• 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!

Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham line reopening proposal

Status
Not open for further replies.

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
This is not the first time the "Media' have a published a story about this 'proposal' to re-open the Guildford - Horsham - Shoreham line, it pops up in local newspapers every few years, ditto Guildford Dragon news website quite recently and probably others too. Newspapers/Websites love a story, no matter how impractical or unlikely.
Politicians are also fond of 'flying a flag in the air' i.e talking/publicising about an apparent proposed idea without actually making hard and fast commitments/solid policies, it is a an increasingly common and dubious PR technique used by many politicians/councillors/business people, it makes them sound good to the listening public. (I note Boris Johnson currently seems to be promising everything except free beer in his push to become PM).
I would point out that Guildford - Brighton via North Downs line to Gatwick = 45 mins, Gatwick to Brighton 30-40 mins.
I don't begrudge those who want to play the equivalent of Rail 'fantasy re-instatement', just remember that public funding for rail, needs to be spent where it is of most benefit.
Thank you for telling us that two and two makes four. We really didn't know that.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

atraindriver

Member
Joined
11 Sep 2014
Messages
426
Location
Enjoying retirement
It should certainly be done - especially Shoreham - Horsham.
The direct bus service between Shoreham and Horsham via the Arun Valley (Southern Transit route 3) has recently been reduced from operating two days a week to one day a week, although there are much more frequent services along parts of that route.

I'm not sure the reduction of the through bus service is exactly encouraging for a rail re-opening campaign.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,828
Location
Yorks
The direct bus service between Shoreham and Horsham via the Arun Valley (Southern Transit route 3) has recently been reduced from operating two days a week to one day a week, although there are much more frequent services along parts of that route.

I'm not sure the reduction of the through bus service is exactly encouraging for a rail re-opening campaign.

Neither one nor two days a week sounds particularly useful as a transport service. The bus service I use at the bottom of my road runs 7 days a week, which is really the minimum for me to find it useful.

It truly is a tragedy that the well orchestrated campaign to prevent closure of this route wasn't successful back in 66. Southern Region management were wrong in proposing it, and the Minister was wrong in accepting it.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
Considering the success of the Waverley line, and the high usage of rail services in the Southern Region, I would've thought having stations at Bramley and Rudgwick shouldn't be totally dismissed.

You're comparing apples with bananas.

The big case for the Waverley line was the fact that the key places on the route were many miles from an alternative rail-head - in the case of Galashiels you were looking at 40 miles to Berwick, 32 to Edinburgh or 60 to Carlisle.

Whereas Cranleigh is less than 10 miles from its nearest station.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,828
Location
Yorks
You're comparing apples with bananas.

The big case for the Waverley line was the fact that the key places on the route were many miles from an alternative rail-head - in the case of Galashiels you were looking at 40 miles to Berwick, 32 to Edinburgh or 60 to Carlisle.

Whereas Cranleigh is less than 10 miles from its nearest station.

Yet ironically whenever someone suggests a remote rural line for reopening, the answer on this forum is that "it's too long and remote. You need a short line that links to an employment centre".

We all know that there is only one difference between this reopening proposal and Waverley that matters. That's that Waverley is in Scotland and not subject to the diktat of Whitehall/Westminster.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
The plates are still there. And the old station site is offices. On an hourly service you could get away with a level crossing. But that's a very busy road, and unless Bramley gets a bypass, it'll clog up even more at the petrol station (Dunsfold is thousands of houses, most of which will come this way, whatever the planning application claims..). I doubt you can get any sort of bridge in there. Or an underpass. It's just too cramped. [I recently viewed a house that was next to St Catherines, the back is fairly open, but the surrounding land is very very expensive. And the existing road infrastructure won't cope.

You're comparing apples with bananas.

The big case for the Waverley line was the fact that the key places on the route were many miles from an alternative rail-head - in the case of Galashiels you were looking at 40 miles to Berwick, 32 to Edinburgh or 60 to Carlisle.

Whereas Cranleigh is less than 10 miles from its nearest station.

I suspect the distance is not as relevant as the time. I reckon at rush hour you could easily take an hour to get across Cranleigh and into Guildford.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
Yet ironically whenever someone suggests a remote rural line for reopening, the answer on this forum is that "it's too long and remote. You need a short line that links to an employment centre".

We all know that there is only one difference between this reopening proposal and Waverley that matters. That's that Waverley is in Scotland and not subject to the diktat of Whitehall/Westminster.

