What should we do about Uckfield to Lewes?

[yorksrob]

No, it didn't.

For a detailed rebuttal, please see Why Lewes-Uckfield has no business case - Wealden Line Campaign which states that "Study proved a Benefit to Cost Ratio ranging between 0.70 and 0.78".

I am frankly surprised that the current service from Oxted to Uckfield has survived, given that Uckfield is a relatively small town, it runs for many miles through a rural area and there are few intermediate places of importance, other than Edenbridge, which has an alternative rail service.

Yes it did. I read it.

 

[steamybrian]

No, it didn't.

For a detailed rebuttal, please see Why Lewes-Uckfield has no business case - Wealden Line Campaign which states that "Study proved a Benefit to Cost Ratio ranging between 0.70 and 0.78".

I am frankly surprised that the current service from Oxted to Uckfield has survived, given that Uckfield is a relatively small town, it runs for many miles through a rural area and there are few intermediate places of importance, other than Edenbridge, which has an alternative rail service.

I agree Hever, Cowden, Ashurst and Eridge serve rural areas. Eridge is a "parkway" station attracting passengers from Tunbridge Wells and north Crowborough. Yes commuters from Tunbridge Wells for London? It is cheaper to park at Eridge (under £3 per day ) than Tunbridge Wells station (approx £7 per day) and a season ticket is far cheaper.
Crowborough is a larger town than Edenbridge. Buxted is a small village. Uckfield is a rapidly growing town.
The road system in the area is poor and during engineering works substitute buses take far longer than the train. I have driven around the area and it is mainly narrow twisting country lanes.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes it did. I read it.

So, how are the capital costs of reinstating the railway justified, given that operating costs are only just covered?

 

[yorksrob]

So, how are the capital costs of reinstating the railway justified, given that operating costs are only just covered?

Employment and educational activities in Brighton, increased economic activity, increased accessibility for those without motor transport etc.

 

[tbtc]

As Mandy Rice Davies may say, "we he would, wouldn't he?".

Of course a BR Chairman is going to say something positive (even if he knows that the numbers aren't looking good)

The rubbish ones like Dr Beeching didn't

You need a better argument than "ah, but Beeching/Serpell".

If Reid had inherited the same mess of hopeless lines that the Good Doctor had to deal with then similar cuts would have been made - the fault was with the Victorian speculators and the fact that many of the lines that they built were only useful in the days when there was the freight to sustain them - once that freight dwindled, there was no point to keeping a lot of the lines open. Not Beeching's fault - Reid or anyone else would have had to make cuts (however much it might make people feel more comfortable by pinning all the blame on one Scapegoat)

What nonsense to say that the line couldn't be operated viably by train. It would be an extension of the existing service, which would be rather better used at its southern end than it is now.

...and there's the problem - it'd be a ten coach train running from Uckfield to Brighton (if it's to be an extension of the London - Uckfield services, since that's what the service was pre-COVID, I think it's a fair benchmark of what length the Uckfield - London trains will need to be by the time that any Lewes extension happens) - and there's really not the demand for that length of service between Uckfield and Brighton - even if it were one of the few times a year there was a B&HA home match on.

So your proposal is already hamstrung by the need for such high running costs, and that's on top of the several millions of pounds on additional carriages to provide the service south of Uckfield (I think that a new EMU carriage is over a million quid nowadays, but happy to be corrected)

Even if the line was built for no cost (although I suspect that this is going to be another one of those threads where people suggest a cheap re-opening which entails single track sections but can also miraculously accommodate all of those diverted trains on the rare occasions that a parallel main line is closed...)...

