Network Rail to examine Uckfield–Lewes proposals

[yorksrob]

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

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.

But that rather misses my point, which is that when a passenger catches a train at Bexhill for Brighton, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever whether the train has the option of continuing somewhere else beyond Eastbourne or not. It is the "direct" (in terms of not changing) service to Brighton. Reversal or not is but a minimal time penalty of little importance (much less so with a shorter reversal at Lewes).

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.

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.

Once again, you miss my point. If a train is scheduled to stop at Lewes once, there is no conceivable reason why you would want to stop the train again five minutes later. Once again, as with Eastbourne, the passenger at Uckfield or Edenbridge or (dare we hope) Tunbridge Wells sees a direct train to Brighton. Five minutes extra reversal will be insignificant against this.

With regards to my various options at Lewes, none of them are perfect and without conflicts (and I defy you to find any flat junction that is), however, I don't believe that any have insurmountable obstacles.

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.

Well, I defy any railway enthusiast not to be paranoid in the light of the past sixty years of railway history. However, in terms of this case, until someone can explain from the report (which they may well do), where connectivity and wider economic benefits feed into the calculations that matter - i.e. those on which the business case was based, I'm not prepared to take it on face value that such considerations were included.

 

[OxtedL]

But that rather misses my point <snip>

It had already been covered in this thread why through services were difficult to the point of wrecking a business case. It's not that they are impossible, more that they are going to be expensive in terms of time, and expensive financially to provide infrastructure for and run. However much you argue that this is otherwise (eg by citing Eastbourne, a bad example for the reasons I gave whilst missing the point), it is clear from reading Bald Rick and others' posts that the reversal kills any attempts to turn this into something viable.

Once again, you miss my point. <snip>

I will explain more carefully.

Lewes is an important interchange on the East Coastway. My reasoning is that by the time you've reversed (demonstrably a fairly long time) it is more than likely one or more trains have passed through the station, so by stopping the second time you open more connections. Southbound in particular, stopping again helps the important and - crucially - definitively extant flows from the Coastway to Brighton.

Whether or not you agree with this, my main point was actually that I believe your comparison to Hampden Park is flawed - fair enough I hope you agree?

With regards to my various options at Lewes, none of them are perfect and without conflicts (and I defy you to find any flat junction that is), however, I don't believe that any have insurmountable obstacles.

My point here was that extending a platform out onto the eastbound line does present a rather large obstacle in the form of 6 trains an hour. And anyway, the issue here is not insurmountable obstacles, but rather the affordability and practicality of any solution, which you are yet to convince me of.

However, in terms of this case, until someone can explain from the report (which they may well do), where connectivity and wider economic benefits feed into the calculations that matter - i.e. those on which the business case was based, I'm not prepared to take it on face value that such considerations were included.

You are of course entitled to take this stance. May I enquire as to why in this particular case you are so suspicious of the figures, however, when many other such attempts at quantifying the difficult to quantify are made each year, some with postive outcomes? It is widely acknowledged that there are weaknesses in any socio-economic analysis, to varying degrees, but that are currently no alternatives. Do you think it could be possible that your cynicism here is at least slightly exacerbated by your clear desire to see the line re-opened?

 

[JamesRowden]

With regards to my various options at Lewes, none of them are perfect and without conflicts (and I defy you to find any flat junction that is), however, I don't believe that any have insurmountable obstacles.

There is the Glynde 3-way junction option that I think would save about the same time for Uckfield to Eastbourne journeys that it would cost Uckfield to Lewes journeys and it would probably be quicker (and a lot simpler) for Uckfield to Brighton journeys because of not needing to reverse.

 

[yorksrob]

It had already been covered in this thread why through services were difficult to the point of wrecking a business case. It's not that they are impossible, more that they are going to be expensive in terms of time, and expensive financially to provide infrastructure for and run. However much you argue that this is otherwise (eg by citing Eastbourne, a bad example for the reasons I gave whilst missing the point), it is clear from reading Bald Rick and others' posts that the reversal kills any attempts to turn this into something viable.

