East Grinstead - wrong branch closed?

[Sad Sprinter]

I travelled down to East Grinstead from London recently and found it took quite a long time with all the different stops on the branch. I couldn’t help wondering whether closing the current line from Hurst Green to EG and keeping the branch from Haywards Heath open - which presumably would have had shorter journey times to and from London, would have been a better idea?

 

[JonathanH]

I couldn’t help wondering whether closing the current line from Hurst Green to EG and keeping the branch from Haywards Heath open

I assume you mean Three Bridges, rather than Haywards Heath.

The route through Lingfield and Oxted has always been the primary London route. The Three Bridges to Tunbridge Wells line was a secondary connection.

 

[Somewhere]

What about Oxted, which is a large town on the route? How would that be served? Plus all the other towns and villages?
I would imagine a train from East Grinstead via Three Bridges would take longer to get to London as well

 

[JonathanH]

What about Oxted, which is a large town on the route? How would that be served? Plus all the other towns and villages?

I think the original poster had in mind that there would still have been a train service to Uckfield serving Oxted, but the branch from Hurst Green to East Grinstead would be closed.

That just leaves Lingfield and Dormans. It might be noted that there is a racecourse in Lingfield.

I would imagine a train from East Grinstead via Three Bridges would take longer to get to London as well

Depends where it would stop. If you (unfairly) compare a fast train between East Croydon and Three Bridges, and a stopping train between East Croydon and East Grinstead, the former takes 20 minutes and the latter 40 minutes.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I couldn’t help wondering whether closing the current line from Hurst Green to EG and keeping the branch from Haywards Heath open - which presumably would have had shorter journey times to and from London, would have been a better idea?

I assume you mean Three Bridges, rather than Haywards Heath.

Suppose that back in the day, it would have been possible to travel from East Grinstead to Haywards Heath, via Horsted Keynes and Ardingly. However, if that had been East Grinstead's sole remaining rail connection to the rest of the network, it would hardly have resulted in shorter journey times to and from London compared with what's available now.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that in general the routes in East Sussex were rationalised too much, therefore I would have retained both the route North via Oxted and the Three Bridges - Tunbridge Wells Route (which also took in the reasonably sized settlement of Forest Row. All services could then have remained concentrated on the high level station.

I imagine that one could have developed a cross country flow between Reading and Tunbridge Wells via Gatwick Airport using the East West route through East Grinstead.

 

[Thebaz]

There used to be faster trains during the peaks after electrification but those dried up some time ago. Overall service level increased, well up until the ashes of COVID anyway. The whole route is now treated more like an outer suburban commuter zone, which it pretty much is.

 

[Taunton]

The bulk of the passenger trade on the current East Grinstead line is indeed north of Hurst Green, so a discussion point whether the town should be served through Three Bridges or Hurst Green. The former would then need additional short services to Oxted etc on the existing route, no point in the whole lot going through to Uckfield.

Nowadays a principal focus from East Grinstead town appears to be to Gatwick Airport, for employment, etc, which the Three Bridges route would serve. It wasn't so when the lines were rationalised but is so now. Central London is of course still a major destination. In contrast I get the feeling that (East) Croydon is not as important for employment, shopping, etc as it once was.

 

[steamybrian]

I think that in general the routes in East Sussex were rationalised too much, therefore I would have retained both the route North via Oxted and the Three Bridges - Tunbridge Wells Route (which also took in the reasonably sized settlement of Forest Row. All services could then have remained concentrated on the high level station.

I imagine that one could have developed a cross country flow between Reading and Tunbridge Wells via Gatwick Airport using the East West route through East Grinstead.

I agree that closing Three Bridges to East Grinstead and Forest Row was a mistake. Prior to closure in 1967 both Grange Road and Forest Row had annual receipts of £5,000 which was the benchmark used by Beeching in assessing the profitability of a station.
Rowfant served a sparsely populated area so attracted little custom. An obvious candidate for closure.
Crawley Down- the settlement around the site of Grange Road station has expanded considerably with housing now occupying part of the route of the railway. The site of the station is now under a row of shops.
Forest Row a typical large village has also grown.
The route from Forest Row- Groombridge was always poorly patronised with Hartfield being just on the edge of village. Withyham served the hamlets of Withyham and Balls Green.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree that closing Three Bridges to East Grinstead and Forest Row was a mistake. Prior to closure in 1967 both Grange Road and Forest Row had annual receipts of £5,000 which was the benchmark used by Beeching in assessing the profitability of a station.
Rowfant served a sparsely populated area so attracted little custom. An obvious candidate for closure.
Crawley Down- the settlement around the site of Grange Road station has expanded considerably with housing now occupying part of the route of the railway. The site of the station is now under a row of shops.
Forest Row a typical large village has also grown.
The route from Forest Row- Groombridge was always poorly patronised with Hartfield being just on the edge of village. Withyham served the hamlets of Withyham and Balls Green.

