New lines and improvements for Sussex railways

[DynamicSpirit]

As I see it, there is two options, if you want to not change the permanent way, and that's either,

electrify by extending 3rd rail, as a special case, and that would enable 377s to operate the line, so at least a 4-car set, and during peak, possibly if the feed is high enough 8 car set,

Or introduce Battery/ 3rd rail units, again, that could be 4 car sets, with peak hour strengthened to 8 cars, But the current one per hour would still be all that can run, would having more carriages be enough?

One possible addition, especially if electric units are introduced is that some services could be extended to run back to Tonbridge, then London, rather than terminating at either Ashford, or Hastings, depending on who is operating the service, it would make more sense to hand it over to Southeastern, with the Southern service terminating at Ore, by then, though hopefully The two companies will have been merged into one,

If the only improvement to the service is running longer trains, then couldn't you do that without electrification (or even BEMUs): Just find a few more DMUs from somewhere that would allow you to run longer DMUs. Perhaps, cascaded from somewhere in the North - such as the Transpennine route - that's already getting electrified anyway - which means the chance of some trains becoming available rather than potentially having to build some more 3rd rail EMUs.

On the other hand, if you're going to the trouble of electrifying the track, which is going to require extended line closures, then it would seem a very wasted opportunity not to add a couple of passing loops to enable a half-hourly service while you're at it.

(EDITED for clarity)

 

[stevieinselby]

One possible addition, especially if electric units are introduced is that some services could be extended to run back to Tonbridge, then London, rather than terminating at either Ashford, or Hastings, depending on who is operating the service, it would make more sense to hand it over to Southeastern, with the Southern service terminating at Ore, by then, though hopefully The two companies will have been merged into one,

The current Marshlink service runs from Ashford to Eastbourne, not Hastings. If BEMUs were used on it then a sensible change would be to link them with the Brighton to Eastbourne services, to create a through service from Brighton to Ashford. This would improve connectivity for coastal towns, as well as giving the units longer on the 3rd rail to recharge the batteries before coming back to the non-electrified section of the route.

 

[zwk500]

As I see it, there is two options, if you want to not change the permanent way, and that's either,

electrify by extending 3rd rail, as a special case, and that would enable 377s to operate the line, so at least a 4-car set, and during peak, possibly if the feed is high enough 8 car set,

putting down 3rd rail *is* a change to the permanent way.

Or introduce Battery/ 3rd rail units, again, that could be 4 car sets, with peak hour strengthened to 8 cars, But the current one per hour would still be all that can run, would having more carriages be enough?

According to the sectional appendix it's 9 chains between the toes of the points at Rye Loop, or 198yds/181m. Once you account for signals and standback that's looking awfully tight to fit a c.160m 8-Car unit in without further changes to the permanent way. And this assumes SDO for the platform working.

One possible addition, especially if electric units are introduced is that some services could be extended to run back to Tonbridge, then London, rather than terminating at either Ashford, or Hastings, depending on who is operating the service, it would make more sense to hand it over to Southeastern, with the Southern service terminating at Ore, by then, though hopefully The two companies will have been merged into one,

Are there paths beyond Tonbridge for them to reach London?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Are there paths beyond Tonbridge for them to reach London?

Since Covid, SouthEastern has lost 2tph London-Tunbridge Wells, so I would guess those paths should be free - though I'm not sure if any changes to the metro timetable might have filled them up at the London end.

There's also an issue of available rolling stock. I'm not certain but I think whatever was used for the Tunbridge Wells trains has got reallocated to lengthen other services, so is probably no longer available.

 

[DJ_K666]

Tunbridge Wells to Brighton likely could. Whether it could sustain enough of a service to justify the capital outlay I'm less convinced of, but the A26 is a terrible road and relieving it would be a good thing. The 29 bus does an OK job, but the potential demand is there for a train.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2025 ==


And then you'd have a really uncompetitive journey time from Tunbridge Wells to Brighton. The demand from Tonbridge to Sussex is much reduced compared to that from it's neighbour to the south.

Oddly enough the 29 bus is one of the handful of Brighton & Hove routes I never learned during my time there.

 

[JonathanH]

Since Covid, SouthEastern has lost 2tph London-Tunbridge Wells, so I would guess those paths should be free - though I'm not sure if any changes to the metro timetable might have filled them up at the London end.

Those London to Tunbridge Wells trains still run 2tph when they are needed, and at other times the passengers are accommodated on the trains to and from Hastings. The decision of Southeastern to reduce the number of Tunbridge Wells services doesn't bode well for increasing the number of trains working through to London from another route.

