Uckfield line to be electrified?

[zwk500]

The issue is that the trains wouldnt be able to recharge the batteries in a normal Hurst Green to London Bridge cycle.
When Southern did the calculations for Marshlink a train had to run from Ashford to Brighton then a short turn to Seaford and back to recover then back to Ashford. This is with only a 4 car unit. Peak turns on Uckfield line would be 10 to 12 cars. The limitation is the amount of power you can draw from the third rail. The amount of power you draw from the rail will actually be a lot more than you get at the rail because of conversion and heat losses.

I'm aware of the issues with battery units. Hence my second sentence.

 

[cle]

It's fair to assume that looking at electrifying to Uckfield via third rail will also consider the supply! People are so quick to straw-man a thing - let's see what they come back with.

Would leave the Marshlink as the sole island. And yes Hastings is trendy these days, but I'm not sure the demand would justify it. The HS1 ask would need works at Ashford too. And local services would be an added bonus.

 

[zwk500]

It's fair to assume that looking at electrifying to Uckfield via third rail will also consider the supply! People are so quick to straw-man a thing - let's see what they come back with.

Would leave the Marshlink as the sole island. And yes Hastings is trendy these days, but I'm not sure the demand would justify it. The HS1 ask would need works at Ashford too. And local services would be an added bonus.

Marshlink might follow later, but safe to say at this point it's very definitely not being given the attention Uckfield is.

 

[Chrisgr31]

It's fair to assume that looking at electrifying to Uckfield via third rail will also consider the supply! People are so quick to straw-man a thing - let's see what they come back with.

Would leave the Marshlink as the sole island. And yes Hastings is trendy these days, but I'm not sure the demand would justify it. The HS1 ask would need works at Ashford too. And local services would be an added bonus.

My prediction from ages ago is that Uckfield will be electrified and Marshlink will use a Battery hybrid. If there is an issue with running battery units in multiple then it wouldnt apply there anyway

 

[Mikey C]

My prediction from ages ago is that Uckfield will be electrified and Marshlink will use a Battery hybrid. If there is an issue with running battery units in multiple then it wouldnt apply there anyway

That would make sense

Even debating whether the Uckfield line should be electrified or not seems silly, when you consider the length of the peak hour trains. This isn't a 2 car Sprinter route, but one where they run 10 car Turbostars which equates to 12 car Electrostars

As a random suggestion, is it possible to split the service so that say an 4 or 8 car EMU + 4 car BEMU formation goes part of the way and splits, with just the BEMU section going on to the end of the line? That way there would just be the 4 car unit operating under battery power only?

 

[30907]

As a random suggestion, is it possible to split the service so that say an 4 or 8 car EMU + 4 car BEMU formation goes part of the way and splits, with just the BEMU section going on to the end of the line? That way there would just be the 4 car unit operating under battery power only?

Oxted would be the obvious place, thouh you might have to run the EMUs to East Grinstead to get them out of the way. Would this provide enough capacity beyond Hurst Green?

BTW how many trains were booked 171x 10 cars in normal times?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Would leave the Marshlink as the sole island.

And North Downs

 

[zwk500]

As a random suggestion, is it possible to split the service so that say an 4 or 8 car EMU + 4 car BEMU formation goes part of the way and splits, with just the BEMU section going on to the end of the line? That way there would just be the 4 car unit operating under battery power only?

Splitting and joining at Hurst Green means the other portion has to go to East Grinstead. At the moment the EG trains serve all station between Oxted and East Croydon while the Uckfield trains run fast so you'd have a massive increase in journey times

10 cars is required south of Hurst green.

 

[Aictos]

And North Downs

North Down services aren't operated by Southern tho unless you count the London Victoria to Reigate which isn't using much of the North Downs as Redhill to Reigate is hardly any milage involved.

The poster you quoted was referring to the point that if Uckfield does get 3rd rail then the Marshlink line will indeed remain the only diesel island on the Southern network.

