• 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!

Restoring Your Railway Fund: what ideas would you suggest?

Status
Not open for further replies.

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Have just seen this list and am both surprised and dismayed not to see Uckfield-Lewes/Brighton on it. I'm fairly certain that the BML2 group would have submitted a proposal (again). I fear this will put the kibosh on reopening this link for good now.

Also surprised not to see Bere Alston-Tavistock or as someone else mentioned, Crediton-Okehampton - which has already seen successful reintroduction of summer weekend services. Maybe because there are already firm plans in place?

Anyone know if there's a way of viewing all the submissions?
The scheme is about funding for feasibility studies with a focus on local rail services.
Uckfield - Lewes had almost 10x times the allowed amount on the current funding scheme spent on a feasibility study just 4 years ago.

BML2 are toxic because of their obsession with using Uckfield - Lewes as an alternative route to London (which doesn't stack up). Unless BML2 have changed their tune and the proposal was more around the railfuture / some councils type approach of it being a mainly local focus scheme for better access to Brighton (much more sensible in my view) then it is hard to see them getting funding for yet another feasibility study when other schemes could at least get a first chance a funding for feasibility studies.

Devon schemes submitted in batch 2 I understand as they wanted to spent more time submitting better quality proposals as they already had some initial work underway.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Thebaz

Member
Joined
24 Nov 2016
Messages
359
Location
Purley
The scheme is about funding for feasibility studies with a focus on local rail services.
Uckfield - Lewes had almost 10x times the allowed amount on the current funding scheme spent on a feasibility study just 4 years ago.

BML2 are toxic because of their obsession with using Uckfield - Lewes as an alternative route to London (which doesn't stack up). Unless BML2 have changed their tune and the proposal was more around the railfuture / some councils type approach of it being a mainly local focus scheme for better access to Brighton (much more sensible in my view) then it is hard to see them getting funding for yet another feasibility study when other schemes could at least get a first chance a funding for feasibility studies.

Devon schemes submitted in batch 2 I understand as they wanted to spent more time submitting better quality proposals as they already had some initial work underway.


If you believe what the BML2 group write on their own website they appear to be dropping the London part of their scheme - possibly on grounds of its ridiculousness (my interpretation) - to concentrate on linking Tun Wells - Uckfield - Lewes/Brighton. Which is what they should have been doing all along IMVHO.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
If you believe what the BML2 group write on their own website they appear to be dropping the London part of their scheme - possibly on grounds of its ridiculousness (my interpretation) - <SNIP>

To point where you could've chopped off the Lewes-Uckfield bit entirely and had a reasonably credible proposal for a new cross-London railway!



I agree, if they want it to fly, Tunbridge Wells / Brighton links are probably the best shout.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
The Don Valley Railway (the campaign group for the Stocksbridge line) have a post on their Facebook page saying that although they haven't been shortlisted they, together with Miriam Cates MP and Sheffield City Region, have been invited to talks with the DfT "to undertake further work on a revised proposal, probably to be submitted in November". They're also talking about Barrow Hill services possibly using Victoria.
They are not the only losing bidders to receive that invitation. I suspect it may be a sop to all the losers. :(
 

MarkRedon

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2015
Messages
292
...
BML2 are toxic because of their obsession with using Uckfield - Lewes as an alternative route to London (which doesn't stack up). Unless BML2 have changed their tune and the proposal was more around the railfuture / some councils type approach of it being a mainly local focus scheme for better access to Brighton (much more sensible in my view) then it is hard to see them getting funding for yet another feasibility study when other schemes could at least get a first chance a funding for feasibility studies...
BML2 has indeed changed - or reprioritised - its tune, favouring an early start on the Sussex scheme (a.k.a. Lewes-Brighton with a tunnel) over later and much more ambitious phases. They certainly intended to get consideration under the "reversing Beeching" (hah!) funding and would appear to have been unsuccessful. Since DfT has published neither assessment criteria nor feedback, it is difficult to know why.