Well no, your point didn't read like that at all. You made some spurious argument that Eastbourne was somehow different because people either "got off or continued on an outbound train" although quite what that's got to do with peoples motivations in making a journey, I don't know. My point, that the attractiveness of the through service outweighs the time penalty of even a fairly long reversal, still stands.

As I have said in my previous posts, none of my potential solutions is perfect and some will cost more, although if you are making a major infrastructure investment, adding a turnback siding seems to be a sensible additional investment in order to have trains running to the correct destination.

I will explain more carefully.

Lewes is an important interchange on the East Coastway. My reasoning is that by the time you've reversed (demonstrably a fairly long time) it is more than likely one or more trains have passed through the station, so by stopping the second time you open more connections. Southbound in particular, stopping again helps the important and - crucially - definitively extant flows from the Coastway to Brighton.

Whether or not you agree with this, my main point was actually that I believe your comparison to Hampden Park is flawed - fair enough I hope you agree?

Interesting point, but again, it doesn't actually make sense.

My morning train goes to Leeds. It waits for ten minutes so that various other services can connect with it, then leaves. However, there are potential connections leaving throughout the hour. By your reckoning the train should never leave because of these potential connections it would be missing. The railway doesn't work like this. A cut off point has to be made and Lewes would most likely be no different.

And as I explained before, even if they did stop the train again, the attractiveness of having a through train to the destination people actually want to go to would still outweigh the time penalty of the reversal and the additional stop (which would still be shorter than many other reversals on the network).

My point here was that extending a platform out onto the eastbound line does present a rather large obstacle in the form of 6 trains an hour. And anyway, the issue here is not insurmountable obstacles, but rather the affordability and practicality of any solution, which you are yet to convince me of.

Possibly true. However, as I mentioned, there are other potential solutions such as turn back sidings. As to how affordable they may be, we will have to disagree.

You are of course entitled to take this stance. May I enquire as to why in this particular case you are so suspicious of the figures, however, when many other such attempts at quantifying the difficult to quantify are made each year, some with postive outcomes? It is widely acknowledged that there are weaknesses in any socio-economic analysis, to varying degrees, but that are currently no alternatives. Do you think it could be possible that your cynicism here is at least slightly exacerbated by your clear desire to see the line re-opened?

My view is that any realistic analysis should surely include an attempt to quantify the additional economic activity generated by travel generated.

I'm keeping an open mind. If someone can show me where these wider economic benefits through connectivity feed into the cost benefit analysis, I'm all ears. All I am saying is that I can't find this in the document myself, and crucially, none of the people defending the document (yourself included) have assisted me (so far) in this respect.

 

[Bald Rick]

The turn back cost 9-10 mins if there was nothing in the way in the timetable. Which there usually was.

It also cost about £5m for the turn back facility itself (very optimistically when compared to the actual cost of the similar Tunbridge Wells turn back), and another couple of units minimum.

There was quite a demand for Brighton, mostly from Uckfield. Interestingly also to Eastbourne from Uckfield. There was very little from further north aside from Crowboro'. Principally because Crowboro' aside there isn't much there anyway!

In most passenger demand models, changing trains (or modes) is represented by a 'forced' additional journey time to represent the inconvenience, which has been proven to be reasonably accurate in real world comparison. I don't know what the value was in this example, but frankly it wouldn't have made that much of a difference. Certainly not enough to justify the extra spend.

 

[RobShipway]

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.

As much as I like your ideas, you will find that Seaford station can only accept 4 car trains, so I would suggest that you have 4 car train from Seaford that would couple with a 8 car train from Eastbourne to then go on up to Uckfield etc.......

 

[yorksrob]

The turn back cost 9-10 mins if there was nothing in the way in the timetable. Which there usually was.

It also cost about £5m for the turn back facility itself (very optimistically when compared to the actual cost of the similar Tunbridge Wells turn back), and another couple of units minimum.

There was quite a demand for Brighton, mostly from Uckfield. InteNrestingly also to Eastbourne from Uckfield. There was very little from further north aside from Crowboro'. Principally because Crowboro' aside there isn't much there anyway!

