for this, and do SE have the stock? I'd have thought the much simpler and more efficient way to serve Marshlink would be for a Hastings train to be extended to Rye (and just leave Appledore and Ham Street needing a change at Ashford), even though it would be longer than Rye-Ashford-Tonbridge.

 

[weeklycommuter]

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.

The biggest recent improvement to train services in West Sussex is the June 2024 West Coastway timetable which was implemented with no change to the infrastructure.

The following six train services an hour each way which provide the Monday to Saturday train service since June 2024 for the 13 stations Angmering to Hove inclusive are really all metro services:

2tph Littlehampton to London Victoria serving the following 9 stations: Angmering, Goring-by-Sea, Durrington-on-Sea, West Worthing, Worthing, Lancing, Shoreham-by-Sea, Portslade, Hove

2tph Southampton Central to Brighton serving the following 7 stations: Angmering, Worthing, Lancing, Shoreham-by-Sea, Southwick, Portslade, Hove

1tph Portsmouth and Southsea to Brighton serving the following 11 stations: Angmering, Goring-by-Sea, Durrington-on-Sea, West Worthing, Worthing, East Worthing, Lancing, Shoreham-by-Sea, Southwick, Portslade, Hove

1tph Chichester to Brighton serving all 13 stations: Angmering, Goring-by-Sea, Durrington-on-Sea, West Worthing, Worthing, East Worthing, Lancing, Shoreham-by-Sea, Southwick, Fishersgate, Portslade, Aldrington, Hove

Only the hourly all stops Chichester to Brighton train calls at Fishersgate and Aldrington. GTR dropped them from the hourly Portsmouth and Southsea to Brighton service to provide attractive journey times between Portsmouth and Brighton. All trains call at the 6 stations Angmering, Worthing, Lancing, Shoreham-by-Sea, Portslade and Hove.

 

[Mgameing123]

That would be the preferred option, but the ORR are opposed to extending 3RD rail on NR, so Battery equipped units would be the best compromise, Someone commented that Charing cross to Ashford via Rye, would not be that well used, but Brighton to Ashford was, it could still be possible with a change of train at Hastings though, My thought is that the service would not terminate at Ashford, but contine via Tonbridge to London, Giving a direct london service to those using the Marshlink services,

Then use overhead wires.

 

[zwk500]

Then use overhead wires.

So you're going to use a more expensive technology, that makes it *more* awkward operationally than alternatives, requires the infrastructure maintainer to maintain another system, causes all sorts of problems with AC/DC, for a service that can't connect to the only other AC OLE line in the area, that wouldn't justify running onto HS1 even if it could, when there exists a perfectly viable solution that requires no infrastructure intervention (the charging power draw between Eastbourne and Ore isn't an issue), and would likely be part of a general fleet replacement anyway as BEMUs have all sorts of use-cases on fully electrified lines anyway?

 

[MarkyT]

Does a path exist north of Tonbridge for this, and do SE have the stock? I'd have thought the much simpler and more efficient way to serve Marshlink would be for a Hastings train to be extended to Rye (and just leave Appledore and Ham Street needing a change at Ashford), even though it would be longer than Rye-Ashford-Tonbridge.

Better a terminus at the country end of a service with an out of service layover for recovery rather than a long 'rounder' with no easy way to schedule an extended dwell somewhere en route for similar purposes without annoying some through passengers on board at that point. Note signalling doesn't support reversing at Rye currently.

DSC01126 | Signalling Photos

DSC01126 - DSC01126.JPG

photos.signalling.org

The down siding has gone today, but the space is still clear so it might be reinstated to recess and possibly charge a terminator if necessary while another down train passed, assuming signalling was suitably modified or replaced to enable all the movements.

 

[zwk500]

Better a terminus at the country end of a service with an out of service layover for recovery rather than a long 'rounder' with no easy way to schedule an extended dwell somewhere en route for similar purposes without annoying some through passengers on board at that point.

Indeed

Note signalling doesn't support reversing at Rye currently.

It doesn't but the signalling does support cross-platform shunts. Worth noting that if you did this as 1tph Brighton/Eastbourne - Ashford and 1tph CX-Hastings-Rye you'd likely need to do something to increase capacity anyway as the current Ore-Rye runtime is 19 mins, whereas a 2tph service requires 12-14 minute runtimes as the maximum. It's possible that if the London train didn't stop between Ore and Rye you *might* just about be able to fit paths in but it would be horrendously tight if it's even possible.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Surely the key to a better train service on the Marshlink Line is to double track some or all of the single track sections.