Please explain your use of the word "toxic", which seems to me to dismiss ideas which might make perfect sense if assessed over a 60-year timescale? Toxic because the lesser (but also less useful) aspirations of Railfuture are damaged by more grandiose schemes?
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
BML2 are toxic because of their obsession with using Uckfield - Lewes as an alternative route to London (which doesn't stack up).
It was understandable that the scheme needed something to give it a boost when the feasibility study before the last one found that a local link just didn't produce enough benefits. That said, BML2 was just cool-sounding crayon-scribbles and worse than merely 'London-South Coast via Uckfield as alternate route' - it's 'London-South Coast alternative route with a load of crazy stuff added'.
Please explain your use of the word "toxic", which seems to me to dismiss ideas which might make perfect sense if assessed over a 60-year timescale?
Not the OP, but 'toxic' is the right word.

The proposal to have Uckfield-Lewes as the core part of a scheme that needed to have billions of pounds worth of new railway through London* to try and fix the "we're sending several fast trains an hour to the south coast via the Wealden line but still need to provide service to the BML intermediate destinations and there's no space inside London for both." issue they created by running fast trains the long way round to try and justify a local link, dumped a load of baggage on to the line.

'BML2' polluted any reopening idea since - even without all the bells and whistles inside the M25, Uckfield-Lewes is talked about as an 'alternative'/'diversionary' London-Sussex route (which, to be fair, it was discussed before, but it wasn't the dominant justification from stakeholders in building the line and so could be dismissed as unhelpful) and so needs all the added costs of double track and electrification are added to the scheme. It's made what was a poor case into a bad one - the costs have gone up, but without the benefits (even over 60 years as BCRs do) going up as it doesn't provide a decent alternative, and diversions are rare enough that benefits are negligible.

The move of BML2 to more rational stuff still is problematic. The phased opening still tries and spins it as something which it can never be, and there's the shadow of that multi-billion pound project inside the M25 poisoning the well for a lowish-budget scheme.

*Sure, the cross-London railway did try and 'fix' half-a-dozen other problems (badly). And they did modify the route of it so it wasn't quite as dumb as originally. But it still trashed any faint hope of reopening Uckfield-Lewes.
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Please explain your use of the word "toxic", which seems to me to dismiss ideas which might make perfect sense if assessed over a 60-year timescale? Toxic because the lesser (but also less useful) aspirations of Railfuture are damaged by more grandiose schemes?

Personally I wouldn’t have used the word toxic, but it is certainly a case of the loud casting a shadow on the sensible.

(Also, for clarity, the last two studies on that corridor were assessed over a 60 year timescale, and both showed the scheme didn’t stack up, and that was with costs that were rather underestimated.)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,521
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Personally I wouldn’t have used the word toxic, but it is certainly a case of the loud casting a shadow on the sensible.

I prefer not to use it, it's mostly used in a perjorative, unbalanced manner, like some people like to talk about "toxic people" where all they really mean is "people you don't get on with", but it blames the other person for being the issue when in fact it's purely that their personalities aren't compatible and it would be better if they just stayed apart, and in most cases that isn't really either person's fault, just a fact.
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
Personally I really don't get their obsession with avoiding Lewes with an expensive tunnel. Going out of your way to avoid one of the largest traffic generators doesn't seem sensible, at all. Even more so when there's a perfectly reasonable proposal for a loop that avoids the need to reverse when heading towards Brighton from the north.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
Going out of your way to avoid one of the largest traffic generators doesn't seem sensible, at all.
Not 'one of'. The largest. By far. The 2008 look at Uckfield-Lewes had Lewes as the main destination to/from stations north of it on that line. Uckfield-Lewes was due to be 383 passengers (if no intermediate stops) per day in 2019, and Uckfield-Brighton/Eastbourne were about 95 passengers/day each. Other stations had smaller numbers, and were less Lewes-dominant, but if you total it up, you ended up with Lewes being about three times as popular as either Brighton or Eastbourne.