In most passenger demand models, changing trains (or modes) is represented by a 'forced' additional journey time to represent the inconvenience, which has been proven to be reasonably accurate in real world comparison. I don't know what the value was in this example, but frankly it wouldn't have made that much of a difference. Certainly not enough to justify the extra spend.

Many thanks for the additional detail regarding the turnback. I concede that this would be a relatively expensive way for the route to point in the correct direction .

Can you further assist me with my query regarding wider economic benefits and the cost benefit analysis ?

 

[djwhisky]

There was quite a demand for Brighton, mostly from Uckfield. Interestingly also to Eastbourne from Uckfield. There was very little from further north aside from Crowboro'. Principally because Crowboro' aside there isn't much there anyway!

Am guessing that because it was outside the scope, that any potential demand from Tunbridge Wells wasn't modelled though?

 

[steamybrian]

Am guessing that because it was outside the scope, that any potential demand from Tunbridge Wells wasn't modelled though?

This thread is about reopening Uckfield- Lewes line only in a basic simple form without any add ons.
To repeat again!....The reopening of the Eridge-Tunbridge Wells line was not considered as the cost of rebuilding that line would run into multi-million pounds

 

[ushawk]

As much as I like your ideas, you will find that Seaford station can only accept 4 car trains, so I would suggest that you have 4 car train from Seaford that would couple with a 8 car train from Eastbourne to then go on up to Uckfield etc.......

Seaford can EASILY hold more coaches as the platform can actually hold 8 car plus trains, there's just a barrier preventing it. Also there isn't a good power supply to run long trains. Other stations on the Seaford line however can only hold 4 car trains.

IF this was to ever happen, sending a train to Seaford or even Newhaven wouldn't be a bad idea. Also time the train to connect with the Brighton - Lewes shuttles - simple.

Reversals will block the junction for too long and will have knock on delays on any other service, especially if the Uckfield train is already running late.

 

[Hove Heretic]

This thread is about reopening Uckfield- Lewes line only in a basic simple form without any add ons.
To repeat again!....The reopening of the Eridge-Tunbridge Wells line was not considered as the cost of rebuilding that line would run into multi-million pounds

....plus the cost of repairing a certain landslip of course !

Like it or not, the case for the missing miles can't be viewed in isolation from very relevant and closely related factors impacting traffic levels. If Lewes alone provided an acceptable business case, then the 2008 study would have reached a different conclusion. By now, we'd likely be looking at work commencing at the start of the 2014 control period. It can't, it didn't and we won't be - in that order.

 

[The Ham]

The one good thing about looking at projects such as this again after a period of time (such as the 5 years that has past since the last report) is that rail passenger growth has been growing at a lot higher rate than was predicted. This then is likely to help the case for such a reopening.

 

[djwhisky]

....plus the cost of repairing a certain landslip of course !

Like it or not, the case for the missing miles can't be viewed in isolation from very relevant and closely related factors impacting traffic levels. If Lewes alone provided an acceptable business case, then the 2008 study would have reached a different conclusion. By now, we'd likely be looking at work commencing at the start of the 2014 control period. It can't, it didn't and we won't be - in that order.

That's the point though... to get a better business case I think that TW needs to be included... (imho BML2 would be lovely but it goes way too far to make it viable with the current lack of forward thinking towards major rail infrastructure projects unless it's high speed).

To reopen the line and miss out the link to a major town like TW that is just 5 miles away or so from the line seems crazy not to at least be considered.

 

[Hove Heretic]

That's the point though... to get a better business case I think that TW needs to be included... To reopen the line and miss out the link to a major town like TW that is just 5 miles away or so from the line seems crazy not to at least be considered.

You'll get no disagreement from me on that one (see my earlier ramblings). Likewise, the benefits of being able to maintain some sort of service from adjacent routes has to count towards the overal case.

It's a bit galling (for anyone who saw the local news last evening) when sums of £5 billion are being touted for a third east London river crossing. Just as well roads don't need subsidising like the rail network, eh?

 

[tbtc]

This thread is about reopening Uckfield- Lewes line only in a basic simple form without any add ons

Agreed - we should probably have a separate thread for all of the "fantasy" stuff, but its probably a bit too late for the Mods to be able to split the posts into a separate thread.

