Budget 2015

[Bald Rick]

You could also get an extra two peak hour paths to London post London Bridge remodelling by running Brighton - Uckfield - Tun Wells - Sevenoaks - Bromley South - Victoria(E), making use of the now unused Eurostar/Boat Train capacity on the old Boat Train Route 1.

I'm afraid those paths went a long time ago, effectively to the 15 minute interval Orpington stoppers. At least that's what I was told.

But even if they did exist, and somehow found paths through the tunnels at Tunbridge Wells, who in their right mind would use that for Brighton (or anywhere south of Eridge) to London? It must be 2 hours from Brighton.

 

[21C101]

I'm afraid those paths went a long time ago, effectively to the 15 minute interval Orpington stoppers. At least that's what I was told.

But even if they did exist, and somehow found paths through the tunnels at Tunbridge Wells, who in their right mind would use that for Brighton (or anywhere south of Eridge) to London? It must be 2 hours from Brighton.

Amazing how you can attract people onto longer inferior routes if the fares are cheaper. Look at the Uckfield Line

More seriously, Tun Wells to London bridge is 55m in the peaks so Vic would be much the same. Tun wells to Uckfield shouldn't take any more than 30m so you are looking at 1h 25 ish from Uckfield that way. But yes, as an alternative to Brighton probably not, except when Brighton FC are playing at home at Falmer.

If I was going to have a "BML2" I would reopen Horsham - Shoreham and run via Dorking.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm afraid those paths went a long time ago, effectively to the 15 minute interval Orpington stoppers. At least that's what I was told.

But even if they did exist, and somehow found paths through the tunnels at Tunbridge Wells, who in their right mind would use that for Brighton (or anywhere south of Eridge) to London? It must be 2 hours from Brighton.

Not everyone travels from the coast to London. There are currently trains from London that terminate at Tunbridge Wells Central. Perhaps in the event of a reopening of theTonbridge - Brighton, route, these could be extended as part of an infill electrification.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not everyone travels from the coast to London. There are currently trains from London that terminate at Tunbridge Wells Central. Perhaps in the event of a reopening of theTonbridge - Brighton, route, these could be extended as part of an infill electrification.

They could be. But as disgusted* of Tunbridge Wells repeatedly tells me at meet the manager, these trains are already full in the peaks.

* other moods are available.

 

[yorksrob]

They could be. But as disgusted* of Tunbridge Wells repeatedly tells me at meet the manager, these trains are already full in the peaks.

* other moods are available.

True, but as any commuter knows, commuter trains become less crowded the further from the metropolitan centre you get, and as we've established that the route isn't going to be a rival for London - Brighton (except handily for diversions) there will be plenty of space for local passengers travelling between the Weald and the coast.

 

[21C101]

True, but as any commuter knows, commuter trains become less crowded the further from the metropolitan centre you get, and as we've established that the route isn't going to be a rival for London - Brighton (except handily for diversions) there will be plenty of space for local passengers travelling between the Weald and the coast.

I suppose they could extend the London Redhill Tonbridge trains to Brighton via Tun Wells. I bet they are not full in the peaks...

I would imagine it would be worth extending the London to Tun Wells peak trains to Tun Wells West if it reopened just to get them out of the way.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I suppose they could extend the London Redhill Tonbridge trains to Brighton via Tun Wells. I bet they are not full in the peaks...

I would imagine it would be worth extending the London to Tun Wells peak trains to Tun Wells West if it reopened just to get them out of the way.

Not much point when the extensive - and expensive turnback was provided in the nick of time .....

 

[yorksrob]

I suppose they could extend the London Redhill Tonbridge trains to Brighton via Tun Wells. I bet they are not full in the peaks...

I would imagine it would be worth extending the London to Tun Wells peak trains to Tun Wells West if it reopened just to get them out of the way.

This is true. I'm surprised they didn't keep the link to Tunbridge Wells West as a convenient place to terminate peak services on electrification.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I'm afraid those paths went a long time ago, effectively to the 15 minute interval Orpington stoppers. At least that's what I was told.

But even if they did exist, and somehow found paths through the tunnels at Tunbridge Wells, who in their right mind would use that for Brighton (or anywhere south of Eridge) to London? It must be 2 hours from Brighton.

The 4 tph Orpington stoppers were indeed a legacy of removing E* off the classic routes. Well used too one gathers.

