• 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!

Belmont Line to be doubled - funding available

Status
Not open for further replies.

RichJF

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2012
Messages
1,100
Location
Sussex
If you look on Google Maps the hospital is in a tight space. The new Cancer Hub is an expansion of the already renowned facilities on site. They're knocking down a load of old/abandoned buildings at the north end of the site.

So physically the hospital footprint won't grow. A frequent bus shuttle from Sutton & improved disability route to the improved Cancer Hub would be a far better near-term spend of capital.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

London Trains

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2017
Messages
912
Is there land available to build a proper bus station on the site of the London Cancer Hub?

If so, then you could extend existing bus services 164 from Sutton and 280 from Belmont, as per my earlier suggestion, to provide a high frequency service between the cancer hub and Sutton station.

Other bus services such as the 80 and 420 and S1 could also be diverted to serve the bus station.
The 164 is already planned to be extended to the Cancer Hub once it opens. Cutting the 80 back to it was part of a consultation a few years ago but was rejected due to loss of links to Belmont Prisons.
Wouldn’t building a massive car park (and by extension disincentivising public transport and cycling) just…defeat the whole purpose of all of this?
Never said a massive car park, but hospitals need to have decent parking provision as there will always be a portion of patients and visitors who are unable or unwilling to use public transport. Due to the lack of available space on the site a multi-storey car park would be the best option.
 

Sm5

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
1,013
I've always thought that there should be a fast West Croydon to Clapham Junction, but I suppose now there's the Epsom to London Bridge fasts there's not point. That said Emspom Downs if its going to have more development on it needs a quicker route to London, maybe via Mitcham.
but for 1 stop (Norwood Junction) all the london bridges are fast from west croydon.
it is indeed painful to go via Wallington towards Sutton from Clapham.

Shouldn’t connectivity (ie, more direct stations to Belmont) be a bigger priority than fast trains to London?
Belmont is one of the least used stations in London.
the cancer hub has been at Belmont for several decades.
There is a regular bus service (no step access) from Sutton station, right outside the doors, 2 bus stops directly into the hospital grounds taking 5 minutes.

There is no close bus stop at Belmont, and roughly cobbled street from Belmont station leading to a mainroad and a long hard walk up hill to the hospital… or you can walk down the main road to the nearest bus stop, (same Sutton bus) that will take you into the hosptial.

Unless there planning a horse and cart from Belmont to the hospital this is a waste of time.
I also fail to see where the passenger numbers are coming from, this is not a new hosptial, it is already a world leading cancer hospital already, its just getting some new buildings… I should add those new buildings are actually a lot closer to Sutton on the campus, by the Downsway… not up by Belmont station…

Theres much smoke and mirrors around this. i suspect this is a prelude to TFL taking over the Wallington line, and closing Banstead / Epsom downs.

I should add the old up platform at Banstead still exists, and it is step free… yet a siding is preferred to a second platform at this “hugely busy“ unstaffed station that handles 100k passenger entries and exits a year c 275 people a day, or 3.75 passengers per weekday service (73 workings today).

Don't disagree but having been a regular visitor their escorting a family friend for treatment I can tell you that parking is nigh on impossible during normal working hours and short of them building a multi story they have no solution. So trying to drive modal transfer is a necessity but not sure majority of staff or visitors would use the train without a shuttle bus up from the station which doesn't look that practical.

I don't know much about the local situation in Belmont, but it's in London which generally has good public transport links, so as a matter of principle, I'd be looking at improving bus, train, cycling and walking connections long before I think about building a multi-storey car park.
its a nice pleasant walk from Sutton station, gentle incline and some very nice housing estates (on the hospital side Of the road).
About 15-20 mins walk.

From Belmont, its up hill.

Going south of Belmont… its gods own country.. green fields, golf courses, cycle tracks.. (and a prison hidden behind some trees)… the country side is near continous past redhill and beyond.

