Brighton's BML2

[GWR Shunterman]

Reading an article in Rail Magazine about BML2. How they want to rejoin the Uckfield line etc. My question is, what happens to the Lavender Line and Spa Valley Steam Railways, which at present occupy sections of the old trackbed?

There is talk about doubling the line in the Eridge - Uckfield area? What happens to the double line section, one NR and the other Spa Valley Railway north of Eridge Station?

Any thoughts

 

[jopsuk]

putting aside that BML2 is highly unlikely to happen, if it was decided that a route that's currently a preserved railway is to be properly reopened I'd hope there'd be some consideration given to re-homing the organisation- one would hope it wouldn't come to compulsory purchase orders.

 

[bangor-toad]

Hi there,
I've got to agree that the whole BML2 is unlikely to go ahead but there is still scope (maybe) for the Uckfield <--> Lewes stretch on day...

If the line is redoubled then it's relatively simple. From the end of the existing double track north of Hever to Birchden Junction (where the Spa Valley railway joins) "all" it would require would be untangling the track as it was singled by using the best bits of the up and down lines and stitching them together. There is space to relay double track once all the various S&T bit are moved too. A big job perhaps but not too complex...

From Bircheden Junction to Eridge there would need to be a decision about the Spa Valley railway. This could either be a single section keeping the Spa Valley track or the Spa valley track could be taken over. I'd imagine the first option would take place.

Eridge station was/is a 4 track (2 island) station. The Spa Valley use the eastern platform and NR use the west. There is room for the Spa Valley railway to keep thier headshunt and have 2 NR tracks directly south of Eridge station but it'd require a short widening of the cutting. Luckily there seems to be room under the new A26 bridge.

Reinstatement to Uckfield would be kind of simple but again when it was singled they used a mixture of the up and down tracks. It'd all need to be sorted out so it's not as simple as just laying a second parallel track.

There are two problems though; 1) Uckfield station is only a single platform and track. The new platform is build on the bed of the old down track. It's require some engineering to move the platform outwards and build a second one as there is the mill pond on one side and the river on the other.
2) Sleeches Viaduct (between Crowborough & Buxted) is reported to be in rather poor structural condition. For years before singling there was a slow speed restriction over it. Once the track was singled, it was carefully relaid down the exact centre of the viaduct to minimise the load it would need to support. I think this was the only section of the whole singleing project to recieve brand new track on a new allignment.

Cheers,
Jason

 

[Hydro]

This always confuses me when I see it, I know everyone means Brighton Main Line, but in real railway terms BML2 runs from Northam Short Mile to Dorchester West.

 

[OxtedL]

Fun eh?!

Seriously, BML2 will not happen. Dismissed out of hand in London and South East RUS. Lewes to Uckfield will also probably not happen, there is already too much strain in the system being the excuse. Along with a poor business case under current methods.

The whole "do we kick the preserved railway out" debate is a difficult one, but strangely we never seem to have to answer it in reality...

A while back the Lavender Line was blocked from extending in any way by the local council as it could "prejudice any future use of the trackbed for rail services" or words to that effect. I believe it is essentially a splinter organisation, sharing a lot of people with Bluebell (if I recall correctly anyway) and would not be a tragic loss - Bluebell could take all the rolling stock. The beautifully restored station would of course be nice.

Spa Valley is more interesting. I would like to hope that at the very least there is some redoubling on the Uckfield at some point, as currently knock-on delays are awful and at the first sign of trouble things are terminated at Crowborough. Although of course for the sake of delay minutes the practice will continue, I would like to think that for the benefit of operational robustness we could get something. There is a good couple of minutes of recovery time already at Oxted and East Croydon...

Still, before we get to this, there are at least two other sections we could see doubled.

 

[swt_passenger]

I see someone's written in to Rail suggesting that trains run from BML2 via the 'disused route from Shoreditch into Liverpool St'.

This was a suggestion made in the early version of the BML2 - and was met with derision the first time as it was clear that the author of the report had completely ignored the changes made in the area to get the ELL over the GEML...

 

[OxtedL]

Part of the proposal is for trains to climb on top of trams between Sanderstead and Elmers End! I mean for god's sake, some realism...