Because most of those "rural" reopenings which keep getting touted aren't re-linking places which are 40 miles away from the nearest railhead to give them a direct link to a major city.

Instead, the ones which keep getting peddled around here are like Tavistock - which is 6 miles to Bere Alston as the nearest railhead and is only 15 miles by road to Plymouth. Or alternatively it's like the Aberystwyth to Carmarthen which has precisely nowhere of any size on the route.

The ones which do stand a chance are the vaguely sensible ones which are generally about reopening mothballed or freight only lines - so Ashington, Blyth, Portishead, Wisbech all make some sense - though I think Wisbech will probably struggle - the others less so.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,828
Location
Yorks
Because most of those "rural" reopenings which keep getting touted aren't re-linking places which are 40 miles away from the nearest railhead to give them a direct link to a major city.

Instead, the ones which keep getting peddled around here are like Tavistock - which is 6 miles to Bere Alston as the nearest railhead and is only 15 miles by road to Plymouth. Or alternatively it's like the Aberystwyth to Carmarthen which has precisely nowhere of any size on the route.

The ones which do stand a chance are the vaguely sensible ones which are generally about reopening mothballed or freight only lines - so Ashington, Blyth, Portishead, Wisbech all make some sense - though I think Wisbech will probably struggle - the others less so.

Tavistock is an eminently sensible proposal because it links a town with poor road links to a regional employment centre, and more importantly, most of the line is still in use for passengers.

The fact that people can say such a decent and modest proposal is unlikely, amply illustrates the problem.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,602
Even where the nearest railhead - with a connection to major employment centre - is, say, 5 miles away, many people will still drive say 20 miles to that employment centre because it's quicker/easier than driving to the railhead, parking up, waiting for the train, etc.

So there may be many cases where a new rail link wouldn't just remove a load of 5-mile car journeys from the roads, but a load of 20-mile journeys as well.

So it can be a bit of an oversimplification to look at "distance to nearest railhead" as a key metric, without considering a wider context.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
Of course, you'd also have to look at the pressure a new rail link could take away from existing road infrastructure.
at rush hour. School run. Next to nothing. Many people already cut through to get over the A25 via Chilworth (level crossing). There's a veritable convoy of school run mums do that run twice a day return. And there is no decent public transport. Take for example Cranmore school. Another prep school. It has the good sense to lay on a bus (leaves St Catherines) to take to school. It doesn't come back. Seriously. It's a one way bus. The demand from Dunsfold and all the other stuff passed will swamp an already saturated A281, and Bramley is already a mess. But without a bypass, which won't happen (stuff like the new dual carriageways round Horsham are great....), it'll just be an utter logjam. And a level crossing will make it worse. And an hourly train service or whatever won't really change that.

If I had a magic wand and an unlimited budget, I'd light rail it. a supertram type thing. Line speeds don't need to be that high to beat the car. And mass transit. But there is so little appetite for that in the UK. A lot cheaper too. In fact, half of Surrey, with what is planned in terms of new houses, could do with something to alleviate the traffic, but all the County council really does is not fill in potholes properly. But itll cost billions. And no one will pay for it. And the councils won't make developers pay. Guildford council suggest one way systems and tunnels out of town. Crackers.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,424
How are they planning on powering this service? Can’t build new 3rd rail and anything else needs non standard stock. And isn’t the South of Guildford short of capacity (still don’t understand how unless signalling inefficient)?
I can only see enough traffic for Guildford to Dunsfold vis Cranleigh, if they get enough housing built on Dunsfold. And that would just be two/three trains one way each peak. Can’t see much Guildford to Horsham traffic as for most it would involve a struggle to get to/from the station at each end and the service won’t be frequent enough on a single line.
Spend the money on building a Guildford South Parkway at the Arrington P&R site.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,602
at rush hour. School run. Next to nothing. Many people already cut through to get over the A25 via Chilworth (level crossing). There's a veritable convoy of school run mums do that run twice a day return. And there is no decent public transport. Take for example Cranmore school. Another prep school. It has the good sense to lay on a bus (leaves St Catherines) to take to school. It doesn't come back. Seriously. It's a one way bus. The demand from Dunsfold and all the other stuff passed will swamp an already saturated A281, and Bramley is already a mess. But without a bypass, which won't happen (stuff like the new dual carriageways round Horsham are great....), it'll just be an utter logjam. And a level crossing will make it worse. And an hourly train service or whatever won't really change that.

