"Brighton Main Line 2"

[bangor-toad]

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.

Hi there,
Couldn't agree more! The whole point of considerng the Uckfield line is that the BML would be fantastically expensive to widen. This is an area I know well so here's a quick comparison between the routes.

Quadrupling the BML.
(Leaving Brighton heading North)

OK to Preston Park
Then need to widen the embankment through Patcham. Lots of houses either side of that.
Need a new tunnel at Patcham
OK to Pyecombe
Need a new Clayton Tunnel (that's a long one)
Then need to widen the embankment through Hassocks. Lots of houses either side of that.
OK to Burgess Hill station but some major earthworks needed.
North of Burgess Hill need to widen the cutting. Lots of houses either side of that.
Probably OK to nearly Haywards Heath but careful consideration would need to be given to the Wivelsfield junction.
New tunnels needed south of Haywards Heath station
Trackbed is wide enough for 4 tracks for a little while north of Haywards Heath.
Then you've got Balcombe Viaduct to deal with.
North of that through Balcome would be probably OK
Finally you've got to have a new Balcombe tunnel.

Overall:
18(ish) miles of widening
2 major embankments through heavily built up areas to widen
4 new tunnels
1 major viaduct


Re-open Uckfield Route
Resignal Brighton-Lewes
Then Option a)
Build a turnback east of Lewes
Build 1/2 mile new chord from the Lewes-Haywards Heath line to the old Uckfield - Lewes trackbed or use the very first allignment from 1880(ish)

Or Option b)
Build the Lewes bypass tunnel from Kingston (a bit west of Lewes) to Hamsey. As proposed by the BML2 idea.
Build 1/2 mile new chord from the Lewes-Haywards Heath line to the old Uckfield - Lewes trackbed to link it up.

Then back to common requirements:
From Hamsey to Barcombe convert the farm track built on the old track bed.
At Barcombe build a bridge for the "B" road or rebuild the level crossing
From Barcombe to Isfield build on the old trackbed.
Might need to replace the bridge over River Ouse (20 meters so easy & simple)
At Isfield build a bridge for the "B" road or rebuild the level crossing
At Isfield you'll need to rip up the "Lavender Line" and build new mainline track. (Surely a decent offer could be made to relocate them?)
From Isfield to the Uckfield bypass, build on the old trackbed.
Might need to replace two bridges over River Uck (20 meters each so easy & simple)
The A22 Uckfield bypass needs crossing. A level crossing is highly unlikely to be considered so either the road or the railway would need a bridge.
There's a couple of industrial units what have been build close to the old trackbed - these would loose thier carparks.
The level crossing on Uckfield High Street would need to be re-instated or a bridge built.

Noth of Uckfield, the track would need to be doubled. It used to be double track so there's no new land take.
Sleeches viaduct (1/4 the length of Balcombe) would need to be strenghtened just south of Crowborough.


Overall:
A turnback siding at Lewes or 2 miles of new track & a tunnel near Lewes
1/2 mile new track
7 miles of reopening an old trackbed that was well built
Maybe replace 3 short bridges
Two locally tricky bdriges to build in & around Uckfield.
Upgrade 25 miles of single track to double.



In terms of value for money, I can't see any arguement for the Brighton mainline to be quadrupled. As for the Uckfield-Lewes justification, well that drags on and on...

Cheers,
Jason

 

[Greenback]

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...

While I agree there may be better value for money schemes, don;t make the mistake of just assuming that the new line would be useful just for those travelling between Central london and the coast. The plans would benefit people in Sussex, South and South East London as well as providing additional felxibility in terms of another diversionary route.

 

[paul1609]

If you are just looking to provide a diversionary route the Arundel Chord would provide this at very low cost and provides several alternative routes to Victoria/ London Bridge or even Waterloo.
2nd cheapest option would be the compulsory purchase of the Bluebell Railway and the reinstatement and electrification of Haywards Heath-Horsted Keynes-East Grinstead.
3rd would be the Uckfield line.
4th would be quadrupling of the existing main line.
All but the Arundel Chord still have the East Croydon Bottleneck.

 

[Greenback]

No, the second diversionary route is a bonus! The main benefit that I see the Lewes Uckfield reopening providing is a link to the coast from parts of the South East that no longer have one.

