"Brighton Main Line 2"

[Ivo]

I've just stumbled upon a website, called www.bml2.co.uk, which is promoting the idea of having a new Main Line from London to Brighton. "BML2" would run from Liverpool Street, avoid East Croydon, and directly link Uckfield and Brighton. I have never heard of such a proposal; does anyone else know of this?

 

[Aictos]

I've just stumbled upon a website, called www.bml2.co.uk, which is promoting the idea of having a new Main Line from London to Brighton. "BML2" would run from Liverpool Street, avoid East Croydon, and directly link Uckfield and Brighton. I have never heard of such a proposal; does anyone else know of this?

No, I've never heard of any such proposal - seems interesting though.

 

[christopher]

Where does it say its going to run into Liverpool Street?

Anyway I think this one is a no goer, Liverpool Street is at full capacity iirc and how would the route go leaving the GEML?

 

[Ivo]

Where does it say its going to run into Liverpool Street?

Anyway I think this one is a no goer, Liverpool Street is at full capacity iirc and how would the route go leaving the GEML?

First question: Keep refreshing the page, and watch the bit at the top. There seem to be four different things it says, one of which is about Liverpool Street.

Second question: Not a clue. It's one I've been trying to work out myself. Based on existing infrastructure, I would guess that the idea would be to follow the c2c limited/diversionary route and shadow HS1 until the Ebbsfleet area (which would require a new Thames crossing), and then to head south via Tunbridge Wells (which it does suggest). Or maybe they're under the impression that linking the ELL to Liverpool Street again would be a good idea, and not one that would seriously jeopardise LO?

If they are that serious on having a BML2, why not just quadruple the remainder of the ML? (Many potential problems there...)

 

[Oliver]

I've just stumbled upon a website, called www.bml2.co.uk, which is promoting the idea of having a new Main Line from London to Brighton. "BML2" would run from Liverpool Street, avoid East Croydon, and directly link Uckfield and Brighton. I have never heard of such a proposal; does anyone else know of this?

This proposal was new to me, except to the extent that it relies on the rebuilding of the Lewes to Uckfield link. The website presentation http://www.bml2.co.uk/ is detailed and high quality (except for the upside-down map on page 5), though I think it overstates the value of using the new route for high speed services; the existing Brighton line is 12 miles (20%) shorter than the proposed new route so why not spend the money eliminating bottlenecks there and use a rebuilt and electrified Uckfield route mainly to serve intermediate traffic?

 

[christopher]

Or maybe they're under the impression that linking the ELL to Liverpool Street again would be a good idea, and not one that would seriously jeopardise LO?

Would like to see that happen especially as the old ELL now crosses over the GEML so the new 'link' would have to rise up to join it which I cant see happening because there just isn't space for it.

 

[thelem]

I think it's mainly an idea to strengthen the argument to replace the Lewes - Uckfield link and potentially electrify the route.

 

[atomicdanny]

Its a good idea except for the liverpool street part though, although I doubt that it will happen, and no doubt those from the north will complain that its more money being spent on the south east again if it did happen... (then again I doubt that any of these projects will happen, but that's just my opinion)

 

[asylumxl]

I don't believe this is a new idea, I think it was talked about in Modern Railways or Rail.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

That's correct; it was in Rail a few months ago.

 

[sonic2009]

but its defo not been mentioned from liverpool street.

 

[bangor-toad]

Hi there,
To put the proposal (which I FULLY support) into context, look at the man driving it: Brian Hart.

Mr Hart was the drive behind the Wealden Line Campaign to reopen Uckfield - Lewes. Despite his best efforts over a long period the proposal didn't go anywhere. Remember the decisions are based on measureable evidence and the cost benefit analysis done of just the Uckfield - Lewes section were not sufficiently good to withstand the attacks mounted on them.
(Look at how this was actually done for a frightening lesson in influence politics...)

If the Uckfield - Lewes scheme is reconsidered as part of a strategic corridor then the cost benefit figures can take into account the wider implications. As far as I know that study hasn't been done yet but I'd bet tonight's beer that it would look better than the standalone reopening. This seems to be the basis of the BML2 concept.
I do admire the presentation provided. It's got that most important political bit in there - the high cost optional extensions that can be axed by way of compromise.

