New Brighton Mainline???

[Bald Rick]

The growth in the Uckfield line was mostly in the 3 years after the new trains and direct services to London Bridge were instituted.

Since 2007/8 it has been a rather more modest 3.7% on average, which I guess is broadly similar to the LSE average across the sector. Growth in the last year that numbers are reported (to 13/14) was 0.57%.

 

[tsr]

The growth in the Uckfield line was mostly in the 3 years after the new trains and direct services to London Bridge were instituted.

Since 2007/8 it has been a rather more modest 3.7% on average, which I guess is broadly similar to the LSE average across the sector. Growth in the last year that numbers are reported (to 13/14) was 0.57%.

I think to a certain extent the current services have reached a decent saturation level. From speaking to the passengers on routes via Oxted almost every working day as I do, the current service level is used by almost everyone who wants it. It's quite rare that you find passengers who are completely unfamiliar with the route but they may just use it more regularly, including versus Tunbridge Wells or Haywards Heath/Lewes routes.

There are certain things which passengers tell me would lead to "maximum appeal" of the current route, and probably completely fill it to the brim. This may need to be done before it becomes a no-brainer to have the massive upgrades on the existing route that any extensions South of Uckfield/North of Selsdon Road would need. These are the reduction of services operated as 2 coaches (some passengers don't even want to board these at Uckfield because of how warm and solidly wedged they can get - but of course if 170 refurbs go as planned, this should be minimised) and later evening trains (not necessarily viable without rewriting track and stock maintenance options, but AFAIK something that is looked at from time to time behind the scenes). Better service in the peak to Hever and Ashurst occasionally feature (early morning services etc.). Ticket prices do attract a lot of people, and most passengers seem to like the rolling stock. It may have had some rather significant reliability issues of late, but mostly this has not affected the baseline of how comfortable it is. And rail passengers in the area seriously despise buses, for the most part.

Things which would help get accurate passenger numbers recorded would be a decent level of revenue support between Edenbridge Town and Uckfield, in order to map demand. This is persistently a problem and something which is drummed into new train crew, but can't be rectified without a manpower increase. A possible issue with late-night services is that plenty of people board South of Hurst Green but they are very rarely actually sold tickets. Bear in mind the timings of ticket sales are very closely monitored by GTR.

All of these local issues would do well with being resolved before or at the same time as any grand BML2 project. In fact, solutions would probably be very valuable as continued groundwork for the viability of infrastructure proposals such as double-tracking, extension to Lewes, later evening services, and so on. It would prove desires amongst both GTR and passengers to continue the growth of the line. There are always constraints, but maximum appeal of the current service has not quite yet been reached, and until then, huge additional improvements to me come second.

 

[Chris125]

yet you also argue that the line would be unlikely to attract passengers from outside of the Uckfield lines catchment area to travel South.

No, I'm arguing that they wouldn't have a significant impact on the business case or that you can correlate that demand with London commuter traffic - they aren't influenced by the same factors.

However, both of these sources of growth point to potential passengers on a reopened link to Lewes, the fact that an out of date study from seven years ago failed to predict such growth shouldn't be used as a reason not to reinvestigate the reopening by those with an inexplicable agenda against the reopening.

It's very simple - what has changed since the last study?

Services north of Uckfield became significantly more attractive to London commuters, principally through changes to the service.

I'm not aware of anything which would fundamentally change the attractiveness of services south of Uckfield.

On that basis, I see no reason to doubt previous assumptions without a big change to the services on offer - hence the BML2 campaign.

 

[JamesRowden]

I'm not aware of anything which would fundamentally change the attractiveness of services south of Uckfield.

One thing could be to consider the expansion of the project to Tunbridge Wells. This extension would allow the Charing Cross to Tunbridge Wells services to be extended to Brighton and should significantly increase the attractiveness of a reopened Uckfield to Lewes link. I can see no data proving that this new study will not consider the possibility of restoring the entire Lewes to Tunbridge Wells link.

 

[steamybrian]

One thing could be to consider the expansion of the project to Tunbridge Wells. This extension would allow the Charing Cross to Tunbridge Wells services to be extended to Brighton and should significantly increase the attractiveness of a reopened Uckfield to Lewes link. I can see no data proving that this new study will not consider the possibility of restoring the entire Lewes to Tunbridge Wells link.

