Sorting out the Marshlink

[Antman]

I dont think there is much traffic off Marshlink at those times of night what there is is either returning to Ashford or up to town via HS1. To be honest most Victoria trains leave Ashford near empty post HS1. I think theres a few passengers in the peaks to Maidstone and thats about it.

Yes most Victoria trains do leave Ashford nearly empty at that time of the evening but Rye to Maidstone is a reasonable journey and a 59 minute wait at Ashford is ridiculous

 

[GatwickDepress]

I suppose the trouble with the Marshlink is that new third rail electrification, to my very limited knowledge, isn't particularly favoured. If it were electrified, I could see some government/ROSCO arrangement to donate the 171s for other use - up north, perhaps - and for that Southern would retain 3 or 4 Class 456s for the Marshlink.
I can see the logic for a two-car EMU working the line instead of a standard 377 or a 377/3 variant, mainly that some coaches would be carting around empty air from Hastings onward, and that they could be better used elsewhere. The absence of first class and the anger some people seem to have for any rolling stock over a decade old might nip any attempts in the bud though!

Perhaps if electrified, Southern could keep an hourly service to Brighton with the 171s or displaced 456s/377/3s. Southeastern could supplement the service, perhaps using a 466 from Ashford to Hastings only? This would bring the bay platform - Platform 1 for you fans of numbers - at Hastings into regular use by Southeastern, while keeping the through trains to Brighton operated by Southern.

Although there's no point improving a service if there's no demand for it.
I can see potential for customers wishing to make journeys from Kent to the coastway and vice-versa, customers wishing to make direct connections to London via HS1, and local commuters along the Marshlink. Certain events like Rye bonfire night and the weekly market see a slight increase in passengers. Perhaps advertising rail as a viable alternative to the car or other public transport might increase passenger numbers.

Ashford International to Tunbridge Wells using Southeastern classic is 54 minutes and costs £14.60. The same journey via Hastings takes 94 minutes and costs the same. I wonder whether there could be a market for journeys from Kent to stations along the Hastings line via the Marshlink at a slightly lower cost in exchange a longer journey time.

Hope my ramblings weren't utterly stupid and inane.

 

[yorksrob]

Since the Victoria service isn't going to be much use for London travellers, it makes sense to configure connections to allow people to make local journeys to places such as Maidstone and Canterbury.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I suppose the trouble with the Marshlink is that new third rail electrification, to my very limited knowledge, isn't particularly favoured. If it were electrified, I could see some government/ROSCO arrangement to donate the 171s for other use - up north, perhaps - and for that Southern would retain 3 or 4 Class 456s for the Marshlink.

If they are going to go anywhere they ought to go to the Uckfield line.. However I won't be holding my breath!

 

[ushawk]

A chord avoiding Eastbourne will be met with a fair bit of resistance from the surrounding area, since the land the chord will be on is farmland which is well used as is the lakes and streams on the site - all of which would no longer be able to be used.

You can look at ANY train arriving at Eastbourne and you can see how many people get off each train there to see how important the stop is, forcing these people to change would be incredibly unpopular - you would also be removing a service from other stations on the line to Eastbourne, making other services busier.

Personally, I'd split the Brighton - Ashford service at Hastings again, but advertise services for Ashford and that a change of trains will be needed at Hastings - this could be cross platform or maybe split a platform into A and B - for example the train from Brighton arrives at 4A and the train to Ashford leaves from 4B.

 

[JamesRowden]

A chord avoiding Eastbourne will be met with a fair bit of resistance from the surrounding area, since the land the chord will be on is farmland which is well used as is the lakes and streams on the site - all of which would no longer be able to be used.

In the chord that I have shown in an earlier post, most of the land (including the lake) would be to the north of the chord and so unaffected. Bridges could be put across the lines to allow acess the land to the south of the chord.

You can look at ANY train arriving at Eastbourne and you can see how many people get off each train there to see how important the stop is, forcing these people to change would be incredibly unpopular - you would also be removing a service from other stations on the line to Eastbourne, making other services busier.

From my observations the Ore-Brighton/Victoria services do not have many people getting off at Eastborune from the East direction. I think this is becasue 3tph is a higher level of service than is needed between Eastbourne and Bexhill/Hastings. I agree that it seems like a good idea to maintain the 2tph service for each of the routes from Eastborune to Brighton and Victoria. But considering that there are presently 7tph heading into Eastbourne, I think that the service between Polegate and Lewes could be increased from 4tph to 5tph through rerouting a Hastings-Eastbourne path via the chord and creating a dulpicate service which only runs between Eastbourne to Victoria/Brighton.

A relatively simple way to possibly do this would be to switch the stopping patterns of the Brighton-Ore and Victoria-Ore services while east of Eastbourne, reroute the Brighton-Ore service via the chord and remove the less important stops such as Glynde and Berwick, create a duplicate service between Eastbourne and Brighton (all stops) and split the Brighton-Ashford service into two seperate services (one EMU and one DMU) that terminate at Eastbourne (since changing to/from the Brighton-Ore service that travels via the chord would be faster). This pattern would also mean that traveling from Bexhill to Victoria on the Eastbourne-Victoria service would involve just a same platform change at Polegate rather than the situation at present of having to go over the footbridge at Hampden Park.

Chopping the Brighton-Ashford service at Eastborune provides the two DMUs neccesary to increase the service between Hastings and Ashford to 2tph if the line speed upgrades are sufficient or more sections of the Marshlink were double tracked (alternatively the DMUs could be sent to the Uckfield line to lengthern peak services).

The service pattern through Polegate/Pevensy would be (in order) (connections shown in pointed brackets):

• Brighton-Eastbourne (fast)
• Victoria-Eastbourne
• Brighton-{Victoria}-Polegate-chord-Hastings-{Ashford}-Ore
• Eastbourne-Ashford
• Brighton-Eastbourne (slow)
• Victoria-Eastbourne-Ore(-{Ashford})
• (Hastings-Ashford)

 

[ushawk]

It should be added that upgrades to the Marshlink line were made during the blockade last year and that at present, along with the resignalling, the rest of the East Coastway line is having linespeeds increased, work should be completed by the December timetable change.

 

[yorksrob]

Personally, I'd split the Brighton - Ashford service at Hastings again, but advertise services for Ashford and that a change of trains will be needed at Hastings - this could be cross platform or maybe split a platform into A and B - for example the train from Brighton arrives at 4A and the train to Ashford leaves from 4B.

If you were doing that, the easiest thing would be to go back to the old days - Marshlink in bay platform 1, coastway the other side of the island in platform 2 and Charing Cross services in 3 and 4. That said, I think you would lose some of the through custom that's been built up so it would seem like a step backwards to me.