Network Rail to examine Uckfield–Lewes proposals

[paul1609]

I will only say one thing, Arundel curve will have a much better business case than any diversion via Oxted as you can reverse the flow of the West Coast mainline service via Horsham with no time penalty and you have the added advantage of a parelel route which avoids the East Croydon Bottleneck or even serves Waterloo via Epsom.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I'm interested in the engineering challenges for reinstatement of the line through Uckfield. Does the Bellbrook Industrial Estate encroach onto the former trackbed? Does the A22 bypass cross the line on the level at present?

Presumably there would be considerable opposition in Uckfield to reopening the High Street level crossing. Is there any possibility of raising the trackbed up to take the line over both the B2102 and the A22? Would an Uckfield Parkway to the west of the bypass be a potential starting point for a reinstatement, to get the cash flowing (similar to Aylesbury Vale Parkway)? (Although Aylesbury is about five times the size of Uckfield.)

My understanding (and I reserve the right to be wrong!) is that the trackbed is reserved so building has not been permitted on it. I believe that there may be some areas of the old trackbed that may be used for car parking as it passes through Bellbrook Industrial estate.

The Uckfield bypass (A22) and the trackbed are are the same level and therefore work is needed at that point. I believe that when the by-pass was built East Sussex County Council stated that in the event the rail line reopened they would build and pay for a road bridge at this point. No idea if this offer is still valid.

I believe that the intention in the High Street would be to move the road slightly west, and build a roadbridge over the line and the land necessary etc is I think already reserved for this, but again might be wrong.

The more I read the thread the more I think that the logical option must be to use the slots that the Uckfield Line has through East Croydon to best advantage and this would be achieved by running 2 trains comprising 12 carriages each an hour from either Eastbourne, Seaford or further east up via Uckfield and Oxted.

Mind you not sure that 12 coach versions of the Class 171s can run into any stations due to the length of each individual carriage, so if it remains diesel I'd guess they would be 10 car trains.

 

[ushawk]

Let's be honest a bus route is no compensation for a rail route! Having good rail links cause people to move to that area, increase the value of their properties and attract customers who would otherwise drive and businesses. Even a good bus route won't bring nearly as many benefits to an area as a good rail link, especially one with direct links to London.

Its a damn sight cheaper though !!

If a cheaper, but slightly longer bus service can attract higher passenger numbers, then by all means go ahead.

But if a service isnt going to be used, then what is the point. You cant just build railway lines all over the country in the hope it attracts businesses there. They need money to open up shop anyway !!!

Had this had been a line between Brighton and Portsmouth (say if one didnt exist) then id be all for it as its 2 large cities, but this is between 2 small towns and it would seldom be used as a diversion route. You would be better off spending the money on a curve at Arundel (would probably have near enough the same journey time from Brighton - Victoria via Horsham and Sutton compared to the Uckfield line AND you avoid the bottleneck at Croydon) and then just simply upgrading the current mainline so it is more reliable. You also might not need to avoid Gatwick either, whereas you would via Uckfield.

To be honest, Brighton and Horsham could do with a direct rail service. Brighton is basically the "hub" of Sussex and Horsham is one of the main towns in the county. I know from working on the railways that there is a decent flow between the 2 anyway and people either have to change at Barnham or Three Bridges - so a direct service would have MUCH more of a business case.

 

[djwhisky]

To be honest, Brighton and Horsham could do with a direct rail service. Brighton is basically the "hub" of Sussex and Horsham is one of the main towns in the county. I know from working on the railways that there is a decent flow between the 2 anyway and people either have to change at Barnham or Three Bridges - so a direct service would have MUCH more of a business case.

How is Tunbridge Wells any different? If it wasn't for a bit of historical border redrawing then a large wodge of TW would be in Sussex too... Both TW and Horsham have a population of approx 55,000 (TW slightly larger), both a similar distance from Brighton.

To get from TW to Brighton by Train takes >2 hours and you have to go TW -> Tonbridge -> Redhill -> Brighton or TW -> St Leonards -> Brighton (or National Rail Enq actually says sometimes to right up to London Bridge and back down again).

Horsham to Brighton, with 1 change already takes just about 45 mins.

Surely a direct service from TW, picking up Crowborough, Uckfield and Lewes en route has got to be viable if you think a direct Horsham to Brighton service is?

 

[OxtedL]

Surely a direct service from TW, picking up Crowborough, Uckfield and Lewes en route has got to be viable if you think a direct Horsham to Brighton service is?

This doesn't follow at all - the infrastructure needed to provide it is vastly more expensive.

That isn't to say a TW to Brighton service wouldn't be viable. Just that your logic is wrong.