...your probably going to struggle to run an hourly Uckfield - Brighton - Uckfield service with just one (ten coach) train - especially given the pressures on platforms at the Brighton end - so how many additional coaches are you going to need? Twenty? Plus a handful of extra ones to cover maintenance (say 10% more)? That's best of twenty five million quid just on the trains, before you factor in the cost of running ten coach trains all that way for the low number of passengers. Yes, there's a bus service from Uckfield to Brighton (currently half hourly? I can't tell if that's a reduced "Covid" service though) but that runs by different routes (which indicated that demand is spread thinner than just one corridor), that also includes the Tunbridge Wells - Brighton passengers - a train would have to run via just one route and wouldn't include the passengers from Tunbridge Wells. And, as you want an extension of the London services, that train would need to be ten coaches long.

Even if the plan is to replace some existing Lewes - Brighton services, you're going to struggle to match the London - Uckfield paths (which are seriously limited at the London end and through the East Croydon bottleneck) with existing paths from Lewes into Brighton, so will this mean an awkward wait at Lewes for your ex-Uckfield service to slot into the path of a Lewes - Brighton stopper?

And even if you want to replace some existing Lewes - Brighton services to reduce the number of additional carriages required, you're still replacing a three coach 313 with a ten coach EMU (of whatever class TSGN have to order to accommodate this newly electrified line). Presumably all of the local stations on the East Coastway can accommodate ten coach trains, or will you require platform extensions too? Uckfield - Brighton - Uckfield will be too long for an hourly train to run with just one ten coach unit but Uckfield - Lewes - Uckfield would be too quick for an hourly train to run with just one ten coach unit (i.e. if you were going to run onto the path of a Lewes - Brighton - Lewes stopper - and that's assuming that a London - Uckfield - Brighton - Uckfield - London service, which must be knocking on four hours, can have a reliable turnaround time at Brighton in the same time that the short Lewes - Brighton - Lewes shuttle can cope with).

The more I look at it, the worse it gets. NO wonder the people "actively campaigning" for fifty years haven't convinced anyone important.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Uckfield to Lewes isn’t viable. It’s obvious.

Waiting for the sheer quantities of “you can’t possibly do that”, but in theory if you wanted a sensible and decent BML2, it would need to stay as close to the BML as possible.

How do you do that?

Much better signalling (e.g. closer together), between South Croydon and Hurst Green, then down to Grinstead, a major interchange and parkway at Horsted Keynes (potentially including a new Garden City at Ardingly) and then to Hayward’s.

The paths used therefore north of Three Bridges by stuff from/to Horsham etc are still able to be consequentially filled south of Haywards.

Then just grant the Bluebell a built line to close to Lewes, so they run Horsted - Lewes(ish).

 

[Ianno87]

Employment and educational activities in Brighton, increased economic activity, increased accessibility for those without motor transport etc.

And, as explained up thread already, for those benefits to be sufficient enough to justify a national government investment, the Wealden towns will have to accept multiple-thousand additional homes each to provide the required passenger volume.

I'm not suggesting that the aims you list aren't noble. The current population of the area served by the route doesn't provide all these benefits in nearly enough quantity.

 

[bramling]

They would be fuller if they ran to some major population/tourist/leisure areas such as Brighton and the South Coast !

The trouble is the only places of much size are Edenbridge, Crowborough and Uckfield. There’s also Oxted, but one can reach Brighton just as quickly via East Croydon.

Unfortunately I don’t see the first three contributing a massive number of journeys to the south coast. Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone could have a little more potential for work-related journeys, though whether it could ever generate enough to break even who knows. There’s the other issue that Kent seems to want a through service to Gatwick Airport, which if it ever materialised would mean going via Redhill; the Uckfield line isn’t going to help achieve that aspiration.

I’d love to see Uckfield to Lewes reopened, but I have to agree with the general view on here that it’s not a top priority. Schemes like Ashington and Portishead have a pretty assured user base, whereas this one has quite a few maybes.

 

[zwk500]

Much better signalling (e.g. closer together), between South Croydon and Hurst Green, then down to Grinstead, a major interchange and parkway at Horsted Keynes (potentially including a new Garden City at Ardingly) and then to Hayward’s.

