2tph of the GatEx service have been extended to Brighton for several years already.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
New Brighton Mainline???
- Thread starter 03_179
- Start date
- Status
2tph of the GatEx service have been extended to Brighton for several years already.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
But as there are loads of passengers who don't want to go to Victoria there would still be lots of passengers on Southern and Thameslink services even if you equalised fares...
Nothing quite like the TfL Oyster fare from Gatwick to East Croydon on Southern /Thameslink and DfT wouldn't be agreeing for the general fare especially GatEx to drop to that level!!!
There was a local BML2 campaign which never had any formal backing and the BML2 proponents were always super optimistic on costs, technical challenges and benefits. This is the fourth (if not 5th) report in a decade that debunks BML2 as the BCR is in basket case territory.
The last is here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../306997/brighton-main-line-interim-report.pdf
Hence there should be no surprise that this has got kicked into the long grass yet again.
I notice you didn't mention that the alternative recommended by this report (and the one linked above) is NR's far cheaper investment package that could add up to 16tph to London Bridge or Victoria on the fast lines over CP6-8 (if all work done) over the post 2018 (i.e. London Bridge /Thameslink KO2 completion) timetable. I.e Rebuild Norwood Jn, Windmill Bridge Cottage and Selhurst Jns, East Croydon add more tracks, resignalling.
Last edited:
Quite the opposite as BML2 did nothing for Gatwick or most other BML stations, the NR proposals include adding lots more trains via Gatwick, adding an 8th platform and rebuilding the fast lines so they could actually use the highest numbered platforms effectively.
(Also probably moving to P1-4 slow lines and P5-8 fast lines at Gatwick with improved services on both Redhill and Quarry lines)
The report offers a glimmer of hope for those wanting Uckfield to Lewes reopened. Although it's all based on pre-disruption loading and either there has been a dramatic change in which trains people use, or the disruption has caused a significant drop in usage on the Uckfield line.
philthetube
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 4,162
I lead walks for a group, after failing to get to two walks, on one nobody got there, I now have to avoid southern services all together. Previously I would have used them about once every three months, 20 to 25 leisure journeys at a time gone missing. I suspect that this is widely the case and leisure travel will have been very hard hit.
LLivery
Established Member
Agreed. I've been at East Croydon on Sundays where people cannot even board because Southern is very overcrowded, but somehow its fine to have half empty GatEx services go straight through with stupidly high fares. I'd say add a call at Haywards Heath too.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,240
I posted the link (under a quote) at 1640 last night, and deltic reposted it at 2058; so no real need to google for it...
But they already do!
The stopping pattern on the Brigton GatEx is:
Brighton [BTN]
Burgess Hill [BUG]
Wivelsfield [WVF]
Haywards Heath [HHE]
Gatwick Airport [GTW]
London Victoria [VIC]
The inability to call at East Croydon is effectively due to lack of platform capacity on weekdays.
Sunset route
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 1,223
Don't worry we have full ARS with TMS interfaced comeing to the BML soon and all our short term problems will go away rotf-pmsl 
Athough the boffins from the Far East haven't come across something quite like the Selhurst triangle and programming the algorithms to make it work is somewhat complex and in a rapidly decreasing timeframe as the full Thameslink rush hour tt approaches!
Athough the boffins from the Far East haven't come across something quite like the Selhurst triangle and programming the algorithms to make it work is somewhat complex and in a rapidly decreasing timeframe as the full Thameslink rush hour tt approaches!
Deepgreen
Established Member
Rant it may be, but I agree - the current regime sees GatExs running with a high proportion of workings nowhere near carrying their fair share of passengers based on their paths' value. The nonsense of the Southern/GatEx 'competition' should end, especially as Southern either can't be bothered with, or deliberately avoid, providing sensible information on their trains for Gatwick passengers - e.g with splitting trains failing to mention in the Horsham part of the message that it also goes to Gatwick - i.e. something that should be a fundamental passenger information requirement (given that the GatEx information is multi-lingual, for example)
Dr_Paul
Established Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 1,544
Perhaps the best chance of getting the Uckfield to Lewes line reinstated is if it can be passed off as a part of an improvement of the London to Brighton service.
And in the 2018 timetable proposals the current intermediate stops on Gatwick Express workings in the peak are removed altogether. Victoria - Gatwick - Brighton only.
JohnElliott
Member
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 274
That's been one of the arguments for BML2 for the last 9-odd years. But the authors of this report go to some pains to argue that reinstating Uckfield-Lewes wouldn't improve the London-Brighton service in any meaningful way, so if that's the best chance I don't think it's a very good one.
The report made it very clear that purely on transport terms, the line makes little sense even as a a local link, let alone a realistic second main line from Brighton to London, and is likely to undermine local bus services which currently provide reasonable services along the corridor entirely commercially without any subsidy. If the scheme was recouched as a broader economic development scheme, capturing value from new development around stations and redesignated urban planning strategies in Tunbridge Wells for example, then a different outcome might arise. This is the kind of thinking that is helping to drive East-West Rail and Bristol's Metro West for instance.