Well... done properly the railway would be part of an overall integrated public transport system with connecting buses and so on. Schools would be obliged to put on a proper bus service and if any parents still wanted to drive and get held up by a level crossing then that would be their problem.

But yes, there's currently little appetite for anything like that in the UK, sadly.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,835
How are they planning on powering this service? Can’t build new 3rd rail and anything else needs non standard stock. And isn’t the South of Guildford short of capacity (still don’t understand how unless signalling inefficient)?
I can only see enough traffic for Guildford to Dunsfold vis Cranleigh, if they get enough housing built on Dunsfold. And that would just be two/three trains one way each peak. Can’t see much Guildford to Horsham traffic as for most it would involve a struggle to get to/from the station at each end and the service won’t be frequent enough on a single line.
Spend the money on building a Guildford South Parkway at the Arrington P&R site.
I quite agree that this is most unlikely to happen, given that no-one will want to provide the £X00 million to build it...
But if the reinstated track did magically appear one morning, how about this for operating it:
  • one of the problems with the North Downs line is that there is more demand west of Guildford than east
  • conversely the problems currently preventing the promised 3tph on that are mostly east of Guildford (mainly but not exclusively, Reigate and Betchworth crossings)
  • as a result, GWR run peak extras from Reading that currently terminate at Shalford (to layover without blocking Guildford platforms) then return to Reading
  • so it could be possible to extend those to Cranleigh / Dunsfold / Horsham (according to where the line reached), and maybe to run them off-peak as well
  • which means no new 3rd rail, and no requirement for a small diesel fleet for SWR
  • and it would be operated by 769s (almost as mythical as the new line), which are scheduled for the NDL if and when they are made to work.
OK, that doesn't give direct access to London, but commuters are very used to changing trains, and Guildford and Reading are big employment, shopping, and entertainment draws in themselves.

Just Guildford tunnels capacity to sort out now :)
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,274
How are they planning on powering this service? Can’t build new 3rd rail and anything else needs non standard stock...
There are probably many reasons why this may never be built, but dual voltage stock being ‘non standard’ isn’t one of them. All recent EMU are dual voltage as standard under the skin, they just need the right power collection arrangements to be fitted.
 

aleggatta

Member
Joined
28 Sep 2015
Messages
538
There are probably many reasons why this may never be built, but dual voltage stock being ‘non standard’ isn’t one of them. All recent EMU are dual voltage as standard under the skin, they just need the right power collection arrangements to be fitted.
not only that, you look at the number of dual voltage units that are operating on single voltage lines, and the relevant fleet cascades wouldn't be that difficult to make them available if required (one example being 377/5's being replaced by new stock in SE land). Ive been told that refitting existing 377's to AC spec is prohibitively expensive due to the amount of 'legacy' equipment required, and it being cheaper to build new than refit old.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,424
The 769 answer is probably best, though selling noisy diesels to the NIMBYs will make things more difficult.
Dual voltage would involve a SWT micro fleet, selling ugly metalwork to NIMBYs, and adding an expensive power supply to power a little island of 25kv.

No politician is going to push this past the NIMBYs and the storm of protest about huge subsidy going to wealthy Surrey and not the North.
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,695
Location
London
How are they planning on powering this service? Can’t build new 3rd rail and anything else needs non standard stock. And isn’t the South of Guildford short of capacity (still don’t understand how unless signalling inefficient)?
I can only see enough traffic for Guildford to Dunsfold vis Cranleigh, if they get enough housing built on Dunsfold. And that would just be two/three trains one way each peak. Can’t see much Guildford to Horsham traffic as for most it would involve a struggle to get to/from the station at each end and the service won’t be frequent enough on a single line.
Spend the money on building a Guildford South Parkway at the Arrington P&R site.

Eh? Is it not allowed to add to the southern third-rail system then? That seems silly. If any useful bits of southern England routes were to be reopened, then surely additions to the existing system are - most sensibly - done using the same as the existing power system?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,828
Location
Yorks
Eh? Is it not allowed to add to the southern third-rail system then? That seems silly. If any useful bits of southern England routes were to be reopened, then surely additions to the existing system are - most sensibly - done using the same as the existing power system?