The cost of restoring the link between Eridge and Tunbridge Wells will be ££££££££££££££££££££££££s and it is not as easy it seems. The former site at Tunbridge Wells West occupied by Sainsburys Supermarket will have to be completely rebuilt.

 

[JamesRowden]

The cost of restoring the link between Eridge and Tunbridge Wells will be ££££££££££££££££££££££££s and it is not as easy it seems. The former site at Tunbridge Wells West occupied by Sainsburys Supermarket will have to be completely rebuilt.

Uckfield to Lewes would cost a lot anyway.

 

[Chris125]

One thing could be to consider the expansion of the project to Tunbridge Wells. This extension would allow the Charing Cross to Tunbridge Wells services to be extended to Brighton and should significantly increase the attractiveness of a reopened Uckfield to Lewes link. I can see no data proving that this new study will not consider the possibility of restoring the entire Lewes to Tunbridge Wells link.

I meant fundamental changes since the previous study - increasing it's scope might increase the benefits but it would significantly increase the cost, I doubt the end result would be particularly different.

 

[mr_jrt]

The cost of restoring the link between Eridge and Tunbridge Wells will be ££££££££££££££££££££££££s and it is not as easy it seems. The former site at Tunbridge Wells West occupied by Sainsburys Supermarket will have to be completely rebuilt.

Apparently not. The planning conditions were such that the only thing in the way is a toilet block and a car park, precisely so as not to prevent reinstatement.

 

[yorksrob]

No, I'm arguing that they wouldn't have a significant impact on the business case or that you can correlate that demand with London commuter traffic - they aren't influenced by the same factors.



It's very simple - what has changed since the last study?

Services north of Uckfield became significantly more attractive to London commuters, principally through changes to the service.

I'm not aware of anything which would fundamentally change the attractiveness of services south of Uckfield.

On that basis, I see no reason to doubt previous assumptions without a big change to the services on offer - hence the BML2 campaign.

A large part of the growth on the Uckfield line was due to people living in the catchment area who previously wouldn't have considered using the service, changing their minds and using it. It is inconceivable that this effect wouldn't have fed into non London commuter journeys as well. Maybe not to the same volume, but there nevertheless. This effect wasn't adequately reflected in the 2008 study.

 

[MarkyT]

Apparently not. The planning conditions were such that the only thing in the way is a toilet block and a car park, precisely so as not to prevent reinstatement.

It would be a tight squeeze and you'd only get a single track past the supermarket and old station. Truck access to the loading bay and the car park access from the station side would have to be blocked off.

The car park already has another entrance from Broadwater Lane and perhaps a a new loading bay could be constructed on that side of the store, sacrificing some of the car parking there.

 

[Chris125]

A large part of the growth on the Uckfield line was due to people living in the catchment area who previously wouldn't have considered using the service, changing their minds and using it.

Even if that was the case, surely the majority of this immediate growth wasn't people new to commuting by train, but who didn't previously use the Uckfield Line.

I can't imagine that these people will decide that because they now use it to travel north to work they will also use it to travel south, and the catchment area for London commuters is likely to be much larger than the catchment area for those travelling a relatively short distance on a relatively slow train to the South Coast where the alternatives are much more competitive.

It is inconceivable that this effect wouldn't have fed into non London commuter journeys as well. Maybe not to the same volume, but there nevertheless. This effect wasn't adequately reflected in the 2008 study.

Surely the main impact, if there was one, would be to off-peak leisure journeys - I can't imagine them forming the basis of any successful business case for reinstatement.

 

[yorksrob]

Even if that was the case, surely the majority of this immediate growth wasn't people new to commuting by train, but who didn't previously use the Uckfield Line.

I can't imagine that these people will decide that because they now use it to travel north to work they will also use it to travel south, and the catchment area for London commuters is likely to be much larger than the catchment area for those travelling a relatively short distance on a relatively slow train to the South Coast where the alternatives are much more competitive.



Surely the main impact, if there was one, would be to off-peak leisure journeys - I can't imagine them forming the basis of any successful business case for reinstatement.

These competitive alternatives don't prevent people who live along other routes using the train for reasons other than London commuting. If they did, Brighton station would be empty most of the day.