 

[yorksrob]

Not much point when the extensive - and expensive turnback was provided in the nick of time .....

A turnback doesn't provide much in the way of additional connectivity though. Lots of money for operational flexibility, but no improvement to the passenger service.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I think the current users of the trackbed from East Grinstead are bit more influential than the users of trackbed from Uckfield...

Well exactly! Get your sticky paws off the East Grinstead route!

 

[Rich McLean]

Sources close to the action are saying they are (today) still on course for Monday for the GW DA and there will be something on new trains for the West in the announcement.

Bidders for other franchises have been offered ex GW 150/1 and 153 units but not the 158 fleet. It will be interesting on Monday to find out what they are going to be used for, if the Cardiff-Portsmouth is indeed going Turbo as planned.

158s could end up on the proposed Bristol - Penzance hourly semi fast (as the Taunton stopper, plus all shacks to Penzance except St Thomas, Starcross, D Warren, Dockyard, Keyham & Menheniot)

Also 158s proposed for Barny - Axminster, with 150/2s on the proposed 2tph Paignton - Exmouth

 

[tsr]

I suppose they could extend the London Redhill Tonbridge trains to Brighton via Tun Wells. I bet they are not full in the peaks...

I would imagine it would be worth extending the London to Tun Wells peak trains to Tun Wells West if it reopened just to get them out of the way.

Rammed in the high peak between London and Redhill, like everything else. And then virtually empty to Tonbridge. But it would be such a roundabout route that nobody in their right mind would use it from London to Brighton in normal circumstances. You'd probably get a few between London and Edenbridge as now, Tunbridge Wells and maybe Groombridge/Eridge. Assuming the Spa Valley route is actually suddenly available all the way.

I think it would be far more likely that you'd just end up with a vanilla-flavour secondary mainline from London Bridge to Lewes via Oxted and Uckfield. This would then form a major diversionary route, possibly with a handful of Mainline West services taking the parallel Horsham-Dorking route and many of the Mainline East services running via Uckfield. But don't forget that there are more issues than simply a diversion via Uckfield, though - you need to allocate route knowledge, stock, electrical supplies, station staff, ECS movements, etc. Just for a service terminating at Lewes, this would involve major reshuffles of virtually the whole of Selhurst and Norwood train crew rosters and depot stock diagrams - and probably Victoria, Brighton and Eastbourne as well. The diversion route would also need to be able to offer a reasonable throughput in terms of pathing, signalling (which is very limited at present in terms of capacity) and modification of stock usage in emergencies. No doubt this would be in the future study and all this disruption has to be looked at seriously. If it's done well, I'd very much support it, but only if...!

 

[mr_jrt]

My proposal I keep totting out when Uckfield to Lewes crops up is that whilst I agree it's worth building on a local case for connectivity, I think the only strong case would not be as a route to London, but as a route to Tunbridge Wells.

If relieving the BML is your objective, you need to interchange with it as some passengers will still want access to the stations along it. Routing them in the opposite direction over a much longer route will not really help them much.

However - if you instead add a new bore to the short (249yd?) Haywards Heath tunnel and double up the short (150yd?) viaduct south of there, then you get a segregated route all the way from Lewes to Haywards Heath via Keymer Junction. North of Haywards Heath it should be trivial to continue with four tracks all the way to Copyhold Junction, and thence restoring the route via Horstead Keynes to East Grinstead gets you a segregated route from Lewes to London that is only 7 miles longer than via the BML, but offers an interchange at Haywards Heath so you retain access to Gatwick, Three Bridges et al. without consuming paths on the BML proper. The ideal would be for Keymer and Copyhold to be grade-separated so you could even have cross-platform interchange at Haywards Heath.

Unfortunate for the Bluebell, but would be immensely beneficial for the region to have those links on the NR network again with all the associated frequent through services.

...and helpfully, it would also be a small start on the very-long-term objective of finishing the quad-tracking of the BML

 

[Stats]

Has anything changed that could lead to Network Rail reaching a different conclusion to that published 6 months ago in the Sussex route study consultation?

 

[Minstral25]

Rammed in the high peak between London and Redhill, like everything else. And then virtually empty to Tonbridge. But it would be such a roundabout route that nobody in their right mind would use it from London to Brighton in normal circumstances. You'd probably get a few between London and Edenbridge as now, Tunbridge Wells and maybe Groombridge/Eridge. Assuming the Spa Valley route is actually suddenly available all the way.