 

[Chris125]

I will only say one thing, Arundel curve will have a much better business case than any diversion via Oxted as you can reverse the flow of the West Coast mainline service via Horsham with no time penalty and you have the added advantage of a parelel route which avoids the East Croydon Bottleneck or even serves Waterloo via Epsom.

In fact Brighton-Arundel Curve-Horsham-Epson-London Waterloo/Crossrail 2 is near enough a mirror-image of BML2.

While presumably a little longer the extra capacity into London is already being consulted on and is expected to produce more paths for long distance services on the SWML. This could provide an opportunity to relieve the BML by diverting traffic from areas west of Brighton like Worthing, Littlehampton, Bognor Regis, Chichester etc into Waterloo.

Crucially the work needed to the existing network would appear a fraction of that needed for BML2, presumably little more than some signalling and power supply work and if need be extra loops to remove conflicts between fast/semi-fast/slow services.

...for the record I am not saying this is necessarily a good idea or that a viable business case exists, but even if people are convinced the best way to relieve the BML is by providing a longer diversionary route, reopening Lewes-Uckfield and building a second Thameslink are not the only available options.

Chris

 

[steamybrian]

My understanding (and I reserve the right to be wrong!) is that the trackbed is reserved so building has not been permitted on it. I believe that there may be some areas of the old trackbed that may be used for car parking as it passes through Bellbrook Industrial estate.

The Uckfield bypass (A22) and the trackbed are are the same level and therefore work is needed at that point. I believe that when the by-pass was built East Sussex County Council stated that in the event the rail line reopened they would build and pay for a road bridge at this point. No idea if this offer is still valid.

I believe that the intention in the High Street would be to move the road slightly west, and build a roadbridge over the line and the land necessary etc is I think already reserved for this, but again might be wrong.

The more I read the thread the more I think that the logical option must be to use the slots that the Uckfield Line has through East Croydon to best advantage and this would be achieved by running 2 trains comprising 12 carriages each an hour from either Eastbourne, Seaford or further east up via Uckfield and Oxted.

Mind you not sure that 12 coach versions of the Class 171s can run into any stations due to the length of each individual carriage, so if it remains diesel I'd guess they would be 10 car trains.

The land for future reopening has been safeguarded and East Sussex Council have stated they will refuse any proposals for development along the line of the route which includes the original 1858 (closed 1868) route into Lewes because the 1868-1969 route through Lewes town centre is now obliterated by shopping development
Note- Whilst the new station at Uckfield can take 8 coaches (I believe!) the others are only long enough for either 5 or 6 coaches.

 

[yorksrob]

Crucially the work needed to the existing network would appear a fraction of that needed for BML2, presumably little more than some signalling and power supply work and if need be extra loops to remove conflicts between fast/semi-fast/slow services.

...for the record I am not saying this is necessarily a good idea or that a viable business case exists, but even if people are convinced the best way to relieve the BML is by providing a longer diversionary route, reopening Lewes-Uckfield and building a second Thameslink are not the only available options.

Chris

I think that in many ways, you are correct - in particular that the former main line through Dorking is indeed an asset - and not just in terms of diversions. However, the Uckfield - Lewes reopening is not, and has never been primarily about diversions.

 

[Hove Heretic]

In fact Brighton-Arundel Curve-Horsham-Epson-London Waterloo/Crossrail 2 is near enough a mirror-image of BML2.

While presumably a little longer the extra capacity into London is already being consulted on and is expected to produce more paths for long distance services on the SWML. This could provide an opportunity to relieve the BML by diverting traffic from areas west of Brighton like Worthing, Littlehampton, Bognor Regis, Chichester etc into Waterloo.

Chris

Without going into any detail regarding the Steyning line (mentioned elsewhere), there are very real issues with routing any more along the West Coastway than at present.

1) Only three Brighton platforms are accessible from the line, platform 3 accessed half way down it's length and only suitable for short formations. Currently diversions from the Brighton Main Line involve curtailing some coastway services. Plats 1&2 can only be accessed by services from the coastway.

2) The several level crossings on the Coastway are a bigger problem, with only that at Worthing currently the subject of a replacement bid, though I'm uncertain if a practical solution has been found as yet. Shoreham-by-Sea, Southwick and Portslade crossings are all across busy roads, and current service patterns cause enough grief for road users. The one at Boundary Road, Portslade, I know only too well, and at about xx:50, with a fast westbound closely by an eastbound service, the crossing is down for long enough for traffic to back up beyond the next light controlled road junction (New Church Rd to the south and A270 Old Shoreham Rd to the north. There would be serious ructions if the road was closed for longer.

