• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Uckfield Line Platforms extended to hold 10 cars...

Status
Not open for further replies.

physics34

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
3,681
We know plans are afoot, but apparently Uckfield station's platform extensionhas hit a snag....

http://uckfieldnews.com/uckfield-rail-platform-extension-plan-hits-snag/

Uckfield rail platform extension plan hits snag

Network Rail’s hopes of doing some initial work next month on its project to extend the railway station platform at Uckfield look to have been dashed.

Uckfield town councillors aired considerable concerns about the plan to access the site across part of the Hempstead Meadows Local Nature Reserve.

Members of the council’s environment and leisure committee meeting last night (February 16) called for more information before making a decision.

The committee is not scheduled to meet again until March 30.

Preferred access route

As reported last week by UckfieldNews.com, Network Rail’s preferred route to access the site was to build a road across the nature reserve so it could extend the platform by 48m to accommodate up to 12-car trains, if needed.

The land would be reinstated after the works which would last just under a year. Network Rail has offered the council £5,000 to be spent on the reserve or similar nearby areas.

It was also negotiating with Waitrose to use part of the supermarket’s car park for a compound.

You can read our full report here

Mill Lane

An alternative route to the site via Mill Lane was not favoured because of the need to strengthen two bridges, establishing a site compound in an overflow car park and making deliveries along the lane where cars are parked.

At the town council committee meeting, Cllr Helen Firth said: “Politely, tell them to go and suck lemons because we are not having our nature reserve destroyed. I cannot see how they can expect us to accept this. Tell them to find an alternative.”

Cllr Jeremy Hallett, deputy town mayor, said to a large extent the reserve would recover over a period of time. “Before we did anything we would have to make absolutely certain that nothing would be permanently damaged.

‘Woefully inadequate’

“The amount of money talked about is woefully inadequate,” he said.

Cllr Hallett suggested it could take up to ten years for the reserve to recover. “My thoughts are leaning towards that they have got to go in through the Roller Mill and reinforce the bridge,” he said.

He felt councillors needed far more information on the flora and fauna, professional opinions on how long it would take the land to recover and the costs of managing that work.

Committee chairman, Cllr Alan Whittaker, asked how the compensatory sum of £5,000 be adequate for eight months’ work. He was sure Waitrose would want much more.

‘Easier option’

He believed Network Rail wished to go through the nature reserve because it was the easier option and less costly.

“They admit there is a possibility of oil spillage, the access road will be 5m wide, the road will be raised to the height of the railway, we are dealing with articulated lorries – they are eight-wheeler lorries – and the noise that this will cause will be a huge disturbance to the wildlife.

“They want to remove three trees, they want to remove brambles; well brambles are a very important nesting habitat,” he said.

Cllr Whittaker was worried about the ecological information. “There is no mention that ducks have actually nested there; there is no mention of small mammals.The work will take place throughout the whole of the nesting season. It is damaging,” he said.

Cllr Whittaker said it was his personal view that if the work went ahead it would be “vandalism approved by this council”, for a “paltry” sum and would be a precedent for the future.

Need for more information

Cllr Mick Harker reminded councillors they represented the whole community and that Mill Lane was narrow, used by pedestrians with many parked cars.

He said: “To have heavy lorries up and down there will have an enormous impact on the area. The balance is the impact on that area against the nature reserve.”

He said there needed to be an assessment of the impact of going through Mill Lane, an assessment of what the plan would mean for the nature reserve and to discover what view Waitrose was taking.

Councillors agreed to seek more information and to involve councillors and members of the local nature reserve committee in the discussions.

Earlier, during a period reserved for public speaking, Dr Martyn Stenning, chairman of the nature reserve committee, emphasised the ecological value of the area and the potential dangers of allowing a temporary road.

The question, he said, was whether the council was going to protect biodiversity or ask Network Rail to use an alternative.
The previous article and info about the work needed to get materials to the work site is here..

http://uckfieldnews.com/uckfield-rail-platform-extension-work-looms/

I honestly cant see why they need to do this and need all this access just to extend the platform by 48 metres??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Chrisgr31

Established Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
1,675
The Wealden Town Councila are an odd lot. Crowborough Town Council have just agreed to increase their part of the Council Tax bill by 18% whilst you have Uckfield doing their best to prevent Network Rail taking action to inprove the overcrowding on the Uckfield Line which they are usually the first to complain about!

