Network Rail to examine Uckfield–Lewes proposals

[yorksrob]

...which sounds great in theory, but while it's true the Uckfield line could be upgraded to take more trains there isn't the capacity through East Croydon and into London. This is the problem BML2 faces and there's no easy or cheap solution.



Realistically any savings you get from laying a Bsingle track aren't going to change the fundamental economics - there just isn't enough to be gained allowing the existing service to continue beyond Uckfield to Lewes/Eastbourne.

To have any chance of being viable it needs to be part of a wider scheme to increase capacity between London and the South Coast hence the BML2 campaign, but there may be other ways to do this - hopefully the NR study will come up with some answers.

Chris

I think that if a relatively straightforward scheme with few physical obstacles can‘t be countenanced without being subsumed into a giant multi billion pound London centric scheme, then questions need to be asked about how these projects are costed.

Also, it's worth remembering that the recent Network Rail study found that a single track extension would actually pay for its day to day running costs. When you look at how much off peak traffic the coastway routes generate during the day serving places like Brighton and compare that to the lightly used off peak trains on the Uckfield branch, it's not difficult to see how this could improve the performance of the whole route.

 

[cle]

I support this, but I see it as additional service rather than replacing existing ones. Perhaps the Hastings/Ore trains needn't go via Gatwick however - the quicker route to London is via Sevenoaks anyway.

It's a shame there aren't many options to reasonably terminate extra services - i.e. Croydon. I suppose a local service could run from Eastbourne or Lewes to Gatwick/Redhill/Reigate or something, calling all stations - covering Plumpton etc off peak.

Terminating extras at Oxted (for example from Brighton) hardly seems worth it.

I don't see what the service pattern would be.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How many times before has a Transport Minister made a pronouncement with regard to this particular proposal ?

 

[Buttsy]

...which sounds great in theory, but while it's true the Uckfield line could be upgraded to take more trains there isn't the capacity through East Croydon and into London. This is the problem BML2 faces and there's no easy or cheap solution.

Wasn't there once a route from the East Grinstead/Uckfield lines that avoided East Croydon? How about reopening that?

Oh, no, sorry, a tram line has been built on part of it...

 

[JamesRowden]

I support this, but I see it as additional service rather than replacing existing ones. Perhaps the Hastings/Ore trains needn't go via Gatwick however - the quicker route to London is via Sevenoaks anyway.

It's a shame there aren't many options to reasonably terminate extra services - i.e. Croydon. I suppose a local service could run from Eastbourne or Lewes to Gatwick/Redhill/Reigate or something, calling all stations - covering Plumpton etc off peak.

Terminating extras at Oxted (for example from Brighton) hardly seems worth it.

I don't see what the service pattern would be.

The Victoria-Ore service is an extension of the half hourly Victoria-Eastbourne service, not an additional service (it gives Bexhill a direct service to London). Because the Victoria-Eastborne-(Ore) services split from the Victoria-Littlehampton services at Haywards Heath, the 2tph service effectively only takes one path per hour (in each direction) through East Croydon.

If Uckfield was linked to the East Coastway (towards Brighton and Eastborune), the Uckfield Tunbridge Wells link was restored in some form and the Uckfield line was double tracked to provide to required capacity, this would allow the peak 2tph Uckfield paths and 2tph Tunbridge Wells termintaing paths to be extended to the coast and so make the demand on these paths greater and so justify longer trains and so incerase overall capacity. During the peak there are some extra services between Eastbourne and London Bridge (presumably for the city), an extension of an Uckfield or Tunbridge Wells service would seem a logical replacement.

 

[tsr]

It's a shame there aren't many options to reasonably terminate extra services - i.e. Croydon. I suppose a local service could run from Eastbourne or Lewes to Gatwick/Redhill/Reigate or something, calling all stations - covering Plumpton etc off peak.

You could terminate or reverse at Redhill, but not with the current lack of room to do so. Perhaps you could extend the Reading-Gatwick services to Eastbourne. They would only need to be all-stations services South of Haywards Heath.

 

[Hove Heretic]

A couple of observations from points above.