3) Local services from Brighton run to West Worthing, there's one underused platform out of the three at Worthing (the former Central Station), but then no facility whatever for a train to overhaul another east of Ford (just past the point where the Arun Valley meets the coastway and junction for Littlehampton where all coastway diversions are reversed), where the former loop is currently lifted, and the platform out of use. And there's another level crossing! The only other place this could be done is the next stop, Barnham, with one loop platform, after which, nothing until past Chichester. I believe space exists at Havant (can anyone confirm or refute this please?), but not the space for additional platforms. So, no possibility of passing points other than one line at Worthing over the relevant section of coastway

4) Suggestions to use the Arun Valley line, which is a hell of a lot longer, not 'slightly', even with a direct spur added for traffic onto the coastway seem odd when there are objections to using the Wealden route, genuinely marginally longer, which would take ¼ of the extra time of the run via Horsham. I've done the scenic route round the Arun Valley. Very pretty in daylight, but still a time consuming pain in the proverbial

 

[paul1609]

The Arundel Curve idea was that the Current Westcoastway Mainline services were reversed and Littlehampton to Victoria services were replaced by Brighton to London services via Horsham and Dorking these were increased to 8/12 car trains. As such there were no extra services along the coastway and journeytimes from Worthing to London were comparable to now. It also provided a fast service from Dorking to London and reinstated direct services to Brighton from Horsham.
This freed up 2 paths an hour from Patcham Park to Haywards Heath and also eliminated attachments to from Hastings/ Eastbourne services at Haywards Heath which provided lots of extra capacity on the BML. I think Hove got 2 of the Thameslink services as compensation and Littlehampton got a new North station near the Body Shop HQ.
The costs were limited to the short arundel curve, conversion of the West Worthing Turnback Siding to a reversible loop. Improvement of the Arun Valley Line speed as part of the resignalling to 100 mph and reinstatement of the through roads at Cheam?
I still think that as an immediate way of providing more capacity on the southern section of the BML and of providing a back-up route from London to brighton its CBA would far outshine BML2 or any other Oxted line scheme.

 

[Chris125]

4) Suggestions to use the Arun Valley line, which is a hell of a lot longer, not 'slightly', even with a direct spur added for traffic onto the coastway seem odd when there are objections to using the Wealden route, genuinely marginally longer, which would take ¼ of the extra time of the run via Horsham. I've done the scenic route round the Arun Valley. Very pretty in daylight, but still a time consuming pain in the proverbial

I'm not proposing Brighton passengers take the longer route, a fundamental flaw in my view of BML2, the idea being to provide more room for them on the BML by moving passengers west of Brighton heading to London via Hove and Preston Park to fast services via Dorking instead. This may be possible for some of the passengers heading to Victoria via the Arun Valley too.

Chris

 

[Bald Rick]

I promised myself I would maintain a dignified silence on this. But can’t help it, sorry. After this I will withdraw from the debate.

As some of you know I worked closely with the team who produced the 2008 report, and still do.

The latest development has nothing to do with a change in attitude by the Secretary of State, the press release happened to go out in his name. Neither has there been a change in attitude at Network Rail, which was already looking at how to increase capacity on the Brighton Main Line, and is looking at all options, this being one of them.

A few points about the 2008 report. There is not ‘general agreement that the 2008 study was deeply flawed’ within the rail industry, i.e. Network Rail, Southern (plus, incidentally, new franchise bidders) and the DfT, who like it or not are the rail industry in that part of the world. There is, naturally enough, agreement by those who are campaigning for reopening, but that is a little different.

The report DID include wider economic benefits and DID assess the impact of improved connectivity across the region. It also did examine through trains to Brighton, which was quickly discounted as the time penalty for reversal beyond Lewes made changing more realistic. (The remit for the report was very much to reopen the line as quickly and cheaply as possible on the old alignment, and not to build across virgin countryside as required for a west facing connection at Lewes). Nevertheless, from memory new flows to Brighton made a decent proportion of the traffic generated. However some of the issues above (and much more) didn't make it to the final cut of the report – which was all explained to the Board, which commissioned the work, at the regular review sessions.

All the assumptions, inputs and methods used were discussed with the Board and agreed by them. Indeed the Board agreed to distort the business case in favour of reopening by a) allowing some pretty optimistic assumptions about the state of the former track bed and thus reinstatement costs, b) removing the required optimism bias from the BCR calcs, and c) including optimistic sensitivity tests to demonstrate what level of passenger use would drive reopening. None of these would be acceptable in a funding submission to DfT (or indeed Scottish / Welsh Governments). The Board included members from relevant local authorities, and the MPs for both Uckfield and Lewes, the latter of whom was exemplary in his conduct, challenging every assumption, input, method and result. And accepting them, even where he did not like it. The Board did not include anyone from DfT, and they had absolutely no influence on or input to the report. Indeed when they rather cheekily asked for an advance copy of the report to see what it said, they were refused point blank. The first they knew what it said was on publication.