Reinstatement of Bicester Town - Oxford certainly didn't rely on London commuting for a business case.

 

[steamybrian]

It would be a tight squeeze and you'd only get a single track past the supermarket and old station. Truck access to the loading bay and the car park access from the station side would have to be blocked off.

The car park already has another entrance from Broadwater Lane and perhaps a a new loading bay could be constructed on that side of the store, sacrificing some of the car parking there.

Plus..
Construction of access paths/roads to Sainsburys if existing roads/paths are severed for the railway.
Demolishing the bus terminal.
Building a new lorry unloading depot for Sainsburys.
Complete rebuilding of the partly infilled cutting. It was infilled because the cutting was subsiding.
Modifications and partial rebuilding of part of Homebase superstore.
.......it is more than just demolishing a toilet block....

etc.

 

[Aictos]

Someone is forgetting that the Spa Valley Railway currently runs between Edridge and Tunbridge Wells so how do you propose working around this?

 

[yorksrob]

Someone is forgetting that the Spa Valley Railway currently runs between Edridge and Tunbridge Wells so how do you propose working around this?

Well, it would certainly be a great loss to the economy and railway preservation. I would suggest that in return for the current infrastructure, NR should physically relocate the line to the northern section of the Cuckoo line. That way the Spa Valley could even keep its island platform at Eridge.

 

[Chris125]

These competitive alternatives don't prevent people who live along other routes using the train for reasons other than London commuting. If they did, Brighton station would be empty most of the day.

My argument was, and remains, that even if this sudden boom in London commuter traffic was principally from those living along the line and this alone made them more likely to travel on services south beyond Uckfield, this impact on off-peak leisure travel isn't going to transform the findings of the previous study and produce either the demand, or economic benefits, to justify it.

Reinstatement of Bicester Town - Oxford certainly didn't rely on London commuting for a business case.

No, but I'm sure it provided a far more competitive journey time for the traffic it was relying on, and for a fraction of the price.

 

[MarkyT]

Well, it would certainly be a great loss to the economy and railway preservation. I would suggest that in return for the current infrastructure, NR should physically relocate the line to the northern section of the Cuckoo line. That way the Spa Valley could even keep its island platform at Eridge.

One idea would be to seek innovative ways for the Spa Valley heritage operation to remain on the same rails operating alongside the regular public transport service - they might even remain the infrastructure owner for the section from Birchden Junction gaining some useful additional track access income to assist with heritage pursuits. With a new physical track connection between NR and the heritage line near Eridge there's no reason a regular public DMU service could not operate between Uckfield and Tunbridge Wells West, and such a service could be extended to Lewes along a reinstated line and via a new Lewes 'Loop' or 'Horseshoe' to Brighton.

 

[yorksrob]

One idea would be to seek innovative ways for the Spa Valley heritage operation to remain on the same rails operating alongside the regular public transport service - they might even remain the infrastructure owner for the section from Birchden Junction gaining some useful additional track access income to assist with heritage pursuits. With a new physical track connection between NR and the heritage line near Eridge there's no reason a regular public DMU service could not operate between Uckfield and Tunbridge Wells West, and such a service could be extended to Lewes along a reinstated line and via a new Lewes 'Loop' or 'Horseshoe' to Brighton.

That's possible, particularly as the formation was built for double track. However, it would still be good for the spa to have its own turf, so I would still be in favour of NR reinstating some Cuckoo route, even with a sharing arrangement on the reinstated through route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My argument was, and remains, that even if ththeom in London commuter traffic was principally from those living along the line and this alone made them more likely to travel on services south beyond Uckfield, this impact on off-peak leisure travel isn't going to transform the findings of the previous study and produce either the demand, or economic benefits, to justify it.



No, but I'm sure it provided a far more competitive journey time for the traffic it was relying on, and for a fraction of the price.

There we will have to disagree. The 2008 study was undoubtedly done on a conservative estimation of the passenger potential of the area, and the only reason growth hasn't been seen on southbound journeys from Uckfield is that there isn’t a railway on which growth can occur.

 

[HowardGWR]

There we will have to disagree. The 2008 study was undoubtedly done on a conservative estimation of the passenger potential of the area, and the only reason growth hasn't been seen on southbound journeys from Uckfield is that there isn’t a railway on which growth can occur.