The point is also to regenerate the whole Belmont area, as it has very poor public transport and is one of the most impoverished areas in London. Also, some of the money for the project will be devoted for better pedestrian infrastructure for walking to the hospital.
Poor housing ?

you wont get much for under £700k around there, even rightmove starts at £5mn for some houses in that stations catchment.
where do you live if thats considered poor ?

Thats also a good reason why Belmont should really be closed, the 4WD populace has no where to park, they just drive a minute down the road to Sutton station which has a far better service.


This is the station we are talking about, you can see the old platform behind the MPV, the 73 dissappearing beyond the platform end is where the siding will go..


73’s and MPVs.. dont get too excited, its not that often and its the most exciting it ever gets on that branch.

614C2495-A75B-4015-A2F4-189E958FB038.jpeg
Taken from the road bridge over the end of the platform looking south…the £14mn turn back siding will be to the right here.
 
Last edited:

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
The 164 is already planned to be extended to the Cancer Hub once it opens. Cutting the 80 back to it was part of a consultation a few years ago but was rejected due to loss of links to Belmont Prisons.

Never said a massive car park, but hospitals need to have decent parking provision as there will always be a portion of patients and visitors who are unable or unwilling to use public transport. Due to the lack of available space on the site a multi-storey car park would be the best option.

Is the 164 still a single deck service?

If so I would have thought that it would be worth converting it to a double deck service at the same time as extending it to the Cancer Hub.
 

London Trains

Member
Joined
9 Oct 2017
Messages
912
Is the 164 still a single deck service?

If so I would have thought that it would be worth converting it to a double deck service at the same time as extending it to the Cancer Hub.
Yes it is, and I doubt it will decked as it has recently been retendered with new electric single deckers.

I'm not sure why it wasn't upgraded to double deckers to be honest, it pretty much exclusively uses main roads so there wouldn't be objections to decking, I would guess it solely comes down to cost.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
Yes it is, and I doubt it will decked as it has recently been retendered with new electric single deckers.

I'm not sure why it wasn't upgraded to double deckers to be honest, it pretty much exclusively uses main roads so there wouldn't be objections to decking, I would guess it solely comes down to cost.

Back in the 1970s Stone Age when I went to school in Sutton (Sutton Manor High School as it was then) the 164/164A was a double deck service, operated by double deck vehicles.

However the 164 started from Morden, rather than Wimbledon as at present.

What is now Belmont and Downview Prison was a psychiatric hospital, served by an extension of the 280 from Belmont Station on Sunday afternoons only.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,133
Location
Surrey
Wouldn’t building a massive car park (and by extension disincentivising public transport and cycling) just…defeat the whole purpose of all of this?
Probably but hospitals are 247 operations public transport generally isn't and this is so far out into periphery of London that its staff and patients come from a wide area and to the South of Belmont public transport is non existent. As others say better to get all local bus routes actually service the hub band jack up frequency which can be done for a lot less and a dam site quicker.
 

Thirteen

Member
Joined
3 Oct 2021
Messages
1,119
Location
London
Doesn't Sutton Council want the Trams to come to Belmont if the Sutton Link is revived? That would provide some connections along with the buses.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,163
Location
SE London

That link doesn't quite work. I did a bit of playing around and the correct link is
On following through, the links, it does seem that there's some confusion about whether the line will be doubled or not. The Local Guardian article in the thread starting post seems to claim that the track will be doubled to Belmont and a turnback siding built. The earlier Ian Visits article seems to be saying it's just a turnback siding. Off the top of my head, I'm more inclined to believe Ian Visits since that's a blog that shows more railway understanding, but it would be good to have clarity. The quoted cost of £14M seems extraordinarily expensive for building a turnback siding, but feels a little on the cheap side for doubling to Belmont, considering that doubling would require building a 2nd platform. Knowing the railways, 'extraordinarily expensive' is probably more plausible than 'cheap' ;)
 

Sm5

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
1,013
Doesn't Sutton Council want the Trams to come to Belmont if the Sutton Link is revived? That would provide some connections along with the buses.
I know several will disagree with me, but …