So back to the crux of it. There are only ever 2 reasons to re/open a new railway :

1) For wealth creation, sometimes called economic regeneration
2) To relieve a congested part of the network, to enable (1)

Every other* successful line reopening in the past 2 decades has linked an area in need of (or planned) economic regeneration to a city/region that offers employment potential. Ebbw Vale, Maesteg, Alloa, Airdrie-Bathgate, Larkhall, Mansfield, Snow Hill II, Aylesbury Vale with East West rail to come etc. etc. (*I'm sure someone on the forum will correct me.) It is fair to say that this does not apply to Lewes - Uckfield, neither of which could be termed economically deprived areas, and betwixt them lie only fields. As an aside, the reason the traffic is bad in that part of the world is that most people can afford cars and tend to use them, something that cannot be said of the majority of folk in Ebbw Vale. Being a regular visitor to both places, I can vouch for that.

So, perhaps the best hope for Lewes – Uckfield is as part of a wider network capacity upgrade for London to the Sussex coast, but then there are alternatives. Croydon has to be sorted first to unlock much of this - there is the potential for another Reading sized project there – and work is underway now to resolve Gatwick. But what about south of Gatwick?

My personal view is that if we are to upgrade 20 miles of existing line and build 8-10 miles of new railway in Sussex, potentially with some new tunnel to get through the South Downs, why not do it alongside the existing Brighton Main Line? There it can serve known demand, known growth areas, and improve the journey times / experience for all those who use it today. Done properly it need not be disruptive while built, and will benefit considerably more people than the alternatives.

And finally, the route to Docklands from a wide variety of Brighton Main Line (and branches) stations from 2018 will be change at Farringdon for Crossrail. No need for another new railway there for a while yet.

 

[els]

In my opinion, what is needed to solve the main capacity crunch (at Croydon) and the general overcrowding in the South East is a HS1/HS2 style 'tunnel-to-the-M25' from the spare Waterloo platforms for example. This could split off at Redhill - the line from Redhill to Tonbridge is so straight that even with a fairly straightforward upgrade it could give very competitive journey times from London to Tonbridge to relieve the congested TML. South from Redhill it would be worth upgrading the existing fast line to high speed status at least as far as Gatwick, and eventually Brighton. It would also kick-start the conversion from 3rd rail to OHL.

 

[yorksrob]

I promised myself I would maintain a dignified silence on this. But can’t help it, sorry. After this I will withdraw from the debate.

As some of you know I worked closely with the team who produced the 2008 report, and still do.

The latest development has nothing to do with a change in attitude by the Secretary of State, the press release happened to go out in his name. Neither has there been a change in attitude at Network Rail, which was already looking at how to increase capacity on the Brighton Main Line, and is looking at all options, this being one of them.

A few points about the 2008 report. There is not ‘general agreement that the 2008 study was deeply flawed’ within the rail industry, i.e. Network Rail, Southern (plus, incidentally, new franchise bidders) and the DfT, who like it or not are the rail industry in that part of the world. There is, naturally enough, agreement by those who are campaigning for reopening, but that is a little different.

The report DID include wider economic benefits and DID assess the impact of improved connectivity across the region. It also did examine through trains to Brighton, which was quickly discounted as the time penalty for reversal beyond Lewes made changing more realistic. (The remit for the report was very much to reopen the line as quickly and cheaply as possible on the old alignment, and not to build across virgin countryside as required for a west facing connection at Lewes). Nevertheless, from memory new flows to Brighton made a decent proportion of the traffic generated. However some of the issues above (and much more) didn't make it to the final cut of the report – which was all explained to the Board, which commissioned the work, at the regular review sessions.

All the assumptions, inputs and methods used were discussed with the Board and agreed by them. Indeed the Board agreed to distort the business case in favour of reopening by a) allowing some pretty optimistic assumptions about the state of the former track bed and thus reinstatement costs, b) removing the required optimism bias from the BCR calcs, and c) including optimistic sensitivity tests to demonstrate what level of passenger use would drive reopening. None of these would be acceptable in a funding submission to DfT (or indeed Scottish / Welsh Governments). The Board included members from relevant local authorities, and the MPs for both Uckfield and Lewes, the latter of whom was exemplary in his conduct, challenging every assumption, input, method and result. And accepting them, even where he did not like it. The Board did not include anyone from DfT, and they had absolutely no influence on or input to the report. Indeed when they rather cheekily asked for an advance copy of the report to see what it said, they were refused point blank. The first they knew what it said was on publication.