Great Western Railway is the North Downs operator and they be using Class 769s eventually anyway.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Oxted would be the obvious place, thouh you might have to run the EMUs to East Grinstead to get them out of the way. Would this provide enough capacity beyond Hurst Green?

BTW how many trains were booked 171x 10 cars in normal times?

The number of 10 cars booked is a bit of a moot point. It was meant to be 3 in each peak however after the reliability issues with the first converted 170s Southern didn’t take on the second batch. As a result I am not sure if they ever ran all 6 as 10 cars. on most days they did at least 1 in each of the peaks.

 

[30907]

Splitting and joining at Hurst Green means the other portion has to go to East Grinstead. At the moment the EG trains serve all station between Oxted and East Croydon while the Uckfield trains run fast so you'd have a massive increase in journey times

Oxted is (was always historically) the split point, and it is not impossible to detach a portion there

10 cars is required south of Hurst green.

No-one at Oxted/HG uses the fasts then? Rather surprising.

The number of 10 cars booked is a bit of a moot point...I am not sure if they ever ran all 6 as 10 cars. on most days they did at least 1 in each of the peaks.

Thanks.

 

[JonathanH]

The number of 10 cars booked is a bit of a moot point. It was meant to be 3 in each peak however after the reliability issues with the first converted 170s Southern didn’t take on the second batch. As a result I am not sure if they ever ran all 6 as 10 cars. on most days they did at least 1 in each of the peaks.

Could demand have ever led to the 'missing' trains being run in a half-hourly pattern? It seems to me that it was surpressed by the number of 171s after the second batch wasn't taken on - electrification and availability of 377s might allow a half-hourly peak pattern of Uckfield to London Bridge trains - eg one at 0708 from East Croydon to London Bridge and an 1837 London Bridge to Uckfield.

 

[zwk500]

Oxted is (was always historically) the split point, and it is not impossible to detach a portion there

Not impossible, but then the portion has to either go forward or shunt, which requires a less efficient use of staff. It also means that you'd need headway (4.5mins) separation not junction margin (3 mins), which you'd be able to do at Hurst Green.

No-one at Oxted/HG uses the fasts then? Rather surprising.

I didn't say nobody got on the 10 Cars from Oxted and HG. I said that 10 cars are needed for Uckfield, Crowborough, Eridge, Hever, Edenbridge loadings. You might get away with a split/join option, but you'd need to do some fairly big shuffling of the Uckfield line plan to accomodate the extra dwell.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Not impossible, but then the portion has to either go forward or shunt, which requires a less efficient use of staff. It also means that you'd need headway (4.5mins) separation not junction margin (3 mins), which you'd be able to do at Hurst Green.

I didn't say nobody got on the 10 Cars from Oxted and HG. I said that 10 cars are needed for Uckfield, Crowborough, Eridge, Hever, Edenbridge loadings. You might get away with a split/join option, but you'd need to do some fairly big shuffling of the Uckfield line plan to accomodate the extra dwell.

Headway is 4 minutes from Oxted to Hurst Green. And if your talking about Hurst Green Junction, junction margin is 2 minutes not 3 minutes.

Also, permissive working is not permitted at Hurst Green so it would have to be at Oxted anyway, if it was to occur.

 

[paul1609]

Not impossible, but then the portion has to either go forward or shunt, which requires a less efficient use of staff. It also means that you'd need headway (4.5mins) separation not junction margin (3 mins), which you'd be able to do at Hurst Green.

I didn't say nobody got on the 10 Cars from Oxted and HG. I said that 10 cars are needed for Uckfield, Crowborough, Eridge, Hever, Edenbridge loadings. You might get away with a split/join option, but you'd need to do some fairly big shuffling of the Uckfield line plan to accomodate the extra dwell.

You wouldn't get away with splitting the peak trains. Before the 10 cars were introduced some Crowborough commuters used to travel via Uckfield in the morning to get a seat.
Station useage figures for the principal Uckfield Line stations are;
Uckfield 471000
Crowborough 376000
Edenbridge Town 381000
Buxted 158000 that's nearly all peak traffic, off peak the line is dead. Its only a backwater in the context of the GTR network, Corby for comparison only gets 300000. Holyhead with all its sailrail traffic 206000!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Apr 2021 ==

It's fair to assume that looking at electrifying to Uckfield via third rail will also consider the supply! People are so quick to straw-man a thing - let's see what they come back with.