Firstly, whilst peak hour services north from Uckfield are loaded to the gunwhales, other than it's commuter function, the truncated route obviously leaves the Wealden communities cut off from the coastal towns, so the dearth of off peak traffic is scarcely surprising. The derogatory moniker 'Hurst Green Turnback' pretty well describes the line at present!

Secondly, the critical thing with any relief scheme for the Brighton line is that it follows an alternate route. It's all too likely that an incident capable of blocking two tracks (bridge strikes, fires, line blockages) would just as easily close a four track route.

Living on the coast, I can tell anyone unfamiliar with the area that reliability on the Brighton line has been so poor over the past few years that patience is now wearing very thin. I'm heartened to see Railfuture's emphasis of the economic and social costs of the current situation, echoing concerns by MP's and local authorities alike. With increasing passenger numbers year on year, this isn't going to improve by itself. We've endured decades of listening to reasons why something isn't going to happen from (alleged) strategic planning experts ignoring the very visible results of inactivity. There are now signs that heads are being removed from the sand, and the right sort of questions being asked - not before time.

Electrification does pose some interesting problems for Network Rail. My own feeling is that diesel operations on the old Southern (as anything more than a stop gap) is a poor use of resources, and whilst debate on 3rd rail vs OHLE has been definitively answered from the technical standpoint, there's still a gulf between that and rolling out a conversion programme.

Not to be understated are problems with current capacity at East Croydon, or between Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks, lack of paths into central London and congestion issues on roads in Sussex (the A22/A26/A27/A270 being particularly problematic). To those querying the validity of reinstating services from Lewes/Oxted to Tunbridge Wells, please note that the rail journey time of 37mins between Brighton and Tunbridge Wells can easily be fully occupied getting out of Brighton at the moment, or in detailed study of the finer points of Cuilfail Tunnel in Lewes. Expenditure on rail needs to be weighed against the highly likely cost of keeping the road network moving.

In case anyone's not seen the latest from either Wealden Line Campaign or Railfuture, here are the links:

http://www.wealdenline.org.uk/
http://www.railfuture.org.uk/Uckfield+Lewes

Happy Reading!

 

[Chrisgr31]

Going via Tunbridge Wells is not good news for ticket prices!

Current annual ticket from Crowborough £2,668, annual ticket from Tunbridge Wells £4,132!

 

[yorksrob]

To those querying the validity of reinstating services from Lewes/Oxted to Tunbridge Wells, please note that the rail journey time of 37mins between Brighton and Tunbridge Wells can easily be fully occupied getting out of Brighton at the moment, or in detailed study of the finer points of Cuilfail Tunnel in Lewes. Expenditure on rail needs to be weighed against the highly likely cost of keeping the road network moving.

In case anyone's not seen the latest from either Wealden Line Campaign or Railfuture, here are the links:

http://www.wealdenline.org.uk/
http://www.railfuture.org.uk/Uckfield+Lewes

Happy Reading!

Absolutely. I think that reinstatement of the route through to Tonbridge should definately be the aim. I just don't see why we're incapable of making incremental steps towards it.

I'm worried that if the powers that be get bogged down trying to work out the East Croydon bottleneck or worrying about the future (or not) of the third rail, they will miss the opportunity of making worthwhile bite sized steps forward, such as extending the existing line forward to Lewes, then later reopening through to Tunbridge Wells. I'd rather get a single track diesel route up and running first then worry about the other issues later.

 

[Hove Heretic]

Going via Tunbridge Wells is not good news for ticket prices!

Current annual ticket from Crowborough £2,668, annual ticket from Tunbridge Wells £4,132!

(Fares quoted from http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/seasonticket/search )

Same issue applies at Brighton (cheapest annual season £3532 FCC only £4184 all terminals all TOCs) - to the extent that the previous regime at the DfT, recognising how close to capacity the Brighton line is, decided to hike already eyewatering fares with application of 'premium' fares over and above existing prices at peak and peak shoulder periods. Great substitute for strategic planning, eh?

One of the big things privatisation was sold on was the notion that competition would keep fares in check. Quite how that works when every TOC is competing for access to the same overcrowded route is beyond me. The extra capacity provided by a viable alternative to both Brighton and Hastings lines would finally permit the competition benefits we've all been waiting 20 years for.