So back to the crux of it. There are only ever 2 reasons to re/open a new railway :

1) For wealth creation, sometimes called economic regeneration
2) To relieve a congested part of the network, to enable (1)

Every other* successful line reopening in the past 2 decades has linked an area in need of (or planned) economic regeneration to a city/region that offers employment potential. Ebbw Vale, Maesteg, Alloa, Airdrie-Bathgate, Larkhall, Mansfield, Snow Hill II, Aylesbury Vale with East West rail to come etc. etc. (*I'm sure someone on the forum will correct me.) It is fair to say that this does not apply to Lewes - Uckfield, neither of which could be termed economically deprived areas, and betwixt them lie only fields. As an aside, the reason the traffic is bad in that part of the world is that most people can afford cars and tend to use them, something that cannot be said of the majority of folk in Ebbw Vale. Being a regular visitor to both places, I can vouch for that.

So, perhaps the best hope for Lewes – Uckfield is as part of a wider network capacity upgrade for London to the Sussex coast, but then there are alternatives. Croydon has to be sorted first to unlock much of this - there is the potential for another Reading sized project there – and work is underway now to resolve Gatwick. But what about south of Gatwick?

My personal view is that if we are to upgrade 20 miles of existing line and build 8-10 miles of new railway in Sussex, potentially with some new tunnel to get through the South Downs, why not do it alongside the existing Brighton Main Line? There it can serve known demand, known growth areas, and improve the journey times / experience for all those who use it today. Done properly it need not be disruptive while built, and will benefit considerably more people than the alternatives.

And finally, the route to Docklands from a wide variety of Brighton Main Line (and branches) stations from 2018 will be change at Farringdon for Crossrail. No need for another new railway there for a while yet.

In that case, perhaps you could explain to us where these wider economic benefits (including connectivity) feed in to the cost benefit calculation ? The only references I can see in the report are in the Appraisal summary tables, and here this is left blank.

Also, you suggest that through services to Brighton were not included as people are supposedly likey to change trains at Lewes, rather than suffer the (surely minimal) time spent turning back there. If a change of trains has supposedly such little impact on whether people are likely to travel, how come Southern has invested so much in ensuring a through service between Ashford and Brighton, particularly when the previous connection time at Hastings was so insignificant ? This seems like a pretty flimsy basis on which to leave out direct trains to the largest market in the area.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Note- Whilst the new station at Uckfield can take 8 coaches (I believe!) the others are only long enough for either 5 or 6 coaches.

Network Rail have already announced plans to lengthen the platforms on the Uckfield Line, in theory the plan is to allow running of 10 coach trains I believe. The fact there is no stock to enable the running of 10 coach trains is irrelevant! In theory lengthening the platforms to 7 coaches would enable the running of 10 coach trains as long as they were always formed 4+2+4.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So back to the crux of it. There are only ever 2 reasons to re/open a new railway :

1) For wealth creation, sometimes called economic regeneration
2) To relieve a congested part of the network, to enable (1)

Thanks for the very informatiove post. I must admit I am a sceptic when it comes to the opening of the Uckfield -Lewes line partly with concern that if I am wrong I'll no longer get a seat at Crowborough!

However I think the Uckfield ine as it stands must provide a wonderful example of what can be done if a decent service is provided with decent rolling stock at a competitive price. I would be very surprised if when bidding originally for the franchise Southern believed that the introduction of the Class 171s would be as successful as it has been. The line has gone from one which was ripe for closure to one which is flourishing although I dont know if it is profitable.

There are apparently still a huge number of people in the catchment area of the Uckflield line that use the Hastings or BML lines and therefore improving the Uckfield Line further and possibly linking in to the Coast might have beneficial effects beyond those usually modelled. If it means less people from its catchment are using the over overcrowded routes then surely thats a bonus as well?

I do recall on one of Southerns Passenger Forums someone asking Southern why there was no earlier train on the Uckfield Line on Sundays to receive the answer from Southern there's no demand. The immediate response from the questioner was that it was always said there was no demand for the Uckfield line a view that had been found to be spectacturaly wrong with the introduction of the Class 171s.

I do therefore just wonder how reliable the passnger modelling is if a good reliable service can be offered. As a passenger my main concern is not necessarially having a service that is the fastest but one that I know will run reliably. I suspect thereofre that a coast route via Uckfield may prove more popular than modelling might suggest, although I agree it would have to produced as cheaply as possible.

 

[djwhisky]

As an aside, the reason the traffic is bad in that part of the world is that most people can afford cars and tend to use them,

Or maybe it's just because there isn't a viable alternative? I know that if we had a direct, fast train service from TW to Lewes or Brighton I sure as hell wouldn't drive - just wouldn't be worth it. For the same reason I always get the train up to London rather than attempting to drive it...

