Uckfield line to be electrified?

[Chrisgr31]

Yep not disagreeing with any of that.

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

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

i can’t remember the full details but since 2013/14 there has been service disruption from the platform alterations, the strikes, the London Bridge timetable issues and the unreliability of the Scottish units.

It was very apparent since the strikes that the number of ticket checks on board dropped significantly. In the year pre-pandemic my ticket was checked onboard very rarely.

It does though beg the question as to whether rail companies should be doing exit interview. Why haven’t you renewed your season ticket? What route you now taking? etc

I said the same thing about disruption. When the line was in chaos all the passengers disappeared. They obviously got home but how? No one seems to know. Work out how they get home and it would help organise replacement travel services!

 

[Washington]

Would it be better to extend the line to Lewes making it easier to run trains with battery back up rather than electrify the whole line?

 

[zwk500]

Welcome to the forum!

Would it be better to extend the line to Lewes making it easier to run trains with battery back up rather than electrify the whole line?

No. Extending to Lewes will cost orders of magnitude greater than electrification. Then you've got to find capacity between Lewes and Brighton and Platforms at Brighton for it to go. If you build the Hamsey loop, you've got to find room for the reversal at LW58 as well. This is before mentioning that electrification could start work within a year or two, extending to Lewes will take 3-5 years of preliminary design, public consultation, detailed design the public inquiry before a single spade can be put in the ground.

 

[MarkyT]

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

I expect BEMUs for this application will be a lot more reliable than DMUs and require little more routine maintenance than the standard DC EMUs they'll be based on.

 

[zwk500]

I expect BEMUs for this application will be a lot more reliable than DMUs and require little more routine maintenance than the standard DC EMUs they'll be based on.

Given the speed at which decarbonisation is being sought, I suspect BEMUs won't be considered 'proven' enough or practical to assemble a sufficient fleet, given the peak timetable of 2tph at 10-car length.

 

[mr_jrt]

Welcome to the forum!

No. Extending to Lewes will cost orders of magnitude greater than electrification. Then you've got to find capacity between Lewes and Brighton and Platforms at Brighton for it to go. If you build the Hamsey loop, you've got to find room for the reversal at LW58 as well. This is before mentioning that electrification could start work within a year or two, extending to Lewes will take 3-5 years of preliminary design, public consultation, detailed design the public inquiry before a single spade can be put in the ground.

In fairness, OP didn't say extending to Brighton. You could extend Uckfield to Lewes and send services to Eastbourne or Seaford without any of those other enhancements. There is still the not insubstantial issue of the level crossings (not least at Uckfield itself!) and capacity between the line's junction down to Lewes itself, but it's all solvable given the will.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Welcome to the forum!

No. Extending to Lewes will cost orders of magnitude greater than electrification. Then you've got to find capacity between Lewes and Brighton and Platforms at Brighton for it to go. If you build the Hamsey loop, you've got to find room for the reversal at LW58 as well. This is before mentioning that electrification could start work within a year or two, extending to Lewes will take 3-5 years of preliminary design, public consultation, detailed design the public inquiry before a single spade can be put in the ground.

Capacity between Lewes and Brighton would be pretty easy to find. You'd just link the Uckfield paths up with the Brighton - Lewes shuttles. Only slightly challenging bit would be the flat junction outside Lewes where the Uckfield branch would join on but it would not be difficult to timetable. It would obviously require some recasting, but nothing too taxing.

 

[zwk500]

In fairness, OP didn't say extending to Brighton. You could extend Uckfield to Lewes and send services to Eastbourne or Seaford without any of those other enhancements. There is still the not insubstantial issue of the level crossings (not least at Uckfield itself!) and capacity between the line's junction down to Lewes itself, but it's all solvable given the will.

You wouldn't be sending Uckfield services to Seaford without sorting the power restriction out.

It would obviously require some recasting, but nothing too taxing.

I take it you've never actually had to look at a recast on the Sussex route?

Regardless, this discussion is rather far from the question of electrification of the existing line (which is the limit of what GTR/DfT/NR are looking at), and options, problems and solutions for Lewes-Uckfield has been done to death on many other threads.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

You wouldn't be sending Uckfield services to Seaford without sorting the power restriction out.

I take it you've never actually had to look at a recast on the Sussex route?

Regardless, this discussion is rather far from the question of electrification of the existing line (which is the limit of what GTR/DfT/NR are looking at), and options, problems and solutions for Lewes-Uckfield has been done to death on many other threads.

I have actually! I get your point, but I stand by saying that linking up the London Bridge - Uckfield service in its current times with the Brighton to Lewes service would not be that challenging. Of course it would be difficult, anything on sussex or anything timetabling full stop is but in terms of difficult timetable changes, I'd say it would be an easier one. Still obviously difficult though.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How could electrification plausibly work in terms of stock? Assuming it's 3rd rail electrification, that would mean you'd have a bunch of diesels to get rid of - I'm guessing that won't be much of a problem finding somewhere in the country for them to go. But then you'd need a new bunch of EMUs to operate the route, which I'm assuming Southern does not currently have. Could you still order some extra Class 377's or would you have to order something else - and therefore end up with an electric micro-fleet to replace the current diesel micro-fleet?