Good luck to them!
Jason

 

[Fincra5]

Dunno whats wrong with my browser but I can't see it Something about a broken file...

I heard a suggestion about an underground station at Lewes to remove the need for reversing onto the uckfield line. Is that in this proposal?

Wouldn't it be better just to quadruple the track below Haywards Heath to Brighton, so that the whole line is. Yes it would require more tunnels etc Perhaps a fly-over before (towards brighton) HH tunnel to take the fast lines onto a new section of track down to brighton, avoiding all the stations the fast trains from Brighton-VIC don't stop at.

 

[atomicdanny]

Dunno whats wrong with my browser but I can't see it Something about a broken file...

I heard a suggestion about an underground station at Lewes to remove the need for reversing onto the uckfield line. Is that in this proposal?

Wouldn't it be better just to quadruple the track below Haywards Heath to Brighton, so that the whole line is. Yes it would require more tunnels etc Perhaps a fly-over before (towards brighton) HH tunnel to take the fast lines onto a new section of track down to brighton, avoiding all the stations the fast trains from Brighton-VIC don't stop at.

I didn't see an underground station for Lewes even mentioned, also the quadrupling of the track would be very expensive and almost impossibe because of all of the very narrow embankments that are litterally next to the track. The version that goes via Uckfield would be a lot cheaper and would also allow for a Brighton - Tunbridge Wells service (currently run by a bus)

 

[SussexSpotter]

I didn't see an underground station for Lewes even mentioned, also the quadrupling of the track would be very expensive and almost impossibe because of all of the very narrow embankments that are litterally next to the track. The version that goes via Uckfield would be a lot cheaper and would also allow for a Brighton - Tunbridge Wells service (currently run by a bus)

Cheaper option would be to upgrade the Arun Valley and Mole Valley lines (track, signalling etc.) and maybe divert a few extra services in and out of Brighton, via Worthing, Littlehampton, Arun Valley and the Mole Valley. Make all the platforms at Worthing bi-directional to allow for trains to overtake. Another alternative to a reversal at Littlehampton would be to re-instate the loop at Ford, and allow trains to reverse/overtake there.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Wouldn't it be better just to quadruple the track below Haywards Heath to Brighton, so that the whole line is. Yes it would require more tunnels etc Perhaps a fly-over before (towards brighton) HH tunnel to take the fast lines onto a new section of track down to brighton, avoiding all the stations the fast trains from Brighton-VIC don't stop at.

Balcombe Tunnel Junction to the loops at Haywards Heath is double track and would form a bottle neck if left as is, to quadruple the track would mean rebuilding Balcombe Tunnel Junction, digging a new tunnel alongside Balcombe Tunnel and rebuilding Balcombe station and building a new junction or flyover to change the track arrangement from 'paired by function' to 'paired by direction' before Haywards Heath (or alternatively replanning Haywards Heath station so that it is paired by function rather than paired by direction), I can't imagine that would be cheap.

I also seem to remember that the arrangement of the lines at Haywards Heath would mean two single bore tunnels would have to be built immediately south of the station. I don't imagine it would be easy or cheap to dig another tunnel the length of Clayton Tunnel either.

 

[swt_passenger]

Would like to see that happen especially as the old ELL now crosses over the GEML so the new 'link' would have to rise up to join it which I cant see happening because there just isn't space for it.

To my mind the author has had this proposal on the back burner for quite a few years, and he's been caught out big time regarding the ELL because he just hasn't kept up with the ELL northern extension plans - them going over the GEML to the new Shoreditch must have completely passed him by about 5 or 6 years ago...

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, this is a very interesting development of the Uckfield-Lewes link which has been around for some time - although I've not seen the option to run via the ELL to Liverpool Street before.

I think the idea of replacing this missing link (and also towards Tunbridge Wells) is something long overdue and it's to the shame of the last government that it didn't get it's finger out whilst the times were good.
Whilst quadrupling the BML might be on the face of it more straight forward, to increase capacity, it wouldn't re-create the inter-connectivity between the Weald and the Sussex Coast as well as improving existing services in this area which is why I support some form of BML2.