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Can anyone tell me, as an occasional user of Brighton-London services, the function of single-line track that diverges away from the BML just north of Haywards Heath ?

Is it the remnants of a line to East Grinstead ?

 

[Hove Heretic]

You place an odd level of faith in Railfuture as a body. (You may notice a theme developing in my posts.) They are a pressure group. Any scheme they come up with will be wildly different to any final scheme churned out by the rail industry, even if the scope is the same - which it won't be, because it's a pressure group and thus far more aspirational than practical, across the board. It's great to support their ideas, yes, but the fact that they are one of the very few sources of ideas on this subject should speak volumes.

I always find 'faith' an interesting notion, and your outlook certainly has the very distinct advantage of being less likely to result in disappointment !

I've been interested to see how much common ground there actually is between all of us, how the two proposals are seen, and how folks see potential solutions. Although OK as far as it goes, I'm more concerned with what isn't in Railfuture's schene than what is. I think we're now pretty much about at the stage of sitting back to see what NR come up with.

I always liked Oppenheimer's observation " An optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds, a pessimist knows it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can anyone tell me, as an occasional user of Brighton-London services, the function of single-line track that diverges away from the BML just north of Haywards Heath ?

Is it the remnants of a line to East Grinstead ?

If it's heading east, that's Copyhold Junction, the line to Ardingly (formerly to Horsted Keynes and East Grinstead) which was retained for freight traffic to a yard owned by ARC on the site of Ardingly station.

There's a bit about the route here:

http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/extend.html

If it's heading west, you were looking at a reflection, or very very drunk.

 

[steamybrian]

Can anyone tell me, as an occasional user of Brighton-London services, the function of single-line track that diverges away from the BML just north of Haywards Heath ?

Is it the remnants of a line to East Grinstead ?

The single line branch that diverges about one mile north of Haywards Heath at Copyhold Junction is the freight only line to Ardingly. It originally extended via Horsted Keynes to East Grinstead.
There are l-o-n-g term proposals for the Bluebell Railway to rebuild line from Horsted Keynes to Ardingly and run heritage services over this line to Haywards Heath but this is very much in the distant future.

 

[Hove Heretic]

If you did some reconstruction work at Ashford International and then electrified the Marshlink, couldn't you run trains from Brighton via Hastings and HS1 to St Pancras, stopping at Stratford International which would then allow people to reach the Docklands via a short journey on the DLR?.

Would probably take speed enhancements on the Marshlink to make that viable in travel time terms though.

Very much the scenic route from points west of Hastings. Marshlink deffo needs some serious attention though IMHO
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I promised myself I would maintain a dignified silence on this. But can’t help it, sorry. After this I will withdraw from the debate.

As some of you know I worked closely with the team who produced the 2008 report, and still do.

Thanks for the informed input BR. Illuminating on the market estimates, though it remains a narrow view, albeit forced on the study by constraints. As a combined reopening and (hopefully) enhancement scheme, I wonder if how criteria will be applied across both aspects?

 

[yorksrob]

Or maybe it's just because there isn't a viable alternative? I know that if we had a direct, fast train service from TW to Lewes or Brighton I sure as hell wouldn't drive - just wouldn't be worth it. For the same reason I always get the train up to London rather than attempting to drive it...

Indeed. On the one hand we are told that there is no demand to travel on a given corridoor, so there is no reason to reopen a railway line, yet at the same time, there is actually a lot of congestion on that same corridoor which is a sign of everyone owning a car so - "surprise surprise" there is no reason to reopen the railway line.

Doubtless if we were trying to reopen a railway line in a deprived area, the argument would become "noone will use the train because incomes are too low.

Not a criticism of the Network Rail Report in particular, but I find the assumption that East Sussex is a homogenous area where everyone has a high income and owns a car naive in the extreme and very depressing. A City like Brighton will have areas of extreme deprivation which could do with all the economic regeneraction it can get, whilst rural areas like the wield will include pockets of poverty and isolation which could be relieved by better public transport.

 

[bangor-toad]

Not a criticism of the Network Rail Report in particular, but I find the assumption that East Sussex is a homogenous area where everyone has a high income and owns a car naive in the extreme and very depressing.

Certainly true.
Much of Brighton between the A27 and the sea was classed as an "Economically Deprived Area" a few years ago whilst I was working for the local development agency. We could even get EU money if the postcode was right.

At the same time, Uckfield was considered to have near enough full employment and was needing additional commuters into the town. When I lived there that was certainly my experience (but I'll accept it may have changed over the last few years).