 

[yorksrob]

If you are just looking to provide a diversionary route the Arundel Chord would provide this at very low cost and provides several alternative routes to Victoria/ London Bridge or even Waterloo.
2nd cheapest option would be the compulsory purchase of the Bluebell Railway and the reinstatement and electrification of Haywards Heath-Horsted Keynes-East Grinstead.
3rd would be the Uckfield line.
4th would be quadrupling of the existing main line.
All but the Arundel Chord still have the East Croydon Bottleneck.

That's a good point about the East Croydon bottleneck - I think if BML 1 does fill up, I'd have thought the first option would be to make better use of the Dorking route. However, as Greenback says, re-opening the Tunbridge Wells - Lewes corridor is as much (probably more) about opening up new transport opportunities between the settlements in West Kent, The Weald and the South Coast as it is about diversions. Option's 1 and 4 offer very little in the way of this, and whilst option 2 might provide some additional benefit in linking East Grinstead and Brighton, this would be considerably less compared to Lewes - Tun Wells and probably not worth the (albeit smaller than option 3) cost.

 

[LE Greys]

If you are just looking to provide a diversionary route the Arundel Chord would provide this at very low cost and provides several alternative routes to Victoria/ London Bridge or even Waterloo.
2nd cheapest option would be the compulsory purchase of the Bluebell Railway and the reinstatement and electrification of Haywards Heath-Horsted Keynes-East Grinstead.
3rd would be the Uckfield line.
4th would be quadrupling of the existing main line.
All but the Arundel Chord still have the East Croydon Bottleneck.

No, the second diversionary route is a bonus! The main benefit that I see the Lewes Uckfield reopening providing is a link to the coast from parts of the South East that no longer have one.

Apart from the fact that, since the Bluebell paid for all the clearance work in Imberhorne cutting and sorting out the viaduct, Option 2 would make Network Rail look like predators. I would be astonished if they swooped in and took over one of the oldest and most successful heritage lines. I think Option 3 is probably more likely, and not just from the political perspective. It provides better access to East Coastway destinations, with a reversal at Lewes taking in Eastbourne or Newhaven/Seaford. Running via the Spa Valley to Tunbridge Wells has some potential, but it would probably be easier to get the Uckfield-Lewes link in before then. Before that even, electrify Hurst Green-Uckfield, which would cut out a wasteful island of DMU operation and make any future diversions much easier.

 

[Drsatan]

One problem with running via Dorking is that from Dorking there are four trains an hour north (two SWT services to Waterloo, two SN trains to Victoria), and from Leatherhead the Guildford - Epsom - Waterloo services join, making a total of six trains an hour north of Leatherhead. Therefore pathing any Brighton services through Dorking via a new Arundel chord is going to be quite difficult.

Nonetheless, I support the construction of the Arundel curve as a bare minimum. Although there wouldn't be the social benefits of BML2 it would turn the Arun Valley Line into a ready-made diversion route.

 

[iansergeant]

I note in <B>RAIL</B> that Theresa Villiers seems to be taking the BML 2 proposal seriously but has asked for details of how the extra traffic can be catered for between New Cross and London Bridge. Is this a practical suggestion?

 

[tbtc]

I struggle with the BML2 website, it seems unnecessarily complicated to me.

However, I can see a good business case for something being done. The line from East Croydon/ Redhill/ Gatwick/ Three Bridges is a real bottle neck.

The East London Line may add a couple of paths to London Bridge (by replacing the Sydenham stoppers), but not enough to make a significant difference, so what else is there?

Could the Tattenham Corner/ Caterham services be self contained shuttles off peak? Or join/split at Purley? Not ideal, but would free up another path or two... so would integrating Gatwick Express into "normal" services, but that's another argument.

Otherwise something more drastic needs doing, and drastic means expensive. I think the main questions I'd ask (not coming from the area) is that (apart from the main "London to Brighton" service) is there more demand for "East Coastway to London" or "West Coastway to London"?

 

[paul1609]

WestCoastway basically it's a conurbation all the way from Brighton to Littlehampton.
West Sussex also has its independent main line all the way to Streatham Junction or even Waterloo all it would need is a short curve south of Arundel and some investment in the route.

 

[tbtc]

WestCoastway basically it's a conurbation all the way from Brighton to Littlehampton.
West Sussex also has its independent main line all the way to Streatham Junction or even Waterloo all it would need is a short curve south of Arundel and some investment in the route.