A 'major interchange' in a field miles from the nearest dwelling, let alone a viable catchment area? The most you'll get is a smallbrook junction-type arrangment. A garden city at Ardingly is also not sensible because of geography - there's far flatter land between Haywards Heath and the South downs, which doesn't have the showground, listed viaduct, and prestigious private school right next to it. Ardingly station is more than a mile away from the village because of the topography, and is currently a rail aggregates depot so that's more cost to remodel the site or deviate round it. West Hoathly station, with the village of Sharpthorne actually next to the station and the brownfield brickworks site, is the only viable development opportunity on your proposed line, and it needs the entire station rebuilding from scratch, so that's more cost.

Not to mention that you'd need to compulsory purchase the remaining land between EG and Kingscote for double track, and renew every single stone of ballast and brick in the bridges to raise the linespeed from 25mph to the 60+mph needed for a viable operation as part of the network. You might be able to leave Kingscote and just take the platform edge copers off. Oh, and you'd need to level the EG platform 3 and remodel the southern end of EG station.

Then just grant the Bluebell a built line to close to Lewes, so they run Horsted - Lewes(ish).

Building the southern section requires a deviation round the former Chailey station. This will rack the price up, and then when you add it to the costs of turfing out the BRPS and those described above you would probably have a BCR close to the costs of a brand new line from Uckfield to Lewes via Ringmer, with the junction facing Brighton.

My favourite option would be to build this brand new alignment, crossing the A26 near the old Ship Inn, with a station at Ringmer (5,000 pop and marked for heavy, heavy development) near the Green Man & Community college, then skirting Mt Caburn to join the East Coastway at Glynde. Gives you no tunnels, direct access to Brighton and only 1 additional junction. However, this is unlikely to get a BCR high enough for the go-forward so instead the Bus company and train company should be locked in a room together until they come up with a through ticketing and (most importantly) sensibly timed connections arrangement, possibly with NR funding something at Lewes Car Park to allow the buses to serve the station directly rather than the rather disconnected location of the bus station. Uckfield-Brighton (Churchill Sq) is 1h by bus, Uck-Lewes is 20mins by bus, then Lewes-Brighton is 10mins non-stop, or 15 mins stopping. Allow 5min for the change and 10mins walk from Brighton Station, you've still got there 10 mins early.

 

[yorksrob]

You need a better argument than "ah, but Beeching/Serpell".

If Reid had inherited the same mess of hopeless lines that the Good Doctor had to deal with then similar cuts would have been made - the fault was with the Victorian speculators and the fact that many of the lines that they built were only useful in the days when there was the freight to sustain them - once that freight dwindled, there was no point to keeping a lot of the lines open. Not Beeching's fault - Reid or anyone else would have had to make cuts (however much it might make people feel more comfortable by pinning all the blame on one Scapegoat)



...and there's the problem - it'd be a ten coach train running from Uckfield to Brighton (if it's to be an extension of the London - Uckfield services, since that's what the service was pre-COVID, I think it's a fair benchmark of what length the Uckfield - London trains will need to be by the time that any Lewes extension happens) - and there's really not the demand for that length of service between Uckfield and Brighton - even if it were one of the few times a year there was a B&HA home match on.

So your proposal is already hamstrung by the need for such high running costs, and that's on top of the several millions of pounds on additional carriages to provide the service south of Uckfield (I think that a new EMU carriage is over a million quid nowadays, but happy to be corrected)

Even if the line was built for no cost (although I suspect that this is going to be another one of those threads where people suggest a cheap re-opening which entails single track sections but can also miraculously accommodate all of those diverted trains on the rare occasions that a parallel main line is closed...)...