Dr_Paul
Established Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 1,544
That's what I thought -- going from Brighton to London via Uckfield would not appeal to many people. I guess the stump of a line down to Uckfield is like the Christ's Hospital to Shoreham line: had they not been respectively cut short and removed entirely, they would have been very useful today for local traffic and as diversionary routes, but it's all too late now.
You're absolutely right there, they should try to integrate it as part of a wider local plan. It should be considered more as its own entity rather than some sub-plot of the BML.
There are a few other glimmers of hope in the report - they sound quite positive on the proposal to link in Tunbridge Wells for example. But I can't help thinking this decision is incredibly short-sighted. No doubt the BML2 campaign is busy writing their response to the whitewash and they're so angry they haven't updated their own website yet! There are some things in the BML2 campaign literature which tbh are quite flights of fancy, and I can accept that until the bottlenecks at Stoat's Nest, East Croydon, Windmill Bridge and Victoria are sorted out there's little point in even conceiving of this route as part of a wider plan to increase capacity on the Sussex network.
What irks me is that reports like these constantly talk about BCRs as if they're the only potential measure of feasibility. We've all seen what happens when you reopen a railway in this country - it usually well exceeds predicted usage demands. Are the report's authors unaware of this phenomena?
There also seems to be a singular focus on Uckfield, Lewes and Crowborough as if passengers from those areas are the only ones who might benefit from a reopening. We've read about the potential for Tunbridge Wells to Lewes/Brighton and the likely railheading from the Hastings line yet no-one has mentioned Oxted in all this. Reopening the route would surely provide a much quicker route to the south coast for Oxteders than changing back at East Croydon or getting in the car and railheading to Hayward's Heath.
I really think there is a case for the 'basic railway', which would be an unelectrified extension built with provisions for future upgrade. Would it really be such a disaster to extend the current services to Lewes? This basic build could be done for £150m which is peanuts in the grand scheme of things, throw in another £50m and you've got a new working route from Tunbridge Wells to the south coast for £200m. And it could be completed in 3-4 years. The down side is that it would be no good as a diversionary line but the report seems to think there is little case for that anyway so why play up to it?
NSEFAN
Established Member
To be fair, we don't have that many reopenings to gauge demand. Both Alloa and the Borders railway have been popular, but then they follow these rules (attributed to forum user Altnabreac):
1) Serve a population of 10,000+
2) 60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time of a major employment centre
3) Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed
4) Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required
So it's not quite as simple as "build it and they will come". It has to be possible to actually implement the service specified and there needs to be some form of demand for it, as set out above. To me, reopening Uckfield - Lewes seems to be a sensible suggestion, as it fulfils these four rules (population of Uckfield + Buxted + Crowborough > 10000 , less than 60 minutes to Lewes, most of the trackbed is still in place and services from London Bridge could be extended to Lewes, possibly needing a few more units).
Last edited:
But here's the thing. Uckfield, Buxted and Crowborough already are served by the railway. And I wouldn't call Lewes a major employment centre (although Brighton is).
As an aside, it would be interesting to compare forecasts for usage for the 'recent' reopenings with actuals over a 5-10 year period. It is relatively common (but not a certainty) for year 1 usage to be well above forecasts, but I don't have figures for further on. Also, most of the reopenings have been in relatively deprived areas, and the railway has encouraged economic growth, ie building businesses and homes, along the reopened line that may not have happened without it. I'm not sure that is is what any of the local councillors in that part of East Sussex want. But, back on topic, that is what the recent report suggests - ie the line may be viable if it came attached to significant growth plans along the proposed route.
A BCR is not a measure of feasibility. It is a measure of Value for Money.
It would be more than £150m, and a lot more than 3-4 years! Optimistically, it would take 2 years just to get consent to build it, and at least 2 years of feasibility /design work before that process starts. Add in 2-3 years to build, and it will be at least 7 years.
Its about time they got on with it then.
Its astonishing the poor connectivity in East Sussex.
May as well trot out one of my regulars again:
BML2 doesn't make sense as a way to provide capacity to London. Going via Uckfield simply takes too long. Reinstating Uckfield to Lewes for regional trips though? Great idea. But that's not going to help the BML.
My suggestion would be to do three things - 2 major interventions and 1 minor one. First, a minor project worth doing regardless - build a loop south of Lewes station so services from the north can run through Lewes to Brighton without a reversal:
Secondly, quad track from Keymer Junction to Haywards Heath station. Means a new short (227m) tunnel bore and widening a short (70m) viaduct, but other than that it's pretty straightforward stuff. Network rail are already planning to potentially quad track through Wivelsfield as part of the grade separation of Keymer Junction - this just extends the quad track to Haywards Heath.