 

[brad465]

If the only improvement to the service is running longer trains, then couldn't you do that without electrification (or even BEMUs): Just find a few more DMUs from somewhere that would allow you to run longer DMUs. Perhaps, cascaded from somewhere in the North - such as the Transpennine route - that's already getting electrified anyway - which means the chance of some trains becoming available rather than potentially having to build some more 3rd rail EMUs.

On the other hand, if you're going to the trouble of electrifying the track, which is going to require extended line closures, then it would seem a very wasted opportunity not to add a couple of passing loops to enable a half-hourly service while you're at it.

(EDITED for clarity)

Doesn't the current setup allow 2tph on the Uckfield line? In the morning peak there is an additional London Bridge service that creates a 2tph frequency at the height of the peak, with passing taking place on the dynamic loop at Crowborough and the usual passing point at Ashurst. The main capacity problems as I see it are north of Oxted, at Oxted itself if terminating there (the bay platform can only be accessed by a reversing move) and maybe lack of resilience in a 2tph frequency scenario. The minimum requirement to improve capacity further I suspect is an additional platform at Uckfield and improving the Oxted setup, then if BEMUs are deployed journey times could also drop.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Doesn't the current setup allow 2tph on the Uckfield line? In the morning peak there is an additional London Bridge service that creates a 2tph frequency at the height of the peak, with passing taking place on the dynamic loop at Crowborough and the usual passing point at Ashurst. The main capacity problems as I see it are north of Oxted, at Oxted itself if terminating there (the bay platform can only be accessed by a reversing move) and maybe lack of resilience in a 2tph frequency scenario. The minimum requirement to improve capacity further I suspect is an additional platform at Uckfield and improving the Oxted setup, then if BEMUs are deployed journey times could also drop.

This bit of the discussion is about the Ashford-Hastings line

 

[brad465]

This bit of the discussion is about the Ashford-Hastings line

Sorry, this is what happens when a discussion is like Chinese whispers where quoting posts continuously and resorting to pronouns leads to key words/nouns disappearing from context.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Sorry, this is what happens when a discussion is like Chinese whispers where quoting posts continuously and resorting to pronouns leads to key words/nouns disappearing from context.

Usually, before replying to anything, if there looks to be any uncertainty about the context, I click on any quoted text to see what the message was in reply to.

 

[brad465]

Usually, before replying to anything, if there looks to be any uncertainty about the context, I click on any quoted text to see what the message was in reply to.

Okay.

On the Marshlink the biggest capacity need appears to be between Rye and Ashford, as for Rye passengers the no.1 destination is to St Pancras, double that of demand for Hastings, with Ashford at no.3. Perhaps as well as the existing service you could run a Rye-Tonbridge via Ashford on BEMUs calling all stations. If platform space at Tonbridge is limited, merge it in with the Redhill service. This would serve Rye-Ashford better, and if Tonbridge-Ashford is served by this additional service, at least one of the 2tph Charing X-Ashford and beyond services could skip stops through here. Furthermore, running through to Tonbridge provides the stock plenty of time to charge on third rail, similar to how Ashford-Eastbourne services would do most of their charging west of Ore.

 

[zwk500]

Oddly enough the 29 bus is one of the handful of Brighton & Hove routes I never learned during my time there.

If you did the 28 about 15 years ago there's an outside chance you'd have driven me into town!

 

[DJ_K666]

If you did the 28 about 15 years ago there's an outside chance you'd have driven me into town!

I was Conway street based unfortunately. I only ever did the 28s twice. Once on Boxing day and once at Lewes Road for a bit of overtime when we had none at Conway. Only time I ever went into Ringmer and had to look on Google street view in Control to find the terminus hehe

 

[30907]

If the additional unit can be found, there's no reason you couldn't run Ashford-Rye half-hourly - it used to happen in the peaks, but the demand is probably now at weekends.

BTW the 40 limit "over reverse curves" between Doleham and Ore Tunnel dates back to the 1960 appendix - I daresay it could be improved with some slewing, but the gain would be limited.

 

[mr_jrt]

Usual question that springs to mind...would it pay off to just redouble the line to eliminate the loop pointwork? Capital expenditure, sure, but you save on operational expenditure as the track would get less wear as it's only being used half as much, you save on having a less complex layout as you can eliminate all the S&C, and you have more flexibility in your timetabling.

 

[MarkyT]

BTW the 40 limit "over reverse curves" between Doleham and Ore Tunnel dates back to the 1960 appendix - I daresay it could be improved with some slewing, but the gain would be limited.