 

[yorksrob]

That's the point though... to get a better business case I think that TW needs to be included... (imho BML2 would be lovely but it goes way too far to make it viable with the current lack of forward thinking towards major rail infrastructure projects unless it's high speed).

To reopen the line and miss out the link to a major town like TW that is just 5 miles away or so from the line seems crazy not to at least be considered.

I would agree entirely that Tunbridge Wells makes sense in the long run. However, I rear that the current methodology would still cause problems as the cost of reinstatement would rise as well as the revenue.

 

[DJ_K666]

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

You'll find that's because of "Old Lofty" in Lancing box. He's the worst culprit for keeping the gates down way longer than they should be.

I call him that because he's 7ft tall, apparently.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As much as I like your ideas, you will find that Seaford station can only accept 4 car trains, so I would suggest that you have 4 car train from Seaford that would couple with a 8 car train from Eastbourne to then go on up to Uckfield etc.......

Seaford's platform is about 8 coaches just divided with railings half way along as shown here.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=e...=82DyCcwuHLs0bf82SWT5Qw&cbp=12,231.26,,0,8.86

Not sure what it would cost to reinstate the further portion of the platform but probably not too much by comparison.

 

[mister-sparky]

This thread is about reopening Uckfield- Lewes line only in a basic simple form without any add ons.
To repeat again!....The reopening of the Eridge-Tunbridge Wells line was not considered as the cost of rebuilding that line would run into multi-million pounds

Eridge to Tunbridge Wells doesn't need rebuilding. It's OPEN and is used frequently. Albeit by steam trains, but the track is there, and ballast and platforms etc etc. The junction at Eridge is already set up for through running (they did that when the Spa Valley extended to Eridge) What exactly would cost multi-millions of pounds?!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

What exactly would cost multi-millions of pounds?!

I think, mainly the ability to run at above 25mph along the Eridge-Tunbridge Wells section!

 

[steamybrian]

Eridge to Tunbridge Wells doesn't need rebuilding. It's OPEN and is used frequently. Albeit by steam trains, but the track is there, and ballast and platforms etc etc. The junction at Eridge is already set up for through running (they did that when the Spa Valley extended to Eridge) What exactly would cost multi-millions of pounds?!

WRONG-
1. The Spa Valley Railway was severed from the Uckfield line and is run completely separate. There are no connections either directly or indirectly between the lines. There are no signals at Eridge on the Network Rail single line with the nearest are at Crowborough or at Ashurst Jn. The cost of resignalling the Uckfield line from the signal box at Oxted and putting in new points and signals at Eridge will be several millions of pounds. (for example Swanage Railway are paying £3 million to resignal Worget Jn with the points already laid.)
2. There is a long permanent speed restrictions through Groombridge of 10mph which is acceptable for Spa Valley Railway trains but would not be acceptable for main line running so to straighten the line would mean purchasing land from the houses built on the old station site.
3. Previous readers have suggested rebuilding the lines between Tunbridge Wells West and Central which will mean wholesale demolition of development etc on the trackbed at Tunbridge Wells costing mega-millions of pounds..

 

[paul1609]

WRONG-
1. The Spa Valley Railway was severed from the Uckfield line and is run completely separate. There are no connections either directly or indirectly between the lines. There are no signals at Eridge on the Network Rail single line with the nearest are at Crowborough or at Ashurst Jn. The cost of resignalling the Uckfield line from the signal box at Oxted and putting in new points and signals at Eridge will be several millions of pounds. (for example Swanage Railway are paying £3 million to resignal Worget Jn with the points already laid.)
2. There is a long permanent speed restrictions through Groombridge of 10mph which is acceptable for Spa Valley Railway trains but would not be acceptable for main line running so to straighten the line would mean purchasing land from the houses built on the old station site.
3. Previous readers have suggested rebuilding the lines between Tunbridge Wells West and Central which will mean wholesale demolition of development etc on the trackbed at Tunbridge Wells costing mega-millions of pounds..