 

[TheWalrus]

I agree with people on here saying we should start off with just a single track on to Lewes with just a diesel service in place. This would enable many more to have access to the line and get the service well used before any further investment. To make the BML2 project mor likely to happen I would suggest they organise their plans into phases. For example: Phase 1 - single track relaid to Lewes with diesel services extended onto Lewes and maybe Eastbourne or Seaford.
Phase 2 - could include electrification, redoubling, linespeed improvements and introduction of electric trains. Also build the chord onto Brighton and introduce fast services between London and Brighton via Crowborough.

 

[Hove Heretic]

start off with just a single track on to Lewes with just a diesel service in place. . To make the BML2 project mor likely to happen I would suggest they organise their plans into phases. For example: Phase 1 - single track relaid to Lewes with diesel services extended onto Lewes and maybe Eastbourne or Seaford.
Phase 2 - could include electrification, redoubling, linespeed improvements and introduction of electric trains. Also build the chord onto Brighton and introduce fast services between London and Brighton via Crowborough.

A sensible starting point, given the route has just 2/tph capacity, matching maximum currently available paths through East Croydon, though with the proviso that one or more of the six options apparently identified by Railfuture for direct routing to/from Brighton is viable, and is moved up to phase I. Developing the route beyond this is what worries me, as at 2/tph on a single route, it's hardly likely to be the busiest in this early phase. Firm commitment to the more comprehensive solution, be that BML2 or some other scheme, will be essential from day 1.

That's an awfully big phase II - not that I disagree with any of these aims. I know I keep banging on about the line to Tunbridge Wells, and I'm going to do so again now. It's got to be included in an early phase. The Wealden route is a natural for trains from the north to Tun Wells, and for cross country Brighton to Tun Wells services as well as coast to London (and beyond) workings.

The east London link proposed in BML2 as the London Phase will I believe, become necessary regardless of questions further south. A lot of us (myself included) still tend to think about the rail network in 'Big Four' (or earlier!) terms. Thameslink started to make a nonsense of that way of looking at things, and with Crossrail, Thameslink II and now a putative east London connection, us old timers are going to have to update our thought processes.

 

[Chris125]

I think that if a relatively straightforward scheme with few physical obstacles can‘t be countenanced without being subsumed into a giant multi billion pound London centric scheme, then questions need to be asked about how these projects are costed.

You can't justify a scheme purely because it's relatively cheap and straightforward - it still has to provide benefits which justify the cost, or the money would be better spent elsewhere. As previous studies have found a low cost reopening isn't viable, the only choice is to explore more expensive options that could greatly increase the wider benefits, hence BML2.

Chris

 

[swt_passenger]

At least the 'wealdenline' group now appear to have cottoned on to the fact that running into Liverpool St via Shoreditch off the East London line is no longer possible.

It was a bit scary that only a couple of years ago they seemed completely oblivious to the almost completed ELL redevelopment, which had already obliterated the link they intended to use... :roll:

 

[yorksrob]

You can't justify a scheme purely because it's relatively cheap and straightforward - it still has to provide benefits which justify the cost, or the money would be better spent elsewhere. As previous studies have found a low cost reopening isn't viable, the only choice is to explore more expensive options that could greatly increase the wider benefits, hence BML2.

Chris

But it does.

Remember - as I mentioned in my previous post, if you look at the detail of the most recent Network Rail report, it mentions that a single track reinstatement would cover it's operating costs. This means that you would effectively just be balancing the capital construction cost against the wider society/economic benefits (much as is the case with pretty much every road scheme that isn't a toll road).

I also seem to recall not being convinced that these wider economic/social benefits had really been fully accounted for in the analysis when I read through it, but I will have to dig out the document again tonight.