The final, and most contentious bit - extend the quad track north from Haywards Heath to Copyhold Junction, rebuild this with grade separation and rebuild the line to East Grinstead via Horstead Keynes, compensating the displaced Bluebell Railway appropriately.
Based on the old line speeds that would give a route that takes roughly 5 minutes longer than the current BML, and importantly, has an interchange with the current line at Haywards Heath, providing connections to Gatwick et al. Merging the via Lewes and East Grinstead services means you can combine their paths north of South Croydon, meaning that you can continue to use the existing routes more effectively, meaning little to no expensive London infrastructure.
...and by rebuilding Uckfield-Lewes as a basic diesel railway (after all, if you don't dress it up as a London mainline, you don't need electrification on day 1) you keep the costs low enough to justify getting the rails put back and you just extend the Uckfield services to Brighton, Seaford or Eastbourne. Add on the electrification bells later.
BML2 doesn't make sense as a way to provide capacity to London. Going via Uckfield simply takes too long. Reinstating Uckfield to Lewes for regional trips though? Great idea. But that's not going to help the BML.
My suggestion would be to do three things - 2 major interventions and 1 minor one. First, a minor project worth doing regardless - build a loop south of Lewes station so services from the north can run through Lewes to Brighton without a reversal:
Secondly, quad track from Keymer Junction to Haywards Heath station. Means a new short (227m) tunnel bore and widening a short (70m) viaduct, but other than that it's pretty straightforward stuff. Network rail are already planning to potentially quad track through Wivelsfield as part of the grade separation of Keymer Junction - this just extends the quad track to Haywards Heath.
The final, and most contentious bit - extend the quad track north from Haywards Heath to Copyhold Junction, rebuild this with grade separation and rebuild the line to East Grinstead via Horstead Keynes, compensating the displaced Bluebell Railway appropriately.
Based on the old line speeds that would give a route that takes roughly 5 minutes longer than the current BML, and importantly, has an interchange with the current line at Haywards Heath, providing connections to Gatwick et al. Merging the via Lewes and East Grinstead services means you can combine their paths north of South Croydon, meaning that you can continue to use the existing routes more effectively, meaning little to no expensive London infrastructure.
...and by rebuilding Uckfield-Lewes as a basic diesel railway (after all, if you don't dress it up as a London mainline, you don't need electrification on day 1) you keep the costs low enough to justify getting the rails put back and you just extend the Uckfield services to Brighton, Seaford or Eastbourne. Add on the electrification bells later.
Last edited:
trainmania100
Established Member
There's certainly no room for that kind of stuff at wivelsfield
Wivelafield station is on a bridge, on a hill and would require lots of structural work and maybe even demolition of the nearby shops right next to the station
Wivelafield station is on a bridge, on a hill and would require lots of structural work and maybe even demolition of the nearby shops right next to the station
You'd best let Network Rail know then, as that's from their proposals.
Can't argue with that. Allows non stop main line diversions Brighton - Lewes - Haywards Heath as well as through trains from Uckfield line to Brighton calling at Lewes with no reversal.
A lot of work for a section with no intermediate platforms apart from Wivelscombe, where limited four tracking is already an option, as you illustrate.
Indeed!
Agree again. Whether initially diesel or electric, basic CHEAP railway is the key.
I'd like to throw in my alternative new flying junction and route from south of Burgess Hill towards Plumpton Green and Lewes, avoiding the level crossing problem at Keymer Junction and allowing Eastbourne trains to call at Burgess Hill, improving local journey opportunities.
http://www.townend.me/files/burgesshill.pdf
Indeed. The idea is to avoid creating a bottleneck, because if you have paths on a 2-track section there, you probably have them further north, making the diversion via East Grinstead pointless. Keeping them segregated with a shortish 4-track section could make the routes...pointless (if you'll excuse the pun). Passengers needing to interchange would have cross-platform interchange at Wivelsfield and Haywards Heath if Keymer and Copyhold were grade separated, but a 4-track section means if you decide cross-platform interchange isn't worth it, you don't actually need the grade separation at all at either junction.
I do like the attention to detail you put into your plans. That tunnel's a bit of a long one though - 1km by your elevation profile chart? That's a decent chunk of change you could use to deal with the level crossing, though obviously your proposal enables serving Burgess Hill. I'm not sure if the distance between there and Wivelsfield justifies that tunnel though. Depends of course if that level crossing can be dealt with at all. What are the options there?
Presumably given the proximity to the junction any grade separation would conveniently enable the railway to pass over or under the road? The difficulty then being returning to grade for Wivelsfield station.
Last edited:
JohnElliott
Member
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 274
The 2008 report made very clear that a basic single track railway would cover it'soperating costs, which means that once the capital investment is made, the running of the thing pays for itself whilst bringing in all the benefits to the wider economy that better transport links bring.
This is just the kind of capital project the UK should be investing in, and avoiding this so as to prop up a declining and low quality form of transport is foolish.
- Status