Brighton line Blockade

[Antman]

Uckfield is a terminus now.

I am aware of that.

The discussion was about reinstating the section to Lewes.

 

[yorksrob]

12 cars do run via Littlehampton 2ph on Saturdays 1 on Sundays but it takes an hour longer, I don't think via Uckfield will be any faster. In theory a non stop bus is quicker.

Indeed, and as I mentioned earlier, if you were able to alternate diverted services between Dorking and Uckfield, you could manage a lot of crowdbusting.

Alternatively, you could dedicate the Dorking route to Gatwick airport and Uckfield to the coast if need be. Its amazing how resilient a proper network can be.

 

[AndrewE]

The line was closed in 1966 because it was losing money hand over fist. Between Christ's Hospital and Shoreham it had six stations serving villages. At that time none had a large population and even today the total population served directly is pretty small. In the 1960s taxpayers were respected far more by politicians than they are today, and scrounging off the taxpayer was not considered a legitimate tactic.

Today, with mooted plans to build a line to Heathrow from the south, the means to run a service from Brighton via Guildford and Woking to our busiest airport seems very attractive, but in 1966 no-one had the necessary crystal ball.

That was then, but this is now. We have a desperate need to reduce road congestion and pollution, and electric trains are the way to do it for regional and intra- and inter-conurbation traffic. I still cannot believe that there is such a prejudice against enhancing the rail network on any significant scale while road schemes go ahead all the time (apart from airline-on-wheels projects or investments in and around - or for the benefit of - Greater London.)
Christ's Hospital to Shoreham looks like a good way to invest money, as most of the line seems unobstructed if you look at Google Earth. Lots of other things need doing too - but we may need be flexible in our thinking and box clever, maybe by developments such as putting in a people-mover from Anniesland to Possilpark to get conflicting moves off congested flat junctions.

 

[paul1609]

It isn’t a current proposal. (Which might have been your meaning anyway.)

New lines such as Arundel Chord or proposed reinstatements such as BML2 don’t meet BCR requirements as diversionary routes. This is covered in the relevant route studies. They have to be permanently useful in their own right.

The Arundel Chord was a proposal in the 20 year Southern Franchise plan before that was pulled by the government of the time. The idea was that the West Coastway to Victoria services were reversed and went from Brighton to Victoria via the Arundel Curve and Dorking freeing up capacity on the Brighton main Line. It provided Dorking and Horsham with direct services to the Brighton conurbation. it would provide a far better BCR than Uckfield to Lewes because of its much lower capital costs. Uckfield to lewes is handicapped by the extra cost of replacing all the previous level crossings with bridges and the fact that under ORR rules it is not possible to electrify it on the dc system.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Arundel Chord was a proposal in the 20 year Southern Franchise plan before that was pulled by the government of the time. The idea was that the West Coastway to Victoria services were reversed and went from Brighton to Victoria via the Arundel Curve and Dorking freeing up capacity on the Brighton main Line. It provided Dorking and Horsham with direct services to the Brighton conurbation. it would provide a far better BCR than Uckfield to Lewes because of its much lower capital costs. Uckfield to lewes is handicapped by the extra cost of replacing all the previous level crossings with bridges and the fact that under ORR rules it is not possible to electrify it on the dc system.

Every analysis of the Arundel Chord I’ve ever seen has said there is no capacity via Dorking. Some other service would have to be cancelled to make room. The current route study is very lukewarm on the idea.

None of which has much relevance to this year’s engineering works. It’s all pretty irrelevant to today’s issues.

 

[infobleep]

Every analysis of the Arundel Chord I’ve ever seen has said there is no capacity via Dorking. Some other service would have to be cancelled to make room. The current route study is very lukewarm on the idea.

None of which has much relevance to this year’s engineering works. It’s all pretty irrelevant to today’s issues.

Regardless of whether the business case would stack up, on a practical level, could they not extent some of the existing services beyond Dorking and Horsham? This morning I noticed there were 4 trains from Dorking towards London. 9am, 9.07, 9.33 and 9.37. Three of them started at Dorking and the 9.37 started at Horsham.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Every analysis of the Arundel Chord I’ve ever seen has said there is no capacity via Dorking. Some other service would have to be cancelled to make room.