40mph applies from Ore station to Doleham, a distance of nearly 4 miles, including the straight through Ore tunnel. Curves are ~1000m radius. I can't see geometry being the major limiting factor here, so maybe track or structure/earthworks condition concerns exist? As you say, minor transition niggles can often be smoothed out easily for a single line within a former double track corridor.

Usual question that springs to mind...would it pay off to just redouble the line to eliminate the loop pointwork? Capital expenditure, sure, but you save on operational expenditure as the track would get less wear as it's only being used half as much, you save on having a less complex layout as you can eliminate all the S&C, and you have more flexibility in your timetabling.

A major justification for redoubling is often knock-on delay propagation. That drove reinstatement of the 7.5 miles between Probus and Burngullow in Cornwall, partly due to the stochastic performance effects on long-distance passenger and mail trains going all over the country. The more self-contained a route is, the less it can interfere with other service groups.

Given the length of time the line has now been single and established service patterns, I think it remains suitable here, with passing facilities retained and adjusted to cope with the desired future services. Rather than providing additional passing loops, lengthening existing ones would at least avoid any more turnouts in total than today. While some maintenance is involved with loop turnouts, and there is the doubled tonnage on the single track, I think any savings in these areas from doubling would be small compared to the sheer effort and cost to clear for double track throughout again to modern standards after all these years. There will likely be significant drainage, cabling, earthworks and structures issues to resolve, and new platforms to be constructed with their access routes.

To help make the line more self-contained at the Ashford end, I suggest a new dedicated bay for Marshlink. That would come at the cost of some car parking and the small electrified stabling yard alongside the branch. It might be difficult to construct over the rivers that pass under the railway thereabouts, but it would isolate the service from all Southeastern movements at the station, and vice versa. Perhaps the sidings could be replaced by a small part of Chart Leacon reinstated.

 

[BerkshireRails]

40mph applies from Ore station to Doleham, a distance of nearly 4 miles, including the straight through Ore tunnel. Curves are ~1000m radius. I can't see geometry being the major limiting factor here, so maybe track or structure/earthworks condition concerns exist? As you say, minor transition niggles can often be smoothed out easily for a single line within a former double track corridor.

The line speed on Marshlink was 85mph however was reduced to 40mph in the 1970s according to the Marshlink Action Group.

A major justification for redoubling is often knock-on delay propagation. That drove reinstatement of the 7.5 miles between Probus and Burngullow in Cornwall, partly due to the stochastic performance effects on long-distance passenger and mail trains going all over the country. The more self-contained a route is, the less it can interfere with other service groups.

Given the length of time the line has now been single and established service patterns, I think it remains suitable here, with passing facilities retained and adjusted to cope with the desired future services. Rather than providing additional passing loops, lengthening existing ones would at least avoid any more turnouts in total than today. While some maintenance is involved with loop turnouts, and there is the doubled tonnage on the single track, I think any savings in these areas from doubling would be small compared to the sheer effort and cost to clear for double track throughout again to modern standards after all these years. There will likely be significant drainage, cabling, earthworks and structures issues to resolve, and new platforms to be constructed with their access routes.

To help make the line more self-contained at the Ashford end, I suggest a new dedicated bay for Marshlink. That would come at the cost of some car parking and the small electrified stabling yard alongside the branch. It might be difficult to construct over the rivers that pass under the railway thereabouts, but it would isolate the service from all Southeastern movements at the station, and vice versa. Perhaps the sidings could be replaced by a small part of Chart Leacon reinstated.

I think a Rye to Doleham double track might be a good option and maybe it might be worth doubling up Rye to Appledore single line to provide a double track from Ashford International to Doleham. Certainly at some point there was a 2tph Rye to Ashford International service and 1tph Rye to Eastbourne with some to Brighton. The Eastbourne to Brighton section was cut back to prevent overcrowding on the Marshlink.

Doesn't the current setup allow 2tph on the Uckfield line? In the morning peak there is an additional London Bridge service that creates a 2tph frequency at the height of the peak, with passing taking place on the dynamic loop at Crowborough and the usual passing point at Ashurst. The main capacity problems as I see it are north of Oxted, at Oxted itself if terminating there (the bay platform can only be accessed by a reversing move) and maybe lack of resilience in a 2tph frequency scenario. The minimum requirement to improve capacity further I suspect is an additional platform at Uckfield and improving the Oxted setup, then if BEMUs are deployed journey times could also drop.

It does with 10 car 171s, which are 230 meters in the length. They only terminate at Oxted on Sundays normally. It might be better to terminate at Woldingham to save the shunt moves and to prevent holding the following service from East Grinstead to keep to time for the single line due to the increased run time. However as there is a path in the peak there is probably a path off peak for 2tph to South or East Croydon.