But, if you are trying to make a line that is slower and longer into the fast London-South Coast line, you need expensive tunnels under Lewes to try and make up some of the 20-plus minutes the Wealden route will slow you down vs the BML.
Because the benefits of cutting the journey time to the significant demand centre at Brighton outweigh the minor benefits of serving Lewes.
Except Lewes is actually the significant demand centre on the line (or is it Lewes people going to Uckfield?).
https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/media/2148/lewes_uckfield_network_rail_final_report.pdf 3.4.36 "By far the greatest demand across the new link is predicted to be for flows to and from Lewes, particularly Uckfield – Lewes where journey times by rail are competitive."

Under option 2a (no stops between Uckfield and Lewes, through service to Eastbourne) the stats were as follows. I'm doubling Brighton's total of 170 as Newhaven and Eastbourne figures nearly double with direct services:
Lewes: 504 passengers/day (383 Uckfield+84 Crowborough+37 Buxted)
Brighton: 340 (98 Uckfield+53 Crowborough+19 Buxted)*2
Eastbourne: 161 (95 Eastbourne+49 Crowborough+17 Buxted)

I guess we can add Oxted and Edenborough figures, but I doubt it would break the pattern. And further north would be faster on the BML to both Brighton and Eastbourne.
 
Last edited:

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Not 'one of'. The largest. By far. The 2008 look at Uckfield-Lewes had Lewes as the main destination to/from stations north of it on that line. Uckfield-Lewes was due to be 383 passengers (if no intermediate stops) per day in 2019, and Uckfield-Brighton/Eastbourne were about 95 passengers/day each. Other stations had smaller numbers, and were less Lewes-dominant, but if you total it up, you ended up with Lewes being about three times as popular as either Brighton or Eastbourne.

But, if you are trying to make a line that is slower and longer into the fast London-South Coast line, you need expensive tunnels under Lewes to try and make up some of the 20-plus minutes the Wealden route will slow you down vs the BML.

Presumably Brighton demand was so relativey low in the study *because* the line was little more than a slow version of the BML.

393 passengers a day to Lewes - or basically one train's worth, isn't the stuff business cases are made of


*If* connectivity to Tunbridge Wells etc. were part of the package, it might be a different ball game with regard to Brighton demand.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,817
Location
Yorks
Presumably Brighton demand was so relativey low in the study *because* the line was little more than a slow version of the BML.

393 passengers a day to Lewes - or basically one train's worth, isn't the stuff business cases are made of


*If* connectivity to Tunbridge Wells etc. were part of the package, it might be a different ball game with regard to Brighton demand.

Lewes is already served by the BML as well, so why would Lewes attract additional traffic from the Weald but not Brighton.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
Presumably Brighton demand was so relativey low in the study *because* the line was little more than a slow version of the BML.
No, Brighton demand was so low because there isn't as great a demand from the intermediate stops to Brighton (which actually has a fairly tight travel-to-work area, and so places like Lewes aren't even in it, let alone Uckfield) as to Lewes. They understood that it wasn't a mainline about London-South Coast traffic, but a branch line about local traffic. The aim wasn't to spend loads more money and make the scheme about trying to divert people who can get seats on the current trains that would still be 5 minutes quicker after all that spending.

They found that a third of Newhaven-London passengers would switch to going via Uckfield if there was a direct service, but only because they don't have a BML direct service. That would add about 300 passengers a day - a train's worth!

Spending billions upgrading speed and capacity on the Wealden line to make it a similar-speed version of the BML in order to justify a tunnel avoiding the relatively major traffic generator of Lewes (and, to a lesser extent, Eastbourne and Newhaven that are a bit more rational to route via Uckfield than Brighton) is exactly the sort of tail wagging dog nonsense that leads to people calling BML2 toxic.
393 passengers a day to Lewes - or basically one train's worth, isn't the stuff business cases are made of
383 (or 504 total). Absolutely agree. This is why we started getting proposals for Uckfield-Lewes that had nothing to do with those two towns that don't have great demand between them, and everything to do with the nearby cities (London and Brighton) despite it being impossible for this line to be quicker for that journey.
*If* connectivity to Tunbridge Wells etc. were part of the package, it might be a different ball game with regard to Brighton demand.
'Might' being the operative word here - Uckfield is commutable from Brighton, Tunbridge isn't likely. Even on a 'gravity model', Tunbridge is 4 times the population, but twice the distance, so the same negligible demand.