I assume the issue is that the station itelf has very limited frontage to a road. The line is at right angles to the road (there used to be a level crossing) and the line is single track at this point. Its possible that the platform itself is built on the old down line with the up line in use. Therefore all the construction kit, materials etc would have to come down either the line, or the platform.

To compound the issue immediatley behind the platform is the River Uck, so I wouldnt be surprised if the platform foundations need piling, which needs heavy plant.

Its jardly as if a nature reserve in Uckfield is really needed. Its a small town surrounded by countryside, with Ashdown Forest only a few miles away!

I really cannot believe the town council are being so difficult.
 

physics34

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
3,681
The Wealden Town Councila are an odd lot. Crowborough Town Council have just agreed to increase their part of the Council Tax bill by 18% whilst you have Uckfield doing their best to prevent Network Rail taking action to inprove the overcrowding on the Uckfield Line which they are usually the first to complain about!

I assume the issue is that the station itelf has very limited frontage to a road. The line is at right angles to the road (there used to be a level crossing) and the line is single track at this point. Its possible that the platform itself is built on the old down line with the up line in use. Therefore all the construction kit, materials etc would have to come down either the line, or the platform.

To compound the issue immediatley behind the platform is the River Uck, so I wouldnt be surprised if the platform foundations need piling, which needs heavy plant.

Its jardly as if a nature reserve in Uckfield is really needed. Its a small town surrounded by countryside, with Ashdown Forest only a few miles away!

I really cannot believe the town council are being so difficult.

Exactly, the duck comment made me chuckle too.

Its odd that councillors often try to stop things that will improve transport etc, whilst bleeting on about the environment etc etc...

Not only are these people only a few years away from death (excuse me if that sounds out of order but i hope you get my point), they probably drive 6litre 4x4s everywhere pumping fumes into the air.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
yeh i can see there being limited access from the road to the platform for heavy plant..... i dont want to sound simple, but id have thought extending a platform, simply, would just mean making a few foundations for the "pillars" and then laying concrete slabs (by crane maybe...they could do this by rail??) or metal beaming, which has been used in several platform extension projects in the southern area.

Dont see the need for big building equipment.

The issue might be, as you said, the River Uck being so close.
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,274
Network Rail really need a special train that can do piled foundations during overnight possessions, it could even carry its own concrete batching plant and have all sorts of cranes and stuff for lifting pre-fabricated platform sections straight onto previously prepared sites.

They could call it the High Output Platform System, or HOPS.

I know it all sounds a bit far fetched though... :D
 

physics34

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
3,681
i just dont remember seeing heavy plant requirement when doing other platforms expensions, especially the ones which are just metal beams bolted together.
 

steamybrian

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2010
Messages
1,744
Location
Kent
Personally I do not see the need for the temporary access road for the platform extension.
No-one has mentioned that the site is on a flood plain which has flooded frequently in recent years.
No-one has mentioned that a temporary access road was not required when the platform was built around 1990-1991.
I agree with "swt-passenger" that it could be done overnight with a special train.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,499
Location
Ripon
Or just sod them all in Uckfield and let them have overcrowding. There is more in life to worry about than nesting ducks.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,544
Perfectly good station on the other side of the High St that could be 10 cars no problem......
 

talldave

Established Member
Joined
24 Jan 2013
Messages
2,169
You can't help thinking that the railway provides the best means of access?!

However, the platform extensions at Littlehaven seemed to take shape with all access being by wheelbarrow from the adjacent road - so surely it is possible to do it in a low-key way?
 

Chrisgr31

Established Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
1,675
I suspect the difference with the existing platform is that it was built whilst the old station was still in use. The platform extensions will have to be done whilst the existing platforms are in use so I suspect there is an issue with access along the platform.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,825
Location
Yorks
Perfectly good station on the other side of the High St that could be 10 cars no problem......

Quite.

Isn't the long term plan to re-site the station to it's original site anyway ?

That said, I'm not convinced that they need a huge access road and building site to build the platform extension. Perhaps plant and materials could be moved to the site via the platform at night after the end of services ?
 

3141

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2012
Messages
1,771
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
I like the bit in the original quote that "The amount of money talked about is woefully inadequate,” he said. Presumably this refers to Network Rail's offer to pay £5,000 to be spent on the nature reserve or similar areas. Apparently, if NR offered a sufficiently larger amount, their anxieties about the nature reserve would disappear. Which suggests it is not the nature reserve that matters to them but how much money they can get for allowing NR access over it.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Isn't the long term plan to re-site the station to it's original site anyway ?