The proposal to re-instate the Selsdon-Elmers End section is an imaginative way of getting around congestion both at East Croydon and North of Sevenoaks. If the remodelling of London Bridge were designed to include more than six terminal platforms, the only capacity problem I could see being an issue would be between Lewisham and the throat at London Bridge.

 

[Drsatan]

I didn't see an underground station for Lewes even mentioned

AFAIK the original proposal in RAIL mentioned a two mile tunnel under Lewes to avoid the need to reverse trains at Lewes station; as you've said this would be very expensive (even more expensive if a station was going to be constructed in the tunnel), and so it would probably be easier to reverse trains at Lewes. However this would take time, and so capacity at the station might become an issue.

The proposal to re-instate the Selsdon-Elmers End section is an imaginative way of getting around congestion both at East Croydon and North of Sevenoaks.

The trackbed from Selsdon to Elmers End is still in situ to the best of my knowledge, although some road bridges would need to be rebuilt.

 

[LoversWalk75A]

This is simply a dream by a man who has his head in the clouds, along with most people who think the Uckfield Line will reopen in their timeline. The shear cost alone is enough to put anyone off and who is going to allow a giant burrow under Lewes, and then months of line closures (and headache rail buses) to allow a complete resignalling.

I'll have another rant tomorrow, the lines are shut, it's a case of put up or shut up when it comes to these commuters!

(at the time of writing I am currently at work and am full of rage)

 

[atomicdanny]

That was only one suggestion there were others where it would have gone around Lewes as well, I take it that you are also one of those who will moan when there are engineering works?

 

[yorksrob]

This is simply a dream by a man who has his head in the clouds, along with most people who think the Uckfield Line will reopen in their timeline. The shear cost alone is enough to put anyone off and who is going to allow a giant burrow under Lewes, and then months of line closures (and headache rail buses) to allow a complete resignalling.

I'll have another rant tomorrow, the lines are shut, it's a case of put up or shut up when it comes to these commuters!

(at the time of writing I am currently at work and am full of rage)

I disagree entirely. Mr Hart is quite sensibly presenting the proposal in such a way as to tick as many boxes and give as many options as possible to make a good case for putting in the central core sections. Frankly this link has every bit as much potential as the successful ones in Scotland and Wales, particularly with the planned housing expansion in the area. If this recession ever ends, and East Sussex County Council stops putting obstacles in the way (perhaps it should be replaced with Unitary Authorities ) it will be of great value to the area, whatever the form it may eventually take.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Wasn't one pro[posal to do Tunbridge Wells-Eridge-Uckfield-Brighton? Why did that stretch (TBW-ERI) close in the first place?

 

[Drsatan]

Wasn't one pro[posal to do Tunbridge Wells-Eridge-Uckfield-Brighton? Why did that stretch (TBW-ERI) close in the first place?

According to Wikipedia the line closed in 1985 after BR decided it wasn't worth spending £175,000 to replace the track and signals in relation to passenger usage.

Tunbridge Wells West is now the terminus of the Spa Valley Railway but reopening the line to Tunbridge Wells wouldn't be possible since a supermarket has been built on the trackbed.

 

[yorksrob]

I think business on the Tunbridge Wells-Eridge section suffered after the closure of the Lewes-Uckfield link as the route was previously operated with through trains from Brighton to Kent with many of its passengers coming from the South Coast..

 

[atomicdanny]

Tunbridge Wells West is now the terminus of the Spa Valley Railway but reopening the line to Tunbridge Wells wouldn't be possible since a supermarket has been built on the trackbed.

Actually only the toilets are on the actual trackbed itself, and apparently they were designed to be moved to another location if the railway line was ever to be rebuild so I've heard (but I can't find the link though )

edit - Found it - http://www.wealdenline.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=41

What about the supermarket built on the trackbed at Tunbridge Wells?
The main structure of the supermarket was deliberately built so that there was sufficient space on the north side to allow the rebuilding of the railway. Only the toilet block would need to be moved. Sainsburys has already pledged in writing to do this if necessary.