Really the Tunbridge Wells bit will generate its passengers by Crowborough-Tunbridge Wells commuting (cf Uckfield-Lewes commuting on that bit) and that, likewise, will fail to provide a case. Linking East Sussex (especially Brighton and Eastbourne) with West Kent (the issue is how to get to Maidstone, etc - reverse at Tonbridge) strikes me as a much more useful link than London-Brighton slower-than-the-normal-route that stuff like Lewes tunnels are about, but I'm not sure even it can provide the numbers needed that are clearly lacking from Uckfield - Lewes as local branch in East Sussex. It would probably improve the case (unlike spending loads of money on upgrades in a futile attempt to create BML2), but it still won't make a decent case.
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
FWIW, as I see it, there are two distinct problems - a) BML capacity, and b) orbital connectivity. Uckfield-Lewes is part of the solution for the latter, not the former - it's just too great a diversion. Unless you quadruple the southern BML, then your only real option is an alternative route as close to the current one as you can get. It's obviously speculative so I'll leave it at this, but for my money extending the quadrupling at Haywards Heath north to a grade-separated Copyhold Junction (and restoration to East Grinstead) and south to a grade separated Keymer Junction is a much more viable BML2, IMHO. It preserves connectivity to the current BML, and the difference in journey time could be on the order of a few minutes or so, IIRC. It also helps the London paths side of the problem as you're effectively joining up the East Grinstead and Lewes services. Anyway....sorry mods, all done.
 
Last edited:

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
Surely the whole idea of BML2 was eliminated when it was shown that the real issue on the route was Windmill Junction?
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Surely the whole idea of BML2 was eliminated when it was shown that the real issue on the route was Windmill Junction?

And that BML2 bypasses all the major centres of BML demand (Gatwick etc) so you'd still need to do Windmill Bridge anyway, even if you built BML2.
 

Mcr Warrior

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
11,648
Woodhead and the Great Central, with 442s?

*ducks*
More likely *flying pigs* (!) ;)

Stumbling block would undoubtedly be what to do with the 400kv National Grid power cables which have been installed through the 1950s Woodhead tunnel.
 
Last edited:

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
Surely the whole idea of BML2 was eliminated when it was shown that the real issue on the route was Windmill Junction?

And that BML2 bypasses all the major centres of BML demand (Gatwick etc) so you'd still need to do Windmill Bridge anyway, even if you built BML2.

But isn't there a plan to fix this junction anyway including an extra platform at East Croydon station?
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
But isn't there a plan to fix this junction anyway including an extra platform at East Croydon station?

Precisely. BML2 was hinging itself on being an alternative to the Croydon/Windmill works.

But when those works are needed anyway, it doesn't stack up....
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
More likely *flying pigs* (!) ;)

Stumbling block would undoubtedly be what to do with the 400kv National Grid power cables which have been installed through the 1950s Woodhead tunnel.

Haha, I know. Woodhead is the perennial solution looking for a problem.
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,812
Location
Plymouth
So nothing for the south west. Surprise surprise. Wellington and Cullompton will only serve to slow down intercity services between the south west and London /the north and are fairly pointless.
No mention of Tavistock or Okehampton routes.
I guess the Tories have realised that public opinion down here has shifted enough that they have no hope of keeping most of the seats they won in the last election and so why bother giving us anything meaningful.
 

busesrusuk

Member
Joined
19 May 2020
Messages
349
Location
London
They do if they can find a way to serve them

Whilst rail re-openings are positive (if any happen!) but what has happened to Portishead? Is it definitely happening or is it still going through the motions? I have searched old threads and there seems to be no mention since this time last year
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,022
Location
SE London
So nothing for the south west. Surprise surprise. Wellington and Cullompton will only serve to slow down intercity services between the south west and London /the north and are fairly pointless.
No mention of Tavistock or Okehampton routes.