...your probably going to struggle to run an hourly Uckfield - Brighton - Uckfield service with just one (ten coach) train - especially given the pressures on platforms at the Brighton end - so how many additional coaches are you going to need? Twenty? Plus a handful of extra ones to cover maintenance (say 10% more)? That's best of twenty five million quid just on the trains, before you factor in the cost of running ten coach trains all that way for the low number of passengers. Yes, there's a bus service from Uckfield to Brighton (currently half hourly? I can't tell if that's a reduced "Covid" service though) but that runs by different routes (which indicated that demand is spread thinner than just one corridor), that also includes the Tunbridge Wells - Brighton passengers - a train would have to run via just one route and wouldn't include the passengers from Tunbridge Wells. And, as you want an extension of the London services, that train would need to be ten coaches long.

Even if the plan is to replace some existing Lewes - Brighton services, you're going to struggle to match the London - Uckfield paths (which are seriously limited at the London end and through the East Croydon bottleneck) with existing paths from Lewes into Brighton, so will this mean an awkward wait at Lewes for your ex-Uckfield service to slot into the path of a Lewes - Brighton stopper?

And even if you want to replace some existing Lewes - Brighton services to reduce the number of additional carriages required, you're still replacing a three coach 313 with a ten coach EMU (of whatever class TSGN have to order to accommodate this newly electrified line). Presumably all of the local stations on the East Coastway can accommodate ten coach trains, or will you require platform extensions too? Uckfield - Brighton - Uckfield will be too long for an hourly train to run with just one ten coach unit but Uckfield - Lewes - Uckfield would be too quick for an hourly train to run with just one ten coach unit (i.e. if you were going to run onto the path of a Lewes - Brighton - Lewes stopper - and that's assuming that a London - Uckfield - Brighton - Uckfield - London service, which must be knocking on four hours, can have a reliable turnaround time at Brighton in the same time that the short Lewes - Brighton - Lewes shuttle can cope with).

The more I look at it, the worse it gets. NO wonder the people "actively campaigning" for fifty years haven't convinced anyone important.

For an electrified through route, rolling stock won't be a problem. Haven't you noticed - the country is awash with electric trains at the moment. Just don't withdraw some of the non-life expired ones, and shuffle some longer distance ones towards this route. Citing rolling stock is looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

Uckfield to Lewes isn’t viable. It’s obvious.

Waiting for the sheer quantities of “you can’t possibly do that”, but in theory if you wanted a sensible and decent BML2, it would need to stay as close to the BML as possible.

How do you do that?

Much better signalling (e.g. closer together), between South Croydon and Hurst Green, then down to Grinstead, a major interchange and parkway at Horsted Keynes (potentially including a new Garden City at Ardingly) and then to Hayward’s.

The paths used therefore north of Three Bridges by stuff from/to Horsham etc are still able to be consequentially filled south of Haywards.

Then just grant the Bluebell a built line to close to Lewes, so they run Horsted - Lewes(ish).

This is an interesting proposal, however I feel the issue is that East Grinstead would be the only sizable settlement with improved connectivity. With Uckfield - Lewes, you've got Uckfield, Crowborough and Edenbridge, all of which are reasonable sized towns. That's before you start considering the potential of Tunbridge Wells etc.

And, as explained up thread already, for those benefits to be sufficient enough to justify a national government investment, the Wealden towns will have to accept multiple-thousand additional homes each to provide the required passenger volume.

I'm not suggesting that the aims you list aren't noble. The current population of the area served by the route doesn't provide all these benefits in nearly enough quantity.

Hasn't the area already accepted substantial new housing over the past few decades ? At some stage Gmt should bank the increases already made and get around to improving facilities.

The trouble is the only places of much size are Edenbridge, Crowborough and Uckfield. There’s also Oxted, but one can reach Brighton just as quickly via East Croydon.

Unfortunately I don’t see the first three contributing a massive number of journeys to the south coast. Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone could have a little more potential for work-related journeys, though whether it could ever generate enough to break even who knows. There’s the other issue that Kent seems to want a through service to Gatwick Airport, which if it ever materialised would mean going via Redhill; the Uckfield line isn’t going to help achieve that aspiration.