Turning the old carriage sidings into terminal platforms,at West Croydon, that run off up the slope to the street would be step free.
Demolish the exisiting platforms 1-4.
move the wimbledon tram lines onto the Sutton line formation, then run trams right upto Sutton.
West Croydon would be an excellant tram, bus, train interchange, all step free.
Moving then trams onto railway formation frees up more street footprint too at the bus station.

i know were into speculation, but in context of Epsom downs this would make more sense to me.
The trams exit by the old sidings off the carshalton beeches line and the road into sutton station car park… then either up to Belmont, or down the high street as planned towards South Sutton, which, if the Northern line took over the wimbledon line would provide another interchange.

but anyway, back to reality and a £14mn siding at a lightly used station thats a bit of a connecting transport bottle neck…
Network Rail is to trouser £3mn, to make a report reccomending 3 signals, few panels of track and moving some probably life expired signalling cable routes…. So my suggestion would probably cost hundreds of billions. Elsewhere in Europe a siding would be simply done in a few weeks.

That link doesn't quite work. I did a bit of playing around and the correct link is
On following through, the links, it does seem that there's some confusion about whether the line will be doubled or not. The Local Guardian article in the thread starting post seems to claim that the track will be doubled to Belmont and a turnback siding built. The earlier Ian Visits article seems to be saying it's just a turnback siding. Off the top of my head, I'm more inclined to believe Ian Visits since that's a blog that shows more railway understanding, but it would be good to have clarity. The quoted cost of £14M seems extraordinarily expensive for building a turnback siding, but feels a little on the cheap side for doubling to Belmont, considering that doubling would require building a 2nd platform. Knowing the railways, 'extraordinarily expensive' is probably more plausible than 'cheap' ;)
They could probably get a bunch of scouts to come in on a Sunday, litter pick and deweed that platform and it would be ready for use.

its pretty much in tact under those weeds, indeed it was the main “up” station platform, so it has a side road connection to the main road and step free street access. As side of lighting, surfacing and some patching up, cutting back the trees, its not that far out.



the up platform is the one with the canopy, which gives sense of the direction travellers are going…(and the hospital was there then).

Rather than a siding south of the station, making the ”up” platform the siding would be better imo, and reinstate the platform.
But sadly I dont think there is enough demand for more services, let alone a second platform. the siding could be useful for broken down units, or removing one extra unit from the network when something goes wrong… but then that siding maybe more useful on the down line of Sutton, on the old sidings on the Beeches line, or the Cheam side, as theres space for more than 1 siding in each location.
 
Last edited:

PGAT

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2022
Messages
1,464
Location
Selhurst
The quoted cost of £14M seems extraordinarily expensive for building a turnback siding, but feels a little on the cheap side for doubling to Belmont, considering that doubling would require building a 2nd platform. Knowing the railways, 'extraordinarily expensive' is probably more plausible than 'cheap' ;)
IIRC a large factor for the price tag is that the branch will need to be resignalled as only one train is allowed on the branch at a time?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,163
Location
SE London
IIRC a large factor for the price tag is that the branch will need to be resignalled as only one train is allowed on the branch at a time?

Ah, right. So if I've understood you correctly, you mean the whole branch is just basically one ultra-long siding, with no signalling at all beyond the point where it becomes single track?
 

Sm5

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
1,013
IIRC a large factor for the price tag is that the branch will need to be resignalled as only one train is allowed on the branch at a time?
Not quite, there is a signal both ways at Epsom Downs, so a unit can be locked into the platform there, allowing something else, onto the branch, usually to switch platforms at Sutton, but presumably could wander up the line to Banstead.

Signalling would obviously be needed into / out of and protecting the Siding movements.
 
Last edited:

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,746
Location
Leeds
Twice in two days, a thread on this forum has taught me of the existence of a place with a wonderful name. Yesterday it was Plenploth in the Scottish Borders. Today it was Nork - seen on a map while examining the area covered by this thread.
 

Sm5

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
1,013
Twice in two days, a thread on this forum has taught me of the existence of a place with a wonderful name. Yesterday it was Plenploth in the Scottish Borders. Today it was Nork - seen on a map while examining the area covered by this thread.
Belmont was originally opened as California.
After the local pub.
It was allegedly renamed as goods traffic was getting lost, presumably by ship to the US.