Looking at the map, the section between Forest Row and Groombridge is sparsely populated, however the link to Tunbridge Wells might have proved useful.

 

[JonathanH]

Looking at the map, the section between Forest Row and Groombridge is sparsely populated, however the link to Tunbridge Wells might have proved useful.

The bus route between Crawley and Tunbridge Wells is the only viable East-West route in the area and a key connection for anyone in the A23 corridor looking to travel east by bus. Redhill to Tonbridge is a barely viable railway line.

 

[yorksrob]

The bus route between Crawley and Tunbridge Wells is the only viable East-West route in the area and a key connection for anyone in the A23 corridor looking to travel east by bus. Redhill to Tonbridge is a barely viable railway line.

Redhill - Tonbridge travels through a less populated area and has smaller settlements at each end.

If, as other posts have suggested, the route was borderline in Beeching's day, it would likely be doing much better now.

The whole Sussex network was slashed back too far, including Tonbridge - Brighton and Shoreham - Horsham as well.

 

[zwk500]

I think that in general the routes in East Sussex were rationalised too much, therefore I would have retained both the route North via Oxted and the Three Bridges - Tunbridge Wells Route (which also took in the reasonably sized settlement of Forest Row. All services could then have remained concentrated on the high level station.

The conflict with the fast lines at Three Bridges would have been a big impediment to Brighton and Coastway trains, and in the 60s the villages between EG and Three Bridges were hamlets at most. I personally would have closed the low level station at East Grinstead, retaining the line to the East with the sharp curve so that trains would have run Croydon-Oxted-East Grinstead-Forest Row. Forest Row-Ashurst Jn retention would have been unlikely although more palatable if Forest Row remained open.
Tunbridge Wells had a faster more obvious line to more preferable London terminals via Tonbridge anyway, I would have retained the Brighton-Tunbridge Wells direction link only, abandoning the north side of the triangle at Groombridge jn.
The route that would be doing the best today IMHO, however, is the Cuckoo Line. Heathfield and Hailsham are growing towns and providing alternative links for Eastbourne would perhaps free up space for Seaford trains to run back through to London.

However it is important to remember just how recent much of the development in Sussex has been. This area is a classic case where closures were justified in the 50s and 60s, but the right-of-way should have been protected as the future need was identifiable even back then, even if it might take 30 years to be viable again.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

Say the proposal was the one chosen historically, which BML service would be the one to suffer to allow these trains to run?

 

[yorksrob]

The conflict with the fast lines at Three Bridges would have been a big impediment to Brighton and Coastway trains, and in the 60s the villages between EG and Three Bridges were hamlets at most. I personally would have closed the low level station at East Grinstead, retaining the line to the East with the sharp curve so that trains would have run Croydon-Oxted-East Grinstead-Forest Row. Forest Row-Ashurst Jn retention would have been unlikely although more palatable if Forest Row remained open.
Tunbridge Wells had a faster more obvious line to more preferable London terminals via Tonbridge anyway, I would have retained the Brighton-Tunbridge Wells direction link only, abandoning the north side of the triangle at Groombridge jn.
The route that would be doing the best today IMHO, however, is the Cuckoo Line. Heathfield and Hailsham are growing towns and providing alternative links for Eastbourne would perhaps free up space for Seaford trains to run back through to London.

However it is important to remember just how recent much of the development in Sussex has been. This area is a classic case where closures were justified in the 50s and 60s, but the right-of-way should have been protected as the future need was identifiable even back then, even if it might take 30 years to be viable again.

It's interesting to speculate. Conflicts at Three Bridges would be a conundrum to sort out now, but perhaps less so in the 1960's-90's when the routes usefulness as a transport link would have been building up.

@steamybrian mentions that revenue for the section between Three Bridges and Forest Row was on the verge of being at the point where Dr Beeching considered a route should be retained. This suggests that the benefit of the doubt should have been given for this East-West route

I agree your point about the Cuckoo line. It has some hefty population centres nowadays.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Wouldn't East Grinstead -> Three Bridges, if the line were still in place today, probably have operated as a (connecting) shuttle service into a bay platform, (similar to the arrangements for services from Harwich Town to/from Manningtree), which likely would mean not many conflicts at Three Bridges?