 

[43096]

How could electrification plausibly work in terms of stock? Assuming it's 3rd rail electrification, that would mean you'd have a bunch of diesels to get rid of - I'm guessing that won't be much of a problem finding somewhere in the country for them to go. But then you'd need a new bunch of EMUs to operate the route, which I'm assuming Southern does not currently have. Could you still order some extra Class 377's or would you have to order something else - and therefore end up with an electric micro-fleet to replace the current diesel micro-fleet?

You can’t order more 377s. There are though 25 x 377s with SouthEastern and 29 x 387s with Great Northern (Southern already has 387s) that could be cascaded if replacements could be found (379s to Great Northern is the obvious one).

 

[Domh245]

How could electrification plausibly work in terms of stock? Assuming it's 3rd rail electrification, that would mean you'd have a bunch of diesels to get rid of - I'm guessing that won't be much of a problem finding somewhere in the country for them to go.

The fact that the current diesel stock is earmarked for the EMR franchise already is no doubt a large reason why electrification(/batterification) is being pursued! In addition to what @43096 has posted about the future-state rolling stock, (anticipated) reduced demand will also be able to produce several units for putting batteries on, though it'll almost certainly involve some cascading

 

[Mikey C]

You can’t order more 377s. There are though 25 x 377s with SouthEastern and 29 x 387s with Great Northern (Southern already has 387s) that could be cascaded if replacements could be found (379s to Great Northern is the obvious one).

Do the C2C 387s have a home once their new 720s arrive?

 

[Bald Rick]

How could electrification plausibly work in terms of stock? Assuming it's 3rd rail electrification, that would mean you'd have a bunch of diesels to get rid of - I'm guessing that won't be much of a problem finding somewhere in the country for them to go. But then you'd need a new bunch of EMUs to operate the route, which I'm assuming Southern does not currently have. Could you still order some extra Class 377's or would you have to order something else - and therefore end up with an electric micro-fleet to replace the current diesel micro-fleet?

Southern won’t be needing all their EMUs fi4 a long, long time.

 

[Energy]

Southern won’t be needing all their EMUs fi4 a long, long time.

I would imagine that replacing the 455s and 313s will also be a high priority though.

 

[JonathanH]

I would imagine that replacing the 455s and 313s will also be a high priority though.

Yes, but in part with the existing 377s. I guess your point is that the 377s won't spread far enough to replace the 313, 455 and 171 fleet.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes, but in part with the existing 377s. I guess your point is that the 377s won't spread far enough to replace the 313, 455 and 171 fleet.

Would you want them to replace the 313s and 455s? Since those trains are primarily designed for local services, whereas the 377's seem designed more for the fast trains that people are likely to be on for longer. Wouldn't the ideal be something more like, the 377s - if there are sufficient spare ones - replace the 171 Uckfield trains, and the 313s and 455s get replaced by something new that's purpose built for metro services?

 

[JonathanH]

Would you want them to replace the 313s and 455s? Since those trains are primarily designed for local services, whereas the 377's seem designed more for the fast trains that people are likely to be on for longer. Wouldn't the ideal be something more like, the 377s - if there are sufficient spare ones - replace the 171 Uckfield trains, and the 313s and 455s get replaced by something new that's purpose built for metro services?

377s already do lots of Metro work. They are as well suited to doing Metro work as they are fast services. So, yes they are exactly the right trains to replace 313s and 455s.

A 100% Electrostar fleet on Southern is very desirable from an operational point of view. If I was the DfT / Southern I would be trying to see look at the Southern network and working out how an acceptable level of service could be provided just using the 377 fleet.

 

[Energy]

Would you want them to replace the 313s and 455s? Since those trains are primarily designed for local services, whereas the 377's seem designed more for the fast trains that people are likely to be on for longer. Wouldn't the ideal be something more like, the 377s - if there are sufficient spare ones - replace the 171 Uckfield trains, and the 313s and 455s get replaced by something new that's purpose built for metro services?

I wouldn't call the Coastway lines the 313s operate metro.

 

[JonathanH]

I wouldn't call the Coastway lines the 313s operate metro.

In reality they are. The West Worthing to Brighton route stops ten times in thirty minutes which is as many stops as London Victoria to East Croydon in about the same distance.

 

[HSTEd]

The coastway between West Worthing and Brighton is almost continuously urbanised.

 

[zwk500]

377s already do lots of Metro work. They are as well suited to doing Metro work as they are fast services. So, yes they are exactly the right trains to replace 313s and 455s.

A 100% Electrostar fleet on Southern is very desirable from an operational point of view. If I was the DfT / Southern I would be trying to see look at the Southern network and working out how an acceptable level of service could be provided just using the 377 fleet.

Being able to accelerate quickly is only half the story on a metro service. The door cycle at stations takes quite a long time on 377s and the doorways themselves are only really wide enough for 2 abreast so maintaining short dwells at busy stations is a challenge.