Why would they need capacity via Dorking when the trains would run via Three Bridges?

 

[swt_passenger]

Why would they need capacity via Dorking when the trains would run via Three Bridges?

Well I was only answering a previous post that suggested they should run via Dorking...

 

[Robsignals]

That was then, but this is now. We have a desperate need to reduce road congestion and pollution, and electric trains are the way to do it for regional and intra- and inter-conurbation traffic. I still cannot believe that there is such a prejudice against enhancing the rail network on any significant scale while road schemes go ahead all the time (apart from airline-on-wheels projects or investments in and around - or for the benefit of - Greater London.)
Christ's Hospital to Shoreham looks like a good way to invest money, as most of the line seems unobstructed if you look at Google Earth. Lots of other things need doing too - but we may need be flexible in our thinking and box clever, maybe by developments such as putting in a people-mover from Anniesland to Possilpark to get conflicting moves off congested flat junctions.

Sadly the big advantage of roads for decision makers is that they aren't controlled by a union, I'm not anti union but do remember strikes in the 80s and the damage they did. I suspect that the Tories chose a privatisation that split the industry into as many bits as possible was to break union power. Even now the RMT are reminding everyone of the disruption a politically driven union can cause. There'd have to be a genuine no strike agreement before any government would consider switching all road investment to rail.

The line has largely been made into the Downs Link bridleway but has been built on in all the villages, particular problems are crossing the A24 d/c at Southwater and the A283 Steyning bypass taking the alignment with H/V grid cables under continuing to the pylons near the old cement works.

 

[Robsignals]

The Arundel Chord was a proposal in the 20 year Southern Franchise plan before that was pulled by the government of the time. The idea was that the West Coastway to Victoria services were reversed and went from Brighton to Victoria via the Arundel Curve and Dorking freeing up capacity on the Brighton main Line. It provided Dorking and Horsham with direct services to the Brighton conurbation. it would provide a far better BCR than Uckfield to Lewes because of its much lower capital costs. Uckfield to lewes is handicapped by the extra cost of replacing all the previous level crossings with bridges and the fact that under ORR rules it is not possible to electrify it on the dc system.

Reversing the Londons would leave Worthing with about the same journey time but Hove 30+ min more so they'd all go to Brighton filling the capacity released.

 

[swt_passenger]

Regardless of whether the business case would stack up, on a practical level, could they not extent some of the existing services beyond Dorking and Horsham? This morning I noticed there were 4 trains from Dorking towards London. 9am, 9.07, 9.33 and 9.37. Three of them started at Dorking and the 9.37 started at Horsham.

Those trains northbound from Dorking or Horsham probably need to start empty and fill up on their way to Victoria. They also might be on their second or third trip of the morning - you can’t look at them in isolation from the rest of their existing diagrams.

 

[Robsignals]

Regardless of whether the business case would stack up, on a practical level, could they not extent some of the existing services beyond Dorking and Horsham? This morning I noticed there were 4 trains from Dorking towards London. 9am, 9.07, 9.33 and 9.37. Three of them started at Dorking and the 9.37 started at Horsham.

Dorking - Horsham was peak only going all day around privatisation, SWT tried an hourly fast that evidently didn't generate much traffic.

My ultimate plan for the Brighton line would be to extend HS1 to Gatwick and eventually Brighton.

 

[Taunton]

A curve at Arundel Junction would be straightforward, but the real issue is the small number of platforms at Brighton for trains this way, and them being effectively separated from the main part of the station. When I was diverted this way, quite apart from the Littlehampton double run we ran to Preston Park, and then back into the main station, which added a further 20 minutes to things. I did notice on alighting that all three platforms facing west had trains in them.

 

[JB_B]

A curve at Arundel Junction would be straightforward, but the real issue is the small number of platforms at Brighton for trains this way, and them being effectively separated from the main part of the station. ...

Is that really the case?

AFAIK Platforms 1 and 2 can both handle 12-car - plus with the main line shut you'll also have plat 3 for up to 4-car to/from the West - (the locals are no more than 4-car)

Standard off-peak pattern is 6 departures to Hove per hour ( Mon-Sat ) and only 3 per hour Sundays ( When diversions are most likely to be needed.)