Only if the line south is reopened. So no.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Which suggests it is not the nature reserve that matters to them but how much money they can get for allowing NR access over it.

Spot on.

Dear council. Do you want your platform extensions over a year early AND you get £5k? No? Ok we'll stick with the original plan for 2017 then...
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Or just sod them all in Uckfield and let them have overcrowding. There is more in life to worry about than nesting ducks.

Umm, Uckfield is at the end of the line. I suspect the people who would suffer most from the overcrowding (at least in the am peak) would be the people who get on the train nearer to London, not the people who live in Uckfield!
 

Chrisgr31

Established Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
1,675
Umm, Uckfield is at the end of the line. I suspect the people who would suffer most from the overcrowding (at least in the am peak) would be the people who get on the train nearer to London, not the people who live in Uckfield!

On the journey north its not a problem, well other than on some trains a lot of people catch the train down to Uckfield first to ensure they have their preferred seat back!

However on the journey south they'll be standing the longest!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Only if the line south is reopened. So no.

LOL not a believer in reopening the line to Lewes then! :D (not saying you are wrong btw)
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
I believe there are precedents on other parts of the network for SDO being used at terminal stations (and indeed this already happens with 4-car Oxted-Uckfield shuttles at Oxted Pl. 3). So it's a pity there can't be any way of finding a shorter and simpler way of extending the platform to reduce access needs, etc.

All this should hopefully really mean for passengers is that they could not travel in a wheelchair in the London-end coach.
 

ushawk

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2010
Messages
1,965
Location
Eastbourne
Quite.

Isn't the long term plan to re-site the station to it's original site anyway ?

That said, I'm not convinced that they need a huge access road and building site to build the platform extension. Perhaps plant and materials could be moved to the site via the platform at night after the end of services ?

Probably not, since a car park is currently being built on that site. That and since there currently isnt (and probably wont be for a while) plans to extend South - its pointless it being on the other side of the road. The traffic congestion it would cause would be horrific.

Network Rail should just simply say "Alright, we wont bother then".
 

physics34

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
3,681
On the journey north its not a problem, well other than on some trains a lot of people catch the train down to Uckfield first to ensure they have their preferred seat back!

I couldnt believe it when i saw this the other day. Mainly tends to be the 06.30ish from uckfield. People at crowborough and buxted for london get on the train on the way down!!!!!
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,190
Location
Wittersham Kent
I believe there are precedents on other parts of the network for SDO being used at terminal stations (and indeed this already happens with 4-car Oxted-Uckfield shuttles at Oxted Pl. 3). So it's a pity there can't be any way of finding a shorter and simpler way of extending the platform to reduce access needs, etc.

All this should hopefully really mean for passengers is that they could not travel in a wheelchair in the London-end coach.

"We will shortly be arriving at London Charing Cross where this train terminates, would passengers please note that you cannot alight from the rear coach as this station has a short platform"
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
I couldnt believe it when i saw this the other day. Mainly tends to be the 06.30ish from uckfield. People at crowborough and buxted for london get on the train on the way down!!!!!

A few conductors don't especially like it - but, to put it bluntly, it's better to remain on the side of regular passengers to enable better mutual respect during disruptions and suchlike, so it is unofficially allowed by many.

"We will shortly be arriving at London Charing Cross where this train terminates, would passengers please note that you cannot alight from the rear coach as this station has a short platform"

That would be a bit harder, obviously! Uckfield might be a better location for this as the rear coach of any train on arrival tends to be emptier (apart from First Class, on occasion), there is no starting signal to have to deal with, and there's already an approved method of terminus SDO operation used each weekday at Oxted which could be put in place elsewhere.

If local councils et al continue to be obstructive, it may only be possible to commit to a very short extension, and an extra coach may be the limit. Eight coaches fit comfortably so you'd have to extend over the existing platform end and then just a little further. With a weekend possession between Uckfield and Crowborough or even (if there could be a safe system of work agreed) Buxted, I'd hope there would be relatively few materials needed and they could be transported from the station car park and then manually (perhaps using trolleys?) down the railway line. Then foundations would be the only worry, and even then I am sure there must be rail-based plant somewhere which could be brought down from the nearest occupational crossing or access point (there's a fairly decent one at Crowborough, if Crowborough Tunnel and viaducts permit) for a small structure such as 20m worth of raised pedestrian walkway, which is effectively what the new part of the platform would be.
 