 

[Hove Heretic]

A tad disingenuous from swt_passenger. The possibility of a routing to Liverpool St. was indeed mentioned (and the ELL is a purely local line), but this never formed the sole principal destination touted by BML2. You're looking here at services through London (shock, horror) on routes energised at 25KVac. The principal peak hour passenger flows will naturally gravitate to/from Docklands on services from/to the Sussex, Kent and East Anglia, but note that no terminal station forms any part of the BML2 scheme, with proposed direct trains between Gatwick/Manston (Thanet)/Stanstead/Southend Airports (yes -I'm aware Manston & Southend will take some additional work), and new routings via the link possible for the first time. Not every one of these services will terminate and return from Docklands.

Note also that Railfuture aren't pushing the single track reinstatement as the sum total of aspirations for the Wealden route, merely a starting point to get the through line re-opened in the shortest time - and emphatically NOT the solution to congestion across the Sussex/North & West Kent/East Anglian routes. What Railfuture propose is a low cost start up. Any region wide infrastructure improvement is a very different kettle of fish, and simply not possible on a shoestring budget.

Mr. McLoughlin has put the ball firmly in NR's court, and I for one look forward to the results of their study, given the Secretary of State's choice of wording regarding NR's task.

 

[swt_passenger]

A tad disingenuous from swt_passenger. The possibility of a routing to Liverpool St. was indeed mentioned (and the ELL is a purely local line), but this never formed the sole principal destination touted by BML2.

Not so IMHO, a previous version publicised two or three years ago, and maybe even earlier, definitely had Liverpool St as a main terminus, and I'm sure there are others who will remember the criticism levelled at it at that time. The idea of running through services to Stansted seems to have been introduced at a somewhat later date...

Unfortunately previous iterations of the plan are not easily available online.

 

[Hove Heretic]

Not so IMHO, a previous version publicised two or three years ago, and maybe even earlier, definitely had Liverpool St as a main terminus, and I'm sure there are others who will remember the criticism levelled at it at that time. The idea of running through services to Stansted seems to have been introduced at a somewhat later date...

Unfortunately previous iterations of the plan are not easily available online.

It must have been quite a bit earlier. I recall Liverpool St. being discussed at the AGM a few years back, but routing and capacity issues very definitely put the mockers on the idea, and it's not formed any part of serious discussion during my time as a WLC member. WLC's website was on my regular 'trawl' list for a good few years before I joined the campaign.

Don't forget, the WLC has been going for 27 years now ( BML2 as a specific proposal only for about 3 years) and much on the ground has changed in that time. Suggestions which might have seemed practical years ago aren't so now, and possibilities exist where none existed even a decade ago

Hardly uniquely for a campaigning group, from time to time various pieces of unattributed 'information' seems to get into the public domain. Sometimes the result of confusion, other times downright mischievous. A notable example of the latter was a groundless suggestion earlier this year that BML2 would involve demolishing 'dozens' of homes in Lewes. I refuted another such in our local paper just a couple of weeks ago that this would be the case in Lewisham - that time it was hundreds of homes supposedly being put to the bulldozer.

 

[yorksrob]

But it does.

Remember - as I mentioned in my previous post, if you look at the detail of the most recent Network Rail report, it mentions that a single track reinstatement would cover it's operating costs. This means that you would effectively just be balancing the capital construction cost against the wider society/economic benefits (much as is the case with pretty much every road scheme that isn't a toll road).

I also seem to recall not being convinced that these wider economic/social benefits had really been fully accounted for in the analysis when I read through it, but I will have to dig out the document again tonight.

find attached the Network Rail study:

http://www.uckfield.co.uk/lewes_uckfield_network_rail_final_report.pdf

The relevant page on operating costs and revenues is 50. Worth noting that none of the options investigated through services to Brighton.
The appraisal summaries on page 55 onward are quite illuminating in that they make no attempt to quantify wider economic impacts from greater connectivity, Which I suspect would have an impact.

 

[swt_passenger]

Hardly uniquely for a campaigning group, from time to time various pieces of unattributed 'information' seems to get into the public domain. Sometimes the result of confusion, other times downright mischievous.

This was the line, It seems to have been lifted from almost the end of the April 2010 version of the BML2 report:

"A radical solution might be to incorporate many BML2 services via the East London Line’s route and run some into London Liverpool Street which, like Cannon Street station, is central for the city."