It seems silly because it is silly. Down right stupid, infact.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,274
So what's the basis of the rule/decision? Surely there's not a law against it?! Who's decided that?
The rail regulator (ORR) usually quotes the “electricity at work” regulations, in other words they are treating it as a workplace safety issue.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,828
Location
Yorks
So what's the basis of the rule/decision? Surely there's not a law against it?! Who's decided that?

As @swt-passenger points out, we're supposedly not allowed to extend the rest of the Southern electric network, even though NR manages to maintain the rest of the network safely.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,020
As @swt-passenger points out, we're supposedly not allowed to extend the rest of the Southern electric network, even though NR manages to maintain the rest of the network safely.
The Electricity at Work Regs are 1989.

Since then we have had, surface running, the East London Line Surrey Quays to Peckham, the various Overground links at Clapham Junction, a whole slew of sidings at New Cross Gate and Three Bridges, the Jubilee Line Canning Town to Stratford, and likely some others I've forgotten.

It also seems, from recent reports, that we have had a number of serious incidents with the 25Kv, whether trespassers climbing on stock or live wires falling down on staff. Those seem exempt as well.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
No you couldn’t. New level crossings on the national network are verboten.
Whereas if you classify the rolling stock as light rail vehicles you can drive something the size of a pacer down the middle of the high street. While I fully support the general direction of level crossing policy, especially for their progressive removal where practical on busy and high speed routes, I think we need to allow some flexibility on this personally on heavy rail, but only for low rail speed obstacle detection fitted installations with full barriers and local monitoring by the train driver. Something like the new AFBCL type such as at Ardrossan Princes Street:
I think these will prove to be incredibly safe, and also have the benefit to road users of fairly short road closed time.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,020
That's fine starting from the platform. What about in the opposite direction, is the train stopped on the open line?

The plunger could have been placed a bit closer to the cab.

It's also a poor example of road vehicle usage. In the first 20 seconds the bus ignores the amber initial light and by the time it crosses it's moved on to the red flashers. Meanwhile the first car along stops plumb in the middle of the "Keep Clear" roadmarking and sits there right through the sequence.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
That's fine starting from the platform. What about in the opposite direction, is the train stopped on the open line?

The plunger could have been placed a bit closer to the cab.

It's also a poor example of road vehicle usage. In the first 20 seconds the bus ignores the amber initial light and by the time it crosses it's moved on to the red flashers. Meanwhile the first car along stops plumb in the middle of the "Keep Clear" roadmarking and sits there right through the sequence.
In the other direction there's a conventional strike-in using tracks circuits and treadles with similar timings to a ABCL, and an approach speed restriction from which the driver can stop the train if the crossing is not clear. The flashing white light for the train proves the crossing is clear via obstacle detection technology which also checks clearance before the offside barriers are lowered. Agree about the plunger. I'd have thought a development of this could be to provide a remote activation button for this purpose in the cab. An alternative might be some kind of button or pull chain that can be reached and operated through the cab window, rather like this LU device which has a switch on the tip of a rubber encased spring element. Railtrack/Network Rail also used these at carriage sidings to the east of Dartford, where the driver operates a TRTS button when ready so the automatic route setting system knows when to set the forward route into the station.DSC00360.JPG
 

TrainBoy98

Member
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Messages
427
Location
Worthing
As stated above, if the route had been protected (and there was the demand) then Horsham-Brighton would've been possible.

But with the old northern approach to Shoreham station being built on (including demolishing some of the existing infrastructure from the old line) there would be no practical way to get into Shoreham.

Also, capacity-wise, yes, Brighton could pose a problem, but before you even get there remember that the new Thameslink Littlehampton services use a lot of the availible peak-time paths, meaning you'd likely have to deal with an off peak service.

Or, Crayola and limitless cash, a whole new tunnel for the line before it reaches Shoreham, right through to Brighton...:lol:
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
If the Guildford - Horsham section proved feasible with GWR diesel/bi-mode trains, an option might be for them to continue on through Horsham in the same direction to Gatwick and Redhill so together with the North Downs stoppers they could form a 'Great Surrey Loop' service...

Moderator note: if anyone wishes to discuss any ideas related to the proposals, please post in the Speculative Ideas section; the above post has been split to a new topic: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rey-loop-service-using-reopened-lines.185572/

This thread is to discuss the actual proposal. If there are any actual developments with the proposal to re-open the Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham line, please report this post and inform us of the details and the source, and we will consider reopening the thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top