I'd suggest that the housing estate on the site of the old Groombridge station would be more difficult than that and that much of it would have to be demolished to run a main line service past it. The alignment is very difficult to squeeze in and maintain for a 10 mph single line heritage line.

 

[yorksrob]

WRONG-
1. The Spa Valley Railway was severed from the Uckfield line and is run completely separate. There are no connections either directly or indirectly between the lines. There are no signals at Eridge on the Network Rail single line with the nearest are at Crowborough or at Ashurst Jn. The cost of resignalling the Uckfield line from the signal box at Oxted and putting in new points and signals at Eridge will be several millions of pounds. (for example Swanage Railway are paying £3 million to resignal Worget Jn with the points already laid.)
2. There is a long permanent speed restrictions through Groombridge of 10mph which is acceptable for Spa Valley Railway trains but would not be acceptable for main line running so to straighten the line would mean purchasing land from the houses built on the old station site.
3. Previous readers have suggested rebuilding the lines between Tunbridge Wells West and Central which will mean wholesale demolition of development etc on the trackbed at Tunbridge Wells costing mega-millions of pounds..

Wasn't it established that the only development in the way of the route between Tunbridge Wells West and Central is a toilet block on the local Sainsbury's which had been specifically designed so that it could be removed in the event of a reopening. Not easy by any means, but hardly "wholesale" demolition of development.

 

[steamybrian]

Wasn't it established that the only development in the way of the route between Tunbridge Wells West and Central is a toilet block on the local Sainsbury's which had been specifically designed so that it could be removed in the event of a reopening. Not easy by any means, but hardly "wholesale" demolition of development.

I think I mentioned this earlier but to repeat again to re-open Tunbridge Wells West- Central would mean-

Reconstruction of part of the Homebase store- demolition or bridging across their Garden Centre.
Closure of the access road to Sainsburys car park and construction of new roads on another site..
Considerable work to rip up part of Sainsburys car park and rebuilding thereof. More difficult than it sounds.
Purchase of the car park to Smith & Western who occupy the original station building at TWW. This car park is continually in use so it is more difficult than it sounds.
Demolition of the toilets in Sainsburys, access paths to Sainsburys and excavation of the infilled ground to return to trackbed level.
Demolition of the bus terminal which was built on former infilled railway land.
Demolition of Sainsburys lorry unloading depot and construction of a new one for the huge 44 ton lorries that use it.
Excavation of the partially infilled cutting leading to Grove Tunnel and building new retaining walls because it was infilled to stop ground movement.
Rebuilding of the demolished Cumberland Walk Bridge.
Purchase of the trackbed back from wealthy local residents who purchased sections near Grove Junction.

To summarise- Not actually "wholesale" demolition but there again not just "a toilet block" occupying the trackbed.


As stated earlier can we return to the subject matter of reopening Uckfield-Lewes not Eridge -Tunbridge Wells or BML2 or any other off subject matter.
Yes- I fully support reopening Uckfield-Lewes

 

[yorksrob]

I think I mentioned this earlier but to repeat again to re-open Tunbridge Wells West- Central would mean-

Reconstruction of part of the Homebase store- demolition or bridging across their Garden Centre.
Closure of the access road to Sainsburys car park and construction of new roads on another site..
Considerable work to rip up part of Sainsburys car park and rebuilding thereof. More difficult than it sounds.
Purchase of the car park to Smith & Western who occupy the original station building at TWW. This car park is continually in use so it is more difficult than it sounds.
Demolition of the toilets in Sainsburys, access paths to Sainsburys and excavation of the infilled ground to return to trackbed level.
Demolition of the bus terminal which was built on former infilled railway land.
Demolition of Sainsburys lorry unloading depot and construction of a new one for the huge 44 ton lorries that use it.
Excavation of the partially infilled cutting leading to Grove Tunnel and building new retaining walls because it was infilled to stop ground movement.
Rebuilding of the demolished Cumberland Walk Bridge.
Purchase of the trackbed back from wealthy local residents who purchased sections near Grove Junction.

To summarise- Not actually "wholesale" demolition but there again not just "a toilet block" occupying the trackbed.