Would leave the Marshlink as the sole island. And yes Hastings is trendy these days, but I'm not sure the demand would justify it. The HS1 ask would need works at Ashford too. And local services would be an added bonus.

Rye the main intermediate station on Marshlink has 474000 station exits a year thats on a par with Uckfield (and a 160% of Corby!). The quiet bit of Marshlink is actually Rye to Ore because it has a half hourly bus service that serves all the intermediate communities that the railway is remote from. There is some through traffic that goes to and from Hastings and Eastbourne to Ashford for St Pancras and Eastbourne as a sort of tube bypass but not much Id suggest. HS Marshlink would change that. Electrification of Marshlink is relatively simply theres ample spare ac capacity at Ashford, the 2x 4 electrostars that would be in the section to the dc at Ore is an awful lot less than 1 Eurostar.

 

[30907]

I didn't say nobody got on the 10 Cars from Oxted and HG. I said that 10 cars are needed for Uckfield, Crowborough, Eridge, Hever, Edenbridge loadings.

And, in the light of paul1609's figures I realise you are right. It is amazing how that line has grown beyond recognition since I left the SE.

 

[zwk500]

Headway is 4 minutes from Oxted to Hurst Green. And if your talking about Hurst Green Junction, junction margin is 2 minutes not 3 minutes.

Apologies on headway, I'd got the headway north of Oxted confused. HG junction may well be 2 minutes for crossing moves, although I'd be surprised if the repeated despatch procedure allowed 2 mins between departures. Of course, because of your below comment, that is a moot point.

Also, permissive working is not permitted at Hurst Green so it would have to be at Oxted anyway, if it was to occur.

I had been led to believe HG was meant to replace Oxted for split/join capability. Thanks for flagging it, HG is not permissive in NESA.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Apologies on headway, I'd got the headway north of Oxted confused. HG junction may well be 2 minutes for crossing moves, although I'd be surprised if the repeated despatch procedure allowed 2 mins between departures. Of course, because of your below comment, that is a moot point.

I had been led to believe HG was meant to replace Oxted for split/join capability. Thanks for flagging it, HG is not permissive in NESA.

Dont worry! Headway from Oxted to South Croydon is 5 and half minutes for stopping services. Like you say its a moot point anyway, but I agree the signalling defintley wouldn't allow 2 minutes between departures.

I've not heard anything myself about plans for Hurst Green to be equipped for permisive working. Could be wrong though.

 

[Chrisgr31]

theiAnd, in the light of paul1609's figures I realise you are right. It is amazing how that line has grown beyond recognition since I left the SE.

I do take every opportunity to praise Southern for the renaissance of the Uckfield line. It is quite entertaining when people complain about the current service especially when it all goes wrong. They just dont realise how awful it used to be, having to change trains at Oxted on virtually all services a last train from London at 9pm etc. There was a general belief the line was being run down for closure. Indeed British Rail reduced it to single track to save maintenance cost. a decision that now seems very short sighted.

Southern took on the franchise, introduced the Class 171's and made all services through trains and the passengers came in their droves. So early morning services and late evening services were introduced and of course platforms lengthened. Yes its helped by a relatively cheap ticket but the other lines in the area are just as busy.

 

[Bald Rick]

And, in the light of paul1609's figures I realise you are right. It is amazing how that line has grown beyond recognition since I left the SE.

Southern took on the franchise, introduced the Class 171's and made all services through trains and the passengers came in their droves. So early morning services and late evening services were introduced and of course platforms lengthened. Yes its helped by a relatively cheap ticket but the other lines in the area are just as busy.

Indeed. Southern did a terrific job by introducing the through services, switching to London Bridge and of course the new rolling stock.

There is a ‘but’.