Belmont used to have a branch line to a local school, as well as a goods yard (the council sign depot in the above picture) and carriage sidings to the north on the down side (for storage relayed to race going traffic at Epsom downs).

Epsom Downs was also a once great affair. Several platforms, sidings, turntable.. Pullman traffic, royal trains of several nationalities…

Banstead always puzzled me, its always been a station in the middle of nowhere… its quite a scary place at night, just fields and dark hedges. The village of Banstead is a good mile away, other side of the main A road.

I assume Banstead exists as an easy pick up point, for people wanting a fast exit to the M25, Belmont at least has a reason amount of local catchment, but suspect as the service is notoriously poor (if something goes pop on Southern this line can lose service for several hours at a time), the people just drive the 2-3 minutes to Sutton, which has adequate parking, or to Carshalton Beeches where they can park for free and save 10 minutes or so on the train.

you Can see Epsom Downs (and the signal) in this midnight video (i was actually scared to be here in the remote wild at this hour in the pouring rain)..1m58
 
Last edited:

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,746
Location
Leeds
Belmont was originally opened as California.
After the local pub.
It was allegedly renamed as goods traffic was getting lost, presumably by ship to the US.
Getting off topic and in danger of getting moved, but there are at least ten places called Calfornia in GB.
 

TRXsouth

Member
Joined
1 Aug 2020
Messages
53
Location
Surrey
The timescale and cost still seem astonishing: drawn out and expensive? Two years (April 2024 to March 2026) to spend £16.6 million (Levelling Up Fund’s £14.1m plus Sutton Council’s £1.5m) to install just one turnout into a new siding with live rail for a maximum ten car emu, cabling and signalling works, ‘upgrade’ existing track into Sutton plus works around Belmont station.
 

Sm5

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2016
Messages
1,013
The timescale and cost still seem astonishing: drawn out and expensive? Two years (April 2024 to March 2026) to spend £16.6 million (Levelling Up Fund’s £14.1m plus Sutton Council’s £1.5m) to install just one turnout into a new siding with live rail for a maximum ten car emu, cabling and signalling works, ‘upgrade’ existing track into Sutton plus works around Belmont station.
Quite.
Poland rebuilt an entire branchline to Ukraine in 6 months, including the decision and funding.
They even went over the border and rebuilt the station on the other side.

Someday this gold plated siding will be a newspaper story, especially when nowt uses it and passenger numbers dont really change.

might be cheaper to move Carshalton Beeches station, to the otherside of Beeches ave and Banstead rd.. that way you could be at the hospital in 5 minutes straight up Banstead road, saving 10 minutes…

that said they blew £2.5mn on lifts at Carshalton station, and how exactly did contractors build it… by reopening the old ramp/step free access that used to exist on the Up platform, decades ago, before closing it and removing it afterwards..and of course they built the lift blocking the old street level access, to ensure if there ever was street level access on the UP platform that it would require significantly more contractor money in the future.

my cynical.. never.
 
Last edited:

PGAT

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2022
Messages
1,464
Location
Selhurst
How would it be cheaper to completely demolish, rebuild and substantially realign the track for Carshalton Beeches? Also there’s no space to do so.
 

sjoh

Member
Joined
7 Apr 2016
Messages
326
Location
London, E11.
Worth bearing in mind also is that the new Specialist Emergency Care Hospital (part of Epsom and St Helier Trust) is due to be built on the site in the next 10 years also, so it will become a lot lot busier.
 