If it's going to be too tight on Saturdays then you could cancel the Hove shuttles since the diversions call there anyway.

... When I was diverted this way, quite apart from the Littlehampton double run we ran to Preston Park, and then back into the main station, which added a further 20 minutes to things. I did notice on alighting that all three platforms facing west had trains in them.

I've been on plenty of Brighton - Victoria trains diverted via Littlehampton but I've never been on one that had to reverse at Preston Park.



Out of interest, does anyone have a link to the BCR input figures and calcs and for Arundel chord?

 

[swt_passenger]

AFAIK Platforms 1 and 2 can both handle 12-car - plus with the main line shut you'll also have plat 3 for up to 4-car to/from the West - (the locals are no more than 4-car)

Out of interest, does anyone have a link to the BCR input figures and calcs and for Arundel chord?

They do say in the Sussex route study that there’s only one 12 car platform available from the west coastway.
There’s a load of supporting figures in Appendix A of the Route Study, starting page 146. Don’t know if that helps at all.
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-East-Route-Sussex-Area-Route-Study-FINAL.pdf

 

[Taunton]

Is that really the case?
Out of interest, does anyone have a link to the BCR input figures and calcs and for Arundel chord?

The Route Study linked to above specifically states that not only is it so, but the key reason for the concept failing its BCR in the first place is the inability of Brighton west-facing platforms to handle the additional services.

Page 15 :

"Diversionary Routes for the BML
• The study sets out a costed option to build a short stretch of
new line near Arundel to provide diversionary access to the
BML. The business case calculated is low, primarily due to the
small number of services that can be diverted at times of
disruption due to the permanently limited number of west
facing platforms at Brighton."

 

[Robertj21a]

They do say in the Sussex route study that there’s only one 12 car platform available from the west coastway.
There’s a load of supporting figures in Appendix A of the Route Study, starting page 146. Don’t know if that helps at all.
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-East-Route-Sussex-Area-Route-Study-FINAL.pdf

Presumably platform 2 ?

 

[JB_B]

The Route Study linked to above specifically states that not only is it so, but the key reason for the concept failing its BCR in the first place is the inability of Brighton west-facing platforms to handle the additional services.

Page 15 :

"Diversionary Routes for the BML
• The study sets out a costed option to build a short stretch of
new line near Arundel to provide diversionary access to the
BML. The business case calculated is low, primarily due to the
small number of services that can be diverted at times of
disruption due to the permanently limited number of west
facing platforms at Brighton."

They do say in the Sussex route study that there’s only one 12 car platform available from the west coastway.
There’s a load of supporting figures in Appendix A of the Route Study, starting page 146. Don’t know if that helps at all.
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-East-Route-Sussex-Area-Route-Study-FINAL.pdf

Thanks - the sectional appendix shows both platforms 1 and 2 as 12-car.

Only had time for a quick look but am I right in thinking that BCR calcs included the costs of running additional off-peak services over the chord ( rather than just speeding up the current diversions )? Would the BCR have looked any better if these had been excluded?

 

[AndrewE]

Dorking - Horsham was peak only going all day around privatisation, SWT tried an hourly fast that evidently didn't generate much traffic.

My ultimate plan for the Brighton line would be to extend HS1 to Gatwick and eventually Brighton.

I would prefer HS2 to run through west London (Heathrow?) to Brighton now. Maybe add HS1 in too later. A high speed network connected into our classic network would replace airport expansion.

 

[HowardGWR]

I'm just wondering if just running a shuttle between Barnham eastwards to Brighton more frequently (and lengthening it), would do, when the BML south of Three Bridges is closed, and at the same time lengthening the services to Pompey and Southampton? Pax change at Barnham.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm just wondering if just running a shuttle between Barnham eastwards to Brighton more frequently (and lengthening it), would do, when the BML south of Three Bridges is closed, and at the same time lengthening the services to Pompey and Southampton? Pax change at Barnham.

I don’t think, given the similar distances involved, that has any advantage over the usual diversion with reversal at Littlehampton for passengers going all the way to Brighton. I’d agree with ensuring other Arun Valley services are all full length, some passengers could change at Barnham as well as those going via Littlehampton.