The number of passengers using the Uckfield line increased 240% in the 3 years following the 2004 changes (to 2007/8) as a result. In the 11 years from then to 2018/19 (to avoid any Covid effects) usage of the line has has increased by a total of 9%. This compared to GB rail growth in the same period of 44%.

There’s all sorts of reasons for this, but it is certainly ‘known’ that the Uckfield line has underperformed similar routes elsewhere on the network in the last decade, despite the much lower fares compared to adjacent routes.

 

[paul1609]

Indeed. Southern did a terrific job by introducing the through services, switching to London Bridge and of course the new rolling stock.

There is a ‘but’.

The number of passengers using the Uckfield line increased 240% in the 3 years following the 2004 changes (to 2007/8) as a result. In the 11 years from then to 2018/19 (to avoid any Covid effects) usage of the line has has increased by a total of 9%. This compared to GB rail growth in the same period of 44%.

There’s all sorts of reasons for this, but it is certainly ‘known’ that the Uckfield line has underperformed similar routes elsewhere on the network in the last decade, despite the much lower fares compared to adjacent routes.

Given that the Peak trains were very quickly full following their (class 171) introduction and that they were standing from Crowborough in to London Bridge. How was the line ever going to achieve 44% growth given that all the promised rolling stock still (2021) hasn't been delivered? This ignores the London Bridge timetable fiascos, GTR DOO disputes, reliability issues with the knackered Scotrail stock that did actually turn up, platform lengthening etc etc

 

[Bald Rick]

Given that the Peak trains were very quickly full following their (class 171) introduction and that they were standing from Crowborough in to London Bridge. How was the line ever going to achieve 44% growth given that all the promised rolling stock still (2021) hasn't been delivered? This ignores the London Bridge timetable fiascos, GTR DOO disputes, reliability issues with the knackered Scotrail stock that did actually turn up, platform lengthening etc etc

I did say ‘there’s all sorts of reasons for this’.

But .... the rest of the country did achieve 44% growth when on many routes trains were also full, there were strikes, reliability issues, etc etc.

What are the ‘London Bridge timetable fiascos’?

 

[Chrisgr31]

I did say ‘there’s all sorts of reasons for this’.

But .... the rest of the country did achieve 44% growth when on many routes trains were also full, there were strikes, reliability issues, etc etc.

What are the ‘London Bridge timetable fiascos’?

I think there are a number of reasons:-

1. History - It seems it is impossible to shake off the unreliability of the past. People are constantly saying its a poor service even though my delay repay claims (when I was travelling pre-pandemic) prove otherwise

2. When it goes wrong it usually goes very wrong. With an hourly service outside the peak any cancelation means an hour wait for the next one, and if there is a track failure, unit stuck on the line etc it invariably goes very wrong as the single line sections create blockages.

3. Service pattern - The aforementioned service pattern just puts people off from travelling off-peak as its an hour between trains. I suspect an 18.36 departure from London Bridge would help the 18:06 being slightly early for those ending their day at 17:30 especially with the need to get there 10 minutes early to get a seat.

4. Journey times - London - Tunbridge Wells 54 minutes, London - Haywards Heath 42 minutes, London - Crowborough 1hr 2, Tunbridge Wells is only 8 minute faster (not sure if there are fasted non pandemic times) but being under an hour is a big phycological difference

I think these all combine to out people off using the line, with the biggest issue being a bad press (well social media these days) which imply its a lot worse than it is.

 

[Minstral25]

I think there are a number of reasons:-



4. Journey times - London - Tunbridge Wells 54 minutes, London - Haywards Heath 42 minutes, London - Crowborough 1hr 2, Tunbridge Wells is only 8 minute faster (not sure if there are fasted non pandemic times) but being under an hour is a big phycological difference

There are many reasons to wonder why Uckfield underperformed compared to rest of country but the most astonishing thing is that Uckfield Fares are so cheap compared to the other destinations you mention. Using National Rail Season ticket calculator, Annual Uckfield/Crowborough to London Bridge is £3,264, Tunbridge Wells is £5,056 & Haywards Heath £4,156.