As seen here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=57854503&postcount=1245

This was also reported in a few rail magazines and discussed in a number of rail forums during mid 2010, but even without the source document I reckon it was a clearly published proposal and attributed info, and not due to confusion or mischievousness.

 

[Hove Heretic]

This was the line, It seems to have been lifted from almost the end of the April 2010 version of the BML2 report:



As seen here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=57854503&postcount=1245

This was also reported in a few rail magazines and discussed in a number of rail forums during mid 2010, but even without the source document I reckon it was a clearly published proposal and attributed info, and not due to confusion or mischievousness.

Here's the only archived link from April 2010 I can locate on the (old) WLC website:

http://www.wealdenline.co.uk/the-ne...ans-for-new-brighton-main-line-published.html

The link you posted is an old item from this site (i.e railforums), and I see no reference to any specific publication to confirm the veracity of the statement, so I'd imagine we're talking about something predating BML2 as it was finally published. Whatever it is you're referring to, it certainly doesn't form any part of BML2 proposal as it stands.

The earliest proto-BML2 archived document I can find does indeed mention ELL (though NOT Liverpool Street) in terms of network capacity constraints (see p5 of attached), not as a viable route. There are several excerpts from other source documents within this, and I can only assume that someone has at some point erroneously extrapolated something from these.

http://www.bml2.co.uk/images/PDF's/A Strategy for Growth.pdf

Given the issue was (and to a large extent remains) routing paths into / out of London, I for one wouldn't see any logic in replacing a suggestion to avoid using one overloaded corridor by using an even more crowded, and in the case of the inner urban ELL, less suitable route. The proposal which I signed up to support is the one on the table now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Worth noting that none of the options investigated through services to Brighton.
The appraisal summaries on page 55 onward are quite illuminating in that they make no attempt to quantify wider economic impacts from greater connectivity, Which I suspect would have an impact.

Spot on Rob ! This was the reason both we dangerous radicals at WLC and the folks at Railfuture disagreed so strongly with the findings of the 2008 study. It's also the rationale Norman Baker MP (Lewes) used to justify RF revisiting the issue. From the depths of the labrynthine RF link I posted previously, here's the core of the case as seen by Railfuture:

http://chrisbowers.standsfor.me.uk/Latest_News/Articles/example2.xalter

Note also the very notable increase in patronage on all (bar one) of the Wealden route stations. This is largely down to 'park & ride' commuters, who've twigged that fares on the route are far more attractive than either the Brighton or Hastings lines. At Uckfield, this has risen from less than 150,000 back in 2004/5 to over 400,000 in 2010/11 (ORR figures). Crowborough is the next busiest station, comparative numbers here going from 175,000 to 363,000 over the same period. Other stations have lower numbers, but all show increased of more than 100% - in most cases, over 250%. Not bad for a largely single track turnback !!

 

[swt_passenger]

The link you posted is an old item from this site (i.e railforums).

It most certainly isn't. However 'Skyscraper City' (SSC) does use the same background forum software as RUK.

...and I see no reference to any specific publication to confirm the veracity of the statement, so I'd imagine we're talking about something predating BML2 as it was finally published. Whatever it is you're referring to, it certainly doesn't form any part of BML2 proposal as it stands.

I agree with that. Everything I've been saying is solely to do with a previous proposal, that is no longer online, but it was available for people to view and comment on in early 2010.

 

[Hove Heretic]

It most certainly isn't. However 'Skyscraper City' (SSC) does use the same background forum software as RUK.

Oops! I was busy reading through the post - evidently should've looked at the header too... in my defence, it does look the same tho'!

I've trawled back through the 'old' WLC site to 2007, and can't find anything referring to Liverpool St. This is now back to when I first clocked the campaign, so anything prior to that and I'm afraid I can't be of much assistance.

Reading through the old articles, it's noticeable how much the views of Lord Adonis have developed since his period in office, to the point where his recent statements in favour of improvements have been unequivocal. Lord Bassam (sometime leader of Brighton & Hove City Council) has provided similar support. I'm greatly heartened that the current incumbent SoS at the DfT, the Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP is demonstrating a far more positive approach from his position in office. With support from all three Brighton & Hove MP's, plus junior transport minister Norman Baker MP in Lewes, plus B&HCC & ESCC, that represents what must be the first four way cross-party support at all levels for a transport proposal in these parts.