Is the plan for Arundel to run Waterloo - Wimbledon - Dorking - Horsham - Arundel - Worthing - Hove - Brighton? Forgive me if I'm not sure; I'd not heard of this (potential) chord until I read this thread

 

[MCR247]

The BML plan is for

London - Uckfield- Lewes - Brighton if that is what you mean

 

[telstarbox]

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

The entrance to the delivery yard is also right in the way of the line.

 

[tbtc]

The BML plan is for

London - Uckfield- Lewes - Brighton if that is what you mean

Yeah, I was just confused about the Arundel references, as that would be the western side and I thought BML2 was east of the current line.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

It also involves rerouting part of the Croydon Tramlink near Elmers End if I remeber rightly. Nice for it to come about, but quite simply the biggest hurdle is getting Uckfield-Lewes reopened!

 

[starlightEXPRESS]

One problem with running via Dorking is that from Dorking there are four trains an hour north (two SWT services to Waterloo, two SN trains to Victoria), and from Leatherhead the Guildford - Epsom - Waterloo services join, making a total of six trains an hour north of Leatherhead. Therefore pathing any Brighton services through Dorking via a new Arundel chord is going to be quite difficult.

Trains from the West Coastway and Arun Valley did run via Dorking and Sutton to Horsham until 1978, when they were diverted via Gatwick Airport. There used to be loops at Cheam to allow the fast services to overtake local stoppers. These loops were removed in the 1980s, although there was an ATOC proposal to reinstate them a few years back, along with doubling the spur linking the Streatham-Mitcham line with the BML fast lines.

(See page 12 of this document: http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/publicationsdocuments/nps199A_tmp.pdf )

IIRC both Connex and Govia proposed running a semi-fast service from Chichester to Victoria via Dorking back in 2000. Unfortunately this was the point at which a strategic decision was taken by government to award only short franchises and so, when Govia took over as South Central, they were unable to make the necessary infrastructure investment , because they would not have seen a return on their money within their (shortened) franchise period. Had either bidder been awarded a 15 year franchise back in 2001 (IIRC that was the original intention) then we might have seen a scheme along the lines of the current Chiltern Evergreen 3 improvements.

I do remember a Saturday morning service to Littlehampton leaving London at around 10:30am and calling at Sutton, Dorking, Horsham then all stations during the 90s and early 00s. There wasn't an equivalent return working, but at least one service using the 'Mid-Sussex route' did cling on until fairly recently (probably for route knowledge). (It was definitely still running under Connex, but I don't remember if South Central also continued it for a short time.)

 

[Bald Rick]

Sorry for being thick, but aren't the main London terminals south of the river and their approaches already full of trains in the peaks today - how does this proposal resolve that? Mrs Villers has asked a fair question.

One of the reasons the BML is so busy is that there are lots of places on it that a lot of people actually want to get to or from eg Haywards Heath, Gatwick and Croydon. So let's build a new line that bypasses them and takes longer to get to London ... well New Cross!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Sorry for being thick, but aren't the main London terminals south of the river and their approaches already full of trains in the peaks today - how does this proposal resolve that? Mrs Villers has asked a fair question.

One of the reasons the BML is so busy is that there are lots of places on it that a lot of people actually want to get to or from eg Haywards Heath, Gatwick and Croydon. So let's build a new line that bypasses them and takes longer to get to London ... well New Cross!

I assume that the service to/from brighton on the current BML would remain the same, the new BMl would be there to provide relief.

 

[tbtc]

Sorry for being thick, but aren't the main London terminals south of the river and their approaches already full of trains in the peaks today - how does this proposal resolve that? Mrs Villers has asked a fair question.

One of the reasons the BML is so busy is that there are lots of places on it that a lot of people actually want to get to or from eg Haywards Heath, Gatwick and Croydon. So let's build a new line that bypasses them and takes longer to get to London ... well New Cross!

Fair point.

I suppose there will be more paths into central London temini as a result of the East London Line taking over the Sydenham stoppers (ex London Bridge), HS2 reduced the South Eastern service through Charing Cross/ London Bridge, the Victoria - Denmark Hill - London Bridge service will be replaced by the ELL extension to Clapham... that's marginally fewer services (not a massive difference, granted).

If BML2 means taking Eastbourne (etc) services off the main line then it'll free up capacity, but there seems to be more need for a new line *west* of the existing Brighton line IMHO

 

[paul1609]

One problem with running via Dorking is that from Dorking there are four trains an hour north (two SWT services to Waterloo, two SN trains to Victoria), and from Leatherhead the Guildford - Epsom - Waterloo services join, making a total of six trains an hour north of Leatherhead. Therefore pathing any Brighton services through Dorking via a new Arundel chord is going to be quite difficult.