 

[tempests1]

If Southern Trains were given a longer francise say twenty years like Chiltern Trains they maybe would commit to rebuilding the section of line from Lewes to Uckfield & double tracking the single track sections between Hever Jcn & Uckfield, a bit like Project Evergreen 3. There is no doubt that patronage would increase & it would be a good alternative route to the very congested Brighton Main Line.

 

[OxtedL]

I like your optimism, but I don't think there would be quite enough patronage. It is quite a bit longer, and would therefore only really be good for locals (like me) who only want to go to London anyway generally speaking except at weekends, or students, who wouldn't be paying full fares.

The trains would have to do some exciting reversing at Lewes as well, becoming an operational nightmare.

I just can't see it happening, quite possibly in my lifetime, but certainly in the next 20 years. There is absolutely no political incentive for what would have to be a politically motivated reopening.

 

[yorksrob]

I must admit, whilst, i'd love to see Lewes- Uckfield re-opened at any rate, I think the route would only reach it's real potential if it went right through to Tonbridge. This would capture the main local flows which would sustain it - afterall, these routes were focused on Tunbridge Wells for most of their existance and this is still the main population centre in the area. (obviously the preserved railways should be given support to relocate - we don't exactly have a shortage of disused trackbeds in this country).

 

[Skimble19]

I see someone's written in to Rail suggesting that trains run from BML2 via the 'disused route from Shoreditch into Liverpool St'.

This was a suggestion made in the early version of the BML2 - and was met with derision the first time as it was clear that the author of the report had completely ignored the changes made in the area to get the ELL over the GEML...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't said cutting completely filled in when the old ELL station was closed? Only remains of it now is the above surface building..

 

[jopsuk]

Also, there's a pretty intense service on the ELL now.

 

[swt_passenger]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't said cutting completely filled in when the old ELL station was closed? Only remains of it now is the above surface building..

Yes - I believe there's a steady gradient starting soon after it breaks the surface just north of Whitechapel all the way to the infamous GE19 bridge (the one that had the accident during build), to get to the level of the new Shorditch High St.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also, there's a pretty intense service on the ELL now.

With the extra 4 tph for the SLL to come as well...

 

[Skimble19]

Indeed, 12tph on that section already, going up to 16tph once the SLL opens.. wish my line had that frequency!

 

[swt_passenger]

Early plans for the ELL suggested a maximum 18 tph peak service, the 16 tph we now see planned but with a couple of extras running from Crystal Palace, but later RUS type documents and TfL's track access options dropped this some time ago.

I'd be surprised if the signalling is designed for much more than 18 tph, possibly 20 tph max, and that's with short trains. I reckon the likelihood of BML2 using the route dissappeared some years ago...

 

[OxtedL]

Incidentally, it would nice to have some fasts stop at New Cross Gate...

 

[PR102]

What about terminating Lewes to Uckfield along a new alignment at Ringmer? It's grown to become on of the largest villages in the UK? There's no dual carriageway to seak of either, and Lewes already has a link to London.

What is south of uckfield's old station? I've been through there a couple of times in recent years but havent been able to see where the track went out of the southern end of Uckfield.

Is a bridge/embankement feasable though Uckfield so there is no return of the rail crossing on the centre of town?

 

[PR102]

How about reinstating a loop at Eridge, then single track to Uckfield then on to Isfield and terminate at Ringmer?

 

[bangor-toad]

What is south of uckfield's old station? I've been through there a couple of times in recent years but havent been able to see where the track went out of the southern end of Uckfield.

The old station is to the west of the High Street. You can still see the track in the old station through the fence. Beyond the station site the trackbed goes into a small cutting - still clear apart from vegetation.

There is then the section that goes along the edge of the industrial estate next to the sewage farm. The trackbed has been kept clear - there are no buildings on the allignment but it has been used for car parks.

The route crosses the A22 bypass about 100 yards south of the road bridge over the River Uck (with it's carefully cut signs to discourage any witty additions to the name )

On the other side of the A22 the trackbed is pretty much intact all the way to Isfield and the Lavender Line. Out of interest you can also see the embankment of the Haywards Heath to Eastbourne via Uckfield line that was started and then abandoned by the LBSCR many, many years ago.

Is a bridge/embankement feasable though Uckfield so there is no return of the rail crossing on the centre of town?

Hmmm, that's always been a bit of a challenge to squeeze in. The hills, the river and the ancient Bridge Cottage make it a difficult thing to do. From an engineering perspective it'd be simple. Would the town planners allow a bit flyover to be built in the middle of the town? Probably not...