 

[LE Greys]

Curious. However, I've had a look on the overhead imagery, and two things might be a problem. One, you would need a level crossing on the supermarket access road (or a very expensive bridge). Two, where did the line go between there and the junction? I can't see any evidence of a trackbed.

 

[NightatLaira]

As grateful of ANY improvement to Britain's rail infrastrcuture as I am...

I can seriously think of NO route which needs parralelling LESS than Brighton to London... although I accept there may be benefits for Lewes/Uckfield/Tunbridge etc

Electrify York to Leeds!
Four track Man Pic to Preston!
Get rid of the Welyn GC bottleneck
There are loads of things that would be collaterally cheaper to do than this - and provide much more VFM.

58mins is going to be a push to beat for any service travelling the new proposed route, especially when going into Liverpool St. You'd be better-off spending the money four-tracking the whole route from Brighton to Victoria/London Bridge and getting rid of the existing bottle-necks. Then you could run a manically quick 'Brighton Flier' not even stopping at Gatwick (if you wanted), as well as all the commuter stuff.

And I'm not normally one to pour water on a proposal...

 

[yorksrob]

Curious. However, I've had a look on the overhead imagery, and two things might be a problem. One, you would need a level crossing on the supermarket access road (or a very expensive bridge). Two, where did the line go between there and the junction? I can't see any evidence of a trackbed.

Fortunately, most of the track bed is in a Tunnel, with the section to the North being overgrown but unused (There was some talk of it being used for the new turn back siding but this was laid further south, probably because it’s more useful to have a turnback on the down side)

As grateful of ANY improvement to Britain's rail infrastrcuture as I am...

I can seriously think of NO route which needs parralelling LESS than Brighton to London... although I accept there may be benefits for Lewes/Uckfield/Tunbridge etc

Electrify York to Leeds!
Four track Man Pic to Preston!
Get rid of the Welyn GC bottleneck
There are loads of things that would be collaterally cheaper to do than this - and provide much more VFM.

58mins is going to be a push to beat for any service travelling the new proposed route, especially when going into Liverpool St. You'd be better-off spending the money four-tracking the whole route from Brighton to Victoria/London Bridge and getting rid of the existing bottle-necks. Then you could run a manically quick 'Brighton Flier' not even stopping at Gatwick (if you wanted), as well as all the commuter stuff.

And I'm not normally one to pour water on a proposal...

Actually I think this idea would be far better than quadrupling the rest of the Brighton Mainline (or should that be BML 1) for the following reasons:

• Whereas most of the Uckfield – Lewes, and Tunbridge Wells – Eridge formations are largely intact, to quadruple BML 1 you would require substantial earthworks including several tunnels and a fairly major viaduct to be built, making it tantamount to building a new route from scratch and much more expensive.
• Whereas quadruple track can cut down on replacement bus services for planned engineering works, there could still be major incidents which could close all four tracks, so having a proper diversionary seems preferable.
• More importantly the link would be of most use for the settlements between Uckfield and Oxted (including Crowborough which is itself very large) which are currently on a dead end route, and to re-create the link between West Kent and the Sussex Coast. Building a race-track to the coast alongside BML 1 would offer almost no improvement for these areas for it’s very high costs.

I agree that your other solutions might be as useful, except perhaps four tracking from Preston to Manchester – which could probably be better served by electrification and longer trains.

 

[LoversWalk75A]

Wasn't one pro[posal to do Tunbridge Wells-Eridge-Uckfield-Brighton? Why did that stretch (TBW-ERI) close in the first place?

Lewes - Uckfield was closed for 500 yards of road, and British Rail wasn't prepared to build any sort of overbridge over Phoenix Causeway, so deliberately allowed the railway bridge over Cliffe High Street to deteriorate to a point where shuttles between Barcombe and Lewes with a 2H opperated, before handing over the stronghold to Southdown Motor Services Ltd.

Eridge - Tunbridge Wells (West) closed partially because of lack of traffic, and also the value of the land at the time (look at what now stands at Groombridge and TW(W)).