I must say I do find your argument convincing. I suppose the only way to test this, is by comparing with a stretch of line that does not have a huge commuter to London element, that has a similar population spread in market towns and villages like Uckfield and Lewes, but where the withdrawal of services would now be unthinkable.

Any offers?

 

[yorksrob]

I must say I do find your argument convincing. I suppose the only way to test this, is by comparing with a stretch of line that does not have a huge commuter to London element, that has a similar population spread in market towns and villages like Uckfield and Lewes, but where the withdrawal of services would now be unthinkable.

Any offers?

Cheers, but I don't think that would be a realistic comparison.

The Uckfield -Lewes line will always be in the heart of the commuter hinterland. The growth on Uckfield -Lewes will be much greater.

 

[JohnElliott]

That's possible, particularly as the formation was built for double track.

The formation through the original site of Groombridge is only single track, though. To reinstate double track would require demolition of the SVR platform and (I think) realignment of the road bridge between the SVR and original stations. That would leave the SVR without anywhere at Groombridge to put a station. The original station building and platform still exist, but wouldn't be usable without compulsory purchase and demolition of the adjoining houses.

 

[MarkyT]

The formation through the original site of Groombridge is only single track, though. To reinstate double track would require demolition of the SVR platform and (I think) realignment of the road bridge between the SVR and original stations. That would leave the SVR without anywhere at Groombridge to put a station. The original station building and platform still exist, but wouldn't be usable without compulsory purchase and demolition of the adjoining houses.

A generally single track line would probably be sufficient to handle a regular hourly DMU together with the heritage trains. Some additional facilities might be required, in particular an additional terminal platform at Tunbridge Wells West, not easy to build in the cramped space available. Although no major demolition would be required, a strip of land from Homebase would be taken and probably an extra track added to the Broadwater Lane bridge. The four miles from Birchden Jn to Tunbridge Wells West should be achievable in under ten minutes one way with an intermediate stop at Groombridge, so a train could get there and back within 30 minutes easily, leaving the remainder of the hour for a heritage train to operate as required in one direction or the other. Some better facilities for the heritage line south of Eridge for carriage sidings and run round would be useful to minimise the need to shunt stock at Groombridge. That facility might be at the Cuckoo Line Junction as suggested by yorksrob, in which case a short running line extension further along that trackbed might also be possible.

 

[Stats]

Apparently not. The planning conditions were such that the only thing in the way is a toilet block and a car park, precisely so as not to prevent reinstatement.

I'm not so sure about that. The railway protection zone shown on the Local Plan maps suggests to me it requires the demolition of the entire north wall of Sainsburys.
http://www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/20343/PP_LP_Inset_1a.pdf (mobile users note this is a large document)

 

[MarkyT]

I'm not so sure about that. The railway protection zone shown on the Local Plan maps suggests to me it requires the demolition of the entire north wall of Sainsburys.
http://www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/20343/PP_LP_Inset_1a.pdf (mobile users note this is a large document)

Thanks for the link - very interesting .

Bearing in mind likely very rail low speed at this point you might just manage a single track with absolute minimum clearances, without demolishing the north wall. Ideally you'd want a fence and a narrow path to remain alongside the wall to allow building maintenance without going on the railway.

 

[MarkRedon]

Broadly speaking, there are three alternative propositions:

1. Do nothing beyond marginal improvements to the existing Brighton mainline. Have a single main line route between Brighton and London, full in the very near future whatever interventions are planned and implemented, and with deep frustration for commuters on a regular basis because one route is always vulnerable to failure.
2. A low-cost, low-benefit reopening from Uckfield to Lewes with a very slow, very low capacity "horseshoe" into Brighton. This is the unambitious RailFuture option. It cannot really work, because it depends upon incremental gains in traffic and therefore the benefits to cost ratio will never be particularly good.
3. Take the bold, expensive, and very high benefit alternative suggested by the BML2 campaign: http://www.bml2.co.uk/about-bml2.html. Please see, examine, consider, and perhaps agree with the very well thought through proposal made by that campaign. The benefits include a genuine alternative Brighton mainline at high but reasonable cost, and lots of new journey opportunities - particularly including the potential for linking Gatwick to Stansted.