These issues though only refer to the local traffic generated between Uckfield/Crowborough and Brighton/Lewes/Newhaven. If a business case for re-opening looks at these alone then it's going to struggle. There isn't enough direct causality of regeneration to make an impact. To bolster the business case, wider concerns have to be considered, ie the greater network. This is something that the Wealden Line campaign picked up on. Sadly they went rather too far with the BML2 proposal but I see why they thought that way.
Any proposal decision is predicated on the asssumptions fed in at the very beginning. Get those "right", (which is 100% a political & interpersonal matter) and the hoped for business case outcome is more than likely...

Jason

 

[The Ham]

Indeed. On the one hand we are told that there is no demand to travel on a given corridoor, so there is no reason to reopen a railway line, yet at the same time, there is actually a lot of congestion on that same corridoor which is a sign of everyone owning a car so - "surprise surprise" there is no reason to reopen the railway line.

Doubtless if we were trying to reopen a railway line in a deprived area, the argument would become "noone will use the train because incomes are too low.

The same has been said about increasing frequencies of services (for trains or buses), yet the reason that few people use an hourly or two hourly service is that it is not frequent enough and therefore doesn't go at a time convenient to many people; whilst most people can manage to cope with a half hourly service as it's not too long to wait.

For instance I used to be able to use public transport (on an hourly frequency) to get somewhere for a set time (having moved my working day forward half an hour), however the timetable changed and meant that I would either have to start my working day an extra 15 minutes earlier, be late (which was not a viable option) or cycle. Therefore I am now cycling. If the frequency was every 30 minutes I would still have been able to have used public transport (even every 45 minutes would have been probably viable).

 

[Gwenllian2001]

On the one hand we are told that there is no demand to travel on a given corridoor, so there is no reason to reopen a railway line, yet at the same time, there is actually a lot of congestion on that same corridoor which is a sign of everyone owning a car so - "surprise surprise" there is no reason to reopen the railway line.

Then, of course, you have the 'experts' who forecast what the demand for a service is likely to be. Look no further than the Ebbw Vale line to see just how wrong these 'experts' can be. Estimated passenger figures for the first four years were exceeded within eight months!

Is is an, almost, universal truth that rail re-openings attract far more business than the 'experts' would have us believe.

 

[OxtedL]

Also, you suggest that through services to Brighton were not included as people are supposedly likey to change trains at Lewes, rather than suffer the (surely minimal) time spent turning back there. If a change of trains has supposedly such little impact on whether people are likely to travel, how come Southern has invested so much in ensuring a through service between Ashford and Brighton, particularly when the previous connection time at Hastings was so insignificant ? This seems like a pretty flimsy basis on which to leave out direct trains to the largest market in the area.

The problem is that turning a train back at Lewes would likely require (complete with made up durations):

• Stop initially at Lewes <1 or 2 minutes?>
• Run forward into turnback siding <1 minute?>
• Change ends <anything upwards of 3 or 4 minutes? possibly closer to 10? or else use two drivers, maybe 1 or 2 minutes timetabled but much more expensive to operate?>
• Run back into Lewes <1 minute?>
• Quite possibly stop in Lewes again, since it's likely been at least 5 minutes since you left to turn around <maybe another minute or so>

So maybe 7-8 minutes minimum from arrival to departure? I'm sure that someone else can provide a more sound looking calculation, but I reckon I'm at least in the right ballpark.

Changing trains - potentially on the minimum connection time - is thus almost likely to take less time, given there are 5 trains an hour from Lewes to Brighton. It's cheaper to operate, since it needs less stock and staff. And to the planners (who no doubt would take a look at my optimistic figures above and laugh) it's much less of a headache, with far less to go wrong.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is is an, almost, universal truth that rail re-openings attract far more business than the 'experts' would have us believe.

This is potentially a fallacy, because we as a country are selective in what we reopen.

Just because the really juicy ones that actually happen over-perform doesn't necessarily mean the less promising looking ones would.

 

[The Ham]

Then, of course, you have the 'experts' who forecast what the demand for a service is likely to be. Look no further than the Ebbw Vale line to see just how wrong these 'experts' can be. Estimated passenger figures for the first four years were exceeded within eight months!

Is is an, almost, universal truth that rail re-openings attract far more business than the 'experts' would have us believe.

True, but that is because estimates are based upon existing travel methods for a similar area and have to be fairly conservative so as to be seen to be not over egging the pudding when working out if a scheme is viable (following several schemes in the 90's where passenger numbers were far too high).

However at least all schemes are on a level playing field when it comes to that, so any scheme which has a higher CBR than another will still have a higher CBR even if the number of passengers were more accurately counted. It just makes it more difficult to reopen lines which are less likely to do very well and makes it harder to get investment in rail when competing against roads.

