The 171s used on the Ashford to Brighton were 2 cars - this meant they struggled to deal with the demand especially between Eastbourne and Brighton - which happens to be fully electrified also. Therefore, the service was cutback to Eastbourne and a 377 of at least 4 cars was put in its path. This meant less Marshlink diagrams also, freeing up 171s for Uckfield.
The hourly Ashford-Brighton service now runs Ashford-Eastbourne.So is there an extra connecting service Eastbourne-Hastings-Ashford to keep the link (albeit not direct)? Or are there simply fewer services Hastings-Ashford now?
I was told that the service stopped because of Thameslink using up too many platforms at Brighton. However, it appears that the service was replaced by a new Hastings service, so what exactly was the real reason the service was cut?
So is there an extra connecting service Eastbourne-Hastings-Ashford to keep the link (albeit not direct)? Or are there simply fewer services Hastings-Ashford now?
As well as saving a DMU, a side benefit in no longer operating through to Brighton is making the timing of the paths more flexible (by not having to fit into the 'Metro' pattern between Lewes and Brighton or around Victoria timings Eaatbourne-Lewes). So connections to/from St Pancras at Ashford are vastly improved compared to pre-May 2018.
No, still an hourly 171 service between Ashford and Eastbourne, overlapping with an hourly Hastings-Brighton. This meant that Hastings-Eaatbourne gained an extra train per hour.
Yes, so now it takes even longer to get to Brighton which is a huge pain. To add insult to injury the Ashford - Eastbourne section now calls at lots more stations en route and the connections are very tight, impossible with luggage. I understand that tickets on this route are cheap but why give people the worst for their money?Aha - so effectively the Brighton-Ashford is split, but with the two halves overlapping; thanks.