In any event, the issue now rests with Network Rail, and the question of how a re-opened Lewes - Uckfield, as part of the Wealden route and/or BML2, can benefit the wider region is (at last) firmly on the table. It's that 'wider region' bit which was missing from the 2008 study. Maybe NR will choose aspects of both RF & BML2 proposals, maybe something else. The important thing is that the decades of inactivity from on high appear to have ended. Interesting times indeed.

 

[OxtedL]

The Wealden Line Campaign has deviated from what should be its main goal: the re-opening of the Uckfield-Lewes section.

I quote the following from the (.co.uk) home page:

Brian Hart [who wrote the BML2 reports - note in particular Liverpool Street as mentioned earlier in the thread] said: “Whilst we are all heartened that Patrick McLoughlin is “alive” to opening the line, this is not a local issue but a massive problem for London and the South East. It can’t be done on a shoestring. Without BML2 the region will ultimately reach rail gridlock as this is the only realistic means of providing the capacity so badly needed.”

It can be seen very quickly that there is no way to run trains from London to Brighton on the Uckfield line that is shorter than via Gatwick. Thus in order to keep journey times comparable huge expenditure is required to both greatly upgrade the Uckfield route, and to go for some kind of conceptual 'tunnel into London'.

The big capacity problems on the Brighton route are nearer London than Brighton, as BML2 itself notes. Thus the current incarnation of BML2 indicates it wishes to incorporate a link from its proposed 'tunnel' onto the Brighton line proper (somehow squeezing this all in the middle of southern Croydon). But what benefit do you then gain from running via Uckfield? The route via Gatwick will remain faster, and will continue to serve bigger and more important places than Crowborough and Uckfield. Capacity further south can be partially improved by far smaller schemes than a new tunnel through the South Downs deliberately bypassing Lewes, even before you spend millions reconstructing the whole Oxted route.

In effect, they are trying to justify the relatively straightforward (but financially wobbly) reopening of the Lewes-Uckfield line by escalating it into a highly questionable mega-project that would cost many orders of magnitude more, and would would only be necessary decades from now anyway.

The Uckfield-Lewes re-opening would most benefit those who live on the Uckfield line and the large number of places on the South Coast then accessible by changing at Lewes. Morphing the aim into one designed solely to provide a new route from London to Brighton is unlikely to draw any real attention to the scheme, not least because the new route is not especially helpful anyway.

Aligning oneself with the ideas shown in BML2 as the Wealden Campaign have done is not likely to prove productive - the ideas are far too far ahead of themselves. Capacity issues into Brighton are not yet anywhere near bad enough to provoke that kind of investment, especially not on Hart's dubious scheme.

Far better just to campaign for a potentially useful and straightforward link - the sensible conclusion reached by many on this thread already. Anything else is thinking in the wrong direction, decades out of turn. The Campaign should be focussing on helping identify what economic and social benefits might have been missed in previous reports.

 

[Hove Heretic]

OxtedL is of course 100% accurate stating that the Uckfield route takes longer from Brighton to London Bridge or Victoria. Services to both locations from Brighton would be the much needed backup to the increasingly unreliable main line via Haywards Heath, where the extra journey time can easily be occupied in mid section at signals, let alone that of the extra 80miles via Arundel, or additional hour of rail replacement buses.

With 40+ disruptions (all causes) on 30+ days of this year so far, following a dismal performance in 2012, reliability is an issue which can't be ignored. This is acknowledged by Railfuture on the intro page of their Lewes Uckfield website, and is recognised as a serious issue by local MP's and authorities alike.

The BML2 response resulted from the failure of the 2008 study and the DfT position that insufficient paths existed to route services from the Wealden route into the capital. It is this which led to reviewing the wider situation, as congestion is hardly an issue for the Brighton route alone. Certainly, the London phase (Docklands) part of the scheme represents heavy capital investment, but there's no ignoring the economic importance of Docklands, which is currently devoid of main line rail connection to the detriment of passengers from both sides of the Thames. As such, a connection at this point is logical, whether or not it gets included in a Wealden re-opening scheme.