 

[paul1609]

Prior to the introduction of the life expired London Overground stock aka class 313 on the coastway all services were class 377s mostly 3 cars so there is no reason why they couldnt be again. The 313s were introduced to enable the 377/3s to strengthen London Metro services. Despite assurances by Southern the 313s would only be used on the local stopping services within a year they had mostly taken over the Brighton to Portsmouth semi fasts.

 

[Aictos]

Prior to the introduction of the life expired London Overground stock aka class 313 on the coastway all services were class 377s mostly 3 cars so there is no reason why they couldnt be again. The 313s were introduced to enable the 377/3s to strengthen London Metro services. Despite assurances by Southern the 313s would only be used on the local stopping services within a year they had mostly taken over the Brighton to Portsmouth semi fasts.

Those Class 377/3s are usually found on the London Bridge to Epsom services which are usually operated as 10 car trains.

Now take the Class 377/3s away and you have a new issue namely what do you propose to replace them to continue keeping those currently 10 car services as they are as there's a reason why they are operated as that length train.

The Class 377/6s and 377/7s are diagrammed on the London Bridge to Tattenham Corner/Caterham via East Croydon splitting/joining at Purley so if you intended to use them on the Epson's, you will need to find something to replace them too, in short you be robbing Peter to pay Paul and pressing short formations on passengers who's use warrant the use of longer trains not shorter ones.

In short, I don't think the Class 377/3s will be moving into other services anytime soon not until it's been solved to what will replace their current workings.

 

[paul1609]

rs

Those Class 377/3s are usually found on the London Bridge to Epsom services which are usually operated as 10 car trains.

Now take the Class 377/3s away and you have a new issue namely what do you propose to replace them to continue keeping those currently 10 car services as they are as there's a reason why they are operated as that length train.

The Class 377/6s and 377/7s are diagrammed on the London Bridge to Tattenham Corner/Caterham via East Croydon splitting/joining at Purley so if you intended to use them on the Epson's, you will need to find something to replace them too, in short you be robbing Peter to pay Paul and pressing short formations on passengers who's use warrant the use of longer trains not shorter ones.

In short, I don't think the Class 377/3s will be moving into other services anytime soon not until it's been solved to what will replace their current workings.

Im not suggesting that the 377/3s will move back to the coastway, just saying that there's no reason that Electrostars can't be used on those services. As it is long distance commuting in to London has collapsed. Theres currently plenty of 377 units sunbathing in the south coast depots all day plus Thameslink Units. The Gatwick Express 387 units are regularly being seen on Brighton to Ore coastway services.

 

[Aictos]

rs

Im not suggesting that the 377/3s will move back to the coastway, just saying that there's no reason that Electrostars can't be used on those services. As it is long distance commuting in to London has collapsed. Theres currently plenty of 377 units sunbathing in the south coast depots all day plus Thameslink Units. The Gatwick Express 387 units are regularly being seen on Brighton to Ore coastway services.

And my point is that the Class 377s that I mentioned are already diagrammed on London services.

As it currently stands, even in the middle of the Covid19 outbreak you still had Southern diagramming their trains to the longest lengths for the services eg the Tattenham Corner/Caterham services are usually formed of pairs of Class 377/6s or Class 377/7s now if the long distancing commute has collapsed? Then why hasn't Southern reduced for example that route to a 8 car service?

Just because you assume that half the fleet is "sunbathing" doesn't mean that they're not undergoing maintenance or being deep cleaned.

I'm sure if you go to WNXX they can explain in great detail why the Coastway services use Class 313s.

 

[Bald Rick]

Then why hasn't Southern reduced for example that route to a 8 car service?

Social distancing requirements.

 

[Chrisgr31]

If the Uckfield line is to be electrified what is a realistic timetable? The RSSB are due to report on the safety, or otherwise of 3rd rail infill in Spring 2022. It would appear that Southern and Network Rail are working on the financial study at the same time. So potentially in Spring 2022 the RSSB come up with options for 3rd rail infill. Those options presumably will need some form of testing in a real life environment? So at that will take 18 months to 2 years? Then the work has to be planned, costed and DfT approval sought? Another 2 years? Then the works actually have be planned and done. Another 2 years? So completion is unlikely before Spring 2028 at the earliest? By which time the 377 fleet will be heading towards 30 years old and everyone will be talking about their potential replacement?

 

[telstarbox]

Could the Uckfield branch not itself be the trial location?

 

[Backroom_boy]

If the Uckfield line is to be electrified what is a realistic timetable? The RSSB are due to report on the safety, or otherwise of 3rd rail infill in Spring 2022. It would appear that Southern and Network Rail are working on the financial study at the same time. So potentially in Spring 2022 the RSSB come up with options for 3rd rail infill. Those options presumably will need some form of testing in a real life environment? So at that will take 18 months to 2 years? Then the work has to be planned, costed and DfT approval sought? Another 2 years? Then the works actually have be planned and done. Another 2 years? So completion is unlikely before Spring 2028 at the earliest? By which time the 377 fleet will be heading towards 30 years old and everyone will be talking about their potential replacement?

Isnt one of the prerequisites a new national grid connection near the Uckfield end? What's the lead time for that?