I’d love to see Uckfield to Lewes reopened, but I have to agree with the general view on here that it’s not a top priority. Schemes like Ashington and Portishead have a pretty assured user base, whereas this one has quite a few maybes.

I think one will always be able to find a case that is more urgent or deserving. However there should be a more general aim to improve connectivity in the whole of the country. Restoring some of these comparatively easy missing links should be considered for their local utility.

 

[A0]

For an electrified through route, rolling stock won't be a problem. Haven't you noticed - the country is awash with electric trains at the moment. Just don't withdraw some of the non-life expired ones, and shuffle some longer distance ones towards this route. Citing rolling stock is looking for a problem that doesn't exist.



This is an interesting proposal, however I feel the issue is that East Grinstead would be the only sizable settlement with improved connectivity. With Uckfield - Lewes, you've got Uckfield, Crowborough and Edenbridge, all of which are reasonable sized towns. That's before you start considering the potential of Tunbridge Wells etc.



Hasn't the area already accepted substantial new housing over the past few decades ? At some stage Gmt should bank the increases already made and get around to improving facilities.



I think one will always be able to find a case that is more urgent or deserving. However there should be a more general aim to improve connectivity in the whole of the country. Restoring some of these comparatively easy missing links should be considered for their local utility.

Not one new or relevant argument which changes the fundamentals.

And still you haven't answered how you'd address the issue that if one of your "pet" projects went ahead and ended up costing money for time immemorium - what would you see cut or not happen in order for your pet to be subsidised - which is exactly what would end up happening.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Not one new or relevant argument which changes the fundamentals.

And still you haven't answered how you'd address the issue that if one of your "pet" projects went ahead and ended up costing money for time immemorium - what would you see cut or not happen in order for your pet to be subsidised - which is exactly what would end up happening.

Much that I want to support reopenings, if reopening Lewes to Uckfield would then cause the Windmill Bridge works to be cancelled, which would probably be likely, that would be a disaster. I do hope Lewes to Uckfield or a different reopening can happen on the Sussex route in the future but at the minute projects such as Windmill Bridge need to take priority, are equally as exciting as a reopening and will provide far more benefits to potentially millions more people.

 

[A0]

Much that I want to support reopenings, if reopening Lewes to Uckfield would then cause the Windmill Bridge works to be cancelled, which would probably be likely, that would be a disaster. I do hope Lewes to Uckfield or a different reopening can happen on the Sussex route in the future but at the minute projects such as Windmill Bridge need to take priority, are equally as exciting as a reopening and will provide far more benefits to potentially millions more people.

Until Uckfield - Lewes manages to show a BCR of the level required it's going nowhere. And the only likely way that BCR *might* increase would be due to a massive increase in housing between Uckfield and Lewes and the need to provide transport links - because the key traffic flow will remain towards London.

Odd journeys like Tunbridge Wells to Brighton simply won't generate the demand or the necessary benefits required for a viable business case.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

And yet the Conwy Valley route continues to be patched up at great expense every other year. That seems to be more of a financial basket case than a re-opened Lewes-Uckfield line might ever be.

 

[yorksrob]

Not one new or relevant argument which changes the fundamentals.

And still you haven't answered how you'd address the issue that if one of your "pet" projects went ahead and ended up costing money for time immemorium - what would you see cut or not happen in order for your pet to be subsidised - which is exactly what would end up happening.

I don't believe in robbing Peter to pay Paul.

After the pandemic recedes, I believe the railway should work harder to attract leisure travellers and make itself indispensable again. Get bums on seats and they won't be able to close.

 

[zwk500]

And yet the Conwy Valley route continues to be patched up at great expense every other year. That seems to be more of a financial basket case than a re-opened Lewes-Uckfield line might ever be.

as has been mentioned upthread, maintaining an existing line is a totally different calculation to building a new line (and no matter which way you cut it, you will need a section of brand new line for Lewes-Uckfield)

@yorksrob:

I don't believe in robbing Peter to pay Paul.