 

[yorksrob]

The problem is that turning a train back at Lewes would likely require (complete with made up durations):

• Stop initially at Lewes <1 or 2 minutes?>
• Run forward into turnback siding <1 minute?>
• Change ends <anything upwards of 3 or 4 minutes? possibly closer to 10? or else use two drivers, maybe 1 or 2 minutes timetabled but much more expensive to operate?>
• Run back into Lewes <1 minute?>
• Quite possibly stop in Lewes again, since it's likely been at least 5 minutes since you left to turn around <maybe another minute or so>

So maybe 7-8 minutes minimum from arrival to departure? I'm sure that someone else can provide a more sound looking calculation, but I reckon I'm at least in the right ballpark.

Changing trains - potentially on the minimum connection time - is thus almost likely to take less time, given there are 5 trains an hour from Lewes to Brighton. It's cheaper to operate, since it needs less stock and staff. And to the planners (who no doubt would take a look at my optimistic figures above and laugh) it's much less of a headache, with far less to go wrong.

When you compare the number of through passengers who sit on the train through really quite long reversals to places such as Eastbourne and Castleford, a reversal on the station approach at Lewes really is insignificant in terms of passenger time.

There's no reason why the train would need to stop twice (trains do not stop twice at Hampden Park when they reverse through it). A sensible way ahead might be for them to stop on the approach to the reversal (and wait for any conflicting movements to clear the junction) before going fast through on the way out. You could have a central turnback with a boardwalk if necessary to further reduce conflicts and prevent the need for two drivers.

Alternatively, you could just extend the down London platform past the junction so that trains could stop in the platform during the reverse.

All these non-issues put forward against reversing at Lewes are really just a smokescreen for the fact that direct trains attract far more passengers than journeys requiring a change.

 

[OxtedL]

My apologies for breaking this quote up, it's made it easier to respond to.

When you compare the number of through passengers who sit on the train through really quite long reversals to places such as Eastbourne and Castleford, a reversal on the station approach at Lewes really is insignificant in terms of passenger time.

The difference being that there's no reason not to simply reverse a train at Eastbourne - there's nowhere else for the train to go beyond that. Whereas at Lewes, trains can continue to/from the east. At Eastbourne everyone either gets off or continues on an outbound train in the other direction, but at Lewes there are other directions you can head in. Eastbourne and Lewes are not really comparable. I see what you are getting at, however.

There's no reason why the train would need to stop twice (trains do not stop twice at Hampden Park when they reverse through it). A sensible way ahead might be for them to stop on the approach to the reversal (and wait for any conflicting movements to clear the junction) before going fast through on the way out. You could have a central turnback with a boardwalk if necessary to further reduce conflicts and prevent the need for two drivers.

Hampden Park is much less important than Lewes. Granted, it is conceivable that you might change there to skip Eastbourne, but currently very few services are timed towards facilitating that kind of thing. Lewes is a far more important interchange. I have no idea whether you would actually want to stop twice at Lewes, but the point I was making was that the service from Lewes to Brighton is actually frequent enough that it is unlikely that, once you'd written the timetable to minimise conflicts, running direct with a reversal would actually be quicker. Thus I think the Hampden Park comparison is also weak.

Alternatively, you could just extend the down London platform past the junction so that trains could stop in the platform during the reverse.

Initially this sounds better, but examing it more closely you actually have 6tph eastbound using that line (I think) during the off peak. Blocking it while you reverse a train is asking for trouble, so I suspect you would be required to make this new platform a bay/loop separate from the current running lines, which is very expensive on the curvey alignment, and creates a very long platform/station. It's not inconceivable though, perhaps.

All these non-issues put forward against reversing at Lewes are really just a smokescreen for the fact that direct trains attract far more passengers than journeys requiring a change.

Be careful, you're starting to sound paranoid; I don't think there is really a conspiracy. At least some of the parties involved in the last study appear to have been very focussed on seeing what could be done to make the figures look better - see Bald Rick on Norman Baker above, so it would be quite a tricky fix to pull off.

 

[tbtc]

Then, of course, you have the 'experts' who forecast what the demand for a service is likely to be. Look no further than the Ebbw Vale line to see just how wrong these 'experts' can be. Estimated passenger figures for the first four years were exceeded within eight months!

Is is an, almost, universal truth that rail re-openings attract far more business than the 'experts' would have us believe.

Look no further than Corby to see that you are being very selective!

Some do better than expected, some do worse, because estimates are estimates.

 

[Gwenllian2001]

Look no further than Corby to see that you are being very selective!

Some do better than expected, some do worse, because estimates are estimates.

Not at all, I did use the word almost. The 'experts' can get it wrong both ways.