As for an extension to Ringmer I think that's not going to happen. It'd require significant works and a new track allignment. It'd cost FAR more than reusing the existing allignments. The business case for Uckfield to Lewes is debatable but may well show it to be viable. I can't see a positive case for a new build out to Ringmer though.

Cheers,
Jason

 

[OxtedL]

I think BML2 proposed sticking the railway under the high street with 2 x new 12-car platforms. Expensive, but perhaps the only solution there.

 

[PR102]

Eastbourne via Uckfilef? Thats a very interesting prospect, although probably no worthy business case, Eastbourne is more a retirement seaside town than anything else at the moment.

 

[cle]

Incidentally, it would nice to have some fasts stop at New Cross Gate...

I think some do now actually, maybe Horsham/Three Bridges services which also stop at Norwood (which these days has loads of fasts). This is in advance of the Thameslink project which will probably see more stoppers at NCG.

 

[OxtedL]

Still not ideal for me but I guess a 171 stopping and starting again would really eat at capacity...

 

[Anonywave]

Incidentally, it would nice to have some fasts stop at New Cross Gate...

I agree, I always thought that the lack of interchange with the East London Line was very strange

Eastbourne is more a retirement seaside town than anything else at the moment.

Huh? Eastbourne is certainly not a "retirement seaside town" at all. In fact the tourism there is very high as well as the need for better transport links so it may not be as important as brighton but is still a very significant seaside resort.

I know Hastings/Bexhill however are rather deprived places compared to Brighton/Eastbourne however better road/rail links to them would help.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, they really ought to start with putting in the single line from Uckfield to Lewes for the time being.

 

[OxtedL]

See, I'm not sure that's a good idea without a plan... And the only place you would really want to send Uckfields is Brighton. Which would be a massive faff with reversing.

I'm sure they could do it, but I'm not sure it would be that beneficial... Would be nice though, don't get me wrong.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think it would be that much of a problem tbh. East Coastway has around 3 - 4 trains each way East of Lewes, so although not ideal, it could be worked around. For the benefits within the Wealden area I think it would be well worth it.

But it's whether our establishment actually believes in a local railway network or not.

 

[thelem]

I realise BML2 is more about restoring the Lewes-Uckfield link than actually getting people from Brighton to London, but if that was the aim then wouldn't the Bluebell route between East Grinstead and Haywards Heath be easier? I don't think there would be any major engineering (like the new tunnels and viaducts needed for a 4 track Brighton ML, or road problems from Uckfield) and the Brighton ML could be widened Haywards Heath - Wivylsfield.

Bluebell would still have Horstead Keynes - Sheffield Park, and could possibly be extended southwards, have some open access agreement or be partially relocated between Lewes and Uckfield. (even a 'small' amount from the budget of a project like this could to a lot for a preserved railway).

 

[OxtedL]

There is no way on this earth you will get East Grinstead to Horsted Keynes off the Bluebell! Many have worked for far too long to see the Bluebell get this far.

Extending from Horsted Keynes to Ardingly would be troublesome at the Ardingly end because of an aggregates terminal. And would have limited benefit anyway, as one of the biggest bottlenecks is the two track section from south of there to Brighton, which as you say would have to removed. But then, of course, there is no immediate need to reopen anything...

On the basis of "local railway", I can't really see Lewes-Uckfield being re-opened. Car ownership is really high in these parts, and the local people who would be using it would be students and pensioners, giving marginal benefits at best. Turning around at Lewes would be a major time penalty.

 

[yorksrob]

On the basis of "local railway", I can't really see Lewes-Uckfield being re-opened. Car ownership is really high in these parts, and the local people who would be using it would be students and pensioners, giving marginal benefits at best. Turning around at Lewes would be a major time penalty.

Unfortunately this sort of thinking is precisely the problem with this country at the moment. The idea that just because an area is relatively wealthy, everyone will have access to a car all of the time is to my mind akin to the idea that because an area is rich, everyone will work in London so there'll be no need for anyone to commute elsewhere.

There will be large numbers of people in these areas who don't necessarily fit the City broker, two car profile for whom the link would likely be very useful. This might not benefit the company running it that much in terms of profitability, but the benefits to the local comunity would still be great.