Eh? I'm pretty sure that Wellington and Cullompton are definitely in the SouthWest and so definitely count as something for the SouthWest. I don't see any reason why they would necessarily slow down InterCity services - further up the thread several people identified various local services that could potentially be extended to serve those new stations. Of course that does depend on figuring out paths that don't get in the way of the InterCity services, but that doesn't seem an insurmountable problem.

I guess the Tories have realised that public opinion down here has shifted enough that they have no hope of keeping most of the seats they won in the last election and so why bother giving us anything meaningful.

I'm also very confident that the list of successful first round bids is based on much more objective and sensible criteria than where the marginal seats are. It's a shame the methodology/reasoning hasn't been made public - but it's clear the list consists almost entirely of either new stations on existing lines, or re-opening of existing freight/heritage lines to regular passengers, with almost no expensive building brand new lines. Further, they are all in reasonably well populated areas - those two things strongly suggests that there was a very strong element of rational cost and benefit considerations that has gone into the selection.

I think you are being needlessly cynical.
 

irish_rail

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
3,812
Location
Plymouth
Eh? I'm pretty sure that Wellington and Cullompton are definitely in the SouthWest and so definitely count as something for the SouthWest. I don't see any reason why they would necessarily slow down InterCity services - further up the thread several people identified various local services that could potentially be extended to serve those new stations. Of course that does depend on figuring out paths that don't get in the way of the InterCity services, but that doesn't seem an insurmountable problem.



I'm also very confident that the list of successful first round bids is based on much more objective and sensible criteria than where the marginal seats are. It's a shame the methodology/reasoning hasn't been made public - but it's clear the list consists almost entirely of either new stations on existing lines, or re-opening of existing freight/heritage lines to regular passengers, with almost no expensive building brand new lines. Further, they are all in reasonably well populated areas - those two things strongly suggests that there was a very strong element of rational cost and benefit considerations that has gone into the selection.

I think you are being needlessly cynical.
Perhaps I am but a diversionary route via dartmoor should have been in the list of schemes.
And the issue with cullompton and Wellington is that the minute a London or northern to south west train is running late and loses its path even by 5 minutes or so ( extremely common) then it will get stuck behind a stopping DMU that will no doubt take an age to get away from Wellington on the down (thankyou whiteball). The greater southwest and large cities like Exeter and Plymouth must not suffer just to give a handful of folk in east Devon a train service.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,022
Location
SE London
Perhaps I am but a diversionary route via dartmoor should have been in the list of schemes.
And the issue with cullompton and Wellington is that the minute a London or northern to south west train is running late and loses its path even by 5 minutes or so ( extremely common) then it will get stuck behind a stopping DMU that will no doubt take an age to get away from Wellington on the down (thankyou whiteball). The greater southwest and large cities like Exeter and Plymouth must not suffer just to give a handful of folk in east Devon a train service.

This risks diverting the thread topic, because we already have a very long thread on the forums about the issue of a diversionary route via Dartmoor, so trying not get too much into that, just a couple of points: A quick check shows that the population of Wellington is 15K and that of Cullompton is 8K. That is not a 'handful of folk'. If a local train was extended to serve them, then Exeter would implicitly benefit by having additional services to - certainly, Taunton, maybe beyond, depending on the timetable. Also, the point of the funding under the reversing-Beeching scheme is surely to provide new services that will benefit the local people every day. Your description of the Dartmoor route as a diversionary route suggests to me that you are thinking of it primarily in terms of a service that will benefit the big cities and the long distance services on those few days a year when there is substantial disruption on the Dawlish route. But there's simply no way that in these funding proposals a sensible Government is going to prioritise a route that's useful a few days a year over all the many proposals they have for new services that will benefit people every day.

Happy to discuss further, but unless it's particularly relevant to the Reversing Beeching Cuts fund, then may be best done on this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top