After the pandemic recedes, I believe the railway should work harder to attract leisure travellers and make itself indispensable again. Get bums on seats and they won't be able to close

Leisure travellers on this route take 2 forms: People heading to Gatwick, and people heading to the seaside. Lewes-Uckfield does not add any significant Gatwick traffic (only west Kent/the Weald: Oxted and north will continue to travel via Croydon), and the seaside traffic is already covered. The day-tripper traffic is very unpredictable, so building a 2nd line for the few weekends a year there's engineering works just doesn't make sense. In order to make Lewes-Uckfield viable, you would need to demonstrate either: the line could accommodate freight traffic diverted away from the BML (very difficult, as only Newhaven terminals are available and the route north of Uckfield is built to a very restrictive standard) or a sustained, substantial passenger flow. The weald to the coast is not a substantial commuter pattern, and the coast to London is already covered. The only way you can add new traffic to Lewes-Uckfield is to build via Ringmer, which means a 95% brand new alignment, driving up the cost considerably.

It pains me to say it's not viable, because I lived in Ringmer for 20 years during which time I worked in Uckfield and thought of Lewes as my home town, and I am well aware of the positive impacts that the link would have. However I'm also aware of the difficulties the line would face and why it is simply not viable unless you were to double the size of all 3 settlements.

 

[A0]

I don't believe in robbing Peter to pay Paul.

After the pandemic recedes, I believe the railway should work harder to attract leisure travellers and make itself indispensable again. Get bums on seats and they won't be able to close.

Except since the capital costs *won't* be covered by farebox revenue and it's debateable whether farebox revenue will cover the operating costs, then the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere.

So whilst you may not "believe in robbing Peter to pay Paul", that's exactly what will happen - so who are you happy to be Peter? The taxpayer, 99% of whom will never benefit from this? Or what about other improvements or investments? You can't just put your fingers in your ears and go la-la-la expecting it to go away. So answer the question.

 

[tbtc]

For an electrified through route, rolling stock won't be a problem. Haven't you noticed - the country is awash with electric trains at the moment. Just don't withdraw some of the non-life expired ones, and shuffle some longer distance ones towards this route. Citing rolling stock is looking for a problem that doesn't exist

...so, as expected, you're not going to let the practicalities of how to run a London - Uckfield - Brighton service get in the way of your enthusiasm for just doing it - why worry about the hassle of whether you'd have to leave a ten coach EMU in a Brighton platform for over fifty minutes per hour since the southbound service wouldn't match up with a northbound service (that needs to get to Croydon at a particular slot)...

...so, your EMUs for the service would be ... old 313s? 455s? That'll go down well with the Uckfield passengers used to a 170 for their London trips... Or do you dump those on another poor line so that their better stock (e.g. 377s) can go on a London - Uckfield - Brighton service?

I don't believe in robbing Peter to pay Paul

No - you seem to believe in a consequence-free world where there are no compromises to things - you never have to worry about the opportunity costs of things - which must be nice

 

[Bald Rick]

Hasn't the area already accepted substantial new housing over the past few decades ?

Yup, although not that much. And none of it needed s rail link to Lewes to enable it to be built.

 

[Aictos]

...so, as expected, you're not going to let the practicalities of how to run a London - Uckfield - Brighton service get in the way of your enthusiasm for just doing it - why worry about the hassle of whether you'd have to leave a ten coach EMU in a Brighton platform for over fifty minutes per hour since the southbound service wouldn't match up with a northbound service (that needs to get to Croydon at a particular slot)...

...so, your EMUs for the service would be ... old 313s? 455s? That'll go down well with the Uckfield passengers used to a 170 for their London trips... Or do you dump those on another poor line so that their better stock (e.g. 377s) can go on a London - Uckfield - Brighton service?