Fair point (I wasn't aware of the Homebase).

My ultimate view would be that these businesses were made aware of the possibility of reopening when they purchased the land, so they should have a contingency plan to deal with it. If they don't they have only themselves to blame.

 

[steamybrian]

Fair point (I wasn't aware of the Homebase).

My ultimate view would be that these businesses were made aware of the possibility of reopening when they purchased the land, so they should have a contingency plan to deal with it. If they don't they have only themselves to blame.

The Spa Valley Railway have been approached by concerned people buying houses adjacent to the former route and have heard rumours or legal conveyancing searches have found mention of possible reopening
It was talked about when Sainsburys opened in 1990 and 23 years later we are still no nearer opening the line. Homebase opened around 1992 or 1993.
The Spa Valley Railway has been operating since 1996 and they just did not sit there and wait otherwise we would have still be looking at an abandoned line
Businesses cannot afford to just sit and wait for over 23 years for a decision.

 

[yorksrob]

The Spa Valley Railway have been approached by concerned people buying houses adjacent to the former route and have heard rumours or legal conveyancing searches have found mention of possible reopening
It was talked about when Sainsburys opened in 1990 and 23 years later we are still no nearer opening the line. Homebase opened around 1992 or 1993.
The Spa Valley Railway has been operating since 1996 and they just did not sit there and wait otherwise we would have still be looking at an abandoned line
Businesses cannot afford to just sit and wait for over 23 years for a decision.

Admittedly the Spa Valley railway is a bit different as they require a railway in the first place.

However, no one forced Sainsbury's or Homebase to open on those sites. If they have a contingency plan then good, otherwise they have only themselves to blame.

 

[Stats]

My ultimate view would be that these businesses were made aware of the possibility of reopening when they purchased the land, so they should have a contingency plan to deal with it. If they don't they have only themselves to blame.

It was a condition of the decision to grant approval for the original outline planning application that an adequate area of land was to be made available to enable future railway operation to cross the site.

 

[steamybrian]

It was a condition of the decision to grant approval for the original outline planning application that an adequate area of land was to be made available to enable future railway operation to cross the site.

I agree ..this is true however the cost of reopening the line soars whenever "anything" is built on it unless whoever builds it is responsible for demolishing it. Sainsburys have agreed to demolish the toilet block if the railway is rebuilt. Who is going to reconstruct the rest?. For example building a bus station is not precisely redevelopment but in my opinion it is a construction.
The trackbed of Uckfield-Lewes has been carefully kept clear of any type of development except for the diagonal crossing of the trackbed with the A22 Uckfield-by-pass and at the time East Sussex Council said at the time that they would pay for a bridge if the railway was reopened. There is therefore about 7 miles of trackbed free of any construction work on it (no car parks, no bus stations, no toilet blocks, etc.... already one mile of it is preserved by the Lavender Line)

 

[MarkyT]

I'd suggest that the housing estate on the site of the old Groombridge station would be more difficult than that and that much of it would have to be demolished to run a main line service past it. The alignment is very difficult to squeeze in and maintain for a 10 mph single line heritage line

Not really. Here is a photo looking towards Tunbridge Wells under Station Road bridge from the new Groombridge platform.

http://www.onlineweb.com/rail/photos/spa_valley_2009/mini-PICT0129.JPG

You can see clearly the 'dog leg' to get around the new houses via the former yard area alongside the old station, but the curvature is no worse than many examples on National Rail. The speed constraint is not a major stumbling block anyway for a local service on a single line if we assume trains would always stop at Groombridge; a short restriction at one end of the platform doesn't add significantly to the journey time. Providing higher through speeds for non-stoppers or multiple tracks here would be a different proposition however.

 

[paul1609]

Basically the single line has had to be slewed through the position of the former island platform. The 10 mph restriction goes on for some distance. Having tamped this section for the Spa Valley railway I can assure you that the existing formation would not meet a lot of network Rails standards for a new line. The limited clearance sign on the fence next to the nearest house is a bit of a clue.
There are photos that give a better idea of the problem on the disused stations site http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/g/groombridge/index.shtml