Of course the Victoria to Southampton doesn’t run on Sundays, when many diversions take place. Reasons why it doesn’t run is probably a question for another thread...

 

[Harbornite]

Sorry, we’ll ask NR to close it on Monday instead, when everyone’s trying to get to work. How’s that?

Indeed.

 

[Robsignals]

I'm just wondering if just running a shuttle between Barnham eastwards to Brighton more frequently (and lengthening it), would do, when the BML south of Three Bridges is closed, and at the same time lengthening the services to Pompey and Southampton? Pax change at Barnham.

Through trains are more helpful and quicker, would be better to have 2 an hour on Sundays. Not so many years ago they carried the Southampton/ Portsmouth portion which made announcements of which coaches went where and short platforms complicated.

The standard paths on Saturdays for the diversion were revised last year (with Mid Sussex trains not splitting at Horsham) not calling Angmering, Goring, Durrington & West Worthing so a little faster and much better punctuality. At one time they were all stations Littlehampton - Brighton...nightmare.

 

[HowardGWR]

Realising I am writing from ignorance, (I forgot the SOU -VIC don't run on Sundays) would the great majority of drivers sign the various routes to the coast (west of Brighton) and the coast route itself, thus allowing a short term timetable of diversions, extra shuttles and strengthening?

 

[AndrewE]

would the great majority of drivers sign the various routes to the coast (west of Brighton) and the coast route itself, thus allowing a short term timetable of diversions, extra shuttles and strengthening?

It doesn't matter: if it is a worthwhile answer to a problem then give them the training... oh, I forgot, the DafT have only allowed for the minimum possible number of traincrew in the franchise bids, and the binding contracts already signed would prevent it anyway.

 

[The Planner]

Doesn't prevent it at all, someone stumps up the cash then I suspect they will gladly do it, the reason they don't in the meantime is because they were not asked to bid for it in the ITT.

 

[AndrewE]

Doesn't prevent it at all, someone stumps up the cash then I suspect they will gladly do it, the reason they don't in the meantime is because they were not asked to bid for it in the ITT.

Really? This (and the whole franchise shambles) reminds me of this:
(from https://www.lollydaskal.com/leadership/story-everybody-somebody-anybody-nobody/)

There was an important job to be done. Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

The story may be confusing but the message is clear: no one took responsibility so nothing got accomplished.

 

[Robsignals]

Realising I am writing from ignorance, (I forgot the SOU -VIC don't run on Sundays) would the great majority of drivers sign the various routes to the coast (west of Brighton) and the coast route itself, thus allowing a short term timetable of diversions, extra shuttles and strengthening?

Pretty sure that all Southern drivers that work to Brighton and west sign all routes except via Dorking, diversions are made in response to problems. Don't know if 700's are cleared for Horsham - Arundel Jct and Hove - Brighton P1 & 2. The only depot west of Brighton is Barnham incorporating Littlehampton and Bognor, does anyone know if drivers can sign on remotely as that's where the trains are.

 

[tsr]

Pretty sure that all Southern drivers that work to Brighton and west sign all routes except via Dorking, diversions are made in response to problems. Don't know if 700's are cleared for Horsham - Arundel Jct and Hove - Brighton P1 & 2. The only depot west of Brighton is Barnham incorporating Littlehampton and Bognor, does anyone know if drivers can sign on remotely as that's where the trains are.

Definitely not correct, I’m afraid. Many routes are way outside the route card of any individual depot. More probably sign via Lewes than anywhere else, but even that knowledge can be limited.

 

[thelem]

I was on these buses last Sunday and was mostly impressed. As I left three bridges station building around 18:30 I could see a queue of about 100 people for the Brighton buses. Half of those had been directed to a bus by the time I'd walked to the gazebos and the rest of us were filing onto a second bus a couple of minutes later. There was plenty of free water and being a direct bus to Brighton the delay wasn't too bad (much better than RRB services on coastway west which take ages visiting all the tiny stations)

Once I got too Brighton it was a bit of a mess though. There just isn't enough space out the back for the number of buses. They need somewhere to send the empty buses while they wait.