Big gains come from playing for high stakes!

 

[JamesRowden]

Broadly speaking, there are three alternative propositions:

1. Do nothing beyond marginal improvements to the existing Brighton mainline. Have a single main line route between Brighton and London, full in the very near future whatever interventions are planned and implemented, and with deep frustration for commuters on a regular basis because one route is always vulnerable to failure.
2. A low-cost, low-benefit reopening from Uckfield to Lewes with a very slow, very low capacity "horseshoe" into Brighton. This is the unambitious RailFuture option. It cannot really work, because it depends upon incremental gains in traffic and therefore the benefits to cost ratio will never be particularly good.
3. Take the bold, expensive, and very high benefit alternative suggested by the BML2 campaign: http://www.bml2.co.uk/about-bml2.html. Please see, examine, consider, and perhaps agree with the very well thought through proposal made by that campaign. The benefits include a genuine alternative Brighton mainline at high but reasonable cost, and lots of new journey opportunities - particularly including the potential for linking Gatwick to Stansted.

Big gains come from playing for high stakes!

I think that a new high speed line between London and Brighton would probably offer better value for money than `BML2'.

 

[swt_passenger]

Please see, examine, consider, and perhaps agree with the very well thought through proposal made by that campaign.

Really? So how come we have threads every few months pulling their plans to bits?

 

[RichardN]

Personally my (not even crayonista - haven't even looked at a map..) plan would have HS2 not finishing in London but, dig a couple of underground 4 or 6 platform monster stations in central London and continue the high speed line to Gatwick and Brighton. (and construct a spur from one of these stations to HS1 and a spur from HS2 to Heathrow)

Benefits. Service from HS1 serves Central London North (Near Euston I guess), then onwards to Heathrow.

Another Service could run Brighton -> Gatwick -> Central London South -> Central London North -> Heathrow.

HS2 services would terminate at Gatwick or Brighton (or possibly build a parkway station next to the M25). This would distribute the platform occupancy for reverses between several stations.

You could also possibly use the extreme length of the trains so you could serve both the North terminal and South terminal from the same platforms.

 

[mr_jrt]

Broadly speaking, there are three alternative propositions:

1. Do nothing beyond marginal improvements to the existing Brighton mainline. Have a single main line route between Brighton and London, full in the very near future whatever interventions are planned and implemented, and with deep frustration for commuters on a regular basis because one route is always vulnerable to failure.
2. A low-cost, low-benefit reopening from Uckfield to Lewes with a very slow, very low capacity "horseshoe" into Brighton. This is the unambitious RailFuture option. It cannot really work, because it depends upon incremental gains in traffic and therefore the benefits to cost ratio will never be particularly good.
3. Take the bold, expensive, and very high benefit alternative suggested by the BML2 campaign: http://www.bml2.co.uk/about-bml2.html. Please see, examine, consider, and perhaps agree with the very well thought through proposal made by that campaign. The benefits include a genuine alternative Brighton mainline at high but reasonable cost, and lots of new journey opportunities - particularly including the potential for linking Gatwick to Stansted.

Big gains come from playing for high stakes!

OR

Reacquire and rebuild East Grinstead to Copyhold Junction, 4-track south to Keymer Junction through Haywards Heath, then enjoy a segregated mainline between South Croydon and Lewes that would be a lot quicker (much shorter) and more useful (as it would interchange with the existing BML to Gatwick!) than running via Uckfield, and probably cost about the same as BML's proposals. Once you hit South Croydon you've got expensive issues regardless.

The cheap option is stabilisation works and widening the cutting to squeeze in an additional track, enabling the new route to remain segregated to East Croydon. North of there 6 tracks are already planned, IIRC. The expensive option is to bore a new tunnel for some service groups (probably the BML fasts from Purley-ish), leaving the current lines for the new route.

*cough*...then reinstate Uckfield-Lewes and Eridge to Tunbridge Wells for regional connectivity, which is a separate issue unrelated to mainline routes to London.*cough*

 

[QueensCurve]

And £100k gets you basically nothing in the scheme of things.

I just saw a "trash screen" on a culvert for a beck in Whitehaven today which I am advised cost £100,000. That money didn't buy very much!