The statement that there aren't capacity issues at the Brighton end of the line doesn't reflect the experience of passengers on the line. True enough, in common with most of the rail network, there is no problem off peak when the line is running well, but peak periods are a very different matter. Peak hour services frequently run within sight of each other, and there's an accepted dearth of paths from the West Coastway onto the mainline. This affects the whole area from beyond Worthing to Eastbourne. Coastal resorts rely on tourist income, and this IS being affected by reliability issues stemming principally from the lack of any viable alternative route between London and the coast.

Network Rail already identify capacity issues, and have previously stated that there are no measures beyond the currently committed control period including the Thameslink enhancements, and even the DfT admitted no solutions past an expected saturation point in 2030. Any solution of course needs to reflect this.

There's also no mention of essential enhancements to airport traffic, and that's quite an omission in view of the current debate over runway capacity and very specific criticism of rail capacity by Gatwick Airport's management, and this is one issue which a simple Uckfield Lewes re-opening can do nothing to address.

It's one thing to oppose any given scheme, quite another to simply ignore or deny very clear issues recognised far beyond the immediate realm of the Wealden route. The current situation caused by an attenuated network still catering only for historic travel patterns is not acceptable.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Note also the very notable increase in patronage on all (bar one) of the Wealden route stations. This is largely down to 'park & ride' commuters, who've twigged that fares on the route are far more attractive than either the Brighton or Hastings lines. At Uckfield, this has risen from less than 150,000 back in 2004/5 to over 400,000 in 2010/11 (ORR figures). Crowborough is the next busiest station, comparative numbers here going from 175,000 to 363,000 over the same period. Other stations have lower numbers, but all show increased of more than 100% - in most cases, over 250%. Not bad for a largely single track turnback !!

Its worth pointing out that the passengers figures from Uckfield are significantly inflated by passengers from Crowborough buying their season tickets Uckfield to London rather than Crowborough to London. This is because it costs no more but gives the option to go go Uckfield if ever required.

 

[OxtedL]

Arguing for a link from Croydon to the Docklands is admirable but well beyond the scope of an organisation that has its roots as a local pressure group - and can't really claim to be anything but even today. There are people out there in a far better position to decide where (in a minimum of 30 years time) a relief tunnel will need to be built, be it to the Docklands or to Central London. In the mean time we have Thameslink and Crossrail to greatly improve access to Canary Wharf et al.

The point you seem to be missing it that there is extremely little point in sending anything serious up the Uckfield route, even if the Gatwick route is full. What would you send? Additional Brighton express services are out - by the time you've got to Croydon, at least 2 other Gatwick route trains are bound to have overtaken you, unless you run non-stop (but what's the point in that?). Anything stopping at intermediate Gatwick route stations is out, by definition. West Coastway services are out - there's no way of getting these to Lewes, and even if there were it would involve huge journey time increases. The Uckfield route certainly can't provide realistic capacity to Brighton simply because the additional journey time would likely be half as much again as the current time between Brighton and Croydon. To get anyone to travel via Uckfield would require some serious financial incentive on their season ticket - by which point you've overloaded the Uckfield line and angered the season ticket holders here.

The only possible use for extra capacity on the Uckfield line would be for East Coastway services, but as Network Rail note in their report, the time penalties involved in going via Uckfield (almost certainly at least 10 minutes, probably far more with a realistic stopping pattern) limit what through journey opportunities would actually be available. There might be some, but given as the East Coastway to London services currently operate attached to West Coastway services and this practice will continue, there's no useful benefit from sending anything via Uckfield.

I suggest that claiming that BML2 solves or comes close to solving capacity or reliability issues on the BML is altogether false. Reliability issues echo around the Oxted lines just as much as the main line, and the picture is no bleaker for the BML than many other commuter routes. Whilst the Uckfield-Lewes line might ultimately form part of a diversion of last resort, this is nothing like enough to justify a massive upgrade of the Uckfield route. Upgrading the Uckfield line to the extent that it is able to provide anything like a third as much useful capacity as well as as the main line is extremely serious money on infrastructure that pure and simply wouldn't have a practical use except in disruption.