No - you seem to believe in a consequence-free world where there are no compromises to things - you never have to worry about the opportunity costs of things - which must be nice

Just to point out that Southern don't operate any Class 170s but rather Class 171s other then that you're right in your essay.

 

[30907]

...so, as expected, you're not going to let the practicalities of how to run a London - Uckfield - Brighton service get in the way of your enthusiasm for just doing it - why worry about the hassle of whether you'd have to leave a ten coach EMU in a Brighton platform for over fifty minutes per hour since the southbound service wouldn't match up with a northbound service (that needs to get to Croydon at a particular slot).

I'm on the sceptical side too, but exaggerating the problems isn't necessary. Even if you run through to Brighton reversing outside Lewes, which I doubt, you don't have to send all 10 cars through, that being the advantage of EMUs - split at Oxted or whatever (I suspect splitting and joining at LBG is no longer sensible owing to lack of platforms).
Your additional stock requirement is more likely to be 1-2 units.

 

[zwk500]

I'm on the sceptical side too, but exaggerating the problems isn't necessary. Even if you run through to Brighton reversing outside Lewes, which I doubt, you don't have to send all 10 cars through, that being the advantage of EMUs - split at Oxted or whatever (I suspect splitting and joining at LBG is no longer sensible owing to lack of platforms).
Your additional stock requirement is more likely to be 1-2 units.

tbtc's point was not just the stock, but the platform capacity at Brighton. It doesn't matter if it's 3 cars or 12, if it's sitting in a platform for any length of time it will cause problems. At Brighton you have limited options: you can put back the platform opposite 8, but that will affect the back entrance to the pick up/drop off, bike shed and car park. Or you can take up the old cab road between 6 and 7, but that will probably requiring cutting the new platforms, 7 & 8 down to 8 cars max to fit the pointwork in for the throat. Both drive the cost up.

 

[JohnElliott]

Leisure travellers on this route take 2 forms: People heading to Gatwick, and people heading to the seaside. Lewes-Uckfield does not add any significant Gatwick traffic (only west Kent/the Weald: Oxted and north will continue to travel via Croydon),

With enough crayons the solution here is to go from Lewes to Gatwick via Ashurst Junction and Three Bridges...

It won't happen but 4 tracking Balcombe Tunnel Junction to ideally Keymer Junction would be by far the best option, and would surely have the best business case compared to any reopening. Plus the added capacity would be a real bonus. You could speed up some of the Brighton services and also have direct services from Redhill to locations south of Three Bridges again.

Sadly though Balcombe Tunnel and some of the other tunnels and viaducts means it probably will never happen.

I wonder what the current regulations would require for a second Balcombe Tunnel, since I recall some discussion of how they'd make BML2's proposed tunnel under Lewes prohibitively expensive.

 

[Bald Rick]

I wonder what the current regulations would require for a second Balcombe Tunnel, since I recall some discussion of how they'd make BML2's proposed tunnel under Lewes prohibitively expensive.

Not quite sure what you mean there - tunnel regulations are well understood by those experienced in building them. It only becomes ‘prohibitively expensive’ if there are insufficient benefits to pay for it!

It would have to have an evacuation walkway throughout, (two if a twin track single bore), and assuming it would be the same length as the current tunnel it wouldn’t need an escape shaft.

 

[JohnElliott]

Not quite sure what you mean there - tunnel regulations are well understood by those experienced in building them. It only becomes ‘prohibitively expensive’ if there are insufficient benefits to pay for it!

It would have to have an evacuation walkway throughout, (two if a twin track single bore), and assuming it would be the same length as the current tunnel it wouldn’t need an escape shaft.

My recollection of the BML2 discussion was that they'd costed their Lewes tunnel based on the North Downs Tunnel on HS1, but that since HS1 the regulations had changed and the Lewes tunnel would have to be a more elaborate twin-bore design. I was wondering if the same would apply to a new Balcombe tunnel.