 

[MarkyT]

Indeed

It doesn't but the signalling does support cross-platform shunts.

Agreed, at cost of single line occupancy.

Worth noting that if you did this as 1tph Brighton/Eastbourne - Ashford and 1tph CX-Hastings-Rye you'd likely need to do something to increase capacity anyway as the current Ore-Rye runtime is 19 mins, whereas a 2tph service requires 12-14 minute runtimes as the maximum. It's possible that if the London train didn't stop between Ore and Rye you *might* just about be able to fit paths in but it would be horrendously tight if it's even possible.

So for better resilience, either Rye loop or the Ore double track needs extending, I presume. Which would be preferable from a timetabling perspective? Could a little at both be useful?

Perhaps new battery electric trains will improve a little on today's diesel timings, which could help on the single line.

 

[Mgameing123]

So you're going to use a more expensive technology, that makes it *more* awkward operationally than alternatives, requires the infrastructure maintainer to maintain another system, causes all sorts of problems with AC/DC, for a service that can't connect to the only other AC OLE line in the area, that wouldn't justify running onto HS1 even if it could, when there exists a perfectly viable solution that requires no infrastructure intervention (the charging power draw between Eastbourne and Ore isn't an issue), and would likely be part of a general fleet replacement anyway as BEMUs have all sorts of use-cases on fully electrified lines anyway?

I doubt BEMU’s are going to be big in the former Southern Region as most of these railways are already electrified so your going to have to waste money by not filling the gap as this means having a small fleet of BEMU’s for 1 single line.

 

[Recessio]

I doubt BEMU’s are going to be big in the former Southern Region as most of these railways are already electrified so your going to have to waste money by not filling the gap as this means having a small fleet of BEMU’s for 1 single line.

As mentioned before, maintaining a small fleet of BEMUs is significantly better than maintaining a small fleet of diesels.

 

[MarkyT]

I doubt BEMU’s are going to be big in the former Southern Region as most of these railways are already electrified so your going to have to waste money by not filling the gap as this means having a small fleet of BEMU’s for 1 single line.

Having at least some stored power on board increases operational resilience even in fully electrified areas, allowing movement to continue through isolations whether planned or after an incident or failure. That can allow a train to reach the next station rather than being stuck in the middle of nowhere in an emergency. I don't see it happening with most existing fleets, but new orders like the Southeastern metro fleet are considering it. If all trains were equipped to handle batteries, then some could have extra capacity for regular excursions into unelectrified territory.

 

[BayPaul]

I doubt BEMU’s are going to be big in the former Southern Region as most of these railways are already electrified so your going to have to waste money by not filling the gap as this means having a small fleet of BEMU’s for 1 single line.

There are 5 lines that are close enough together for a single fleet of BEMU to operate them - Marshlink, Uckfield, North Downs, Salisbury 6 and Waterloo - Salisbury stoppers, plus Hythe / Marchwood if that ever happens. That's getting well out of microfleet territory, especially if the trains are mechanically identical to the EMUs used on adjacent lines.

Much cheaper and easier than electrifying fairly quiet lines just to tidy up a map!

 

[zwk500]

I doubt BEMU’s are going to be big in the former Southern Region as most of these railways are already electrified so your going to have to waste money by not filling the gap as this means having a small fleet of BEMU’s for 1 single line.

I think given the ability of BEMUs to run over de-energised sections and third rail's regular issues with people being too close to it for safety (authorised or unauthorised) BEMUs will be the default for the former Southern region.

Agreed, at cost of single line occupancy.

Agreed.

So for better resilience, either Rye loop or the Ore double track needs extending, I presume. Which would be preferable from a timetabling perspective? Could a little at both be useful?

Extending Rye is awkward with the level crossings, although certainly not unsolvable. From a timetable perspective the most helpful thing is to have continuous double-track, so I'd extend from Ore (ideally all the way to Rye but realistically probably only 1 or maybe 2 stations).

Perhaps new battery electric trains will improve a little on today's diesel timings, which could help on the single line.

Battery units have comparable performance to EMUs, so I'd expect a new BEMU to shave 30-60 seconds off each stop against a Turbostar.

 

[BayPaul]

I think given the ability of BEMUs to run over de-energised sections and third rail's regular issues with people being too close to it for safety (authorised or unauthorised) BEMUs will be the default for the former Southern region.