PGAT

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2022
Messages
1,464
Location
Selhurst
No way the whole branch will be closed for 2 years. If I were to guess, trains will turnaround at Belmont for most of the time and have replacement buses to Sutton
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,257
Location
Torbay
Assuming an equal interval more frequent service then just the ability to reverse a second train at Belmont while another train is between there and Epsom Downs should suffice. This would require additional signals on the single line but no extra platforms, junctions or sidings. This would however pose additional performance risk if the second train had difficulty reversing at Belmont, trapping the Epsom Downs train on the branch extremity. It would also limit flexibility for longer turnround margins at Belmont. Having a turnback siding on a single line seems to make little sense unless longer turnround layovers were required to fit in with other services elsewhere, or it was only used in emergency to get a train that couldn't proceed in the correct direction in passenger service off the single line. My solution would be as shown here, a stepped platform like LO at Clapham Junction, with the ability to also reverse in the new through platform if the bay was blocked for any reason.
1688733868253.png
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,257
Location
Torbay
That just looks like a glorified siding to me
KInd of, but a non-platform siding requires more movements and two platform occupancies to terminate and unload, ensure empty, move clear, change ends and restart. A terminal bay can accomplish this all in one operation, all clear of the running line. While a separate second platform could plausibly be built/reinstated to the west of the former up line, that would require an expensive access bridge with ramps or lifts, while my stepped platform suggestion could share the existing level access.
 

Basil Jet

On Moderation
Joined
23 Apr 2022
Messages
985
Location
London
I looked at the weekday midday timetable of the branch and got this, repeating hourly. Future shorts are in brackets.

Sutton12:19(12:34)12:49(13:04)
Belmont12:22(12:37)12:52(13:07)
Banstead12:2612:56
Epsom Downs12:29 12:59
Epsom Downs12:3813:08
Banstead12:4113:11
Belmont12:44(12:59)13:14(13:29)
Sutton12:47(13:02)13:17(13:32)


So the trains that leave Sutton southward will return northward in the same order, but the shorts will have waited 22 minutes at Belmont instead of nine minutes at Epsom Downs.

It seems better to me to redouble from just south of Belmont to just north of Banstead, and run all the trains to Epsom Downs without building any new platforms. The southbound trains would have to wait a minute or so to get access to the single track at Banstead platform, but surely this is worth it for a doubling of service.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
18,068
Location
Airedale
It seems better to me to redouble from just south of Belmont to just north of Banstead, and run all the trains to Epsom Downs without building any new platforms. The southbound trains would have to wait a minute or so to get access to the single track at Banstead platform, but surely this is worth it for a doubling of service.
Depends if Banstead and Epsom Downs have the traffic potential to justify doubling the cost of the project, and setting the timetable in stone based on the crossing loop..
 

PGAT

Established Member
Joined
13 Apr 2022
Messages
1,464
Location
Selhurst
Epsom Downs (2019/2020) - 0.112 mil
Banstead (2019/2020) - 0.151 mil
Belmont (2019/2020) - 0.180 mil

Use this information how you wish. Some stations with similar passengers get 1tph, some get 4.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,257
Location
Torbay
I looked at the weekday midday timetable of the branch and got this, repeating hourly. Future shorts are in brackets.

Sutton12:19(12:34)12:49(13:04)
Belmont12:22(12:37)12:52(13:07)
Banstead12:2612:56
Epsom Downs12:29 12:59
Epsom Downs12:3813:08
Banstead12:4113:11
Belmont12:44(12:59)13:14(13:29)
Sutton12:47(13:02)13:17(13:32)


So the trains that leave Sutton southward will return northward in the same order, but the shorts will have waited 22 minutes at Belmont instead of nine minutes at Epsom Downs.

It seems better to me to redouble from just south of Belmont to just north of Banstead, and run all the trains to Epsom Downs without building any new platforms. The southbound trains would have to wait a minute or so to get access to the single track at Banstead platform, but surely this is worth it for a doubling of service.
Thanks for doing the timetable exercise. That shows conclusively that on an even interval, you can't just run another train to Belmont behind the Epsom Downs service and reverse it after a short turnround, hence the need for a reversing siding. Such a facility could plausibly be a first step towards implementing your interesting long loop idea. Banstead could plausibly become a more important railhead if it had some car parking spaces at the station and access improvements to the platform. I always felt Epsom Downs station might more usefully have been relocated at Drift Bridge in Nork, both for easier bus and pedestrian access from a wider area and availability of land for car parking. Amusingly, it might also be renamed as Nork!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top