As I say, the Uckfield-Lewes' line selling point is in its potential to link up local communities. Not in its nominal ability to draw a line on a map from London to Brighton without taking your pen off the paper.

If reliability is deteriorating on the BML, spending (a far smaller quantity of) money sorting that out and not on a circuitous alternative is a far superior option.

 

[tbtc]

In effect, they are trying to justify the relatively straightforward (but financially wobbly) reopening of the Lewes-Uckfield line by escalating it into a highly questionable mega-project that would cost many orders of magnitude more, and would would only be necessary decades from now anyway

That's the way that I see it - the BML2 campaign seems to be an extremely expensive sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Given the huge spending on the Thameslink corridor from Brighton to London, the lack of a northern "half" to the BML2 plans, the lack of space in south London for a new line, the fact that the Government have just spent a lot of money connecting Docklands/ Stratford to other places (DLR extensions, Crossrail, HS1)...

...it just feels like a solution in need of a problem - and one so complicated and expensive that it makes the Uckfield - Lewes re-opening less likely to happen.

 

[yorksrob]

As I say, the Uckfield-Lewes' line selling point is in its potential to link up local communities.

Exactly, Where have the Wealden campaign disputed this ? We should get the route reinstated, then worry about BML2.

 

[Hove Heretic]

I've no hesitation in welcoming any realistic scheme to get the Wealden route back into full use. BML2 clearly goes far beyond the basic re-opening now proposed by Railfuture, and if adopted, would obviously not appear in finished form overnight, so yes - getting the missing miles in Sussex re-instated is the vital precursor to any full reopening. That's regarded as a logical starting point fo BML2 also, albeit with emphasis on earlier redoubling than RF's scheme, and with electrification and the Tun Wells line far higher up the agenda.

Quite what the objection to any group proposing improvements on whatever scale is, I'm less clear about. Those cited by OxtedL as being in a better position to formulate policy haven't exactly inspired confidence when it comes to the Sussex rail network over past decades. If this is finally changing, great - but please don't deride those who've campaigned for years to keep the issue alive, and don't expect anyone to take their foot off the gas until the scope and nature of the new NR study becomes clear.

Regarding the relevance of the route to Brighton passengers, note that this issue is right there in the initial government release, not from a member of WLC, but from Richard Eccles, Network Rail director of network strategy and planning.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lewes-uckfield-rail-route-to-be-re-examined

As for BML2 being a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, that may properly be applicable to just the issue of a few miles of missing formation, indeed that IS simple - for a 2tph capacity route (which isn't the final condition envisaged by Railfuture according to their website), however for reasons I've already stated in earlier posts, when looking at the wider picture I'd have to say that it's much bigger than the proverbial walnut. The charge of a solution looking for a problem is a nice soundbite, but presupposes that the problems identified merely came into being as a direct result of the BML2 proposal. I certainly don't view the scheme as a universal panacea, but regard critisism that it attempts best fit solution for as much as possible as a peculiar objection. I'd also add that anyone who imagines that investment in the initial phase of RF's incremental scheme represents the sum total of expenditure required obviously hasn't read their proposal thoroughly.

The demographic of the rail market has changed greatly since the demise of the through Wealden route, and there is much catching up required following on from decades of gradual decline. The rail network needs to develop to reflect this. Railfuture concede that developing services beyond 2tph is contingent on NR's as yet unpublished proposals for East Croydon. This leaves little scope for improvement for a protracted period, and in this, both it and BML2 require infrastructure not yet in place to come to fruition, so don't forget to keep that in mind as it's a charge applicable to both schemes at EC, but seemingly levelled solely at BML2.

If some find the idea of a successful and expanding rail network a tough concept to accept, that's understandable. We've pretty much all grown up used to the railways fighting a rearguard action. With acknowledgement from government growing for some time now that rail has a vital role to fulfill in future prosperity, the idea of the industry in unending decline as an outmoded relic implicit in Beeching and Serpell is finally behind us.