 

[Thebaz]

Given that he lived in East Grinstead maybe Dr. Beeching considered that might not have been practising what he preached if he'd kept all of his local routes open!

 

[WesternLancer]

The conflict with the fast lines at Three Bridges would have been a big impediment to Brighton and Coastway trains, and in the 60s the villages between EG and Three Bridges were hamlets at most. I personally would have closed the low level station at East Grinstead, retaining the line to the East with the sharp curve so that trains would have run Croydon-Oxted-East Grinstead-Forest Row. Forest Row-Ashurst Jn retention would have been unlikely although more palatable if Forest Row remained open.
Tunbridge Wells had a faster more obvious line to more preferable London terminals via Tonbridge anyway, I would have retained the Brighton-Tunbridge Wells direction link only, abandoning the north side of the triangle at Groombridge jn.
The route that would be doing the best today IMHO, however, is the Cuckoo Line. Heathfield and Hailsham are growing towns and providing alternative links for Eastbourne would perhaps free up space for Seaford trains to run back through to London.

However it is important to remember just how recent much of the development in Sussex has been. This area is a classic case where closures were justified in the 50s and 60s, but the right-of-way should have been protected as the future need was identifiable even back then, even if it might take 30 years to be viable again.

V good points.

My family went to live in the area served by some of these closed Sussex routes in the late 1960s and described many of the local towns then as being fairly modest market towns that the railway had served well, but not large traffic generators with stuff (inc agricultural freight) lost to road and local trips to buses and car ownership, alongside lines being ones unmodernised by the SR's electrification programme.

But since then - at least from the 1970s, population growth and economic change means people living there have very different travel patterns. Commuting a much bigger activity for people now than would have been the case in the early 1960s - as London commuters moved further out but also commuting to local bigger towns, and expansion of big destinations both for travel and employment like Gatwick Airport, transformed the picture - despite Green Belt policies and planning restrictions in some parts of the areas mentioned in the thread.

All part of the immense economic change undergone in parts of the south east in the last 50 years, which was well underway by the 80s if not before - onlyc20 years after many of the closures concerned. Some of that is crystal ball territory, but I suspect some of the towns had planning policies in place quite early on that saw their expansion (Hailsham comes to mind, but I'm sure there would be others) .

 

[yorksrob]

Many of those lines were actually modernised through diesel-electrification, so it is all the more a shame that too many were closed.

 

[steamybrian]

Wouldn't East Grinstead -> Three Bridges, if the line were still in place today, probably have operated as a (connecting) shuttle service into a bay platform, (similar to the arrangements for services from Harwich Town to/from Manningtree), which likely would mean not many conflicts at Three Bridges?

Up to closure in 1967 the Three Bridges- East Grinstead/ Tunbridge Wells West service operated as a shuttle from the down bay platform at Three Bridges.

 

[yorksrob]

If the line were still there, I don't think one could assume that it would have continued as a shuttle service. The expansion of Gatwick Airport has led to a considerable re-focus of what used to be the Tonbridge-Reading service.

 

[RichJF]

In my SR150 book it's mentioned a couple of times that the Southern proposed electrification in 1939 from South Croydon - Haywards Heath via Horsted Keynes with additional plans to T Wells West. Ultimately scuppered by WW2.

Had those plans come to fruition I reckon we'd still have the line from East Grinstead round to Tunbridge Wells. The faster services would inevitably have spurred commuter and urban development along the line & possibly prevented closure in the 1960s.

It's a fascinating "what if" alternative.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

If the line were still there, I don't think one could assume that it would have continued as a shuttle service.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Operating a four car unit from East Grinstead -> Three Bridges essentially as a connecting shuttle service would avoid a lot of potential conflicting moves onto the Brighton Main Line. Of course, this isn't now ever going to happen.

 

[Jan Mayen]

Perhaps one of the trains from East Grinstead to Victoria could be semi fast? Calling Oxted, East Croydon, Clapham Junction?

 

[WesternLancer]

In my SR150 book it's mentioned a couple of times that the Southern proposed electrification in 1939 from South Croydon - Haywards Heath via Horsted Keynes with additional plans to T Wells West. Ultimately scuppered by WW2.