 

[yorksrob]

The line speed on Marshlink was 85mph however was reduced to 40mph in the 1970s according to the Marshlink Action Group.

I think a Rye to Doleham double track might be a good option and maybe it might be worth doubling up Rye to Appledore single line to provide a double track from Ashford International to Doleham. Certainly at some point there was a 2tph Rye to Ashford International service and 1tph Rye to Eastbourne with some to Brighton. The Eastbourne to Brighton section was cut back to prevent overcrowding on the Marshlink.

It does with 10 car 171s, which are 230 meters in the length. They only terminate at Oxted on Sundays normally. It might be better to terminate at Woldingham to save the shunt moves and to prevent holding the following service from East Grinstead to keep to time for the single line due to the increased run time. However as there is a path in the peak there is probably a path off peak for 2tph to South or East Croydon.

Surely once you've got to Doleham, you may as well finish the job.

 

[martin butler]

I honestly can't see GBR investing in line improvements only in replacing the 171'S with BEMUS, as part of a wider order to remove diesel units from the network, on the lines in the Thames valley, Reading to Gatwick Marsh line, and Uckfield branches, and possibly on Waterloo to Salisbury / Exeter, if longer range battery packs can be fitted, or recharging grids at some locations along the route.

To make it cost effective, it would have to be done as part of a larger order, or modification creating a sub class of 377/ 378, that has the capacity to switch from overhead,/ 3rd rail. to battery, to make them, in effect capable of working on other parts of the network, such as peak time, off say the Marlow branch, to Paddington, or running on 3rd rail from Basingstoke to Waterloo, or able to divert via other routes,

 

[izvor]

Going back upthread a bit, for me the biggest no-brainer for capital expenditure in West Sussex is re-opening Three Bridges - East Grinstead as a light rail line. It was suggested above, and is something I've been banging on about for years (mostly to myself admittedly!).

It would be cheap, as 80-90% of the solum is still extant as a cycle/foot path. Some land take would be needed at Crawley Down (a much-expanded commuter village) and a new bridge over the M23. At 7 miles long, with say 4 intermediate stops, a 20-minute service could be provided by 2 units, with a journey time of around 12 minutes (the old steam service took 14 minutes with 2 stops). Being self-contained it might even be a candidate for driverless trams, when the technology permits. Power would be conventional light-rail overhead, or battery units. I don't think VLR would be appropriate for an inter-urban, though I stand to be contradicted.

The demand is there, as shown by the fastest bus (Metrobus 400) being doubled in frequency at the end of this month. Connectivity for East Grinstead would be vastly improved to, e.g., Gatwick, Brighton, Horsham, Crawley Industrial Estate, as well as an attractive, fast alternative route to London. Potentially more important, with the parallel (but much less direct) A264 road suffering from ever-increasing congestion - due to huge new developments at Copthorne and elsewhere - there could be the opportunity for significant modal shift to public transport, particularly for workers in the locations above.

The termini might be a bit problemmatic: at EGR it could easily stop at the car park adjacent to the station (where the old high level platforms were), though a short extension towards the town centre, or even the Queen Vic Hospital, might be possible if affordable. At TBD a small platform adjacent to P5 would be good for onward connections by rail, less so for connecting buses. Extension into Crawley itself would not, in my view, be cost-effective unless part of a wider (and unlikely) Crawley light rail project.

Any thoughts?

 

[30907]

The line speed on Marshlink was 85mph however was reduced to 40mph in the 1970s according to the Marshlink Action Group.

Said link says 60mph - previously the DEMUs had a maximum speed of 75, though as the journey times in 1963 and 1982 (online) were pretty much identical I doubt they actually exceeded 60 by much.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Said link says 60mph - previously the DEMUs had a maximum speed of 75, though as the journey times in 1963 and 1982 (online) were pretty much identical I doubt they actually exceeded 60 by much.

I had taken the lowered 40mph limit between Doleham & Ore by accident as the new ruling limit, rather than the actual ruling 60mph limit, which was still reduced from 85 mph.

The line was single tracked between Appledore and Ore on 1 October 1979, leaving a passing loop at Rye. Line speed was reduced from 85 mph to 60 mph, but there are additional long term speed restrictions in place, including 40 mph between Doleham and Ore and 20 mph across a half barrier level crossing at Winchelsea, which is strange because since the crossing’s upgrade from an ungated to barrier crossing, the speed limit was said to be raised. In the 1990s, following privatisation, the original Victorian station building at Ore was demolished and replaced with a simple shelter.