Nonetheless, I support the construction of the Arundel curve as a bare minimum. Although there wouldn't be the social benefits of BML2 it would turn the Arun Valley Line into a ready-made diversion route.

I think the last plan was that one of the Brighton-West Coastway-Horsham-London services would call at Dorking and (i think leatherhead) and take the path of one of the SN services which would be diverted to Effingham Junction.
A bi directional through road was to be reinstated at Cheam.

Needless to say Dorking and Leatherhead were quite happy to get a fast service to London plus direct services to the south coast.

 

[iansergeant]

Fair point.

I suppose there will be more paths into central London temini as a result of the East London Line taking over the Sydenham stoppers (ex London Bridge), HS2 reduced the South Eastern service through Charing Cross/ London Bridge, the Victoria - Denmark Hill - London Bridge service will be replaced by the ELL extension to Clapham... that's marginally fewer services (not a massive difference, granted).

If BML2 means taking Eastbourne (etc) services off the main line then it'll free up capacity, but there seems to be more need for a new line *west* of the existing Brighton line IMHO

I've come into town from Chichester going back a few years. Granted it's painfully slow but you aren't struggling to get a seat.

What BML 2 proposes to do is moving some people off the BML and moving the traffic from Tunbridge Wells, Crowborough and Uckfield to Brighton from bus and car to train. This part doesn't take capacity and would be welcomed by anyone who wants to see such a modal shift. The difficulty is at the London end. Taking people on the East London Line to Shoreditch High Street or even Liverpool Street (as I have heard suggested) seems impractical without infrastructure work because of the planned use of the ELL (and of course, where are the paths to Liverpool Street?). However while we are severely restricted by the Thames Tunnel, I wonder whether we could four-track to Canada Water and terminate some trains here. "Why it's miles out of town " I hear you say. But it's one stop from Canary Wharf and two tube trains to lots of places - fine for the likes of me heading for Aldgate East. Remember London Bridge is south of the river and two tube trains to work for a lot of people, and it's a mighty long way from the West End. Practical?

 

[yorksrob]

I think that whereas 15 years ago London Bridge was a bit too far out of the way for most people, the arrival of the Jubilee line has given it a much better connection, to the West End as well as the Canary Wharfe area. Added together with underground links to Kings Cross and Euston, as well as Thameslink, it now seems to me to be one of the better connected terminals for onwards transport.

 

[tripleseis]

I'd say the London Bridge area is a destination in itself now, with the Shad Thames development nearby and only a short walk from Borough Market, Tate Modern and South Bank areas. Also the Shard tower (tallest building in the EU!) going up next to the station is going to be a major tourist attraction. The place is buzzing with activity at the weekends and will only continue to get busier.

 

[swt_passenger]

Fair point.

I suppose there will be more paths into central London temini as a result of the East London Line taking over the Sydenham stoppers (ex London Bridge), HS2 reduced the South Eastern service through Charing Cross/ London Bridge, the Victoria - Denmark Hill - London Bridge service will be replaced by the ELL extension to Clapham... that's marginally fewer services (not a massive difference, granted).

The problem at London Bridge is that the removal of local services such as those you mention from the ELL and SLL don't help, the SLL removal is a requirement for Thameslink, because the ratio of bay to through platforms changes to nine through platforms and only six bays.

Also, services from the proposed BML2 via New Cross end up on the wrong side of the layout approaching London Bridge, they'd be on the Southeastern side, aiming for Cannon St - as far as I can see they wouldn't be able to reach the 'Southern bays' or the Charing Cross lines easily.

In some early posts in this thread, we were discussing BML2 into Liverpool St, and the plans didn't seem fully aware of what had been done to the ELL by TfL, so perhaps he isn't fully up to speed on the finer details of Thameslink either...

So Theresa Villiers' question may be rhetorical - i.e. she's been to NR and they've already told her why it probably can't happen, and she's now checking in case BML2 have a hitherto unknown solution?

 

[yorksrob]

If I may quote myself, I did suggest this on the other thread

Looking at google Earth it occured to me that it might be possible to build a spur at Catford between the Hayes Branch and the Catford loop. This would remove the deviation through Lewisham and some of the pathing conflicts there. I know it's more building work but if you're going to build the rest

My logic being that there might be some spare paths on the route into Victoria left over from the removal of Eurostar. These may well have been filled, however I was under the impression that the Eastern side of Victoria was always a bit quieter than the other Southern terminals anyway.