The LBG - Redhill - Tonbridge trains should be diverted to Reigate instead where there is a huge demand for more London trains and revert the Tonbridge branch to a shuttle from Redhill or possibly to get a Kent - Gatwick service in place.

In any case in Dec 2015 they will become VIC-RDH-TON trains and London Bridge connection becomes no more.

 

[RichardN]

If I was going to have a "BML2" I would reopen Horsham - Shoreham and run via Dorking.

They're building a new estate at Southwater on the line of the trackbed. I say that as as a member of the one household being displaced by it... Our garden ends where the cutting for the line used to be.

 

[47802]

158s could end up on the proposed Bristol - Penzance hourly semi fast (as the Taunton stopper, plus all shacks to Penzance except St Thomas, Starcross, D Warren, Dockyard, Keyham & Menheniot)

Also 158s proposed for Barny - Axminster, with 150/2s on the proposed 2tph Paignton - Exmouth

Hasn't there been suggestions that Scotrail style Mini HST's will be retained for some secondary services such as the proposed Bristol - Penzance semi fast.

 

[Rich McLean]

Hasn't there been suggestions that Scotrail style Mini HST's will be retained for some secondary services such as the proposed Bristol - Penzance semi fast.

Yes that is another proposal doing the rounds

 

[Chris125]

Has anything changed that could lead to Network Rail reaching a different conclusion to that published 6 months ago in the Sussex route study consultation?

I can't see how anything has changed - the same conclusions that applied before apply now and will do for the foreseeable future.

For anyone unaware the Route Study was quite clear, firstly with respect to it's use as a diversionary route (page 134):

Regardless of the direction and layout of future connections at
Lewes (and alternatives have been proposed that would allow
through running from Brighton without reverse), capacity
limitations north of Uckfield mean that it is unlikely at times of
diversion that more than 1tph additional to the existing Uckfield
service could be diverted this way without doubling the single line
sections of the existing branch and associated re-signalling.

Electrification would of course also have to be completed.

The scale of such a scheme would not be justified on diversionary
benefits alone, this is due to the relatively low number of delay
minutes that would be avoided in major incidents by having the
route available and the length of the diversionary route itself.

The long term capacity argument is not much better (page 144):

Remaining paths that can be found inwards of East Croydon are
mostly on the London Victoria side. To access the London Victoria
fast lines from the Sanderstead route necessitates flat junction
moves from the slow line to fast line at Selhurst that even Windmill
Bridge Jn grade separation cannot remove.

This effectively means remaining capacity that can be created
on the London Victoria route is best served directly from the existing
main line as set out in Chapter 5. This just leaves the +2tph identified
into London Bridge – as Chapter 5 highlights these can be utilised by
upgrades to the existing main line without building a new route.

The conclusion is re-enforced therefore that Lewes – Uckfield
adds value only when combined with a new lines scheme north of
Hurst Green/ Sanderstead. On the current understanding of demand
growth, it is outside the timeframe of this study to determine what
shape such a scheme would take, save to recognise that protection
of the existing Lewes – Uckfield alignment is a sensible approach
for the future.

In the event of further work in the future on a new lines solution,
optioneering should not however be solely limited to the Lewes –
Uckfield routing. A key challenge with rehabilitating that route has
always been that it does not automatically relieve the key demand
centres on the BML. Whilst new services from the East Coastway
and possibly even Brighton might be routed that way (in the latter
case quite probably at a significant journey time cost), there may be
limited benefit to the West Coastway and most of the key
population centres on the existing BML itself.

Chris

 

[yorksrob]

The 2008 study into reopening Uckfield - Lewes was quite clear that a single track option would cover its day to day running costs. Perhaps with the continued increase in railway patronage one or two of the other options might be shown to break even. However, there would be no point doing another study using the same BCR as it will never support the initial capital outlay. They will have to use a different methodology as with the Borders Railway or HS2 to get anywhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't see how anything has changed - the same conclusions that applied before apply now and will do for the foreseeable future.

For anyone unaware the Route Study was quite clear, firstly with respect to it's use as a diversionary route (page 134):



The long term capacity argument is not much better (page 144):



Chris

This study only really looks at the route in terms of relieving issues with the Brighton main line, rather than better connectivity within the Weald, which is what the line would really improve (although I still believe that the diversionary benefits would be real).