Notwithstanding the illogic of such price differentials with such a cheaper fare you would have expected passengers to be drawn to Uckfield trains where clearly they have not.

 

[telstarbox]

It's pretty rural around there. The TW line has a more frequent service which goes right into Cannon Street and Charing Cross, so it's not inconceivable that folk in Crowborough and Uckfield would drive across to the Hastings line.

 

[steamybrian]

It's pretty rural around there. The TW line has a more frequent service which goes right into Cannon Street and Charing Cross, so it's not inconceivable that folk in Crowborough and Uckfield would drive across to the Hastings line.

There are more commuters from Tunbridge Wells that drive to Eridge and Crowborough than the reverse saving nearly £1,800 in annual season ticket costs and annual car parking charges -£440 at Eridge compared to around £1540 at the small car park at Tunbridge Wells. Interested to see comparison costs between commuting from Uckfield or using Lewes or maybe Haywards Heath.

 

[Chrisgr31]

There are more commuters from Tunbridge Wells that drive to Eridge and Crowborough than the reverse saving nearly £1,800 in annual season ticket costs and annual car parking charges -£440 at Eridge compared to around £1540 at the small car park at Tunbridge Wells. Interested to see comparison costs between commuting from Uckfield or using Lewes or maybe Haywards Heath.

Are there? There are some but many of those actually want to go to East Croydon so it makes sense. I know some people from Crowborough go to Wadhurst and some go to Sevenoaks. A lot of people travelling from Tunbridge Wells park on the Common either on the roads or in the car park there. I fail to see why people from Tunbridge Wells would drive past Eridge to get to Crowborough though. Now all trains stop at Cowden and Ashurst those stations offer options for Tunbridge Wells passengers.

Maybe I'll carry out a survey on the local Facebook pages to see where people travel from and why!

 

[Aictos]

If they're going to look at electrifying the line then couldn't they look at improving the infrastructure so to reinstate the former lifted track so it's a 2 track railway between Oxted and Uckfield?

I ask because surely electrification will increase passenger numbers and as such the service should be looked at to see what improvements redoubling could bring?

 

[Bald Rick]

I think there are a number of reasons:-

1. History - It seems it is impossible to shake off the unreliability of the past. People are constantly saying its a poor service even though my delay repay claims (when I was travelling pre-pandemic) prove otherwise

2. When it goes wrong it usually goes very wrong. With an hourly service outside the peak any cancelation means an hour wait for the next one, and if there is a track failure, unit stuck on the line etc it invariably goes very wrong as the single line sections create blockages.

3. Service pattern - The aforementioned service pattern just puts people off from travelling off-peak as its an hour between trains. I suspect an 18.36 departure from London Bridge would help the 18:06 being slightly early for those ending their day at 17:30 especially with the need to get there 10 minutes early to get a seat.

4. Journey times - London - Tunbridge Wells 54 minutes, London - Haywards Heath 42 minutes, London - Crowborough 1hr 2, Tunbridge Wells is only 8 minute faster (not sure if there are fasted non pandemic times) but being under an hour is a big phycological difference

I think these all combine to out people off using the line, with the biggest issue being a bad press (well social media these days) which imply its a lot worse than it is.

Yep not disagreeing with any of that.

I think the ‘peak year’ for the line was 2013/14, notably before the 10 car services started (but also before the strikes).

Nevertheless I still find it odd that the traffic hasn’t come back. It has elsewhere, even on lines with similar service frequency and/or more expensive fares.

 

[Thebaz]

One of the oft-cited reasons for proceeding with Uckfield electrification (as far as I can tell) is that its current reliability is hampered by the lack of interchangeability of rolling stock (If a DMU fails, it can't be replaced by an EMU etc). I don't see how introducing a different fleet of trains, this time battery operated, solves the equation. If a BEMU fails, you still can't run an EMU down there. Therefore, you can't use the potential of improving the robustness of the service as a selling point. For that reason, I think Uckfield is destined to be electrified with 3rd-rail DC. Also I do not believe that 25kV will be considered as a realistic option.