 

[zwk500]

With enough crayons the solution here is to go from Lewes to Gatwick via Ashurst Junction and Three Bridges...

Don't start, we'll get suggestions that we're 'just not being ambitious enough' with Beeching Way...

I wonder what the current regulations would require for a second Balcombe Tunnel, since I recall some discussion of how they'd make BML2's proposed tunnel under Lewes prohibitively expensive.

What makes BML2's fantasy prohibitively expensive is that it has so little benefit, as you negate the train's biggest single advantage: serving multiple markets efficiently. It's also worth pointing out the crayon line under Lewes is 1.5 miles through chalk, and Balcombe tunnel is c0.75 miles through Wealden Clay. A 2nd Balcombe tunnel would have to contend with the water ingress issues of the current tunnel, but as they're known issues that will be factored into any costs.

My recollection of the BML2 discussion was that they'd costed their Lewes tunnel based on the North Downs Tunnel on HS1, but that since HS1 the regulations had changed and the Lewes tunnel would have to be a more elaborate twin-bore design. I was wondering if the same would apply to a new Balcombe tunnel.

BML2's price is a preliminary estimate, not far from back-of-envelope type calculations. AFAIK no detailed ground surveys of the area have been done, nor have any detailed technical assessments been made. Any new tunnel would need to be built to the same regulations (i.e. those in force when the detailed design was completed). At the moment these very much do permit twin-track tunnels (e.g. Farnworth on the Manchester-Bolton-Preston line).

 

[Bald Rick]

My recollection of the BML2 discussion was that they'd costed their Lewes tunnel based on the North Downs Tunnel on HS1, but that since HS1 the regulations had changed and the Lewes tunnel would have to be a more elaborate twin-bore design. I was wondering if the same would apply to a new Balcombe tunnel.

You can have a twin track single bore, no problem. It’s a big tunnel diameter though, and two single bores may well be cheaper for a longer length.

 

[tbtc]

Just to point out that Southern don't operate any Class 170s but rather Class 171s other then that you're right in your essay.

Good point, apologies

I'm on the sceptical side too, but exaggerating the problems isn't necessary. Even if you run through to Brighton reversing outside Lewes, which I doubt, you don't have to send all 10 cars through, that being the advantage of EMUs - split at Oxted or whatever (I suspect splitting and joining at LBG is no longer sensible owing to lack of platforms).
Your additional stock requirement is more likely to be 1-2 units.

I'm just going on Rob's idea that this should be a London - Uckfield - Brighton service, with no reference to splitting of units

tbtc's point was not just the stock, but the platform capacity at Brighton. It doesn't matter if it's 3 cars or 12, if it's sitting in a platform for any length of time it will cause problems. At Brighton you have limited options: you can put back the platform opposite 8, but that will affect the back entrance to the pick up/drop off, bike shed and car park. Or you can take up the old cab road between 6 and 7, but that will probably requiring cutting the new platforms, 7 & 8 down to 8 cars max to fit the pointwork in for the throat. Both drive the cost up.

I admire your attempt to battle the "We Must Re-open Everything" argument with logic and practical examples at ground level of why this will be significantly more complicated than just sticking down a couple of miles of track from Uckfield to Lewes... I just don't think that *evidence* has much success in dampening the enthusiasm that some people have for rebuilding some failed line from fifty years ago (based on various threads on here) - always worth a try thought!

 

[SynthD]

You might kill off the public, and therefore politicians, appetite for any rail projects if you pick a known dud. This tiny gain to such a small population might cost you far greater gains to far more people, who may be more deserving.

 

[JamesRowden]

If we go full croyons, and build the following connections:

• Lewes - Uckfield
• Eridge - Tunbridge Wells - Paddock Wood
• Cuxton - Rochester

How many people would use a half hourly Brighton to Gillingham service?