Another significant advantage could be in areas where power supplies are limited (such as Bournemouth to Weymouth). I would imagine that a well programmed BEMU could be set up to use a continuous but lower current draw - using the batteries to add current to the motors when accelerating and recharging the batteries when braking and stopped. This would take a lot of load off the power supplies, and could allow higher speeds, or more / longer trains in each section.

 

[MarkyT]

I think given the ability of BEMUs to run over de-energised sections and third rail's regular issues with people being too close to it for safety (authorised or unauthorised) BEMUs will be the default for the former Southern region.

Agreed.

Extending Rye is awkward with the level crossings, although certainly not unsolvable. From a timetable perspective the most helpful thing is to have continuous double-track, so I'd extend from Ore (ideally all the way to Rye but realistically probably only 1 or maybe 2 stations).

A challenge would be the need for additional platforms, with expensive access arrangements. The case for any expenditure whatsoever at Doleham in particular would be difficult to make with about 3 passengers a day! Perhaps the double track from Ore could end just before Doleham, requiring only one new platform at Three Oaks. To keep costs under control, its new access could be a graded ramp down the embankment from the road overbridge.

Battery units have comparable performance to EMUs, so I'd expect a new BEMU to shave 30-60 seconds off each stop against a Turbostar.

Better electric performance might allow the reintroduction of regular Doleham calls!

Another significant advantage could be in areas where power supplies are limited (such as Bournemouth to Weymouth). I would imagine that a well programmed BEMU could be set up to use a continuous but lower current draw - using the batteries to add current to the motors when accelerating and recharging the batteries when braking and stopped. This would take a lot of load off the power supplies, and could allow higher speeds, or more / longer trains in each section.

Agreed, and batteries can also take regenerated braking energy when the supply line is unreceptive, i.e. when other trains or the local substation are unable to accept the current. Diverting to battery can avoid burning the regen off in resistor banks or worse, using the friction brakes much more. Batteries could help to load balance through short high peaks of demand in many parts of the network. In another thought experiment perhaps a big 3rd rail equipped bimode loco sitting in a goods loop somewhere awaiting clearance could hurry along the passenger trains blocking its path through the junction by starting its engine and injecting power into the conductor!

 

[zwk500]

Another significant advantage could be in areas where power supplies are limited (such as Bournemouth to Weymouth). I would imagine that a well programmed BEMU could be set up to use a continuous but lower current draw - using the batteries to add current to the motors when accelerating and recharging the batteries when braking and stopped. This would take a lot of load off the power supplies, and could allow higher speeds, or more / longer trains in each section.

Agreed, and there's other use cases but I wanted to avoid going into 'what can batteries do?' territory.

A challenge would be the need for additional platforms, with expensive access arrangements. The case for any expenditure whatsoever at Doleham in particular would be difficult to make with about 3 passengers a day! Perhaps the double track from Ore could end just before Doleham, requiring only one new platform at Three Oaks. To keep costs under control, its new access could be a graded ramp down the embankment from the road overbridge.

I don't see why Doleham wouldn't also be a graded ramp similar to Glynde or what you'd need to build at Three Oaks. However I think Three Oaks would be sufficiently far from Ore to allow the necessary reduction in runtime (together with making both platforms at Rye reversible, a "reasonably" simple upgrade especially as you'll want to upgrade Rye for 12-car trains to avoid split/join at Hastings), that you wouldn't need Doleham as well. Once you've got the clear overlap distance, SPAD protection distance plus turnout the train will actually be quite far from the station when clearing the single line.

Better electric performance might allow the reintroduction of regular Doleham calls!

Given the potential catchment of Doleham this is one station that much to a certain member's horror I'd pursue the formal closure process on.

Agreed, and batteries can also take regenerated braking energy when the supply line is unreceptive, i.e. when other trains or the local substation are unable to accept the current. Diverting to battery can avoid burning the regen off in resistor banks or worse, using the friction brakes much more. Batteries could help to load balance through short high peaks of demand in many parts of the network. In another thought experiment perhaps a big 3rd rail equipped bimode loco sitting in a goods loop somewhere awaiting clearance could hurry along the passenger trains blocking its path through the junction by starting its engine and injecting power into the conductor!

Agreed again, there's so many uses for Battery EMUs, especially on a heavily-laden network like the third rail area.