Had those plans come to fruition I reckon we'd still have the line from East Grinstead round to Tunbridge Wells. The faster services would inevitably have spurred commuter and urban development along the line & possibly prevented closure in the 1960s.

It's a fascinating "what if" alternative.

That would have been very logical - esp in the context of the laxer planning regime for housing in that era (pre c1947 planning act etc) that would have resulted in greater housing development in the area served and commensurate commuter living. In many ways a shame those electrification plans were not brought forward in the 1950s but no doubt the Kent scheme would have been a more urgent priority.

 

[zwk500]

That would have been very logical - esp in the context of the laxer planning regime for housing in that era (pre c1947 planning act etc) that would have resulted in greater housing development in the area served and commensurate commuter living. In many ways a shame those electrification plans were not brought forward in the 1950s but no doubt the Kent scheme would have been a more urgent priority.

Remember East Grinstead - Lewes was first closed in 1955, so any electrification of that line in the 50s wasn't going to happen.
The Ardingly branch was electrified for operational convenience as much as anything, although it is a little surprising more housing didn't spring up around Ardingly station in the 30s.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, it has to be said that East Grinstead - Lewes didn't pass through any great population centres. Passengers wishing to go from East Grinstead southwards could have fairly easily gone via Three Bridges.

 

[WesternLancer]

Remember East Grinstead - Lewes was first closed in 1955, so any electrification of that line in the 50s wasn't going to happen.
The Ardingly branch was electrified for operational convenience as much as anything, although it is a little surprising more housing didn't spring up around Ardingly station in the 30s.

Yes, good points - I was thinking more about the routes listed in post 22 - north from Horsted Keynes towards London and the suggestion of across to Tunbridge Wells - but of course this was all in very different times as you say.

Interested in your point about Ardingly branch being for operation convenience - what aspect was that? I'm aware that this permitted a regular service, IIRC, from Horsted Keynes to Seaford, which was presumably largely for operation reasons, rathe than specific passenger demand.

 

[zwk500]

Yes, good points - I was thinking more about the routes listed in post 22 - north from Horsted Keynes towards London and the suggestion of across to Tunbridge Wells - but of course this was all in very different times as you say.

Yes, I personally couldn't see TW being rhat successful for a route via Croydon until much later. Electrification of H.Heath-H.Keynes-E.G.-Croydon would have been interesting as it allows trains to bypass Balcombe bottleneck but at the expense of a much slower route and constraints at South Croydon.

Interested in your point about Ardingly branch being for operation convenience - what aspect was that? I'm aware that this permitted a regular service, IIRC, from Horsted Keynes to Seaford, which was presumably largely for operation reasons, rathe than specific passenger demand.

Electrification of Ardingly permitted the Seaford service to run through Haywards Heath instead of terminating there and occupying a platform. I'm not 100% on the history but I think the current layout of directional islands dates from the electrification, so this would also have simplified interchanges for passengers and avoided the need to use the subway in one direction. Horsted Keynes had platforms to spare and offered some potential connections, so was worth the extra con rail from Ardingly.

 

[WesternLancer]

Yes, I personally couldn't see TW being rhat successful for a route via Croydon until much later. Electrification of H.Heath-H.Keynes-E.G.-Croydon would have been interesting as it allows trains to bypass Balcombe bottleneck but at the expense of a much slower route and constraints at South Croydon.

Electrification of Ardingly permitted the Seaford service to run through Haywards Heath instead of terminating there and occupying a platform. I'm not 100% on the history but I think the current layout of directional islands dates from the electrification, so this would also have simplified interchanges for passengers and avoided the need to use the subway in one direction. Horsted Keynes had platforms to spare and offered some potential connections, so was worth the extra con rail from Ardingly.

Thanks for those points - yes I can see the logic of that esp ref Horsted Keynes, plenty of space there after all.

I've always been fascinated to see pics of EMUs at Horsted Keynes in the period after Bluebell service concerned when there was some overlap before closure to passengers of the route from Haywards Heath - I suspect a lot of early visitors to the Bluebell actually used the service to get there

Nice colour example of such a pic here

R0942. Horsted Keynes. 18th May, 1963.

1963/05/18.R942. A general view of the station at Horsted Keynes on the 18th May, 1963. The Bluebell Railway occupies the platforms to the right, while the 'other' B.R. still used the platforms to the left where a Southern Region EMU is working the branch line to Haywards Heath. Copyright...

www.flickr.com