 

[tbtc]

The problem at London Bridge is that the removal of local services such as those you mention from the ELL and SLL don't help, the SLL removal is a requirement for Thameslink, because the ratio of bay to through platforms changes to nine through platforms and only six bays

I wasn't aware of these. So some of the terminal platforms are being replaced with through ones? I *was* wondering how Thameslink planned to squeeze any more services through London Bridge!

Also, services from the proposed BML2 via New Cross end up on the wrong side of the layout approaching London Bridge, they'd be on the Southeastern side, aiming for Cannon St - as far as I can see they wouldn't be able to reach the 'Southern bays' or the Charing Cross lines easily

Good point. I've tried to "simplify" some of the pathing problems using Quail etc, and it's a real muddle of conflicting movements. A scheduler's nightmare!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wonder whether we could four-track to Canada Water and terminate some trains here

Interesting idea. I wonder whether the same could be said of an HS2 terminus at Old Oak Common.

Really , with the exception of Charing Cross (for Trafalgar Sq etc), Canon Steeet/ Liverpool Steet/Moorgate (for "The City") and Victoria (for Westminster), most London termini still require a tube/bus ride to get into the *real* centre (a long way from Oxford Street etc).

I'd never thought of Canada Water as a terminus, but it's well connected with the East London Line and Jubileee. Fresh thinking, I like it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd say the London Bridge area is a destination in itself now, with the Shad Thames development nearby and only a short walk from Borough Market, Tate Modern and South Bank areas. Also the Shard tower (tallest building in the EU!) going up next to the station is going to be a major tourist attraction. The place is buzzing with activity at the weekends and will only continue to get busier.

Railway stations are good at attracting businesses and "life" like that, it's interesting to see how people gravitate to a station.

Look at how the revamped St Pancras area (with more trains from Kent etc) has helped that part of town improve too.

I remember taking my wife to London Bridge a couple of years ago (for the Market etc), and realising it's no longer a "terminus for those in South London" but a destination in it's own right for things.

 

[jopsuk]

I wonder whether we could four-track to Canada Water and terminate some trains here. "Why it's miles out of town " I hear you say. But it's one stop from Canary Wharf and two tube trains to lots of places - fine for the likes of me heading for Aldgate East. Remember London Bridge is south of the river and two tube trains to work for a lot of people, and it's a mighty long way from the West End. Practical?

Looking at the aerial photo maps, the line is heavily constricted to both sides, either in a cutting or in cut-and-cover tunnel. Impractical, I'm afraid to say, and that would be before figuring out how you would reconfigure Canada Water station itself

 

[swt_passenger]

I wasn't aware of these. So some of the terminal platforms are being replaced with through ones? I *was* wondering how Thameslink planned to squeeze any more services through London Bridge!

Yes - it's why the intended London Bridge alterations are such a massively expensive future part of the Thameslink programme.

The through tracks will be allocated (from north to south):
3 x Cannon St (centre bidirectional for the peak flow),
2 x Thameslink,
4 x Charing Cross.

Various flyovers east of London Bridge sort out the various lines on the approach, so that the Thameslink pair (the Brighton line fasts) get over the Southeastern Charing Cross lines with no crossing movements required. The down slow from London Bridge bay platforms also passes under the fasts to reach New Cross Gate without conflict.

One of the last posts on the London Connections blog has some useful schematic line diagrams here:

http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2008/07/thameslink-programme-illustrated.html

 

[tbtc]

Yes - it's why the intended London Bridge alterations are such a massively expensive future part of the Thameslink programme.

The through tracks will be allocated (from north to south):
3 x Cannon St (centre bidirectional for the peak flow),
2 x Thameslink,
4 x Charing Cross.

Various flyovers east of London Bridge sort out the various lines on the approach, so that the Thameslink pair (the Brighton line fasts) get over the Southeastern Charing Cross lines with no crossing movements required. The down slow from London Bridge bay platforms also passes under the fasts to reach New Cross Gate without conflict.

One of the last posts on the London Connections blog has some useful schematic line diagrams here:

http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2008/07/thameslink-programme-illustrated.html

Thanks for that; much appreciated. Those are very useful diagrams