Last edited:

physics34

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
3,681
A few conductors don't especially like it - but, to put it bluntly, it's better to remain on the side of regular passengers to enable better mutual respect during disruptions and suchlike, so it is unofficially allowed by many.

And it must add 20-30 mins on top of these people journeys. Maybe not so bad i suppose if they want a table so they can look through emails or do other work i guess.
 

Chrisgr31

Established Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
1,675
Conductors may not like it but there is a question as to what loss has been suffered. The reason being the season ticket to London is the same price from Uckfield as it is Crowborough and Eridge and possibly the whole way up to Edenbridge. Many people actually have their tickets stating that their start point is Uckfield.

I usually board at Crowborough but the only time I go to Uckfield first is if I am there in time for the 7.13 to Uckfield, and I am aware that the 7.18 up train is either cancelled or only 4 carriages. By going down I know I will get a seat on the way back!
 

physics34

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
3,681
Conductors may not like it but there is a question as to what loss has been suffered. The reason being the season ticket to London is the same price from Uckfield as it is Crowborough and Eridge and possibly the whole way up to Edenbridge. Many people actually have their tickets stating that their start point is Uckfield.

I usually board at Crowborough but the only time I go to Uckfield first is if I am there in time for the 7.13 to Uckfield, and I am aware that the 7.18 up train is either cancelled or only 4 carriages. By going down I know I will get a seat on the way back!

It depends whether the conductor is a jobsworth or new i suppose. To be there is nothing wrong with it at that time of day.
 

hassaanhc

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2014
Messages
2,206
Location
Southall
It depends whether the conductor is a jobsworth or new i suppose. To be there is nothing wrong with it at that time of day.

If their season ticket does not cover Uckfield, then the guard is well within their rights to charge them.
 

physics34

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2013
Messages
3,681
If their season ticket does not cover Uckfield, then the guard is well within their rights to charge them.

i think with the poor quality of the service down there recently i think its fair to waiver this.
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
Conductors may not like it but there is a question as to what loss has been suffered. The reason being the season ticket to London is the same price from Uckfield as it is Crowborough and Eridge and possibly the whole way up to Edenbridge. Many people actually have their tickets stating that their start point is Uckfield.

I usually board at Crowborough but the only time I go to Uckfield first is if I am there in time for the 7.13 to Uckfield, and I am aware that the 7.18 up train is either cancelled or only 4 carriages. By going down I know I will get a seat on the way back!

If the ticket covers the full journey that is fine. I have not heard of anyone being charged extra anyway.

It depends whether the conductor is a jobsworth or new i suppose. To be there is nothing wrong with it at that time of day.

New conductors usually get to hear about this and everyone makes their own decisions. It's unlikely that anyone would want to wind up commuters by making them pay up, and also early turn Selhurst conductors really do start early and may only be bothered with actually staying alert for dispatch and selling tickets only to those who more urgently need them!

If their season ticket does not cover Uckfield, then the guard is well within their rights to charge them.

Maybe so, and they may be a bit annoyed with people taking seats in the "wrong direction", but the fact of the matter is that I haven't heard of this being done and I doubt most would. Not that I endorse it if a valid ticket isn't held.

i think with the poor quality of the service down there recently i think its fair to waiver this.

Indeed, hence what I tried to say earlier - in that it is better to keep commuters on side and not get distracted by whether or not someone is, at the end of the day, perhaps paying a tiny bit less than they should, but at the same time happier.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,190
Location
Wittersham Kent
That would be a bit harder, obviously! Uckfield might be a better location for this as the rear coach of any train on arrival tends to be emptier (apart from First Class, on occasion), there is no starting signal to have to deal with, and there's already an approved method of terminus SDO operation used each weekday at Oxted which could be put in place elsewhere.

.
I was trying to demonstrate the precedent. Charing Cross can only accommodate 11 CARs on 12 car trains
 

RichardN

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2013
Messages
430
I was trying to demonstrate the precedent. Charing Cross can only accommodate 11 CARs on 12 car trains

The trains don't have inter unit connections, so if they run a 4-4-2 somebody sitting in the 2 couldn't walk down to get off. I suppose you could cover this with operating instructions not to use a 2 coach unit at the up end.
 

Chrisgr31

Established Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
1,675
I went down to Uckfield the other day due to some issue with the trains, and tried to look at the platform extension options. The issue I suspect is the River, unless they come through Waitrose and the "Nature Reserve" then they will have to come across the river. I also suspect it might be the river that causes the time delay, to ensure the platform doesnt fall in it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top